Multiculturalism and LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: Striking A JUST, REASONABLE Balance

1. Raphael Cohen-Almagor Multiculturalism and LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: Striking A JUST, REASONABLE Balance

2. Preliminaries • How are group rights related to individual rights? • What should we do if group rights come into conflict with individual rights?

3. Can a liberal democracy allow minority groups to restrict the individual rights of their members, or should it insist that all groups uphold liberal principles?

4. Self- and Other-regarding Conduct • Cases in which one is inflicting pain or death upon oneself vs. • Cases in which one is inflicting damage upon others

5. Jainas’ practice in relation to the dying: followers of this ancient religion resort to a peculiar practice when it comes to the dying. • Scarring

6. Jainas • Members of the community are allowed, under certain circumstances, to terminate their own lives, or more accurately, to actively welcome impending death in a non-violent manner (fasting unto death). • Persons in the late stages of their lives, therefore, may decide that they want to die and undertake the vow of terminal fast

7. Scarring • Scarring parts of the body as part of initiation rites that is common in some African cultures. • Traditionally, scarification can mark one’s status as a civilized being • As an adult, a member of a specific ethnic group or initiation association. • Scars can also be seen as marks of beauty.

8. Self-Regarding Conduct • Assume that some immigrants bring these rituals to a liberal democracy. The liberal state has no strong case for interference. • These customs of self-starvation and scarring should not be promoted and encouraged, but since the sub-cultures possess historical claims and strongly believe in their traditional practices and norms, they should have a right to cultural autonomy.

9. Other-regarding Conduct • The case is different when it concerns other-regarding conduct. • Now the issue revolves around practices such as suttee, female infanticide, female circumcision, or murder for family honour. Should a liberal state tolerate these practices?

10. Protecting Women • Group rights are invoked by theocratic and patriarchal cultures where women are oppressed and religious orthodoxy enforced.

11. Suttee

12. Murder for Family Honour By murdering their daughters or sisters the men prove the control that the natal family has over its women.

13. Female Infanticide

14. Female Circumcision

15. Some things lie beyond the ability of liberal democracies to tolerate.

16. Some norms are considered by liberal standards to be intrinsically wrong • Such are norms that result in physical harm to women and babies.

17. Two Kinds of Rights – Will Kymlicka • “Internal restrictions” - right of a group against its own members • “External protections” - right of a group against the larger society

18. External protections • External protections are defensible when groups seek to protect their identity by limiting their vulnerability to the decisions of the larger society

19. External protections • Reserving land for the exclusive use of a minority group is just.

20. External protections • Guaranteeing representation for a minority • Devolving power to local levels

21. internal restrictions v. external protections • Whereas internal restrictionsare almost inherently in conflict with liberal democratic norms, external protections are not as long as they promote equality between groups

22. Internal Discrimination • Now let us consider a situation in which a cultural minority wants to be left alone to run its own community in accordance with its traditional norms. • Respecting one culture could entail allowing members of that culture to show disrespect to some of its members.

23. Internal Discrimination • Suppose that a cultural minority exhibits illiberal consensus with regard to women's role in society. • It limits the right of women to study at universities and to hold public offices.

24. Exit Right • If women who dislike this restriction can easily leave the community and enter the larger society, and if the minority group has some historical claim to local self-government, then this may mean that it would be wrong for us to coercively interfere and prohibit that practice.

25. Internal Discrimination • However, the fact that intervention would be wrong does not mean that the practice in question is morally legitimate. • On the contrary, from a liberal perspective the practice is unjust. But we do not have strongly sufficient legitimate grounds to enforce our moral upon the group.

26. Underpinning Values • Two underpinning values of liberal democracies aimed to preserve human rights: • Respect for Others (Kant); • Not Harming Others (Mill, Judea-Christian).

27. Live and Let Live • We need to differentiate between the symbolic aspects and the modus operandi aspects. As far as the latter are concerned, separation between state and religion should be achieved.

28. inter-group relationships v. intra-group relationships • One group has no right to coerce the entire society into following its conception of the good and abiding by its cultural norms.

29. inter-group relationships v. intra-group relationships • In the event that a religious or cultural group makes such an attempt, other segments of society have to open further channels of communication and resolve the situation by peaceful means. • If these means fail, the liberal society should resort to authoritative means to draw the boundaries and fight against coercion.

30. Pueblo Indians Communities • Discriminate against members who have abandoned the traditional tribal religion in the distribution of housing.

31. Pueblo Indians • Discriminate against women who have married outside the tribe.

32. The power of religious communities over their own members must be such that individuals can freely and effectively exercise that capacity

33. Conclusions • The creation of a multicultural society, pluralizing the concept of equality and attempting to respect difference, tolerate heterogeneity, and accommodate cultures is the proper liberal approach. • At the same time, no accommodation is acceptable when it comes to violating the core values of democracy, and respect for human rights.

34. Conclusions • The balance between “integration” and “accommodation” must be handled carefully in order to avoid intra-group tensions and preserve the principles of European liberal democracies. • Citizens, immigrant citizens among them, are entitled to retain their cultural and religious norms as long as they do not contradict state’s laws.

35. Conclusions • Liberal democracies should show a stronger willingness to find effective informal institutional tools to accommodate the needs of immigrant communities within the larger society in their every-day life. • At the same time, they should remain committed to the core values of democracy, freedom, respecting others as human beings, and not harming others.

36. Thank you!! • Raphael Cohen‑Almagor Department of Politics, The University of Hull • Electronic Address: R.Cohen-Almagor@hull.ac.uk • Blog: http://almagor.blogspot.com • Twitter: @almagor35