Minority rights? How many rights do they deserve?

[alwaystheangel]

Here's a debate topic:  To What degree should the governement protect minority rights?
I'm writting an essay on that topic and I thought seeing other people's points of view might help me out here. 
Should they have no rights?
Should they have allrights, (but what if that harms the Majority?)

[thalbergmad]

In England, we have a very good record with minority rights.

It is majority rights that we strughle with.

[johnny-boy]

There should only be human rights. Granting special privileges to a select group of people will always garner resentment. It's time to end this insanity of redistribution of wealth and entitlements and become only one race - "the human race".

John

[alwaystheangel]

In England, we have a very good record with minority rights.

It is majority rights that we strughle with.

Same in Canada, we give up things like Nativity scenes and such because it might offend the minorities, but the Majority is expected to live with Minorities showing off their religion.

[thalbergmad]

Same in Canada, we give up things like Nativity scenes and such because it might offend the minorities, but the Majority is expected to live with Minorities showing off their religion.

It is the same here.

Some local councils banned the word "Christmas" lights after getting a complaint from Muslims.

[alwaystheangel]

World's a pretty messed up place.

[anekdote]

The majority needs the rights to assert their own culture or religion. And I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority.

[prometheus]

Minorities need to be protected by the state. That is one of it's functions.

Anekdotes, your opinions scare me. Why should people that live in lets say Japan or China be forced to abandon classical music? Don't you believe in diversity of culture?


Some peoples are minorities everywere and they have retained their cultural heritages for many centuries.

Your opinion leads to oppression of people.

[gorbee natcase]

Ok this is where I have a problem with it.

In england churches can't ring there bells when it conflicts with other religious prayers /Schools have lost there powers/ over pollicy

I don't blame any race only the government of the country who decide to not offend this or that group. We will stop our natives following there religion on these days as this religion has a religious holliday on that day >>>>>>>>>>>(very very very very very dangerous. as any   de-salinisation point can and usualy is reached.

[donjuan]

The majority needs the rights to assert their own culture or religion. And I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority.

that sounds pretty good to me. --> especially the last bit.

oh man, this thread reminds me of how much I do NOT miss social studies class.

Well, as a university student, in the labs, I have to put up with all these teaching assistants flown in from China.  The university hires them without making sure they speak english.  As a result, my education suffers because of these fresh-off-the boat immigrants.  (ok, that was harsh; my dad is an immigrant himself)  But I am so pissed off when I pay thousands of dollars a year for an education, and they cant even get me an instructor that speaks english!

However, the reason why I STRONGLY agree with anekdote's statement "I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority" is because I don't care if it sounds insensitive; these immigrant TAs need to take an ENG 101 course themselves before teaching me.

what I want to say to them:
Learn to speak english when you move to Canada!!  I would learn chinese if I went over there.  

or more simply, 'when in rome, do as the romans do'

sorry, i just realized my rant here wont help you write your essay  
...

[alwaystheangel]

I think Minorities have rights up to the point that they do not infringe on the rights of the majority.  I read somewhere something the the effect of: "The rights of you fist ends at the tip of my nose".  I think that minorities have every right to keep their culture, just that they do have to meld to a degree into the culture of the country that they inhabit.  I think that they must adjust to function in the society that they live in, that doesn't mean they cannot go to the mosque or temple or whatever, but there are certain positions in a culture where they do need to assimilarte (like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Some do not want to wear the Uniforms because it's against their religion, If the Uniform's against their religion, then they shouldn't be an RCMP officer)  I must add though, that I presonally love different cultures, I love going to ethnic restauraunts, I'm almost always the token white kid in a group of asians, Heritage days is my favourite festival of the year (all the different foods...yummy...).

I agree with Prometheus that minorities should be protected by the state, but what happens when the state goes too far to protect them and the State (and country) loses their identitiy trying to appease everyone.  Ther's a joke amoung the public servants of the Canadian governement (this is older about 15-20 years, it's better now) that the best way to get a job is to be a french-speaking black woman that is pregnant and has a broken leg.  Regardless of their abilities, they had a quota to fill so that the governenment is multicultural enough, so instead of picking the one that was best suited for the job they picked by race and religion and language.  Definately the opposite of what one normally thinks of as discrimination.

I'm done. For now.

P.S. I hope that made sense.

[alwaystheangel]

that sounds pretty good to me. --> especially the last bit.

sorry, i just realized my rant here wont help you write your essay  
...

It's all good, It's an interesting topic, I think although I've decided to change my topic to How much should governements control extremist political parties.  I think I'll discuss Rwanda, The October Crisis in Canada (1970) and U S in Iraq and How Canadians may soon have to show their passports to cross the US border for a visit.  I'll probably think of something else the the US does that is almost dictatorial... We'll see, but please, let us continue on this thread, I'm finding it very interesting.

[prometheus]

The right to be not offended is very different from protection against the majority.

I think no one has a right not to be offended.


I don't think a state should have a static identity. The state is the democractic tool of the people. And if the demography changes so does the identity of the state.



The problems arise when minorities, or a minority and the majority, both have rights that collide with each other. If alwaystheangel has some of these situations, or dilemma's then I can give my opinion. If not I will try to remember one.
But in general a moderate, a 'the middle way' solution is often the best. Also, a state can not solve problems. It can only help the people do so.

[alwaystheangel]

I've altered the Essay topic and now it's about political extremists.  I've decided on using the Rwandan genocide, The October Crisis of 1970 In Canada (War mesures act revoked all the rights of the population, basically and temporary military rule) and Louis Riel, who led a rebellion against the Canadian (british at that time) to protect Métis rights, Riel was hanged for treason.

[bearzinthehood]

Do you think it's your right to have the government pay for your religion?  So if some atheist pays taxes, does his tax money go to erecting monuments that depict your religious views?  You're free to spend your own money to erect whatever inane monuments you want to, but when the government is concerned, keep your fool religion out of it.

[prometheus]

That's one of the issues I had in mind when I typed my last replies. I mean, in my country the country is littered with old churches. Each little village has a huge church. The government has 'no choice' but to support these with money.

I am not sure if this question was aimed at me so I'll see if someone wants it answered tomorrow.

Also, alwaysangel changed her essey. I guess she either has to try to force us not to discuss the original topic of her essey or she has to open a new post for the new essey, if she still needs anyones help.

[anekdote]

Prometheus, you interpreted my comment a little too harshly.

I do not support oppression.

What I meant was that the majority has the right to practice their culture and religion without hassle from other groups. Basically, a national identity. "This is our country, this is what we're about, and this is what we do. We are a democracy and everyone is welcome, but you must accept these conditions."

And yes I do think the minorities should make an attempt to assimilate. And maybe a little passive coersion isn't a bad thing (requiring English classes, for example). America earned its reputation as the great "melting pot" because people came from all different kinds of countries but still conformed to our American identity -- they assimilated. Immigrants don't assimilate anymore, and this is a bad thing. A divided nation is not a good thing. Immigrants should be discouraged from making little "homes away from home."

[alwaystheangel]

That's one of the issues I had in mind when I typed my last replies. I mean, in my country the country is littered with old churches. Each little village has a huge church. The government has 'no choice' but to support these with money.

I am not sure if this question was aimed at me so I'll see if someone wants it answered tomorrow.

Also, alwaysangel changed her essey. I guess she either has to try to force us not to discuss the original topic of her essey or she has to open a new post for the new essey, if she still needs anyones help.

Nope I'm good with my new essay, Keep up the discussion everyone, I'm still interested to see everyoe's opinions on the matter, It's neat to get a global perspective on things.

[bearzinthehood]

Prometheus, you interpreted my comment a little too harshly.

I do not support oppression.

What I meant was that the majority has the right to practice their culture and religion without hassle from other groups. Basically, a national identity. "This is our country, this is what we're about, and this is what we do. We are a democracy and everyone is welcome, but you must accept these conditions."

And yes I do think the minorities should make an attempt to assimilate. And maybe a little passive coersion isn't a bad thing (requiring English classes, for example). America earned its reputation as the great "melting pot" because people came from all different kinds of countries but still conformed to our American identity -- they assimilated. Immigrants don't assimilate anymore, and this is a bad thing. A divided nation is not a good thing. Immigrants should be discouraged from making little "homes away from home."

What can I say about this.  Between your nonexistant grasp of the facts and your complete ignorance of history, you make quite the hilarious argument.

[anekdote]

What can I say about this.  Between your nonexistant grasp of the facts and your complete ignorance of history, you make quite the hilarious argument.

Care to point out the specific problems? I have a feeling you are the one lacking in knowledge of history.

[galonia]

I agree with Prometheus that minorities should be protected by the state, but what happens when the state goes too far to protect them and the State (and country) loses their identitiy trying to appease everyone.  Ther's a joke amoung the public servants of the Canadian governement (this is older about 15-20 years, it's better now) that the best way to get a job is to be a french-speaking black woman that is pregnant and has a broken leg.  Regardless of their abilities, they had a quota to fill so that the governenment is multicultural enough, so instead of picking the one that was best suited for the job they picked by race and religion and language.  Definately the opposite of what one normally thinks of as discrimination.

I wonder what people think of affirmative action?  I work for the Australian government, and our hiring policy is to hire based on merit and merit only.  We do not discriminate on the grounds of sex, religion, marital status, age, sexual orientation, race.  In fact, in Australia, it is against the law to discriminate against people for those reasons.

However, I think in some countries there are quotas that force companies to reach certain targets by a certain time (e.g. within 5 years the white/black ratio of employees must be the same as that of the general population, and at all levels of the company).

I think this not only causes resentment because people feel there is "reverse discrimination" (she only got the job because she's a woman, or he only got the job because he is of some racial descent), but it can actually be counter-productive.

One of my friends is South African, and now that apartheid has been abolished, there is some push to make sure there are enough black players included on their national cricket team.  The problem though, is that over many decades now, there has not been any development put into young black cricket players, and in order to make sure there are enough black players, perhaps some players are drafted into the national team even though there may be white players who are performing better.  My friend believes this is actually hurting the development of future black cricket players, because it is simply reinforcing the idea that "black players are not as good".

The same could happen in companies.  Suppose you have an engineering firm and you force them to employ a certain quota of women.  That means the firm may have to bypass better male candidates in order to fill this quota.  Then you have less competent people in the job, who happen to be women.  And so people continue to think, "women don't make good engineers".

What is the solution?  I think pumping money into the education and health care of minorities is NOT giving them special treatment.  The role of governments is to protect the weak, and in the long term, it is better to help the minorities be able to fend for themselves.  e.g. if scholarships are given for women to study non-traditional fields, then they could come out and compete on a level footing with men for jobs, and prove themselves the same way men have to in the work place.

[steve jones]

Here's a debate topic:  To What degree should the governement protect minority rights?
I'm writting an essay on that topic and I thought seeing other people's points of view might help me out here. 
Should they have no rights?
Should they have allrights, (but what if that harms the Majority?)

The question really has to be - who's rights are being taken away by said rights minority rights being granted?

If I have the write to play piano at any time I want, then this is inflicting upon my room mates and neighbours right to get a good nights kip... if you see what I mean!

RM

[bearzinthehood]

What I meant was that the majority has the right to practice their culture and religion without hassle from other groups. Basically, a national identity. "This is our country, this is what we're about, and this is what we do. We are a democracy and everyone is welcome, but you must accept these conditions."

What about this is threatened currently?  You are free to worship whatever the **** you want, the only constraint is that you can't put your religious views in publicly funded areas.  "Everyone is welcome, but you must accept these conditions."  Since when was this the national moto?  Never.  Seriously, what kind of a hick saying is that?  I'm surprised your trailer park has internet access.

And yes I do think the minorities should make an attempt to assimilate. And maybe a little passive coersion isn't a bad thing (requiring English classes, for example). America earned its reputation as the great "melting pot" because people came from all different kinds of countries but still conformed to our American identity -- they assimilated. Immigrants don't assimilate anymore, and this is a bad thing. A divided nation is not a good thing. Immigrants should be discouraged from making little "homes away from home."

Name one nationality that actively assimilated itself into what you think is "American culture" (as if such a thing could be static in the first place.)  We're talking first generation.  This never happened historically.  The process was always gradual.  Seriously, what do you know about immigrants not assimilating anymore?  How are communities composed primarily of say, Indian immigrants now any different than a community composed primarily of Chinese immigrants a century ago?  In fact, it's most likely the case that immigrants are assimilating more quickly now than they did a century ago.

[emmdoubleew]

The majority needs the rights to assert their own culture or religion. And I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority.

Are you kidding me?

Does that mean I have to stop listening to classical because hip-hop is the majority culture for my age group?


Seriously :-|.

Why should we assimilate? Diversity keeps the United States a wonderful place. There's a reason why competitive and selective colleges recruit "ethnically and culturally diverse" students, it creates a livelier and more well rounded atmosphere. If people all act on the same culture people become extremely close minded, when there's a wide variety of backgrounds everything is not only much more interesting but people tend to keep a well-adjusted worldview.

I can't really express myself properly because I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want an assimilated culture. I really just can't see a good reason.

[alwaystheangel]

well, If there's too much assimilation there's a problem, but when there's too little assimilation, that's a problem too.  The immigrants feel alienated and that can cause problems, perfect example: France last summer/fall.  Alienation is a HUGE problem with immigrants and the country that they Immigrated to.  I know that In canada, instead of being a melting pot like the US we are supposed to by like a quilt, patches of different ethnicities, religion and languages, coexisting in a beautiful way.  Doesn't wokr like that.  I mean, Canada is better thean a lot of countries tolerance-wise but I thnk that we still have a long way to go. We still have idiot spray-painting swastikas on synangogues and since 911, Musilims have been having troubles with people discrimnating against them, which s so wrong, I mean, it's the extremists that diid it not some family in canada. (although US did try to push that theory: If you have no one to blame, Blame it on canada.  There's even a song about it, hehehehe: https://www.mkbmemorial.com/sp/RobinWil.html)  sorry, I'm a bit off topic, but a quesion to this nature is as multifaceted as the world.

P.S. The Song's awesome, it's from south park, check out the link.

[pianistimo]

i think it all boils down to what you can realistically expect in your country (from past to present).  if you live in china, and they are targeting you for extinction (ie tibet) they will require you have one child (or two?) and that's it.  aborting the rest.  that's about as extreme as you can get, imo. 

in the usa we've alway accepted the 'yearning masses' because that's how our country was founded.  we've never told people how many children they can have or that their children are not citizens by simply being born into the country.  it's just that lately, we have a problem with terrorists coming in under the assumption that everyone is a 'normal' immirgrant seeking employment.  so, we have the problem of determining how much 'flow' of people we want coming in and out freely. 

i am for human rights in all cases - and yet, i see the need for various governments to protect their citizens from terrorists.  it is a double-edged sword. human rights/terrorism.  the terrorists don't recognize human rights.  that is our main problem right now.  not those who are just seeking a better place to live and raise their families.  if they work and produce in a couple of years time (and learn basic english) then, to me, fine - they should stay.  but, if they had a criminal record and start criminal activity here - deportation sounds good. 

i think we can have a good relationship with all people that become citizens, because they will share the tax burden after becoming naturalized.  there needs to be places that are safe for them to go and go through the process without fear (even if they 'illegally' entered).  many didn't ahve the money to do it the other way - but are very hard workers and excellent people.  there isn't a problem with people who are honest.  it's the dishonest ones that come to tear the country apart.  that is why our borders are going to be policed more.  i think that people who are already here should have a chance at freedom just as our forefathers.  that shows that we still believe in human rights ourselves.

[prometheus]

Prometheus, you interpreted my comment a little too harshly.

I do not support oppression.

Yes, I understand. That's why I said your opinion leads to oppression, even if you actually don't want to support it.

What I meant was that the majority has the right to practice their culture and religion

But the minority hasn't? Can you name me one place where a majority doesn't have the right to practice their culture and religion? I mean, this is not really a problem, is it?

Basically, a national identity. "This is our country, this is what we're about, and this is what we do. We are a democracy and everyone is welcome, but you must accept these conditions."

You mean that the national identity should remain the same even when the majority has become a minority itself? Like I said before, national identities will change. They are not static. Sure, people have to accept the constitution and to accept human rights. But that should be about it.

And yes I do think the minorities should make an attempt to assimilate. And maybe a little passive coersion isn't a bad thing (requiring English classes, for example).

My point was that people should have all the freedom they need to keep their own culture. Sure, they need to learn the national language of the country. But they should also be able to keep their own language and use it whenever they want. You said that the majority has the right to force their culture and religion on minorities. That is quite different from learning the language the majority speaks. Even I think people could be forced to do this if this is a problem in a society. But this does need to happen in a fair way. If you are going to punish people that do not you are going to reward people that do equally.


As for people keeping to themselves and creating ghetto's. Yes, that is not a good thing. But it is very different from your original opinion. I think people should be encoraged to intergrate and not be allowed to segregate themselves. Also, the segregation initiative often comes from the majority.

What you said is that Turkish people in Holland or Germany should open shops selling raw herring and sausages instead of turkish pizza and döner kebab. Evenmore, they should even eat the cuisine of the 'national identity' they live in, exclusively.

People should accept that the national identitiy of Holland and Germany will be about potatoes, beer gardens, cheese, schnitzel but then including turkish people with their cuisine also. That's the national identities of these countries. Yes, it has changed. Accept it. Actually, it may be even better. Not many people will want to miss chinese, greek, itallian, turkish, japanese restaurants.

Let's not even talk about banning things like McDonalds, Burger King, KFC outside the US. That's what you are saying. The majority here has the right to force out these american fast food shops because they corrupt the national identity of the country.

[pianistimo]

remember that if you ban mcdonald's you are effectively banning the kids meal toy and the plastic wraps which are make in taiwan and/or china.  i think i would hand over dunken donuts - i can't recall any good donuts i've ever had there and the coffee is worse. 

but, you realize usa has crispey creme donuts and coldstone's icecream.  without these the usa would not exist with 'the right to happiness,' imo, for children.   

[alwaystheangel]

Look at this editorial Cartoon, It's a different spinon assimilation:
https://www.intoon.com/cartoons.cfm?action=recent&id=16149

[026497]

that sounds pretty good to me. --> especially the last bit.

oh man, this thread reminds me of how much I do NOT miss social studies class.

Well, as a university student, in the labs, I have to put up with all these teaching assistants flown in from China.  The university hires them without making sure they speak english.  As a result, my education suffers because of these fresh-off-the boat immigrants.  (ok, that was harsh; my dad is an immigrant himself)  But I am so pissed off when I pay thousands of dollars a year for an education, and they cant even get me an instructor that speaks english!

However, the reason why I STRONGLY agree with anekdote's statement "I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority" is because I don't care if it sounds insensitive; these immigrant TAs need to take an ENG 101 course themselves before teaching me.

what I want to say to them:
Learn to speak english when you move to Canada!!  I would learn chinese if I went over there.  

or more simply, 'when in rome, do as the romans do'

sorry, i just realized my rant here wont help you write your essay  
...

YEsyes yes! same as here (hong kong), my teachers can't speak english (except english teacher), but, we use english textbook and take IGCSE and A-level. I can't understand a word. It's the extremely hard for me to study, I become a 'minority' suddenly. School fees: around 10 000 HKD a month, exclude 240 000 deposit and 'fund for school' 20 000 per year(NOT refundable). expensive but we have NO choice!

[bearzinthehood]

that sounds pretty good to me. --> especially the last bit.

oh man, this thread reminds me of how much I do NOT miss social studies class.

Well, as a university student, in the labs, I have to put up with all these teaching assistants flown in from China.  The university hires them without making sure they speak english.  As a result, my education suffers because of these fresh-off-the boat immigrants.  (ok, that was harsh; my dad is an immigrant himself)  But I am so pissed off when I pay thousands of dollars a year for an education, and they cant even get me an instructor that speaks english!

However, the reason why I STRONGLY agree with anekdote's statement "I think minorities should make an effort to assimilate with the majority" is because I don't care if it sounds insensitive; these immigrant TAs need to take an ENG 101 course themselves before teaching me.

what I want to say to them:
Learn to speak english when you move to Canada!!  I would learn chinese if I went over there. 

or more simply, 'when in rome, do as the romans do'

sorry, i just realized my rant here wont help you write your essay 
...

I'm an electrical engineering graduate student and I am very familiar with this situation.  However, this is not a problem with immigration law, or even perhaps the immigrants themselves and has nothing to do with assimilation.  For one thing, you don't know whether or not they are making any effort at assimilation, as they are currently "fresh off the boat" and the process can never be instantanious.  Furthermore, the blame should go to the University and the admissions process, that is allowing these students into their graduate programs in the first place.  Having spent nearly two years in graduate school, I can also attest to the fact that despite the language barrier, many of these "FoBs" work very hard and do very well in graduate classes, usually better than most American students.  Who's fault is that?

Finally, you shouldn't be too hard on your TAs.  They usually have a demanding load in addition to having to babysit undergrads for a few hours every week.  It's not really their fault either, if you want to blame something blame the educational system in general.

[donjuan]

i stand corrected; it's the university's fault for hiring them.  However, I am still pissed that these people who don't know any english even apply for such a job; they know they can't speak english, and they know they are turbo smart with impressive grades, and they know they will be hired (based on grades).

But I think this does apply to the minority rights thing, because the university doesn't discriminate against those who don't know english.  In fact, judging my the number of asian TA's, it's reverse discrimination if anything. -->hiring them because they see they are new to the country and need money, at the expense of the students<--