monkeydust
20th January 2004, 20:11
For those who don't know or aren't sure Group rights relate closely to the concept of citizenship. Tradtionally this citizenship has been based firmly upon the relationship between the 'individual' and the 'nation state'. Group rights is a concept not simply applying to individuals and the state but (as the name suggests) to groups also.
Group rights are usually considered to apply to multicultural societies, obviously any 'group' may have seperate rights, but usually these arise out of cultural and ethnic distinctions. In the past, many immgrants to countries were encouraged to adopt the dominant culture of that country. So if a Russian came to Britian he would strongly have the social inclination to try and be more 'British', this generally outdated idea was known as 'assimilation'.
Today the dominant view in most 'modern' nations is that any culture may be pursued in private , but the public sphere should remain an ethnically neutral domain.
'Group rights' are different, they encourage assertiveness amongst minorities, calling upon the state not simply to tolerate, but to actively promote ethnic and cultural identities.
For example, rather than simply having (as in British law) a protection of Christian ideals, there could be equal, yet unique protection by law for other religions. Each culture having specific rights, different, but not unequal. 'Group rights' for example advocate the protection, by the state for unique cultures. British law would not have such a great lenaing towards thoise who are 'British'.
Also, group rigths can encompass the right to representation in our representative democracies (assuming they will stay). In other words a certain proportion of a given social group will be represented in positions of power, whereas today the majority of these places are taken up by white middle class men.
The core question here is do you think that different 'groups' should be given rights applying to that group alone rather than broad, yet comparitively vague rights the same for all?
Group rights are usually considered to apply to multicultural societies, obviously any 'group' may have seperate rights, but usually these arise out of cultural and ethnic distinctions. In the past, many immgrants to countries were encouraged to adopt the dominant culture of that country. So if a Russian came to Britian he would strongly have the social inclination to try and be more 'British', this generally outdated idea was known as 'assimilation'.
Today the dominant view in most 'modern' nations is that any culture may be pursued in private , but the public sphere should remain an ethnically neutral domain.
'Group rights' are different, they encourage assertiveness amongst minorities, calling upon the state not simply to tolerate, but to actively promote ethnic and cultural identities.
For example, rather than simply having (as in British law) a protection of Christian ideals, there could be equal, yet unique protection by law for other religions. Each culture having specific rights, different, but not unequal. 'Group rights' for example advocate the protection, by the state for unique cultures. British law would not have such a great lenaing towards thoise who are 'British'.
Also, group rigths can encompass the right to representation in our representative democracies (assuming they will stay). In other words a certain proportion of a given social group will be represented in positions of power, whereas today the majority of these places are taken up by white middle class men.
The core question here is do you think that different 'groups' should be given rights applying to that group alone rather than broad, yet comparitively vague rights the same for all?