Movind the Debate Forward. Interculturalism's contribution to multiculturalism

In this article, we compare Ricard Zappata-Barrero’s interculturalism with Tariq Modood’s multiculturalism. We will discuss the relation between distinct elements that compose both positions. We examine how recent discussions on interculturalism have the potential to contribute to theories of multiculturalism without undermining their core principles. Our position is close to that of Modood’s as he has already carefully tried to incorporate interculturalist insights into his own multiculturalism. Yet we provide a raise a few questions regarding Modood’s treatment of the relation between multiculturalism and interculturalism. After summarizing each author’s potion (I), we will comment on the following set of relations between their basic elements: (II) The relation between intercultural contact and intercultural dialogue; (III) The relation between contact at the local level and the societal/state level; (IV) The relation between group-specific measures, intercultural contact and mainstreaming

Conscientious Objection to Medical Assistance in Dying: A Qualitative Study with Quebec Physicians

Patients in Quebec can legally obtain medical assistance in dying (MAID) if they are able to give informed consent, have a serious and incurable illness, are at the end of their lives and are in a situation of unbearable suffering. Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 Carter decision, access to MAID, under certain conditions, has become a constitutional right. Quebec physicians are now likely to receive requests for MAID from their patients. The Quebec and Canadian laws recognize a physician’s right to conscientious objection, but this right is contested both in the medical ethics literature and in the public sphere. This paper presents the results of a qualitative study conducted with twenty Quebec physicians who did not integrate MAID into their medical practice, either because they were opposed to or deeply ambivalent about MAID. The interviews aimed to explore the reasons – religious and secular – for opposition to or ambivalence towards MAID. The secular reasons given by participants were grouped into four main categories: 1) the ends of medicine and professional identity, 2) the philosophy of palliative medicine and resource allocation in palliative care, 3) benevolent paternalism, the “good death”, and the interests of future selves, 4) the risk of a slippery slope and the protection of vulnerable people

After the Bouchard-Taylor Commission: religious accommodation and human rights in Quebec

Like other liberal democracies, Canada and Quebec is facing important challenges raised by moral and religious diversity, such as the legitimacy of reasonable accommodations and the meaning of secularism in a pluralistic society. Focusing on these latter issues in the context of Quebec's recent history and political culture, with a particular emphasis on the 2007-08 Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, I intend to outline the current state of the debate in Quebec. First, I define the legal obligation to accommodate and specify what are its limits. Second, I pinpoint the meaning of secularism and defend a liberal and pluralist conception. Third, I discuss the main piece of legislation (Bill 94) that was drafted by the Government of Quebec in response to the recommendations of the aforementioned Commission.Como sucede con otras democracias liberales, Canadá y Quebec se enfrentan a los importantes retos que plantean la diversidad moral y religiosa, como son la legitimidad de los acomodamientos razonables y el significado de la laicidad en una sociedad pluralista. Este estudio tiene por objeto describir el estado actual del debate en Quebec, prestando particular atención a estas últimas cuestiones en el contexto de la historia y cultura políticas recientes de Quebec, y haciendo especial hincapié en la Comisión de Consulta sobre las Prácticas de Acomodación relacionadas con las Diferencias Culturales de 2007-08. En primer lugar, se ofrece una definición de la obligación legal de acomodar y se especifica cuáles son sus límites. En segundo lugar, se identifica el significado de laicidad y se defiende una concepción liberal y pluralista. En tercer lugar, se analiza una ley (Ley 94) que fue elaborada por el Gobierno de Quebec, en respuesta a las recomendaciones de la Comisión antes mencionada

Multiculturalism on the Back Seat? Culture, Religion, and Justice

Alan Patten’s Equal Recognition is a major contribution to the normative literature on minority rights. I nonetheless suggest that liberal culturalism as a normative theory, even in Patten’s sophisticated version, is ill suited to deal with the challenges related to the status of religion in the public sphere that are so prevalent in contemporary democracies. In addition, I submit that Patten did not supply a fully convincing answer to the argument that liberal egalitarianism, well understood, is capacious enough to secure fair terms of social cooperation for members of cultural minorities, making the (allegedly burdensome) language of “cultural rights” and “cultural recognition” superfluous

The Regulation of Hateful and Hurtful Speech: Liberalism’s Uncomfortable Predicament

The regulation of speech is a highly sensitive and always evolving ethical, political, and legal issue. On the one hand, hateful and hurtful speech is on the rise, especially, but not exclusively, with regard to the relationship between Islam and the West. We can also think of the radicalization of discourse brought about by the interactive phase of the Internet. On the other hand, demands for the suppression of certain forms of speech proliferate. After reviewing the argument for freedom of expression, I argue that while the notion of harm defended by Millian liberals is too narrow, an “offence principle” is too broad. After defending hate speech laws, I concede that such laws need to target only the speech acts that express the most severe forms of aversion and denigration toward the members of a specific group. I then reflect on the status of “hurtful speech”, which I see as including the performative utterances that stop short of being hateful but nonetheless erode, through their illocutionary force and perlocutionary effects, the social standing and bases for self-respect of those who are targeted. I conclude that the free speech debate reveals a limit of liberal political morality and leaves liberal normative theorists with an uncomfortable predicament, as they have to rely more on the complementary role of pro-social personal dispositions and civic virtues than they generally wish to.La règlementation du discours est un enjeu éthique, politique et juridique très délicat et en constante évolution. D’une part, le discours haineux et blessant est en croissance, surtout, mais pas exclusivement, en ce qui concerne les relations entre l’Islam et l’Occident. Les dimensions interactives de l’Internet encouragent particulièrement la radicalisation du discours. D’autre part, les demandes de suppression de certaines formes de discours prolifèrent également. Après avoir considéré l’argument en faveur de la liberté d’expression, je soutiens que la notion de préjudice qui est défendue par les libéraux s’inscrivant dans la lignée de Mill est trop limitée, mais qu’un « principe d’infraction » est aussi trop vaste. Après avoir défendu les lois sur le discours haineux, je concède que ces lois doivent contrôler seulement le discours qui exprime les formes les plus sévères d’exclusion et de dénigrement envers les membres d’un groupe spécifique. De plus, j’examine le statut du « discours blessant », que je considère inclure des énoncés performatifs qui ne sont pas haineux mais, néanmoins, qui érodent le statut social et les bases du respect de soi de ceux qui sont ciblés par leur force illocutoire et effets perlocutoires. Je conclus que le débat sur la liberté d’expression révèle une limite de la philosophie morale et politique de la tradition libérale et place les théoriciens du libéralisme normatif dans une situation inconfortable, car ces derniers doivent se soutenir plus sur le rôle complémentaire des dispositions personnelles pro-sociales et des vertus civiques qu’ils le souhaitent généralement