Culturally Responsive Policies

human development, culture

Social Membership: Animal Law beyond the Property/Personhood Impasse

While animal law has been subject to frequent reform in Canada and abroad, the basic legal foundations of animal oppression are largely unchanged. There are many reasons for this impasse, but part of the explanation is that legal reforms are caught in what we might call the property/personhood dilemma. In most legal systems, domesticated animals are defined as property and so long as this remains true, reforms are likely to be marginal and ineffective. However the main alternative-to shift animals from the category of property to personhoodis politically unfeasible, particularly for the domesticated animals who are most intensively exploited in our society In this paper I explore a third option for legal reform, which is to include domesticated animals into other legal categories such as workers or members of the family which carry with them social standing and social rights, even if not full legal personhood. Indeed, there is already some movement in this direction: the law is recognizing (some) animals as (rightsbearing) workers or family members, for at least some purposes, without having declared them to be persons. I call this the social recognition strategy, and argue that it has unexplored promise for advancing justice for animals, although it is not without its own dilemmas and limits

Multiculturalism and minority rights: West and East

Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage nach, ob westliche Modelle von Multikulturalismus und Minderheitenrechten relevant für die postkommunistischen Länder Zentral- und Osteuropas sind. Der Autor beschreibt zunächst eine Reihe westlicher Modelle und untersucht die sozialen und politischen Bedingungen, die dazu geführt haben, dass sie im Westen zur Geltung kamen. Danach werden verschiedene Faktoren betrachtet, die die Annahme dieser Modelle in Osteuropa schwierig machen. Abschließend wird die potentielle Rolle der internationalen Gemeinschaft bei der Überwindung dieser Schwierigkeiten beleuchtet. Postkommunistischen Ländern in Zentral- und Osteuropa wurde nahe gelegt, westliche Standards oder Modelle von Multikulturalismus und Minderheitenrecht zu überzunehmen. So sind beispielsweise die Minderheitenrechte ein Beitrittskriterium für die Aufnahme in die Europäische Union und die NATO. Kandidatenländer werden daran gemessen, wie gut sie diese Standards erfüllen. In diesem Zusammenhang lassen sich zwei miteinander verbundene Prozesse erkennen: Zum einen ist ein Prozess der Internationalisierung von Minderheitenrechten auszumachen, zum anderen werden diese westlichen Modelle in die Länder Zentral- und Osteuropas. Diese Entwicklung beruht auf vier Prämissen: (1) Es gibt gemeinsame Modelle oder Standards in westlichen Demokratien. (2) Diese Modelle oder Standards funktionieren im Westen gut und (3) müssen in Osteuropa anwendbar sein. (4) Die internationale Gemeinschaft verfügt über die Legitimation, den Export dieser Standards voranzutreiben. (ICD

Education for citizenship

Although it is widely accepted that a basic task of schooling is to prepare each new generation for their responsibilities as citizens, the appropriate form and content of citizenship education is often controversial. This paper discusses some of these controversies. I begin by arguing that citizenship is more complicated than is often realized, and that even ‘minimal’ conceptions of citizenship impose significant obligations and constraints on individual and group behaviour. I then consider three inter-related areas of debate: whether citizenship education requires common schooling; whether promoting responsible citizenship requires promoting personal autonomy; and whether promoting a shared civic identity requires teaching not only shared political values or principles but also promoting particular national or cultural identities. These three issues help illustrate the centrality of education for citizenship to both political theory and educational philosophy. [author's abstract

LAS BASES MORALES Y LAS FUNCIONES GEOPOLÍTICAS DE LAS NORMAS INTERNACIONALES DE LOS DERECHOS DE LAS MINORÍAS: UN ESTUDIO DEL CASO EUROPEO

The last 15 years has seen an explosion of efforts to develop international norms of minority rights, both at the global level and at regional levels. Globally, the UN adopted a declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities in 1992, and is debating a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Other international organizations, such as the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, have also developed norms on minority rights. Declarations have also been drafted by organizations at the regional level, such as the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe.En los últimos 15 años se han dado una multitud de esfuerzos para elaborar normas internacionales sobre los derechos de las minorías, tanto en el nivel mundial como en el nivel regional. Mundialmente, la ONU adoptó una Declaración sobre los Derechos de las Personas Pertenecientes a Minorías Nacionales o Étnicas, Religiosas y Lingüísticas en 1992, y está debatiendo un Proyecto de la Declaración sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Otras organizaciones internacionales como la Organización Mundial del Trabajo y el Banco Mundial, también han elaborado normas sobre los derechos de las minorías. Algunas organizaciones, como la Organización de Estados Americanos y el Consejo de Europa, también han redactado declaraciones de nivel regional

A Defense of animal citizens and sovereigns

In their commentaries on Zoopolis, Alasdair Cochrane and Oscar Horta raise several challenges to our argument for a “political theory of animal rights”, and to the specific models of animal citizenship and animal sovereignty we offer. In this reply, we focus on three key issues: 1) the need for a groupdifferentiated theory of animal rights that takes seriously ideas of membership in bounded communities, as against more “cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- ” or “cosmo- or “cosmozoopolis” alternatives that minimize the moral significance of boundaries and membership; 2) the challenge of defining the nature and scope of wild animal sovereignty; and 3) the problem of policing nature and humanitarian intervention to reduce suffering in the wild

Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state?

The past 30 years have witnessed a dramatic change in the way Western democracies deal with ethnic minorities. In the past, ethnic diversity was often seen as a threat to political stability, and minorities were subject to a range of policies intended to assimilate or marginalize them. Today, many Western democracies have adopted a more accommodating approach. This is reflected in the widespread adoption of multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and self-government rights for indigenous peoples. We refer to these policies as 'multiculturalism policies' or MCPs. The adoption of MCPs has been controversial, for two reasons. The first is a philosophical critique, which argues that MCPs are inherently inconsistent with basic liberal-democratic principles. Since the mid-1990s, however, this philosophical debate has been supplemented by a second argument: namely, that MCPs make it more difficult to sustain a robust Welfare State (hereafter WS). Critics worry that such policies erode the interpersonal trust, social solidarity and political coalitions that sustain a strongly redistributive WS. This paper reviews the reasons why critics believe that MCPs weaken political support for redistribution, and then examines empirically whether the adoption of MCPs has, in fact, been associated with erosion of the WS. This examination involves two steps: we develop a taxonomy of MCPs and classify Western democracies as 'strong', 'modest' or 'weak' in their level of MCPs. We then examine whether the strength of MCPs is associated with the erosion of the WS during the 1980s and 1990s. The evolution of the WS is measured through change in four indicators: social spending as a percentage of GDP; the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers; levels of child poverty; and the level of income inequality. We find no evidence of a consistent relationship between the adoption of MCPs and the erosion of the WS. Our analysis has limits, and we hope it stimulates further research. Nevertheless, the preliminary evidence presented here is clear: the case advanced by critics of MCPs is not supported. The growing ethnic diversity of Western societies has generated pressures for the construction of new and more inclusive forms of citizenship and national identity. The evidence in this paper suggests that debates over the appropriateness of multiculturalism policies as one response to this diversity should not be preempted by unsupported fears about their impact on the WS

Les politiques de multiculturalisme nuisent-elles à l’État-providence ?

La diversité ethnique est parfois perçue comme un danger pour la stabilité politique. Pourtant, les immigrants, les minorités nationales et les peuples autochtones bénéficient en certains pays d’une attitude d’ouverture qui a mené à l’adoption de politiques de multiculturalisme et à la reconnaissance de certains droits en matière de langue et d’autonomie territoriale et politique. Aux yeux de certains analystes, ces mesures ne peuvent que fragiliser l’État-providence. Ayant procédé à une vérification empirique de cette thèse, les auteurs ne constatent aucune relation systématique entre l’existence de politiques de multiculturalisme dans un pays et l’érosion de son État-providence. Il apparaît plutôt que des affirmations sans autre fondement que la peur ne font pas avancer le débat sur la pertinence des politiques de multiculturalisme.Ethnic diversity is often seen as a threat to political stability. But some countries have adopted a more accommodating approach, reflected in the adoption of multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and self-government rights for indigenous peoples. Such “multiculturalism policies” have been criticised, however, as making it more difficult to sustain a robust welfare state. This paper examines empirically whether this effect exists. We find no evidence of a consistent relationship between the adoption of multiculturalism policies and the erosion of the welfare state. The evidence in this paper suggests that debates over the appropriateness of multiculturalism policies should not be pre-empted by unsupported fears about their impact on the welfare state