BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Democracy, Immigration, Tolerance (in memoriam, Pym Fortuyn)

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
the Fool
06:17 / 13.05.02
How about this,

What if one minority group began actively persecuting another minority group, due to a religious/culturally based reason within a 'multicultural' society. How does the 'host' (insert western first world 'multicultural') government deal with this?

The route cause of the intolerance appears to be culturally based and entrenched. Can a government ask/force a minority to alter its culture to prevent the persecution of the second minority?
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:50 / 13.05.02
Can a government ask/force a minority to alter its culture to prevent the persecution of the second minority?

I'd say yes in extreme cases. The host country also has a culture which includes certain morality and certain legal obligations or restrictions. I think that being tolerant means that an effort should be made to accommodate other cultures. It does not mean that a carte blanche is offered with respect to application of the law. One can argue where the boundaries should be, but I think most of us would agree that there should be boundaries.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
17:41 / 13.05.02
Fool: Yes, whenever anyone or any group of people break the "law of the land" the government can and should apply the measures proscribed by those laws, regardless of the reason for the transgression.

The the whole point of any publicly supported system of government is that those accepted as leaders maintain the definition of the laws, and enforce the laws as defined at that time.

In any case, as cusm spotted before baiting Haus with a bit of disjointed thinking, we seem to be getting bogged down in trying to define Fortuyn's racism or lack there of and nitpicking eachothers posts for generalisations which may not be insignificant but which don't get us much further in answering the original question. Then again, maybe I'm wrong in this and we should get the terms properly defined before trying to find a solution.

Maybe it would help if we shifted the problem to a location which will make it less baggage laden without losing much of its essential complexity. See, the original question about tolerant states' duties toward less tolerant immigrants seems awfully similar to the Barbelith/Troll debates. Not identical, since those addressed only instances where individuals were trying only to disrupt the board rather than trying to mesh their views with those of the 'state', but maybe if we restate the question in these terms we can avoid wading through the real-life complexities until after we have found the outline of an answer.

So, assuming people haven't started shouting at their screens yet, I give you Barbelithland. A nation of largely peaceful, reasonable and tolerant individuals moderated by democratically elected representatives (all right, I'm ignoring Toms Ultimate Veto(TM) for now, and the fact that Barbelithland's borders are somewhat closed right now). But look, over yonder hill! Why, it is a group of refugees from other boards, looking for sanctuary. They are also largely peaceful and reasonable, but their tolerances are somewhat different to ours.

If we let them in, they will get a say in the election of future moderators, which could affect the range of views which can be expressed on this board, and so the tolerance of the board as an entity. But if we exclude them, we stand accused of intolerance. Now what?..

(Sorry about the flippancy there. Don't mean to distract from the significance of the question. Got a bit carried away.)
 
 
cusm
19:21 / 13.05.02
What I was trying to get at earlier is that while a democratic nation offers the freedom for cultures to make a place of their own where they can practice their beliefs, there remains a level of basic human decency that the nation will demand of all citizens, regardless of background. Basic stuff like not mutiliating your children, killing people, etc. A lot can be tolerated under the guise of religious freedom, but there has to be a line where the nation will no longer accept the practice. Beyond a certain point, you just have to make your own nation if you want to practice something so far out of the norm. There are some things a nation will not tolerate, and this is the case for any nation that excercises the rule of law over its people to any extent. The challenge is to limit this to only that which is absolutely necessary. The problem being that the most vocal culture in a democracy will have a signifigant sway over how those laws are written. So, there will always be a bias of some level in any democracy.

But as for groups themselves at war with one another, one of the jobs of the nation is to keep the peace. If one group persecutes another, it is the job of that nation to make the children settle down and work out their differences, or face punishment. As such, the nation enforces a certain level of tolerance on all groups within it. It is up to the groups in question to adapt their practices to fit with the laws of the land, until such time as they are able to change those laws.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply