Minority Rights

As more and more immigrants showed up on Spain's doorstep, government and citizens started to fret about how to make sure everyone was treated fairly, or at least equally unfairly.  As in many other places and times, certain groups started to feel left out and persecuted, while groups that had been there all the time started to make their gripes known.  A lot of people felt that they were not receiving their fair share, and began to demand equality and justice.  Everybody should have the same rights, they said, and we are not having ours respected.  So, that means that "Minority Rights" should be the same as majority or mainstream rights, does it not?  In theory this sounds just fine, however, the unfortunate fact is past injustices have created very slanted playing fields, and simply saying, "Ok, we're all the same now," does not solve anything.  It does not give everyone the same opportunities, no matter how much we might wish it did.  Not only that, but there are questions of minority cultures that may require some protection or special permissions from authority to continue to exist in meaningful ways; one example could be the use of hallucinogens in some Native American cultures being allowed.  The practice does not harm anyone else, they can use it as a mark of cultural distinction, why not allow it?  But, what happens when one group's culture affects others?  Should students with religious dietary restrictions get to dictate what the school lunch menu is for everybody?  Should children of sects that consider reciting a pledge to an inanimate object akin to idolatry be exempt from joining classmates in their patriotic ritual?  How far can we go protecting every individual's rights before they all overlap and cancel each other out?

The Leader was out that evening, but left some words for us, as well as some preliminary thoughts from the Source.  The True Philosopher, with some familiarity of minorities and their contested rights, kicked off the discussion.  He explained that he focused on ethnic minorities, although of course the term covers much more ground, who he saw exploited in his home country.  Minorities are often the most neglected group in a society when it comes to receiving benefits and services, due to the very fact that they are minorities and do not have a loud voice.  The Deep Thinker gave a rather short contribution, saying minorities have the duty to integrate while at the same time the majority has the duty to allow them in.  He also suggested that the education system should be used as a tool for integration, promoting a sense of belonging, not to any particular group, but to the whole human race.  He went so far as to say group identity or the desire for it should be considered a mental illness. The True Philosopher responded by saying that at least in his country the majority of minorities do integrate, at least partially.  However, it is difficult to integrate completely while maintaining a sense of one's own, distinct culture and history.  Later on he said simply that human rights apply to everybody, therefore "minority rights" do not even exist, although at the end he admitted that conflicts between groups can be solved de jure, by enforcing or creating laws, but they will continue to exist de facto.

The Educator reminded us that no country is "pure" anymore, if in fact any country ever was.  "Minorities" are simply people without power, who can actually be greater in number than the powerful, but lacking or barred from resources.  She also touched on the problem of protecting traditions and cultures within a society, especially when tradition causes harm to others.  She referred to the poor treatment of others practiced by some minority groups in very traditional societies, and also the importance of protecting "minorities within minorities", e.g. women or homosexuals, within minority groups.  Her overriding theme seemed to be that protection of the individual is of greater concern than protecting a culture, although culture should not be dismissed out of hand.

The Source did not comment in the beginning, choosing instead to listen to other comments and mull over other opinions.  Finally, he did chime in.  He voiced a concern many have when a group, traditionally quiet, asks for something: are minorities trying to achieve parity - or special rights?  He felt that many people forget that rights come with duties, and some people were merely demanding privileges without any intention of taking on the added responsibilities they entail.  He also showed no patience for groups of uncomfortable recent immigrants, saying if they had traveled to one new country, they could travel back or to another more to their liking.  The host country is not obligated to change for newcomers.

Two Occasional Participants debated the treatment of religions in Western societies, with one saying that all religions should receive the same level of respect, including regarding their holidays.  Why should we only get Christian holidays off automatically, especially when we are aware of people practicing other religions in our midst?  She admitted this tack might end up clearing the calendar of work days altogether.  The other disagreed with the point of holidays being an instrument of discrimination, insisting that hiring practices are where we need to focus to build equality.  Although she did not say so openly, she hinted at the entirely secular state, divorced from all religious affiliation, as the best option.

The Seeker of Happiness mulled over the meaning of democracy and minority/majority participation in it.  Voting would naturally reflect the desires of the majority over the minority, he said, so what is needed is a constitution or supreme rule of law that protects all groups from each other.  He advocated a "frozen" constitution, one that could not be modified later by lawmakers, a modern tablet of commandments perhaps.  He insisted that all groups should be protected equally under the law, and declared himself confused that women, for example, were specially protected under certain anti-violence laws.

What we should probably be thankful for is that pseudo-philosophers like ourselves are not considered a dangerous minority.  At least as long as we stay in the bar.