MULTICULTURALISM IN LIBERAL
DEMOCRACIES:
THE BOUNDS OF INTERVENTION IN
PRACTICES OF MINORITY CULTURES
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
3/23/2016
1
Preliminaries
 How are group rights related to individual
rights?
 What should we do if group rights come
into conflict with individual rights?
3/23/2016
2

Can a liberal democracy allow
minority groups to restrict the
individual rights of their members, or
should it insist that all groups uphold
liberal principles?
3/23/2016
3
Self- and Otherregarding Conduct
 Cases in which one is inflicting pain
or death upon oneself vs.
 Cases in which one is inflicting
damage upon others
3/23/2016
4
 Jainas’ (a large
religious body in India)
practice in relation to
the dying: followers of
this ancient religion
resort to a peculiar
practice when it comes
to the dying.
 Scarring
3/23/2016
5
Jainas
 Members of the
community are
allowed, under certain
circumstances, to
terminate their own
lives, or more
accurately, to actively
welcome impending
death in a non-violent
manner.
 Persons in the late
stages of their lives,
therefore, may
decide that they want
to die and undertake
the vow of terminal
fast
3/23/2016
6
Scarring
 Scarring parts of the
body as part of
initiation rites that is
common in some
 As an adult, a
member of a specific
ethnic group or
initiation association.
African cultures.
 Traditionally,
scarification can mark
one’s status as a
civilized being
 Scars can also be
seen as marks of
beauty.
3/23/2016
7
Self-Regarding Conduct
 Assume that some immigrants bring these
rituals to a liberal democracy. The liberal state
has no strong case for interference.
 These customs of self-starvation and scarring
should not be promoted and encouraged, but
since the sub-cultures possess historical claims
and strongly believe in their traditional practices
and norms, they should have a right to cultural
autonomy.
3/23/2016
8
Other-regarding Conduct
 The case is different when it concerns other-
regarding conduct.
 Now the issue revolves around practices such
as suttee, female infanticide, female
circumcision, or murder for family honour.
Should a liberal state tolerate these
practices?
3/23/2016
9
Protecting Women
 Group rights are invoked by theocratic and
patriarchal cultures where women are
oppressed and religious orthodoxy enforced.
3/23/2016
10
Suttee
3/23/2016
11
Murder for Family Honour
By murdering their daughters or sisters the
men prove the control that the natal family
has over its women.
3/23/2016
12
Female Infanticide
3/23/2016
13
Female Circumcision
3/23/2016
14
Some things lie beyond the ability of liberal
democracies to tolerate.
3/23/2016
15
 Some norms are considered by
liberal standards to be intrinsically
wrong
 Such are norms that result in
physical harm to women and babies.
3/23/2016
16
Two Kinds of Rights – Will Kymlicka
 “Internal restrictions” - right of a
group against its own members
 “External protections” - right of
a group against the larger
society
3/23/2016
17
External protections
 External protections are defensible when
groups seek to protect their identity by
limiting their vulnerability to the decisions
of the larger society
3/23/2016
18
External protections
• Reserving land for the exclusive
use of a minority group is just.
3/23/2016
19
External protections
 Guaranteeing
representation for a
minority
 Devolving power to
local levels
3/23/2016
20
internal restrictions v.
external protections
 Whereas internal restrictions are
almost inherently in conflict with
liberal democratic norms, external
protections are not as long as they
promote equality between groups
3/23/2016
21
22
Internal Discrimination
 Now let us consider a situation in which
a cultural minority wants to be left
alone to run its own community in
accordance with its traditional norms.
 Respecting one culture could entail
allowing members of that culture to
show disrespect to some of its
members.
3/23/2016
23
Internal Discrimination
 Suppose that a cultural minority
exhibits illiberal consensus with regard
to women's role in society.
 It limits the right of women to study at
universities and to hold public offices.
3/23/2016
Exit Right
24
 If women who dislike this restriction
can easily leave the community and
enter the larger society, and if the
minority group has some historical
claim to local self-government, then
this may mean that it would be wrong
for us to coercively interfere and
prohibit that practice.
3/23/2016
25
Internal Discrimination
 However, the fact that intervention would
be wrong does not mean that the practice
in question is morally legitimate.
 On the contrary, from a liberal perspective
the practice is unjust. But we do not have
strongly sufficient legitimate grounds to
enforce our moral upon the group.
3/23/2016
Underpinning Values
 Two underpinning values of liberal
democracies:
 Respect for Others (Kant);
 Not Harming Others (Mill, JudeaChristian).
3/23/2016
26
Live and Let Live
 We need to
differentiate between
the symbolic aspects
and the modus
operandi aspects. As far
as the latter are
concerned, separation
between state and
religion should be
achieved.
3/23/2016
27
inter-group relationships v.
intra-group relationships
 One group has no right to coerce the entire
society into following its conception of the
good and abiding by its cultural norms.
3/23/2016
28
inter-group relationships v.
intra-group relationships
 In the event that a religious or cultural group
makes such an attempt, other segments of
society have to open further channels of
communication and resolve the situation by
peaceful means.
 If these means fail, the liberal society should
resort to authoritative means to draw the
boundaries and fight against coercion.
3/23/2016
29
Headscarves Controversy France
 The debate about the right to wear the
Muslim veil in schools and other public places
started in France in 1989, when a principal of
a high school refused to admit to school three
young girls because they were wearing the
traditional headscarf (hijab)
3/23/2016
30
Headscarves Controversy France
 Three kinds of concerns were raised:
 The Muslim veil undermined the ideal of
separation between state and religion, one of
the fundamental pillars of French society and
collective identity since the 1789 Revolution,
namely the “laïcité” of the state.
3/23/2016
31
Headscarves Controversy France
 Secondly, headscarves were widely seen as
symbols of the subordination of Muslim
women, thus questioning the ideal of equality
between sexes.
 Finally, by emphasizing the difference
between Muslim and non-Muslim girls,
headscarves were seen as a sign of the
unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to
integrate into the French society.
3/23/2016
32
Headscarves Controversy France
 In 2002, President Jacques Chirac appointed a
“commission of wise men” (the CommissionStasi) with the task of analyzing the
applicability of the principle of “laïcité” in
contemporary France.
 The conclusions were published in 2003. They
said:
3/23/2016
33
Headscarves Controversy France
 French secularism is under the threat of
growing claims of cultural and religious
nature.
 The “laïcité” of the state is challenged by a
sort of “communitarian withdrawal” that puts
at risk the very survival of the social contract
underpinning the French society as we know
it.
3/23/2016
34
Headscarves Controversy France
 The secular state, consequently, is called to
take a pro-active stance, fulfilling its duty to
protect individuals from religious pressure.
 Faced with the classical dichotomy between
“integration” of the minority into the larger
society and “accommodation” of the minority
culture into the majority, France resolutely
opted for the former.
3/23/2016
35
Headscarves Controversy France
 Muslim headscarves symbolized religious
divisiveness in a particularly delicate
environment such as the community of
young people.
 They infringed on equality between students,
thus undermining one of the core goals of the
French educational system, namely the
creation of equal and free citizens.
3/23/2016
36
Headscarves Controversy France
 The traditional liberal approach focusing on
the principle of “live and let live” was seen as
inadequate to effectively protect core liberal
and democratic values.
 The state acted in order to protect the very
identity of the French society, based on the
separation between state and religion, while
emphasizing the secular nature of the state.
3/23/2016
37
Headscarves Controversy France
 The preservation of “laïcité” at the expense of
traditional liberalism attempted to preserve a
non-sectarian, neutral public sphere.
 Public demonstration of religiousness was
replaced with a sort of national civic ethos.
 It aimed at de-politicizing religion in a political
phase in which inter-religious relations seemed
to be increasingly tense.
3/23/2016
38
Headscarves Controversy
 In Belgium, by contrast, no ban on headscarves
has been put in place.
 Conflicts arising in schools on this issue, quite
the opposite, are effectively solved through
dialogue, outside the legal system.
 Similarly, in Germany no ban on headscarves is
currently in place, neither is it likely to be passed
in the future, since dialogue and accommodation
have managed to avoid excessive tensions with
the Muslim minority.
3/23/2016
39
Headscarves Controversy Germany
 A much more heated debate revolved around
teachers’ right to wear the headscarf in public
schools.
 Teacher’s individual right to freedom of religion
has to be contrasted with the students’ right to a
religiously impartial education.
 A ban on the use of headscarves by teachers was
passed in nine German states.
3/23/2016
40
Headscarves Controversy –
The Netherlands
 In the Netherlands, the headscarf issue is not
treated as a matter of freedom of religion,
but rather as a matter of non-discrimination.
 The headscarf issue is largely seen as a
problem of individual freedom and dealt with
through accommodation and non-legislative
means.
3/23/2016
41
Headscarves Controversy - UK
 Similarly, in the UK, following a classical liberal
approach, British authorities deal with the
headscarf issue by resorting to non-legal means.
 Governmental Commission on Integration and
Cohesion, established in 2006: relations with
minority cultures must be dealt with by
“developing practical solutions for local
communities based on the best existing
practice”, thus pushing further against
“perceived barriers to cohesion and integration”.
3/23/2016
42
Conclusions
 The creation of a multicultural society, pluralizing
the concept of equality and attempting to respect
difference, tolerate heterogeneity, and
accommodate cultures is the proper liberal
approach.
 At the same time, no accommodation is acceptable
when it comes to violating the core values of
democracy, and respect for human rights.
3/23/2016
43
Conclusions
 The balance between “integration” and
“accommodation” must be handled
carefully in order to avoid intra-group
tensions and preserve the principles of
European liberal democracies.
 Citizens, immigrant citizens among them,
are entitled to retain their cultural and
religious norms as long as they do not
contradict state’s laws.
3/23/2016
44
Conclusions
 Democracies should enable
multiculturalism and religious
freedoms but it is not incumbent on
them to transform their set of laws.
 Citizens have both rights and duties
towards the state.
3/23/2016
45
Conclusions
 Liberal democracies should show a stronger
willingness to find effective informal institutional
tools to accommodate the needs of immigrant
communities within the larger society in their
every-day life.
 At the same time, they should remain committed
to the core values of democracy, freedom,
respecting others as human beings, and not
harming others.
3/23/2016
46
Thank you
3/23/2016
47