- What is the difference between the right to language and the right to religion as far as minority rights’ protections are concerned? Which one is easier to establish and/or sustain? Why?
Minorities require protection from policies that seem to abuse their language and religion respectively. The right to language in the protection of minorities involves such aspects as their respective culture and education. This right is mainly applicable to states that are multi-national. None of the rights above is extremely easy to establish or certain while dealing with any category of minorities. Language is extremely significant in determining the political powers that its speakers can possibly attain. Rights that protect diverse linguistic orientation of citizens assist nations to avoid discrimination. Normally, people from linguistically dominant groups display undesirable power that makes them abuse minorities.
The right to religion focuses on allowing people to practice their religion without practice. The issue of minaret construction in Switzerland is a significant religious controversy. Religion defines people regardless of their superiority levels in the societies. Governments should allow minorities to express their religious views without fear of discrimination. The expression can be through construction of worship places that will facilitate their acknowledgment of religion.
It is easier to establish rights to language than those to religion. Religion is deep and creates further complications in the implementation of religious rights. The involvement of supreme beings in the discussions complicates the substance of these rights. The establishment of both these rights ensures that there are minimal conflicts in places that have minorities. Minorities should have their rights to protect all their rights and make them comfortable wherever they live.
2.) What does constitutional guaranteeing of minority rights entail? What do constitutional protections provide for minority groups?
The phenomenon entails deliberate protection of several rights of any minorities. Minorities realize that the respective constitution of their respective foreign lands protect them. These lands acknowledge that minorities are part of their citizenry. This inspires their decision to create clauses in their constitution that protect the minorities. The phenomena also entail frequent campaigns that educate minorities on their rights. The campaigns are effective in education of minority rights. Later during their respective stays in foreign lands, minorities appreciate their governments for protecting them. It also entails prohibition of any laws that seem to favor categories of citizens. Any law that does not accommodate minority in its application becomes irrelevant with the guaranteeing rights. The aspect of minorities in states is multifaceted; it could be ethnic, religious or immigrants (Mutua 2007).
Constitutional protections provide permissions for minorities to be free in what they do in foreign places. These protections offer the minorities chances to practice their culture in a free manner. They also ensure that there are minimal conflicts between majorities and minorities. Minority groups realize that most of these protections favor their existence in foreign places. There are significant differences on the protections of diverse rights. Language rights could receive fewer protections than religious rights (Blum, 2001). Normally, there is careful determination of categories of rights that might receive more protection than the others might. Some people disagree on these protections since it creates further conflicts. People do not understand why creation groups get these protections from their respective nations (Lindsey 2012).
3.) What is the relationship between multiculturalism and minority rights at all?
Multiculturalism is a significant aspect of minority rights in places that are likely to display bigotry practices. The entire aspect of multiculturalism involves embracing diversity in the lives of each citizen (Bird, 2004). Its relation with minority rights is evident in the need to protect minorities. It suggests that there must be an acknowledgment of people from diverse political background. This need to accommodate such people creates the notion of rights of the minority. There are diverse justifications for multiculturalism and these minority rights. Some if these include the fact that it creates admirable unities in the people. People learn to accept each other regardless of their political expectations or religious views. The acceptance facilitates continuous fights against any claims that contradict multiculturalism (Asari, et al,2008).
The connection between the above two aspects is also evident from the outcomes that the two seem to display. Both phenomenons create national identification in the people that involve themselves in multiculturalism. Multiculturalism allows diverse cultures to co-exist in the same areas. It even criticizes those people who do not accept others because of their diverse backgrounds (Klein, 2010). Minority rights fight for similar ideas as multicultural. These rights suggest that there should be co-existence of people regardless of their backgrounds. There is equal sustenance of nationality of all citizens in places that accept multiculturalism. Citizens are happy that they can live with other people who do not necessarily share their backgrounds. Both multiculturalism and minority protection create liberal citizens who will not be afraid to live in their respective countries (Lindsey, 2012).
4.) What is the difference between indigenous rights and other types of minority rights?
Indigenous rights equally have diverse controversies. People who claim to be indigenous demand attention and certain favors, these people that they were the first ones in the places that must recognize them. Another significant controversy in the rights of these people is that indigenous people are only indigenous in their respective countries. When they relocate to other places, they could qualify to be minorities. The prevalent differences between indigenous rights and those of minorities entail the extent that the later group demands its respective rights (Kymlicka, 2008).
Both rights attempt to protect indigenous and minority rights in their respective countries. Indigenous rights also protect people who originate from certain places that do not recognize their rights to these lands. Minorities are likely to relocate to foreign places where they equally encounter the need for protection their rights (Guibernau, 2004). Indigenous rights protect people who claim an origin while minority rights protect those who are foreigners. Indigenous rights are different from other minority rights because they protect people of the same land. They are also different because indigenous rights differ from diverse places (Eghosa, 2001).
People could be indigenous in their respective home countries but become minorities in foreign countries. Other types of minority rights address several aspects about the minorities. These aspects could include language and religion. Indigenous rights do no base their claims on the above factors. The rights focus on the originality of these people. They also concentrate on what they claim to be historically theirs. The rights protect indigenous possessions like use of cultural artifacts (Koivurova, 2011).
References
Blum, A. (2001). Recognition as protection/recognition as threat: Understanding the link between minority rights and ethnic hostility. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 7:2, 95-124.
Asari, Eva-Maria et al. (2008).British National Identity and the Dilemmas of Multiculturalism. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 14:1–28,.
Bird, Karen.(2004) The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral Democracies: A Comparison of France, Denmark, and Canada. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 11:
Eghosa E. Osaghae (2001): From accommodation to self‐determination: Minority nationalism and the restructuring of the Nigerian state, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 7:1, 1-20.
Guibernau, Monstressat. (2004) Nations without States: Political Communities in the Global Age. 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1251.
Klein, Laura. (2010)Rights Clash: How Conflicts Between Gay Rights and Religious Freedoms Challenge the Legal System. Georgetown Law Journal
Koivurova, Timo. (2011). Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
Kymlicka, Will. (2008) .The internationalization of minority Rights. I.CON, Volume 6, Number 1, pp. 1–32.
Lindsey, Edward.(2012) Linguistic Minority Education Rights in Canada: An International and Comparative Perspective. 13 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 515 198.
Langer, Lorenz. (2010)Panacea or pathetic fallacy? The Swiss ban on minarets. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 43.4: p863
Mutua, Makau. (2007) The Iraq Paradox: Minority and Group Rights in a Viable Constitution. 54 Buff. L. Rev. 927
Regarding Indigenous Peoples: Retrospect and Prospects. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 18 1–37.
Saban, Ilan. Minority Rights in Deeply Divided Societies: A Framework for Analysis and the Case of the Arab-Palestinian Minority in Israel
