Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[Berkut]

Yeah, I think I may not have understood his post fully.

And I agree with you on the material things, and the observation about how far it goes.

However, a comparison to China is not very apt - even in China one can make an argument about whether the rise in material comfort is worth the cost in freedom.

But I don't think any such argument can be made in Quebec. Qubec is, last I heard, a Westernized liberal society that enjoys all the freedom and respect for liberty that we expect out of most western nations. It's not like there is any real practical oppression ongoing, hence the need to dredge up past actual injustice, or cast current minor quibbles as being grossly more serious than they actually are...which Oex certainly mentioned.

[Oexmelin]

The other thing I'm unsure about in Oex's post is the "quasi-end of history rhetoric" bit. Are people still thinking and arguing like we're at the end of history? Seems like there's plenty going on between economic crises, the rise of China, Brazil, India etc and the recent developments in the Arab world. Or is it a more technical term?

I did not mean it in the sense that there would be no more change, but rather that people argue that if individual rights are respected, then there is precious little else worth fighting for - or the remaining injustices or causes pale in comparison. In other words, fighting for one's rights in the Arab world is wonderful. But in westernized societies where we can quibble about the way such rights are interpreted, what other great cause is seen as legitimate? Since their fundmental rights are respected, people are more or less told to "deal with" whatever else they might feel unjust, or short of their (other) ideals.

And you were right that I did not set out to create a hierarchy - because I am not sure intemporal hierarchies (i.e., abstract fundamental individual rights always trump abstract collective ideals) are meaningful - and, in any case, I am not sure either how I would organize them myself. One of my hunch or fear is that the celebration of individual rights in the abstract is not conducive to the creation of interpersonal bonds which are a requirement of citizenry, of living, breathing democracies (as opposed to democracy reduced to voting every X years). We need "something more" - and culture plays a huge role in it, even though it is today reduced to a matter of "opinion" or "choice in the market". But that hunch does not make me a champion of Stalinist authoritarianism nor a supporter of racial tribalism - and if people (not targetted at any one here) want to insist that these are the only possible alternatives, then I see little use in discussing with them.   

[Viking]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

[Oexmelin]

QED.

[Berkut]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

[Barrister]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.

[Berkut]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.

Why is that? Honest question.

They just seem to me like a means to avoid respecting individual rights. Heck, I cannot even really imagine what "collective rights" mean in the particular, rather then general, sense. Which raises my "bullshit" alarm a bit...I am pretty skeptical of the idea that there are this very vaguely defined group rights that trump individual and well defined rights.

What is an example of a right that is only held by a group?

[Viking]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

Collective rights are also quite often used by "community leaders" as a means of creating a minority-majority conflict with the only common consequence of such a conflict is the "community leaders" increasing influence. Find a minority, find an issue, claim that issue is oppression and you have a ready made conflict with you as the ready made "community leader". Make the issue something like female genital mutilation and all of a sudden the ready made muslim community (from the last collective right issue) will rally around to protect something they themselves might abhor to protect the community and strengthen the "community leaders" within the community. Throw in some cultural relativists and post-modernists and all of a sudden you have re-introduced tribalism to an otherwise modern country.

When considering issues like this I have to agree with Bertrand Russell that Rousseau, Herder, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida are pure evil scum.  (though Russell probably never heard of Derrida being long dead at the time).

[Valmy]

It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.

And rightly he shouldn't.  Collective rights are a form of tyranny over minorities.

[Barrister]

It is a matter of not all rights being equal. There is a substantial difference between individual rights and collective rights. The so called rights the Quebeckers are fighting for are collective rights, they are struggling for the rights of a language or a culture, not struggling for the rights of the individuals speaking that language or participating in that culture.

Collective rights are used as an excuse to abridge personal rights, in almost all cases. Hell, I am not sure I even buy the idea that there is any such thing as "collective rights". How can a collective have rights? A collective is not a person - is a collective right a right held by the individuals within the collective? Can those rights be removed simply by removing the individual from the group, and given by their inclusion? How big of a group does one need for it to spontaneously form rights? is 2 out of a group of 3 enough for the two to vote on their collective right to remove the individual rights of the third?

Sounds like a invention to me, and one largely designed to justify ignoring actual rights in favor of collective control.

It doesn't surprise me one bit you reject the notion of collective rights.

Why is that? Honest question.

They just seem to me like a means to avoid respecting individual rights. Heck, I cannot even really imagine what "collective rights" mean in the particular, rather then general, sense. Which raises my "bullshit" alarm a bit...I am pretty skeptical of the idea that there are this very vaguely defined group rights that trump individual and well defined rights.

What is an example of a right that is only held by a group?

Because you're a borderline librarytarian, of course.  I didn't mean my response to be overly snarky.  I would have utterly expected your response.

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

[Berkut]

"To take steps to preserve a language or culture". See, that is what I mean - that is poorly defined, and could mean anything. What group has that right?

If I learn to speak French, do I become a part of that group? Does that confer on me some kind of right I didn't have before I learned French? Does that mean I have the right to ignore the rights of others, or that their individual rights are now lessened as a result of this group right? Who expresses the will of this group and their "right" to "protect their culture"?

What if my group is a bunch of white people in South Africa? Does my group have the right to set aside or limit the individual rights of blacks in order to protect my groups right to our culture?

Again, this just seems like a means to justify the denial of otherwise pretty immutable individual rights - there does not seem to be any purpose to these "group rights" except to do just that.

[Valmy]

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does?  It strikes me they are exactly the same.

But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results.  But not always.

I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.

[Barrister]

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does?  It strikes me they are exactly the same.

But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results.  But not always.

I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

[Berkut]

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does?  It strikes me they are exactly the same.

But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results.  But not always.

I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

They could not have done so without collective rights, as opposed to individual rights?

[Barrister]

Examples of "collective rights"?  Well this one - to take steps to preserve a language or culture.  I disagree with Valmy that's the right of the majority - it's usually held to be the right of the minority.  Like Quebecois within Canada, or of our first nations.

What rights do the Quebecois enjoy that nobody else does?  It strikes me they are exactly the same.

But in any case it is not a completely absolute evil, collective rights, it is an idea that is well intentioned but which generally, IMO, produces very bad results.  But not always.

I am not just super sure Canadian and American policy towards the Native Americans, giving them special status, has just been a whopping success either...but it is sure better than the way these things have tended to play out in the old world.

Well look to our constitution.  They have the right to French government services, the right to French language schools (and in many provinces, the right to Catholic schools).

As for Natives - well it has allowed them to survive as a separate and identifiable people and culture, which is something imoprtant to them.

They could not have done so without collective rights, as opposed to individual rights?

Not sure which part of my response your question is directed at.