91黑料网

An Oppenheimer Chair Seminar with students Will Colish (Marginal Oversight: Rethinking the Inclusion/Exclusion Debate over National Minorities) and Caylee Hong (Regulating religious minorities, defining Quebec鈥檚 identity: Feminist Organizations鈥� Approaches to Multiculturalism).

Will Colish: Marginal Oversight: Rethinking the Inclusion/Exclusion Debate over National Minorities

Recognition theorists who support minority nationalism face two objections that this paper aims to overcome. 1) Too much insistence how the minority nation鈥檚 way of living clashes with the dominant nation might commit the theorist to argue for separation. 2) Alternatively, if the minority nation understates its differences from the dominant nation, then one might fail to see any reason to protect the dwindling minority from further decline in national status. The two horns of this dilemma require minority nations either to mount uncertain campaigns for full-on exclusion from the dominant nation, or to surrender their demands for national protection and commit themselves to a peaceful process of inclusion. Neither of these prospects is appealing, nor is either representative of the struggles that most national minorities face. In response to this dilemma, I propose that the inclusion/exclusion debate be recast under the concept of marginalisation.

The concept of marginalization addresses the situation of communities that find themselves at the borderlines of political survival鈥攅xcluded from mainstream participation, but prevented from autonomous political control. In the strategic sense, marginalization comprises two elements from the perspective of the majority nation: an objective to suppress the interests of the national minority; and concessions made to the national minority that rarely are sufficient for or necessary to the aspirations of the group in question. Marginalization is not just plain suppression. It is distinguished from the latter by weak compromises that conceal the majority nation鈥檚 aim to halt the national minority鈥檚 movement toward sovereignty. These two elements are strategically reinforcing from the perspective of the majority nation and politically polarizing from the perspective of national minority. The first element pushes in the direction of exclusion through direct subordination; the second goads an interest in inclusion through baiting with piecemeal concessions. The result is a confused political arrangement that straddles the line between greater interaction and strong separation between the minority and majority nations.

About the speaker

Will Colish is a 3rd year student in the BCL/LLB program at 91黑料网. He is editor-in-chief for volume 57 of the 91黑料网 Law Journal. His recent publications include 鈥淏etween Expertise and Fairness: Considering Epistemic Proceduralism鈥�, which appeared in the European Journal of Political Theory (2010), and 鈥淒oing Justice to Recognition鈥�, which appeared in Les ateliers de l鈥櫭﹖hique (2009). His research interests include political philosophy and theoretical approaches to law.

Caylee Hong: Regulating religious minorities, defining Quebec鈥檚 identity: Feminist Organizations鈥� Approaches to Multiculturalism

Feminist groups, scholars and activists have been particularly vocal about the effects of multiculturalism policies and religious accommodation on women in Qu茅bec. While many defend accommodation and group rights as promoting gender equality, others see such state policies as jeopardizing equal and universal rights for all citizens. Qu茅bec鈥檚 draft Bill 94, An act to establish guidelines governing accommodation requests within the administration and certain institutions, is particularly controversial. It provides that accommodations must be denied to people receiving or providing services as members of the public administration if there are reasons of security, communication or identification. Despite appearing neutral, Bill 94 is accused of specifically targeting Muslim women wearing the full-face veil. While there has been extensive analysis of anti-veiling legislation, I specifically examine feminist organizations鈥� briefs submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions鈥� public consultations. I argue that most briefs highlight a persisting unease and discomfort with the freedom of religion and the right of women to manifest their religious beliefs through 鈥榠lliberal鈥� practices. First, most briefs articulate the freedom of religion as inherently clashing with gender equality. Second, many refer to Qu茅bec鈥檚 history in which religion is a step backwards and is a threat to women鈥檚 hard-won rights and secularism. Third, feminists鈥� unease is related to the general challenges of squaring the freedom of religion 鈥� with its liberal underpinnings based on the individual, autonomy and the private/public divide 鈥� with full face veils.

About the speaker

Caylee Hong is a 3rd year student in the BCL/LLB program at 91黑料网. She is the editor-in-chief for volume 8 of the 91黑料网 International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy. Her forthcoming publication, 鈥淔eminists on the Freedom of Religion: Responses to Qu茅bec鈥檚 Draft Bill 94鈥� is to appear in the University of Toronto Journal of Law and Equality. Her research interests include gender studies, law and religion and multiculturalism.