BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4// BEGIN:VEVENT UID:20260708T200120EDT-6608oZUaiM@132.216.98.100 DTSTAMP:20260709T000120Z DESCRIPTION:An Oppenheimer Chair Seminar with students Will\nColish (Margin al Oversight: Rethinking the\nInclusion/Exclusion Debate over National Min orities) and\nCaylee Hong (Regulating religious minorities\,\ndefining Que bec’s identity: Feminist Organizations’ Approaches to\nMulticulturalism). \nWill Colish: Marginal Oversight: Rethinking the\nInclusion/Exclusion Deb ate over National Minorities\nRecognition theorists who support minority n ationalism face two\nobjections that this paper aims to overcome. 1) Too m uch insistence\nhow the minority nation’s way of living clashes with the d ominant\nnation might commit the theorist to argue for separation. 2)\nAlt ernatively\, if the minority nation understates its differences\nfrom the dominant nation\, then one might fail to see any reason to\nprotect the dw indling minority from further decline in national\nstatus. The two horns o f this dilemma require minority nations\neither to mount uncertain campaig ns for full-on exclusion from the\ndominant nation\, or to surrender their demands for national\nprotection and commit themselves to a peaceful proc ess of\ninclusion. Neither of these prospects is appealing\, nor is either \nrepresentative of the struggles that most national minorities face.\nIn response to this dilemma\, I propose that the inclusion/exclusion\ndebate be recast under the concept of marginalisation.\nThe concept of marginaliz ation addresses the situation of\ncommunities that find themselves at the borderlines of political\nsurvival—excluded from mainstream participation\ , but prevented from\nautonomous political control. In the strategic sense \,\nmarginalization comprises two elements from the perspective of the\nma jority nation: an objective to suppress the interests of the\nnational min ority\; and concessions made to the national minority\nthat rarely are suf ficient for or necessary to the aspirations of\nthe group in question. Mar ginalization is not just plain\nsuppression. It is distinguished from the latter by weak\ncompromises that conceal the majority nation’s aim to halt the\nnational minority’s movement toward sovereignty. These two elements \nare strategically reinforcing from the perspective of the majority\nnati on and politically polarizing from the perspective of national\nminority. The first element pushes in the direction of exclusion\nthrough direct sub ordination\; the second goads an interest in\ninclusion through baiting wi th piecemeal concessions. The result is\na confused political arrangement that straddles the line between\ngreater interaction and strong separation between the minority and\nmajority nations.\nAbout the speaker\nWill Coli sh is a 3rd year student in the BCL/LLB program at\n91. He is editor-in-chief for volume 57 of the\n91 Law Journal. His recent pu blications include\n“Between Expertise and Fairness: Considering Epistemic \nProceduralism”\, which appeared in the European Journal of Political\nTh eory (2010)\, and “Doing Justice to Recognition”\, which appeared\nin Les ateliers de l’éthique (2009). His research interests include\npolitical ph ilosophy and theoretical approaches to law.\nCaylee Hong: Regulating relig ious minorities\, defining\nQuebec’s identity: Feminist Organizations’ App roaches to\nMulticulturalism\nFeminist groups\, scholars and activists hav e been particularly\nvocal about the effects of multiculturalism policies and religious\naccommodation on women in Québec. While many defend accommo dation\nand group rights as promoting gender equality\, others see such\ns tate policies as jeopardizing equal and universal rights for all\ncitizens . Québec’s draft Bill 94\, An act to establish guidelines\ngoverning accom modation requests within the administration and\ncertain institutions\, is particularly controversial. It provides\nthat accommodations must be deni ed to people receiving or providing\nservices as members of the public adm inistration if there are\nreasons of security\, communication or identific ation. Despite\nappearing neutral\, Bill 94 is accused of specifically tar geting\nMuslim women wearing the full-face veil. While there has been\next ensive analysis of anti-veiling legislation\, I specifically\nexamine femi nist organizations’ briefs submitted to the\nParliamentary Committee on In stitutions’ public consultations. I\nargue that most briefs highlight a pe rsisting unease and discomfort\nwith the freedom of religion and the right of women to manifest\ntheir religious beliefs through ‘illiberal’ practic es. First\, most\nbriefs articulate the freedom of religion as inherently clashing\nwith gender equality. Second\, many refer to Québec’s history in \nwhich religion is a step backwards and is a threat to women’s\nhard-won rights and secularism. Third\, feminists’ unease is related\nto the genera l challenges of squaring the freedom of religion –\nwith its liberal under pinnings based on the individual\, autonomy\nand the private/public divide – with full face veils.\nAbout the speaker\nCaylee Hong is a 3rd year stu dent in the BCL/LLB program at\n91. She is the editor-in-ch ief for volume 8 of the\n91 International Journal of Sustainable Devel opment Law and\nPolicy. Her forthcoming publication\, “Feminists on the Fr eedom\nof Religion: Responses to Québec’s Draft Bill 94” is to appear in\n the University of Toronto Journal of Law and Equality. Her\nresearch inter ests include gender studies\, law and religion and\nmulticulturalism.\n DTSTART:20111017T173000Z DTEND:20111017T183000Z LOCATION:Chancellor Day Hall\, CA\, QC\, Montreal\, H3A 1W9\, 3644 rue Peel SUMMARY:Oppenheimer Seminar with Will Colish and Caylee Hong URL:/channels/event/oppenheimer-seminar-will-colish-an d-caylee-hong-188082 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR