Citizens of liberal democracies hold that their theory of governance is the most just, the most consistent with freedom, and the most likely to promote human flourishing. Yet, Canada, one of the world＇s most liberal ...Citizens of liberal democracies hold that their theory of governance is the most just, the most consistent with freedom, and the most likely to promote human flourishing. Yet, Canada, one of the world＇s most liberal and progressive democracies, has consistently been unable to come to terms with the minority nations in its midst. Why would national minorities resist joining fully in a just liberal democratic state？ And in the face of this refusal, what sort of relationship should the majority establish with these national minorities？ I argue that their resistance stems from an axiom of mainstream liberalism, ＂the civic unity assumption,＂ which holds that, ideally, all citizens endorse a single, unified state. While seemingly innocuous, this assumption extinguishes First Nations and Qurbrcois＇ claims to sovereignty. I conclude that this assumption--that majority and minority nationals must all work within the boundaries of a single constitutional structure--is ultimately an assimilative one, demanding that minority nationals merge their political community into the civic project of the majority. Drawing from John Rawls＇ The Law of Peoples, I argue that minority nations are best characterized as ＂peoples＂--complete societies with their own unique moral, cultural, and political traditions. If we accept this claim, we will come to see the multinational state differently： not as a political project uniting all citizens, but as a pact between nations; equal sovereign peoples coming together in a spirit of reciprocity to work out fair terms of social and political cooperation.展开更多
Insofar as the right to free speech is constitutionally protected, the article distinguishes between opinions and facts. Whereas the former is protected as a free speech matter, the latter has nothing to do with the r...Insofar as the right to free speech is constitutionally protected, the article distinguishes between opinions and facts. Whereas the former is protected as a free speech matter, the latter has nothing to do with the right to free expression Holocaust Denial concerns denying facts and therefore, it is not a question of freedom of speech. At the same vein, inquiring into the conceptual grounds of the theory of criminalization, the article provides that Holocaust Denial cannot and should not be criminalized.展开更多
文摘Citizens of liberal democracies hold that their theory of governance is the most just, the most consistent with freedom, and the most likely to promote human flourishing. Yet, Canada, one of the world＇s most liberal and progressive democracies, has consistently been unable to come to terms with the minority nations in its midst. Why would national minorities resist joining fully in a just liberal democratic state？ And in the face of this refusal, what sort of relationship should the majority establish with these national minorities？ I argue that their resistance stems from an axiom of mainstream liberalism, ＂the civic unity assumption,＂ which holds that, ideally, all citizens endorse a single, unified state. While seemingly innocuous, this assumption extinguishes First Nations and Qurbrcois＇ claims to sovereignty. I conclude that this assumption--that majority and minority nationals must all work within the boundaries of a single constitutional structure--is ultimately an assimilative one, demanding that minority nationals merge their political community into the civic project of the majority. Drawing from John Rawls＇ The Law of Peoples, I argue that minority nations are best characterized as ＂peoples＂--complete societies with their own unique moral, cultural, and political traditions. If we accept this claim, we will come to see the multinational state differently： not as a political project uniting all citizens, but as a pact between nations; equal sovereign peoples coming together in a spirit of reciprocity to work out fair terms of social and political cooperation.
文摘Insofar as the right to free speech is constitutionally protected, the article distinguishes between opinions and facts. Whereas the former is protected as a free speech matter, the latter has nothing to do with the right to free expression Holocaust Denial concerns denying facts and therefore, it is not a question of freedom of speech. At the same vein, inquiring into the conceptual grounds of the theory of criminalization, the article provides that Holocaust Denial cannot and should not be criminalized.
