From: varvel@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Varvel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: The ANC and the SACP
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:42:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.19726
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug14.004626.202379@uctvax.uct.ac.za> 
hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>Philip Machanick writes:
>
>> In article <1992Aug11.132449.202317@uctvax.uct.ac.za> 
>> hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:


>The above exercise demonstrates the need for incorporating minority groups in
>the highest levels of government decision-making and planning, even though (and
>probably especially since) these groups cannot compete for places in a
>democratic government, because they cannot commandeer the requisite number of
>voters. Now this is where a well-defined (and well-understood) concept of
>minority right would be extremely useful. Minority rights don't give
>insignificant groups the ability to impose their will on the majority at all,
>they are merely a recognition of the well-accepted principle that there are
>certain things that people cannot decide for you (even if they form the
>majority). For example, they cannot decide which language you may speak, they
>cannot decide what religion you may practice, they cannot decide who you may
>associate with and who you may not associate with, etc. In homogenous
>societies, a concept of individual rights is sufficient for all of this, but in
>a fractured society, individual rights are not enough, because by its very
>nature a fractured society presumes the existence of various groups which are 
>not necessarily mutually benevolent. In such a case the weak groups have to be 
>protected from the strong - minority rights simply define an area around 
>minority groups and say "within this area the state may not tresspass, even if
>it enjoys majority sanction to do so".


>> Suddenly because someone identifies with the majority they are only covered 
>> by "indvididual rights".


>That's because if you belong to the majority, nobody is threatening your
>language, your customs, etc. Your group doesn't require protection because its
>strong enough to look after itself (and strong enough to bully smaller groups). 


>This has nothing to do with black and white. It is quite conceivable that
>certain black ethnies in South Africa may apply for minority status - the Zulus
>for example. You belong to a minority group if there are other groups which, by
>virtue of shear numbers, are capable of elbowing you out of power. If your
>group has access to enforced minority rights, it still won't be able to usurp
>power from the majority, but at least it will be guaranteed a certain amount of
>freedom from said majority (and freedom isn't *always* bad, is it now Philip?). 


Would group rights apply to these groups in the following list?  If so, why?  
If not, why not?  (Let's hope group rights refers to "ethnies" without their
own language.  If not, Queer Nationalists wouldn't be happy...)

List

moslems
hindus
jews
prostitutes
nose-pickers
left-handed people
exhibitionists
paranoids
schizophrenics
chronic halitosis sufferers
cigar smokers
rugby players
accordian players
mandolin players
Kaaps speakers
satan worshippers
flat-earthers
witches
witch doctors
virgins
animal rights activists
people who scratch their crotch in public
fans of "Guns and Roses"
nerds
neo-nazis
hippies
people with Turette's Syndrome
bungee jumpers
South Africans of Lithuanian descent (Joe Slovo comes to mind...)
!xa speakers
masochists


Of course, this is a very short list.  If anyone wants to add to the list,
please feel free.

>Hardy Hulley
>Lab. for Formal Aspects and Complexity in Computer Science
>UCT


Cheers,

Andrew Varvel
University of North Dakota

I doubt that my opinions are shared by UND, 
but if my opinions are, good for them!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african