From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:56:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145203.2433@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>>In article nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>I suspect the whole individual versus collective issue is mainly a
>>>smoke screen, one of those tricks people seem to like to pull with
>>>words and definitions to make their case look stronger.  If I'm wrong,
>>>I'm sure people will tell me why.
>
>>No, you are right: that's the whole point. The anglophones description
>>of their rights as being "individual" (thus the nec-plus-ultra of
>>rights) and the francophones as beign "collective" (thus oppressive)
>>is just a way to legitimize their complaints. 
>
>Dividing all demands into "individual" and "collective" can be confusing.
>For example, Josee Legault defines collective rights to be rights
>claimed by a person "as member of" or "on behalf of" a group, as opposed to
>individual rights claimed by a person "as an individual".
>
>But: individual rights are often called "Human rights" which we could say
>are claimed "as a member of the human race."  Animal rights groups claim
>rights for animals "as beings capable of suffering."  Are human rights
>then collective rights?
>
>Do the terms have any meaning at all?

In my mind, the terms are very significant, especially these days.
If collective rights can be used to overide individual rights, then 
it is time to start worrying.

Collective rights are actually pointless. They are totally redundant!
If you respect the individual, and prevent his oppression, or his
rights being diminished or restricted, it is logically impossible
for the collective society he belongs to be opressed. The converse
is NOT true: just because you gaurantee collective rights, doesn't
mean you protect an idividual from being harmed.

I think this emphasis on collective rights is pretty foreign to our
western, liberal intellectual tradition, that has always favoured the 
individual.

What's starting to happen is this kind of socialized politically correct
view showing up in government. Ontario or BC is a nice example:
the NDP are seeking to create a class of oppressed people, who must be 
specially defended by governemnts. All this does is created splintered
groups of people who are perpetually complaining, and looking outside 
themselves for someone to protect them, even when they may not need it.

THe argument is that these people are inherently oppressed, and need
special collective rights to protect them. This may be well intentioned,
but it's not the way the problem should be tackled. For example,
quotas and other special rights are used. In our society, victims
of wrong doing should have their redress, and the culprits must be punished.
Unlike others, our society does not punish an entire village just because
one of them stole the king's horse. That attitude is totally mediaevel
(if it ever had a basis in European laws at all). The NDP etc. might spout
stuff like there's no such thing as reverse discrimination, or those with
"power" can not be oppressed. We also don't pass laws, and then start 
punishing people retroactively, or without any conviction by trial.

This is what quotas and collective rights *may* achieve, in their well
intentioned, but typically muddle headed way. It may be nice to have 
3 male and 3 female senators, or MPs or whatever, but legsilating it
would in fact be pronouncing the other males who might have filled (or not)
the other spots guilty of oppressing the females. Our system says:
prove they did, before you could restrict them.

These collective rights are showing up in quotas for the senate, or 
employment equity, or mandatory racial quotas etc. There may be inequity,
and where there is a culprit respsonsible, then find and punish them.
we don't punish/oppress John Smith, white guy, to make an example to the
others.

If instead protect the indivual, then other individuals are not sacrificed
to make a social/political point, and the genuinely wronged person can
have justice.

>
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
>Montreal


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics