[[

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE INTOLERABLE

o My part will be on the good and bad sides of the group and individual rights. Mathias will continue on the
intolerable rights section. Overall, I will be focusing on main issues related with the good and bad, the
relationship between group and individual rights, the types of group rights and the Group Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
o In Kymlicka’s book key issues related with what is good and bad in connection with individual and group
rights are discussed. In the book it is also clearly mentioned that the bases for Traditional HRs doctrines are
inherent dignity and equality of all individuals.
o However, this was arguable from the point that - much emphasis on group rights seems to treat individuals as
the mere carriers of group identities rather than as autonomous individuals capable of defining their own
identity in their life. so, it is believed that this seems to subordinate the individual's freedom to the group's claim
to protect its historical traditions/cultural purity

1. The good, the bad and intolerable

o Will Kymlicka identified these as good and bad group rights. According to him, GRs that supplement and
strengthen human rights, by responding to potential injustices that traditional rights doctrine cannot address are
“good" group rights while cases where illiberal groups seek to restrict the basic liberties of their members as
"bad" group rights. He also considered some illiberal practices as not only bad but intolerable and the larger
society has a right to intervene to stop them. The Author said drawing the line between the bad and the
intolerable is one of the harshest issues liberal democracies face.

2. Relationship between group and individual rights

o Kymlicka also tried to look the relationship between group and individual rights in the context of the claims of
indigenous peoples especially in North America. These indigenous people already have rights for self-
government, legally recognized land claims and use of their own language. Thus, he believed that indigenous
peoples are useful for several reasons.
s
 His First reason was; they have been at the lead of the movement toward recognizing group rights at the
international level -
 Based on this he concluded that group rights are not a new issuesa and this is an evidence that shows the
"natives’’ were fighting for rights relating to their land, languages, and self-government.
 He also beadded that, in relation to indigenous people nothing has been changed in recent years rather
their demands have become more visible and that the larger society has started to listen to them

3. Two kinds of group rights

Kymlicka also discussed on the two important distinction of group rights:

1. The first one is the claim of an indigenous group against their own members; which intended to protect a
group from the destabilizing impact of internal conflict- mainly individual decision. This also involve intra
group relationships and Kymlicka categorized this as internal restriction and, he also believes that legally
imposed internal restrictions are always unreasonable.
2. The second one is the claim of an indigenous group against the larger society with the intention to protect
the group from the impact of external factors related with economy and political policies what Kymilcka
called it external protection. In relation to this he believes that indigenous group seeks to protect their
distinct existence and identity by limiting their vulnerability to the decisions of the larger society. reserving
land for the exclusive use of indigenous peoples, self-governance t powers and language rights are
mentioned as typical examples here
[[

o However, initially there was a debate whether the internal restrictions and external protections of the
indigenous people are in relation to the idea of liberal democracy but later it has been justified that internal
restrictions are almost inherently in conflict with liberal democratic norms and external protections are also not
so long as promote equality between groups rather than allowing one group to oppress another. Of course, this
needs further discussion and analysis.
4. The Group Rights of Indigenous Peoples
o Regarding the group rights of indigenous people in Kymilka’s book the claims making people indigenous are
raised. Which are mainly related with self-government rights, language rights, land reservation rights
o According to Kymilka many indigenous groups have adopted their own internal distinctive feature like
constitutional bills of rights - guaranteeing their freedom of religion, speech, press, conscience, association
and a speedy and public trial.

However, this was also controversial and there were typical cases in relation to this: For instance: -

o In Canada indigenous people have argued that their self-governing councils should not be subject to judicial
review under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
o They do not want their members to be challenged in the courts of the mainstream society. So in relation to this
there were two arguments:
1. On the one hand, the believe that demanding exemption from judicial review in the name of self-government,
for many people, is a cover behind which illiberal groups hide their oppressive practices. For example, there
was a concern related with Indian women in the United States and Canada - with the idea that they might be
discriminated against under certain systems of self-government, if these communities are exempted from the
constitutional requirement of sexual equality.
2. There was also another argument by many Indians with the idea that their self-government needs to be exempt
from the Bill of Rights, not in order to restrict the liberty of women or religious protestors, but to defend the
external protections of Indians vis-a-vis the larger society. They argued that their special rights to land/ to
hunting, or to group representation which reduce their vulnerability to external economic and political
decisions, could be struck down as discriminatory under the Bill of Rights. However, this was also challenged
by Indian leaders. Because, Indian leaders worry that white judges will impose their own culturally specific
form of democracy, without considering whether traditional Indian practices have an equally valid interpretation
of democratic principles.

Conclusion: Thus, the main argument here was related with the idea that it is difficult for outsiders to assess the
likelihood of self-government for an indigenous minority will lead to the suppression of basic individual rights. For
instance, there was a case in India, if female members marry outside the tribe, their children are denied membership.
But if men marry outside the tribe, the children are members. This discrimination is against the international and
regional human rights instruments

My Reflection on the Book - Just finally I would say :

o I believe important issues have been raised and discussed in the book by Kymilcka’s on the good, bad and
intolerable rights of individuals and groups as well
o I understood that Fundamental HRs can be violated in the name of indigenous people’s rights. The case of
Indian ladies can be a typical lesson for this. And
o I believe that there should be a mechanism that protects all the fundamental claims/ entitlements in the
international HRs instruments
o Unless otherwise it is difficult to say and conclude HRs are Universal and inherent rights since there are still
debatable issues that negatively affect the rights of individuals as a group or as an individual.

This is all I wanted to raise in Kymilcka’s book. Thank you