Thread: Gavin's Workbook

Should individual rights take precedence over collective rights? Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau believes so. He maintains that if Canada were to provide group rights to collectives, this could potentially create oppressive conditions for individuals. For this reason, he argues that it is imperative that individual rights be given priority over group rights. On the other hand, political theorist Paul Marshal states that this fear does not justify the eradication of group identities and suggests that collectives should be recognized and respected in the world of politics, not repudiated. To bolster his argument, he points to various examples where groups rights have been utilized for the public benefit. More so than a debate over rights, it is a clash of ideologies.

In "Values in a Just Society," Pierre Elliott Trudeau argues that individual rights must be given priority over group rights, otherwise "we are faced with a dictatorship, which arranges citizens in a hierarchy according to their beliefs...." Using the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the bedrock of his argument, he states that these documents positioned the individual above the state and all it's institutions - effectively recognizing that "all sovereignty resides in the people." They unified the citizens of Canada around a set of common values - most importantly, the idea of equality for all. In addition, these documents guaranteed the individual certain rights that they could not be deprived of by any collective - governmental, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. It stands to reason, Trudeau argues, that only an individual may possess rights. A group may collectively exercise the rights of it's members on their behalf, but it's does so strictly as a representative body, not an entity with intrinsic rights of it's own.

Trudeau concludes that the Charter aims to protect the individual from the tyranny of both the state and the majority. It does this due to the fact that Canada is a pluralist society comprised of a wide array of minorities including ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups; the tensions between these disparate collectives have largely been the the most significant obstacles on Canada's march toward national unity. Trudeau contends that if group rights were to be awarded to these collectives - particularly to ones associated with specific regions, such as the French Canadians in Quebec - it would prove to be problematic for those individuals who live in close proximity to a given collective but do not share it's defining characteristics. Thus, instead of providing these collectives with groups rights, Trudeau sees fit to award rights to the individuals that comprise them.

In response, in his essay "The Importance of Group Rights," Paul Marshall defends the validity of group rights, disputing the claim that they are a threat to individual rights. Some insist that groups are ultimately collections of individuals; thus, the best way to preserve the culture of a collective - be they French Canadian, Native, or otherwise - is to protect the rights of the individuals that make up that collective. Marshal contends that this view is too idealistic and ignores the realities of the world. In his perspective, Canada cannot be seen simply as a collection of individuals; it is an amalgam of many group-oriented collectives including various cultural, religious, and political bodies. He asserts that these associations need to be "recognized and accommodated in concrete political arrangements." Pressing further, he claims that although tensions may arise between the disparate groups, the mere possibility of conflict is not reason enough to eliminate group identities from politics altogether. Rather, the state ought to determine how to deal with these group identity issues in as effective and efficient a manner as possible.

Although these types of rights are often met with cynicism - sometimes even described as a form of prejudice themselves - Marshall reminds the reader that there are global examples of governments acknowledging group rights out of commitment to intercultural harmony. To illustrate his point, he refers to one such case in which the government of Finland, in an effort to preserve the distinct culture of the Aaland Islands, prevented non-islanders from buying property there. This effectively protected a minority from being overwhelmed and absorbed into the homogeneity of the majority. Canadian examples also abound, such as the Constitutional Act allowing governments to intervene and provide aid to disadvantaged groups, language rights being awarded to speakers of English and French, Aboriginal rights, etc. In essence, Marshall argues that group rights are prevalent in most societies all across the political spectrum - they are not, as some would believe, exclusive to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.

While some critics, Pierre Trudeau for example, acknowledge the importance of group rights and the need to protect them, they maintain that individual rights must always be given precedence lest the rights of the collective create oppressive conditions for the individual. Marshal acknowledges that there may be cases where individual rights do in fact outweigh group rights, just as there may be cases where the opposite holds true. Depending on the circumstances, he argues, the interests of the individual and those of the group must be weighed on balance with the importance of the particular rights in question. As such, Marshal concludes, the validity of group rights must not be derided or dismissed, rather it should be recognized on par with the legitimacy of individual rights.
These two opposing viewpoints illustrate the potential influence one's ideology can have on their understanding of the socio-political climate, and thus the sort of solutions they seek when confronted with an issue. Trudeau's unwavering emphasis on the individual and his disdain for collectivist views are explained by his identification with liberalism. According to his beliefs, the interests of the individual should be weighed more heavily than those of the state or any other collective. In contrast, Marshall's willingness to entertain the collectivist approach when faced with political unrest reveals that the liberal notion of human nature is not universally held. In this case, it is in direct conflict with the understanding of human nature as conceptualized by Marshall's respective ideological preference. In short, this debate highlights the fundamental differences in the various political ideologies of our day and the effects they can have on the formation of the policies that govern our lives.