Questions About the Reasonable Accommodation of Minorities
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The furore following the lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury in early 2008—where Dr Rowan Williams discussed the prospect of some limited form of Shari’a being introduced into Britain—reminds us that the accommodation of minorities is seldom an uncontroversial or straightforward subject. The UK debate quickly degenerated into a heated and polarized discussion that, with few exceptions, neglected to undertake a constructive analysis of the underlying issues and policy concerns. In this brief essay I hope at least to partly redress that shortcoming by illuminating some key questions that a modern liberal state confronts in legally accommodating the religious and cultural claims of minority groups. The title of this essay refers to the ‘reasonable accommodation of minorities’. I take this to mean accommodation within a modern legal system of the norms and requirements of their culture or religion or of the law associated with their culture or religion or associated elsewhere with a political community of which they and their ancestors were once a part. I shall assume that the accommodations occurs within the framework of a comprehensive system of law in a modern democratic state. Among other things, ‘accommodation’ might include (i) exemptions from generally applicable prohibitions or requirements to permit actions (or omissions) required by minority norms but presently prohibited by general law, or (ii) giving legal effect to transactions (such as certain types of marriage or property transactions) structured and controlled by norms other than those used to structure and control similar transaction in the general system of law. (An example of (ii) might be the introduction and recognition of marriage as defined by Shari’a law within the general framework of British law or Israeli law of the law of Ontario.) I assume that ‘accommodation’ does not include devolution of government, in a sense that would allow a minority community to determine, for example, (iii) the imposition of punishments for crimes that were more severe than, or different in character from, the punishments imposed by the general legal system (amputation for theft, for example). Possibly accommodations of type (i) might have something in common with accommodations of type (iii)—for example, allowing minority groups freedom from constraints on corporal punishment imposed generally on parents. But the idea of devolution and regional autonomy, with different legal systems (what the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Shari’a Lecture called ‘parallel jurisdictions’), is in principle separable from the idea of accommodation within the framework of a single overarching legal system associated—importantly here—with a single state in control of the legitimate means of coercion. So I shall not discuss accommodations of type (iii).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle