Should groups in liberal democracies have special rights to limit speech that is offensive to their culture or religion

My topic is an analysis of the various theories of multiculturalism and how they would respond to controversial issues concerning freedom of speech with regard to religious sensitivities.While Western nations have often concentrated on 'nation building', or the integration of citizens into public institutions, there has been the emerging trend of minority rights and 'multiculturalism' (Kymlicka, 2001, pp.2-3).Groups with diverse interests and political agendas are resisting assimilation into wider society and are struggling for acceptence, respect and public affirmation of their differences (Parekh, 2000, p. 1).While the nation state has not become obselete, many of its traditional functions have lost their relevance and value and we therefore need to reconceptualize its nature and role (Parekh, 2000, pp.193-194).Many nations have a new found interest in multicultural policies and Australia has declared itself multicultural in the early 1970's as did Canada; Contents 1.Huntington describes what he calls a 'civilization' as 'the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species.It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people' (Huntington, 1993, p. 2).Huntington believes that the causes of the conflict will be firstly; the differences of culture, language and more importantly religion.Secondly, the fact that the world is becoming smaller and there are increasing interactions between peoples, as well as increasing immigration.Thirdly, social change and modernization has resulted in people seeking a local identity and often this takes the form of religion.Many groups in turn are turning inward and, for example, 're-lslamising'.Fourthly, a culture's characteristics are less mutable and less easily compromised than political or economic ones and as people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms they begin to see relations as 'us' versus 'them'.To the argument that Western civilization befits all men, Huntington states: At a superficial level much of Western culture has indeed permeated the rest of the world.At a more basic level, however, Western concepts differ fundamentally from those prevalent in other civilizations.Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures (1993, p. 14).The alternatives to adopting western values and 'band-wagoning' are that states may become isolationist or develop power to balance Western power while preserving indigenous values.As Roy states, 'at a time when the territorial borders between great civilizations are fading away, mental borders are being reinvented to give second life to the ghost of lost civilizations: multiculturalism, minority groups, clash or dialogue of civilizations, communitarisation and so on.Ethnicity and religion are called to draw new borders between groups whose identity relies on a performative definition: we are what we say we are, or what others say we are' (Roy, 2005, p. 7).From a philosophical point of view, Huntington believes the West will have to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other cultures.Cultures will have to seek out common ground and try to co-exist with one another as different civilizations if conflict is to be turned into co-operation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.