Does Institutionalising Reasonable Accommodation Increase Conscientious Objections of Medical Professionals?

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 96-96
Author(s):  
Ryoko Ishikawa ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Reasonable Accommodation ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Substantial Equality

"In January 2020, the Council of Europe has rejected a resolution that recommends reasonable accommodation of employee’s religious practices in the workplace. The concept of reasonable accommodation emerged in the United States and in Canada to allow some flexibility in the application of laws to achieve substantial equality for all, as uniform application of seemingly neutral laws can cause disadvantages to ethnic or religious minorities, and people with disability. However, reasonable accommodation of religious practices in the workplace such as hospitals is often criticised in two ways; first, it makes it easier for the doctors to register a conscientious objection against providing abortion or reproductive treatment and thus harms women’s reproductive rights. Second, in the same manner, medical professionals may use reasonable accommodation as an excuse to refrain from providing certain medical care to sexual minorities. The purpose of this paper is to indicate that such secularist criticisms of reasonable accommodation are implausible. To show this, this paper first reviews the idea of reasonable accommodation in North America and Europe. Then, the reasonable accommodation debate occurred in Québec, Canada and the report by Bouchard-Taylor Commission (2007-2008) are examined in light of theories of deliberative democracy to illustrate the asymmetry of power between the majority and the minority groups in the negotiation process. Lastly, this paper argues that reasonable accommodation as a means to negotiate the demands for accommodation of religious practices is limited. Thus it is unlikely to undermine the fundamental liberal values of the majority. "

Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 207-214
Author(s):  
Spencer W. McBride
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Mob Violence ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Joseph Smith ◽  
Southern States

The Conclusion of the book considers the extent to which Joseph Smith was correct that the states’ rights doctrine condoned mob violence against religious minorities and that the United States would never experience universal religious freedom without a federal government empowered to protect religious minorities. The Missouri militia’s invocation of the violent expulsion of Mormons from the state as their plan to expel abolitionists in the 1850s is examined as a telling example. Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign and its tragic end encapsulate the failure of nineteenth-century Americans to establish universal religious freedom. Many Americans championed states’ rights as a way to maintain race-based slavery in the Southern states, but few acknowledged that this philosophy also disadvantaged religious minority groups. The Conclusion also considers the role of systemic religious discrimination in federal policy for the management of Utah Territory and the multiple denied applications for Utah statehood.

Religious Freedom and Equality Concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2001 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Ishiyama Smithey
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Ethnic Communities ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Religious Convictions

Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. In interpreting the Charter, the courts have interpreted this provision to prevent the legislatures from discriminating against religious minorities by promoting particular religious practices. Judges have been much less willing to protect religious minority groups from secular laws that interfere with their religious convictions. The religion cases hold important implications for those concerned about cultural diversity and the equality of Canada's many ethnic communities, as well as for the debate over the increased power of courts under the Charter.

Institutional listening in deliberative democracy: Towards a deliberative logic of transmission

Politics ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026339572110606
Author(s):  
Mary F Scudder ◽  
Selen A Ercan ◽  
Kerry McCallum
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Formal Institutions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Institutional Responses ◽  
The Public Sphere

This article explores the role of institutional listening in deliberative democracy, focusing particularly on its contribution to the transmission process between the public sphere and formal institutions. We critique existing accounts of transmission for prioritizing voice over listening and for remaining constrained by an ‘aggregative logic’ of the flow of ideas and voices in a democracy. We argue that formal institutions have a crucial role to play in ensuring transmission operates according to a more deliberative logic. To substantiate this argument, we focus on two recent examples of institutional listening in two different democracies: Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the United States’ Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. These cases show that institutional listening can take different forms; it can be purposefully designed or incidental, and it can contribute to the realization of deliberative democracy in various ways. Specifically, institutional listening can help enhance the credibility and visibility of minority groups and perspectives while also empowering these groups to better hold formal political institutions accountable. In these ways, institutional listening helps transmission operate according to a more deliberative logic.

Religious Regulation: Discrimination Against Religious Minorities

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Religious Identity ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
World Region ◽  
Definition Of

The definition of the term “religious discrimination” is contested, but for the purposes of this discussion religious discrimination is defined as restrictions on the religious practices or institutions of minority religions that are not placed on the majority religion. Religious discrimination can include restrictions on (a) religious practices, (b) religious institutions and clergy, (c) conversion and proselytizing, and (d) other types of discrimination. Globally, 88.5% of countries discriminate against at least one religious minority, and religious discrimination is becoming more common over time. Religious discrimination is the norm worldwide regardless of world region, government type, and majority religion. Motivations to discriminate are multiple and complex. They include (a) differences in religious ideologies and beliefs—many religions are ideologically intolerant of other religions; (b) religious organizations seeking an institutional monopoly in a country; (c) religious beliefs and practices running counter to liberal and secular values, including human rights; (d) countries seeking to protect their national culture from outside influences, including nonindigenous religions; (e) countries having anti-cult policies; (f) countries restricting minority religious practices that are considered objectionable to the national ideology or culture; (g) a historical conflict between minority groups and the majority; (h) the perception of minorities as a security threat; (i) the perception of minorities as a political threat ; (j) long-lasting historical tensions between the majority and minority; (k) national politicians mobilizing supporters along religious lines; (l) societal prejudices against minorities leading to government-based discrimination; (m) religious identity; (n) general discrimination that is also applicable to religious minorities. Although these are among the most common motivations for discrimination, in many cases the motivations are unique to the specific situation.

L’angle mort de la « laïcité ouverte » : les processus de navigation et négociations dans le vécu religieux au Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Selby ◽  
Lori G Beaman ◽  
Amélie Barras
Keyword(s):  
Power Relations ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Reasonable Accommodation ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Power Asymmetries ◽  
Institutional Values ◽  
Two Cities ◽  
The Status

Building on our critiques of the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities in Canada (see Selby et al., 2018a ; Beaman, 2017 ; Barras, 2016), this paper argues for attention to processes as intrinsic to everyday interactions of religiosity (following Tully, 1995, 2000 ; Van Quaquebeke et al., 2007). We contend that frameworks like Maclure and Taylor’s (2010) on ‘open’ and ‘closed’ secularism are useful for nation state comparison, but ineffectively account for the power asymmetries lodged within everyday religiosity. Their model protects the status quo ; it does not call institutional values or procedures into question, erases the navigation that occurs before an ‘accommodation’ is requested, and entrenches conflict as reflective of the experiences of religious minorities. Based on interviews with 90 self-defined Muslims in two cities, we propose a model of navigation and negotiation to better capture how religious practices are contextual and embedded in power relations.

Doing Justice, Preventing Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tonry
Keyword(s):  
Structural Changes ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Three Strikes ◽  
Moral Cost ◽  
Main Ideas

In the 2020s, no informed person disagrees that punishment policies and practices in the United States are unprincipled, chaotic, and much too often unjust. The financial costs are enormous. The moral cost is greater: countless individual injustices; mass incarceration; the world’s highest imprisonment rate; extreme disparities, especially affecting members of racial and ethnic minority groups; high rates of wrongful conviction; assembly-line case processing; and a general absence of respectful consideration of offenders’ interests, circumstances, and needs. The main ideas in this book about doing justice and preventing crime are simple: Treat people charged with and convicted of crimes justly, fairly, and even-handedly, as anyone would want done for themselves or their children. Take sympathetic account of the circumstances of peoples’ lives. Punish no one more severely than he or she deserves. Those propositions are implicit in the rule of law and its requirement that the human dignity of every person be respected. Three major structural changes are needed. First, selection of judges and prosecutors, and their day-to-day work, must be insulated from political influence. Second, mandatory minimum sentence, three-strikes, life without parole, truth in sentencing, and similar laws must be repealed. Third, correctional and prosecution systems must be centralized in unified state agencies.

Tolerance and Accommodation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Diversity ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere

This chapter problematizes the notions and language of tolerance and accommodation in relation to religious diversity, and traces their genealogy both as legal solutions and as discursive frameworks within which religious diversity is increasingly understood in the public sphere. The problem they pose is that they create a hierarchy of privilege that preserves hegemonic power relations by religious majorities over religious minorities. Tolerance in this context might be imagined as the broadly stated value that we must deal with diversity and those who are different from us by tolerating them. Accommodation might be seen as the implementation of this value—that in order to demonstrate our commitment to tolerance we must accommodate the ‘demands’ of minority groups and those individuals who position themselves or align themselves with minorities.

The Empire of Disgust

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Change Point ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Swimming Pools ◽  
Economic Class ◽  
Group Resistance

All known societies exclude and stigmatize one or more minority groups. Frequently these exclusions are underwritten with a rhetoric of disgust: people of a certain group, it is alleged, are filthy, hyper-animal, or not fit to share such facilities as drinking water, food, and public swimming pools with the ‘clean’ and ‘fully human’ majority. But exclusions vary in their scope and also in the specific disgust-ideologies underlying them. In this volume, interdisciplinary scholars from the United States and India present a detailed comparative study of the varieties of prejudice and stigma that pervade contemporary social and political life: prejudice along the axes of caste, race, gender, age, sexual orientation, transgender, disability, religion, and economic class. In examining these forms of stigma and their intersections, the authors present theoretically pluralistic and empirically sensitive accounts that both explain group-based stigma and suggest ways forward. These forward-looking remedies, including group resistance to subordination as well as institutional and legal change, point the way towards a public culture that is informed by our diverse histories of discrimination and therefore equipped to eliminate stigma in all of its multifaceted forms.

Racialized Political Consumerism in the United States

2018 ◽  
pp. 680-698
Author(s):  
Bo Yun Park
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American History ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Consumerism ◽  
White Supremacist ◽  
Political Tradition ◽  
Democratic Societies

In the United States, political consumerism has evolved alongside the country’s racial struggles. Throughout American history, ethnoracial minority groups have used different forms of racialized political consumerism in order to advance their rights. White supremacist groups have also taken part in boycotts to promote their cause. Addressing the need to assess the meaning and significance of a tactic that is considered to be a longstanding political tradition, this chapter provides an analytical guide for the study of racialized political consumerism in democratic societies. It does so by (1) illustrating the historical and contemporary uses of political consumerism in racial struggles in the United States, (2) examining the different forms of political consumerism used by ethnoracial minorities, and (3) discussing the theoretical value of the concept of racialized political consumerism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document