Human Rights & Multiculturalism: An Incoherent Couple (Thesis #2)

Is it impossible to reconcile multiculturalism with universal human rights?

In the ideal form, one must give to the other or neither survive. Perhaps a farce may survive, but not the fruition of either prescription, or perhaps it is better to say, proscription.

One demands stringent toleration on the back of constitutionalism in favor of negative rights.

The other demands conformity to a transnational declaration (not a constitution, which details rights that shall not be infringed, but rights that will be enforced.) with a universal claim of positive rights.

One is concerned only with the contents within the sovereign walls of the nation.

The other has no borders or limits. The sun never sets upon its purview.

The pessimist says the Declaration of Human Rights (DHR) is a legal instrument replacing just war doctrine. Defense of human rights is and will be used as justification for state aggression.

The optimist says that ignorance in primitive society (those societies who betray the principles outlined in the DHR are benighted uncivilized savages) is the only impediment to realizing an ideal, universally acceptable civilization founded upon the absolute application of the DHR.

I do not doubt that a more charitable view may be had, but the case here is only to say: there cannot be a claim in favor of utter toleration when conformity to one set of principles is required absolutely. That is, if the claim of multiculturalism was for absolute toleration, which it is not.

Multiculturalism preaches utter tolerance, but only within the secure confines of the US Constitution and her sovereign walls. The idea, then, that multiculturalism does not require the submission to the US Constitution, is bunk. The US Constitution is informed by a distinct culture. There must be a base measure of compatibility among civil participants living in accordance with the legal tradition of common law and evolved American positive law, derived from and becoming a common law and base culture. A simple example is that the American system rejects the law of German Wergeld or Arab Diya, or "blood money", a fusion of civil and criminal law whereby the victim's family is compensated for the murder of a family member, therein constituting a form of justice. In medieval Germany, murder is a crime perpetrated against a family. In the US, murder is a crime perpetrated against society (People v. X). To reject Wergeld is to reject medieval German law and culture. It does not satisfy the blossom of tolerance preached by some propagators of the doctrine of multiculturalism, because those misinformed ministers misunderstand that the doctrine cannot be and is not absolute.

Those who are filled with piety preach tolerance at the expense of this simple recognition of intolerance. This piety is in effect no more virtuous than another who shares that piety, but for another sect of tolerance. That is, as long as rejection does not infringe upon another's legal right to participate in society, assuming the subject conforms to the legal limits prescribed and proscribed by the Constitution bolstered by the cult of toleration (and intoleration- cultum tolerantia).

I cannot stress this enough. On a foundational level, there is the necessary conformity of all civilians to the law of the land, which is informed by the legitimizing effect of an allegiance to the common law and cult of tolerance. But that tolerance only rises to a certain height which does not betray the legal and cultural foundation of the nation. Multiculturalism accepts a foundation and therefore accepts limitations. It requires censure of certain cultures and laws.

However, multiculturalism is preached as a benevolent doctrine of toleration. But no. It is no more tolerant than the US Constitution which vests a measure of civil participation and guarantees a measure of privacy. If the doctrine is functionally anything significant, it is only a plea to be open-minded to the idea that others hold the capacity to conform to the culture enshrined in the US Constitution. It is a toleration of difference with the expectation that difference will be moot with respect to the common law and base cult of toleration. For instance, the freedom to express oneself in the form of dress and speech is guaranteed, including rainbow-dyed hair and immodest clothing. It holds with it, then, an edge of intolerance. One must be clothed insofar as their genitalia is covered. Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to patrons in the common phrase, "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

This sensibility is made even more evident when one observes how sharp the intolerance of the young left is toward nonconformists to their own normative doctrine. Ironically, the young left fight against the constrictions of normative prescriptions just to enforce their own normative prescriptions. It is now commonplace for young folks to announce their intolerance. I do not speak to their sense of justice, but to the principle of the notion, that indeed, they hold up a doctrine of tolerance underwritten by intolerance. It is as much a duality as it is a paradox. Presentists claim transcendent justice.

If multiculturalism is given the gravity of some new form of toleration beyond the American cultum tolerantia, then it must either be utter and absolute or limited and select.

The doctrine of multiculturalism bears the burden of defining its limits, which changes over time, but only to include languages and mores of other civilizations that do not betray the base of the host nation's law and culture.

The DHR is yet another document founding a new base. It requires conformity to its base principles, informed by a culture, just like the US constitution is. The DHR cultural base is principally informed by the so-called West (or one might say, the 'developed world.').

You must choose between becoming intolerant of difference by enforcing the DHR or submit that the DHR is a reflection of one kind of civilization, but not all, and therefore accede that the DHR is not universal and therefore not sufficient grounds for benevolent intervention or just war.

If utter toleration were ever the ideal, one must be tolerant of another's 'benighted savagery' right next door.

"What are our neighbors up to, tonight?"

"It was quite the battle on the grid iron today, but poor Jimmy, the strongest on the team was pummeled by the descendant of that Aztec warrior family living next door... so his heart is being sacrificed as we speak. At least they have the decency to grill it using grade A hickory."

"Lovely."

This exists Nowhere, but in the myths (plus hickory) concerning the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, sometime before the 16th century CE. And Nowhere is this practice, a relic of a rich and powerful civilization, to be found.

So, I'm saying three things:

1) Multiculturalism is not a doctrine of absolute tolerance.

2) The DHR is nakedly intolerant.

3) Nations of a common law and base culture are the only viable hosts of multiculturalism, granted that the ideal of multiculturalism is not absolute, and therefore delineates its tolerance with its intolerance- i.e embracing the American cultum tolerantia.

Therefore, multiculturalism is necessarily incompatible with the universal DHR only insofar as its enforcement lacks legitimacy. That legitimacy can be found in a common law and base culture. Multiculturalism in effect, then, will only reign when one nation and its law is common and its culture base. This is infeasible without an element of intolerance. Drop the negatives. Multiculturalism is feasible with an element of intolerance.

If there is ever to be a true world congress with a universal document, it wont look like the DHR. It must be federalist and at least bicameral. And it must be a federalism that can relieve the pressures of difference caused by abundance, leisure and technology, or equally by scarcity, obligation and alienation. Why should I ever sacrifice my gain for someone who lives thousands of miles away? Ask an American. It is achievable in a similar fashion to the development of the American Republic.

Above all, the discourse must recognize that with tolerance there is also intolerance and that virtue in this case is not found in absolutes, but in the excruciatingly difficult task of accepting those who are different and rejecting those (others) who are different. It is a matter of prudence, will and choice. And there is no choice that does not have an opportunity cost. Drop the negatives. Every choice has an opportunity cost.