Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
I'm curious: In your opinion, does the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Gladue treat group identity as more important than individual actions or does it seek to minimize the systemic negative effects of group identity that already exist?
It's a sincere question. Put another way: Are additional sentencing considerations for aboriginal offenders from troubled backgrounds "identity politics" or good law meant to maximize the individual freedom of people who might otherwise be disadvantaged by their group identity?
I'm surprised that there are so many posters who are so confident that they k kW where to draw the line. I'm not so confident.
|
To take something as mind-meltingly complex and nuanced as the forces that shape a person's life outcomes, and to wrap it up in such a tidy package is:
A) Intellectually untenable, and
B) Fundamentally illiberal and a threat to liberal democracy.
It yields absurdities like a third-generation doctor being granted 'oppressed' status and a drywaller who grew up in poverty deemed 'privileged' simply because of their genders. Or where a man who rapes a Native woman is less likely to spend time in prison than a man who rapes a non-Native woman.
The more we institutionalise group identities in our political and economic systems, the more
all groups will exert their political will through these identities. Women and men. Natives and whites. The notion that a narrative of collective guilt will deter working class whites or low-status men from actively organizing along gender and race lines is astonishing in its naivete. I don't know how anyone who has any familiarity with human history can believe this will turn out well.