Opponents to Multiculturalism Argue That

Opponents to multiculturalism argue that the state focuses too much on the importance of cultural diversity and too little on the necessity of each culture affirming its own heritance. Since this is the case, opponents further argue, xenophobia and extremism is on the increase. Drawing upon human rights law, Xanthaki (2010) seeks to show that human rights law endorses multicultural policies and seeks to promote a multicultural vision. Xanthaki (2010) also discusses current challenges concerning multiculturalism.

Although multiculturalism is partially addressed in international / human rights law and then only indirectly, it is certain that international law insists upon protecting and respecting individual cultures. On the other hand, there may be instances where according to their particular cultural demands, cultures may separate themselves from their host-country and create problems with this host country. In that instance, care should be taken in the measures that governments apply when dealing with minorities and in the policies that they adopt.

In other words, there is a limitation to affirmative action, and the larger country is taken into consideration when minority groups press for rights that differ to the situation extant in, or the policies shared by, that larger country, particularly when hostility to those minority groups might accrue as a result.

Does multiculturalism foster fundamentalism and undermine national identity? Xanthaki (2010) argues that the contrary is the case since the recognition of multiple cultural frameworks not only encourages anchoring in one's particular culture but also fosters a feeling of devotion to the larger country as a whole. International law argues the importance of interaction, consequently promoting the idea of reciprocity amongst cultures: that they share equal obeisance both to their particular country and to the surrounding culture. When allegiance is in conflict, the state's duty is to promote dialogue.

On the other hand, cultural practices that violate human rights or human dignity such as female circumcision or wearing the burka cannot be justified since, even though condoned by particular group, they are opposed to the larger standards of the principles of human rights.

In a very different issue, Bunch (1990) argues that women's rights are ignored by the general human rights movements, argues that consideration of women must be added to human rights definitions in order that better account should be taken of women's lives and that they be accorded the treatment and notice that they so clearly deserve. Destructive myths and violence should be eradicated. To that end, Bunch (1990) presents four different approaches that would link women's rights to human rights in order to address the issue in a concrete manner.

The human rights community, she concludes, need not see the gender issue as conflicting with other significant issues that need to be addressed. On the contrary, other issues should not be abandoned. Rather, human rights activists should cease to 'gate-keep and guard prerogatives' and conceptualize human rights issues as legitimate according to their own narrow standards. I found both essays fascinating. My one point of contention with Xanthaki (2010) is that reality shows fundamentalism to flourish despite the host country according respect and protection to that minority culture.

This is evident both with examples.