I am not going to get into a squabble over variants of liberalism.
That is not what is being discussed. If you do not like the idea of certain variants of liberalism, argue against multiculturalism from that vantage point; do not argue it's effectiveness.
If you had read carefully enough however you would have noticed an important distinction that Taylor makes when characterizing group rights which in fact makes them fairly compatible with your vision of ideal liberalism.
The fundamental principle of liberalism is the directive of individual freedom and rights, this is not my vision of ideal liberalism, it
is ideal liberalism. Any argument that challenges this most basic principle of liberalism is not one I will entertain, so you have carelessly misconstrued my position if you thought I intended to squabble over "varients" of liberalism. This is not to say that liberalism is trivial to the argument of multiculturalism, on the contrary it is the fulcrum on which multiculturalism is debated. The concept of multiculturalism is the construct of liberal philosophy and is not at all recognized in illiberal societies.
I have read Taylor's theory carfully and encourage you to do the same. He makes it clear that the concept of multiculturalism is not compatable with
the ideals of liberalism, he thus proposes the idea of "group rights" so that the aims or goals of ethnoculture minority groups can be recognized without restricting individual rights. The idea of group rights functions on the fixed belief that ethnoculture minority groups can claim rights against the larger establishment in order to reduce its vulnerability. However Taylor admits that some ethnoculture groups may claim rights against its own members, particularly the right to restrict individual choice in the name of cultural tradition or cultural "integrity" which
violates individual rights. Futhurmore Taylor fails to consider that the larger liberal establishment is itself vulnerable to the rights and claims of the ethnoculture minority groups. A liberal theory of cultural minority groups can not accept such internal and external individual rights restrictions.
Goonie said:
One example: FIFA ruled that women playing soccer can be allowed to wear headscarves for religious reasons. The no head wear during game rule was designed to protect individual players from the dangers of headwear that could cause serious injury (i.e. strangulation) during games. Since headscarves did not pose this threat, and allowed a group to observe their religion, headscarves were deemed legal. Soccer bodies in Canada have followed suit. This is a reasonable accomodation of a culture that allows it's continued existence and prosperity while allowing that culture to integrate into society.
Yes, this a classic example of the failed concept of multiculturalism. There are many women in that religiousculture group who do not desire to wear the hijab, yet they are forced to do so. The religious claimants are exercising their cultural "group rights" to restrict individual choice which again, violates the liberal principle of individual rights. This is also an example of how vulnerable the liberal establishment is to the claims of illiberal "group rights." The only quality that can be seen as a positive process of integration in your example above is the fact that these Muslim women are playing in front of an audience that are both male and female which is inconceivable in countries that are predominantly Islamic. That my friend is an example of assimilation, not multiculturalism.
I asked you to elaborate on the guidelines or limits to cultural prosperity, and instead of answering the question you present an example which exposes the falliblity of multiculuralism.
Multiculturalism is a process of intergration. Integration does not equal assimilation or cultural homogeny.
Assimilaltion in liberal societies equates to the process of integration which (unlike multiculturalism) does not emphasize race or ethnic differences, but rather on
equality.
