Collective rights are the rights guaranteed to certain groups in Canadian society for historical and constitutional reasons. In Canada Aboriginal peoples; such as the First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis, the Francophone and the Anglophone populace are recognized as the founding peoples of Canada. The rights belonging to the groups are entrenched in the constitution because they are a part of the collective identity and are the founding peoples of Canada. Rights develop over time; they are not things that happen overnight. The rights of groups can be best reflected in their education system and what is being done to affirm their rights. Canada has put a lot of effort into affirming the collective rights of First Nations, but the attempt so far has been unsuccessful.
Since Europeans first settled in Canada, First Nations have been treated poorly. Starting from 1763 the numbered treaties were put into action between Britain and the First Nations to protect the collective rights of Canadian Aboriginals. The treaties required First Nations to share their land and resources with the British. A variety of topics were covered within the numbered treaties, from reserves, education, annuities and many other matters.( Lychak, P., Gerrits, A. D., Nogue, A., Parsons, J., 2008)However, the numbered treaties put no consideration towards the natural rights of first nations. The treatment of the founding group was extremely disrespectful and unwarranted. Ethnocentric views of the Europeans at the time caused them to make laws for the First nations without the First Nations knowing, they were seen as people that needed proper guidance. The British government thought that by telling the First Nation communities how they should govern themselves they could be better assimilated. As a way of controlling and assimilating the aboriginal, the government made the Indian Act of 1876. The Indian act was also a part of the Royal Proclamation; helping to strengthen trade alliances and...
Professor Michael Miller
22 February 2013
Entering the Conversation: Collective Memory and National Identity
In the first few weeks of this class, we were given three sources that have a common theme between them and in this paper, I will discuss what it is, and what that theme means for us. The theme that has been predominate in our sources is: collective memory and how it is presented to use as a nation. First off in my paper, I'm going to describe what collective memory is and some of the examples that were given to us in our sources. Secondly, I'm going to argue that collective memory only benefits the ones who can make money off of the event in question. Lastly, I'm going to explain events in which collective memory will help our future generation of leaders and lawmakers not make the same mistakes.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of collective memory is: "the memory of a group of people, passed from one generation to the next." (Definition of Collective Memory in Oxford Dictionaries) This definition is pretty vague and, without having some examples, pretty hard to wrap your head around. Some of the events that might be considered part of our collective memory are: The Holocaust, The Civil War, World War I and II, the assassination of Martin Luther King Junior and 9/11. While most...
...the collective goods problem? Provide an example to support the argument.
The issue of collective good has to be think in terms of international policies
Collective goods are, in theory, goods or services which represent two characteristics. The first one, called non-rivalry, means that the consumption of the good by an actor does not prevent its consumption by another one. The second characteristic, the exclusion, means that nobody is excluded from the consumption of this good.
The field of the world collective goods covers so many different domains such as: the reduction of the global warming, the basic research, the fight against the distribution of diseases (AIDS or malaria), the stability of financial markets, struggle against poverty, etc. Peace, free trade, and monetary and financial stability are sometimes considered collective goods that must be assured by international organizations or by hegemonic powers. The climate, water, air, biodiversity, international security, and knowledge are world collective goods too.
There are however very few domains where states share the same general interests. International security, financial stabilization, and food safety are polar opposites of the interests of salesmen of weapons, speculators and salesmen of surpluses of foodstuffs. That is why the issue of collective goods can only be resolved by compromises or superior...
...One would expect that a group of people with a common interest would naturally coordinate to exercise their common goal. However, this is generally not the case, as Mancur Olson, the author of The Logic of Collective Action, argues. Olson (2004: 2) states that "it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior." Collective action groups, without some sort of coercion or special device to make individual participants act in the interest of the group, will not succeed because "rational, self-interested individuals will not to act to achieve their common or group interests." Not every attempt at collective action has failed, however, and it is these successful cases that require further examination. The government had an impact on many of these cases, and from studying these events we can see that governments can solve collective action problems through the use of incentives and the legislation of coercion.
The underlying problem with collective action is the participants' inability to cooperate, contribute, and make agreements efficiently. For example, collective action is analogous with the idea of perfect competition in that all producers of an identical good seek to sell their good at a higher price. Because the goods are identical, however, firms must charge the same...
...personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Causes and Consequences of Collective Turnover:
A Meta-Analytic Review
Angela L. Heavey
Jacob A. Holwerda and John P. Hausknecht
Florida International University
Given growing interest in collective turnover (i.e., employee turnover at unit and organizational levels),
the authors propose an organizing framework for its antecedents and consequences and test it using
meta-analysis. Based on analysis of 694 effect sizes drawn from 82 studies, results generally support
expected relationships across the 6 categories of collective turnover antecedents, with somewhat stronger
and more consistent results for 2 categories: human resource management inducements/investments and
job embeddedness signals. Turnover was negatively related to numerous performance outcomes, more
strongly so for proximal rather than distal outcomes. Several theoretically grounded moderators help to
explain average effect-size heterogeneity for both antecedents and consequences of turnover. Relationships generally did not vary according to turnover type (e.g., total or voluntary), although the relative
absence of collective-level involuntary turnover studies is noted and remains an important avenue for
Keywords: collective turnover, organizational performance, retention, meta-analysis
The issue of collective...
CollectiveRights Mini-Handbook |
Created by Katrina Navarro |
Grade 9A |
* Collectiverights are rights Canadians hold because they belong to one of several groups in society. They are rights held by groups (peoples) in Canadian society that are recognized and protected by Canada’s constitution. Those groups include Aboriginals, Francophones and Anglophones.
* Collectiverights are different than individual rights. Every Canadian citizen and permanent resident has individual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the right to live anywhere in Canada.
* Collectiverights set Canada apart from other nations. For example, no groups (peoples) in the United States have rights recognized in the American constitution.
* Collectiverights reflect the idea of mutual respect among peoples. This idea has a long history in Canada. For example, it shaped the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701, among thirty-nine First Nations and the French.
What legislation establishes the collectiverights of groups in Canada?
* Treaty 6, 7, 8 states that the aboriginals could have health care,...
...Collective bargaining has been one in every of the corner stones for employees movement not solely in their quest to attain higher operating and living standards however additionally to carve out political and social house that enables them to form their future. In face of the mighty ‘capital’, solely the ‘collective’ power of employees has allowed them to discount and talk over since the beginning of business development. By the twentieth century, as a result of employees struggle, negotiation and freedom of association were recognised as basic rights and plenty of countries institutionalised negotiation by framing laws and making establishments preponderantly acting to mediate between capital and labour. However, the past few decades have clad to be ‘game changer’ with ‘neo-liberalism’ absorbing because the predominant economic and political discourse with the agenda to re-establish capital accumulation and restore the ability of economic elite. This little doubt concerned restructuring of the assembly house forcing employees to contend within the ‘race to bottom’ for lowest wages and vulnerable employment. Living up to its character, liberalism additionally ensured hostility against any kinds of social commonality and collective actions that might represent barriers to the unexampled capital accumulation. This LED to a significant decline within the membership of the unions – key pillars for negotiation, therefore...
... Ashleigh Chávez
U.S. History H
June 4, 2012
Strongly influenced by occurring civil right movements gays began their own movement. The Stonewall Riot was the first major revolt in which gays fought back against those who oppressed them and it helped push forward the Gay liberation movement. There had previously been many violent events previous to stonewall that involve gay bashing and cruel treatment of gays. One night at the Stonewall Inn, what seemed to be normal night, turned out to be a major event in Gay Liberation history. The next couple weeks after the Stonewall incident, gays began to move forward and push for equal treatment. The Stonewall raid is a turning point in gay liberation history in which gays made their first move.
The sixties were a different times for gays. The law was regularly against them. Due to the law being against them, the police were constantly bashing gays in legal ways (Gay Liberation). Constantly being ridiculed and offended by the cruel remarks like "faggot", "queer", "homosexual", "sexual deviate" just because they were homosexual. Since this was a communal way of treating gays, Mike Wallace said, “Two out of three Americans look at homosexuals with disgust, discomfort, or fear.” (Gay Pride) Gays couldn’t find safe places to meet without fear of being arrested and when in public they had to hide who they were. Because they couldn’t meet in public places without being arrested, they often met in...
There is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.
There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.
The consequences of animal rights
Animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals.
Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them.
Human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way.
For example: if animals have a right not to be bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food.
It makes no difference if the animals are given 5-star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain - it's just plain wrong in principle, and nothing can make it right.
Accepting the doctrine of animal rights means:
• No experiments on animals
• No breeding and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine
• No use of animals for hard labour
• No selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal
• No hunting
• No zoos or use of animals in entertainment
The case for animal rights
Philosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non-human animals have...