 |
| Equality
of all citizens and ‘second-class’ citizens |
 |
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Disability and poverty
3. Gay marriages
4. Position of women
5. Citizenship and socialization of children
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography
Introduction
Traditionally, the notion of democratic society implies the
equality of all citizens that form this society. Moreover,
many developed countries declare to be really democratic and
each citizen is supposed to have as much rights as any other,
regardless social status, level of income, religious beliefs,
ethnic origin, language, etc. Unfortunately, in actuality,
the situation is quite different from what is often declared
and certain inequality may be often observed in different
situation in relation to different social groups and naturally
the reaction of people on such a situation is different. Notably,
if those who really have all civil rights and responsibilities
feel quite comfortable they often prefer to simply ignore
the problems, which other categories of people may have. The
latter feel being deprived by the rest of the society and
each group’s position is unique depending on the legislative
spectrum they the lack of the declared equality of rights.
Obviously, there is a paradoxical situation when the society
is considered to be democratic, i.e. the society where civil
rights and responsibilities are presumably equal, but, at
the same time, there are some marginalized groups which are
deprived by the majority of population and cannot fully realise
their civil rights.
Disability and poverty
Unfortunately, one of the main problems that democratic societies
often face is the problem of disabled people and the problem
of poverty. Often these two problems are closely related to
one another. It is evident that disabled people feel to a
significant extent isolated from the rest of society due to
some physical or health problems which make impossible to
lead a normal life as other people do. They are deprived of
a possibility to do many things they used to do in the past
or what other health people do. Naturally this problem needs
immediate solution but in actuality the society and government
turn to be unable to fully solve this problem.
For instance, in Canada, despite a relatively good general
socio-economic situation, the problem of disabled people remains
relevant. There are still some discussion on the definition
of the notion of disability while the effectiveness of programs
is quite low.
At this respect it is noteworthy that there is “a common
failing is to confuse the definition of disability with the
eligibility criteria. It is important to remember it is acceptable
for different programs to have different objectives. However,
it is not the definition of disability that should change
from one problem to another, but rather the eligibility criteria”
(HRDC 1994). In the same report the following information
may also be found: “In Canada, the tendency has been
to define disability on the basis of the intentions of programs”
(HRDC 1994). As a result, programs in Canada basically tend
to comprise a combination of medical, functional, and vocational
criteria in defining eligibility and very often not only the
cause of disability but also the circumstances under which
it occurred are taken into consideration.
Such a situation with the definition of disability and consequently
with eligibility for programs resulted in an ambiguity in
the policy because if view disability differently consequently
the programs should also be changed. Probably, disabled people
suffered the most from such an ambiguity. The definition of
disability necessarily affects the programs for disabled people
in terms of the size, characteristics and needs of disabled
population.
Naturally, when there is such a mess in the definition of
disability and the programs which actually should aim at the
improvement of the position of disabled people, it is practically
impossible for those who really need such kind of help and
for the society at large to clearly understand all the nuances
of legislation, policy and programs worked out by the federal
and local governments. Consequently, the situation threatens
to the basic principles of democracy since certain categories
of Canadian population do not have access to the benefits
others can normally use. It is an obvious violation of principles
of participatory democracy as it excludes disabled population
from the normal, social, political and economic life of the
country.
Consequently, disabled people feel deprived of the principle
of equality and they perceive their disability as the main
cause of such a situation along with indifference or at least
low interest of the government and society in their problems.
Not less serious is the problem of poverty. Unfortunately,
nowadays material or physical disability is still an object
of discriminating attitude. Long human history approves that
poor and handicapped people were always oppressed and condemned
to sufferings and violation of their rights because they were
and still are the weakest and the least protected part of
the society. Actually, it is not surprising that since earliest
ages people respected two things force and power, given by
wealth. For poor and disabled are deprived both of them they
logically remain in the lower part of a social structure,
such people do not have the same opportunities to realize
their abilities as people of middle or upper. Thus, for many
people physical disability and poverty are synonymous notions.
As a result, such people against their own will become marginal
and do not have equal possibilities to realize their civil
rights and personal aptitudes. What is even worse is the fact
that they practically do not have a chance to change the situation
for better because they cannot compete with those who have
better opportunities to realize their life chances.
The reasons for this are quite obvious. Firstly, poor or disabled
people do not have a real chance to receive a good education
though there may be some exceptions but not numerous. But
even if they study they cannot do it like others do. For example,
handicapped students need some special conditions and very
often special equipment as well as they need specially trained
teachers who could work with them. As for poor people, it
is really difficult to study when you don’t have any
prospects and when you are not sure that you could attend
school next day because you had to earn money to live. One
may say that government or educational establishments must
provide equal opportunities for all students but in real life
there are the most prestigious schools and universities for
upper classes and schools in suburbs where education has a
superficial character.
Practically the same problems are with the employment. It
is evident that the main factor for an employer to hire or
dismiss an employee is his or her ability to provide the most
effective work with the least investments in conditions of
work. Consequently, they do not want to bother of such things
as accommodation of a disabled worker or other problems of
that sort. The last hope to protect the employee’s rights
is the court but it is also influenced by traditional stereotypes
and tends to ignore such demands and many of such cases are
won by employers and a juridical explanation may be as follows:
investing costs in making workplace equally accessible to
a disabled person makes the civil right coming into conflict
with the employer’s property right. For poor people
the situation is not better because the rate of unemployment
is quite high while their level of qualification is not very
high all this make such people less compatible on the market
and, consequently, more discriminated. Thus, the myth that
everything depends only on a person’s abilities, intelligence
and cunningness is just a myth and has nothing in common with
the real life
Unfortunately, the problem of disability and poverty remains
and like disabled people, poor people also feels deprived
but they rather blame their low social status and lack of
opportunities to change it than their physical or mental disability
to do it. Consequently, poverty is associated by marginalized
groups as social exclusion while disability is associated
with health problems as the main cause and resulting socio-economic
problems as secondary cause of their inequality in civil rights
with the rest of society.
Gay marriages
The problem of gay marriages, which has become burning in
recent years, especially in western countries revealed another
deprived group of people which position is also quite weak
in relation to real equality of civil rights and responsibilities.
Notably they are deprived one of the main rights of a civil
society the right for marriage and this is exactly what marginalize
them and what differ them from the rest of society and other
deprived categories of people.
In fact the main problem is the gaps in legislation, or more
precisely the absence of legislation regulating relations
between gays themselves or between gays and the rest of the
society, that lead to their isolation and in this sense they
may be labeled as a deprived part of the society. Thus, one
part of the society, represented by gays, strive for equality
with other members of the society, at least through legalization
their relations through the institute of marriage, while the
other part, that may be defined as a conventional or maybe
conservative, wants to sustain the existing situation or even
oppose to any attempts to legalize gays family relations.
Nowadays, gay marriage is the subject of public discussions
and the solution of the problem is quite difficult from both
aspects moral and juridical. Anyway the main and defining
in this discussion is public opinion, which is influenced
by many factors.
One of such defining factors is the understanding and interpretation
of the notion of ‘marriage’ itself. Traditionally,
in western society the marriage is defined as “being
between one man and one woman” (Chauncy 2004:198). Many
people argue to what extent such a definition of marriage
is correct and whether it is always true for all people. Naturally,
gays cannot have a marriage in its traditional sense.
As a result they attempt to find alternatives, which, nonetheless,
do not make their rights fully equal to the rights of the
rest of the society. One of such alternative is a so-called
‘separate but equal’ principle. According to this
principle, it is suggested to sexual minorities to have civil
unions instead of a traditional marriage. However, it is quite
contradictive and questionable. On the one hand, it suggests
a real prospective for gays and lesbians to legally create
their own families and in such a way to legalize their relations.
For their opponents it is certainly a great deal but not for
the followers of gay marriages who, in their turn, do not
treat civil unions as equal to a traditional marriage. Despite
the fact that “legally they are one and the same”
(Dobson 2004:287) it is still the point for a further discussion.
It is quite obvious that civil unions are an attempt to separate
a gay marriage from a traditional one by providing it for
equivalent, i.e. a civil union.
However, even legally it is not so simple because, for instance,
according to Supreme Court’s ruling separate but equal
conception violates the Constitution and legislation in the
USA. Anyway, even if civil unions and marriages were legally
equal there would still remain a certain difference even though
purely nominative but anyway it could be perceived as discriminating
by followers of gay marriage because it would make gay marriage
different from a traditional marriage even if this difference
is only formal and from juridical point of view insignificant.
Consequently, civil unions being an alternative to gay marriages
are not their substitutes, at least for those who are for
gay marriages, and this social group still remains deprived
in its particular way.
Position of women
Probably the position of women may be considered as historically
deprived for in different cultures women are traditionally
deprived of equal rights with men. In the basis of this contradiction
are gender differences which often lead to the lack of opportunities
for women to be really equal to men.
At this respect, one of the most vivid example is the attitude
of the Catholic church to women priests. It is probably the
most conservative institution that currently exists in western
countries and this is why the deprived position of women in
the society is particularly obvious in religious sphere.
In fact, speaking about the problem of the ordination of female
priests, Catholic Church rejects this idea. It is obvious
that it is not simply a free will of the church leaders but
it is the position, the policy of the church that has some
reasons to be dominating now.
In order to understand the position of the Catholic Church
in this question it is necessary to look at the position of
its leaders, i.e. at the position of the Pope. The previous
Pope Joan Paul II was a convinced opponent of the ordination
of female priests since he said: “Wherefore, in order
that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great
importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s
divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry confirming
the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever
to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment
is to be definitely held by all the Church’s faithful”
(Spong 1998:172).
So, this idea, being proclaimed by the Pope, may be treated
as the official position of the Church concerning the problem
discussed in terms of this paper. Nonetheless, it is also
should be pointed out that the Church attempts to substantiated
its position not only with the help of the Pope but on the
basis of numerous theological reasons, the Bible and the Church’s
traditions.
However, it is obvious that the position of the Catholic Church
is very arguable and from the point of view of equality of
civil rights it cannot be supported. Nonetheless, it is only
one, but probably the most vivid example of women position
in the society. As a result they feel deprived and what make
them different from other deprived groups is the fact that
it is the gender contradictions and stereotypes that are the
main reasons why women lacks real equality in civil rights
and responsibilities.
Citizenship and socialization of children
Another important problem is the problem of children rights
since often they cannot fully realize their civil rights which
are formally declared but are hardly realizable in actuality
that leads to violation of their rights and what is even worse
they are too dependent on their parents and cannot protect
their position.
At this respect, a child’s socialization plays a very
significant role. There is a very important thing that influences
a person’s socialization. It is the social status of
the family. It is not a secret that socialization of people
of upper and lower classes differs. If in upper classes family
children have more attention from the part of the family.
Such families are characterized by close and democratic relations.
On the contrary, lower class families are more authoritarian
(especially families of Asian and Latin American origins)
, children don’t have enough communication with their
parents, who, in their turn, rely mainly on school in the
process of socialization and rearing of their children. As
a result the children from such families may be more limited
in their rights that naturally is unjust and make children
suffer for they are deprived because of their age and authoritarian
surrounding and their inequality in civil rights is based
on the lack of equal opportunities to realize their rights.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into consideration all above mentioned, it is
possible to conclude that despite the worldwide spread of
democratic principles, one of the basic principles of really
democratic society the principle of equality of all citizens
is often violated, even in the most developed countries. The
analysis of different categories of people and social groups
reveals the fact that they are deprived in a different ways
and what they really have in common is the lack of access
to all civil rights the rest of the society has.
It is also evident that there may be found other groups which
are also deprived in some rights but what is really important
is the understanding that the current democracy cannot provide
real equality for all people that means that it is vitally
important to work on the problems of the deprived parts of
the society in order to sustain democracy as it is understood
in its proper sense, otherwise it can be transformed into
an idealistic philosophical and socio-political school that
is far from real situation.
Bibliography:
1. Dobson, James. Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This
Battle. Multmonah, 2004.
2. Chauncy, George. Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today’s
Debate Over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
3. Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for
Social Services. 2000. “Public Report on the Public
Dialogue on the National Children's Agenda — A Shared
Vision.” Retrieved Feb. 14, 2006 from http://www.socialunion.gc.ca.
4. Human Resources Development Canada. “Improving Social
Security In Canada. Persons With Disabilities.” 1994.
5. Rowe, D.C. The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience,
and Behavior. New York: Guilford Press, 1994.
6. Spong, J. Why Christianity Must Change or Die. New York:
New Publishers, 1997.
|
|
