Suchergebnisse

This book explores the main challenges against multiculturalism. It aims to examine whether liberalism and multiculturalism are reconcilable, and what are the limits of liberal democratic interventions in illiberal affairs of minority cultures within democracy. In the process, this book addresses three questions: whether multiculturalism is bad for democracy, whether multiculturalism is bad for women, and whether multiculturalism contributes to terrorism. Just, Reasonable Multiculturalism argues that liberalism and multiculturalism are reconcilable if a fair balance is struck between individual rights and group rights. Raphael Cohen-Almagor contends that reasonable multiculturalism can be achieved via mechanisms of deliberate democracy, compromise and, when necessary, coercion. Placing necessary checks on groups that discriminate against vulnerable third parties, the approach insists on the protection of basic human rights as well as on exit rights for individuals if and when they wish to leave their cultural groups

Terrorism, cyberbullying, child pornography, hate speech, cybercrime: along with unprecedented advancements in productivity and engagement, the Internet has ushered in a space for violent, hateful, and antisocial behavior. How do we, as individuals and as a society, protect against dangerous expressions online? Confronting the Internet's Dark Side is the first book on social responsibility on the Internet. It aims to strike a balance between the free speech principle and the responsibilities of the individual, corporation, state, and the international community. This book brings a global perspective to the analysis of some of the most troubling uses of the Internet. It urges net users, ISPs, and liberal democracies to weigh freedom and security, finding the golden mean between unlimited license and moral responsibility. This judgment is necessary to uphold the very liberal democratic values that gave rise to the Internet and that are threatened by an unbridled use of technology

In recent years, the discussion about Israel was dominated by post-Zionist, post-Israeli opinions. Important voices that represent large sectors of Israeli society were not heard. To somewhat change this situation, some of the best scholars in their respective fields participate in this ultimate collection of essays about Israeli society, its politics and schisms. The book aims to tackle timely concerns, like Israel's fight against terror, its relationships with the Palestinians, the mutual relationships between the civic society and the army, the status of women in society, and separation

'The Scope of Tolerance' is an interdisciplinary study concerned with the limits of tolerance and the costs of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

This is a fascinating collection of essays about Israeli society and its institutions. It is written by practitioners who have experience and understanding, who are equipped with the insight and knowledge, and who bore responsibility while serving the public in the various institutions.

This book is a must for anyone who wishes to understand the pitfalls of policy-making where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are concerned. The book will be most useful in academic forums, and it will appeal to legislatures and judges who take the decisions and make the judgments necessary to protect the fabric of society in the face of technological medicine. In addition, this book is of relevance to medical doctors, ethicists, lawyers working in the field of medical law and ethics, and sociologists who are interested in end-of-life issues and social justice. Euthanasia in the Netherlands: - addresses an issue that is of growing concern in North America and Europe; - offers an interdisciplinary, compelling study in medicine, law, religion and ethics; - covers a wide range of theoretical and practical issues concerning the end of life; - considers the philosophical difficulties inherent in the concepts of medical ethics; - is not confined strictly to the philosophical realm; - is based on interviews conducted in hospitals, research centers and universities in theNetherlands- will contribute to the ongoing debate about the intricate questions of medical ethics; - deals with issues that bring scholars and students, politicians, sociologists, jurist and lawyers together

In 1985, Raphael Cohen-Almagor participated in an Israeli demonstration against Rabbi Meir Kahane, a religious, quasi-fascist propagandist who had been elected to the Israeli parliament the preceding year. As the demonstration became a confrontation - people screamed, shouted, and whistled to prevent Kahane from speaking - Cohen-Almagor felt increasing discomfort. In the name of democracy, the protesters were using the same tactics against Kahane that Kahane would use against his own opposition. Advocates of free speech were denying Kahane free speech. The paradox was the impetus behind this work, which proposes to overcome what Cohen-Almagor calls the "catch" of democracy, the idea that the principles that underlie any political system might also bring about its destruction. Building on the framework of John Stuart Mill and other liberal theorists, Cohen-Almagor addresses the delicate issue of which boundaries should be set to safeguard democracy. He contends that restrictions of liberty and tolerance may be prescribed when there are threats of immediate violence against individuals or groups, or when the intent of a threat is to inflict psychological damage in circumstances when the target group is forced to be exposed to the threat. In this connection he reviews the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court that permitted American Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie, and he argues that the decision was wrong. The second part of the book explores the struggle of the Israeli political system against the Kahanist racist phenomenon as it has developed in the last two decades. Cohen-Almagor's perspective differs from that of philosophers who focus particularly on practical considerations. "My view is that the fundamental question is ethical rather than practical," he writes. "I argue that, as a matter of moral principle, violent parties that act to destroy democracy or the state should not be allowed to run for parliament." This work, both a theoretical contribution and a discussion of a major current political problem, will be valuable to political scientists, philosophers, legal scholars, and anyone interested in First Amendment issues