Terrorism and insecurity of Minorities : usa and India
Introduction
The topic of terrorism is both complex and emotive.
The members of religious, ethnic, and racial minorities are often the targets of terrorism. It is
complex because it combines so many different aspects of human experience, including
subjects such as politics, psychology, philosophy, military strategy, and history, to name a few.
Terrorism is also emotive both because experiences of terrorist acts arouse tremendous
feelings, and because those who see terrorists as justified often have strong feelings concerning
the rightness of the use of violence.
Terrorism and Minorities: an overview
Terrorism is an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its
purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.
It is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of
the criminal laws of any country for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or
ransom. Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijack-
ings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical,
biological, nuclear and radiological weapons.
Terrorists often use threats to:
• Create fear among the public.
• Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent
terrorism.
• Get immediate publicity for their causes.
A minority or minority group is a subgroup of the population with unique social, religious, ethnic,
racial, and/or other characteristics that differ from those of a majority group. The term usually
refers to any group that is subjected to oppression and discrimination by those in more powerful
social positions, whether or not the group is a numerical minority. Examples of groups that have
been labeled minorities include African Americans, women, and immigrants among others.
It is basically an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority is any group of persons which constitutes
less than half of the population in the entire territory of a State whose members share common
characteristics of culture, religion or language, or a combination of any of these.
Relationship between terrorism and Minorities
It is well-established that terrorism increases anti-immigration attitudes, voting behavior, hate
crimes, and market discrimination.Much less is known about the effect of terrorism on perceived
discrimination among minorities.
Minorities have always been struggling for equality and inclusion with the nation’s majority
culture around the world. Minority communities in European countries and North America
have been excluded due to political, religious, ethnic, economic, and cultural marginalization.
The link between countries’ socioeconomic characteristics and the incidence of terrorist acts,
such as economic discrimination against minorities, might be an unnoticed factor. So, the
experience of minority group discrimination has been identified as a factor that motivates and
fuels domestic terrorist campaigns of individual countries or terrorist movements. Regarding
aspects of domestic terrorism, democratic governance, political stability, and country
demographic makeup have played a significant role.
Some theoretical research suggests that there is a causal relationship between minority
injustice and domestic terrorism within countries. Minority discrimination, which generally
involves employment discrimination, unequal access to government health, educational, or
social services, formal or informal housing segregation, and a lack of economic opportunities
available to the rest of society, is a factor in the emergence of minority group grievances
directed at the state, the financial status quo, and the main political parties.
Discrimination also enhances social isolation and a sense of otherness among marginalised
groups. As a result, disappointed minority populations become alienated from the mainstream
economic system, distrustful of state institutions and authority, and thus more vulnerable to
extremism, providing fertile ground for terrorist organisations to recruit cadres, raise funds, and
plan and execute attacks.
Since the 11 September 2001 attacks, minorities, specifically Muslims in the United
States and Europe, have been subjected to more significant restrictions and governmental
authorities. The Minority Rights Group (MRG) has pointed out that rules like religious
profiling by authorities can divide communities, promote hate, and create conditions of future
conflict. Stops, searches, strict scrutiny, and surveillance are examples of religious profiling,
which includes preconceptions about people who are thought to follow a specific religion.
Most often, the “war on terror” has been fought at the price of human rights. Mark
Lattimer, Executive Director of MRG, says, in most cases, “people from minority
communities have been the target, often suffering in silence because of their minority status.”
According to MRG, “in most cases, anti-terror laws target Muslim minority groups and have
resulted in an increase in arbitrary arrests, detention without charge or trial and torture of people
from these communities. The United States, Canada and some European states, including the
United Kingdom, Spain and Holland, have seen anti-terror laws produce
violations of the rights of Muslim, Asian, North African and Middle Eastern minority
communities.” Muslims and South Asians in these nations frequently feel targeted and
alienated, contributing to increased sympathy for terrorist groups.
Terrorism and Status of Minorities in USA and INDIA
Easy access to sophisticated weapons and disruptive advances in technology, especially the
cyber world masks the identity of the terrorists, facilitates real time secure communications and
the flow of funds and provides access to an infinite resource of DIY kits on issues ranging from
making bombs to executing beheadings.
These elements have collectively made terrorism the most preferred means of waging war.
India’s richly diverse society provides a fertile ground for terrorism to thrive in many areas:
● politics of communalism and criminalisation
● fanatic religious movements and irresponsible statements by political and religious
leaders
● human rights excesses
● marginalised minority communities
● high levels of youth unemployment
● poverty,illiteracy, poor governance
● prolonged delays in criminal justice
Quite often, incidents relating to a particular religious or ethnic group act as a catalyst. They
also act as an initiator to indoctrinate/ radicalise youth (and not necessarily only the poor and
marginalised) to indulge in extreme forms of violence and terrorism.
Considering the fact that intensity of violence due to religious terrorism has always been very
severe, strict law should be framed expeditiously against those delivering ‘hate speeches’ that
incite a religious/ ethnic community’s passions.
India also remains highly vulnerable to terrorism by foreign terrorists, due to porous borders with
all its neighbours and a long coast line. Resultantly, the terrorists and the insurgents continue to
receive material support and funds from many sources.
Impact of Anti-Terrorism Laws on the enjoyment of Human Rights
India has had and continues to have a veritable spectrum of draconian laws that are supposedly
aimed at stopping terrorism but are used effectively by state agents to abuse human rights.
These laws include the Maintenance of Internal
Security Act (MISA), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), Prevention of
Terrorism Act (POTA), the Disturbed Areas Act (DAA), and the Armed Forces Special Powers
Act (AFSPA), the Assam Preventive Detention Act, National Security Act, Essential Services
Maintenance Act and the
Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (1990). While these laws are
implemented all
over India, they have the most deplorable effects on the human rights of minorities, vulnerable
communities in areas where people have opposed these laws.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)
The Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 was created primarily to deal with
terrorist activities in India. It featured stricter prohibitions than the UAPA. TADA was challenged
as being unlawful when it was enacted before the nation’s top court. In the case of Kartar Singh
v. the State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, the Supreme Court of India maintained its
constitutional legitimacy on the presumption that individuals given such draconian statutory
powers would act in good faith and for the benefit of the public. However, there were several
examples of the abuse of power for unintended consequences. Law enforcement authorities
began to exploit the strict guidelines outlined in the statute. In 1995, TADA was withdrawn.
The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA)
The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, which went into effect on April 24,
1999, is another significant anti-terrorist statute in India. The underworld in Mumbai and the
growing organized crime in Maharashtra were the main driving forces behind the creation of this
law. Organized crime is mentioned in MCOCA, which also classifies “promotion of insurrection”
as a terrorist act. According to Maharashtra law, until a person can demonstrate their innocence,
they are believed to be guilty. MCOCA does not mandate those police officers who are found to
have violated it be prosecuted.
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
It was necessary to enact a special law to deal with terrorist actions due to the increase in
cross-border terrorism, the Pakistani ISI’s ongoing offensive program aimed at destabilizing
India, and the developments following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA, 2002) was consequently passed and announced. In
PUCL v. Union of India, a similar challenge to TADA was made against POTA, and the Court
rejected it as well on the same justifications. After the Act was passed into law, numerous
reports of egregious abuse of the statute appeared. There have been allegations that the POTA
legislation increased corruption in the Indian police and judicial systems. Groups defending civil
liberties and human rights battled against it. During the 2004 election, one of the topics was how
the Act was being used. The Indian government of the United Progressive Alliance made a
campaign pledge to repeal the legislation, and in 2004—after the UPA took office and its
provisions were integrated into UAPA—the pledge was fulfilled.
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
The UAPA was not a terror law from 1967 until 2004. In December 2004, Parliament added a
section on criminalizing terrorist acts. The Manmohan Singh government introduced Chapter IV
of the UAPA Amendment Act, 2004. The UAPA was further modified in 2008 and 2019 to
broaden its application. “Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the
unity, integrity, security [economic security] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror in
the people or likely to strike terror in the people in India or any foreign country,” is defined in
Section 15 of the UAPA as committing a “terrorist act.” These specific laws are interpreted by
courts using different sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Having the autonomy they wanted the Indian Supreme Court to grant, the Central government
went ahead to introduce another amendment to the UAPA, 1967 (in the year 2019) to bring in a
couple of changes to the act [5]. Firstly, the National Investigative Agency (Established through
the NIA Act, 2008) gets unrestricted autonomy to perform searches, seizures and make arrests
in any state of the country, needless to inform the state government or the local authorities
about the same in advance. This change, as was believed by the legal luminaries, was
considered for the better instead of strife with Maharashtra. A government which demanded
advance notice (to the Director General of Police of the concerned state) about the arrival and
operations of NIA. The demand was arbitrary since the NIA always found it difficult to conduct
secret and confidential searches and operations.
Critical Appraisal
India’s antiterrorism laws raise significant human rights concerns. The Committee on
International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of New York carried out a study on
security
laws in India. It noted that while periodic efforts have been made to limit the use of these laws
the overall effect since independence has been to maintain the pattern established by the
British, which blurred the lines between these categories by periodically seeking to extend the
extraordinary powers initially exercised during periods of emergency into non emergency
periods. The net result of this pattern has been a tendency to institutionalize or routinize the use
of extraordinary powers during non emergency periods. The study adds that Indian antiterrorism
laws raise the following concerns:
• Overly broad and ambiguous definitions of terrorism that fail to satisfy the principle of legality;
• Pretrial investigation and detention procedures which infringe upon due process, personal
liberty, and limits on the length of pretrial detention;
• Special courts and procedural rules infringe upon judicial independence and right to a fair trial;
• Provisions that require courts to draw adverse inferences against the accused in a manner that
infringes upon the presumption of innocence;
• Lack of sufficient oversight of police and prosecutorial decision making to prevent arbitrary,
discriminatory and disuniform application; and
• Broad immunities from prosecution for government officials.
Antiterrorism laws have been instituted by India and implemented in an extremely harsh
manner. According to the Association of the Bar of New York’s Committee on International
Human Rights, enforcement of these laws has varied widely from state to state, facilitating
arbitrary and selective enforcement on the basis of religion, caste, and tribal status; violations of
protected speech and associational activities; prosecution of ordinary crimes as terrorism
related offenses; and severe police misconduct and abuse, including torture, in most states,
prolonged detention without charge or trial appears to have been the norm, rather than the
limited exception.
Insecurity of Minorities in India
India is a multitude of various religious communities.The controversial term “minority” or
“minorities” is used in the Constitution in some articles like Article 29, Article 30, Article 350(A),
and 350(B) but a concrete definition is not given in the Constitution.
The Union government, under the National Commission on Minorities Act 1992 has recognized
6 minority communities that is Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, and Jains. ( Jains
were added later in 2014).
Problems and concerns with minorities in India
Recent political developments have put the issues of minority appeasement and minority
harassment back into the forefront. The recent increase in hate crimes has also triggered
debates about the need for separate legislation to protect minorities against lynching and hate
crimes.
Some of the main problems faced by minorities in India are as follows:
The problem of identity- Because of the differences in socio-cultural practices, history, and
backgrounds, minorities have to grapple with the issue of identity everywhere which gives rise to
the problem of adjustment with the majority community.
The problem of Security: Different identity and their small number relative to the rest of society
develops a feeling of insecurity about their life, assets, and well-being. This sense of insecurity
may get accentuated at times when relations between the majority and the minority
communities in society are strained or not very cordial.
The problem of equity:- The minority community in society may remain deprived of the benefit
of opportunities for development as a result of discrimination. Because of the difference in
identity, the minority community develops the perception of the sense of inequity. Religion is a
complex phenomenon in India. Though India is declared a ‘secular’ state, the problem of
secularism looms large here. Conversion to Islam and Christianity has been a controversial
issue over the last couple of decades.
Varied reasons:—ranging from poverty to perceived discrimination resulted in the alienation of
Muslims and Christians in India. The Government of India constituted a committee on 9th March
2005 under the chairmanship of Justice Rajendra Sachar to enquire and analyze the problems
faced especially by Muslims in India.
Economic reasons Indian socio-economic fabric is very complex because it is much affected
by caste, religion, and the more regional/linguistic differentials. At the same time, the Indian
economic, social, and political institutions which are persisted for centuries have a historical
basis also. These factors have given a unique character to Indian society. It has become a
conglomeration of various layers and segments divided and sub-divided.
Backwardness:- Minority communities are unable to join the mainstream of society. Sachar
Committee which was constituted in 2005 has placed Muslims below the scheduled castes, and
scheduled tribes.
The problem of Representation:- In terms of religious composition, 90.4% of MPs in Loksabha
are Hindus. 5.2% are Muslims and another religious community represents 4% MPS. Muslims
contribute only 2.5% of the Indian bureaucracy.
Constitutional Provisions for Minorities in India
The Constitution of India lists down a few important mandates with regard to Minorities in India.
Discussed below are the same in brief:
Protection under Fundamental Rights:
Article 15 (1) & (2) – Prohibition of discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth
Article 16(1)&(2) – Citizens’ right to equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State
Article 25(1) – People’s freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice and
propagate religion – subject to public order, morality and other Fundamental Rights
Article 28 – People’s freedom to attend religious instruction or religious worship in educational
institutions is wholly maintained
Article 30(1) – Right of all religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice
Article 30(2) – Freedom of minority-managed educational institutions from discrimination in the
matter of receiving aid from the State.
Protection under Part XVII (Official language):
Article 347- Provide special provisions relating to the language spoken by a section of the
population.
Article 350A – Deals with the provision of facilities for instruction in the mother tongue
Article 350B— Provision for a special officer for linguistic minorities and defines its duty.
Legislative protection:
Citizenship Amendment Act —This act gives citizenship to persecuted minorities from Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Afghanistan within 6 years in place of 12 years. Hindus, Christians, Sikhs,
Jains, Buddhists, and Parsis( all are minorities in India excluding Hindus) who migrated before
2014 are eligible.
The National Commission of Minority Act 1992—
this act led to the foundation of the National Commission on Minorities by the Union
Government. It consists of a chairperson and 6 members, provided at least 5, including the
chairperson, should belong to the minority community.
International Norms:
The protection of the rights of minorities is provided under Article 27 of the International
Convention on civil and Political Rights. Further “United Nations declaration on the Rights of
persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities” is a document that
sets essential standards and offers guidance to states in adopting appropriate legislative and
other measures to secure the Rights of Minorities.
Way forward:
In order to protect our constitutional values of individual dignity, Equality, and liberty we must
strive to discourage and remove hate-filled messages from our society.
Political leaders must take a leadership role in disowning hateful elements within their party and
uphold their commitment to our constitution.
Comprehensive anti-hate legislation and policy must be brought to act as a deterrent against
hate crimes.
Recent positive developments like the decriminalisation of homosexuality have shown that our
society is empathetic towards minorities. A few anti-social elements must not be allowed to
jeopardise gains made in this regard.
Terrorism and insecurity of Minorities in USA
The main terrorist threat today in the United States is best understood as emerging from across
the political spectrum, as ubiquitous firearms, political polarization, and other factors have
combined with the power of online communication and social media to generate a complex and
varied terrorist threat that crosses ideologies and is largely disconnected from traditional
understandings of terrorist organizations.
Minority communities and indigenous populations worldwide continued to be troubled by the
aftermath of the 11 September 2001 violent attacks on the United States of America.
President George W. Bush declared the “war on terror” at the time. However, conflicts
between governments and armed groups have continued to result in international and
domestic flight, weakening already vulnerable communities. Since then, the state-sanctioned
discriminatory policies has risen. They have fueled the conflict between freedom of religion and
freedom of expression in some places, resulting in bloodshed amongst populations that had
previously coexisted peacefully. While President Barack Obama’s presidency has officially
distanced itself from the term “war on terror,” other countries often use the word, and the battles
continue. MRG has been tracking how the different effects of the “war on terror” have always
significantly influenced religious minorities’ lives.
According to Minority Rights Group International, the worldwide “war on terror” has
devolved into a “war on minorities,” with millions of individuals from minority communities
facing clear human rights violations in the name of counter-terrorism. Since 9/11, governments
have increasingly utilised the “war on terror” to target minorities, mainly ethnic
and religious minorities, and restrict their rights, according to the London-based human rights
organisation. Minority populations have also been falsely labelled as terrorists in the last five
years.10 In the aftermath of the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing of an airliner over
Detroit, Michigan, by a Nigerian Muslim, the US authorities targeted citizens of 14 countries, 13
of them are predominantly Muslim, for particular scrutiny at airports.
There are some significant similarities between the profiling of Black people and Arabs and
Muslims. The fundamental issues with racial profiling in both cases are that it violates the
personal rights of innocent individuals and refuses to acknowledge minorities equal protection
under the law. According to MRG, in most cases, “anti-terror laws target Muslim minority groups
and have resulted in an increase in arbitrary arrests, detention
without charge or trial and torture of people from these communities. The United States,Canada
and some European states, including the United Kingdom, Spain and Holland, have seen
anti-terror laws violate the rights of Muslim, Asian, North African and Middle Eastern minority
communities.
U.S. Law
Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in the
national legislation.
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "Premeditated politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational group clandestine
agents".
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes
Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism": "International terrorism" means activities with
the following three characteristics Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
violate federal or state law, Appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect
the conduct of a goverıne by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur
primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms
of the means by which they accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or
coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
Since the end of the Civil War, organised groups or lone wolf white supremacists has committed
many acts of domestic terrorism against African-Americans. This has been in the fam of
lynchings, hate crimes, shootings, bombings and other acts of violence. Such acts of vielest
overwhelmingly occurred in the American South, including by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Wh
supremacist terrorist incidents include the Tulsa race massacre of 1921, and the Wilming
insurrection of 1898.
On November 19, 2019, according to remarks which were made by Mattew Alcoke, Deputy
Assistant Director of the FBI Counterterrorion Division, defines terrorists as "individuals who
commit violent criminal acts in fartherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic issues".
In 2018, most ideologically motivated murders in the United States of America were linked to
right-wing extremism. As of 2020, right-wing extremist terroriam accounted for the majority of
terrorist attacks and plots in the US and has killed more people in the continental United States
since the September 11 attacks than Islamic terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security
reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat,
which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the burean had
elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS.
USA PATRIOT ACT
The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since th passage
following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part and offer the
leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the
deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results
have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided/or only modest, incremental
changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to
preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global
terrorist nehvork.
The purpose of the USA Patriot Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States
around the world Section 314 helps law enforcement identify, disrupt, and prevent terrorist and
money laundering activities by encouraging further cooperation among law enforcement, lators,
and financial institutions to share information. The purpose of the USA Patriot Act is to deter and
punish terrorist acts in the United States around the world. Section 314 helps law enforcement
identify, disrupt, and prevent terrorist and money laundering activities by encouraging further
cooperation among law enforcement, gulators, and financial institutions to share information.
The official title of the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by rounding
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act 2001 The
purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United ates and
around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes, me of
which include: • To strengthen U.S. measures to prevent, detect and prosecute international
money laundering and financing of terrorism; • To subject to special scrutiny foreign jurisdictions,
foreign financial institutions, and classes of international transactions or types of accounts that
are susceptible to criminal abuse; • To require all appropriate elements of the financial services
industry to report potential money laundering: • To strengthen measures to prevent use of the
U.S. financial system for personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and facilitate repatriation of
stolen assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong.
Insecurity of Minorities in USA
The 20th century has witnessed the transformation of the United States from a predominately
population rooted in Western culture to a society with a rich array of racial and ethnic minorities.
As the century began, the US population was 87 percent white The nowwhite entry was
composed primarily of black Americans living in the rural South. At the century's
homasnoe-Hispanic whites account for less than 75 percent of the US. population. The manority
pletion is comprised of nearly as many Hispanics as blacks, surging numbers of Asians, and
mall but growing American Indian population. By the middle of the 21st century, non-Hispanic
mes will make up a slim and fading majority of Americans. Hispanics will be nearly one-fourth
the US population. Blacks, Asians, and American Indians together will make up close to one-
fourth of the population. "Minority" is likely to have a very different meaning in the 21st century.
America's ethnic landscape also includes a rapidly growing Arab population, a sizeable caish
population, and other ethnic groups. But in the 1990s, the term "minority" usually refers four
major racial and ethnic groups: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, tums
and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. This transformation of America's racial and ethnic profile is
most visible in certain states and munities. The four minority groups make up at least one-half of
the residents in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, San Antonio, and several other metropolitan
areas. Within 25 years, California, Hwan, New Mexico, and Texas will be "minority majority"
states in which minorities will be more han one-half the population. But many parts of the
country have little racial or ethnic diversity. Minorities make up less than 5 percent of the
populations of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia, for example. The nation's
changing demographic profile has important economic and social implications. Immigration is
transforming the U.S. Asian and Hispanic populations. Hispanics from Guatemala, El Salvador,
Ecuador, and other Central and South American countries have created communities alongside
well-established Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban communities. The U.S. Asian population
was predominately Japanese, Filipino, and Chinese just two decades ago. At the century's end,
Asian Americans with roots in India, Vietnam, or Korea outnumber Japanese Americans.
Minorities have also become more diverse socioeconomically. The number of ninenities the
highest income brackets has more than doubled since 1980, for example, yet minorities mill
account for a disproportionate share of the poor. More minority politicians are being elected
public office, but minorities are more likely than non Hispanic whites to serve time in prison,
Mers minorities are earning graduate and professional degrees, yet a disproportionately large
percemage never finish high school. The growth of the African American, Hispanic, Asian, and
American Indian populations profoundly changing the racial and ethnic makeup of the country's
schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods, and it is creating a new multiracial and multicultural
heritage in the United States
Americans are divided in their beliefs about the long-term effects of the growing diversaj Some
see the rapid growth of minorities as a key to the revitalization of America and a legal
continuation of the "melting-pot" tradition. Others see the rapid increase in racial and ethn
minorities as an unwelcome departure from America's European heritage. Discussions en Dis
topic sometimes become heated because the increase in the minority populations is closely
linkei to important policy issues relating to immigration, affirmative action, welfare, and
educatine reform.
Globally, the UN adopted a “Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” in 1992, and a “Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples” in 2007. At the regional level, the Council of Europe adopted the
“European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” in 1992, and the “Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities” in 1995. Attempts to formulate these
international standards have run into a number of problems, however, including difficulties in
determining who are the relevant “minorities” to be protected, disagreements about the
appropriate sorts of rights to attribute to minorities, and weaknesses in the monitoring and
enforcement of these rights. While the category `minority rights’ is now widely accepted as a
legitimate component of international human rights, it remains under-developed and
controversial.
