> >No. I didn't imply that "smaller cultural groups within the larger states
> >should just be written off >and suppressed as dangerous or potentially
> >divisive." Their auotonomy must be recognised and >preserved.
> So do you have any ideas on how far to go wrt "their auotonomy must be
> recognised and preserved"?
I don't know about Canada. But here are some examples from Indian context. (Please note that India is not a union of different nations such as Tamil, Bengali or Punjabi etc.)
1.Indian laws allow Indian muslims to practice polygamy, because Islam allows polygamy.
2. Indians can not acquire property (e.g. land) in Kashmir.
3. Formation of Indian states on the linguistic basis allows each state to promote the respective regional language and literature, that regional language is usually the medium of instruction in schools and the language for local adminstation etc.
4. Reservations in jobs and reserved seats in elections for tribals and dalits etc.
Ulhas