Will Kymilcka's Analysis

Cultural rights are applicable universally, and are required to ensure members of states are being granted rights which support their beliefs and traditions (Symonides, 1998). Philosophical theorist, Susan Okin, associates cultural rights with control disintegration over gender equality, considering females who are subjects of inhumane treatment by members of cultures, may not appear violating human rights since they are given cultural entitlements to exercise their values. Other theorists, much like Will Kymilcka, defend the notion of cultural rights based on the importance of enforcing individual autonomy, and by overlooking the protection of cultural rights, states are neglecting to uphold individual autonomy and freedom of groups to maintain
This undermines her argument, because cultural entitlements encourage the need for individuals who celebrate specific traditions and values to become respected and protected by rights (Kymilcka, 1989). Kymlicka’s primary contention is to recognise the ‘importance of individual autonomy’, and how cultural rights protect this autonomy through providing choice for individuals to exercise their beliefs and traditions (Kukatha 1992, p.120). Kymlicka’s view is righteous in its own context, however, on a more stringent focus, he withdraws any discussion of those members of cultural minorities, who are stripped of individual autonomy and choice, thus adding flaws to his principal argument. Nonetheless, what prevents Okin’s argument from being universally acknowledged as correct, is that Kymlicka justifies cultural rights in support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for instance, as outlined in Article 27, people should not be denied their right to culture, and most importantly, explicitly defined in Article 3, everyone has the right to liberty (Puybaret,