What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rights Revolution
Since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, human rights have become the dominant language of the public good around the globe. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Canada. The long-standing fights for aboriginal rights, the linguistic heritage of French-speaking Canadians, and same-sex marriage have steered the country into a full-blown “rights revolution” — one that is being watched carefully around the world. Are group rights jeopardizing individual rights? When everyone asserts his or her rights, what happens to collective responsibility? Can families survive and prosper when each member has rights? Is rights language empowering individuals while weakening community? These essays, taken from Michael Ignatieff's famous Massey Lectures, addresses these questions and more, arguing passionately for the Canadian approach to rights that emphasizes deliberation rather than confrontation, compromise rather than violence. In a new afterword, the author explores Canada’s political achievements and distinctive stance on rights, and offers penetrating commentary on more recent world events.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
6 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
Michael Ignatieff
75 books151 followersMichael Grant Ignatieff is a Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition from 2008 until 2011. Known for his work as a historian, Ignatieff has held senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the University of Toronto.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 23, 2015
خوب خوب خوب
December 26, 2025
The evolution of a series of lectures he gave for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Massey Lectures, the book is a description and praise of the rights that exist in Western democratic countries, with a strong emphasis on Canada. The book opens with a thorough description and praise of rights enjoyed by Canadians and the movements and societal forces by which they’d been obtained. He then looked at rights of non-residents discussing the obligation of a state to support residents to be able to leave a country and hinting at although not asserting a right of persons to immigrate to any country of their choice.
He then went on to defend minority privileges specifically those afforded to aboriginal Canadians and French Canadians as well as so-called affirmative action programs. He also asserted that Conservatives see the rights movement as seeking a right to indulge and behave irresponsibly to which he countered asserting that within the family, rights and respect are common sense and not a slippery slope to nihilism.
Looking at the nature of countries and what binds their citizens to them, the book stated that countries are either bound together by rights (e.g. Canada) or common national origins (i.e. ethnicities) but as Canada’s common national origins are split between English/Irish/Scottish, French and aboriginal heritages, the country must find its unity in rights within civic nationalist principles. He concluded the book with an observation that the Quebec provincial government has basically got all the powers it wants hence it would gain nothing from separation and the only significant disagreement it has with the rest of Canada lies with the interpretation of the defeat of French Canada by the English in 1759, noting that after its defeat, the Quebec government got a lot more autonomy than it had or was likely to have under French rule. Overall, the book gave a well-thought presentation of rights as are currently realised in Canada, the benefits of a rights-based culture and some of the issues that arise when rights of different cultural groups conflict. I did, however, have some criticisms with some of the assertions made in the book.
To begin with, closed-shop compulsory unionism is not a right as the book claims, it is a denial of a right to be employed by an employer and not be compelled to join a trade union. Second, the book defended so-called affirmative action programs which allow discrimination against persons who, in years gone by, would probably have benefited from discrimination in their favour. Third, it defended the “right” of the Quebec government to deny those migrating to Quebec from elsewhere within or outside Canada access to English-language public schools, a policy that, if replicated federally for access to French-language public schools would be decried. Fourth, the book made some references to the idea of ethnic group self-determination without discussing some its implications, such as how a civil or criminal legal dispute between two different ethnicities covered by two different sets of laws would be resolved. And as strong as the arguments the book makes for rights are, they would have been strengthened had it cited the principle embedded in the constitution of France that everyone is equal in front of the law and advocating the adoption of such a principle in Canadian law.
The book also made a few references to Conservatives, stating at one point that Conservatives see rights movement as seeking a right to indulge and behave irresponsibly and elsewhere that Conservatives were committed to individual freedom. Assuming he’s referring to those aligned to the Conservative party, all but about three of that party’s federal MPs who voted against legislation which legalised same-sex marriage, individual freedom is not something I’d associate with traditionally conservative parties or activists Canada or in any other country. It must be remembered that Michael Ignatieff was for a time the leader of the moderately left-of-centre Liberal party of Canada.
Despite these disagreements, I reiterate that the book does provide a well-written presentation and discussion of rights in Canada with relevance for other countries as well, whether rights-based or not.
He then went on to defend minority privileges specifically those afforded to aboriginal Canadians and French Canadians as well as so-called affirmative action programs. He also asserted that Conservatives see the rights movement as seeking a right to indulge and behave irresponsibly to which he countered asserting that within the family, rights and respect are common sense and not a slippery slope to nihilism.
Looking at the nature of countries and what binds their citizens to them, the book stated that countries are either bound together by rights (e.g. Canada) or common national origins (i.e. ethnicities) but as Canada’s common national origins are split between English/Irish/Scottish, French and aboriginal heritages, the country must find its unity in rights within civic nationalist principles. He concluded the book with an observation that the Quebec provincial government has basically got all the powers it wants hence it would gain nothing from separation and the only significant disagreement it has with the rest of Canada lies with the interpretation of the defeat of French Canada by the English in 1759, noting that after its defeat, the Quebec government got a lot more autonomy than it had or was likely to have under French rule. Overall, the book gave a well-thought presentation of rights as are currently realised in Canada, the benefits of a rights-based culture and some of the issues that arise when rights of different cultural groups conflict. I did, however, have some criticisms with some of the assertions made in the book.
To begin with, closed-shop compulsory unionism is not a right as the book claims, it is a denial of a right to be employed by an employer and not be compelled to join a trade union. Second, the book defended so-called affirmative action programs which allow discrimination against persons who, in years gone by, would probably have benefited from discrimination in their favour. Third, it defended the “right” of the Quebec government to deny those migrating to Quebec from elsewhere within or outside Canada access to English-language public schools, a policy that, if replicated federally for access to French-language public schools would be decried. Fourth, the book made some references to the idea of ethnic group self-determination without discussing some its implications, such as how a civil or criminal legal dispute between two different ethnicities covered by two different sets of laws would be resolved. And as strong as the arguments the book makes for rights are, they would have been strengthened had it cited the principle embedded in the constitution of France that everyone is equal in front of the law and advocating the adoption of such a principle in Canadian law.
The book also made a few references to Conservatives, stating at one point that Conservatives see rights movement as seeking a right to indulge and behave irresponsibly and elsewhere that Conservatives were committed to individual freedom. Assuming he’s referring to those aligned to the Conservative party, all but about three of that party’s federal MPs who voted against legislation which legalised same-sex marriage, individual freedom is not something I’d associate with traditionally conservative parties or activists Canada or in any other country. It must be remembered that Michael Ignatieff was for a time the leader of the moderately left-of-centre Liberal party of Canada.
Despite these disagreements, I reiterate that the book does provide a well-written presentation and discussion of rights in Canada with relevance for other countries as well, whether rights-based or not.
December 26, 2025
I would give it 3.5 stars if possible. I found Ignatieff’s arguments sound, especially when including the necessity of recognition of different peoples and empathy for different peoples along with rights equality. This is a sound basis for a national identity that is not based on ethnicity. I also liked his insistence that national identity on this basis of rights and recognition is constantly developing with the conversation among different peoples continuing. Much like an individual human never stops developing. Indeed, the moment development stops is when senescence and ultimately death sets in.
March 6, 2024
Probably due to the fact that Ignatieff was in politics and a member of the Canadian parliament he believes too much in the willing and capabilities of the government, stating in this book that the good will of the European and North American governments are fighting all the time for everybody's rights; which to me is not accurate. On the other side he establishes a synthetic history of the fight for human rights in Canada, that he nailed
September 13, 2021
I valued a lot of what Ignatieff had to say here.
Buts it’s 14-years old now, and has not necessarily aged well. While his commentary on Franco/Anglo-Canadian relations sounds spot on, his examination of Indigenous people’s position in that narrative comes off as naive & misunderstood.
Buts it’s 14-years old now, and has not necessarily aged well. While his commentary on Franco/Anglo-Canadian relations sounds spot on, his examination of Indigenous people’s position in that narrative comes off as naive & misunderstood.
January 1, 2019
Slow starting off but the last lecture excellent. Punch line p 135 ‘rights will not keep us together if competing notions of truth continue to divide us.’
November 15, 2019
It describes what rights are, and are not. Ignatieff argues on behalf of minority rights seekers and the majority that may question certain aspects of their perceived concessions. ...
March 30, 2025
Not everything holds (to be expected) but honestly a nice, accessible quick read that definitely makes you reflect on Canadian society + current events :)
June 9, 2017
An excellent and thoughtful book on rights and responsibilities in modern liberal democracies. Even if you disagree with some of his positions, Ignatieff gives plenty of food for thought.
May 2, 2014
I actually found this to be an incredibly good listen in audio recording format. Ignatieff covers a vast range of topics over the course of five lectures, all dealing with the history of rights revolutions and the current status of rights around the world, from a uniquely Canadian perspective. Though I feel like he sometimes seemed too dispassionate about major issues in feminist and anti-racism philosophies, and often spoke too much as if such struggles were in the past tense, despite continually reminding the audience that they are ongoing, he was surprisingly well versed in such dialogues.
I actually learned a great deal about Canadian history and politics from his seamless blend of political commentary, philosophical observations, and historical anecdotes. Though at some points he came across as a little too "bleeding heart" and sappy for my liking, on the whole I found this to be a refreshingly progressive piece. He could use a bit more education on queer issues, and I don't agree with all his arguments, by any means, but I think that politically speaking, I would have been happy to have him as prime minister. I know most people see him as too academic, and he had his failures running as liberal leader, but compared to Harper, he seems like an angelic figure of radical social democracy. Definitely revitalises my faith in the liberal party to continue being relevant and worthy competition for my frequently NDP vote. Makes me wonder what the state of our country would be had he had a chance at leading it...
I actually learned a great deal about Canadian history and politics from his seamless blend of political commentary, philosophical observations, and historical anecdotes. Though at some points he came across as a little too "bleeding heart" and sappy for my liking, on the whole I found this to be a refreshingly progressive piece. He could use a bit more education on queer issues, and I don't agree with all his arguments, by any means, but I think that politically speaking, I would have been happy to have him as prime minister. I know most people see him as too academic, and he had his failures running as liberal leader, but compared to Harper, he seems like an angelic figure of radical social democracy. Definitely revitalises my faith in the liberal party to continue being relevant and worthy competition for my frequently NDP vote. Makes me wonder what the state of our country would be had he had a chance at leading it...
September 22, 2009
Somehow all of my most scholarly reads are about Canada. I got this at the talking leaves in the snack. I imagined Kirill behind the desk, and Amy buying the dictionary.
The book was so good. About using human rights within a national context, one that is inclusive to individuals and groups, and how Canada is an example of working on this because of the unique and specific groups it has. A model even.
The book was so good. About using human rights within a national context, one that is inclusive to individuals and groups, and how Canada is an example of working on this because of the unique and specific groups it has. A model even.
May 9, 2008
I find it balances well between talking down to the audience and being hopelessly unreadable due to technical talk, leaning neither way irreversibly. There wasn't much new information in it for me, but it consolidated the facts and information nicely.
June 25, 2013
I'm not used to reading straight "lectures" (or any non-fiction for that matter), so I found it hard to settle into. However, my attention definitely piqued around the fourth chapter with families and rights. Gotta say, I appreciated the focus on Canadian rights.
February 19, 2011
very abstract. Love the philosophical view and important political arguments.
July 23, 2013
oh how I wish Mr Ignatieff were our Prime Minister!
February 9, 2016
Ignatieff's Massey lectures, discussing why Canadians should be proud of our distinct approach to rights.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews