Attitude toward minorities policy

Now that I’ve figured how to mod policies, I need some help on the effects this one will have.

I have started creating a policy regarding the attitude toward minorities. At one end of the spectrum, the society only tolerate symbols of the majority (think France). At the other end, only of the minorities (kina Canada). And in between, you have priority to majority and priority to minority. (so, 4 points on the slider).

I think that Patriots will be pleased with All Majo and angry with All Mino (since they promote above all the unity of the country and minorities sign can be seen as a weakening of the country)

Liberals, the opposite (it shows respect and openness to accept minorities)

The more we accept mino, the more there’s a cost, since we need to adapt (at the limit: set religious tribunals, etc)

What other effects will have? I thought of criminality: in a society of All Majo, minorities can be forced to live in gettos, which often linked to poverty and crime (and just the fact that they use mino symbols could be a crime)

Should there be other effects?

Also, in which category should this policy be in? Welfare, Law and Order? other?

Finally… if someone could make an icon, that would be great!!



its a difficult one, maybe its a welfare one?

Anyone wanna comment on what effects it should have?

DreamTwister especially, what do you think? And, could you make me an icon, pretty please?

I’d think that whereas patriots would fall on one side or the other, liberals would favor one of the more intermediate policies and become increasingly unhappy with extremes in either direction.

But I don’t know. It feels kind of weird to talk about such a policy in totally abstract terms; maybe it’d be easier to model a particular example of it?

Policies are rather abstract… (in Democracy, I mean).


On one extreme, whenever an individal would show a sign of being in a minority (talking a different language, religion, heck eating habits), he’d get a consequence (a fine, jail, whatever). Think of France, power 1000.

On the other extreme, in a odd way, whenever a citizen of the majority would meet one of the minority, he’d have to speak language etc of minority, otherwise get a consequence. What would be promoted would be the rights of the minority, again in an extreme way. Here, Canada, power 1000.

In the middle, well, there’s the middle.

In practice, that’s however not how I’ll design my policy for the game. I imagine a “slider” policy, with 4 positions. They would show a bit what I explained just above here, but of course, not in the extreme way I just wrote.

However, the extremes help, I think, in imagining how the different groups would react (ok, just before the extremes is better), and what effects the policy should have.

For a concrete exemple. What space should be given to the minorityies’ language? None at all? They are allowed only some, but only in the middle of the night? They are allowed only some, in some decent hours? They have control of the programs of all day, the majority can only have access to programs in the middle of the night.

It’s an interesting idea, but it seems sort of strange to lump all the religious, cultural, linguistic etc rights of sundry minorities into a single government policy, rather than treating them as separate cases. For example, whether one bans burqas, or (conversely) the display of the Ten Commandments in U.S. courts, seems to have little bearing on, say, whether one recognizes certain languages for official use.

Come to think of it, a lot of these actually seem like they’d be better suited to being treated as dilemmas

banning the burqa could be a dilemma. maybe one that pleases conservatives and upsets religious and liberal?

I wouldn’t say “burqa”, but replace it with “religious symbols”.

Banning all publically displayed religious symbols, wow, that’d bring some serious hatred :smiley: .

Actually, pretty much every country has a general policy toward minorities. As I said, Canada has multiculturalism, the USA the melting-pot, France with their republicanism and strong secularity.

This is what I’m trying to emulate.

It is from these broad policies that the behavior toward specific issues (burqua, kirpan, etc) can be adopted.

An immigration policy I think would take precedence over an “attitude towards minorities” policy (which will be difficult to implement in policy due to the abstract ideas) in terms of what should be implemented next.

Btw, Christian religious symbols are not banned officially in public institutions in Canada as far as I know. They have fully subsidized Catholic schools (it all comes from taxes) and there are crosses and other religious symbols everywhere in these schools. Canada never officially seperated Church from State, however it seems that the country for the most part operates like its seperate (with the exception of public Catholic schools and such).

Actually, it depends. The place of religious symbols is in most cases a provincial issue, so it varies from one place to another, especially in schools. In Québec, for instance, catholic religious symbols are almost always (if not completely always) absent from public schools.

Yeah you’re right, my mistake. In Ontario, Catholic schools are subsidized. (basically in your tax form, you get the option of choosing your taxes to go towards the public or catholic school. Generally parents will choose to pay taxes to the system that their kids are attending.) There are even some non-religious related public schools apparently that have religious symbols and even school prayers but I don’t think its that common.

I created two icons for Attitude toward minorities policy. Choose one of them, or else - write what do you feel should be on such an icon ?

Here is the address to download:


I hope to finish work on this policy within the next few days