Cameron drives last nail in the coffin of a separate Human Rights Bill
David Cameron has driven another nail in the coffin of a Northern Ireland Bill of Human Rights. The Newsletter has got a statement from him saying he would not enact any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as envisaged by the Human Rights Commission.
“It is important the rights of everyone in our society are protected,” he said. But Conservatives and Unionists do not want to take power away on issues such as social and economic policy from democratically-elected representatives and hand it over to unelected judges. That is not good for democracy. We are proposing that any Northern Ireland-specific issues are best dealt with in a sub-section of a UK-wide Bill of Rights and Responsibilities – protecting rights and respecting the role of democratically-elected representatives.”
The Conservative leader has always been clear he wants to limit the scope of rights legislation generally to the basic and the general and to rein in on any consequential extension of the power of judges. Locally though, his move is bound to be seen through the sectarian prism, as another tilt towards Unionism and a further sign that Cameron does not regard every section of the GFA as set in stone. This will worry nationalists, although I very much doubt if Cameron would alter the basic architecture. His next move, scaling back the expenses entitlement from the abstaining Sinn Fein MPs now seems likely as part of the general expenses reform. Note by the way, that Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life will take evidence in Belfast on Wednesday 1 July – their only out-of-London visit scheduled so far.
Cameron’s support for unionism in NI diverges from his offer of guarded engagement with the SNP government. Contrast his sparring relationship with Alex Salmond with his awkward alliance with the Ulster Unionists, after failing to achieve a federation in a proposed new ” Northern Ireland Conservative and Unionist party.” under his leadership.. This looks like an experiment rather than an election-winning strategy.
As Cameron says, any separate NI provisions would now be a footnote in his UK Bill of Rights. As the Secretary of State has shelved NIHRC’s recent Advice on a comprehensive and detailed NI Bill, how will Labour proceed?. There must be doubts now that any NI specific rights Bill will emerge at all. This would be consistent with the recanting views of the first NIHR Commissioner Brice Dickson in a recent memo to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, rejecting his successor’s advice.
All of Cameron’s moves in the devolution scene seem designed to create a stronger framework for the evolving relationship between the centre and nations and regions. If he makes any party gains out if it, so much the better, but he knows he starts from a very low base. Not everyone will see the wider horizon beyond the Copeland islands in Cameron’s approach. I doubt if they should have any real cause for concern though, and they should try to control their paranoia.
Locally though, his move is bound to be seen through the sectarian prism, as another tilt towards Unionism and a further sign that Cameron does not regard every section of the GFA as set in stone. This will worry nationalists, although I very much doubt if Cameron would alter the basic architecture.
It’s irrelevant. The desire to cherry pick bits of established and democratically endorsed agreements should be highly worrying to Nationalism, not least because it is very hard for them to hit back.
All of Cameron’s moves in the devolution scene seem designed to create a stronger framework for the evolving relationship between the centre and nations and regions. If he makes any party gains out if it, so much the better, but he knows he starts from a very low base. Not everyone will see the wider horizon beyond the Copeland islands in Cameron’s approach. I doubt if they should have any real cause for concern though, and they should try to control their paranoia.
It’s not paranoia if they are out to get you, and I think I will…. mmmmmmmm… pass on taking the Tories on trust. I don’t believe this is about “evolving relationship between the centre and regions”. No. It is about challenges to a future Tory governments power. Hopefully the various elements opposed are too smart to play along.
And since he’s alraady skewing dangerously towards Unionismso much for the wonderful “New Force”
Cameron just seems to get higher in peoples opinions here in this part of the UK with every speech. More please, David.
It is refreshing to see a politician take a ‘bull hook’ (for those of a country leaning) to all the rubbish that is going on in our multiplicity of Quangos and other unelected bodies.
When it has been cleared we can then start to look at REAL issues rather than manufacturered ones that most, outside the anoraks, don’t give two damns about.
So let’s get on with the economy, jobs, education, and health and when we have a solution underway for those we can move on to other areas.
Topping the poll, smash SF, and a UI are not what we need to be discussing today, they are the politics of the past not the future.
Brian,
re. “the sectarian prism”.
That is an inappropriate/pejorative term to use in relation to the view that might be taken of the Tory leader backtracking on the GFA – you dont need to have a sectarian prism/outlook to be disappointed/angry/outraged at a prospective National leader not honouring the committments of his predecessor.
The desire to cherry pick bits of established and democratically endorsed agreements should be highly worrying to Nationalism, not least because it is very hard for them to hit back.
The relevant section of the agreement was already enacted. A NIHRC was set-up. It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.
Lets hope he dismantles all those useless quangoes like the Equality Commission, Human Rights commission etc as well.
FD,
“Topping the poll, smash SF, and a UI ” are not needed – neither are PoshBoyDC’s tribal offering about his support for the Union – that is the politics of the past as well i.e. before the GFA.
Remember his collegaues in his party helped to secure the IRA ceasefire by saying they had no strategic interest in this part of Ireland – as long as the GFA stands so should that statement – if not we can rightly accuse the Tories of dishonesty or irresponsible backtracking – take your pick.
“It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.”
Chekov, that nonsense has already been nailed once today in the comments section of your blog.
the Tory leader backtracking on the GFA
What the Agreement actually said was we’ll set up a NIHRC “to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.”
What Sammy read was, “to make inviolable whatever contentious stuff we can jam into a bill which then must be passed whatever parliament thinks of it”.
It’ll teach you to have a second glance, to read the words and consider what they mean when thus ordered.
Chekov
The relevant section of the agreement was already enacted. A NIHRC was set-up. It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.
In which case you go again, tightening the remit. You don’t go “I’m get my own HRC with black jack, and hookers. Wait, forget the black jack. Forget the hookers. You know what, forget the whole damn thing”. The intention was not for a proces staht produced bugger all.
I have a lot of sympathy for not putting legislation in a constitutional document. But I do not like this. What else will he start cherry picking?
Chekov, that nonsense has already been nailed once today in the comments section of your blog.
Yeah. Sure it was. Because you read the relevant section of the agreement and came back with a whole bunch of rights particular to Northern Ireland.
Wait.
No you didn’t!
In which case you go again, tightening the remit.
No you don’t. You say – we’ve had 10 years of this. No-one has even mentioned a single right which is particular to people in Northern Ireland. If anyone thinks of one we’ll stick it in the UK act. The Agreement didn’t set this body up in perpetuity. Show me the provision which states otherwise.
We’ve had the forum, two chairmen and not one single specific right. Time’s up. Move on. The agreement has been truly satisfied.
Given that Human Rights are generally considered to be universal, why did we waste all that money on yet another pointless quango? Can anyone point out what is allegedly missing from the HRA 1998? From what I heard the NIHRC issued a crazy report saying lots of social and economic policy issues which people vote for parties on should be reclassified as HR and fixed in stone.
On the more general point about quangos – seeing as the IMF says we need to cut public spending how about abolishing all public sector jobs which have “Commisioner” in the title, unless they can justify their continued existence.
No you don’t. You say – we’ve had 10 years of this. No-one has even mentioned a single right which is particular to people in Northern Ireland. If anyone thinks of one we’ll stick it in the UK act. The Agreement didn’t set this body up in perpetuity. Show me the provision which states otherwise.
It didn’t set this body up with the intention to do nothing. Oneill managed to run a few suggestions on his blog and I doubt he was even trying. If the problem is truly the remit, then perhaps more focus would produce a more productive report.
But the problem isn’t the remit. The problem is that Unionism and even more so Conservatism hate the whole idea.
We’ve had the forum, two chairmen and not one single specific right. Time’s up. Move on. The agreement has been truly satisfied.
Tories have spoken. What next will they decide that “The Agreement has been truly satisifed” and abolish?
perhaps more focus would produce a more productive report
The remit was provided in black and white in the 1998 Agreement. All the focus that was required was to stick to the remit.
kensei
“What next will they decide that “The Agreement has been truly satisifed” and abolish?”
Well, off the top of my head:
sectarian designation
mandatory coalition
d’Hondt
implimentation bodies
Bonar
Well, off the top of my head:
sectarian designation
mandatory coalition
d’Hondt
implimentation bodies
Which is any of that was even hinted at unilaterally would lead to major instability. I am almost sure that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually do it. I certainly worry he rattle the saber or nibble at the edges in a counter productive way.
Jeez, David Cameron has spoken. All bow down, quick.
No need to actually hold a public consultation with the actual people who actually live in Northern Ireland, then…
Which is any of that was even hinted at unilaterally would lead to major instability. I am almost sure that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually do it. I certainly worry he rattle the saber or nibble at the edges in a counter productive way.
Posted by kensei on May 28, 2009 @ 04:42 PM
IIRC Owen Patterson, Shadow Secretary of State, is on record as saying that such changes could not be unilaterally changed but would need to be looked at in the medium term. The Conservatives are well aware of the sensitivities and the need to proceed carefully.
As the current system is a horrid sectarian mess, incapable of producing good government I imagine over time that all parties will be willing to look at fixing it. Well parhaps I’m being optimistic there, but certainly the general public will be pushing for change.
kensei
nothing is set in stone, after all the legislation enacting the Agreement has been significantly altered already. More ammendments are only to be expected, especially with a government of a different hue than that which was in power in 1998.
Kensei,
I think Boner is only teasing – he may well be pining for the good old ways when the Tories – like his namesake – were as mad as brushes.
PoshBoyDC knows full well that he will have another Republican insurgency on his hands if he fecks about – he may well make a few Orangey noises – but after fecking up the UUP party right and proper and reducing them to zero MPs he will presumably have the good sense to think about things before making a complete pigs mickey out of them.
No need to actually hold a public consultation with the actual people who actually live in Northern Ireland, then…
No. Why should he? The UK government is the state authority here. Come next May David Cameron will be the man who says what goes here.
If SF don’t like that they can go to hell. No big loss.
“Jeez, David Cameron has spoken. All bow down, quick.”
Alex,
Not only Cameron has spoken, Bruce Dickson, as mentioned in the post and also Professor Liam Kennedy have criticised the “advice” produced by the NIHRC:
http://tinyurl.com/rcqju2
Kennedy’s point is rather an obvious one, human rights are universal, not specific to Northern Ireland.
Sure there are certain human rights available in the rest of the most of the democracies of the world which are now sadly lacking in NI- full reproductive rights for women would be one. If the NIHRC had instead concentrated on those areas specific to NI, then they and you would have a much stronger argument. And those specific, or areas “particular” (as it was defined in the BA/GFA) to Northern Ireland were the areas the NIHRC was supposed to give its “advice” on.
IIRC Owen Patterson, Shadow Secretary of State, is on record as saying that such changes could not be unilaterally changed but would need to be looked at in the medium term. The Conservatives are well aware of the sensitivities and the need to proceed carefully.
I asked Paterson about this at his talk at Hammersmith Irish Centre last week, and he did say it would be done though the review mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement.
I also asked him how he would convince nationalists to support the abolition of mandatory coalitions and he had no real answer other than to suggest that it was a long term goal.
Most people I talked to there thought he gave a fairly conciliatory impression, but there was a lot of scepticism around. This kind of thing is not going to dispel that.
Oh dear. Nice of Brian Walker to eliminate all reference to Diane Dodds comments and the Secretary of State on this article.
Did you used to be a professional journalist?
Sammy
“he will have another Republican insurgency on his hands if he fecks about”
And I bet you can’t wait.
When the public are stuck with the same Stormont Executive election after election due to mandatory coalitions and d’Hondt I think we’ll see the mood change.
It is a fundamental for democracy that you can kick out a government you don’t like – in NI we can’t.
Sammy
Are you saying that a few words will make the IRA go back to their arms, get real.
Remember the Conservatives didn’t negotiate the GFA and have always been unhappy about sections of it. They have accepted that it is in place and can only change it with the consent of the parties, it doesn’t mean that they can’t propose improvements to the GFA, such as a properly funded opposition.
Maybe if SF snd the SDLP stop going on about a UI then the Conservatives might stop emphasising the United Kingdom. Until SF and the SDLP have done that you have no grounds to stand on about DC. The CU’s have as much right to promote the United Kingdom as you do for a UI.
Get out of the past and look to the future.
fd
Are you saying that a few words will make the IRA go back to their arms, get real.
“The IRA” as in the PIRA are not going back. Not now, not ever. A hideously unbalanced adminstration will stoke dissident fires and serious upset the delicate political balance here. I say that with no emotion; it is simply a fact. No one wants it.
The Tories are more interested in the wider game, particularly Scotland. Of course, they have a history of stoking up trouble here to suit their own agenda but we’d kind have hoped that had passed.
No one in their right mind would want to return to violence but equally no one in their right mind would unilaterally change the GFA in the way suggested by Boner above.
Should some Tory nutcase show up from the past like a modern day Bonar Law then the British would clearly have their wish met to kick of another round of insurgency.
But PoshBoyDC may sound like a bit of a twit in relation to Norn Iron but nobody (perhaps except Boner and Driftwood and other anti-agreement Unionists) really think he is that stupid.
If SF don’t like that they can go to hell. No big loss.
Posted by Driftwood on May 28, 2009 @ 05:15 PM
Did you forget to say Connaught?
SM ,
‘When the public are stuck with the same Stormont Executive election after election due to mandatory coalitions and d’Hondt I think we’ll see the mood change.’
Well the last time that NI enjoyed the same Stormont Executive in election after election (1920 -1972) it took 50 years for the ‘mood ‘ to change . Alas the ‘mood ‘ change came only from that half of the population who had been deliberately excluded from any power by the NI State’s deliberate carve up of a sectarian majority .
‘It is a fundamental for democracy that you can kick out a government you don’t like – in NI we can’t.’
Of course it’s fundamental . But as Northern Ireland was never a democracy and even now it’s still not a proper democracy -because it can’t be- given the State’s format – then you are just going to have to wait until the next 50 years are up and then it’ll be back to the drawing board again .
I would no more trust the Tories on matters Irish than I would trust a serial rapist to take my daughter to school . As Kensei says above their history in Ireland is a long one of divisiveness , bloodshed and terror . The leopard has’nt changed it’s spots either .
The Tories were never -ever interested in Ireland . They just use it for their ‘convenience ‘ If it can help to get them back into power at Westminster that’s all they want.
Unionists putting their faith in the Tories are like turkeys putting their faith in a post Christmas happy ever after !
Some people’s suspicions are implacable. I anticipated the fears and don’t dismiss them. Having known and reported them for 30 odd years, I’m probably less omniscient about the Tories than some. Let’s’ briefly look at the record. Yes, the Conservative – and Unionist – party “played the Orange card,” resisted Home Rule etc. In 1938, they returned the Treaty ports. It was Labour who copper fastened consent of the Stormont parliament – not the people – in 1949. Who abolished the Stormont Parliament in 1972? Brought in powersharing and the Council of Ireland in 1974, although abortively? The Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985? Some people simply may not realise the trauma all this caused traditional unionists. The legacy of this recent history is partly responsible for the UUs’ reluctance to team up tightly with Cameron today. Yes, there was a tougher security policy in 1970 but this was matched by Labour after 1976. The version of the hunger strike as we’ve seen, is not straighforwardly anti-Thatcher. A very pragmatic party the Conservatives. Cameron ( and it was I who made the GFA point after all) needs to discuss all this with more than unionists, granted. But NI is a sidebar he has yet seriously to think about. He doesn’t quite get the measure of its sense of exceptionalism and the continuing insecurities of both unionists and nationalists. It would be creative if some nationalist critics would be more open to wider contexts as well as reflecting on the real strength of their political position, the three strands, the mutual guarantees, the international treaty etc. The same applies mutatis mutandis to unionists. Political debate rally won’t get anywhere at that level. Saying No very grimly a lot isn’t a refutation or any other kind of argument. Remember Paisley and Molyneaux in 1985.
Dearie me, Stuck-record Sammy has moved on from his “they can’t do it” (what with Sammyt’s fantastical misreading of the Agreements plural) to “shurely tae God they won’t do it?” Keep on fantasising Sammy: it’s a lot nicer there for you than it is in the real world.
It is important to note too that Cameron’s position is not consistent with Dickson’s, if I am interpreting them correctly.
Dickson gives two reasons – the lack of consensus behind the NIHRC report (on the Forum), and the existing legislation.
On the first, Dickson can claim impartiality, but Cameron cannot. His party (the UUP) contributed to that lack of consensus he seeks to use as justification for the report’s rejection. This argument amounts to, as arbiter I say you can’t have a bill because my party doesn’t want one.
On the second, Dickson notes that the human rights situation in NI is comparable to GB, which he attributes to the Human Rights Act, and also the ECHR. But Cameron has pledged to abolish the HRA and to hold a referendum on membership of the EU. Thus, NI could have zero human rights law outside a Good Friday Agreement, whose review is being approached with this level of a priori decisions under joint Unionist/Tory control.
Cameron’s anouncement flies is the face of the Good Friday Agreement, and the very idea of using
the Good Friday Review as a means of implementation betrays concern about judicial review. The Tory party seeks the removal of all human rights legislation – even those who oppose their implementation should give this some thought.
Chekov – rights reflecting the particular circumstances of NI are not the same as rights particular to NI. The point is that they are universal and inalienable and would be given solid legislative expression “reflecting the particular circumstances”. Dickson believes should be in a constitution, as opposed to a Bill of Rights, but he will be aware that neither NI nor GB as one.
Damian, Surely it’s a bit parochial to call the UUP “Cameron’s party”? You’re indulging in a wee bit of rhetoric, stretching s point – now come on, you are. I seem to recall that the SDLP at some stage had reservations about what Brice Dickson called an all singing, all dancing NI HR Bill on the grounds that it reduced democratic discretion, but no doubt I’ll be put right about that, and whether they now unreservedly back Monica’s version. Under either UK party, there will be a UK Bill of Rights which will be ECHR plus. I frankly don’t know if NI add-ons would be a violation of the NI Act. Do you? Chapter and verse? I genuinely would like to know. And why would add-ons necessarily be unsatisfactory before we see them, if Human Rights are universal? The main reason both parties want a British Bill is (a) to try to reduce the discretion of the courts in crime and terrorist cases ( an aim most jurists believe is doomed to failure) and ( b) to speed up hearings, in view of a Strasbourg backlog years long.
LTU,
A stuck record moving on? – thank you Mr Muddle.
Brian,
Nobody except fantasising anti-agreement Unionists serioulsy think PBDC will actually try to undo the GFA in a substantive way without the consent of the ROI and Northern Nats. – as he himself admitted in the speech as UU HQ he is limited by the GFA – if PBDC makes funny Orange Card noises from time to time it will of course give succour to those fantasists (and also worryingly to republican dissers) and you can already sense a bit of Unionist political maturbation on this thread as Driftwood and co over-excite themselves at the very thought of it.
If, as seems likely, the general consensus of the next Conservative/Unionist administration at Westminster, is to halt the growth of the rights and equality industry, with its burgeoning socialist bureacracy, Brilliant. There is more than enough legislation in place, and with Unionist support, we can abolish all the silly commissions and quangoes that have sprung up in NI like weeds in the past decade.
I hope this is only the thin edge of the wedge from Cameron. When in office, let’s hope he is far more ruthless in his approach.
Damian O’Loan: This argument amounts to, as arbiter I say you can’t have a bill because my party doesn’t want one.
You don’t need an arbiter to note that there isn’t consensus over the report. Any sufficiently honest person could note the same thing and draw the obvious conclusion that it’s a non-starter. Whatever did you lot do with John Hume? You need him back.
Damian O’Loan: But Cameron has pledged to abolish the HRA and to hold a referendum on membership of the EU.
No he hasn’t. The proposed referendum is on the Lisbon treaty. Did Ireland leave the EU when it voted no to Lisbon? Check with Alban Maginnis – he’s your party’s EU specialist, isn’t he?
Damian O’Loan: Thus, NI could have zero human rights law outside a Good Friday Agreement…
Wrong again. Even if your fantasised referendum went the wrong way and the UK left the EU (27 members), it would still be a part of the ECHR (47 members). If your party has a Human Rights specialist, check that with them.
universal and inalienable
If we’re talking about ‘universal and inalienable’ rights, rather than aspirational rights, you can immediately remove all the socio-economic stuff for a kick off.
Damian
You make untrue allegations re Tory policy.
Tory policy is to replace the HRA with a similar but they feel better constructed version.
Even if the UKIPers got their wet dream and we left EU that makes no difference as ECHR is a totally separate international treaty.
Britain was instrumental in drafting ECHR and a founding member. All HRA did was make rights apply directly in UK law rather than having to appeal to Strasbourg.
Go read Shadow Attorney General Dominic Green’s speeches and you will see Tory’s are pro-HR they just think how some of them have been applied has been unbalanced. Read the whole policy not the spin.
P.S. The GFA is a fundamental constitutional document, no question, but the law didn’t begin with it, nor does it end with it. And you will realise that it is implemented by a UK Act. The Assembly would never agree on an HR Act. On this you’re better off with Westminster. While phantoms can be conjured up, there are no good reasons to believe that Westminster would be bothered to erode nationalist rights. Can you think if any?
Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit
I don’t think DC thinks a great deal about NI. He rightly assumes it’s just another region of the UK. Like Witney!. So all UK policies should apply here. There is nothing different about here. So separate (and wasteful) duplication of legislation is unnecessary.
Public spending cuts are coming. I hope Monica McWilliams and co. are first for the chop.
Brian,
It was indeed rhetoric, but with the idea in mind that Westminster’s role has changed, and will continue to change, a lot since 1998. I think in this case it just happens that the UUP policy suits his.
You say “Under either UK party, there will be a UK Bill of Rights which will be ECHR plus” but there is no evidence for that, and years of Tory quotes to support my argument. The second reason you quote is one he rejected when it was presented in favour of the HRA. Would I accept nothing for the carrot of probably little more than that in future? No.
I don’t know what the SDLP position is. Personally, I think if the Bill is to be rejected on the grounds of a lack of political consensus, the political parties should then have to reach consensus, maintaining consideration of the views expressed by civic society. The voting system in the Forum side-stepped that.
Stuck-record Sammy – you can run away from your own wet dreams as much as you want. You’ve droned on for years that he couldn’t do this, chiefly because you’re incapable of actually understanding basic constitutional law, let alone reading any of the Agreements in question. Now you’re slabbering that he won’t, rather than can’t. Faff away, you’re as unconvincing as ever to anyone else, what’s especially laughable is how you’re going about cheering *yourself* up these days – any tune will do, eh? Be sure to come back and make up some more specious guff: it’s good to have at least something that never changes.
SM,
Cameron now wishes to hold a referendum on Lisbon, which is in line with the position previously stated by Hague advocating a referendum on EU membership. The spin has softened on the Tories, the position has officially softened, but I have no faith in Tory commitment to human rights protection.
I realise that the EU and ECHR are separate, but as the Tory position is that ties with the EU need not go beyond trade agreements, I have no confidence in their commitment to the ECHR either. With their policy reversals at the moment, I have little faith in anything they claim.
Reader,
These are just my views.
Brian,
“The Assembly would never agree on an HR Act. On this you’re better off with Westminster.”
I’d sooner see the Assembly forced to confront itself.
Enough of the pundits, the ideologue politicians (and even the profs… of whatever hue)! As Patrick Corrigan from Amnesty has said over on his blog, it’s time to let the people have their say.
What could you be afraid of?
The NI people and that they might actually have a few opinions of their own, different to those churned out by predictable party policy officers?
That those poll findings (about 5 different polls over a period of ten years, all conducted by reputable independent polling comapnies and all showing conistent levels of support from right across the community) might actually be true, despite the pundits’ sniping?
Let the people have their say. Launch the public consultation.
Damian O’Loan,
can you point to any practical benefits a seperate Bill of Rights for Norn Iron would bring – assuming (and I accept it is a big assumption) the appropriate British/EU legislation was in place. Was the reason for its inclusion in the GFA an assumption that it was neeeded because of the likely absence British/EU legislation?
I think one reason for a lack of disappointment that the Bill might go ahead was a failure to communicate clealry and simply how/which practial benefits would follow from it – it does look like an easy target for PBDC and one which might give the the UU a desperately needed fillip before the Euros.
Damian
Have you looked for the Tory position? No. Go read what the whole of what the shadow attorney general actually says and stop spouting nonsense. It is not Tory policy to leave ECHR.
EU and ECHR are separate issues. Stop trying to conflate them.
The following is the full extent of the phone survey carried out for the NIHRC, as far as they will let me know:
* * *
1. How important or unimportant do you think it is for Northern Ireland to have a Bill of Rights?
2. If a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland were to be introduced, how important or unimportant would it be for it to have the following:
a) The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
b) The right to an adequate standard of living
c) The right to work
d) The right to adequate accommodation.
* * *
It’s hardly comprehensive, it doesn’t address many aspects of the debate, and its value doesn’t – to me – seem very high. The questions are clearly loaded. Who on earth is going to say they don’t think its important people should have a right to work?
Where are the questions about issues that reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland? Where’s the questions about paramilitarism, sectarianism and identity? Or the issue over abortion, which – whether you’re for or against it – is very particular to Northern Ireland.
Answer: There are none.
You might as well ask how important it is for you not be poor. It’s THAT simplistic. Who would possibly disagree with motherhood and apple pie, unless it set in context? Was it stratified, random or what? Was it landlines only? How was bias compensated for?
Is it even scientific? Millward Brown get election predictions wrong, so…
What EXACTLY is the value of this survey, if not to get a certain result in order to push a one-sided agenda? Why not release the full report – including background, contextual questions, methodology etc – for independent scrutiny.
I’d love to add more, but the Human Rights Consortium doesn’t believe I have the right to read the full report.