Saturday, March 29, 2008
Bill of Rights proposals leaked to Newsletter
The Human Rights Forum tends to provoke significant reactions from many. The Newsletter is reporting a leak of the draft document outlining current ideas for the Bill of Rights.
According to the Newsletter the following may be being proposed:
-Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 – meaning that rapists, murderers and other criminals under that age could not be prosecuted;
-Defining victims as those who have survived “violent, conflict-related incidents” with no distinction between those responsible for atrocities and innocent victims.
The document also states “Everyone shall enjoy appropriate healthcare and social care services, including reproductive healthcare.”
Lord Laird has attacked the whole thing and has suggested that the Secretary of State may veto parts of the proposals.
A spokesman for the HRF stressed that the document was still a draft and said the contentious issues of abortion, victims and the age of criminal responsibility had yet to be agreed upon by the group.
“The public are very welcome to observe our plenary session at the Wellington Park Hotel today from 9am to 6pm,” he said.
Whilst I have tried in the past to avoid the knee jerk opposition to the Bill of Rights; these proposals, which I accept, are only leaks of a draft are pretty ludicrous. A number of the proposals run very clearly contrary to what seems to be the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and this body seems to potentially have power and authority without any mandate or democratic accountability.
Turgon @ 12:46 PM
Turgon
The full, draft, document was noted here.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 12:54 PMRaising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 is absolutely ridiculous.
I am in favour of treating young people differently because of the silly things a lot do while maturing but the vast majority should know right from wrong by age 12, certainly by 14.Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:11 PMI wonder if the people making these decisions have ever suffered from the hands of youths under the age of criminal responsibility or terrorists who murdered and tortured ‘real’ victims?
Do they even live in areas where criminality is rife?
Have they ever got their property damaged by children?
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:15 PMSo abortion and giving hoodies a free run are now fundamental human rights are they?
And people wondered why there could be any objection to a Bill of Rights, thank heavens I emigrated long ago.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:18 PMThe Irish Republic has recently raised the age of criminal responibility to 12. So what happens?
The criminal gangs in Limerick are already recruiting and training up 10 and 11 year olds to do certain work for them. It’s called risk reduction.
I don’t doubt ingenious northern criminals will also take advantage of the youth in the area.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:52 PMgood point about the criminal gangs George.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:59 PM“Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 – meaning that rapists, murderers and other criminals under that age could not be prosecuted”
This tends to run in contrast to wider societal change which is proving that the 1950’s family model is disintegrating and childhood is pretty much over by 11.
I would rather see more legal responsibility on ‘children’, dependent of course on allowing for individual assessment re pyschological development that does vary per person, as current interactions with the adult world is happening lower down the age scale, progressing year on year. Children generally are accessing the adult’s role be it by drinking, working, deviating away from normative ‘children’s’ play patterns. So it would seem out of kilter.
Education is the key to forming appropriate new outcomes and views on contemporary approaches to how one should live their life with dignity and respect towards other. Responsibility is the key.
The likelihood is that any approved Bill of Rights will not be picked up and instilled in the minds of the wider populace because it just wont register with any interest and fall outside the reach of individual’s life patterns, just like much of ‘key’ legislation falls continually on deaf ears. As the State is getting smaller its disconnection with the people becomes wider.
People in their free time just dont want to know, but to highly paid rights experts operating their little distinct public sector power channels it means everything. But nothing to Joe Public and its younger mates out on the streets right this minute. The reality is that people aren’t tuned in and the problem will not be solved by a Bill of Rights but perhaps by whole new rethink of public representation and its involvement with people.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:07 PMThe human rights sector just doesn’t realise that its made the rope to hang itself with by pushing most of this junk.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:00 PMDC
generally agree with your points, especially on the disconnect between the planet nirvana rights industry and jo(e) public...however
1. ‘Education is the key to forming appropriate new outcomes and views on contemporary approaches to how one should live their life with dignity and respect towards other. ‘
For education read parental responsibility. The primary education does have a supportive role to play but the buck starts and stops with parents.2. ‘Responsibility is the key. ‘
Acceptance and practice of personal responsibility is the key...for both parents and young adults, ie those aged say 12 and above.Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:01 PM“For education read parental responsibility.”
But even parental responsibility can be gulfed by the influx of contemporary changes to modern life. It is of course very complex debate as it touches on the meaning of life and individual conduct which is baffling at best.
Although, one of the best changes to young people happened when they introduced free compulsory education which took workhouse kids out of the linen factories etc, 100s of years ago.
You need to ask where education starts and where control of it stops, but the impression I get is that compulsory education should be lengthened, in order to help change societal problems, which it would seem are becoming more complex as individual freedom causes a good deal more diversity (in many good and bad ways!).
Of course it is very broad sweep statement in that poor schools will likely to continue with poor outcomes; however, getting the wider educational system right coupled with an effective curriculum will certainly do a lot more than this ‘Bill’could ever pretend to do.
Unless of course this Bill considers extending free compulsory education or perhaps ensures that all children only leave the schooling system when they can spell their name and can apply themselves in a useful way after leaving.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:20 PMI’m all in favour of a strong and properly enforced Bill of Rights. I think it’s absolutely essential to protect the rights of citizens in any state, never mind NI.
However, I can’t help agreeing with Fair Deal that the various interest groups that have been given a disproportionate say in the consultation process have rendered themselves laughable. And risk making the project - already a long way away from how it was first envisaged - a joke as well.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:33 PM‘It is of course very complex debate as it touches on the meaning of life and individual conduct which is baffling at best.’
Spot on DC.
I have vague recollections of a Tim Buckley tune with a line to the effect ‘ I am puzzled as a newborn child’‘Unless of course this Bill considers extending free compulsory education or perhaps ensures that all children only leave the schooling system when they can spell their name and can apply themselves in a useful way after leaving.’
yeah, people should (assuming there are meaningful,unbiased, reliable and valid measurement instruments) leave formal education with a suitable level of literacy, numeracy and social skills. But this then raises a few a questions.
1. Who are the responsible individuals; students,teachers,parents, and institutions; family, each school, government?
2. does right to suitable educational outcomes collide with compulsion, ie sorry,you can’t leave school until you have acquired the necessary minimum standards/skills.again, I am puzzled as the newborn child… and off to the kids swimming lesson
Mahalo
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 04:47 PMIt is proof the Newsletter & Lord Laird are at times ahead of the game.
Rising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 would go down like a lead balloon with Liberal Democrats, Gay Rights folks, I don’t think it would change much,
juvewnile thugs are unlikely to pay much of a pemalty for killing people,
unless of course they make the mistake of killing somebody important, a gay person person or a police officer for example.
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 05:01 PM“Education is the key to forming appropriate new outcomes and views on contemporary approaches to how one should live their life with dignity and respect towards other. Responsibility is the key. “
I don’t think our teachers have a role there, the myopic eejits can’t see beyond their own selfishness.
I was told the other day that chucking a duster across a classroom was not corporal punishment. I suppose we can file it under target practice.
Teaching learning how to duck as a life skill, it might work for some, I hope the CCMS are reading this by the way, because, it’s an issue.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 05:07 PM“I am puzzled as a newborn child”
I can think of at least one newborn who is going to be a bit puzzled for a very long time.
G.
‘Pregnant’ man stuns medical profession
By Catherine Elsworth in Los AngelesPosted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 05:12 PMGregory this is far from proof that the Newsletter is ahead of the game. The Irish News had the age of criminal responsibility weeks ago.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 06:16 PM“Gregory this is far from proof that the Newsletter is ahead of the game. The Irish News had the age of criminal responsibility weeks ago.”
They’re both helping me out, both the Newsletter and Lord Laird,
in fairness the BBC and Belfast Telegraph are at times easily scammed by a host of characters. tHat could be the PSNI, DENI etc.
Fact based reporting is a dying art. I would refer you to the gloss jobs on CEOP and Jim Gamble by the Telegraph.
For example, it was left to the Catholic media to report that CEOP brough hard core lolita porn lords to a child protection conference in Belfast, later picked up by the Daily Ireland.
A DUP LOrd Mayor gave a civi reception and the EU disowned the congfrence.
That should have been news for the BBC and Belfast Telegraph. The reason the EU eventually choked was Hungarian pedophile groups in the background.
I know what you’re saying.
It was a faction cheer.
From me.
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 06:42 PMThe Shinners would need to be pretty good at distancing themselves from this frankly dangerous attempt at raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18. There is as much appetite for such a change in West Belfast as there is for the return of the 12th on the Falls.
I pray to God these fools have allowed their arrogance to over-reach themselves and wiser counsel will prevail further up the line...if not, there will be the first cross community popular uprising
on this hoods’ charter. If hoods can’t be dealt with by the criminal justice system, there will be a massive swell of support for any armed group who promises to do so.
Worth bearing in mind that the 20 year old individual alleged to have killed Bap McGreevy was terrorizing the people of WB for several years before that murder and the only time he wasn’t, was when he was locked up.
Sinn Fein, your voters do not want this!Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 06:43 PMJesus christ I cant believe some of the shite that people are spinning here, raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 does not mean the abolition of the juvenille justice system or that those young people who commit crimes cannot be held responsible. It does not mean that hoods will have a free reign either, what it does mean is that the rights of those most vulnerable in our society i.e. our children, will be protected under law and in keeping with best international standards like the UN convention on the rights of the child.
http://www.unicef.org.uk/youthvoice/pdfs/uncrc.pdf
Article 37 and 40 are particularly relevant, for the simps out there
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 08:01 PMNice try saveus, the UN needs to get its house in order too.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 08:35 PMOne of the few good things to come of the murders of Harry and Bap is that there is no way the shinners will publically support this, even if they’ve felt obliged to during internal disucssions...thus stripping away most of the political cover for these dangerous proposals that are divorced from the reality of working class areas.
The realpolitik is that if you decriminalise 17 year old rapists and murderers, they will still be dealt with and much more severely, such will be the eruption of disblief and anger in the community that the hoods have been given yet MORE cover.Saveus, I trust you will be opening up your home for rehabilitation / hugs for the little darlings when we can’t bang the scum up any more? Not that we do that enough as it it.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 08:46 PMThe UK doesn’t really do international standards, which have (in anycase) to be balanced against each other, ICCPR and so on.
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:02 PMOh dear, some slow learners here !! to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 DOES NOT mean decriminalising crime by young people but rather a re-evaluation of how they are treated. Children should not be in jail with adults no matter what because, yes, I do believe they can be rehabilitated, children are not born bad or evil.I want to live in a society where the rights of the vulnerable are protected, because of the fucked up history of this place the protection of human rights should be paramount. SM do you agree that the incarceration of 15,16 & 17 year olds in Long Kesh during the war was correct??
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:50 PM“SM do you agree that the incarceration of 15,16 & 17 year olds in Long Kesh during the war was correct??”
No.
Do I think 15, 16 and 17 year old rapists and murderers should be taken off the streets to protect the truly vulnerable?
Yes.There is no comparison.
The feral scum plaguing WB and other places do not have the excuse of deprivation due to the war - I am in my early fifties and remember what real poverty was like. If we cannot protect ourselves, then we MUST allow the courts to lock 15, 16, and 17 year old murderers and rapists up where they can no longer rape, murder and literally terrorize their communities.
I don’t believe SF will back this irresponsible politically correct move, in the final analysis. If they do, and I don’t say this lightly, I won’t vote for them again. I know I am not alone.Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 10:04 PMHow old is that draft? In an early working group draft, people discussed raising the age but this wasn’t a proposal that went through, nor was it voted on. It was recognised as unworkable, and didn’t carry
So keep right up with the knee-jerk reactions. Obviously the Newsletter is a bit behind, though, even Mark Devenport had a more recent draft from last week.
It just shows how stupid the populace is generally when instead of looking into the Forum and the actual documents, a representative sample of politically interested people on Slugger can get so easily waylaid by something that isn’t even confirmed. I guess we get the government we deserve.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 10:35 PM
