Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Round up the usual suspects, it’s NIHRC Conference time
I have just received the blurb from the NIHRC about their annual conference (pdf file). Yet again it inspires the usual lack of confidence. The list of speakers are the usual suspects as the NIHRC continues with its policy of “create a human rights culture by continually talking amongst ourselves”. Is anyone expecting to hear anything different from a former British-Irish Rights Watch worker, Amnesty International, the standard local academics e.g. Neil Jarman, Declan O’Hare etc etc?
In the first session “Building a human rights and equality culture” only NI and RoI public bodies are invited, apparently no public body on the mainland has anything to contribute. It’s always best to place the ideas of human rights and equality in an All-Ireland context, its the best way to see them as having no political agenda and encourage broad support. Also having two Commissioners with close ties to the Women’s Coalition isn’t enough, their old political pal from the Coalition (and long before that) Avila Kilmurray has been invited to contribute to that session too.
When it comes to discussing the wider cultural context for human rights it seems only nationalist journalist/commentators, Fionnuala O’Connor and Susan McKay, have anything to offer the debate. Also, in the workshop about human rights and faith communities it seems only Christians with ecumenical views can speak on it.
One must ask why is DUP councillor Jonathon Bell lending his name to this whole charade? The “fighting the good fight” from within doesn’t seem to be going well so far.
P.S. There is of course one outstanding session, Blogging human rights, by the innovative and outstanding, Mick Fealty. ;-)
Fair Deal @ 04:41 PM
When it comes to discussing the wider cultural context for human rights it seems only nationalist journalist/commentators, Fionnuala O’Connor and Susan McKay, have anything to offer the debate...One must ask why is DUP councillor Jonathon Bell lending his name to this whole charade?
See the contradiction here?
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:27 PMJonathan Bell is a Commissioner, perhaps that’s why? Yes, even some DUP people are interested in human rights.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:30 PMDec
LOL.
1. Jonathan Bell is not contributing to that session.
2. Look look there is ONE Unionist that one person makes up for absolutely everything else. Hmmmm.Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:33 PMFD
Why don’t you attend the conference and then enlighten us with your views afterwards rather than launching into to a longwinded ad-hominen diatribe before the event even takes place.
Just a thought.Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:36 PMDec
If you feel the need to make it about me rather than address the topic so be it
1. Where did I say I wasn’t going?
2. This is an offical programme distributed to the public and thus fair game for comment.Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:40 PM</i>If you feel the need to make it about me rather than address the topic so be it </i>
My, that’s rich. Lets examine this paragraph again, shall we:
Also having two Commissioners with close ties to the Women’s Coalition isn’t enough, their old political pal from the Coalition (and long before that) Avila Kilmurray has been invited to contribute to that session too.
1. Where did I say I wasn’t going?
Where did I say you weren’t. I asked that you hold off your criticisms until after you’d attended.
2. This is an offical programme distributed to the public and thus fair game for comment.
Why the need to castigate speakers on the basis of who they are rather than what they will say at the conference (again thats where criticism after the event is advantageous)?
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 05:49 PMYou are all being very hard on poor FD. It might even be a good thing if some of our local campaigners for Civil and Religious Liberty came along.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 06:04 PMScraping the bottom of the barrel here, FD.
The programme looks well rounded and has some interesting highlights. Avila was supposed to speak at last years event, but couldn’t. It will be interesting to hear her contribution depending on that TBC.
This is a big event for the NIHRC. It’s about them claiming the HR territory for themselves which is a good and a bad thing. It’s a good thing because having a HR institution that can command respect may push the later adopters to tune into HR. It’s potentially also bad if the NIHRC continues to play its cards so close to its chest that the game stops altogether.
If this conference is to be about developing a HR culture, Peter and others need to loosen the information reins a bit. The HR Forum will be interesting next month.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 06:26 PM“nationalist journalist/commentators”
Perhaps the unionist ones have been slow to respond, FD - or said NO ....
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 07:06 PMDec
“you hold off your criticisms until after you’d attended.”
A imbalanced mix of speakers is an imbalanced mix of speakers. My personal attendance is an insignificant detail. Why the lack of defence of the NIHRC’s programme and the focus on me?
“Why the need to castigate speakers on the basis of who they are rather than what they will say at the conference (again thats where criticism after the event is advantageous)?”
I don’t castigate anyone for being who they are. I castigate the NIHRC for bringing together a group of speakers with a narrowness of perspective.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 07:15 PMNevin
Myabe, maybe not. However the issue of imbalance runs through most of the programme.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 07:18 PMSince we already have a Bill of Rights as a result of the Glorious Revolution, why do we need a “human rights” agenda?
Actually we don’t, because in Britain “human rights” is simply a means by which the liberal-left can agitate for change and reshape society in their own image. So no wonder nationalists are keener for it than unionists in the local situation.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 07:54 PMHonestly, folks, I prefer to spend all night browsing through the Stormont Hansard of the ancien regime (thanks Mick) than having to listen to Monica et al, with the obvious exception of Mr Fealty.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 08:00 PMbefore more people get stuck into FD (with whom i’ve many disagreements in the past) a few simple questions and a request for education and englightment.
1. since its inception, what tangible on the ground impact has NIHRC made?
2. I know it is difficult to argue the counterfactual..but, in the absence of the NIHRC, what, if anything would be different in this, or other,jurisdictions in the absence of NIHRC?3. what tangible and measureable impacts and outcomes will arise from the conference?
answers on a postcard please
milton ‘ there is no free lunch’ freidman recently passed on to the great money supply in the sky. hallelujah
There may be no free lunch, but from the programme schedule I note that dinner is served at eight.
who pays? who benefits? who loses?
if the human rights/equality/community relations conglomerate manufactured light bulbs, we all probably still be in the dark… and the firm would be in liquidation.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 08:23 PMFair Deal hasn’t been doing his homework. Totally unfair to criticise a speaker without attending the event first. I understand A Kilmurray is Director of the Community Foundation. Could her contribution be something to do with the fact that as noted on their website they are about to launch a new programme on a Bill of Rights?
“ As the creation of a Bill of Rights re-emerges as a live issue in Northern Ireland, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland will enable and enliven debate on the creation of the Bill.
The Foundation has secured funding for a Bill of Rights Project to include a Small Grants Programme and a parallel Training and Support Programme. This presents a critical opportunity for the community sector to play a key part in the framing and, more specifically, the outworking of the Bill of Rights.
The main purpose of a Bill of Rights is to establish and guarantee the relationship between the state and its citizens.
The Project will create local awareness and debate and encourage participation in the process of creating an appropriate Bill of Rights.
The final delivery of an effective Bill of Rights is the concern of everyone interested in the search for long-term peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that the Bill of Rights should:
“make a real difference to the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland - young and old, rich and poor, long established and newly arrived.”Learning about social justice and human rights issues is critical to helping local communities shape the Bill of Rights that will be developed for NI and the local communities to participate in the decision making that lies ahead.
More details on the project will be available soon. Look out for regular project updates through the newsletters which will be available on this website.
I thought Fair Deal might know about this already!
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:00 PMAnimus: “Jonathan Bell is a Commissioner, perhaps that’s why? Yes, even some DUP people are interested in human rights. “
If Unionism had a fraction of their purported “interest in human rights” thirty-some odd years ago, we wouldn’t have these problems.
Fair_Deal: “A imbalanced mix of speakers is an imbalanced mix of speakers. My personal attendance is an insignificant detail. Why the lack of defence of the NIHRC’s programme and the focus on me? “
And when Unionists barred Nationalist speakers from attending a women’s political conference that was using Council space, what was your opinion on having an “imbalanced mix of speakers?”
Wild Turkey: “milton ‘ there is no free lunch’ freidman (sic) recently passed on to the great money supply in the sky. hallelujah “
Tsk tsk tsk… complain all you want, the man was right, having both the Nobel Prize and the mathematical support to prove his point.
Rapunsel: “The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that the Bill of Rights should: “make a real difference to the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland - young and old, rich and poor, long established and newly arrived.”
Gee, Rapunsel, seeing as they’re trying to sell the notion, is it a shock the salesmen have their pitch and patter already worked up?
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:10 PMPOI:
I have no doubt that this thread will form an important feature of my presentation.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:22 PMIt may already have been sold, Dread..
And, what’s more, we’re supposed to get our very own special rights to suit our very own particular circumstances...
Because… well, we’re special, innit?
[off sarcasm]
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:23 PMFeel free to highlight our specialness, Mick. ;o)
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:24 PMRapunsel
fair point and nice cut and paste job. I am on the periphery of the equality/human rights industry and did not know about the current initiative. down to my ignorance no doubt.
However, in the document you quote, how does the community foundation propose to monitor and assess whether or not the programme they propose and will assumedly exucute , will deliver what they set out to achieve?
back to my earlier point about tangible outcomes and impacts on the ground.For example, how will I, and indeed the Comm foundation, know if the programme has created ‘local awareness and debate and encouraged participation in the process of creating an appropriate Bill of Rights? (we’ll leave the use of the word of ‘appropriate’ for another time). Should I wait for my invite from the CF to participate in a local commmunity consultation, a questionnaire, a mailshot?
if the bill of rights will ‘make a real difference to the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland - young and old, rich and poor, long established and newly arrived.’ how will we know it has been effective in this aim and ambition?
an historical note of probably very little interest to the present polity,It took far less time to write, legislate for (at both federal and state level) the first ten ammendments to the american constitution (known as the bill of rights) than the ongoing debate/farce here regarding a bill of rights… And yes, I will be the first to acknowledge that in NI 2006 there are a great range of diverse and competing players, unlike america 1790 when a few rich white males (many of whom were slave owners) just sat down, wrote it and did it...and ever since then, to the present day, rich white american males have been energetic and disingenuous in their efforts to undermine what was an expression of the better angels of our human nature… apologies for going off on a tangent but thanksgiving is coming up thursday.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:30 PMI hope you make the point that much of the Unionist community has pre-judged the event before hearing a word and rejected it’s worth, that the criteria they used for that judgment (confirmed guests) has been partially applied and dropped when it didn’t suit their agenda - see the confirmed speakers for the political section and the fact this wasn’t mentioned above - just as they seem to have rejected the whole concept of Human Rights.
Maybe some people fear an equality agenda because they think equality inevitably means lose of advantage. A zero sum attitude.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:30 PMdpef,
With the deepest of respect, I’ll not be telling anyone that one or two commenters on Slugger are representative of a whole community.
What a scary thought!!
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:45 PMRapunsel
I am aware of Avila’s and CFNI’s work as I have been involved with it. Alan pointed out she was invited last year but didn’t show, undermining the claim it relates to a funding programme about to start this year.
“The final delivery of an effective Bill of Rights is the concern of everyone interested in the search for long-term peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”
1. Yes it is the concern of everyone and that is why I am concerned the job of an unrepresentative cabal that does nothing but talk to itself and its buddies.
2. Great, maybe that would be accomplished if they started putting together events that practiced what it preached.DC
“And when Unionists barred Nationalist speakers from attending a women’s political conference that was using Council space, what was your opinion on having an “imbalanced mix of speakers?”
1. Two exclusions make inclusion. Hmmm.
2. I have checked that thread and I did not comment. Perhaps you are confusing me with yerman
LinkMick
Admit it you hadn’t worked up your presentation for the event ;-)
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 10:04 PMdpef
“Maybe some people fear an equality agenda because they think equality inevitably means lose of advantage.”
LMAO. Exclusion and imbalance is an “equality agenda”. Priceless
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 10:06 PM“Admit it you hadn’t worked up your presentation for the event”
It would fill more time than:
Blogging human rights – “blogging is always a naval gazing exercise for a tiny group of anoraks with a great level of respect for their own opinion and a huge desire to make it known and as such any role for blogging will not be representative of the much larger groups of people who have much better things to be doing with their lives – Thank you. That’ll be £1,000 plus expenses”.
FD,
What imbalance and exclusion? You haven’t presented any. You have presented an unconfirmed list of speakers. Mentioned perceived imbalance in some areas, neglected the perceived imbalance in others. You have no idea who was invited and didn’t accept certainly haven’t provide devidence of exclusion. Haven’t heard a word from the speakers.
You have prejudged based on partial and partially presented information.
Neglecting to mention the current weighting of the political section shows how utterly biased your piece is. In fact I’d say failing to mention that element borders on dishonesty.
Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 10:16 PM
