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 @ 03:41 PM
dpef
My my they invited a Unionist politician to the Q&A;of politicians. Big deal.
However, if you believe the absence of a confirmed nationalist politician for the Q&A;debate can cause the “perception” of imbalance. Then maybe we heading to some common ground. I have listed four problem areas (the context of one debate, the nationalist bias in another, the limited religious perspective in one and the general point its the same people yet again) and you raise one. Could that not cause perception of an overall imbalance?
“You have no idea who was invited”
Neither do you. I have based my comments on the publicly available information. Your comment about others being invited is supposition.
“You have prejudged based on partial and partially presented information”
1. I have heard most of these speakers before as they are as I described the ‘usual suspects’. I have also read the writings of some.
2. The NIHRC thought it complete enough to distribute, make publicly available and a sufficient programme to attract participation.Posted by on Nov 21, 2006 @ 09:58 PMThanks to Fair Deal for this useful publicity - hope you’ll be able to attend. As the conference organiser, I’m obviously interested in this debate - all I want to add is that further speakers will be added to the programme. Nick O’Brien from the DRC in Britain for example is a panel member on the first conference debate and David Ervine is speaking in the cultural context debate the next day. We expect reps from other political parties will confirm their participation and the focus on business and faith groups in particular will be of interest to a wide range of people perhaps not previously involved in human rights work. Check our website for further info - it should be a good event.
By the way, does Mick really charge that much?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 12:45 AM;-)
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 06:36 AMThe biggest scandal of the lot has to be:
Briege Gadd isn’t speaking! I demand a public inquiry into this outrage. ;-)
They should make all attendees of this conference park their cars in the Markets area - this would give them a little reminder of how things are in the *real* world as opposed to the lovely sanitised atmosphere of the Hilton. As asked previously - who’s paying for all this?
(P.S., last time I looked, Lady Eames and David Stevens were Prods)
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:12 AMI am also disappointed by the lineup, but for different reasons. I don’t feel that the voluntary and community sector is well-represented. Yes Avila will be attending, but I would be interested in hearing more from organisations trying to raise awareness of rights generally, not just media campaigns or funding streams.
Dread Cthulu - I accept that unionism has not been part of the debate on human rights, but when someone expresses an interest and is then castigated, it’s no wonder.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:19 AMDavid Ervine, yet another usual suspect and friend of Monica’s.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:32 AMFair Deal is quite right to raise the general scourge of “conferences” where the same old suspects meet to discuss the same old line.
Indeed, one of the reasons I think forums such as Slugger are so useful is that they enable us to challenge the orthodoxy - and indeed that there isn’t really any orthodoxy to start with.
I have been involved in running Human Rights seminars in the past - that meant the key figures in promoting a bill, but also the key figures opposed to one, and those who recognize the practical difficulties not just of developing one but also of implementing it in UK law. You cannot just wish such difficulties away.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:34 AMAs and when Gordon pulls us blubbering away from the teat, by heaven am I looking forward to the day when these sorts of things have to pay for themselves. Any takers? No? Gosh.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:50 AMwell mick, if you do intend to plunder our thoughts for this yawnfest my tuppence hap’worth is to quote the comment of some cod peer interviewed by Alan partridge on his radio series(infinitely funnier than the tv show) “Knowing Me Knowing You” describing his maiden speech in the House of Lords- “Ladies and Gentlemen, You’re all arses. Goodbye”.
Honestly, at least m’learned friends make money when they get their piles sitting in court all day. The thought of a day or weekend wasted looking at more powerpoint presentations from earnest academics prattling on about educating the proles and empowering (ugh) minorities while the real people are down the bookies or watching “I’m a celebrity” -well, it’s ruining my human rights just thinking about it.And the undeniable fact is that the Commission has a worse record in changing lives than Louis Saha has at taking penalties in Glasgow.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 11:15 AM“You cannot just wish such difficulties away.”
Except that the orthodoxy has become the drive provided by Human Rights in NI and the wider world. It is a gentle impetus towards a more progressive world. What you seem to be suggesting would wish difficulties into place.
We’ll soon have a new convention on disability rights. There will, as a consequence, be a step change in the life chances of disabled people across the world as that agreement turns Government’s heads towards disability issues. Surely you can’t demand that progress on disability is halted?
I agree that there is a wider agenda as well, linking Human Rights with the containment of globalisation and action to improve the environment. They are all bound up in one movement and all need to be actioned in order to make a difference.
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 11:23 AMomigod, I’ve read the agenda- £65 to have dinner with Monica and listen to the burblings of ...Dermot Nesbitt. Now that’s what I call abuse of human rights
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 11:24 AMWhy do we need a bill of rights when we are already party to the European Convention, which is also enshrined in our domestic law?
Posted by on Nov 22, 2006 @ 09:10 PM
