Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Why Northern Ireland needs a Bill of Rights
Given we’ve had quite a few pieces on Slugger arguing the case against the need for a Bill of Rights, we have a piece from Chris Sidoti, independent Chair of the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Forum, in which he lays out five reasons why we do need a separate Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
From Chris Sidoti
Almost ten years ago, the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement of 1998 foreshadowed a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It was a commitment by all the participants, endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland by referendum, to ensure human rights for all. Yet, after a decade of debate, some still ask why Northern Ireland needs a Bill of Rights. Chris Sidoti, the Australian human rights expert who chairs Northern Ireland’s Bill of Rights Forum, offers five good reasons.
1. To cement the peace
From the beginnings of modern human rights law, during the years immediately after World War II, the protection of human rights has been seen as essential for peace. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself says, ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’.
Many societies that have emerged from violent conflict, as Northern Ireland has, have incorporated effective protection for human rights in their laws as an essential element in securing the peace. It has re-assured everyone that patterns of human rights violation that might have preceded the violence or arisen during the violence would no longer be tolerated.
Northern Ireland is a society rising out of conflict and suffering. As the 1998 Agreement itself recognised, the new shared future of Northern Ireland must be one built on human rights. A Bill of Rights is the best sure means of achieving that.
2. To address the legacy of the conflict
In a post conflict society, a Bill of Rights can be an effective means of identifying and addressing the continuing issues relating to the conflict. The universal experience is that it is simply impossible to draw a line under the past and pretend that it never happened. Like it or not, societies ultimately are forced to confront their demons.
Without exception, deep social conflicts arise out of human rights violations and generate other human rights violations. The nature of those violations differs, however, from conflict to conflict. These are the “particular circumstances”, the phrase used in the 1998 Agreement, of the particular conflict and society.
A Bill of Rights must address what those circumstances are for Northern Ireland. Certainly recent history here has been quite different from that of other parts of the world but even from that of other parts of the United Kingdom. People in Northern Ireland can be protected under the general law of the United Kingdom and in addition they can benefit from their own Bill of Rights that addresses the legacy of their recent history and their situation.
3. To establish a common standard of achievement
A Bill of Rights deals not only with the past but also with the future. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights described itself as ‘a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’. A domestic Bill of Rights can be a common standard of achievement for a local or national community. It sets out in writing, in one document, the society’s basic commitment to which every person is entitled so that she or he can live a fully human life.It’s in writing so that there can be no dispute about what has been agreed. It’s in a single document so that there is no need to go searching through a large number of laws and court decisions to find out what those rights are. It should be short and simple, easy to read and easy to understand, so that everyone knows what it contains.
A Bill of Rights can provide that common standard for Northern Ireland’s new shared future. It can be a clear statement of what all people here and their political and civic leaders commit themselves to achieving. It is a compact between the government and the governed as the basis for civil, cultural, economic, political and social life. It is not only a means of dealing with the past. Far more importantly, it is a means of shaping the future.
4. To provide a simple basis of human rights protection
Many laws protecting human rights already apply to the United Kingdom as a whole or to Northern Ireland specifically. They are important and will need to be continued. But they need an overarching framework that does not contain all the detail necessary in those kinds of laws and that does not divide up human rights.
A Bill of Rights can play that role in Northern Ireland. It need not provide all the detail about equality protection or criminal justice, for example. It provides the basis, the broader context and framework, within which more detailed and more specific laws are drafted, interpreted and implemented.
In providing a basis for human rights protection, a Bill of Rights can provide many different means of implementation. International law recognises this, saying that protection is the responsibility of the government, the parliament and the courts as necessary and appropriate.
The courts, of course, have important roles to play but they are not always the only or even the most appropriate protectors. Parliaments too have roles. The best means of protection will vary from society to society, according to constitutional arrangements and to local political and legal cultures. In some cases the protection of some rights will be better entrusted to the courts while the protection of other rights will be better entrusted to the parliament.
A Bill of Rights can ensure the best mechanisms for implementation. It must be appropriate to the constitutional, political and legal systems of Northern Ireland. That is how international standards are applied to domestic situations.
5. To protect the rights of everyone, equally
Human rights are the universal inheritance of all human beings. A Bill of Rights is for everyone. It is not for members of one part of the community alone, for example, for women but not for men or for members of one ethnic or religious group but not another. It is not only about the rights of minorities. Certainly, in many situations, minorities are oppressed and their rights violated. But in many other situations majorities can be subjected to persecution and deprived of the enjoyment of their rights by small ruling elites. A Bill of Rights must provide protection for everyone’s rights.A Bill of Rights builds its protection from the bottom up, addressing in particular the needs of those who suffer human rights violations, the poorest and most marginalised. Ten years have passed since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Northern Ireland in 2008 is a completely different place from what it was in 1998. For many, life has improved dramatically. But for many others, it has not. There are still areas where the impact of thirty years of conflict is experienced every day. A Bill of Rights can help those people by protecting the basic rights and freedoms to which they are entitled.
If the poorest and most marginalised people in Northern Ireland benefit from a Bill of Rights, then everyone will benefit.
My view
Whether Northern Ireland gets a Bill of Rights is up to the people of Northern Ireland. I have been given a role in developing proposals but I have no right to make the decision. For these five good reasons, I see a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights as essential in ensuring the new future that the people of Northern Ireland and their political and civic leaders have said they want. It alone is not enough but, in my view, for what it’s worth, it has an essential part to play.
The decision, however, is yours.
Mick Fealty @ 03:01 PM
What a load of vacuous waffle. Not a single substantive point or example of even one instance where we need separate provision.
How much is this guy getting paid?Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 03:34 PMI couldn’t help thinking that myself. A succession of meaningless platitudes without any substance whatsoever.
I have yet to hear a single compelling point for a human rights bill never mind a full argument for it.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 04:06 PMI agree that a genuine and workable bill of rights is needed but I would argue that it is realistically about ten years too late.
A Peace idustry has sadly been created in this state and the private land developers have grabbed almost any available land to fill their pockets.
While multi nationals see this place as a haven for cheap labour.
Several hundred community jobs have been created and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds, euros and dollars have supposedly been
pumped into working class areas,Yet if you take a quick look at or in depth study into areas such as the Short Strand, Ravenhill Rd, Bawnmore, Rathcoole, Falls Rd or the Shankill there is no visible sign of real improvement.
There are no new factories, no long term employment and there is still the ever present and in some cases increasing borders and fences, shrewdly termed as peace lines.
I would agree with the point you make when you state;
“If the poorest and most marginalised people in Northern Ireland benefit from a Bill of Rights, then everyone will benefit.”
Though I would not hold my breath waiting on this to happen.
I hope when it does come about it will have some degree of sucess.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 04:08 PMWhat have you to fear from a Bill of Rights.....
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 04:36 PMI’m saddened that people can’t see sense in this - it could use some editing, but the gist of it remains fairly sensible. If you don’t want something, you will never hear a convincing argument (like creationists, no matter how much proof is provided, they just aren’t open to consideration.)
Here’s the gist for you slow learners:
NI is still in a pickle and will be for some time to come. An understanding of human rights is one tool to make progress. A bill of rights would elucidate what people could expect from the state as well as writing down formally an aspiration of achievement which values everyone equally.Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 04:40 PMwhat a load of Bollocks - with the ECHR and all the other protections already in domestic law, we don’t need a Bill of Rights.
Secondly the Belfast Agreement did not foreshadow a Bill of Rights it called for the examination of any supplementary rights that needed to be enshrined specifically in Northern ireland.
Currently the Bill of Rights forum seems to be a new grievance factory and in a country that is knee deep in restrictive legislation the last thing we need is more.
It’s a pity the human rights experts and general do gooders wouldn’t shuffle off to another part of the world that needs their help and expertise. I think we’ll survive without them.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 04:48 PMHow about the right not to have your taxes wasted on pointless f**king exercises that will either:
a) duplicate existing protections
b) contribute to the wealth of parasitic lawyers hell bent on growing an already obscene claim-culture
c) create superfluous rights where none should exist (the ‘right’ to fill in planning applications in Ulster-Scots, anyone?)
d) all of the abovePosted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 05:12 PMTaking the points in his sales pitch in turn:
1. Consolidation of social stability is a political function. Having an extra document on the shelf which gives extra rights (whatever they may be) will have as much impact in preventing murder gangs as all the other documents conveying rights on the shelf (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, etc) had in preventing the last lot of murder gangs.
People won’t be “re-assured” that “human rights violation” will “no longer be tolerated” just because a document says they won’t be. Laws say murder won’t be tolerated, and (except for political purposes of expediency such as Paul Quinn, etc) it isn’t, but not tolerating something and stopping others from doing it aren’t the same thing. That function is best served by law enforcement, not utopian statements.
Lastly, human rights were always respected in law, so law isn’t the problem: lack of respect for the rule of law is. Train the murderous plebs how to respect existing rights rather than create new rights and we have a deal.
2. This is the function of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, not a Human Rights Commission. Also, where are the “human rights violations” that lead “without exception” to violence? NI’s “particular circumstances” seem to be that it is an exception to a rule that he states there are no exceptions to. Does he think that gerrymandering is a human rights violation?
3. Trying to justify a BoR on the grounds that it will serve as a Lazy Idiot’s Guide to HRA is just ridiculous. A website linking the different documents would be a far better and cheaper means to this end. As for the unifying aspect, so far it is having the opposite effect: creating further division and dispute.
4. A BoR is not required simply as a means streamlining delivery of services that are available by other means. That administrative efficiency is best achieved by administrative efficiency, oddly enough.
5. Yes, we’re all aware that rights are for all of the society. Tell us something we don’t know, professor.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 05:29 PMHuman rights isn’t about settling scores - it’s about changing the way people understand their relationship with the state. If we’re doing so well without it, then why is it legal under the HRA to abuse the rights of older people. People have such a narrow (mis)understanding of human rights. This means that closing loopholes will not duplicate existing provision. Most people arguing for human rights are not doing so because of a grievance (that’s what politics in this country exists to do as far as I can see).
Red Branch - the Agreement is wide open for interpretation, even among its own architects. So I don’t think you can convince many that you know exactly what it had in mind.
Is it wrong to look at people and recognise their inherent dignity, rather than just as consumers or people with needs? That’s what human rights does when it works well. And being jaded about it doesn’t really help - I’d be curious about how the naysayers would implement change? Any ideas or just general carping? I can’t help but think of those two old muppets…
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 05:36 PMthread split 50:50 Unionists against, Nationalists for. Wretchedly unsuprising indeed.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 05:58 PMWhat if...........................
Instead of 50 years of enlightened Unionist one party rule at Stormont…
There had of been a Bill of Rights…
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 06:27 PMas far as i can see the only people who want a BoR are people who still think they are in some sort of struggle against their own state. they seem to want some extra laws to ‘get back at them with’. they actually seem to think somebodys going to pull a fast one on them or something. isnt the UK one of the worlds great democracies? isnt their loads of euro laws that all the other states are happy enough with? ofcourse.
just when you thought nationalists were taking their first few steps into normality at stormont, they suffer a relapse back to the old oppression line. dear oh dear.why dont you come up with a draft or something and let everyone read it? so far not a single person has suggested a ‘right’ that is needed. all that ive read are a few suggestions of ‘rights’ that are just a way for people to get their own way on something. a blind man can see that.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 06:56 PMTwinbrook,
I’d have settled for the Old Bill (peelers) doing anything Right in 50yrs of unionist mis-rule ;)Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 07:08 PMA bill of rights should be the foundation of every countries juris prudence
A written and ammendable rights formula is not a limit on the power of the people but a limit on the powers of the government and as such should be welcome by all.
There will be some challenges but speaking from expierience there will be surprisingly few and mostly by those wishing to expand the rights. A well written and documented bill of rights would be a worthwhile project for both communities.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 09:37 PMBill of rights?
Why don’t we just cut out the middle man in all this, no-doubt expensive, exercise and send the money to lawyers directly?
So what is going to be in this bill of rights? A few suggestions:
1. You do not have the right to become rich and untouchable, it seems, by becoming a loyalist paramilitary and selling drugs to kids.
2. You don’t have the right to kill innocent people, because you think you’re participating in a ‘war’ and then get let out scot-free only a matter of years/months later.
3. You don’t have the right to have your miserable existence paid for by my taxes because you couldn’t be bothered to get up out of bed in the morning to do a decent day’s work.
/rant
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 10:05 PM“Human rights isn’t about settling scores - it’s about changing the way people understand their relationship with the state.”
No offence, but did you write this article? Because it sounds just as pretentious.
People in Northern Ireland need to get a reality check, especially those who bang on about their ‘human rights’. We’ve got it good here, very good and make no mistake.
If anywhere needs a bill of rights, or just some basic, bog-standard, ‘I have a right to live’ human rights in place to protect its citizens, there are many, many more deserving places, such as Sudan, Palestine, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Burma, etc, etc ...
Posted by on Jan 08, 2008 @ 10:11 PM“People in Northern Ireland need to get a reality check, especially those who bang on about their ‘human rights’. We’ve got it good here, very good and make no mistake.”
Well D.O. you will never get a job as a journalist.
You are right though.
If a BOR achieves anything, it will be to enable the “Parties” to agree on what they can and cannot do.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 12:20 AMWhat in the name of all ‘at’s holy is all this Bill o’ Rights jazz? It jest gets folks agitated.
A man ony gotta look at Alabama or ol’ Mississip’ or that South Africa or that there Ireland place to git hisself a load o’ hoss sense and jest know that it don’t do nobody no good no how. An’ I done said it now. It only gonna bring change - an’ change don’t nevah do nobody no good no how.
I knows I done said that afore but et’s worth repeatin’. Ain’t it?
My sister Rosasharn she sur done changed since that new fancy estate agent come to town. Don’t recognise a man’s needs no more. An’ dammit! a man’s rights!
A man’s got rights. Ain’t he?
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 01:06 AM*Human rights isn’t about settling scores - it’s about changing the way people understand their relationship with the state.*
Indeed the relationship will change, for the worse.
Currently the relationship we have with the state is that anything not actively forbidden by the law is permitted. An extremely healthy mature attitude. When you decide to codify a list of “rights”, this changes. Now, instead of being free citizens permitted to associate with whomever we like and to hold whatever political opinions we desire free from state interference, we are being handed our “rights” from the government. Suddenly things that you were previously permitted to do become illegal if your activities fall foul of a judge, this despite there being no law forbidding it.
Take your abuse of the rights of the elderly, I’m not sure what you mean by this. I guess what you mean is that because elderly people have a hard time by virtue of their age, you don’t like this and believe there ‘should be a law against it’. Fine but what shape will this law take, it will no doubt involve other people, not elderly (employers, business owners, voluntary associations etc), being forced to change their behaviour in ways which they had previously not wanted to do.
You will say good, that’s the way it should be, but what you are doing is not furthering human rights - after all you are merely imposing the rights of one group against those of another - but enshrining your political wish list in immutable law.
To give an example, when the Disablity Rights Act (or whatever its correct title is) was brought in everyone applauded its enlightened approach to disability rights. I remember listening to a radio phone in on the topic and the owner of a small antiques boutique in some little English town was being interviewed. Her small shop was accessed by means of old stone steps, she was told she would have to change this in order for her not to fall foul of the new legislation, but the costs of doing so were prohibitively expensive and would force her out of business. The representative of the disability lobby (and isn’t it remarkable how much power unelected lobbyists suddenly achieve when these things come into existence?) simply told her that his rights to enter her shop trumped her rights to stay in business.
To those who believe that a Bill of Rights would increase freedoms rather than diminish them, I ask, will these freedoms be universal? Will people who hold, for example, unpopular opinions about homosexuality, Islam or immigration have their rights to free speech and free association protected, no matter how “offensive” they may be? If not, you are restricting freedom not increasing it.
You may like increased state restrictions on citizens’ freedom, I don’t.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 01:33 AM“Human rights isn’t about settling scores - it’s about changing the way people understand their relationship with the state.” - Animus
What does this actually mean? I know it sounds great, and I may even use it on a client in a suitably modified form: “Zinc cladding isn’t about settling scores - it’s about changing the way people understand their relationship with the building.”
Do you mean that it is government information program, like warning people not to drink and drive or to attend a breast-screening clinic if they are women over the age forty? If the intent is educational, then it isn’t necessary to demolish the local library and rebuild it out of recycled fluorescent pink cardboard just to draw public attention to it. No, an advert in a local paper is a more effective solution. However, if the process is not about changing people’s understanding of their relationship with the state but is about changing their relationship with the state, then how exactly will this relationship be changed and to what purpose? To give the citizen greater control over the state or to give the state greater control over the citizen?
I haven’t heard any convincing argument that supplementary rights are required, nor that existing rights require consolidation. All I have heard is many witchdoctors promising that their voodoo will work wonders. I prefer doctors to quacks.
Personally, if I was a unionist, I’d support a BoR for a purpose unrelated to its stated purpose, i.e. the more distinct you become from the Republic, the further the chances of unity recede. So, having a mandatory socialist state that is dependent upon the hard work, enterprise and generosity of the UK taxpayer for its parasitic Ultra Nannystate status would be a worthwhile price (for others) to pay in order to maintain the union. If northern nationalist dream that the right-of-centre, free market Republic will ever indulge them to that degree, then the poor deluded dreamers are in for a very rude awakening.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 04:14 AM“A man ony gotta look at Alabama or ol’ Mississip’ or that South Africa or that there Ireland place to git hisself a load o’ hoss sense and jest know that it don’t do nobody no good no how.”
I see we’ve only got so far as post 18 before the familiar old fantasy of Nationalist discrimination being on a par with black people in the deep South of the States and South Africa is peddled out. Zzzzzz.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 07:50 AMUnless the new bill of rights can fit on one side of a piece of paper in large type, no-one will read it and it will all have been a waste of money. Why not just copy another one. Here is the English one from 1689 (cut and pasted from wikipedia):
1. the right of petition
2. an independent judiciary (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself),
3. freedom from taxation by royal (executive) prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (legislators),
4. freedom from a peace-time standing army,
5. freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence,
6. freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign,
7. freedom of speech in Parliament,
8. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, and
9. freedom from fines and forfeitures without trialPosted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 09:14 AMA bill of rights should be an assertion of individual rights against group rights, but probably won’t be.
i.e. Individuals are victimised and threatened in the name of some sectarian cause or other, and the state stands by, essentially licensing abuse.
The state needs to be able to clear sectarian gangsters off the street, interning them if necessary if they continue to conspire to deny individuals their rights to peaceful co-existence.
If individuals conspire to deny others opportunity, they require correction, exemplary punishment.
Until the ‘rights’ lawyers quit providing cover for murder gangs and grasp this, we have no rights worth the name.
The lawyers have made plenty from illegal conspiracies, they should at least declare an interest.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 09:15 AMIsn’t it obvious why we need a bill of rights?
To keep the career QUANGO-ists like Sidoti in a job!
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 10:49 AM“But they need an overarching framework that does not contain all the detail necessary in those kinds of laws and that does not divide up human rights.
A Bill of Rights can play that role in Northern Ireland. It need not provide all the detail about equality protection or criminal justice, for example. It provides the basis, the broader context and framework, within which more detailed and more specific laws are drafted, interpreted and implemented.”
Give that man an award for BS!
Posted by on Jan 09, 2008 @ 10:51 AM
