A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland
After a decade of consultation and deliberation, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission today presented its advice on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland to the Secretary of State. "It has made a number of recommendations for inclusion in a Bill of Rights, such as: the right to equality and prohibition of discrimination; education rights; freedom from violence, exploitation and harassment; the rights of victims; the right to identity and culture; language rights; democratic rights; right to liberty and fair trial rights."
The advice runs to nearly 190 pages. You can read the entire document .
Two Commissioners have dissented from the advice -- Jonathan Bell and Lady Trimble; the remaining eight Commissioners have signified their agreement, namely, Prof Monica McWilliams, Mr Thomas Duncan, Professor Colin Harvey, Mr Alan Henry, Ms Ann Hope, Mr Colm Larkin, Mr Eamonn O'Neill, and Mrs Geraldine Rice.
It is for the UK government to decide what happens next. The two main Unionist parties have reacted negatively to the advice.
Comment number 1.
At 10th Dec 2008, John Wright wrote:What form of political philosophy is the advice based on? Surely a 'Bill of Rights' must at the outset propose a principle upon which rights are based? What is a right? And why? I guess I'll go read the document.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Dec 2008, SmasherLagru wrote:"Everyone who is married has the right to legal termination of marriage in accordance with the laws governing the exercise of this right."
So they want to enshrine the right to divorce - well done on all the effort that went into this. But look at the wording - what a waste of space this text is - basically if there are laws providing for divorce then it becomes a right.
And then we're told people in northern Ireland are opposed to civil partnerships so it is vital we impose them in a bill of rights - more democracy at work.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th Dec 2008, Les-Reid wrote:If we think of our social system as based on a network of laws, then I suppose that rights are the rules which lie at the centre of the network. They are core rules which we are unlikely ever to discard. Other laws are more open to revision and rejection. Our law-makers, Parliament, are forever reviewing and amending laws in the light of new developments and new evidence.
You have a right of self-defence if someone attacks you. That principle is unlikely ever to be discarded. By contrast, the law at present allows you to drive with a small amount of alcohol in your blood. There is nothing 'core' about that law and it could be amended or scrapped without collateral damage to the legal system.
That said, I am uneasy about the scope of a Bill of Rights. Well-intentioned legislators today can extend the scope of the 'core' boundary and that may well create problems for others at a later date who want to amend or rescind those laws. Several of the headings given at the top of this thread seem to me to go well beyond the boundary of core laws. So I shall read the document with some trepidation and hope that my doubts will be assuaged.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)