Rights and Responsibilities
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Talkback programme provoked a response yesterday with its story about an East Belfast minister whose church was under siege from attacks by children. After waiting for the police to respond, the Reverend Charles McCartney took action himself by taking photos of the youngsters he believed were responsible. But instead of being commended for gathering evidence, the minister ended up being warned by the police about the dangers of taking photos of children.
The story spurred a fair bit of debate amongst listeners about where children's rights end and their responsibilities begin. That's just the kind of issue that the Bill of Rights Forum might have to wrestle with as it draws up proposals due to be published in March next year.
Despite the Orange Order's talk of "civil and religious liberties for all", unionists have traditionally been suspicious of the civil rights lobby, which they associate with nationalists and left wingers. But now the DUP's Nelson McCausland and others are taking part in the Rights Forum. This could make for some interesting 'tugs of war' with nationalists over questions like the right to march, gay rights, abortion and the whole debate over rights and responsibilities.
The forum's 28 members include politicians, trade unionists, employers and clergy who meet under the chairmanship of the Australian lawyer Chris Sidoti. They are looking for anyone with a view on what should be in a local Bill of Rights to get in touch.
Some of the recent debates over human rights here have been inexpicable to anyone outside a small clique of experts. Let's hope that the Forum follows the example of the American founding fathers and Eleanor Roosevelt who managed to produce declarations written in clear and elegant prose.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Under the leadership of Bryce Dixon much work on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland was accomplished. He was of course a disciple of the Belfast Agreement; we now have a different political mix still agreeing on the need for a Bill of Rights under St Andrews but I wonder if the outcome will be substantial. The trouble I have with a local Bill of Rights is the effect of regionalisation that could create major differences to the rest of the UK. European influences will surely be a factor and by the time it satisfies all parties I wonder why we cannot have a universal one for the UK. My preference would be for communities to develop respect toward each other without the need to always take the big legal stick to force people into a mould. A Bill of Rights can turn out to be the dead letter of the law while the natural response of human beings toward each other lags behind.
The problem with the attempts to date to Draft a Bill of Rights is that the Human Rights Commission invited all voluntary and community groups to send in their 'wish lists'. As a result a draft bill which was produced which was the size of a telephone directory. It was a completely impractical document which would have paralysed decision making in the public services if implemented. The Canadian Charter of Freedom and Rights is a few pages long and concentrates on a few broad principles. Thereafter the Canadian courts are entrusted to interpret issues in the light of these principles.
The debate in Northern Ireland is also driven by Human Rights lawyers who demand that social and economic rights be enshrined in the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights as they 'are required by international best practice'. However, such rights make more sense in developing countries where the political system is often incapable of delivering minimum standards. In western countries how social and economic standards are delivered is the proper function of government and public policy. Since whether under devolution or Direct Rule we have a system which can address such issues the inclusion of social and economic rights in the NI Bill makes little sense. Moreover, if they were put in place they would have to be pitched at such a minimal level (ie minimum standards) that they would be largely irrelevant to real public policy questions.
More of an ABBA moment really...
Human Rights, Human Rights, Human Rights that is all I hear. What about my Human Rights? What about the Human Rights of the good, honest, decent people? The good decent person goes to work pay his taxes and goes home to have a quiet life. Instead of having a quiet life there are hooligans and thugs out running the streets, drinking beer and vandalising property. What do the Police do? Very little and why? Human Rights. The Human Rights law protects these thugs not the tax payers. Something needs done now not next year. In other countries these people would be in Jail. In France you are guilty until proven innocent. In that case these thugs would never be on the street and society would be normal.