Post by earl on Feb 28, 2008 16:46:57 GMT
In the first of a three-part series, Chris Thornton examines how a long process to spell out the rights of Ulster citizens exactly is about to reach a peak
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
You have the right to remain silent. Unless you're stopped by a policeman or soldier involved in an anti-terrorist operation. Then you can't stay silent when they ask you who you are and where you're going. And if you're arrested by them, you stay silent at your own peril: a judge may conclude that your silence means you have something to hide.
But those are circumstances most people will never find themselves in. Is that it? Well, try buying a TV without giving your address for the TV Licensing people, or see where silence gets you when facing an examination by the taxman.
Other than that, you're free to keep your mouth shut unless the law says you can't. And an Act of Parliament can specify the circumstances in which you can't keep quiet. So when people talk about the right to remain silent, it's not absolute. It's a little bit theoretical: you have the right to remain silent, except when you don't.
One thing you're perfectly free to remain silent about is the proposed Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
But the inclination to speak out might be rising: a long process to spell out exactly what are the rights of citizens here is about to reach a peak.
The idea is that rights won't be elastic, or subject to the whims of the Assembly or Parliament and will significantly, in the Government's words, "reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
Set down in writing, something like the right to silence cannot be easily changed (although the mechanism for changing the Bill is one of the things yet to be decided).
The notion of a Bill was set down as a component of the new Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement. As the 10th anniversary of that document approaches, the Bill still hasn't reached the form of a draft to be put forward to the public as the working model.
That's because for most of those 10 years there wasn't any great public or political will to move it forward, possibly because the ups and downs of Stormont were more pressing. The Human Rights Commission kept talking about the Bill - that's one of their statutory functions - and it got a passing nod at various stages of the political process, like a mention in the 2003 Joint Declaration. But progress was at a creeping pace.
The most significant move towards solidifying the Bill of Rights came with the St Andrews Agreement in 2006.
That set up the Bill of Rights Forum, a group of political parties and representatives of interested groups who are charged with producing specific recommendations for the Bill. Like so many things in the new dispensation, things haven't moved as quickly as might have been expected.
The Forum was first thought capable of reporting in September 2007.
That moved to December, and more recently to next month. Their conclusions could finally turn something that has existed on the radar of anoraks into a proper public debate. There is, on the face of it, great public support for a Bill of Rights. Over a number of years, polls have put support for a Bill at 70% or greater. Catholic support tends to be a bit higher than Protestant support, but it's well in the majority on both sides.
But that may just reflect the notion that as a general idea - like being good to your neighbours or kind to animals - a Bill of Rights is considered a good thing. It's the detail of the thing that may exercise people more. An advertising campaign to promote interest in a "strong and inclusive" Bill of Rights suggests it will be a cure for all our ills, like somehow removing peacelines or ending poverty among older people.
That widens what some may expect from general rights. The earliest expressions of rights - like the US Bill of Rights in that country's constitution - were often about protecting the citizen from the state, an attempt to limit tyranny.
Lately, the debate has moved more towards wider protections from more general social ills, and even entitlements.
Often, to the frustration of social conservatives, there is no mention of parallel responsibilities of the citizen to the state or society.
Because the proposed Bill is to set out specific rights for Northern Ireland, over and above the wide-ranging European Convention on Human Rights, critics of the process are concerned that with more rights, there is more potential for conflicts of rights.
Suppose, for example, the Bill enshrines a right of freedom from sectarian harassment. Most people would consider that a good thing, but will it mean that Catholics will be prevented from criticising the practices of the Free Presbyterian Church, or vice versa, because it is offensive to those being criticised?
Where will that sit with European right to freedom of expression?
The Forum has seven working groups, looking at specific parts of the Bill of Rights, which may give us some hint to the areas they're working on. Women's rights are being looked at by one group, and children's rights by another, economic and social rights by yet another. Specific rights for rural people have been mentioned.
Does that mean women and children will have greater legal entitlement than men or parents?
What will economic rights mean for the taxpayer?
Does where you choose to live bring greater or lesser rights?
Rights are a relatively new concept to human beings. Some believe they are natural or God-given, but either way they are not much use unless there is human law to back them up. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, one of the groups in the Human Rights Consortium, says it is already thinking about "litigation strategies" that would help bring the Bill into effect. So the lawyers won't be short of work.
That's presuming the Bill goes through. How that happens isn't entirely clear yet. Some have mentioned a referendum to give it the people's seal of approval, but it could simply be enacted by Westminster legislation. That would be an irony: if there was no right to vote on the Bill of Rights.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
You have the right to remain silent. Unless you're stopped by a policeman or soldier involved in an anti-terrorist operation. Then you can't stay silent when they ask you who you are and where you're going. And if you're arrested by them, you stay silent at your own peril: a judge may conclude that your silence means you have something to hide.
But those are circumstances most people will never find themselves in. Is that it? Well, try buying a TV without giving your address for the TV Licensing people, or see where silence gets you when facing an examination by the taxman.
Other than that, you're free to keep your mouth shut unless the law says you can't. And an Act of Parliament can specify the circumstances in which you can't keep quiet. So when people talk about the right to remain silent, it's not absolute. It's a little bit theoretical: you have the right to remain silent, except when you don't.
One thing you're perfectly free to remain silent about is the proposed Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
But the inclination to speak out might be rising: a long process to spell out exactly what are the rights of citizens here is about to reach a peak.
The idea is that rights won't be elastic, or subject to the whims of the Assembly or Parliament and will significantly, in the Government's words, "reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
Set down in writing, something like the right to silence cannot be easily changed (although the mechanism for changing the Bill is one of the things yet to be decided).
The notion of a Bill was set down as a component of the new Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement. As the 10th anniversary of that document approaches, the Bill still hasn't reached the form of a draft to be put forward to the public as the working model.
That's because for most of those 10 years there wasn't any great public or political will to move it forward, possibly because the ups and downs of Stormont were more pressing. The Human Rights Commission kept talking about the Bill - that's one of their statutory functions - and it got a passing nod at various stages of the political process, like a mention in the 2003 Joint Declaration. But progress was at a creeping pace.
The most significant move towards solidifying the Bill of Rights came with the St Andrews Agreement in 2006.
That set up the Bill of Rights Forum, a group of political parties and representatives of interested groups who are charged with producing specific recommendations for the Bill. Like so many things in the new dispensation, things haven't moved as quickly as might have been expected.
The Forum was first thought capable of reporting in September 2007.
That moved to December, and more recently to next month. Their conclusions could finally turn something that has existed on the radar of anoraks into a proper public debate. There is, on the face of it, great public support for a Bill of Rights. Over a number of years, polls have put support for a Bill at 70% or greater. Catholic support tends to be a bit higher than Protestant support, but it's well in the majority on both sides.
But that may just reflect the notion that as a general idea - like being good to your neighbours or kind to animals - a Bill of Rights is considered a good thing. It's the detail of the thing that may exercise people more. An advertising campaign to promote interest in a "strong and inclusive" Bill of Rights suggests it will be a cure for all our ills, like somehow removing peacelines or ending poverty among older people.
That widens what some may expect from general rights. The earliest expressions of rights - like the US Bill of Rights in that country's constitution - were often about protecting the citizen from the state, an attempt to limit tyranny.
Lately, the debate has moved more towards wider protections from more general social ills, and even entitlements.
Often, to the frustration of social conservatives, there is no mention of parallel responsibilities of the citizen to the state or society.
Because the proposed Bill is to set out specific rights for Northern Ireland, over and above the wide-ranging European Convention on Human Rights, critics of the process are concerned that with more rights, there is more potential for conflicts of rights.
Suppose, for example, the Bill enshrines a right of freedom from sectarian harassment. Most people would consider that a good thing, but will it mean that Catholics will be prevented from criticising the practices of the Free Presbyterian Church, or vice versa, because it is offensive to those being criticised?
Where will that sit with European right to freedom of expression?
The Forum has seven working groups, looking at specific parts of the Bill of Rights, which may give us some hint to the areas they're working on. Women's rights are being looked at by one group, and children's rights by another, economic and social rights by yet another. Specific rights for rural people have been mentioned.
Does that mean women and children will have greater legal entitlement than men or parents?
What will economic rights mean for the taxpayer?
Does where you choose to live bring greater or lesser rights?
Rights are a relatively new concept to human beings. Some believe they are natural or God-given, but either way they are not much use unless there is human law to back them up. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, one of the groups in the Human Rights Consortium, says it is already thinking about "litigation strategies" that would help bring the Bill into effect. So the lawyers won't be short of work.
That's presuming the Bill goes through. How that happens isn't entirely clear yet. Some have mentioned a referendum to give it the people's seal of approval, but it could simply be enacted by Westminster legislation. That would be an irony: if there was no right to vote on the Bill of Rights.
