Church of Ireland Gazette opposes Bill of Rights
The Church of Ireland Gazette has launched a rather on the idea of a for Northern Ireland. A draft bill of rights is due to be finalised by March, but the Gazette's editorial calls for proposals to be dropped. In essence, the editorial protests that such a bill would make Northern Ireland a consitutional exception within the UK, and is part of a movement linking Northern Ireland with the Republic more closely:
"It is obvious that there are those in the Stormont establishment who want a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as opposed to the UK as a whole, because they want Northern Ireland to relate more closely to the Republic of Ireland than to the rest of the UK. That is an undemocratic and, therefore, unacceptable agenda."
Clearly, the leader writer believes there is already enough law in Northern Ireland to protect everyone, including minority groups; he or she perhaps believes that many bills of rights around the world are surplus to requirements. But the argument that Northern Ireland shouldn't have a bill of rights until the rest of the UK has a bill of rights is a curious one. It is perfectly possible for a legal entity within a larger state to carve out a distinctive legal arrangement. It is already the case in Northern Ireland, which has a separate judiciary and legal system, as it is the case in US states. is a wonderful document, but the world has changed a great deal since 1215. Would a new bill of rights for Northern Ireland be such a bad idea?
Incidentally, the Gazette is an independent church publication, so its editorials are not official statements of church policy.
Comments
Very strange that the church of ireland's newspaper should come out with such a load of unreconstructed paleo-unionist prejudice. Is it a religious publication or an anti-agreement pamphlet?
Well isn't that an interesting idea, a written down bill of rights would make NI more like the Reupblic of Ireland. I wonder if the US is more like the Republic of Ireland since it has one. Seems to me, since America's came first it's the other way around. Perhaps what's really frightening the author is what might get into that bill of rights. What if it had a provision that the citizens through petition could force a public referendum on any issue the way Californians can. This would mean "The People" could actually override the government. Now there's a dangerous idea, real democracy, the ultimate power taken out of the hands of the political elites and put in the hands of the ordinary citizen. That's how Proposition 13 which drastically cut real estate taxes got passed in California in 1978. What if NI and then the rest of the UK had such a law? What if Brits actually got to decide as a nation if they want to stay in the EU. Or if they want to continue to support a monarchy? Or if they still want an official Church? Nah, won't happen. There's never been a real deomocracy in Europe and there never will be. The author can go back to sleep soundly, mobocracy won't take hold in the UK. The elites have a pact that will preclude it.
The USA version of a Bill of Rights should make us cautious about taking that route at all. Turning a moral principle into a right has the effect of making it more difficult to modify that principle in the light of later experience. It raises the moral principle into a realm of absolutes, as if the people who fashioned that right could see into the future and know that contrary circumstances would never arise.
The right to carry a gun in the USA should be a warning to us. In what sense is that moral principle (if indeed it is one at all) absolute? The founding fathers decreed that principle in the context of their struggle for independence. But our context now is very different. And we need the liberty to devise our own principles in relation to the circumstances of our own time. The right to carry a gun is not regarded as a self-evidently absolute moral principle today. It is disputed and debated. The USA is one of few countries to have enshrined that right in law. Most countries in Europe recognise no such right.
Therefore I think that we should resist the temptation to elevate some moral principles to the status of rights. Circumstances change and what seems absolute to us today may not seem like that to our descendants. So it would be an unwarranted imposition for our generation to declare rights which would be enforced upon later generations.
The USA version of a Bill of Rights should make us cautious about taking that route at all. Turning a moral principle into a right has the effect of making it more difficult to modify that principle in the light of later experience. It raises the moral principle into a realm of absolutes, as if the people who fashioned that right could see into the future and know that contrary circumstances would never arise.
The right to carry a gun in the USA should be a warning to us. In what sense is that moral principle (if indeed it is one at all) absolute? The founding fathers decreed that principle in the context of their struggle for independence. But our context now is very different. And we need the liberty to devise our own principles in relation to the circumstances of our own time. The right to carry a gun is not regarded as a self-evidently absolute moral principle today. It is disputed and debated. The USA is one of few countries to have enshrined that right in law. Most countries in Europe recognise no such right.
Therefore I think that we should resist the temptation to elevate some moral principles to the status of rights. Circumstances change and what seems absolute to us today may not seem like that to our descendants. So it would be an unwarranted imposition for our generation to declare rights which would be enforced upon later generations.
The USA version of a Bill of Rights should make us cautious about taking that route at all. Turning a moral principle into a right has the effect of making it more difficult to modify that principle in the light of later experience. It raises the moral principle into a realm of absolutes, as if the people who fashioned that right could see into the future and know that contrary circumstances would never arise.
The right to carry a gun in the USA should be a warning to us. In what sense is that moral principle (if indeed it is one at all) absolute? The founding fathers decreed that principle in the context of their struggle for independence. But our context now is very different. And we need the liberty to devise our own principles in relation to the circumstances of our own time. The right to carry a gun is not regarded as a self-evidently absolute moral principle today. It is disputed and debated. The USA is one of few countries to have enshrined that right in law. Most countries in Europe recognise no such right.
Therefore I think that we should resist the temptation to elevate some moral principles to the status of rights. Circumstances change and what seems absolute to us today may not seem like that to our descendants. So it would be an unwarranted imposition for our generation to declare rights which would be enforced upon later generations.
Wouldn't it be great if we spoke with one voice in support of having this Bill of Rights?
Unfortunately, Dr Ellis and others miss the point of having this charter.
4 points
1/ It is a benchmark by which a potentially disfunctional Assembly can measure the standard of the laws it proposes to enact. On present showing, this is so important for the protection of a number of minority interests, which collectively make up a huge proportion of our population. I do not hear discussion about the guarantee of rights for women, those with mental or physical disability, older people, the young and vulverable, people form diverse ethnic and religious minorities, the unemployed and non heterosexuals. And I'm sure there are others. How many is that.Should I suspect that those whose vioces are raised at present in opposition are perdominatly men, middle aged, able bodied, white, fundamentalist "christian" and on the unionist side? So then now, who is my neighbour? Please think!
2/ It follows that without a Bill of Rights, an Assembly might overturn current laws passed by a more enlightened Westminister under direct rule! Certain individuals within that Assembly keep on trying to curb equality for non heterosexuals, spuriously claiming that they do it because they are "christians".
3/ Those in power have a duty to represent all their constituents, not just those who may hold the same views as them. If one excludes all the categories as set out above, who do they represent?
4/It is a shameful exercise to politicise this process. Rights are rights are rights. It does not matter whether you are unionist or nationist, black or white. able bodied or with disability, christian or muslim, young or old, gay or straight. Whether the Republic or any other part of the UK has a similar Bill is not relevant. That's up to them.
I would implore everyone to throw themselves into this process now. Don't be selfish. Share your good nature! Walk in others' shoes as Our Lord did! Remember your neighbour as he might need the protection of a Bill of Rights.
Generalising about a Bill of Rights from one example in one country is not a good idea, Les. We could just as easily take the example of NI, as Colin does, and argue that the absence of such a Bill enabled the Stormont government to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals and the Catholic minority for 50 years.
Also, executive power in the UK generally is excessive and a Bill of rights would curtail it. Britain's lack of a written constitution or Bill of Rights creates what Hailsham called an 'elective dictatorship'. Civil liberties have been threatened since the 1980s with the growing emphasis on law and order and since the 1990s with the 'war on terror' (detention without trial to be extended from 28 to 42 days etc). In the US, on the other hand, the executive is much less powerful because the written constitution (and bill of rights) impose checks on its freedom.
A Bill of rights does not imply an absolutist morality. There have been, after all, 27 amendments to the US constitution (the gun law is itself based on an amendment), even though the Founding Fathers made it very difficult to amend it by requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses or a constitutional convention held at the request of three-quarters of the states.
Nevertheless, prohibition is an example of how quickly the constitution can be changed if the will exists. It was introduced by the 18th amendment in 1919 and repealed by the 21st only 14 years later in 1933.
Most countries in Europe have written constitutions and Bills of Rights. There are also international documents which serve as attempts at statements of universal rights. Are they, too, wrongly elevated in status? What, incidentally, is the difference between a moral principle and a political principle in this context? Is the right to freedom of expression, for example, a moral or a political principle? Both, surely, if politics and morality are inter-connected, as they surely are.
True, when you look at it closely these rights may not be applicable absolutely, but nevertheless they serve as yardsticks. Thus we may not believe in absolute freedom of expression, but the presumption is that it is a fundamental human right and the exceptions need to be fully explained and justified.
The Church of Ireland Gazette editorial is really trumpeting an old unionist line, as if the Republic of Ireland was the only country in the world which had a Bill of rights. It is the UK which is out of kilter, though of course since 1998 it does have a Human Rights Act.
As William says, there is no reason why a legal entity within a larger state cannot have such a document. Arguably, both NI and the UK as a whole need it.
Brian wrote:"A Bill of rights does not imply an absolutist morality."
So you say. But I rather think it does. What is the point of turning ordinary laws into "rights" unless they are to achieve some extraordinary status?
You say that rights can be amended and cite the example of prohibition - which took 14 years! Now that's what I call a telling example!
I would be concerned that the religious majority will want their own beliefs enshrined as rights. A "right to life" devised by a pro-life assembly could be a very reactionary and oppressive piece of legislation. Likewise, at the Multi-Cultural Debate last month,organised by the Belfast Humanist Group, Father Magennis from St Mary's UC based his support for faith schools on an alleged right to state-funded religiously segregated schools. He really believed that religious segregation is based on some alleged "right".
There is a fundamentalist streak in any "rights" approach to legislation which makes me urge caution, in case we end up with legislative millstones round our necks. And round the necks of the next generation too.
1. Giving laws special status does not imply that they are 鈥榓bsolutist鈥 in the sense of being rigid and inflexible. It means that they are basic or, 鈥榝undamental鈥 (not in the pejorative biblical sense in which you use the word). There is a presumption in their favour and if they are curtailed, then the state must justify infringements, e.g. to fight a war on terror. The modern concept of citizenship (which only developed in recent times) employs the assumption that human beings do have certain fundamental rights and obligations. Human rights are those rights which are essential to live as a human being; if you like, a basic standard to enable humans to survive and develop in dignity. They are often said to be 鈥榠nalienable鈥 and 鈥榰niversal鈥 - e.g. the 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - though in practice they are often broken. Are you saying that we don鈥檛 have any rights? And if we do, how should they be enshrined in law?
2. 14 years for prohibition in the USA is a lot less than the 50 years in which the Protestant majority in NI discriminated against the Catholic minority and other groups and individuals. Arguably, they were able to do this precisely because there was no Bill of Rights to which Catholics and others could appeal. Even Lord Scarman, an English judge pledged to uphold the UK鈥檚 unwritten constitution, pointed out 30 years ago that Catholics might well have had their complaints upheld if at least a Bill of Rights had been in force.
3 You are concerned that the religious majority might want their own beliefs enshrined in rights. Where have you been living all your life? The religious majority have had their rights enshrined in laws and institutions in NI ever since the statelet was created 86 years ago! Faith schools, the very thing many of us, including yourself, want removed! Practically no abortion allowed, a religious hegemony in the media, censorship of plays and films, instutionalised sexism and homophobia etc. The fact of the matter is that this society has not progressed very well in the absence of a Bill of Rights.
4. A basic point about a 鈥榣iberal democracy鈥 is that the word 鈥榣iberal鈥 is a qualification or restriction on the word 鈥榙emocracy鈥. It implies that there are certain individual rights which the majority cannot override. The best way to have these 鈥榝undamental鈥 rights guaranteed is to have then enshrined or codified in a special document (if you know a better, tell us please). In the absence of such a document, you may have plain majority rule or, as NI was called under Stormont, a totalitarian democracy. A Bill of Rights is an essential ingredient of the progress of NI to becoming a proper liberal democracy.
5. At the debate to which you refer Father Magennis referred to the rights of parents with regard to the education of their children but omitted to discuss the rights of the child which are also enshrined in international documents. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, states that 鈥渆veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance鈥. It and other related documents on the rights of the child refer to the 鈥榬ight to grow up in an environment of happiness, freedom and understanding鈥 etc. They also explictly state that children are 鈥榥ot the property of their parents鈥.
Now, when the rights of the child in education conflict with the rights of the parents, arguably it is the child鈥檚 rights which should prevail since it is the child, not the parent, who is being educated. In other words, this 鈥榖attle鈥 for the right of the child not to be indoctrinated and to freedom of belief can be fought and won.
Les:
1. Giving laws special status does not imply that they are 鈥榓bsolutist鈥 in the sense of being rigid and inflexible. It means that they are basic or, 鈥榝undamental鈥 (not in the pejorative biblical sense in which you use the word). There is a presumption in their favour and if they are curtailed, then the state must justify infringements, e.g. to fight a war on terror. The modern concept of citizenship (which only developed in recent times) employs the assumption that human beings do have certain fundamental rights and obligations. Human rights are those rights which are essential to live as a human being; if you like, a basic standard to enable humans to survive and develop in dignity. They are often said to be 鈥榠nalienable鈥 and 鈥榰niversal鈥 - e.g. the 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - though in practice they are often broken. Are you saying that we don鈥檛 have any rights? And if we do, how should they be enshrined in law?
2. 14 years for prohibition in the USA is a lot less than the 50 years in which the Protestant majority in NI discriminated against the Catholic minority and other groups and individuals. Arguably, they were able to do this precisely because there was no Bill of Rights to which Catholics and others could appeal. Even Lord Scarman, an English judge pledged to uphold the UK鈥檚 unwritten constitution, pointed out 30 years ago that Catholics might well have had their complaints upheld if at least a Bill of Rights had been in force.
3. You are concerned that the religious majority might want their own beliefs enshrined in rights. Where have you been living over the last five decades? The religious majority have had their rights enshrined in laws and institutions in NI ever since the statelet was created 86 years ago! We have: faith schools, the very thing many of us, including yourself, want removed, practically no abortion allowed, a religious hegemony in the media, censorship of plays and films, instutionalised sexism and homophobia etc. The fact of the matter is that this society has not progressed very well in the absence of a Bill of Rights.
4. A basic point about a 鈥榣iberal democracy鈥 is that the word 鈥榣iberal鈥 is a qualification or restriction on the word 鈥榙emocracy鈥. It implies that there are certain individual rights which the majority cannot override. The best way to have these 鈥榝undamental鈥 rights guaranteed is to have then enshrined or codified in a special document (if you know a better, tell us please). In the absence of such a document, you may have plain majority rule or, as NI was called under Stormont, a totalitarian democracy. A Bill of Rights is an essential ingredient of the progress of NI to becoming a proper liberal democracy.
5. At the debate to which you refer, Father Magennis referred to the rights of parents with regard to the education of their children but omitted to discuss the rights of the child which are also enshrined in international documents. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, states that 鈥渆veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance鈥. It and other related documents on the rights of the child refer to the 鈥榬ight to grow up in an environment of happiness, freedom and understanding鈥 etc. They also explictly state that children are 鈥榥ot the property of their parents鈥.
Now, when the rights of the child in education conflict with the rights of the parents, arguably it is the child鈥檚 rights which should prevail since it is the child, not the parent, who is being educated. In other words, this 鈥榖attle鈥 for the right of the child not to be indoctrinated and to freedom of belief can be fought and won.
Brian wrote: "You are concerned that the religious majority might want their own beliefs enshrined in rights. Where have you been living over the last five decades? The religious majority have had their rights enshrined in laws and institutions in NI ever since the statelet was created 86 years ago!"
Yes, but the religious majority have not had their preferences enshrined in a Bill of Rights. Ordinary laws can be amended and rescinded. You are now going to create the possibility that those preferences will be regarded as "rights" and made much more difficult to repeal.
Take the abortion issue. I think that abortion should be available here in N Ireland in exactly the same way that it is in the UK. The morning-after pill should be easy to obtain. Any rape victim should have the option of an abortion without delay, etc. That is why I support every campaign to extend the 1967 Act to NI.
There is a better chance of achieving that goal if we remain in the realm of ordinary legislation. Getting into the business of "Rights" may well result in a "Right to Life" which will obstruct all efforts to extend the 1967 Act.
You can only be sure that the "Rights" approach will have a progressive outcome when it is certain that the people who frame those rights have a clear sense of what secularism means and have a strong determination to achieve it. However, if the "Rights" approach simply reflects the religious beliefs of the current majority, then the outcome will be an obstacle to progress.
The basic difference between ordinary laws and rights is that the former can be enacted, amended and rescinded on a simple majority, whereas the latter usually require a two-thirds majority of a specially convened meeting. You have to have great faith in your legislators to elevate their legislation to the status of rights. You have that faith, Brian, for reasons best known by yourself. I don't. And so I remain cautious and sceptical, preferring ordinary law to a Bill of Rights.
Les,
You really ought to support a BOR because:
1. like me, you fear the tyranny of the majority, and a BOR is definitely a bulwark against that tyranny.
2. Elsewhere you expressed support for a clear distinction between the private and public spheres and, since it seeks to limit the power of the government to control the lives of ordinary people, a BOR protects the private sphere from state encroachment.
3. A BOR usually includes many principles with which Humanists would agree. Indeed, I am puzzled by your desire not to get into 鈥榯he business of rights鈥 when so much of the business of Humanism is precisely the business of rights. You seem to be suggesting that Humanists should deceive the public into thinking that rights somehow don鈥檛 concern them.
Abortion is a tricky issue on this island, no doubt about that. The DUP-Sinn Fein unholy alliance of last October passed a motion against any attempt to introduce abortion into NI. I think that a few years ago there was more support for it than now - hardly surprising since the moderates have been squeezed by the Chuckle Brothers and their clans. I certainly don鈥檛 have great faith in them. So unless the extremists鈥 stranglehold of the electorate is broken, we aren鈥檛 likely to see a relaxation of the law in the near future. But a BOR would be introduced by the Secretary of State and, hopefully (see below) it would not include a ban on abortion.
Elsewhere BORs have certainly acted to thwart attempts to ban abortion, e.g. in the USA and Canada precisely on grounds of guarantees of privacy and liberty and security of the person. Arguably, the bans on abortion, north and south of the border, are infringements of article 8 of the ECHR, which states that 鈥淓veryone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence鈥.
The Consultation document 鈥楳aking a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland', produced by the NI Human Rights Commission in 2001, concluded that abortion should not be dealt with by a BOR but by ordinary legislation.
Let me say that even if a BOR banned abortion here on the grounds of a 鈥榬ight to life鈥 I would probably support it because it is likely to include other rights which are important. I would not want to put all my secular eggs into one basket. I would fight this clause on the basis that it infringes other international documents like the ECHR and its own articles about the rights of women (see the consultation document).
I recommend that you read the cautious, sceptical submission of the Ulster Humanist Association to the consultation process. You will find it at the NIHRC website.
Better still is the even more cautious and sceptical submission by the Cadogan Group. Here is the link:
By contrast, if you read the submission by the Catholic Bishops you will find that they envisage a Bill of Rights which will enshrine a Right to Life (no abortion or dying with dignity); a Right to Education backing faith schools and a Right of faith schools only to employ their own co-religionists.
You seem to be pinning all your hopes on some unnamed Secretary of State bringing in a thoroughly secular Bill of Rights (some kind of benign fascism?). But suppose that SoS is a devout Catholic - what then?
I prefer caution and the democratic process.
Les,
It was you who previously implied that you had less faith than I in local politicians. Now it seems that you have even less faith in a SoS (in case he might be a Catholic!)
1. These submissions were responses to a particular document, the Consultation by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, issued in 2001. The Cadogan Group makes it clear that it is not opposed to a BOR, only what it regards as the complex and overreaching formulation suggested by the NIHRC. The Group calls for a return to the basic principles of the ECHR and states: 鈥淭he essential premise of the ECHR is that it enshrines a limited number of basic rights on which there is almost universal agreement. The same should apply to any proposed Bill of Rights鈥.
2. The UHA document highlights the apparent absence from the Consultation document of a provision for freedom from religion. Arguably, however, this is implied in the ECHR, Article 9: 鈥淓veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.鈥 Freedom to change religion or belief鈥 surely implies the right to reject religious belief.
2. You cannot ignore a major dimension of this subject: the past treatment of the Catholic minority. I have argued, and quoted Lord Scarman, that the absence of a BOR facilitated discrimination against that minority for 50 years. As NI is emerging from 30 years of conflict, it needs a fresh start and a BOR can help to ensure that the injustices of the past are never repeated and that the future provides both equality and freedom for both major cultures. This is important even if neither of us thinks we belong to either of them.
3. Studies reveal that awareness of rights by young people in NI is lower than many other countries.
A BOR would raise awareness of rights and became integral to the fabric of a shared future.
4. As far as we 鈥榦thers鈥 are concerned, The Belfast Agreement states that a BOR must protect the rights of members of smaller communities and those who do not want to be treated as belonging to any particular community.
5. This also means that a BOR ought to address the fears expressed in the UHA submission. Rather than reinforcing the antagonisms and divisions, it should be as broad as possible and its rights should appeal across the communities. And it should encourage trust and co-operation between the two main groups by promoting more strongly than the Consultation Document strategies such as integrated education and shared cultural events. In other words, it should promote those activities which help to create a genuinely shared future.
6. Colin is quite right in #8: without a BOR, an Assembly might overturn current laws passed by a more enlightened Westminister. Take two examples, homosexual acts and civil partnerships. Homosexuality was decriminalised in Northern Ireland, not by 鈥榣ocal democracy鈥 but after an individual had taken a case to the European Court and the Court ruled in 1981 that the province鈥檚 criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults was a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. Homosexual acts were thus legalised in NI fifteen years after the rest of the UK, but if our local MPs had had their way it would probably still be illegal. Remember Ken Maginnis鈥檚 notorious remark that he was in favour of homosexual acts 鈥榓t 95, with parental consent鈥. As for civil parnerships, this regulation was introduced by the British government under the 2004 act and not by the assembly, which would not have voted for it. In short, we need a BOR to protect us from some of the extreme policies of parties like the DUP and Sinn Fein.
7. As for abortion, I doubt if we will wait another 150 years (outlawed under an act of 1861) before someone takes the government to court under the ECHR over the absence of abortion in NI, In any case, many women are no longer going to the UK for abortion but getting the RU-486 pill on the internet. In other words, a ban on abortion in a BOR might become as irrelevant as a law on the age of consent.
Les,
According to a poll conducted by Millward Brown Ulster and reported in today鈥檚 Irish News
(https://www.irishnews.com/page.asp?catid=540&subcatid=5860&sid=578045),
three quarters of those questioned thought a BOR for NI was important or very important. Since public opinion is part of 鈥榯he democratic process鈥 which you say you prefer, presumably you will accede to it.
I have to say that for someone who says he doesn鈥檛 like labels, you have been prone to sticking them on views opposed to your own on this question. Thus, according to you, supporting a Bill of rights is an 'absolutist' or 鈥榝undamentalist鈥 view (so much for most of Europe and the USA), in contrast to your approach which is self-styled as 鈥榗autious and sceptical鈥. A more accurate label for most of the opposition to a BOR in NI is 鈥榬eactionary unionist鈥. Don鈥檛 you realise that three of the handful of states in the world without a BOR are the UK, Brunei and Burma?
For a humanist view, see: