Listen to Northern Ireland’s advice on a UK bill of rights – Colin Harvey

10 November 2011 by

There is a commission on a bill of rights for the UK. It is in the midst of a consultation process, and visited Belfast this week. Have you noticed?

The commission’s establishment and composition provoked adverse comment. The mood of open hostility to existing human rights law merged with the potential for engineered political standoff, as the commission members are split between those who support the Human Rights Act and those who oppose it. A commission born from political compromise looks primed for stalemate. Not the best way to initiate a new constitutional conversation.

Viewed from Belfast, the enterprise seems odd. Think of how a “British bill of rights” sounds here. We survived an extensive bill of rights process, launched over 12 years ago and interwoven with the complexities of our particular circumstances. Asked to submit advice on a bill of rights, the Northern Ireland human rights commission did so. The carefully crafted proposals remain on the desk of the secretary of state. Our advice is determinedly Human Rights Act plus (it did not impress Dominic Grieve when he paid us a visit). The London-based commission has no doubt read it. From our perspective, it is tempting to wish this new project well and leave it at that. Can we have our own bill of rights first please?

However, support can be given to cautious and strategic engagement. Northern Ireland should be represented on the advisory panel. As we know, the UK is not the constitutional place it once was. Devolution – and the steady rise of nations and regions – eased Westminster’s grip. There is pressure to move even further, and the monolithic past is now broken into a rich diversity. Variety is a welcome reality of UK life. So what, you might ask?

Proposing a UK bill of rights in such a context raises profound constitutional questions. Have they been thought through? Even the initial stages require skilful management. An appreciation of constitutional and national pluralism is vital. What of the potential outcome? No credible human rights activist or organisation will endorse anything that resembles a backward step. How could they? The Human Rights Act is legislation to be proud of. Subtle and crass attempts to undermine it should not prevail. That message may well emerge clearly from the consultation.

Before all that, one forgotten thing in London. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 held out the expectation of a bill of rights. The commission could quite easily endorse the advice delivered from Northern Ireland and, as others have done, urge rapid progress towards completion. Why not?

New and more pluralist constitutional conversations are unfolding across these islands. If we lift our gaze, listen and engage as equals, we just might grasp the opportunities. In these awful times, we should not abandon our faith in humanity, and try not to lose heart or confidence. As the drums of national retreat sound across Europe (and the UK takes over as chair of the Council of Europe), noticing the human person seems more like the pressing constitutional imperative of our age. Let us not forget why we have human rights, and why we need them still.

In realising our aims, it must not be either/or. The priority is to prevent the degradation of our human rights. The Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights should be defended. In the process, why not show them what enhanced and robust human rights protection looks like. Why not spell out what new bills of rights include? I guess they may not like it. They said they wanted a bill of rights debate, didn’t they?

The time has come throughout the UK for strong public leadership on human rights, and a mature debate on radical constitutional change. Given the desperate state of our world, perhaps time too for a new global human rights revolution. Who will stand in this troubled age for our common humanity? What do you think?

Professor Colin Harvey is Head of the Law School, Queen’s University Belfast and served as Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner 2005-2011

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk/law and is reproduced with permission as part of the Guardian Legal Network. 

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

2 comments


  1. vijay.staffindia@yahoo.co.uk says:

    “The time has come throughout the UK for strong public leadership on human rights, and a mature debate on radical constitutional change. Given the desperate state of our world, perhaps time too for a new global human rights revolution. Who will stand in this troubled age for our common humanity? What do you think?” Great !

    Virtual Assistant from India for £299 pm,

  2. ObiterJ says:

    There is a massive amount about “good governance” to be learned from the experience of Northern Ireland. It should be a compulsory subject for all aspiring politicians. Unfortunately, few on the mainland pay much attention to it and that includes most of the present government.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: