Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I have never quite followed the split between those who think reform-minded people should talk in terms of "civil liberties" and those who insist on "human rights". But a packed meeting of people in Cambridge last night for a forum to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Act gave me cause to consider the terminology of rights, and especially the split in thinking it revealed between practitioners and the public.
The panel consisted of Rabinder Singh QC, from Matrix Chambers, Professor Rob Home, of Anglia Ruskin University, Andrew Watson, a local No2ID activist, and Jean Candler, from the British Institute of Human Rights. They spoke throughout in terms that emphasised the "human" in the phrase "human rights" and brought the debate down to everyday level - assisted, it should be said, by an admirably forthright chair, Boni Sones, of Women's Parliamentary Radio.
Naturally enough for Cambridge, there was an assumption that this was a gathering of enlightened people. But it became apparent that there is a distinct difference in understanding between the practitioners and some of the audience when it comes to the use of the word "rights", which I think goes far wider than the Mumford Theatre at Anglia Ruskin, co-sponsor with the Cambridge CAB of the debate.
The panel spoke always in terms of "human rights", but several people in the theatre spoke of "rights" as individualistic and undesirable commodities that could, for example, cause disruption in families (children's rights) and schools (ditto), where children who should be excluded were not and so damaged the education of their class mates. Of course, the panel had emphasised that human rights strike a balance between rights and responsibilities that must be determined in any case; that the interests of others and the wider community had to be taken into account; and that every judgment had to be proportionate. But they blamed the Human Rights Act, at least implicitly.
My first thought was how much damage the Labour government and that popinjay Tony Blair have done to human rights by, first not engaging in the huge educational and promotional campaign that ought to have accompanied the Act, and secondly, in insisting on the need to balance rights and responsibilities as though the Act doesn't already do that. Second thoughts: however the national debate goes on a new Bill of Rights, we must continue to explain how the HRA works and campaign for the public to be involved in its defence or the creation of a Bill of Rights; and secondly, that we should talk more often in terms of "liberty" and "freedom" as well as "human rights" which for some people in Cambridge are clearly seen as either PC or politically motivated.
Meanwhile Cambridge CAB, under Rachel Talbot, and CABs across the country are at the sharp end of defending people's lives and dignity in the recession, usually with utterly inadequate resources. Nick Herbert has recently scorned the "trivial" matters where the HRA does make a difference (that could be greater). He needs to be told that homelessness, debt, poor schooling, the protection of family life, dignity in care homes - all the things that make up everyday democracy for people in the UK - are not trivial.
Human rights v civil liberties?
This article is published by Stuart Weir, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
Comments
I think that perhaps when you say that rights need to be balanced with responsibilities, then you are using a rather different definition of the word "rights" than I feel comfortable with.
I have the right not to be killed or tortured. The right to a fair trial. The right to a reasonable amount of privacy and freedom of expression. I have the right to vote.
None of these rights come with balancing responsibilities, unless you count the responsibility not to shout shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, which I think is (a) self-evident and (b) not covered by the phrase "a reasonable amount".
I'm sure you can come up with lots of "rights" that are (or might arguably be) contingent on some sort of contract between government and the person involved: the right to a job and to education, for example.
But anyone conflating these two sorts of rights makes me extremely nervous.
"Of course, the panel had emphasised that human rights strike a balance between rights and responsibilities that must be determined in any case; that the interests of others and the wider community had to be taken into account"
Surely the key point here is that what rights have to balanced against is other rights. If they have to be balanced against any responsibility, it is the responsibility to uphold the rights of others. If they have to be balanced against the interests of others it is because those interests give rise to rights. If the interests of the wider community have to be taken into account, it is because of the rights of its members.
To elide this point is to provide unbridled scope for arbitrary authoritarianism.
Strong point Tom!
I think that the problem with the way Labour introduced the Human Rights Act was that it focussed on the obscure issue of the clash with parliament and never presented it as a check on the arbitrary power of the executive.
A good secondary Citizenship education will inform the debate quite effectively. Our students are all fully aware that one person's rights are underpinned and maintained by someone else's responsibility. If all people fulfilled their responsibility, all people would equally receive their full alloted rights. The "tension" between competing rights is the basis for the rules that govern our society.
However, if interpreted on a purely individual level, different people appear to have competing rights. As a simplistic example, my right for self expression could be set against another person's right not to be abused. The compromise therefore comes in, that sometimes in order to protect one person's rights, another has to agree to forego or moderate a right - this is generally well understood - by children if not their parents (which was referred to directly in the article). Our concept of freedom, is thereby one which we moderate for the benefit of society.
Part of the problem is that one section of the "human rights/civil liberties" voice is focused purely on individual rights, whereas the other section is focused on collective rights and the protection of the vulnerable who are less able to demand their rights. This debate used to be neatly contained within right wing/left wing politics. As those definitions have broken apart with the New Labour project, there is a louder voice calling for individual rights at the expense of some other people's. E.g. the case of students being excluded so that "my child" can continue his/her education without disruption - with no thought of the excluded child's rights...
It is important that we have free and open debate, and that the discussion is not dominated by one side. At the moment, it sounds as if the individual (slightly selfish) view of rights is dominant in society (not in these posts). Personally, I would like to see the collective rights arguments expressed too.
Post new comment