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.
Do the public really want to change ‘the system’?: Stuart Wilks-Heeg presents polling evidence
Don't trust MPs' constitutional poker: Guy Aitchison supports the call for a citizens' convention
Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal': Anthony Barnett on the Prime Minister's desperate proposal
Stuart Boothman said:
Thu, 2008-11-27 20:55A 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.