Sir, - Donal O'Driscoll (October 18th) predicts a rather melodramatic future for the Human Rights Commission being established by the Government on foot of the Good Friday Agreement. In particular, he highlights the commission's role in litigation. This, he contends, will subvert the ideals of separation of powers and popular sovereignty which are core values of the Irish Constitution.
Mr O'Driscoll fails to point out that there are two definitions of the term "human rights" contained in the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000. Section 2 of the Act provides a broad definition in order to maximise the remit of the commission. For the purposes of seeking declaratory orders of court, however, the commission will be confined to relying upon the rights contained in the Irish Constitution and those international human rights instruments which have been incorporated into domestic law (Section 11). There are currently none of the latter and the former are no less susceptible to the creativity of judicial imagination (or lack thereof) than rights contained in any other legal instrument.
It is misleading to state that the creation of human rights institutions (in both parts of Ireland) is "without proper authority from the people". The creation of such bodies was an essential element of the Good Friday Agreement which was approved by a majority of the people in separate plebiscites on the island of Ireland. Surely that was the ultimate and enduring expression of popular sovereignty.
Mr O'Driscoll's conclusion that the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000 is illegal can be tested only in the courts. By his own standards it would be utterly paradoxical to test such a shaky hypothesis in an undemocratic and unaccountable forum! - Yours, etc.,
Donncha O'Connell, Director, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Lower Dominick Street, Dublin 1.