You expect more from a human rights body

There is no solid commitment to a bill of rights in the Belfast Agreement, writes DAVID ADAMS

There is no solid commitment to a bill of rights in the Belfast Agreement, writes DAVID ADAMS

IT IS of the essence of democratic discourse (and an awful lot more, besides) that public bodies interpret and represent legislation and agreements as they are, and not as they would like them to be.

Such a weighty responsibility, however, seems not to overly concern the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC). Its chief commissioner, Prof Monica McWilliams, keeps referring to a bill of rights for Northern Ireland as though it was a requirement of the Belfast Agreement, yet this is not so.

McWilliams accused people ( The Irish Times, Opinion and Analysis, June 4th last) of wanting to "stand down [that] part of the agreement" because they contend that existing legislation (the European Convention on Human Rights and the British Human Rights Act) obviates any need for a Northern Ireland bill of rights.

READ MORE

She also wrote of being encouraged by the Oireachtas “Good Friday” Committee’s “recognition that a bill of rights remains an integral part of the implementation of the agreement”.

In evidence to that committee, she described a bill of rights as “a final piece of that agreement”, later cautioning that “we should not forget that this was an international treaty and that a commitment was made”.

This is plain wrong. There is no copper-fastened commitment to a bill of rights in the Belfast Agreement. To claim otherwise is at best a misreading of the agreement, and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

The Belfast Agreement only invited the NIHRC to “consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights”. It would have been perfectly in line with its remit if the NIHRC had concluded that no supplementary rights to the ECHR were needed.

McWilliams's predecessor, Prof Brice Dickson, acknowledged in a submission to Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights that the agreement "did not even say that a Bill of Rights should[his italics] be enacted for Northern Ireland". He believes that "human rights can be adequately protected without there being a bill of rights in place that goes beyond the European Convention; 'ordinary' legislation can do the job just as well".

Is Dickson guilty of wanting to stand down part of the agreement, with human rights activist Prof Liam Kennedy who holds a similar view?

No, because contrary to the impression being given, the Belfast Agreement only allowed for the possibility of a bill of rights, it did not demand one.

How many people have thrown their weight behind the NIHRC’s position because they have been led to believe a bill of rights is an indispensable part of the Belfast Agreement?

Indeed, how many groups have signalled support for the NIHRC’s proposals because they rely for funding on the foreign philanthropic organisation that is helping to bankroll a bill of rights campaign?

What is wrong with a bill of rights for Northern Ireland? In the bald abstract, nothing at all, which probably accounts for why, purportedly, 83 per cent of those polled in NI agreed that they would like one.

I doubt whether the respondents to the poll were made aware of the protections already in place, or, crucially, fully realised the implications of what the NIHRC has in mind.

Northern Secretary Shaun Woodward told the Westminster NI Affairs Committee of having been handed “something that has gone so well beyond the brief they [the NIHRC] were given”.

I’ll say it has. The NIHRC’s some 80 proposals cover social, economic, political and environmental issues that are properly the preserve of democratically elected politicians. That is where the danger lies. Commenting on the proposals, Dickson said a bill of rights “should not attempt to cover matters which are better left to political debate and compromise”. “Giving too much power to unelected judges is an intensely undemocratic and potentially unwise thing to do.”

If the NIHRC has its way, numerous governance issues will become the preserve of the judiciary.

How can a proposed diminution in democratic accountability be squared with an agreement whose very object was to put governance into the hands of locally elected representatives?

Dickson asks whether people would prefer “the final say . . . to be determined by 12 unelected justices in the UK’s Supreme Court, or by 647 elected MPs in the House of Commons and/or 108 MLAs in Belfast?” He points out that “probably the most comprehensive Bill of Rights in the world at present [South Africa’s], makes a rigid distinction between ‘rights’ issues and ‘governance’ issues”.

The NIHRC has ignored in its proposals the only obvious major rights deficit in Northern Ireland: abortion and a woman’s right to choose.

Did it feel that it couldn’t afford to upset some powerful interests (including those in Irish-America?) by arguing for an extension to NI of the UK 1967 Abortion Act?

The NIHRC is out of line with the word and the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. As for ignoring the rights deficit of a beleaguered minority: you expect more from a human rights body, to put it mildly.