Righting The Wrongs

Introduction

In a conflict situation, such that there has been in Northern Ireland, where the violence has been through physical and material action and also language, prejudice and discrimination. This has caused people to feel unsafe - both physically and psychologically. Maslow, in his study of the hierarchy of human needs, placed safety as being the platform on which all other needs can be built upon. He postulated that unless an individual has a feeling of safety, they are inhibited from pursuing their other needs, necessary for the fulfilment of their existence.

The society and the entire community therein, have been held vacuum-packed in a stasis, throughout the period of the conflict. Ideas, energies and actions have been focussed on the narrow issue of the sectarian and political conflict, to the exclusion of other areas of human expression and activity.

Also, due to the conflict, the avenues for people to pursue the political and socio-economic develop of the community have been severely constrained, because of the democratic deficit. This deficit exists because of the history of an absence of human and civil rights, though the short history of the existence of the Northern Ireland state. Any semblance of structured political mechanisms, were not in existence after the Stormont parliament was prorogued in 1974.

Given the particular set of circumstances, as illustrated above, puts a significant onus on the need for a radical set of proposes articles of human rights. This statutory requirement will provide the framework on which a society can be rebuilt, trust can be re-established over time, given the written and statutory guarantees of safety.

Our interpretation is based on the need to establish a place of safety; from which a society and the community of individual people therein, can develop, progress and flourish, whatever the future constitutional status and position Northern Ireland is in.

As an organisation we are biased. We are biased in favour of people with mental health difficulties and their families and carers. This does not mean that we are blinded to the needs, aspirations and rights of other people, it means we give particular focus, attention and expertise on this group. We seek no favourable treatment above that which is extended to people outside this group. We are well aware, that our arguments may be seen as favourable treatment, but in reality it is a recognition of the need to bring the rights of people with mental health difficulties on a par with everybody else. Due to the level of stigma, discrimination and a history of neglect and lack of consideration of people with mental health difficulties, we have a long road to travel, to bring about parity. We are well aware, that people who have not been exposed to the level of discrimination and stigmatisation, that people with mental health difficulties have endured, will find it difficult to see the justification for the necessary re-orientation of emphasis towards establishing parity.

We have seen in the course of the Civil Rights movement, not just here in Northern Ireland, but in other countries - notably the United States and South Africa - the backlash against the re-orientation of emphasis towards establishing parity.

There is a tendency towards two-dimensional thinking, to see the situation in terms of a zero-sum analysis - what is given in one direction has to be taken from another. Their needs to be extensive education in this area, to show that the establishment of rights for a particular group of people, does not subsequently and consequently necessarily mean a loss of an erosion of rights for other people.

We are content with the proposal

It is felt that the second paragraph in the preamble, which starts 'realising that each individual…'; is unhelpful in it's implication of separate communities. The proposed change may read 'having duties to other individuals and to people who share their commonality of interest, is under a responsibility…' The remainder of the paragraph, as it stands, is appropriate.

Also, in the following paragraph the changing of 'that those who have died or been injured, and their families' to 'those who have died, who have been injured or adversely affected, and their families and loved ones'. This then will take account of the vast numbers of people, who have been psychologically damaged by their experience of the conflict; also it takes account of those people who have people close to them, but are not necessarily family in the conventional understanding of the term.

In the penultimate paragraph, the terms 'all sections of the community' acknowledges the division and in effect, justifies it's existence; it could be altered to 'all people in the community'. In the final paragraph, the term 'vulnerable people' is used, many people with disabilities, resent the use of this term, implying victim-hood upon them. It could be altered to 'disenfranchised people'.

Agree. The present de Hondt system is unwieldy and unnecessarily complex, it also enshrines a sectarian divide. However, it is the system which was agreed upon, the Bill of Rights should include an aspiration to pursue a non-sectarian system, when the circumstances allow.

The current exclusion of people who are classed as 'mentally ill' is outdated and outmoded. It stems from the history of mixing people with learning difficulties, with people with mental health conditions; it also is symptomatic of the ignorance that there is about mental health conditions. If you have a condition which affects your mental health, it does not necessarily affect your mental competency, or capacity to make a reasoned choice about your political representative. Indeed, a person with a mental health condition, is competent of representing other people as a candidate, indeed Winston Churchill completed a successful term of Prime Minister-ship, whilst experiencing depression.

Agree. Sixteen years old would be preferable.

If so, how would you word such a right? All people of Northern Ireland should have the freedom to access information, documents and materials produced by the elected Assembly and the civil service in the course of governance. Unless it can be specifically demonstrated by the elected Members, that the document would bring actual harm or constitute an invasion of rightful privacy to an individual or individuals.

Disagree. A constitutional right to parity of esteem will ensure that people feel comfortable and confident in expressing their opinion or view. It is accepted that an effective Bill of Rights will ensure de facto parity of esteem; this does not necessarily eliminate the benefits of having a de jure provision of such a right.

Yes. It is somewhat tiresome to constantly hear that if one has been brought up in a Catholic culture, then one is automatically a 'nationalist' , 'republican' or 'Irish'; similarly, if one is brought up in a Protestant culture, then one is automatically a 'unionist', 'loyalist' or 'British'. It is reminiscent of the Dreyfus case, because a soldier was 'Jewish', he was automatically assumed to be disloyal to France and thus a 'traitor' An individual may be brought up in a certain culture, a community or a political ethos and yet take an alternative or opposing identity or political ethos. We are not born into a set template, our ideas are written upon us by our experiences and what we have learned - this may be amended, erased or re-written with each new experience.

The wording of the clause establishing this Right, could be said thus:-

Each individual is an individual in their own right. Assumptions about political, cultural, or community allegiances are not necessarily borne out by actuality. Each individual has the right to their own identity, without having it imposed or conferred upon them by others. Ownership of the individual's identity necessarily belongs to that individual and to that individual alone.

The proposed amendment is suitable with the alternative clause. However the use of term 'both communities', denies and derecognises the existence of alternative communities. This may be amended to 'all communities'.

No. The term 'victim' in a Northern Ireland context is politically loaded. There are vested political interests, keen on establishing a hierarchy of victim-hood, this in itself is arbitrary and discriminatory. Every person in Northern Ireland has been affected by the conflict, we are all 'victims' of the conflict, be it directly or indirectly. To try to discriminate against one person's pain and suffering as being lesser than another's, is unethical and ultimately unsustainable.

Each individual need's help and support to move from the status of victim, to survivor and then ultimately to conqueror. It is disingenuous and ultimately disempowering to bestow or confer eternal victim-hood on an individual or a group of individuals.

Yes. Positive discrimination is necessary to counter pose and counteract the long standing discrimination in the past. There is and there will be a backlash against this, but this has to be borne until parity is established; then there may be a constitutional amendment to the Bill of Rights when that state of parity has been established - and seen to be established.

It is felt that the rights of women deserve a specific chapter, due to the long standing disenfranchisement of women in our society. Also, there are number of rights which are gender-specific towards women, such as reproductive rights, which have to be recognised and acknowledged.

Yes. The state should have no jurisdiction over the Right to life. Even in war or in conflict, there should be no caveat allowing the state to determine a person's right to life.

Also clause sub-clause '2 c' needs to be taken out, participation in a riot or insurrection should not constitute a legitimacy for the state, through its law enforcement officials, to cause the death of a participant or participants. It will serve as a 'green-light' for trigger-happy law enforcement officials and result in many unnecessary deaths, as we have witnessed recently and tragically in Genoa.

Yes. However, an amendment needs to be made to delete 'morality'. There is no common morality, thus to include this would allow violations against the personal and physical integrity of persons, who do not follow conventional morality. It is felt that the constitutional order will necessarily protect people, from people who wish to pursue personality development, which is harmful to other people in society. The clause may be worded thus:- Each individual in society has the right to develop their personality and maintain their physical integrity, insofar as pursuance of such does not necessarily impinge on other people's rights.

Yes.

Yes. The system of Diplock Courts should be ended. A person has a right to be tried by his peers, this right should be enacted forthwith. The state, even through the auspices of the arm of the law, should not be the sole arbiter in criminal proceedings.

Yes. The 'double indemnity' should be constitutionally enforced. There will always be difficult cases, like the Stephen Lawrence case, where it seems that an injustice has occurred. It is felt that the removal of this provision, would actually lead to more injustices, then resolving difficult cases.

As stated in the answer to Question 12., creating a group of 'victims' is counter-productive and only serves a particular political agenda, all people in Northern Ireland society were in some way 'victims' of the conflict.

As said above all people in Northern Ireland may be regarded as 'victims', thus if it is to be included that all people, regardless of the element of criminality, should be allowed to claim 'victim-hood'. There can be no discrimination in this, and no hierarchy of 'victims' should be created.

The Commission's choice of a combined approach is appropriate and should be followed.

It is felt that the rights of children deserve special consideration. A separate chapter detailing their rights should be established; with continuing reference to it being made throughout the rest of the Bill, as it pertains to or affects children.

Yes. Children's voices have been ignored. Often 'best interests' clause has been used as a get out, a child should have access to independent advocates outside the vestiges of parents, guardians and the state - in that way their 'best interests' are paramount and secured.

Through the auspices of the offices of an Independent Commissioner for children; there is currently consultation being carried out about the proposed Commissioner, it is hoped that this will complete a successful process towards enactment.

It is felt that is should be framed as a positive right and that the state is obligated to ensure it. Also there should be clarification on what constitutes a family; there are reactionary forces who seek to stigmatise and exclude single-parent families or same-sex relationship families, thus the concept of 'family' needs to be stipulated as being inclusive of different forms of family.

No. It is felt that the current age is appropriate, however if a child commits an offence, due to psychological disorder of dysfunction, then adequate and appropriate care, support and treatment should be provided rather than punishment.

No. If there is a substantive change in thinking on the age of responsibility, then amendment will have to be made constitutionally.

Yes. The current admission procedures applied by many schools are discriminatory , and the 11+ system had been discredited with its record of excluding people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It has been shown that the current system, stigmatises and psychologically damages children, it needs to be revoked and a new, fairer and non-discriminatory system, be put in place.

The exclusion of teachers from fair employment regulations, is unjustified and unfair. The religious, cultural or political background of a teacher does not impinge on their ability to teach; why then should discrimination be allowed in this area? There are too many teacher who have been forced to teach in Britain or another country, because of the discriminatory practices exercised by both Protestant and Catholic schools and educational establishments.

Yes. In addition, this society has a high and burdensome level of secretiveness, a culture and ethos of non-disclosure and obfuscation exists in the statutory and civil service. The onus needs to be shifted towards open and transparent governance, rather on the current system whereby 'need-to-know' has to be vigorously established and proven before any material is released. However, there should be a right of privacy, with the caveat of legitimate public interest. The current harassment of celebrities has to stop; whilst safeguarding the legitimate actions of an investigative journalist exposing corruption, malpractice and mal-administration.

No.

The deaf community suffers tremendous discrimination currently, there is an overwhelming emphasis on trying to 'normalise' deaf people, and eradicate their own deaf culture.

The use of cochlear implants is over-applied, with a frightening varying degrees of success, many deaf and hear-of-hearing find that the implants are only partly successful. Also, deaf children are dissuaded from learning sign-language on the grounds that is differentiates them; the reality is that there is strong cost-motive preventing sign language being taught and used as a medium for teaching. Consequently deaf children currently receive a sub-standard education which affects their adult life. Their difficulties in hearing inhibits them from participating in communication with the hearing community, but are excluded because of their lack of sign language from the deaf community; they are in limbo.

This isolation and lack of communication, leads to a comparatively high-level of incidence of mental health difficulties, amongst people in this significantly large group.

The ability to use sign language fluently, enables the child to grow up and develop inside a signing community, whereby they communicate freely with other people who use sign-language.

The establishment of sign language as a legitimate form of expression, and the establishment of education taught through the medium of sign-language, should be provided. If sign-language was included alongside Ulster-Scots and the Irish language, then the level of discrimination would decrease significantly.

The clause is exemplary in its language and explicitness, in the context of social and economic rights. There may be an additional need with the use of 'directive principles', for each body with a statutory duty to deliver and implement social and economic policy, to publish annual, quinquennial, and decadal plans, audits and reviews, open for consultation with the general public.

No. It is felt that a general limitation clause would be an all too easy opt out of responsibility, by the government or agents thereof.. people may ask that in an emergency situation, their may derogation, but it is felt that the need for Human Rights is even more apparent in an emergency situation. On Channel 4 television on Wednesday 12th General Sir Michael Rose, called for the suspension of human rights in the light of the terrible events in New York and Washington DC. There cannot be allowance for the suspension of Human Rights for the sake of political expediency.

None is apparent. Where a limitation is suggested, it should be the responsibility of the proponent to argue for the appropriate wording.

Yes. It may initially be employed on a part-time basis, but it is felt that over time there will be the need for a full-time court, with primary jurisdiction over human rights issues.

Agreed.

Yes. If legislation is found to be or even viewed as being in breach of or incompatible with the bill of Rights, there should be an incumbency on the lower courts to refer the case to the High Court - or indeed the Court of Human Rights, if we are successful in achieving the establishment of said court.

The rights of individual people has never before taken such primacy, and there is going to be a lot of existing legislation, which will be found to be incompatible, and will have to be amended. This will cause a fair amount of work, but a shift in emphasis in the framing and implementation of legislation needs to be established.

Yes. The current system where a person has to be directly harmed, creates a slow system of initiating a problem, waiting for a 'victim', thence waiting for a 'victim' prepared to take the burden of challenging the courts and ultimately the Government. Legal representatives can often dig their heels in and use interminable legal procedure to delay and prolong the case, in an effort to discourage the plaintiff, especially with the fear of the rise of the so-called compensation culture.

Where statutory legislation can be demonstrated to have harmful effects on an individual or group of individuals, infringing their human rights, then a public, private, statutory or voluntary sector body should have the right to take a case.

If a body has sufficient interest to study legislation, and consider the potential impact on an individual or a group of individual, then they should have the right to pursue the case. If it is a private firm it should be registered pursuant to the Companies act, if it is charity it should be registered as such, if it is a Trust again it should be registered. If a body meets the standards and requirements, laid out by the various registration bodies, then that should suffice. Political parties should be excluded - as they already have existing avenues of input.

There is an over-stated fear of aggravated nuisance cases, a Human Rights Commission would be the ideal body to vet cases and that decision may be subject to an appeals procedure and if that fails to satisfy, then a judicial review may be sought. It is felt that nuisance cases will be minimal, the media is over-fond of hyping up seemingly absurd cases, which often have much more too them than that which is initially apparent.

Yes. The Civic Forum is a potentially good mechanism, but alas the Assembly can simply brush aside any concerns they may have; a clause allowing in-coming legislation being referred to the courts is appropriate.

A Constitutional Court, which may take evidence from representatives of body's interested in the legislation under scrutiny.

It is felt that a combination of two methods would be appropriate. There needs to be cross-party and cross-community support by vote for the proposed changed. The change then has to be put into a referendum where it needs to have a two- majority, in favour of the amendment.

If there are serious grounds for a range of options, and clear choices can be made in those opinion, then it should be employed.

There should be an initial question to ascertain whether there is agreement for changes to be made. Then with the options, a clear choice should be demonstrated, this can be validated by a cross-community and cross-party vote.