Mischief
making and cowardice – the betrayal of the Human Rights Commission
Harold
Good
Having
completed a five year term as a member of the Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission, I welcome this invitation to reflect on that
experience.
As
parish minister for forty years and member of numerous boards and
bodies in the voluntary and statutory sectors, I have been a long-time
campaigner for the rights of all citizens of this province, irrespective
of how they perceive themselves or are perceived by others - not
at the academic level I hasten to add, but as a practitioner, which
is where the action is! For me, my appointment to the NIHRC was
a further and privileged opportunity to contribute towards the building
of a just and peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland,
with guaranteed rights for all. This I saw to be within the context
of the opportunity for new beginnings provided by the Good Friday
Agreement.
As
is a matter of public knowledge, this Commission has been a much-maligned
body and the subject of much criticism throughout its relatively
short lifetime. As an organisation, we have been very much aware
of our own humanity and have never made any claim to infallibility.
We have “put our hand up” where we feel we have been mistaken
or misguided. We have publicly responded to comments and recommendations
from significant “investigators”, such as the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster. But we have also
been at the mercy of mischief-makers who, for their own reasons,
have made our task much more difficult and in so doing have not
acted in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Robust
To
those who wonder why the Commission was not more robust in it’s
own defence, it has to be remembered that in public life there is
an unwritten code of conduct which suggests that it is inappropriate
to engage in a form of public debate which is as unproductive as
it is unseemly. Having said that, even 35 years within diverse voluntary
and public bodies did not prepare me for the way in which some members
acted within meetings of the Commission. I was deeply disappointed
by resignations and by the manner in which they were announced.
Nevertheless,
as a Commission, we resolutely committed ourselves to getting on
with the task entrusted to us and I cannot speak too highly of the
integrity of those Commissioners with whom it has been my privilege
to have served during the recent past. This includes our Chief Commissioner,
Brice Dickson, an internationally respected human rights lawyer.
In the absence of resigned and withdrawn Commissioners, only our
highly dedicated staff and immediate family members will know of
the demands that have been made upon commissioners in terms of time
and energy, with many long days and some very late nights.
But
it has been a challenge for which I shall be forever grateful. I
have gained considerable knowledge about law and the protection
of rights. Within and beyond the Commission itself, I have had an
opportunity to engage with a wide spectrum of people from whom I
have learned much and to whom I hope I have given more than a token
in return.
Allow
me to share some reflections on more specific aspects of the Commission’s
life and work.
Membership:
The
Act under which the Commission was established states that, in making
appointments, the Secretary of State “shall as far as practicable
secure that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of
the community in Northern Ireland”. It was, therefore, an interesting
and diverse group of Commissioners who gathered for the first meeting
in March 1999. As I write, my eye is drawn towards the editorial
in one of our morning papers, “The law is too important
to be left to lawyers.” The same might be said of human
rights! Of course it is about charters, conventions and legislation
but, more fundamentally, it is about the shared values by which
we have agreed to live as a society. Therefore, and quite rightly,
there were those of us who were appointed for reasons other than
our knowledge of the law.
Inevitably,
there were those who criticised the appointments as not being representative
of their sector, their community or their political position. I
have to say, it does intrigue me how, with the privilege of a secret
ballot box, some people could so confidently pronounce on our political
preferences and positions!
As
a Commission, we have had nothing whatever to do with appointments
but, as someone pointed out in defence of those whose responsibility
it was: to ensure that every interest group in Northern Ireland
felt that personally represented would have meant the appointment
of a commission which could have filled the Waterfront Hall! Our
responsibility was clear. We were to be representative
people, not representatives of any organisation or personal or party
political agenda. And there is a significant difference between
the two. Total objectivity must be the primary ground rule in any
such public body. No appointee was accountable to his or her “constituency”.
For
me, in terms of human rights, the commitment and expertise of fellow
commissioners was never in doubt. However, I will leave it to others
to make their own judgements as to whether every Commissioner retained
a non-aligned status or whether they allowed themselves to be driven
by other agendas.
Given
the importance of the task and the need for more rather than fewer
Commissioners, it is difficult to understand why the Secretary of
State has taken no steps to fill the vacancies caused by those Commissioners
who resigned as long ago as September 2002. No less puzzling is
his failure to take action against two “withdrawn” Commissioners
who, while still accepting their remuneration, formally chose not
to participate in or contribute to the work of the Commission after
September 2003! Perhaps he, and his Minister of State Mr Spellar,
should be asked to explain more publicly both how and why
they have arrived at those decisions.
The
Bill of Rights
From
day one, we were committed to engaging the people of Northern Ireland
in a process whereby we would ensure that whatever we produced would,
as far as humanly possible, be their Bill of Rights. We began
with a series of forums and “road shows” throughout the
province, which have been built on in the following years through
small groups, seminars and conferences for people of all ages, including
children. In all of these encounters, we were left in no doubt that,
for the people with whom we engaged, whatever their political preferences
or cultural/religious identity, it is socio-economic rights which
are paramount in their thinking and expectation. This has greatly
influenced the Commission in the drafting of position papers for
the next stage of consultation and will be reflected in its final
advice to the Secretary of State.
It
is a matter of great regret that, with the fall of the Assembly,
the political parties have not been able to engage in the proposed
Roundtable discussions which would have informed our thinking
and, hopefully, engaged the parties in a more constructive and shared
contribution to the debate. We shall have to watch this space.
Tension
Inevitably,
there is tension between haste and depth. The Commission has chosen
the latter, hence the time it has given to exhaustive public consultation.
This has not always been understood by those who have been influenced
by critics who have demanded a more speedy outcome. Nor may it be
appreciated that much of the delay has been caused by lack of co-operation
from those who themselves have been most critical of the Commission’s
time table - in particular, some of the political parties. This
was in spite of the Commission’s strenuous efforts to involve
them very directly in this process since early 2002. If we erred
on the side of attempting to bring everyone with us, that is an
error with which the Commission can live more comfortably than the
alternative.
As
is now known, a further draft of the Bill of Rights will be made
publicly available during the month of April. This will be the proper
test of the Commission’s stewardship during the past five years.
Holy
Cross
Every
Commissioner unequivocally condemned the protest at Holy Cross and
the protestors who blocked the path of the children and their parents
as they made their way to school. In my role as a Church Leader,
I personally made more than one visit to the area. I saw for myself
the hate on the faces of protestors and fear on the faces of children.
I publicly condemned the outrage; I visited frightened and elderly
people in their homes; I engaged with representatives of the residents;
I visited the school where I met the Principal and her staff; sat
with the parents and talked to children in their classrooms. So,
let no one suggest that I, or any of my colleagues in the Commission,
were either sectarian or unconcerned.
Our
debate was about how we as a Commission could best contribute towards
a resolution of that terrible situation, particularly in response
to requests that were being made of us at that time. The question
for the Commission was whether the police breached the Human Rights
Act by not properly protecting the children against the protestors.
Since that is an issue over which experienced human rights lawyers
can properly differ, it is not surprising that Commissioners also
differed. Nor would we be the first public body to have members
who differed from one another!
Upon
the advice of Senior Counsel, the full Commission decided it should
not take a case against the police, either in it’s own name
or on behalf of an individual. However, when subsequently asked
to support a case on behalf of an individual, the Commission’s
Casework Committee decided it would.
Whatever
the perceived rights or wrongs in the controversy over litigation
against the police, the Commission has so far devoted almost an
entire year’s casework budget to that case.
Political
independence or political interference?
When
I speak of political interference, I do not refer to the representations
and protestations of political parties. They will lobby one government
or the other, depending upon the nature of their demands. It is
their right to do so, it is their responsibility to the constituents
who have elected them to represent their respective interests. That
is the nature of party politics. Indeed, it has been a matter of
regret that some representatives, particularly from the unionist
community, have been so reluctant to fully engage with us. As Professor
Kevin Boyle reminded us at the Commission’s recent Bill of
Rights conference, by its very nature any debate on human rights
will be political.
But
it is the responsibility of Government/s to take a measured view
and make decisions on what is right, rather than on what is politically
expedient. A short-term quick-fix solution to satisfy the demands
of one section of the community over another is a recipe for longer-term
political grief.
For
example, on the back of partisan representations made to it, the
Irish Government, publicly through it’s Minister for Foreign
Affairs, made seriously deprecating and damaging comments against
the Commission and the Chief Commissioner – without deigning
to meet with us before or since at ministerial level.
As
one who remains totally committed to progressive inter-governmental
and cross-border institutions, I believe I am entitled to ask whether,
in the interests of those to whom they listen most, has one Government
been permitted to exercise undue influence over another?
And
why has the Government of the United Kingdom failed to issue a definitive
response to the Commission’s Review of Powers, three years
after it was submitted?
It
is our understanding that the Secretary of State does not intend
to fill existing vacancies before March 2005. In light of this failure
to appoint new commissioners and/or extend terms of members who
could serve for a further year, is it unreasonable to surmise that
there is a lack of commitment by Government to the Commission, a
key institution of the Good Friday Agreement?
There
is the further mystery of the protestations of the Comptroller of
the State of New York, regarding the potential for withdrawing funding
from Northern Ireland if his concerns regarding the NIHRC were not
met. From such a distance, upon whose accounts was he depending
for his information? What weight did any of this carry within other
circles and conversations concerning the NIHRC?
These
are reasonable questions which I believe the Secretary of State
and his Minister must answer, swiftly and publicly. As the Paris
Principles make abundantly clear, national human rights institutions
must be totally free from governmental interference.
These
are important questions for all of us. They go well beyond concerns
for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. They have implications
for courageous and impartial men and women who serve on other controversial
public bodies, such as the District Policing Partnerships.
For
your comfort . . .
While
critics talk among themselves, or to the media, the work goes on
and the general public continues to demonstrate its confidence in
the Commission.
More
than 200 participants from across the community signed up for
a recent one-day conference on the Bill of Rights.
The
Casework Committee continues to receive around 50 enquiries per
week.
We
have yet to be successfully challenged on any of our casework
decisions.
The
Commission won a significant victory in a case presented to the
House of Lords, giving power to intervene in other people’s
court cases.
On-site
visits to Maghaberry have highlighted the Commission’s active
and ongoing concern for the conditions under which women prisoners
are held, the unprecedented number of suicides in custody and
the rights of asylum applicants and refugees who are unlawfully
detained in prison.
Recognised
and valued work continues on such issues as human rights training
in the PSNI, the care of children in custody, the rights of victims
and a significant report on issues related to mental health.
A
virtual “library” of important NIHRC publications on
all aspects of human rights is now freely available to all.
And
the list goes on and on!
Knowing
my erstwhile colleagues as I do, supported by a very able staff,
I have every confidence in their commitment and in their ability
to fulfil the tasks entrusted to them, including the presentation
of a draft Bill of Rights to the Secretary of State. Though reduced
in number, there is no reduction in their determination to fulfil
their responsibilities. I thank them all and wish them well.
Spookaticci This
book has been long awaited. Since 1999 when allusions to a senior
British agent operating in the highest echelons of the IRA began
to filter into public discourse, unease mixed with fascination has
permeated the psyche of the republican constituency. Many believed
and some hoped that once Stakeknife was unmasked it would reveal
a high profile politician.
by Anthony McIntyre
Tongue
of my father Do
Liam, atá ag claoi lena dhúchas. For Liam, who is
cleaving to his tradition. Do Liam, nach bhfuil eagla air níos
mó. For Liam, who is no longer afraid. These are the book
dedications that Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill writes for me after
a recent reading. I have been talking to her in Irish for the first
time, having spoken English at our previous encounters.
by Liam Carson
Iraq’s
Mercenary Armies Amongst all the bloodshed in Iraq, it is
hardly surprising that the death of one South African and the wounding
of five others in a bomb attack in Baghdad at the beginning of February
should have attracted little international attention. Yet the story
behind their presence in Iraq is an instructive one, with both chilling
and poignant dimensions. The dead man was Frans Strydom, a former
member of Koevoet, a notorious counter-insurgency unit that operated
in Namibia in the 1980s.
by Adrian Guelke
Lord
Falls - Diary of a slightly revolutionary constitutionalist Wednesday: G’day. One had a bonza time
in Oz. The people are lovely, so trusting, so rich. Sold a good few
books and had the chance to find out more about Ned Kelly. I have
no doubt that Ned was a proto-Provo who would support Sinn Féin had
he not been gunned down by the peelers. Have urged an inquiry into
Brit collusion in his demise. Must write a piece for AP/RN about this.
Mixer
S
u b s c r i b e (11 issues)
UK: £28;
Republic & Europe:
€53.50 or £33;
US & overseas: £47;
institutions £10 extra; unwaged/students/prisoners
£23 (UK), €40
(Republic);
life subscription: £300, €483 (Europe),
£500 (elsewhere)
