Anger at plan for Bill of Rights
A LEADING church publication has issued a warning that the planned Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is being used to weaken ties with Great Britain and undermine local democracy.
This week's Church of Ireland Gazette has strongly questioned the need for such a Bill, which its supporters claim is required in addition to existing UK and European laws.
Under the heading: A Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Is Wrong, the editorial calls for the proposals to
be dropped immediately.
It claims that:
the arguments as to why the Province needs a Bill of Rights are "weak";
the case as to why more rights are needed has not been made and only been advanced by "special pleading";
the real motivation for the Bill is "a political agenda";
there are those in the Stormont establishment who want a Bill for Northern Ireland, as opposed to the UK as a whole, because they want to relate more closely to the Republic of Ireland;
the Bill will be followed by associated legislation in the South to strengthen cross-border ties;
if enacted, the Bill will mean that any Stormont legislation that does not correspond with it will not be able to be passed.
The leader page comment of the editorially independent Gazette is sure to give unionists food for thought.
The Bill of Rights was a nationalist demand which was enshrined in the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
The long overdue draft is due to be completed by March 31.
Supporters of a Bill of Rights argue that most societies have one – additional to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Human Rights Consortium (HRC) in Northern Ireland, which lobbies for a Bill, has said "it is time (for the Province) to join the international mainstream".
The Bill would set out clearly and accessibly the limits of government power and its responsibilities to its citizens, according to the HRC.
The Church of Ireland Gazette editorial does not express an agreed Church of Ireland position.
However, the influential publication is conveying a view within the Church.
It cannot see why Northern Ireland needs rights law, over and above what the UK already has.
And it warns that what is being talked about is a new legal framework which will reach far beyond the rights agenda.
The editorial says: "What is happening in the discussion of a possible Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is that human rights are being confused with the broader category of legal rights. So, speaking of a Bill of Rights – a foundational legal concept in any society – requires great
caution when it will inevitably be about much more than human rights."
It argues that any new rights should be set out in principles to inform law and not confine it.
If a Bill becomes law, there is a danger it will override the constitution and the powers of the Assembly, which will not be able to make any law which does not meet the needs of the Bill.
The editorial piece does not buy into arguments that we need more rights because the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are now dated.
It adds: "Furthermore, a Bill of Rights is not needed in order to ensure freedom from discrimination and parity of esteem among all the people of Northern Ireland; ordinary legislation can cope with such matters."
Rights are well covered in areas of equality, education, language, cultural expression and identity, victims' rights, social and economic rights, criminal justice, women, children and young people, according to the editorial.
It continues: "The real motivation behind the proposed Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is a political agenda.
"The prospect of a Bill of Rights was part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Its origins therefore lie in political compromise.
"A spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has told the Gazette that the Commission is required by law to work with its equivalent in the Republic of Ireland, adding: 'Our general aim in that work is to equalise upwards in the protection of human rights in the two jurisdictions, as well as developing shared approaches to human rights issues that have a cross-border dimension'.
"It is obvious that there are those in the Stormont establishment who want a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as opposed to the UK as a whole, because they want Northern Ireland to relate more closely to the Republic of Ireland than to the rest of the UK. That is an undemocratic and, therefore, unacceptable agenda.
"A Bill of Rights is such a foundational document that, if there has to be one, it should refer to the entire UK; it would be inconsistent for there to be different fundamental rights in different parts of the one country. For many reasons, a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is plainly and simply wrong."
The head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Monica McWilliams, declined to comment.
See Morning View, page 14 So, speaking of a Bill of Rights - a foundational legal concept in any society - requires great caution when it will inevitably be about much more than human rights.”
It argues that any new rights should be set out in principles to inform law and not confine it.
If a Bill becomes law, there is a danger it will override the constitution and the powers of the Assembly, which will not be able to make any law which does not meet the needs of the Bill.
The editorial piece does not buy into arguments that we need more rights because the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are now dated.
It adds: “Furthermore, a Bill of Rights is not needed in order to ensure freedom from discrimination and parity of esteem among all the people of Northern Ireland; ordinary legislation can cope with such matters.”
Rights are well covered in areas of equality, education, language, cultural expression and identity, victims’ rights, social and economic rights, criminal justice, women, children and young people, according to the editorial.
It continues: “The real motivation behind the proposed Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is a political agenda.
”The prospect of a Bill of Rights was part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Its origins therefore lie in political compromise.
“A spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has told the Gazette that the Commission is required by law to work with its equivalent in the Republic of Ireland, adding: ‘Our general aim in that work is to equalise upwards in the protection of human rights in the two jurisdictions, as well as developing shared approaches to human rights issues that have a cross-border dimension’.
“It is obvious that there are those in the Stormont establishment who want a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as opposed to the UK as a whole, because they want Northern Ireland to relate more closely to the Republic of Ireland than to the rest of the UK. That is an undemocratic and, therefore, unacceptable agenda.
“A Bill of Rights is such a foundational document that, if there has to be one, it should refer to the entire UK; it would be inconsistent for there to be different fundamental rights in different parts of the one country. For many reasons, a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is plainly and simply wrong.”
The head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Monica McWilliams, declined to comment.
ENDS
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Belfast
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: South east
