Wanted: a rights commission for the whole NI community

Nationalist blindness to unionist perceptions of human rights has precipitated the crisis in the Northern rights body, writes…

Nationalist blindness to unionist perceptions of human rights has precipitated the crisis in the Northern rights body, writes Lord Laird of Artigarvan.

Carol Coulter, Irish Times legal affairs correspondent, writing on the current troubles of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on July 29th, unintentionally highlighted the major problem with the commission by ignoring the main source of criticism since its creation, namely the unionist community.

Again and again and again it seems to be assumed that in Northern Ireland human rights are purely the plaything of nationalists. To qualify for human rights one has to be human - not an Irish nationalist.

Unionists objected when Mo Mowlam handed this body in the first place to the so-called Committee on the Administration of Justice; at least half the commissioners had been involved with this controversial Brit-bashing group. What would nationalists have said if the Orange Order or the Progressive Unionist Party had been so favoured?

READ MORE

Unionists objected when the chief commissioner Prof Brice Dickson and his colleagues adopted a narrow view of human rights, concentrating upon violations only by the UK state. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to life - was abused mainly by republican and loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles. The security forces were responsible for a little over one in 10 of the deaths; and only a tiny minority of those involved force which was more than absolutely necessary. Are dead republicans the only humans entitled to rights?

The Human Rights Act, 1998, introduced by New Labour with liberal unionist support, promises a growing domestic regime with rights enforceable in UK courts (I should add that the Irish State, which has failed to incorporate the European Convention in Bunreacht na hÉireann, remains in breach of the Belfast Agreement).

The human rights commission took little interest in the Human Rights Act. This was because it was reviving the administration of justice's idea of a bill of rights (which, of course, if enacted for Northern Ireland, will have to become fundamental law in the Republic).

The UK has done everything it was required to do in this area by the Belfast Agreement. It is Brice Dickson who, acting outside his remit, and at public expense, produced a 164-clause bill in September 2001. He had been asked to advise on the scope for particular supplementary rights, with special reference to mutual respect and parity of esteem.

The silly season difficulties of the commission were sparked by the July 15th report of the joint committee on human rights at Westminster. Ironically, this had been intended to help Brice Dickson in his campaign for more powers and money; the powers include the right to raid premises, and haul people in for questioning and all in the name of human rights. Now, the report is being cited, without being read, as seriously critical of the commission, and requiring Brice Dickson's scalp on pan-nationalist belts.

Two issues have emerged: Holy Cross school in north Belfast; and the idea of group rights.

Firstly, Holy Cross. The commission came to the legal aid of a Garvaghy Road, Portadown, resident in 1999. Her neighbours were arguing that the Portadown Orangemen were not entitled to parade through Catholic territory.

When loyalists in north Belfast similarly defined territory as Protestant, what did the commission do? A faction followed their nationalist logic, overlooked parental irresponsibility, and called for police repression. Brice Dickson and three commissioners hesitated - and that is why Madden and Finucane, solicitors in Belfast, through evidence to the Westminster committee, have turned on the chief human rights commissioner.

No part of Northern Ireland is, or should be, Catholic or Protestant. People have a right to freedom of peaceful assembly. And children should be allowed on the streets, whether to play, go to school, or whatever.

Secondly, group rights. Human rights are enjoyed by individuals, and a group may collectively benefit. The Belfast Agreement is firm on the concept of equality of opportunity (which Chris Patten ignored when he recommended direct religious discrimination in the appointment of police officers).

Brice Dickson should not have endorsed the concept of two communities. There is a framework convention for the protection of national minorities, which David Trimble made sure was in the Belfast Agreement. It is another question whether Ulster nationalists are a European national minority.

As a result of Madden and Finucane's outburst, Brice Dickson is the victim of tribal rage. He is being unfairly treated. Even before the Westminster report, and after the fourth resignation from the commission, Dublin was interfering ominously. Then Mark Durkan went for Brice Dickson. The republicans woke up and were almost too late on the scene. However, on July 30th, Martin McGuinness paid a visit to the commission.

What should the UK government do having first told Dublin to put its own house in order? A new commission is urgently needed, one that represents the whole community in Northern Ireland.

There can be no doubt that the commission's activities have terminally damaged its credibility and set back the cause of human rights for years in the unionist community. But a start must be made and a review due on December 2nd, 2003, should be that point.

The facts in Northern Ireland are such that no one is going anywhere on any track unless there is agreement from both sections of the community. Pity the republicans involved with human rights did not spot this point earlier.

Lord Laird of Artigarvan is a crossbench member of the House of Lords