The News Letter is attempting to stimulate debate around what legislation might be usefully presented at Stormont, with a series of articles entitled ‘Laws We Need’.

By way of background, there has been some debate recently about the fact that months after the Assembly election there is still no agreed programme for government at Stormont; which would set out what the Executive would be focussing on over the next four years. Nor is there any sign of a definitive and substantial plan for Cohesion, Integration & Sharing; which would in itself go some way to shaping future Government programmes.

By contrast, the Scottish Executive has set out proposals for 16 pieces of legislation – everything from creating a single Scottish police force to a law tackling sectarianism, introducing minimum pricing for alcohol and an attempt to breathe new life into farming. A programme 2011-2012: just ONE YEAR!

Stormont is a ‘legislative assembly’. With devolution it was envisaged that the Executive would be able to address local issues through legislation. Yet week after week the assembly spends the bulk of its time either debating non-binding private members’ motions (bit like the local Councils) or the often scripted ministers’ question time slots (Jim Allister notwithstanding).

The News Letter series is intended to provide a platform space for individuals to set out one or two, proposals on which Stormont should legislate. In the first couple of weeks or so, although the series is barely into its swing, some contributors seem to be at a loss on the nature and role of legislation: though for clarity they probably shouldn’t ask an MLA.

thedissenter’s contribution is not an original idea, but in that respect is entirely possible.

This following appeared in the Belfast News Letter on Monday 17 October 2011, with minor amends.

One Rights body for all.

In the current economic environment there is intense pressure on Government at all levels to assure public finances are used efficiently and effectively, and to avoid duplication or gold-plating.

At Westminster, the 2007 merger of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) into the new, single, Equality and Human Rights Commission was given muscle by the Equality Act 2010 which brought together over 116 separate pieces of legislation into one single Act, merging nine main pieces of legislation (1970-2007).  The Act underscored the Commission’s statutory remit to promote, protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine “protected” grounds – age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment; and to promote and monitor human rights (the Human Rights Act).

In Northern Ireland we have only recently had yet another ‘Commission’  added to a line up that includes an Equality Commission, Commission for Victims & Survivors, Commission for Children and Young People, and Human Rights Commission. The most recent addition is a Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland.

These Commissions seem only to serve the lobby group interests, dressed up to suggest that there is a representative voice for your particular interest/rights. The Human Rights Commission review of a Bill of Rights showed how ‘group’ rights are so embedded in the culture of the political classes in Northern Ireland.

While it is too early for the Older People Commissioner to make a massive impression on public discourse, the record of the rest would suggest we shouldn’t be holding our breath. If you believe this viewpoint to be unfair, then please use the letters page of the News Letter to bring to our attention the outstanding successes of any of the above.

It would of course have been a waste of legislative time on the Commissioner for Older People had there been other more pressing matters to fill our MLA’s Assembly schedule. That this is one of few items the Assembly  has to show for its existence leaves nothing much to add by way of comment. Other than providing comfortable Commissioner jobs for ever-so worthy individuals, with nice offices, it is hard to see the justification for so many offices and commissioners when a single body would do, and a template is already there. Equal citizens, equal rights.

More government is an easy solution where there is only a vague question. More Government is rarely, if ever, conducive to good Government. Forget the Bill of Rights. Better use of legislative time would be to bring forward legislation creating one definitive and focused Equality and Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland, abolishing the rest.

The summer interview with Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty by the Economist (below) will not have been welcome in Republican Nationalist circles.

Around 12 minutes in, Ms Chakrabarti says: “I would say to people of faith, and to people who are not of faith, that the one right that none of us should ever have is the right not to be offended”.   

The debate on a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is in a trough. Unsurprisingly.  Listening to many supporters of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights brings back memories of the old Eastern Bloc Communists listing rights at conferences to show superiority over western capitalist systems. Of course it was a fantasy that the written and legal rights of the Soviet bloc could ever create wealth or well being. The hell was where such ‘rights’ could also be used to enforce exclusion and a narrow sectarian view of the world where those who questioned such rights were marginalised, at worst to the gulag.

Rights proffered by Republicans and Nationalists (and assorted leftists) are not for the benefit of the people, but as a route to power over others. Thus in the recent Sinn Fein publication on a Shared Future there is apparently objective consideration of rights and responsibilities, eg. “the right to live free from sectarian, racist or any other forms of harassment”, and “Peaceful, inclusive and unthreatening expression of culture and cultures.” At the same time there can be no doubt about the subjective interpretation (which we have heard all too often from Republicans and Nationalists) that systematically demonises Loyal Order processions as triumphal and sectarian, and has a clear outcome of the ability (or right) to exclude or dictate to the Orders on their processional routes. 

The Sinn Fein document is considerably shorter than the OFMDFM working draft (you may need to save the pdf as the link from the DUP page is temperamental).  But then Sinn Fein’s agenda is considerably narrower. Perhaps presuming that the route to adoption of its ‘rights’ agenda is unlikely to be through a Northern Irelands Bill of Rights, Sinn Fein has hit on the idea of creating a process whereby there is official sanction of its narrow sectarian parades agenda: creating areas where Sinn Fein is in a place where it is able to decide whether or not a Loyal Order Parade can walk.  A document on a Shared Future seems an inappropriate place to impose the policy for that process.

It is interesting that dialogue on the accommodation of Parades, first around the Ormeau Road, and more recently around Ardoyne, has never succeeded in identifying the cause or nature of the offence taken by Republicans or Nationalists. Those across the table from the Apprentice Boys of Derry and the North & West Belfast Parades Forum have never isolated the specifics of how a five minute walk by some shops can be of such offence that people feel the urge to violently react; hurling missiles at the participants and police.

Republicans have desperately locked themselves into an parades agenda that first demonised, and then demonised some more, and continues to demonise members of another community that, however different and British, express their culture peaceably and in good order. It would be encouraging to think that Republicans and Nationalists might seek a way out of the parades issue that was a win:win for all. Such opportunities in the past, on Ormeau and in North Belfast, have been passed by.  A win is sought at any cost, regardless of the wider consequences for society.

Instead of taking offence, or sensing grievance, Republicans and Nationalists need to work towards building a shared future. That task, for the foreseeable future, is one that means working for all the people of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom as agreed within the Good Friday Agreement.  Republicans and Nationalists can talk to themselves as long as they like about a United Ireland, but unless they can share a street every now and then there will be little respect for their larger ambitions from within the broad unionist community. Republicans cannot complain of lack of respect in Government when they show such disrespect to the ordinary Protestant on the street. Alternatively, meaningful engagement and commitment to working for a shared future will benefit everyone and earn Republicans the respect they crave.

Jonathan Sacks, as Chief Rabbi, summed up the prize for a society that lives with its differences, which has echoes of Shami’s words:  “In a plural society – all the more in a plural world – each of us has to settle for less than we do when we associate with fellow believers…. Yet what we lose is more than compensated for by the fact that together we are co-architects of a society larger than we can construct on our own, one in which our voice is heard and attended to even if it does not carry the day. Just as community is built on the willingness to let the ‘I’ be shaped by the ‘We’, so society is made by the readiness to let the ‘We’ of our community be constrained by the need to make space for the other communities and their deeply held beliefs.” from The Dignity of Difference, a plea by Jonathan Sacks for tolerance in the age of extremism.