"It's not fair, we were promised the world...er..we were promised the world weren't we?"

A coalition of 140 groups has rejected on the last day of the year (not very competent time-management or maybe that date was specifically chosen for the auditors/accountant's benefit?) rejected a blueprint for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland:

Secretary of State Shaun Woodward has launched a consultation on proposals for the Bill, which was first envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement as a vehicle for providing legal protection for a range of rights.

The coalition in question being the N. Ireland Human Rights Consortium and these posts will give you some background to those who are interested,to the whole proposed Bill of Rights saga (here, here, here and here).

Again, there seems to be an ignorance, be it deliberate or otherwise, on the part of the NGOs of what was actually specified for the Bill in the Belfast Agreement:

The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (see paragraph 5below) will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and -taken together with the ECHR - to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Among the issues for consideration by the Commission will be:• the formulation of a general obligation on government and public bodiesfully to respect, on the basis of equality of treatment, the identity and ethos of both communities in Northern Ireland; and a clear formulation of the rights not to be discriminated against and to equality of opportunity in both the public and private sectors

In contrast, the Consortium’s six principles for a "strong and inclusive" Bill of Rights-they wanted a bill which:

a) Protects existing rights
b) Provides recognisable "gains"
c) Delivers “effective enforcement mechanisms”
d) Reflects “growing diversity” in N. Irish society
e) Promotes equality
f) Moves beyond the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) to include, in particular, socio-economic rights

a) The protection and "enforcement" of existing rights is merely a question for the existing procedures within the justice system surely, not a new Bill?
d) "Growing diversity" is most certainly not "particular" to N.Ireland.
e) "Equality", in terms of what? For example, protection against discrimination on basis of race, religion, gender etc already exists under both UK and wider EU Law. If the Consortium believe that this protection is not being properly delivered that, again as with a),comes under enforcement of existing rights.

If they mean "equality" in terms of socio-economic "rights", then along with points c) and f), Lady Trimble, in a much more eloquent way than I could manage, has dismantled those "particular" "principles" in her new blog:

The Consortium and others are trying to bring the justiciability that rightly attaches to these universal human rights in to the proposed ‘socio-economic rights’ and thus fetter government’s ability to implement policy and to allocate resources.

If democracy means anything, it means that government is accountable directly to the electorate. The ‘effective enforcement mechanisms’ that the Consortium proposes would mean that government was accountable in court to the judiciary, at the call of the person bringing the case, who, under the current proposals could be an unaccountable body such as the Consortium

Just one further point on "socio-economic" rights; poverty, educational under-achievement, unemployment do exist in Northern Ireland. They are not, however (rather obviously) "particular" to Northern Ireland and proposals to "magic them away" thus should never have been included in the shambles of a proposal the NIHRC produced last year.

That leaves b), "recognisable gains". If any proposal is to be made law, then, of course, there must be "recognisable gains" somewhere along the line. But, again (and again and again) within the scope of what was proposed of the Belfast Agreement, those "recognisable gains" have to address the particular situation of NI. If the various organisations making up the Consortium and the majority of the NIHRC had borne that fact in mind, then perhaps Mr Woodward would have been a bit less "disrespectful" of their "Principles" and perhaps we would have been a bit closer (after 10 years and millions of taxpayers' money) to a a workable Bill of Rights, one that would have been capable of contributing in real terms to a strengthening of human rights in Northern Ireland

That, petulant hissy fits aside, would seem to have been the Consortium's best shot then...still waiting for the NIHRC's considered response to Woodward's proposals, wonder what (*whistle*) what is taking them so long?