Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Tag: Human Rights (Page 36 of 40)

The Convention on Modern Liberty

18 January 2009 / / 3 Comments

Writing in the Observer, Henry Porter advertises the convention, to be held on 28th February at various locations throughout the United Kingdom.

But this is no awayday for MPs, because in some sense the convention is a challenge to a parliament. For a brief moment, we will be airing the issues that haven’t been heard in the Commons this past decade, because Labour has all but anaesthetised the business of the chamber to push through its laws.

The website is now tested and live at www.modernliberty.net.  Please tell your friends, spread the word, and buy a ticket.  That other site of mine, LiberalConspiracy, is a supporter too.

Obama's 100 Days for Human Rights

12 January 2009 / / 0 Comments

Effective online campaigns often draw in supporters by asking them to do something simple, such as signing a petition or sending an e-mail.  Effective lobbyists usually asks for small, well defined, incremental steps, that a Government can act upon for a quick public releations “win”.
Amnesty’s Obama’s 100 Days Campaign uses both these insights (from the field of behavioural economics, all the rage in 2008) to lobby the incoming administration on Human Rights.  Despite the fact that Obama is massively popular, he still requires a great deal of political capital to push back some of the human rights abuses enacted during President Bush’s eight disastrous years.
Not many people have signed the petition yet.  Why not add your name to the list?

Imagination and Perversity in Politics

11 January 2009 / / 1 Comment

In commenting on my previous post, Conceptual Reality felt that I was debasing the suffering of the Palestinians by describing Israel’s attacks as “lacking imagination”.  Its worth making some more notes on this.
First, the kind of thinking I am lamenting is nowhere more starkly illustrated, than in yesterday’s Times editorial, ‘In Defense of Israel’, where the paper notes that

70 such rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel in December. This was the criminal act that triggered the current crisis

as if the one and only possible response to these atrocities was a military onslaught that the same article labels a “vision of hell”.
“Meet fire with fire” is the council.  “An Eye for an Eye” is the creed.  “Visit each atrocity back on them, ten-fold” seems to be the doctrine.  When I lament a lack of imagination, I think its just another way of yearning for some new thinking, an alternative route out of the mire.
It seems to me – it has always seemed to me – that there is a virtue in counter-intuitive thinking.  That is, doing the opposite of what is expected of you, the opposite of what your gut demands.  Maybe even the opposite of what the electorate expects.  There is actually great power in turning the other cheek: Just look at Ghandi, who foiled an Empire.  Look at Desmond Tutu who averted a blood-feud that could have lasted for generations.  Look at Christ!
Consider the messy world of Realpolitik: I hate to segue straight from Jesus to Barack Obama, but the manner in which the President-Elect turned his foes attacks against them is worth noting.  While all manner of political mud was thrown at him, he ignored each attack.  He conspicuously declined to retaliate.  In doing so, his opponents were illuminated as the dirty players.  Their poor style of leadership, and their lack of solutions, were also thrown into sharp relief.  They were portrayed as leading America into a dead-end.
Politics in Gaza is more deadly, but has some similarities.  The Venn diagramme of possible solutions depends on the opinions of the people, and with imagination, patience and leadership, these can be shifted.  But it requires stepping outside the cycle of violence.  Whoever achieves this will be a great man or woman.  We don’t yet know who they will be, or which country they will be from.
Returning to this idea of counter-intuitive solutions:  I think perversity is a virtue here.  It seems to be important elsewhere in political philosophy.  Votaire/Tallentyre’s famous adage that

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

has a certain perverse quality to it – the words of someone who is willfully and stubbornly putting principle before gut-feeling and common sense. Yet it underpins the principle of freedom of speech.  It seems equally perverse for us to be defending the human rights of murderers, terrorists and genocidal maniacs, yet in doing so, we uphold and strengthen those rights for everyone.
Transcending the common urge for revenge, the urge to follow the “natural law”, is what makes us better and civilised.  But this transcendence requires a leap of the collective imagination.  No-one in a position of power is showing any inclination to make that leap at present.  How to do so?  I note that for the three beacons I mentioned earlier (Ghandi, Tutu, Christ), religion is a common thread…

On Trolls, Liberty, Debate and Damian Green

8 December 2008 / / 1 Comment

There’s a recently concluded debate over at the Liberal Conspiracy about ‘feeding the trolls’, that is, engaging with commenters on the blog who are just there to provoke an argument. I think there is a distinction between proper trolls, who are actively seeking to waste their own time in order to waste others’, and other people who simply have a wildly differing worldview. In the case of the former, it is rarely worth engaging. But in the case of the latter, debate can sometimes be helpful. It all depends on what kind of conversation you want to have, and on the Liberal Conspiracy, it is often impossible to talk about something at the level of detail you desire, if you are arguing first principles with someone else (be it a troll, or bona fide member of the seething classes).
Sometimes, I wonder if the mainstream media aren’t trolling. Today I spotted this headline from the Daily Mail, and feel confident that it has been written to waste my time.

Human Rights: Straw To Get Tough
Exclusive – Minister tells Mail how he’ll reform ‘Villiain’s Charter

Its not that I do not disagree with the idea of labelling the Human Right’s Act a “villiain’s charter”.  Its just that attempting to engage with it – especially on a blog – is a bit pointless. Its not as if they are making some kind of technical or categorical error that a plucky blogger might tease out and add to the debate. This article is speaking a genuinely different language. I have been silent on the ‘Baby P’ issue, because the debate was of this highly toxic, divisive type. Others gamely engaged with the trolls, so to speak, but there comes a point where its down to someone with a little more profile that bloggers to take up the political fight. This is why people often end up criticising political allies, for relatively trivial reasons, apparently missing the wood for the trees. Its not that we’ve lost our moral compass, just that we’re angry that other people are not speaking up for us in the places that matter.
As to the substance of the article, I’ll merely note again that it is the hated and the vulnerable who have their Human Rights violated first. The Declaration of Human Rights was created precisely to guard against populist tendencies in governments. They’re inconvenient, but then so is the task of retaining our humanity in the face of violence and antagonism.
For those with a fatigue for this sort of thing, I highly recommend a visit to the ‘Taking Liberties‘ Exhibition (no, not that Taking Liberties) at the British Library. It has the Magna Carta and other declarations of Rights and Freedoms penned by various men and women from around these isles.
The exhibition set me thinking about the Damian Green affair (something else that seems so divisive that there is so little common ground between the warring parties that debate seems futile). Whilst I personally don’t believe that Jacqui Smith ordered the police into Mr Green’s office, and I do not believe that the Speaker, Michael Martin, colluded in the warrantless searching of the Tory MP’s office, the outcry itself seems like a healthy thing to me. It is good that there is an ‘awkward squad’ barrage of questions every time there is any hint of impropriety. Far from us living in a Stalinist State, as some alledge, it is the indignant calls to account which prevent us sliding into one.

Update

Heh – I wrote:

its down to someone with a little more profile that bloggers to take up the political fight

Ask and it shall be delivered unto you.

Cameron's Speech

1 October 2008 / / 2 Comments

I thought it was better delivered than the Prime Minister’s, although that was to be expected.  The rhetoric flowed more easily too, and several of the passages could resonate with undecideds, despite being deceptions:

For Labour there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in.

This looks like nonsense to me:  Labour politicians know that neighbourhoods and communities and families are important – they are where much of the state intervention is directly targeted, and the place where state agencies deliver the rest.  Regardless, the Big State meme will take hold, especially with ‘Brown-the-Control-Freak’ at the helm.
The passage where he attributes “there’s no such thing as society” to the current Government was a brave gamble, but one that I suspect will fail.  In reminding the voters of one of Thatcher’s most offensive quips, he also plants the idea that the current societal problems are the result of her destructive policies.  It is tightrope rhetoric.
However, it was here that he lost me:

This attitude, this whole health and safety, human rights act culture, has infected every part of our life. If you’re a police officer you now cannot pursue an armed criminal without first filling out a risk assessment form. Teachers can’t put a plaster on a child’s grazed knee without calling a first aid officer.

Health and Safety Culture is surely inspired by Litigation Culture.  When a child comes home with a plaster on its knee, angry parents are going to ask, not unreasonably, for a full account.  Likewise, who would not want a police-officer to consult with his superiors, before accosting someone who may be armed?  I’ve listened to several exchanges on police frequencies, where officers were considering approaching such suspects.  It takes time, but its safe and sensible.
Such legislation, however inconvenient, is inspired by an actual concern for the Health and Safety of our children, and our police officers, &ct.  I seriously doubt the Conservatives would change these laws substantially.   Its a populist platitude.
Oh yeah, and attacking the Human Rights Act is a deal breaker for this blogger.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑