TAR ANALL’S RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION:

This is the response of Tar Anall to the NIO’s consultation paper ‘A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland: Next Steps’

Tar Anall is a Republican Ex-Prisoners group which has been in existence since 1995. Its geographical catchment area is West Belfast which is based on the parliamentary constituency boundaries. It provides a range of services that include Training and Education, Family Support, Counseling, Welfare and Rights Advice, Youth Projects, Health projects and the Still Imprisoned Project. Tar Anall lobbies on issues of discrimination and exclusion that exist againstthe Political ex-prisoners community. We are part of a wider group of Republican ex-prisoners organizations that is represented by our umbrella organization Coiste Na nIarchimi. This is a nine county organization which helps to coordinate the work of all the represented republican ex-prisoners groups.

The most recent research estimates that as many as 30,000 people have spent time in prison as political prisoners. Each one of those prisoners had families, mothers, husbands, wives and children, who were gravely affected by the experience of heavy military intrusion, that included house raids, arrests and long periods of forced separation.
Tar anal has played a key role along with other groups, in highlighting and lobbying against the social, economic, legal and societal barriers faced by former political prisoners and their families. Despite the progress that has been made through the current peace process, former political prisoners still face a range of obstacles and discriminatory practices in their daily lives, from employment through to the provision of services.
Tar Anal is committed to challenging these practices. We believe that a strong Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland that addressesexplicitly the issue of former political prisoners and their experience of discrimination would go a long way to resolving this particular legacy of the conflict.
Former political prisoners seek no advantage or privilege rather they merely seek equality of citizenship and opportunity. We were all promised a 'new beginning' in the Good Friday Agreement.A full and inclusive Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland will help deliver that promise.

Tar Anall rejects the NIO consultation proposals. These proposals ignore the will of the people of Ireland, north and south, who voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 which promised a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland. It ignores the views of thousands of people who took part in extensive consultation exercises over the past 10 years. In particular, we reject the NIO’s narrow interpretation of what rights are relevant to the particular circumstances of the North of Ireland

To our group, the ‘particular circumstances of the North of Ireland’ means the recognition of the issues which contributed to the causes of the conflict.:Structural socio-economic discriminations and inequalities were contributing factors to the conflict here, not least on issues such as employment and housing. The routine violation of civil, political, economic and social rights, gerrymandering, right to housing, right to a job, internment and the long term suspension of many rights under emergency provisions were major contributing factors to the exacerbation and prolonging of the conflict.The British government oversaw that regime, and has systematically failed to tackle the structural inequalities at the heart of this society ever since. Concerns which are particular to our group, amongst other things, are the;

  1. Security industry’s absorption of public funds and the consequent neglect of infrastructural investment in health, housing, employment etc
  2. The historic lack of transparent systems for access to housing, employment, training and services, etc
  3. Unaccountable public authorities or political systems
  4. Historical issues of unfairness around voting
  5. Abuse and restriction of rights in the criminal justice system
  6. Historical issues of rights violations by state forces.
  7. Discrimination and unfair treatment towards politically motivated ex-prisoners across a wide range of services provided by the public and private sector

Tar Anall wishes to respond to the consultation bystating that the ‘Human Rights Commission’s advice’ in general, provides a solid basis for a future Bill of Rights. But it needs to represent the floor, and not the ceiling, as to the eventual Bill’s protections. A lowest common denominator approach must be avoided. While we feel that the Human Rights Commission advice does not fully protect or go far enough on issues that affect our stakeholders, it is a sound foundation to build a right’s based society.

In addition, we also bring attention to particular issues which we feel are critical to the community and to which consideration must be given in the consultation.

Tar Anall wants to see the following points addressed in a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland:

  • The non-discrimination clause in the NIHRC’s recommendations must be expanded to include the category of ‘former political prisoners’. There are approximately 18,000 former political prisoners in the North who face discrimination in access to employment, self-employment opportunities, access to services such as insurance, licensing, mortgages, adoption services and pension entitlement. The children and families of former political prisoners also experience this prejudice and discrimination and their rights need protection. Any non-discrimination clause in the Bill of Rights must contain explicit reference to this group.
  • We demand that economic, social and cultural rights are included in a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland. Former political prisoners and their families face poverty, experience a range of health problems and, in the future, face inadequate pensions which all demand that the right to health, an adequate standard of living, accommodation, work and social security be included in a Bill of Rights. In particular, we highlight the difficulties faced by former political prisoners in accessing work and we re-emphasise the importance of enshrining a right to work as recommended by the NIHRC.
  • In relation to the Irish language we demand that a Bill of Rights include:

-The right to communicate and receive a response with the public authority in Irish,in particular when accessing all public services. We feel the particular circumstances justify this as a standalone right.

-The NIHRC’s proposed new language rights are totally insufficient as regards the Irish language and the provision which would merely require public authorities to ‘at a minimum act compatibly with the obligations undertaken by the UK Government under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of the support and development of Irish’ falls far short of our expectations concerning language rights within any proposed Bill of Rights.

  • In addition to the NIHRC’s recommendations on freedom from violence, exploitation and harassment, we demand that a right to be free from sectarian harassment is specified in the Bill of Rights.
  • The rights in the Bill of Rights must be enforceable through the courts in the North of Ireland. Despite the NIHRC’s advice to the contrary, our continued preference is for a stand-alone specialist Human Rights Court. Judicial mainstreaming would be acceptable in addition to this.
  • Tar Anall cannot accept less than what the NIHRC recommends. The eventual Bill must provide at least equivalent protection to – and must not in any way have the effect of diminishing – the British Government’s existing obligations under international human rights law, or under domestic human rights and equality legislation.
  • The Bill needs to be fully decoupled from the UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and superior to it in the event of a conflict of laws. Any UK Bill must contain a non-diminution clause with respect to the North of Ireland Bill of Rights
  • A Bill of Rights must include fully just and viable economic, social and cultural rights in addition to supplementary civil and political rights. The NIHRC’s recommendation to include such rights is one of the most important positive features of their advice.
  • The NIHRC’s insistence that nothing in the Bill should have the effect of undermining existing equality legislation is equally crucial.
  • The NIHRC’s approach of mainstreaming the rights of vulnerable groups throughout and supplementing these with specific rights for children and for victims is acceptable.
  • That the NIHRC has not adopted proposals to replace the term ‘minorities’ with ‘communities’ is important and welcome, as this would have had the effect of undermining existing protections. It is also welcome that the NIHRC has likewise not adopted other distortions of existing minority rights protections proposed by certain delegates at the Bill of Rights Forum.
  • We can endorse the NIHRC’s important conclusion that the principles of mutual respect and parity of esteem require ‘due recognition of the identity, ethos and aspirations of the two main communities’ but that ‘at the same time, the rights and needs of others must be protected. Both of the above can best be achieved through a common commitment to human rights, fairness, equality and justice for all.’
  • However, the NIHRC has failed to propose sufficient additional protections in relation to the right to life as regards both judicial and extrajudicial execution. There needs to be a supplementary right to protection from the application of lethal force by the state in order to affect arrest or to prevent escape, or for riot control, where such actions are not required as a direct defence of a person from violence. There also needs to be protection from re-imposition of the death penalty in times of war or its ‘imminent threat’.
  • Tar Anall continues to argue for such supplementary protections based on the particular circumstances of the conflict. In addition, the proposed provision on the investigation of conflict-related right to life violations, while welcome, cannot be a substitute for a full truth process that meets the criteria we have outlined elsewhere.
  • Tar Anall, based on experiences within our community would like to recommend that ‘national security’ should no longer be a ground for limiting the right to a public trial, the right to privacy, freedom of expression, movement and freedom of assembly and association. ‘The interests of territorial integrity’ is not a legitimate ground for curtailing freedom of expression. We continue to argue that the particular circumstances of the conflict require supplementary protections from limitation of these rights on those particular grounds, citing that in each instance legitimate limitation based on the other existing grounds of ‘public safety or the prevention of disorder or crime’, when governed by the principles of necessity and proportionality, or ‘for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others’ should be sufficient.
  • The NIHRC’s proposed supplementary equality rights are generally welcome. However, it is regrettable that the NIHRC does not propose to extend the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited to include a political/conflict-related conviction. While one can argue that the ground ‘or any other status’ is inclusive, we shall continue to maintain that the particular circumstances dictate that those with a political/conflict-related conviction should have the right to freedom from discrimination on this ground, which should be prohibited by law.
  • The NIHRC’s proposal that all rights in the Bill must be justifiable, including where these are subject to progressive realisation – and that in the latter case such should be subject to annual monitoring and reporting requirements – is welcome.

Concluding comments

International and domestic opinion has it made clear, that ordinary legislation is not sufficient for providing the required permanent human rights safeguards for the particular circumstances in the North of Ireland.Bills of Rights in other countries have actively assisted governments in taking decisions that shape policies and spending priorities in order to take measurable and progressive steps to produce comprehensive change in the quality of life for everyone.

In the context of a society moving away from conflict, a Bill of Rights must offer an inclusive framework for governance based on the realization of the rights of all.

The NIO consultation is an insult to the hard work of many sectors of society that have taken part in the Bill of Rights process over the last 11 years. It is clear that the British Government has never any intention of listening to views of those that it canvassed in the many consultations and forum that it established, and the Human Rights Commission which is mandated to advise it.

On the NIO consultation proposal concerning the equality duty of the NI 1998 Act, Tar Anall rejects any attempt to undermine the existing provisions on the promotion of equality. The Equality duty placed on the public authority was an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement, and should not be undermined.

The section 75 duty on the public sector should not be weakened under any proposed Bill of Rights.

Tar Anall is absolutely clear that any such attempt or proposal will be regarded as a fundamental change in the Good Friday Agreement and rejected as such.

This process must not be misused by anyone to undermine the hard-won rights we have to date.

Tar Anall rejects any attempt to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement downwards through the mechanism of a Bill of Rights. The promise and responsibility for this bill is to build on existing protections not undermine them.

Tar Anall demands that legally enforceable economic and social rights – which go above and beyond the current inadequate protections - are enshrined in any new Bill of Rights.

Tar Anall wants maximum rights protection, maximum enforceability and absolutely no provision for the kind of wholesale suspension of rights and discrimination that we witnessed in the past.

A Bill of Rights should be an expression of hope for a positive future, and in promoting reconciliation, tolerance, mutual trust, and the protection of the human rights of all the people living here, and the values of partnership, equality and mutual respect.

Tar Anall