The Other View

Human Rights
An Evangelical Perspective

by Heather Morrow
Public Affairs Officer,
Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland

On 4 September, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission launched a document that could change our society forever. Oddly, their proposals on a Bill of Rights for the province passed through the media and the public arena relatively unnoticed, apart from those interest groups already involved in the consultation process. My organisation, and others, feels that the human rights agenda warrants a more thorough debate, and it is to that debate that I contribute today.

Evangelical Alliance believes that human beings have dignity, value and worth because they are made in the image of God; consequently, the Bible has much to say that is pertinent to the debate on human rights. It champions the cause of the weak, the excluded and the oppressed. It makes clear that we have obligations towards one another and are accountable to God for how we fulfil those obligations. It makes little mention of the pursuit of our own interests and often counsels setting them aside for the sake of others.

We therefore affirm the vision behind key human rights texts, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These documents, drafted in the aftermath of a genocidal war by a state against its citizens, seek to offer the citizen protection against the power of the state exercised arbitrarily or abusively. However, certain difficulties must be highlighted in the ongoing expansion of human rights culture, as envisioned by the NIHRC.
The political implications must be considered. Granting human rights theory and practice an inappropriate role has the potential to undermine the political process. It is strange that, having just secured a settlement based on the fundamental right to participate, we are now planning to remove issues indefinitely from resolution through dialogue in the public political sphere. Matters that are legitimate areas for socio-political debate and decision-making have the potential for resolution solely by a judicial process that is neither accountable to society nor to its political representatives.

The judicial usurpation of politics is a particular danger in Northern Ireland, where the political process is still fragile. Our institutions have been set up to require cross-community support on core issues, but to have decisions on those issues overturned by a court acting on human rights legislation would surely create a crisis of legitimacy and further destabilisation.

There are social implications, too. We believe a society that looks to a culture of rights and the law to mediate its relationships is an impoverished society. Human relationships, especially here, are varied and complex and they require equally varied and complex means to describe, define, mediate and sustain them. We contend that human rights theory and practice cannot adequately fulfil this role. A Bill of Rights cannot be the moral language that provides the comprehensive framework for our interaction in society. Northern Ireland needs conciliation and compromise, but by its very nature a Bill of Rights must assess one claim of rights over another leaving only one to be upheld. This has the potential to further fracture those very relationships which need nurtured in a non-aggressive, non-competitive environment.

Finally, there are economic consequences to be considered. The financial implications of establishing and maintaining institutions must be set alongside the cost to business and the public services of making provision for operating in a society that readily seeks recourse to the law for financial compensation. It is possible that these resources may be better utilised in ensuring the circumstances in which grievances arise do not occur in the first place.

To conclude, human rights theory and practice has an important role in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary power of the state. Indeed, as we hear of asylum seekers abandoned, aid workers unlawfully imprisoned and opposition leaders murdered around the world, the need for such protection becomes all too clear. It is also clear that we must be careful ourselves in using the term human rights abuse, for there are those who know to their cost its real meaning.

A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland will not solve the problems of our province – indeed, we face many difficult situations that such a document may actually exacerbate. In recent days, a Bill of Responsibilities would have proven far more socially relevant as we seek to live in communities that treat others with the trust and respect that we demand for ourselves. When we learn to put healed relationships before hard-won rights, then we will be on the road to a renewed Northern Ireland. It is a task far greater than any proposed legislation.

Back to Contents