{"id":52,"date":"2014-03-11T11:16:54","date_gmt":"2014-03-11T11:16:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedissenter.co.uk\/?p=953"},"modified":"2014-03-11T11:16:54","modified_gmt":"2014-03-11T11:16:54","slug":"hidden-dangers-in-haass","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www1.thedissenter.co.uk\/?p=52","title":{"rendered":"Hidden dangers in Haass."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"hidden-dangers-haass\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One way to analyse the 7<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>th<\/sup><\/span><\/a><\/span> draft<\/span><\/a><\/span> from the recent Haass talks would be to look the proposals one by one. This post, however, is a look at some principles that should be viewed as essential to any future proposals, or talks, by anyone with a care for fundamental human rights, and which must be satisfactorily addressed as the basis of any future conversation on any aspect of \u2018Parades, Select Commemorations, and Related Protests; Flags and Emblems; and contending with the Past\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are three principal points for consideration:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the Danger to Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;<\/li>\n
  2. the Danger to the Administration of Justice;<\/li>\n
  3. the Danger to the right to Freedom of peaceful assembly;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/span>Danger to Freedom of Thought.<\/b><\/p>\n

    Paragraph 1, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives absolute protection to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The manifestation of one\u2019s religion or belief is is subject to the usual qualifying factors set out in para 2 of Article 9: the government may justify limitations on the \u2018manifestation\u2019 where such limitations are in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society for public safety and the other specific factors set out in the paragraph including the rights and freedoms <\/b>of others.<\/i><\/p>\n

    The Haass document is replete with \u2018thought control\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Page 5 (4th<\/sup> Paragraph) it is stated that because of :<\/p>\n

    \u201cNorthern Ireland\u2019s unique history and characteristics\u00a0 . . . requires that the tradition of parading, assembling be conducted in a way that contributes to the goal of building a shared and open society.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Should those who exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and parading [ with the emphasis on \u2018peaceful\u2019 and all that such word properly entails ] be required through any such \u2018thought control\u2019 to subscribe to any such goals, however reasonable and desirable all and sundry might esteem such \u2018shared and open society\u2019. If you prescribe for an open society do you not by that act of prescription preclude the formation of such an open society?<\/p>\n

    If there is to be statutory regulation of culture it should be focused on conduct \u2013 with necessary prescriptions on conduct where passions may be enflamed \u2013 and no more.<\/p>\n

    On page 20 (final paragraph):<\/p>\n

    \u201cA civic vision is needed. If we are to continue to open ourselves to the emotional, social, and political vulnerabilities of engaging with the past, we will need a sense of common purpose \u2013 an agreed rationale. It is clear that the vast majority of citizens and communities wish to live free of the division and enmity that has too often defined this society. At the same time, it is also clear that people have different senses of the past\u2019s meaning and importance. This is the heart of the challenge of reconciliation \u2013 the transition from a divided society to one that is whole, from a wounded society to one that is healed.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This seems all too uncomfortably North Korean \u2013 rather than North American \u2013 language; at least for language appearing in what was supposed to be an Agreement, rather than a Chairman\u2019s personal reflections on a Report.<\/p>\n

    Danger to the Administration of Justice.<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

    Northern Ireland has not yet had that much experience of \u2018hands on\u2019 devolution of policing and justice, particularly in regard to legislative policy making. To frolic in these fields in the late hours of deadline dramas does the parties at the talks no credit.<\/p>\n

    Throughout Draft No. 7 there is considerable emphasis on victims: their needs and rights. We have moved from a position during the years of the troubles when victims\u2019 needs and rights were all but ignored, apart from some monetary compensation \u2013 often derisory. That emphasis, and what is proposed (see pages 21-23) for trauma services and pension provision for victims is late, but very welcome.<\/p>\n

    The same praise cannot be sanctioned for the sections on \u2018Justice\u2019 and new institutions (see pages 25-35) which amount to the core of the document. The focus here is on meeting the needs of victims and families. Indeed, in those pages, there are 31 references to \u2018families\u2019<\/i>.<\/p>\n

    One of the reasons for setting up the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) was to provide information to victims\u2019 families (in the cases of deaths, only). That was a reasonable, legitimate aim.<\/p>\n

    In the Haass document, the suggestion is that (Page 25 final paragraph) HET should be merged into an Historical Investigations Unit (HIU):<\/p>\n