epolitix interview with brice dickson

							The following interview with Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission was first published at www.ePolitix.com on International
Human Rights Day, 10 December 2004.

Question: There have been consistent claims of collusion between British security forces and
loyalist territories. What impact has this had on the government's ability to promote human
rights in Northern Ireland?

Professor Dickson: It has played very badly as you could understand. On the one hand the
government maintains that it is applying the European Convention on Human Rights and wants to
have an excellent record on human rights. On the other hand it seems to be doing all that it can to
obstruct inquiries into collusion.

Despite the fact that Sir John Stevens, then investigating the murder of Patrick Finucane, came to
the conclusion that there was evidence of collusion.

The systems put in place since then by the government, in particular with the Inquiries Bill which
is going through parliament at the moment, indicate the government is not too keen to let the real
truth be known in these situations.

They appear to be allowing government ministers to prevent any tribunal of inquiry that is set up
from hearing important information relevant to the handling of informers. That has the potential to
completely undermine the effectiveness of any investigation.

Question: Does that create the impression that the government has something to hide?

Professor Dickson: If the government does not have something to hide then it should be as open
and transparent as possible in these investigations.

The current government, I hope, cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of previous
governments so I don't see why the current government has to be so coy about bringing out into the
open systems failures in the past.

Nor is it necessary for anyone to be prosecuted for what went on in the past. We are living in an
era when truth is more important than justice as regards the conflict in Northern Ireland.

There is debate at the moment about a truth commission for Northern Ireland. If that takes place
then all the dirty dealings on the part of the security forces in the past would need to be brought out
into the open.

Question: Would you like to see a truth commission for Northern Ireland established?

Professor Dickson: The position of the Human Rights Commission is there should be some kind
of truth recovery mechanism put in place.




                                                                                                      1
We think there should be a lot more consultation throughout Northern Ireland on what form that
mechanism should take and whether it should focus on mainly on getting to the truth, or also to
some extent on establishing responsibility for certain actions.

The Good Friday agreement already has a kind of truth provision in it to the extent that there is an
early release system for people who are convicted of crimes committed before 1998.

None of them can serve more than two years in jail unless, and this is where the inconsistency
arises, they are members of the security forces as opposed to members of paramilitary
organisations.

So if any kind of truth commission or truth recovery mechanism were set up, we think it would
need to deal with all perpetrators on an equal basis be they members of the security forces or
members of the unlawful paramilitary organisations.

Question: Has the issue of human rights been given the prominence in the peace process talks
that you think it deserves?

Professor Dickson: No, I don't. I think the government, having set up the Human Rights
Commission and done other things on the human rights front, has really neglected the area very
much.

For example, the Human Rights Commission itself issued a report, as it was obliged to do by
statute, two years after being created.

The report went in in 2001 on whether we needed extra powers to be a really effective
organisation. The government to this day has still not issued a definitive report.

They have allowed, it seems to us, the powers of the commission to be used as one of the
bargaining chips in the talks between the political parties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the two prime ministers don't make some reference to the powers of the
Human Rights Commission which they see as something they can give to Sinn Fein in return for
concessions from the republican movement.

The reality is that human rights should be above politics, and the Human Rights Commission
needs effective powers whatever the political environment in which it is working.

Question: You've been making your case for more powers to the government, have you had
any response from them?

Professor Dickson: We had a provisional response, something like 15 months after our report
went in. That was in the form of a consultation paper which we responded to in August 2002.




                                                                                                       2
Since then there has been nothing from the government about our powers, nor have they moved to
fill the various vacancies in the Commission which have arisen through people having to leave the
Commission for one reason or another.

The government could be accused of letting the Human Rights Commission wind down and
become less effective due to the lack of numbers of commissioners and the lack of powers that we
have.

Question: You would suggest that is through political expediency and negotiating tactics?

Professor Dickson: I am saying that the government has allowed human rights to be politicised in
Northern Ireland, and the Human Rights Commission to be politicised.

That is very bad for the whole concept of human rights because political parties will try to
manipulate the concept of human rights to suit their own political agendas.

By definition, human rights should be above the party fray, and we as a Commission would very
much like the government to be more prominent in its defence and upholding of human rights
standards.

Question: What impact have the various pieces of anti-terrorism legislation had on human
rights in Northern Ireland?

Professor Dickson: Northern Ireland has a whole raft of anti-terrorism legislation that is on top of
the on top of the anti-terrorism provisions that exist for the whole of the UK.

Just two weeks ago the United Nations' committee against torture, in its concluding observations in
the UK's periodic report, said the government had failed to make out a case as to why these
additional measures were still required in Northern Ireland.

They, too, have been allowed to remain in place as part of a part of a potential bargaining chip for
the talks that are ongoing.

If there is movement from, in particular, the republican paramilitaries on certain issues then the
government might be able to relax some of the extra anti terrorism measures.

Apart from being immoral in itself, that ignores the fact that there are very active loyalist
paramilitaries in Northern Ireland who are able to wreak just as much havoc as republicans.

Question: Are there specific anti-terrorism provisions that you would like to see repealed?

Professor Dickson: We'd like to see the repeal of the Diplock court system, which is still very
much up and running. People are being tried and convicted of offences with no jury present.

In other words we have a kind of dual criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, with some
people being tried with a jury and others tried for the same kind of offence without a jury.


                                                                                                       3
Now however you look at it that is an unequal way of doing things.

We are also opposed t the use of special arrest powers in Northern Ireland. We think the ordinary
criminal justice arrest powers could do the job just as well.

Question: How do you react to the political parties in Northern Ireland which talk about
human rights but are linked to paramilitary organisations that engage in things like
punishment beatings?

Professor Dickson: We have been very vocal in condemning those parties for being hypocritical
on the issue of human rights.

We have made a point of saying in our last two annual reports that the biggest perpetrators of
human rights abuses of human rights violations in Northern Ireland are the paramilitary
organisations.

And in fact the loyalist paramilitary organisations have carried out more punishment shootings and
beatings than republicans in the last two years.

But for some parties to be calling for improvements in the human rights situation, and they are
always pretty unspecific about what they mean by that, and on the other hand not to be doing all
they can to bring these punishment beatings and shootings to an end is hypocrisy of the highest
order.

Question: Much of the human rights focus in Northern Ireland is on issues such as terrorism
and security issues. How much of a problem are other issues such as racism?

Professor Dickson: There are big concerns. There has been a very worrying rise in the number of
racist attacks on Northern Ireland, and in the number of sectarian attacks as well, based on religion.

We are seeing more of the, if you like, ordinary human rights violations arising in Northern Ireland
than ever before.

On the social and economic side as well, we are seeing denial of rights to people with disabilities
where Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the UK in that area.

We are seeing greater inequalities in income levels within Northern Ireland, we are seeing
Traveller children denied proper access to healthcare and education.

Generally there are a whole raft of human rights issues that need attention in Northern Ireland
apart from those connected with the Troubles.

Question: Across the UK there has been new anti-terrorism legislation and plans for further
measures, are we seeing a general trend that now gives less respect to human rights in
Britain?




                                                                                                      4
Professor Dickson: Yes we are I think. And we are seeing an unfortunate tendency to set human
rights up against security as if they are bi-polar opposites.

In fact providing security is an aspect of providing human rights protection, because the first right
that people have is the right to be secure in their beds at night.

I think the UK government has over-reacted to the international terrorism threat. It is the only one
of the 36 Council of Europe states to derogate from the European Convention because of the
alleged post-9/11 threat.

There are also some other steps that could be taken, and have been recommended by important
committees of parliament and Privy Councillors, instead of the internment provisions that are
currently in the anti-terrorism act of 2001.

Question: Are we undermining Britain's traditional respect for human rights with an over-
reaction to the terrorist threat?

Professor Dickson: It is an over-reaction and it is almost a "splendid isolation" approach. It is as if
Britain, like America, has some kind of special position for itself and thinks that only it can see the
right way to deal with terrorism or the right way to comply with international human rights
standards.

Just as America is one of only two countries in the whole world not to ratify the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the other country being Somalia which doesn't have a government, so Britain
is the only European country to step outside the European Convention when dealing with anti-
terrorism measures and I just don't think it is necessary to do that.

One of the lessons from Northern Ireland is that excessive anti-terrorism measures can themselves
become part of the problem that has to be solved, rather than part of the solution.

Question: So the government's anti-terrorism laws are going to prove counter-productive?

Professor Dickson: I think the detention without trial provisions are completely unnecessary.

Of course the government can easily sustain them because only a few people are involved and the
population as a whole will not clamour and shout about it.

But there are other measures that could be taken, such as using evidence obtained through
telephone taps or through supervised release in the community of those people who are being
detained.

Those measures would at least sure that people aren't locked up indefinitely suffering mental
anguish, to put it mildly, and ruining the name of Britain as regards human rights.

Question: Do we lack the checks and balances, the constitutional mechanisms, to prevent a
government with a large majority doing whatever it wants with human rights?


                                                                                                        5
Professor Dickson: Because we live in a system of parliamentary sovereignty rather than a system
that has a written constitution, parliament can do whatever it wants including repealing or
providing exceptions to the Human rights Act 1998.

But it is also a fault at the international level, because international standards of human rights are
still not as developed as they need to be.

They don't tell democratic government show they should run themselves. They don't, for example,
say anything about the need for power-sharing in a society that is divided.

They don't put restraints on a government that is elected with a massive majority as the current
Labour government is.

We ought to put constraints on that government as to how it should consult with other
constituencies and society, and as to how it should not abuse its electoral power.

There is considerable room for nuancing human rights and democratic standards through the
world.

Question: Is there any question of that actually happening? Does the political will exist?

Professor Dickson: There are some signs that the whole concept of good governance is being
infiltrated into the concept of human rights.

I think at the United Nations' level it is increasingly being realised that conflict resolution is not
just about human rights, it is about putting in place democratic systems that are inclusive of all
elements of society, that realise that power needs to be evenly distributed and fairly exercise.

As regards detailed standards and institutions at the UN or other inter-governmental level, there is
still a huge amount to be done.

I hope that the recently announced proposals for reform to the UN itself, by increasing for example
the members of the Security Council, that itself will eventually be put in place and trickle down to
national and state levels.

Question: Finally, do plans for the introduction of identity cards pose a threat to human
rights?

Professor Dickson: I think they potentially do, so much depends on the detail of the legislation
that provides for them.

I think most people in society would welcome their lives being made more simple if they had one
ID card. But they would be very alarmed, and rightly so, if their lives could be made terribly
complicated if they were to lose their ID card.




                                                                                                         6
There should also be safeguards in place to ensure that the information on the ID card is not used
for improper purposes.

The Human Rights Commission view on this is that ID cards are acceptable in principle but there
needs to be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that they are not abused.




                                                                                                     7