Who
cares about the guardians of our rights? Starving the watchdogs of cash
'is a proven way of keeping them quiet'
From IRISH NEWS October 20th, 1999
By BRIAN FEENEY
UNTIL the Fair Employment Act of 1989 the British government had a useful
1976 law. It was useful because it was no use. No use in the practical sense
of doing anything to improve fairness in employment.
It was one of a series of laws the British brought in in the early seventies
as window dressing to enable them to defend themselves mainly in the US.
The 1976 Fair Employment Act allowed the British government to say, as they
did frequently: "Discrimination? What? We have outlawed discrimination."
That was true but it made no difference whatsoever. It was against the law
to discriminate but the agency the British established had virtually no
powers to do anything about it unless someone stood up and said: "Yeah,
we discriminate."
Amazingly some actually did. The penalties that could be imposed on them
were laughable. In other words the law was for the optics. A true measure
of the importance the British government placed on discrimination can be
gauged from the funding they provided.
Before they were caught on in the early eighties the NIO allocated £300,000
a year to the Fair Employment Agency, which was about a tenth of the funding
for the Arts Council. Either they must have thought the Arts Council was
a major threat to stability of society or else they couldn't care less about
discrimination. Which do you think? Does the same attitude prevail with
human rights?
A Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was set up as part of the Good
Friday agreement. Regardless of whether the present travelling circus of
local politicians set up an executive, the NIHRC will continue to operate.
It has a massive agenda. It includes drawing up a bill of rights for the
north, checking whether laws and practices observe human rights, promoting
awareness, bringing court proceeding and providing assistance for individuals
to do so.
Ah yes, that last bit. Costs a bit doesn't it? Take what passes for inquest
proceedings here. The British government has twisted and abused the law
on inquests in the north to such an extent that they no longer provide safeguards
for anything. Often an inquest doesn't take place until 10 years after a
sudden death, sudden death in that case meaning someone the police or army
killed.
Sometimes there is no inquest. If there is, papers are withheld, security
force witnesses don't turn up and anyway the only verdict available is more
or less to record that a death occurred which is why there was an inquest
in the first place. It's a complete disgrace. Assisting people at inquests
is only one aspect of the NIHRC's work.
The chief commissioner, Professor Brice Dickson, pointed out at a conference
of Relatives for Justice at the weekend that his funding doesn't leave much
scope. His budget is £750,000. There are 10 commissioners and a small staff.
Take out their fees and salaries and expenses and the cost of office accommodation,
rent, rates, phone, heating, lighting and so on.
You don't have to be Eddie George to work out there's not a lot left. How
many individuals could the NIHRC assist to bring court proceedings? How
many QCs would their budget pay? How much literature could they afford to
have printed "to promote awareness of human rights"? In short, how can they
do their job? The agency which is the single biggest human rights abuser
in the north is the RUC. It's in the nature of things. Police forces all
over the world do it and hope to get away with it. Usually they do. |
