If you are weak or disadvantaged and you want your rights protected under this government – forget it, writes Peter McVerry, S.J.
You want rights? Forget it.
Maybe it was the Child Care Act 1991 that frightened them. The Child Care Act gave homeless children a legal right to suitable accommodation. Since then, a succession of children have gone to the High Court demanding suitable accommodation, much to the embarrassment of the government and at a cost to the taxpayer of many millions of euro in legal fees. Even worse, the High Court began to question what the government was doing – or, more to the point, what they were not doing – in making this right available to children, and began to make demands on them. At one stage, Judge Peter Kelly threatened to imprison three government ministers for contempt of court, for promising to do one thing and then doing another. He subsequently ordered the government to do what it had already promised the Court it would do, which annoyed the government so much that they appealed this judgement to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, to the government’s great relief, decided that Judge Peter Kelly had no authority to order them to do anything. All this hassle was brought about by a government minister who decided that homeless children should have rights.
Since then, a number of issues have arisen which clearly suggest that this government is determined never again to make the mistake of giving people rights.
The Disability Bill
Jamie Synnott case
The Supreme Court, again much to the relief of the government, overruled the High Court and declared that the right to primary education stopped at the age of 18 – even though Jamie, at 23, was unable to cope with tasks which would be easily accomplished by young children, and even though he had, in fact, been denied suitable education by the government when he was under 18.
Now, once a person reaches 18 years of age, they have no right to any further education, even if it would improve immeasurably the quality of their life.
Freedom of Information Act
However, earlier this year, major changes to the Act were introduced which limited what the public has a right to access. It is clear that the intention of the changes was to keep the public out, and avoid embarrassment. Contempt for the public was further shown when the two government ministers with responsibility for introducing the changes to the Act decided to enjoy themselves in Cheltenham while the changes were being debated in the Dáil and Seanad.
Ombudsman for Children
Eventually, in 2002, before the general election, legislation to establish the office of Ombudsman for Children was passed. Since then, the setting up of the office has stalled. At the time of writing, it has still not been established, the post remains unadvertised and vacant. We are now told that it will be April 2004 before any action will be taken. This delay is not due to lack of funding, as funding for the office was included in both the 2002 and 2003 budgets.
By contrast, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed its legislation to establish a Children’s Commissioner (a very similar office to the Ombudsman) after the government in the South passed the necessary legislation in April 2002. They have already advertised for the position and have set in place a process for selecting their Commissioner.
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Minister for Justice’s attack on the culture of human rights
The minister appears to be arguing that granting social and economic rights are unnecessary, and that the government can be trusted to ensure that the social and economic needs of all our citizens will be met. The minister was speaking to a gathering of management consultants, who probably applauded his speech.
Luckily for him, he was not addressing a gathering of homeless people, or parents of autistic children, or people with disabilities, or people with addictions, or travellers or people who depend on public health care or children who are being educated in dilapidated schools, or people in disadvantaged areas with psychiatric problems. They know what happens to them when their needs depend, not on rights, but on political favours.
This article first appeared in Reality (Sept. 2003), a magazine of the Irish Redemptorists.
The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, on 23rd May last, launched an attack on the culture of “human rights-speak.” Mr McDowell said that the failed policies of socialism in the last century were now being repackaged in demands for a rights-based society. He questioned the motives of the “so-called human rights community.” He argued that social and economic rights were more suitably delivered by government policies than by the courts.In February 2002, the United Nations General Assembly began the process of considering proposals for a Treaty on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Ireland has opposed the drafting of such a Treaty. Ireland’s intransigence seems to be the fear of enforceable socio-economic rights.The function of an Ombudsman for Children is to take complaints and investigate allegations of violations of children’s rights, and to promote those rights. An Ombudsman for Children was promised by the government seven years ago. However, when the new Fianna Fail – Progressive Democrat government came into office in 1997, it reneged on this promise. In 1998, its failure to establish this office was severely criticised by the UN in its review of Ireland’s performance in implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child.The Freedom of Information Act, in 1998, gave the public the right to access a considerable range of documents on the background to decisions of government and some State bodies. Its purpose was to ensure accountability to the public for what is done in our name and with our money. If decisions are made, and money spent, in the knowledge that the public are entitled to know how and why those decisions were made, then better government is assured. Many of the scandals of earlier years would never have happened if the public had had this right of access to documents, as these scandals depend on a culture of secrecy.Jamie Synnott is an autistic child whose parents went to the High Court to try and get him a suitable education. The High Court was highly critical of the government’s inaction in providing Jamie with his constitutional right to education, and declared that Jamie, and others like him, had a right to primary education for as long as he could benefit from it. The government was horrified by this decision, and appealed the judgement to the Supreme Court. In 2002, the government published a Disability Bill, which it attempted to fast-track through the Dail. The bill was almost universally opposed by organisations representing people with disabilities, precisely because the bill failed to confer rights on people with disabilities. Indeed, sections 47 and 48 of the bill actually prohibited people from going to the courts to seek redress. Faced with a barrage of criticism, the government had to withdraw the bill.
