Most human rights are not absolute
Published:Saturday | June 19, 2010 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE RECENT discussions in the media dealing with the issue of the proposed anti-crime measures have witnessed the usual self-appointed human- rights protectors advancing views which have no basis in law or legal history.
I read recently where one advocate, in critiquing the proposals on detention, advanced the view that what is being proposed is novel to the common-law tradition. Of course, there is no truth in that assertion, as we can recall that post-9/11 the government in the United Kingdom had passed a law designed primarily to give the police the power to detain suspects for an indefinite period without charge.
Aspects of this statute was struck down by the then House of Lords as being incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Quite specifically, the law lords took the view that the law was incompatible as it had a provision which allowed non-British nationals to be detained for an indefinite period which, under the statute, was not possible in respect of British nationals.
Of course, I did not support such a legislation as it was clearly discriminatory, but note that the law lords did not take the view that the law was incompatible because there was detention, but rather it was struck down because it treated persons unequally before the law.
Consequently, when the human-rights lobby in Jamaica advance rather extreme views, I can only urge the unelected lobbyists to read Commonwealth legal history, as we can find examples of states that have legislated for the type of detention that is now being contemplated by the legislature.
Further, what this latest round of hue and cry does is underline the importance and urgency of the need for us to have the long-overdue charter of rights, as it will contain provisions that will make it very clear to the human-rights lobby that some rights, such as the freedom of movement, are not absolute.
I am, etc.,
M.K. MUKULU