On the more general theoretical point about the problems with treating human rights as universals I would still hold his argument holds water. I would perhaps go further and defend examples we could extrapolate from the article – but that is for another time.

Merry Christmas all

Which is consistent with the view of various right-wingers, both paid up commentators, bloggers and politicians, that things like gay rights have gone “too far”. If I extrapolate wrong, then I’m wrong – but I don’t believe I am, and we can’t finally settle the question until we see something of the legislative agenda of a Tory government.

Continuing on this theme, the article doesn’t outline in what way the ECHR interpretation or application of freedom of speech, presumably under Article 10, runs contrary to a ‘British’ understanding of freedom of speech. Moreover, I don’t accept the British ‘polity’ as having a unified opinion on the subject. ECHR case law may (or may not) be at odds with how we’ve traditionally done things (though again the article doesn’t specify), but even then every nation-state contains multiple cultures. I would not be among those to suggest that only the culture which controls the State should be regarded as legitimate.

If we extend this to Control Orders, since the article mentioned those, I find my logic above strengthened.

These are inventions of the British government under British law. We may disagree with them, and I strongly do, but actually they replace much less liberal measures – such as internment or Diplock courts – which have been used by successive British governments without reference to the ECHR. It seems a bit odd that anyone could rant about Control Orders as though they are some derivative of that document.

The article’s logic suggests that because the ECHR demands that people in the UK be treated the same, thus UK citizens are now subject to the same detention as immigrants, that this is somehow an argument against universality, or that it is contrary to British ‘culture’. Who is he kidding? Plenty of British citizens have been subjected to similar measures long before the current controversy of Control Orders and tagging and so forth.

Perhaps the writer of the article would prefer that immigrants weren’t given the rights to due process, legal assistance etc, and sees the ECHR as a barrier to depriving them of those rights. But instead of this convoluted argument against human rights per se, the article could simply say that. Again, as with the spiel about freedom of speech, when put in such plain terms, I suspect not a huge number of people would be willing to listen.

Dave – The problem is that he doesn’t acutally argue for any of the things you attribute to him – denial of gay rights, abortion or fair wages. You can read that between the lines if you want – but not without bending the article a fair old way: in the article he is specifically talking about freedom of expression with regards to homosexuality, abortion etc. The fact he is a Conservative doesn’t imply any of what you attribute to him.

The article doesn’t attack the individual rights as stated by the Convention. It attacks there claim to universality. I believe this is probably in part motivated by the current use of human rights, which is driven by the European Court of Human Rights. Hence the example of control orders he uses, which is by no means necessarily enshrined within the Convention, but is the product of the ECHR’s interpretation of the Convention.

The “choosing ones own good” point is empirical, yes. But I suppose the argument is that universal human rights are more likely to impose certain values on a people who do not share them – hence the examples he gives of the matriarchal and collectivist societies. Besides, it wasn’t in the original article, my point was only that it wasn’t necessarily an assumption he was making.

I think the original article runs on two levels: a macro-theoretical level and a micro-UK-centric level. With regards to the former the ECHR point is irrelevant, but to the latter it isn’t. Human rights are not just protected by ECHR case law: their normative content [in practice] is defined by that case law. Thus on the micro level you can counterpose human rights and the English tradition. The supercession point, and the ceding of soverignity are, with the greatest respect, irrelevant. The point is that the normative content differs.

No one will seriously claim that freedom of speech (for example) is fundamentally un-British. The point that I belive the article makes is that freedom of speech, as interpreted by the ECHR, is not necessarily consistent with the British tradition of free speech. Insofar as there is such an inconsistency, the universalist application of human rights is illiberal as it imposes values upon a polity which does not share them.

The ‘battle of which position is fairer’ is an idea, not an actuality, because ‘fairer’ can mean ten different things to ten different people. And in any case there are other things prejudicing the outcome of any argument, beyond the factors the participants bear in themselves: which side is stronger, materially. Persuasion also need not be related to fairness.

The other thing is that politics doesn’t and will never exist separate from emotions. I’ve always believed that to be fine, as really ‘rationality’ is just a way of saying “the sum of our individual experience and the way it informs how we think” – and this includes our emotions, because everyone has emotional responses to many things. Even if we’re not shouting, or crying, or laughing, our emotions are still informing our judgment.

It is a good instrument for informing, especially about one about oneself, and often is used as a means to compromise. Of course, even when one feels one has gained a better understanding of some else’s position but you still have diametrically opposed viewpoints, one should be able to hive off the initial superficial judgements and stand the two opposing positions against each other with more clarity and with less emotive evaluations. Often it is then just a battle of which position is fairer, more just and creates better opportunities of equalisation.

2.(what happened to 1?) I have no problem with the idea that every man should be able to choose his own good. But, firstly even the most liberal system imaginable allows this only within certain prescribed limits. Secondly, the fact that almost everywhere falls short of the liberal ideal and that structural inequalities of power or opportunity prevent people from choosing their own good makes the issue contingent. That is, are “human rights” more or less likely to result in a situation where every man can choose his own good?

Frankly it doesn’t matter what the answer is – that the question is a valid question means that every situation (of HR vs what’s local) needs to be examined on a case by case basis. But the anti-HR argument assumes HR to be monolithic, which is in any case mistaken.

3. I agree with you, but I don’t think this misses the point.

The partial supercession of the nation-state is inherent to the concept of human rights. This supercession has been envisioned in English culture dating back to the English Revolution. That from this partial supercession, i.e. our adherence to the ECHR, further rules have been derived is surely to be regarded as part of the normal working of any legal system?

We can argue that the ECHR and such rules as can be derived from its case law are not the best way to protect human rights, that we need some other way. But we can’t counterpose the principles enshrined in the ECHR to English culture or constitution, as the article in question attempts to do.

4, 5 and 6. It is decided locally. Parliament is sovereign. It voted to cede some powers to the system of European courts, it can vote to overturn that cession. And it may indeed be the case that the ECHR has developed a momentum of its own – but the particular manner in which we legislate human rights, and develop their codicils through case law, doesn’t concern me here. What concerns me is the fundamental attack on the concept of human rights, that they are illiberal, and the idea that they are opposed to British/English culture.

7. I’m all for a British bill of rights – but this local vs. ECHR argument is a smokescreen. What the conservative writing the article really wants is the power to overturn the liberties provided by the ECHR and its derived rules for particular things – e.g. being gay, having an abortion or earning a decent wage. You can see it between the lines of what he says, and why he draws such attention to the social issues which often provoke (misplaced) tabloid ire.

So instead of standing in the others actual shoes, one must stand in their hypothetical shoes, the shoes they wear when they are acting according to that principle. Which gives us equal distribution or a distribution adjusted to yeild equality of utility – whichever one’s political theory deems correct.

The problem is that most people do not think this is how resources should be allocated. So it must be imposed by the coercive power of the state: human autonomy is therefore limited to a certain degree.

Now it is for debate wherever the degree of limitation of human freedom is greater in this system than in the current system, but one should not blind oneself to the fact that both ultimately involve coercion and incomplete human freedom.

On my blog, I list my favourite book as: To Kill a Mocking Bird. While this book has many subtleties, it’s main theme is very easy to understand: always try an stand in the other person’s shoes and look at life as they would.

It’s not an easy opertion to perform, and probably says more about myself that I continuously have to remember to perform this simple operation; and too often forget. Of course the Christian doctrine has the same concept embedded through treating your neighbor as you would have them treat you. This narrative in any aspect is fundamental to human rights; making trivialities of the superficial differences of humanity (colour, e.g.). Of course, there is a greater and somewhat fuzzier struggle to overcome with regards to the political economy. For the life of me, I can’t see a business owners and their enablers ever coming to the conclusion that labour, being the reason for industry and the producers of industry (industry used in the broadest of terms) should share in equal measure by their inputs. If Ireland is anything to go by, you won’t be able to stand in labour’s shoes because labour won’t be able to afford shoes one of these days.