The coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on October 2 has raised
enormous problems. Since the issues involved cover the manifold details of the
relationship between individuals and the social organisation in which they must
exist, and in particular the state authorities which have to maintain that organisation,
there are bound to be situations where common sense is infringed.
If individuals believe that their wishes override all other considerations,
they are bound to encounter other individuals whose wishes lie in the opposite
direction. But how can both insist on their rights without fragmenting human
society and provoking sheer anarchy? In a confrontation such as that, violence
is inevitable. Some people have raised the elementary question of whether a
child should be required to wear a school uniform if it goes against the grain
of parental wishes.
Most situations in civilised living involve compromise, and uncompromising and
stubborn individuals cannot fit into the scheme of things. To use the word "right"
is to ask for trouble. Pace the bureaucrats, it would have been wiser to introduce
the concept of obligations to other individuals and to society at large, rather
than the dangerous one of rights.
Even apparently simple ideas, such as "the right to life", contain a host of
provisos. Whose right to what sort of life, and who decides between life and
death? What is meant by "inhuman or degrading treatment"? What degrades one
may ennoble another. It is appreciated that medical treatment in certain circumstances
may constitute degrading treatment, even if its object is claimed to be life-saving.
Neglect of that treatment may be interpreted as equally degrading. Small wonder
that the expanding world of lawyers is beaming on the new implications for business.
No one could reasonably deny the need to outlaw slavery and forced labour, but
these concepts are capable of wide definition. Many doubtful things may be done
to someone who can be pronounced as of unsound mind. And who has the right to
make such a decision? The idea of the sacrosanctity of private and family life
seems excellent, but it implies that if your neighbour is beating his wife and
children you cannot intervene, on the ground that you then deny him that right.
One complication of the new law is that all rights are not absolute, but have
attached conditions and exceptions. And Parliament is fully entitled to intervene
by passing legislation which restricts individual freedoms if it so desires.
If people are claiming the right to do things in such a way as to arouse public
hysteria, there may be a panic reaction which results in repressive legislation.
That is not the way to achieve social freedom and moral justice.
A far better method would be to insist upon the proper balance of responsibilities,
individual and collective, within society as a whole. If I want to sit in my
garden in peace, and my next door neighbour wants to play loud music in his,
talk of rights is useless; we must achieve some sort of compromise. The whole
working of our universe, after all, is a balancing act, every action provoking
an equal and opposite reaction.