6TH PLENARY SESSION
FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT
IN A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
R
t. Hon. Dr J. Dickson Mabon, MP, Deputy Leader of the United Kingdom Delegation, said that, in the 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, governments had recorded their belief "in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed, or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live". In 1977, the Commonwealth heads of government had adopted the Declaration on Racism and Racial Prejudice, which set out detailed principles and proposals; but how were the declared rights to be secured and maintained?
Under parliamentary tradition, no parliament needed to be bound by any of its predecessors, and, provided it was free, democratic, and representative, the liberties and rights of the people should be respected and maintained. Some parliamentarians, however, did not accept that belief and had advocated a Bill of Rights, but even that could result in a denial of certain rights.
A Human Rights Commission for the Commonwealth had been proposed, as had been the establishment of the office of Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights and of a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. Rather than having a United Nations official, however, a legal process might be preferred. The Council of Europe had not only a Charter of Human Rights but also a European Court, which arbitrated between Governments, and between a Government and an aggrieved citizen.
It was a matter for debate whether a Commonwealth Charter of Human Rights and a Commonwealth Court of Justice would be preferable to Continental Charters, but the dedication of parliamentarians to the principle of life, liberty, and the fulfilment of the talents and abilities of all citizens was not in debate. It was a stewardship that would be discharged honourably.
A delegate noted the emphasis given by different religions to the recognition of fundamental human rights, and asked to what extent the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was being observed. Declaring that the rights of minority groups in States that were divided along racial, religious, and linguistic lines were being threatened, he appealed for intervention on behalf of the Tamil-speaking minority in Sri Lanka.
A Jamaican delegate drew attention to the difference between constitutional rights and legal rights, and to the need for institutions to protect the former.
A Zambian delegate pointed out that, in many African States, considerations of colour, race, or creed were no obstacle to equal political participation. Were the rights of the individual confined merely to a given country, or did they transcend political boundaries? The United Nations Charter provided for the enjoyment of human rights through self- determination, but to achieve self-determination it was sometimes necessry to use force. In this regard posterity would judge favourably the actions of Zambia and other front-line States.
An Indian delegate said that the effective implementation of human rights could not be ensured by international measures alone; much depended on the good sense of governments and parliaments.
He did not think parliamentarians should ever minimise their obligation and mandate to protect individual freedom and human rights, said a Canadian regional representative. It was easy, when problems of inflation, unemployment, and oil supply were pressing, to overlook individual violations of human rights. While he agreed that international conventions and constitutional frames of reference were extremely important, bringing up a matter in Parliament had an immediacy that other means of drawing public attention to violationis of human rights did not have. Immediate press coverage was involved, as were parliamentary immunity, the pressure that back-benchers could impose upon the Government, the important mechanism of governments and Ministers having to reply to questions without notice, special parliamentary investigations, and the time-honoured and extremely