Faux human-rights claims diminish democracy

In Oslo on Saturday, Burmese democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi finally delivered her acceptance speech for receiving the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize. After more than two decades under house arrest at the hands of the military junta in Burma, the 66-year-old human rights activist gave a deeply moving address about her isolation from her husband, her family and the world.

Her motivation was simple: "If I am asked why I am fighting for democracy in Burma, it is because I believe that democratic institutions and practices are necessary for the guarantee of human rights."

This is a fight for human rights in its finest and highest form.

Now to the grubby end of the human rights spectrum. As this newspaper reported on Saturday, a group of charities and welfare organisations sent a letter of complaint to the Prime Minister asserting legislation that will remove the pension from single mothers when their child turns eight is a breach of human rights under various UN covenants and conventions. This galling abuse of human rights is a world away from the human rights agenda of Suu Kyi.

The galloping imperialism of overzealous human rights has nothing to do with genuine human rights and everything to do with imposing a post-democratic model. The aim is to impose their own idea of an acceptable social agenda, bypassing democracy. Globally, there are many parts to this new anti-democratic world order.

Ironically, the Gillard government is dealing with a dilemma of its own creation. The federal government has effectively invited every activist in the country and beyond to challenge democratically enacted laws through the prism of vaguely drafted covenants and conventions.

Here's how it happened. Having happily failed to deliver on the Rudd government's 2007 promise to introduce a charter of rights, in January this year Attorney-General Nicola Roxon announced plan B.

As part of Australia's Human Rights Framework, Roxon proudly announced the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, which requires all new bills to be accompanied by a "statement of compatibility with human rights". And what human rights are we talking about? Roxon listed seven UN covenants and conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Just a quick glance at this one document reveals a list of fine-sounding but deliberately ambiguously worded "human rights".

It would enable a growing army of activists to challenge just about every piece of legislation on the basis that it didn't adhere to fine-sounding rights such as "rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours" and, in the present case, the right to "social security".

Who determined the acceptable level of "social security" in Article 9? The charities and welfare groups that penned the letter, advised by a few human rights academics, imagine they get to decide that issue now. The activists pointed out that Article 9 is also a right to "access and maintain" benefits. That means once a certain level of social security is handed out, it cannot be altered. Democratic notions of parliament being able to change social security laws become a breach of the covenant.

The Gillard government should expect much more of this time-wasting nonsense. So-called human rights activists who have no time for democracy will happily defer to UN covenants to challenge what is done under democratic processes as illegitimate. But here's the rub. It's easy to be a loud and proud supporter of vaguely drafted international covenants when you're in opposition. When you're in government entrusted with power to make decisions, curiously, things look different. Who wants to be challenged at every step by the burgeoning industry of activists deferring to some UN covenant?

Not the Gillard government. Accordingly, it has rendered its new Human Rights Framework a complete con. While it sets up a superb-sounding Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise legislation for compatibility with "human rights", section 8(5) of the new law provides that a failure to set out a statement of compatibility "does not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of the act".

Colloquially, this is the "get stuffed" provision. Sure, we'll play the human rights game when it suits us. But we may also choose not to play. Either way, we win.

And that is as it should be. One need only look to Britain to see the deep ructions from the growing push for a post-democratic model of human rights governance.

In Britain, the growing democratic deficit taking power away from the people is much more serious. If British courts don't deliver your preferred outcome, one races off to the European Court of Human Rights. Accordingly, Julian Assange and his posse of lawyers are off to Strasbourg hoping the ECHR will overturn the British court that denied Assange his wish to avoid extradition to Sweden. And why wouldn't he? It has happened before.

Overturning a decision of the British courts, the ECHR decided that Britain could not deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada back to Jordan, where he faces terrorism charges because of the risk of torture. In another case, ignoring the British parliament, the ECHR decided the British parliament must give prisoners the right to vote. Not surprisingly, many British now worry judges in Strasbourg are undermining their local democratic institutions.

While in January our Attorney-General was inviting human rights activists to challenge democratically enacted legislation with a sham Human Rights Framework, British PM David Cameron was determined to rein in the powers of Strasbourg judges who were interfering in domestic policy.

On January 25 this year, Cameron announced an ambitious plan to "reinforce local democracy". Born of the best intentions after the Holocaust, the ECHR was meddling too much. No one serious about genuine human rights could doubt that "the very concept of human rights is being distorted", he said. The concept "is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited".

The court, he concluded, should focus on "the worst, most flagrant human rights violations".

When the British PM attacked the growing reach of the ECHR, his popularity at home shot sky high. Most people outside the latte set favour old-fashioned, grassroots democracy. They understand the further decision-making moves from the people, the less democratic it is. We now await our own Prime Minister's response on this matter.

The bastardisation of "human rights" serves only to undermine attention needed for real human rights abuses such as those still happening in Burma. It's time the federal Labor government slapped down those who have so little regard for the working of democracy in our own country