When is a Human Right, no longer a Right?

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, (2016), the courts will apply three questions to determine whether an intrusion of someone’s human rights has occurred, and whether it is defendable. 

Firstly, asking if there is legal basis for such an infringement. 

Secondly, if the intrusion had a legitimate intention.

Thirdly, if the transgression was necessary within the ethos of a democracy. 

Each take into consideration whether the party accused of breaching one’s human rights have: 

Acted lawfully and in conjunction with legislation (by respecting the beliefs and opinions of others) and observing any such limitations.

Believed they had a legitimate reason to express their opinion 

whether it was necessary to exercise their rights in the fashion and manner that they did.

All three principles must be met.

Different outcomes pertaining to equivalent acts of discrimination can be witnessed in the case of Christian student Felix Ngole (The Queen on The Application of Ngole v University of Sheffield, [2017]) and the arrest of a Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine (Blake, 2010) respectively. Both men of the Christian faith publically made comments pertaining to the bibles stance on homosexuality and both men believing it to be a sin.

As reported by Grierson, (2017), as a consequence of his actions, Mr Ngole was suspended from university, and after a hearing, was subsequently no longer allowed to further his studies, nor practice as a social worker following commentaries made on facebook. He had commented on a post regarding a minister in America refusing to ordain same sex couples. His statement was that he believed homosexuality was a sin. This was deemed by the university to be in breach of their student conduct policies and thus was removed from his course (The University of Sheffield, 2018). Mr Ngole, unhappy with the outcome and believing this to be a breach of his human rights in regards to religious expression, decided to appeal the decision of the university in the courts (The Queen on The Application of Ngole v University of Sheffield, [2017]). The courts subsequently found that the university had acted in accordance with Sch.1 Pt.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) S.1 (3) art 9(2) which stipulates that 

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010).

Similarly, is the incident involving Dale Mcalpine whom according to Blake, (2010) was arrested for a “racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence” whilst preaching from the bible in a public place. Mr Mcalpine was approached by a police officer once he had finished preaching. The police officer informed Mr Mcalpine that making homophobic remarks was illegal conduct that could result in his arrest. Mr Mcalpine who had until that point not mentioned the subject of sexuality, conveyed to the officer as such, although did articulate that he does occasionally preach that “homosexual conduct is a sin because that is what the Bible says” (The Christian Institute, n.d.). This remark prompted the police officer to arrest Mr Mcalpine under the aforementioned charge (Blake, 2010).

Both incidents included a Christian man publicly expressing homophobic remarks. However, in the case of Mr Mcalpine, he was subsequently released without charge and further awarded compensation for “wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and breach of his human rights”. The police admitted that they had indeed acted improperly and issued an apology to Mr Mcalpine and awarded remuneration worth £7000 (The Christian Institute, n.d.).

Although both parties carried out similar acts of expression, the differences, albeit simple, result in different outcomes. This is due to the fact, that Mr Mcalpine, although in a public place, was able to demonstrate that no legal infringement had occurred. Secondly that the statement he made had a legitimate intention, as he was replying to the officers direct input and thirdly that his reply was necessary to a democratic system by allowing both opinions to have a forum, as he was engaged in a peaceful assemble. 

However, in the case of Felix Ngole, he was unable to defend his actions in conjunction to the three principles previously mentioned. Although Mr Ngole demonstrated no legal infringement, and that his comment may have had a legitimate intention, it was deemed that his comment was not necessary to a democratic system and was perceived by the courts to be an attempt of inciting hatred. Thus, not meeting the criteria of showing that all three principals were met, resulting in the courts defending the University of Sheffield’s initial verdict (The Queen on The Application of Ngole v University of Sheffield, [2017]).

 According to Holland, (2018), teaching of The Human Rights Act in schools across the United Kingdom is not mandatory. This is mirrored by the Equality and Human Rights Comission, (2016), which stipulates that teachers and schools are only duty bound to observe the Human Rights Act in relation to their conduct. There also appears to be a direct correlation between the behaviour and cognitive development of children from low-income, disadvantaged areas when compared to their peers from more privileged backgrounds, resulting in the former being up to one year behind the latter in terms of cognitive attainment (CPMO Research Team University of Bristol, 2006). The report further suggests that this demograph are more likely to engage in more antisocial behaviour when growing up. 

According to Hirsch, (2010), a means to tackle this issue is to ensure that The Human Rights Act 1998 is taught in schools from a very early age.

This follows on from a project conducted by Unicef (UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting Schools Award (RRSA)), involving 15 schools whereby the pupils were taught about principles within the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Sebba & Robinson, 2010). The idea of the three year project was to create a safe space within the school setting whereby pupils felt empowered by becoming aware of their rights, not realising before the project began that they were already protected with these rights. Learning of the rights they had as an individual, also served as a prompt to educate the pupils that others were also protected by these rights. The project was not taught as a singular class, or workshop, but as an approach or way-of-being that rolled out across the schools philosophy. The projects findings found that nearly all of the schools reported a major decrease in bullying and a positive outlook towards inclusion and diversity. The project was concluded in 2010, after which the scheme was rolled out across the country with now thousands of schools participating.

As noted in UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting Schools Award (RRSA), if children are not aware of their own rights, then they may not be mindful of the rights of others; thus, impacting their approach to life in adulthood. The research suggests that encouraging children to adopt an ethos from a very early age that incorporates an understanding of The Human Rights Act 1998 and encourages inclusion, that a result in less hate and more tolerance will ensue.

References

Blake, H. (2010, 05 02). Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin. Retrieved from The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

Bowden, G. (2016, 04 11). Stephen Fry Speaks About Erosion Of 'Free Speech' On Student Campuses In Controversial Rubin Report Interview. Retrieved from Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/stephen-fry-speaks-about-erosion-of-free-speech-on-student-campuses_uk_570bb53de4b07a35187c5a96

Brennan, J., King, R., & Lebeau, Y. (2004). The Role of Universities in the Transformation. London: The Open University.

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). democracy. Retrieved 03 14, 2018, from Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

CPMO Research Team University of Bristol. (2006). Up to Age 7: Family Background and Child Development Up to Age 7 in the Avon Longitudinal Survey of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) Non-technical Summary. Bristol: Department for Education and Skills.

Equality and Human Rights Comission . (2016, 05 16). Why teach equality and human rights? Retrieved from Equality and Human Rights Comission : https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/secondary-education-resources/useful-information/why-teach-equality-and-human-rights

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016, 05 04). Article 3 of the First Protocol: Right to free elections. Retrieved from equalityhumanrights.com: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-3-first-protocol-right-free-elections

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016). Religion or belief: is the law working? London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Furedi, F. (2017). What’s Happened To The University?: A sociological exploration of its infantilisation. Abingdon: Routledge.

Grierson, J. (2017, 10 27). Christian thrown out of university over anti-gay remarks loses appeal. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/27/christian-felix-ngole-thrown-out-sheffield-university-anti-gay-remarks-loses-appeal

Hirsch, A. (2010, 01 08). We need human rights in schools. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/08/human-rights-act-schools

Hoffman, D., & Rowe, J. (2010). Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998 (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Holland, S. (2018). HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN THE NEW CURRICULUM: POSITION PAPER OF THE CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER FOR WALES. Retrieved from https://www.childcomwales.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CCFW-Children-Rights-and-Curriculum-Reform-Position-Paper-2018_English.pdf

Passmore, K. (2014). Fascism A Very Short History. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

PICKETT, R. (2016, 08 31). Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces Are Necessary. Retrieved from time.com: http://time.com/4471806/trigger-warnings-safe-spaces/

Sebba, J., & Robinson, C. (2010). Evaluation of UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting Schools Award. Sussex and Brighton: Universities of Sussex and Brighton.

Slater, T. (2016). Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus. London: MacMIllan Publishers LTD.

Syal, R., & Mason, R. (2017, 12 26). Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop 'no-platforming' speakers. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech

Taylor, M. (2015, 11 13). Attempts to ban speakers 'put mission at universities at risk'. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/13/banning-shouting-down-speakers-universities-risk

The Christian Institute. (n.d.). Case: Dale Mcalpine. Retrieved 24 02, 2018, from Christian.org.uk: http://www.christian.org.uk/case/dale-mcalpine/

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NGOLE V UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, EWHC (Admin) 1675 (QBD, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 04 25, 2017).

The University of Sheffield. (2018, 04 02). Equality and Diversity Policies and Procedures. Retrieved from The University of Sheffield: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ssid/equality-and-diversity/policies-and-procedures/index