When human rights clash
Amnesty should protect, not undermine, equal rights for all
An Amnesty UK report has grouped together, under the label of a single ‘anti-rights movement’, two very different types of organisation. One is those who promote conservative Christian beliefs about social issues. The other is those who promote the sex-based rights of women and LGB people. It called for reviews of their charitable status, services, funding, and activities.
After a predictable backlash, Amnesty has withdrawn the report pending an internal review. That’s useful, but Amnesty also must address the harmful impact of having published it in the first place. This has hurt the reputations of those it unjustly maligned, and Amnesty’s own credibility as a human rights group.
Something similar happened six years ago. Amnesty Ireland called on the media to ‘end giving airtime to’, and politicians to ‘no longer provide legitimate representation for’ people promoting the sex-based rights of women and LGB people. These attitudes are bad enough coming from individuals on social media, but much worse coming from a human rights body.
For some reason, the current Amnesty UK report does not address people of religions other than Christianity who promote conservative beliefs about social issues. Why is this? Some of these people not only promote their beliefs as public policy, but actively enforce them on women, LGBT people, and children within their communities.
The report also ignores that many people who support the sex-based rights of women and LGB people are liberal secularists, feminists and gay people, often more left-wing than right-wing. They typically also oppose conservative religious beliefs about social issues, and also support equal rights for transgender people.
But more importantly, the Amnesty report ignores that reasonable and ethical people can sincerely disagree on emotive issues. We should engage with the content of ideas we disagree with, not accuse the people who express them of malign motivations. And we should balance competing human rights in a way that is fair to everyone involved.
The rights to freedom of conscience and expression
Amnesty should support the equal right of everybody to freedom of thought, conscience, belief, opinion, expression, private life, and from discrimination. These rights extend to people with whom we strongly disagree.
As an example, when I campaigned against IRA and loyalist terrorism, I also opposed Section 31 of the Irish Broadcasting Act, that prevented Sinn Féin and the UDA from promoting their political aims democratically.
People have a right to express ideas that offend, shock, or disturb us. The State can only restrict that right by law, for a legitimate purpose, and with necessary and proportionate means. Defamation and incitement to crime are obvious examples. Disagreeing on how best to balance competing human rights is not.
I believe the authors of this report sincerely believe they are promoting good ideas. But they are mistaken. By treating lawful disagreement as hostility to human rights, they undermine the very rights Amnesty was founded to protect. If they want to say this, they should do so as individuals, not under the name of Amnesty.
Amnesty should publicly return to defending the equal right of everyone to hold and express different beliefs. It should oppose, not lead, attempts to silence such people. And it should lobby governments to legally balance competing rights claims, consistently with human rights principles.
Absolute and qualified rights
You have an absolute human right to the internal aspect of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief. The test of whether a belief is protected is that it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
As well as religion, atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, this right protects believers in secularism (Lautsi v Italy), veganism (W v United Kingdom), pacifism (Arrowsmith v United Kingdom), and opposition to military service (Bayatyan v Armenia).
In the context of the Amnesty report, it protects opposition to abortion (Knudsen v Norway), the conviction that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman (Eweida v United Kingdom), and the belief that sex is real, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity (Forstater v CGD Europe under the UK Equality Act, interpreted consistently with the European Convention).
You also have a qualified right to manifest and express your beliefs subject to limited restrictions. You have related rights including respect for privacy and freedom from discrimination. Depending on the circumstances, the state can have both a negative obligation to refrain from interfering in these rights, and a positive obligation to secure them.
These rights are recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 18, 19, 12, 2, 7). They are legally protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 18, 19, 17, 2, 26), and the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 9, 10, 8, 14).
How to balance qualified rights
When human rights conflict, they have to be balanced. Courts must identify the actual rights on each side. They must distinguish between beliefs (almost always protected), expression (usually protected), and behaviour (can be regulated). People must be able to reasonably foresee what behaviour is regulated and why.
Any limitations on qualified rights must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of a legitimate aim. These legitimate aims include public safety, the protection of public order, health and morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Rights have to be applied cohesively. Religious and secular people have the right to hold and express beliefs that others strongly disagree with. Women have the right to privacy, safety, and sex-based equality. LGB people have the right to same-sex attraction. Transgender people have the right to protection from discrimination, harassment and violence. Children have the right to protection from long-term impacts on their lives.
Amnesty should support all of these rights, and lobby governments to legally balance competing rights claims in a fair way, consistently with human rights principles. It should not simply assume that one side has rights that supersede those of others, or attribute malign motivations to people on any other side.
Otherwise it is undermining not only human rights, but also the credibility of a human rights organisation with a long history, that was founded in order to protect freedom of conscience and expression of disputed opinions.