Conor Gearty explores the hypocrisy that often surrounds human rights, with many states displaying inconsistencies between their actions and words

Gearty, Conor

English

LSE Research Online

blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/po liticsandpolicy/archives/26265Do as I say and not as I do: hypocrisy and human rightsConor Gearty explores the hypocrisy that often surrounds human rights, withmany states displaying inconsistencies between their actions and words.  Shortly bef ore he became Prime Minister, David Cameron launched the ConservativeParty’s Annual Human Rights Report. In it the Party called in exemplary f ashion f or anincrease in human rights protection around the world. Introducing the Party leader, ayoung man f rom the Democratic Republic of  the Congo (a f ormer child soldier) praisedthe Party’s emphasis on ‘responsibilit ies’ as well as ‘rights’. He then went on to give amoving endorsement of  Brit ish law, and in particular the Human Rights Act without which – he went on tosay – his claim to asylum would never have been successf ul.Woops! No one had told him the Conservatives wanted to repeal the Act, that human rights were f oreverybody – except those over whom this Party hoped to be able to exercise control.This kind of  double-standard is par f or the course so f ar as human rights are concerned. The morepowerf ul a state is the easier it f inds it to be hypocrit ical in its conduct without any serious risk of  thisbeing noticed or mattering very much if  it  is. For years the US has lectured the world on human rights andoccasionally started revolutions elsewhere on the basis of  them, all the while resolutely ref using anyproper crit ique of  its own human rights record, at home or abroad. (This is not just the obvious –Guantanamo and so on – but extends to such basics as childrens rights and the death penalty and muchelse besides.)Israel is keen to advertise its ‘western values’ through its special trading relationship with the EU and itsparticipation in such events as the Eurovision song context and various European f ootball competit ions– but we hear very litt le f rom this beacon of  democracy and human rights about agitating to be allowedto sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights with its judicial oversight f rom Strasbourg –which f or example even Turkey and Russia have managed to do.Now the Vatican has joined the list of  places which talk a good human rights game abroad but can hardlybe said to be practising what it preaches at home. Towards the end of  May the Pope’s butler PaoloGabriele was arrested, or so it was eventually acknowledged (the Vatican doesn’t do due process like thedemocratic world). It seems Gabriele was then sent to the Vatican cells where he has been kept throughthe early months of  the Summer, until a sudden announcement (f rom the press of f ice, rather than anykind of  judicial of f icer) that he had been ‘released on parole’, in f act placed on house arrest.It seems a ‘Promoter of  Justice’ has now determined that charges are to be brought, and it seems it willthen be a ‘Vatican judge who will then decide whether he will f ace trial or be acquitted’. According to mediareports in Italy, a sentence of  6 years could be meted out, albeit at this point the butler would need to betransf erred to an Italian prison. Meanwhile we are assured by Gabriele’s lawyer that the butler had actedentirely on his own and as an ‘act of  love’ towards the pope. Well what would you say, af ter months in acell in the sweltering heat of  the Vatican and f acing a tribunal that might jail you f or many years?Let’s substitute the words ‘Beijing authorit ies’ here f or the Vatican and ‘def iant bishop’ f or ‘the Pope’sButler ’ – what a f uss the Vatican would now be making, about f reedom of  religion, f reedom f rom arbitrarydetention, liberty of  conscience, and so f orth? And as f or the ‘act of  love’ our hypothetical Bishop is nowsaid to be expressing towards the Communist Party – obviously unreliable, af ter two months in isolationin detention and with the f ear of  greater punishment to come? And it has to be said that even Chineselaws are easier to access than those of  the Vatican.The web site of  the Holy See takes you to a Vatican City State site, the section on the governance ofwhich begins with the simple statement that ‘The f orm of  government is that of  an absolute monarchy’[‘La f orma di governo è la monarchia assoluta’]. Short summaries of  the f urther disposit ion of  powerthen appear. The ‘Fundamental Law of  Vatican City State’ promulgated by John Paul II on 26 November2000 has more on the nature of  the Vatican f lag than on the rights of  anyone who might be af f ected bythe exercise of  executive power. Both the Holy See and the Vatican City State have signed up to variousinternational Conventions – but these have not included anything so specif ic as the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, with its prohibit ion on inhumane treatment, its demand f or f air trials andits requirement that detention be non-arbitrary.This insulation f rom European human rights norms doesn’t matter so long as they keep the butler holedup in the Vatican. But it could become important if  Gabriele ends up in an Italian prison. For Italy is boundby the Convention and – more to the point – an individual can take a case to the Strasbourg court if  heor she can show him or herself  to be a victim of  a violation. There was a case a f ew years ago in whichnullity proceedings in the Vatican which needed to be enf orced by Italy were f ound wanting in a caseagainst that country.If  Gabriele f ound himself  languishing in an Italian prison, at the very least there would be an arguablecase that the detention was unlawf ul, not least because the process that lead to his incarceration hadbeen f undamentally f lawed. It is impossible to tell how such a case would go – but clearly the hearingswould be very embarrassing to the Vatican and its absolute ruler. Does the Holy See want to have theVatican state’s procedures exposed to scrutiny by the very court that has been at the f oref ront ofestablishing a secular, multi-cultural identity f or Europe?Expect a retreat by the authorit ies, aided and abetted by f urther f ulsome apologies f rom the errantbutler. Rome can go back to holding f orth on the international stage saf e in the knowledge that it hasavoided scrutiny of  its own behaviour. But a nasty taste of  hypocrisy will remain hanging in the air.This art icle was f irst published on Conor Gearty’s own blog.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog,nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.About the authorConor Gearty moved to LSE in 2002, to a post in the law department but also to become the f irstRausing Director of  LSE’s new Centre f or the Study of  Human Rights. His academic research f ocusesprimarily on civil liberties, terrorism and human rights.You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. Replacing the Human Rights Act with a weaker Brit ish Bill of  Rights would send a sign to theinternational community that we are no longer serious about human rights. (45.2)2. The Conservatives cannot ‘wriggle’ their way out of  the European Convention on Human Rights,even by introducing a Brit ish Bill of  Rights. (36.5)3. Human rights issues are high on the policy agenda in the UK today and the public are keener thanever to discuss these. A recognition that this discussion is moving online and involves a wide rangeof  people is vital if  we are to successf ully thrash out the issues on rights. (33.8)4. Is the government serious about protecting human rights? (33.1)

Do as I say and not as I do: hypocrisy and human rights

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online