Towards a Human Rights Culture - Assignment Example

Towards a Human Rights Culture The success of human rights legislation in a country lies in the need for such an Act itself being reduced gradually to a minimum possible level. Of course when such legislation is made, it is expected that, hitherto unreported human rights violations would also come to the public eye, as a response to the new legislation. Hence, soon after the legislation is carried out, the number of human rights violations being reported may see a steep rise. But once this initial reaction settles down, the society has to show a slow and steady decrease in the graph of human rights violations, so as to prove that the legislation has been effective. It is only after witnessing such a process that “a culture of human rights” can be convincingly said to develop (Harvey, 2005; Skeet, 2006, pp.149). While looking into The Human Rights Act 1998 of UK, it is difficult to believe that such an ideal situation exists, whereby there is a forward progression in the human rights status of the society. Optimists had observed that “the new act is about a new citizenship for a new society and a new economy” (Scotland, 2001). Building that dream into reality, brick by brick, still remains a laborious process. European Convention on Human Rights was the bench mark up to which this UK legislation was expected to equal (Johnson, 2004, pp.113). That is why the section 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it mandatory for public authorities comply wholly with the Convention rights in every action (Johnson, 2004, pp.116). But the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report, admitting that the Act has not transformed the “rhetoric” being carried out on the subject “into reality” (2003). The finding of JCHR was further reconfirmed by the District Audit survey (District Audit, 2002). The survey had explored the compliance rates of local authorities and NHS Trusts and had found that “majority of local authorities and NHS Trusts had not reviewed their policies and procedures for compliance with the Human Rights Act and 42 percent of the Health Bodies have not even taken action to raise staff awareness” (Harvey, 2005, pp.35). All these revelations show that the British society has not yet assimilated a human rights culture, in real spirit and form. The culture of human rights is viewed as a coming together of three aspects of social life, namely: Culture of human rights could be characterised as having three components. First, a sense of entitlement. Citizens enjoy certain rights as an affirmation of their equal dignity and worth, and not as a contingent gift of the state. Second, a sense of personal responsibility. The rights of one person can easily impinge on the rights of another and each must therefore exercise his or her rights with care. Third, a sense of social obligation. The rights of one person can require positive obligations on the part of another and, in addition, a fair balance will frequently have to be struck between individual rights and the needs of a democratic society and the wider public interest. (JCHR, 2003). Butler (2005) has extensively covered the concept of building a human rights culture and argued that “human rights culture is not alien to our society” (pp.64). Donnelly (2003, pp.71-84) had revealed that “substantive similarities at the level of basic values” to the present notion of human rights had existed since the beginning of civilisation. Similarly, a UNESCO report which surveyed the concept of human rights in history had found that there were lots of similarities and parallels across cultures all over the globe, in this regard (Maritain, 1949). Glendon (2001, pp.76) also pointed to the fact that “the list of basic rights and values submitted (to UNESCO survey team) by their far-flung correspondents were broadly similar.” All these evidences show that any given human society had as its inherent quality, a concern for equality and a concern for the other, may be because humans cannot survive without forming groups, and living in groups. JCHR in its sixth report has explained what is meant by human rights culture in the following words: By a culture of human rights we mean …not one that is concerned with rights to neglect the duties and responsibilities but rather one that fosters basic respect for human rights and creates a climate in which such respect becomes an integral part of our way of life and a reference point for our dealings with public authorities and each other (cited by Butler, 2005, pp.63). This statement was made after seeing that the “economic, social and cultural rights” of the citizens had not yet been incorporated into the UK law (ECHR, 2003). Different human rights groups have been drawing attention to various aspects of this absence of human rights culture which gets manifest in specific social deprivations as described below: De facto discrimination, which continues to undermine the enjoyment of ESC rights by some ethnic/racial groups, women, people with disabilities and the elderly; and legal protection of “minority” rights which is patchy and inconsistent; UK legislation which often gives people a right of appeal to tribunals in the event of denial of social and economic entitlements, but to tribunals that are not always independent and have limited powers to provide redress. Inadequate provision of legal aid is an impediment in practice to redress…..Legislation which, while conferring economic and social provisions and entitlements, gives the relevant authorities a wide measure of discretion making it very difficult for people denied social and economic services or facilities to obtain redress from the courts that are anyway reluctant to intervene on what they perceive to be programmatic/political matters; Poverty and inequality, which runs deeper in the UK than in any comparable EU state. Public investment in economic and social well-being has lagged behind needs for several decades. (Democratic Audit, n.d.). Such vast consequences are not at all affordable for a society which calls itself modern. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its sixth report itself had delineated what it meant by a culture of human rights (2003). The report stated that the culture of human rights has two aspects, namely, “institutional and ethical” (JCHR, 2003). The institutional part is explained by the statement,: Human rights should shape the goals, structures, and practices of our public bodies. In their decision making and their service delivery, schools, hospitals, workplaces and other organs and agencies of the state should ensure full respect for the rights of those involved (JCHR, 2003). Particularly, Butler (2005, pp.64) has pointed out that “the legislature, the executive, judiciary” share equal responsibility in ensuring this institutional aspect of human rights culture. On the other side, the ethical aspect of human rights culture is more related to individuals rather than the institutions in a society. The ethical dimension is achieved by realising that: The Act is intended, over time, to help bring about the development of a culture of rights and responsibilities across the UK. This involves looking beyond questions of technical compliance. The Convention rights need to be seen as a set of broad, basic values which are accessible to and can be shared by all throughout the UK—and which are fully integrated into the democratic policy making process (JCHR, 2003). Butler (2005) has further delineated the expressions of human rights culture in public sector, private sector, and in the wider society (pp.64). He (Butler, 2005, pp.64) has said that in public sector, human rights culture “relates both to the modernisation and improvement of those services as well as to the public service ethos of those who are delivering them.” In the private sector, according to Butler (2005, pp.64), the human rights culture has to be reflected as “corporate social responsibility.” Thirdly, in the “wider society”, Butler (2005, pp.64) has remarked that “it encourages the ascendancy of benevolent attitudes towards others founded on moral principles.” But the introduction of Human Rights Act in UK had not realised the dream and instead legal departments started to conduct “risk analyses of possible legal challenges under the forthcoming legislation” (Butler, 2005, pp.66). As a result, even after 10 years of implementation of the Act, the vulnerable groups “remain open to abuses of their rights, despite the theoretical protection the Act affords” (Watson, 2002, pp.7). The conclusion made by many social scientists regarding the Human Rights Act has been that “many vulnerable people remain open to the abuses of their rights” (cited by Butler, 2005, pp.65). The mention of the word, ‘human rights culture’, first appeared in the social discourses in UK, when the Human Rights Bill was introduced in 1998 (Butler, 2005, pp.65). Through the last few decades, UK had witnessed “a gradual shift in establishment opinion from resistance or apathy towards any type of human rights legislation to a situation where a Human Rights Act has been enacted which . . . will incorporate the ECHR into domestic law’ (Wadham, 1999, p. 354). The vision of the bill was the emergence of a “culture of rights and responsibilities across the UK” (cited by Butler, 2005, pp.65). But the dilemma associated with the realization of this concept was that the Human Rights Act, “neither imposes legal requirements on citizens nor sets out a mechanism for renewing values” (Butler, 2005, pp.65). Butler has reminded that this was rather “an aspiration” from the side of the government regarding the direction in which the society has to grow rather than “any kind of practical guide to legislative effect” (Butler, 2005, pp.65). Such an aspiration might have been justified if the government had pursued that concept further in the future directions. But that was not happening. Government seemed to be satisfied with the situation that it had fulfilled its obligation to assimilate ECHR into the UK legislation. Thus technically, the government had been cleared of the embarrassing situation in which many times UK judiciary had been shown to be inefficient in dealing with human rights issues, before the JCHR. So far, the discussion on human rights culture, at the institutional level has frozen after reaching this juncture. UK has been the number one European country against which the most of human rights violation cases were registered under the European Convention on Human Rights, before the European Court of Human Rights (Farran, 1996). More than that, half of these allegations were proven to be true as well (Farran, 1996). Anyway, it was an advantage for the citizens of UK shared by citizens of other EU countries that, they had a forum to appeal before, outside their country, when the law of their nation failed to redress their human rights complaints. And this facility was utilised mainly by prison inmates, immigrants, children and mentally and physically disabled persons (Gearty, 1993). This was of course an embarrassing situation for UK government and by passing Human Rights Act, the responsibility and the burden of guilt was much lightened. Bureaucracy and institutional apathy slowly replaced that space. To include such deep-rooted and historical issues like poverty, minority rights, bureaucratic apathy, politics and ethics, which constitute the core of human rights culture, into the realm of human rights legislation is not an easy task. The Human Rights Act itself had invited criticism, from the very beginning, of being discriminatory in its approach towards certain categories of human rights. There has been evidence for first generation and second generation rights being tackled by the law in two different ways. The first generation rights refer to political and civil rights (Van Bueren, 2002, pp.464). Second generation rights include social, economic and cultural rights (Seneviratne, 1999, pp.267). The Human Rights Act was found by critics to be protecting first generation rights vehemently whereas it neglected the second generation rights ((Seneviratne, 1999, pp.268). The reason for this is mainly the financial burden that would have to be shouldered by the authorities so as to fulfil these second generation rights (Seneviratne, 1999, pp.268). Another criticism against the UK constitution after the implementation of Human Rights Act has been that the constitution had become more tilted on the side of liberty at the expense of equality (Ewing, 2001, pp.301). Individual liberty was given front seat and all the talk about equality dissolved into a political mirage. The Race Relations Act (1976) was already in existence in UK, before the HRA came into being and the Act had provisions to “a) eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups” (Cotter, pp.228). But one drawback of this law was that “the principles of nationality and /or citizenship and immigration law” had certain provisions which were opposed to the provisions of this law (MacEwan, 2002, pp.75). Such contradictory legal provisions had rendered the enforcement of this act less effective. The Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 and the amendments made to it in 2005 was another positive step towards incorporating human rights into the legal system even before HRA came into being (Birrell, 2009, pp.109). But the scattered nature of these laws and the inability to bring these issues under the umbrella of the common theme of human rights has been always a problem. Once HRA was there, all the human rights issues were supposed to have got a common reference point against which they could be examined and redressed. But this was not happening. The existing contradictions within the society were acting as an unbreakable barrier before the progress into a human rights culture. Poverty was one area in which the new Act was not applicable, though the right to live is logically one of the most important human rights. It has been detected that “rates of poverty among Black-African, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children are now more than double the rate among white children” (Harker and  Great Britain: Department for Work and Pensions, 2006, pp.28). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has set out “the fundamental human rights that, all children around the world, without discrimination are entitled to….a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development” (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Scottish Affairs Committee, 2007, pp.354). Also, “section 2 of the Human Rights Act obliges UK courts to take account of European jurisprudence in making their own decisions” (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Scottish Affairs Committee, 2007, pp.354). Even then, the issue of child poverty is not effectively dealt with in the provisions of the HRA. The problems of the disabled people had every justification to be included under the realm of human rights. But HRA was offering only limited rights to disabled persons through its provisions which ban discrimination of the disabled persons in employment, education and housing (House of Commons Join, 2009, pp.29). But it lacks the positive focus of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which stands for “positive promotion and fulfilment of all human rights, including socio-economic rights (House of Commons Join, 2009, pp.29). The rights of the elderly people were also not properly taken care of by the HRA (Bernan, pp.9). It has been pointed out that to the elderly people, “a concept like dignity is hugely important in terms of establishing that it is not just a question of not being discriminated against, but receiving treatment by public authorities that is respectful and reflects your worth as an individual” (Bernan, 2008, pp.9). But in the HRA, the word, ‘dignity’, which is right there in the UN human rights documents, is not seen any where (Bernan, 2008, pp.9). Women’s rights was also an equally important area where negative approaches in regarding them as human rights, existed. Feminists had discussed women’s rights as human rights starting from the historical fact that all laws were initially “designed to regulate the relations between men and the state” (James and Palmer, 2002, pp.93). Elman (1996, pp.67) has inferred that women in UK “are largely to be found in low-paid, low-status, sex-seggregated work, and increasingly in part-time work”. The Human Rights Act has been found to be not fulfilling the human rights aspirations of women by several women’s rights activists and groups (Waters, 2006, pp.152). It is argued that “prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 of the ECHR is not a free standing equality clause” (Waters, 2006, pp.152). Also, there has been strong complaint that in HRA, “in relation to the other ECHR rights, the jurisprudence is wilfully underdeveloped” (Waters, 2006, pp.152). It is only on the foundations of these kinds of socio-economic rights, that the human rights culture can be built. It has to be realised that countries like Finland, Norway and South Africa have incorporated the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights prepared by The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), into their domestic law more efficiently (Democratic Audit, n.d.). If such, less economically well-off countries than UK can make this initiative, UK also can necessarily do. Even the critics who have opposed putting such an enormous legally binding burden on the authorities as to provide social and economic rights to every citizen, have opined that “in wealthy societies,…people should not be left to starve on the streets” (Usher, 2008, pp.168). Citing Dworkin and Habermas, Schneider (2000, pp.119) has also argued for “equal (socio-economic and cultural) rights for all citizens,” by reminding that a modern society cannot feel itself just with nothing short of this promise being fulfilled. What the human rights groups have been demanding is not merely the incorporation of proper legal provisions into the law to ensure the socio-economic and cultural rights of the citizens. There has been an agreement among the rights activists that this kind of a complex social issue cannot be simply remedied through the courts alone. What desirable result that every one wants to see is the human rights culture being assimilated into the very social fabric via the judiciary, the Parliament, the media, and the public life (Democratic Audit, n.d.). The discourse on human rights culture has to begin in this context, on a broader scale. All the avenues of social life have to be touched upon by it and influenced by it. Only, then can the country and the society reduce its dependency on the judiciary alone in matters of human rights. One stark contradiction in UK society is that “too often human rights are looked upon as something from which the state needs to defend itself, rather than to promote as its core ethical values” (JCHR, 2003). The failure of HRA has been accounted by “the absence of any culture-building provisions on the face of the statute, such as a positive duty to promote compliance or the establishment of a commission” by many (Butler, 2005, pp.68). What is envisaged in a cultural change is the decrease in litigation and increasing compliance, which is totally a cultural change, based on moral and ethical values rather than coercion. But as of now, the authorities, the media and the individuals in society have to traverse a long path, before this is achieved. For example, the way in which mainstream media view the human rights issue in UK is reflected in the media reaction to the criticism raised by The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) towards the human rights situation in the educational sector in UK. Daily Telegraph had written an editorial saying that: What business is any of this of the UN? The organisation was founded in October 1945 with the principal aim of maintaining international peace and security. A subsidiary purpose was to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. But what its founders had in mind was discouraging governments from chopping their citizens’ limbs off or torturing them to death. It was no part of the plan that the UN should start poking its nose into the finer points of British education policy. (21 May 2002). The UN Committee demanded “higher minimum wages”, “noted with disappointment, the introduction of student loans and tution fees” and expressed disappointment about “poverty, especially among the elderly, the disabled and members of ethnic minorities” prevalent in UK (Daily Telegraph, 21 May 2002). This was what provoked an established media like Daily Telegraph. It has also been pointed out that “media references to the HRA concentrate on its assistance to criminals in avoiding justice, celebrities dodging the press and the promotion of a ‘compensation culture” (Butler, 2005, pp.67). In another instance, ‘Daily Mail’ mocked the concept of human rights culture by declaring that “we need a human rights culture like we need a hole in the head” (Philipps, 2003). The observations of UN Committee show the constant decline in the state of social well-being in the country. The meaning of democracy and equality is that every citizen in a nation which professes these values has enough to eat, and they have the opportunity to lead a decent and prosperous life. It is in this circumstance that the issue of human rights in UK has to be reconsidered and compliance re-established. One alarming situation faced by the citizens of UK is the increasing dependence of the local authorities on private sector to provide the public almost all the statutory services (Markus, 2003). The people had no platform to question the violation of their rights as part of this change, though many of those rights were already promised to them by the European Human Rights Convention rights (Markus, 2003). Many human rights litigants, who had failed to get a positive judgment on their European Human Rights Convention rights in the courts of UK, had gone to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (Starmer, 2003). The apathy of political parties towards developing a human rights culture has also been extensively discussed, in connection with human rights culture. The argument against the political authorities of UK has been that the “New Labour perceives post-war social democracy as being too eager to extend the scope of individual rights without any corresponding concern with the responsibilities attached to rights and the duties individuals owe as members of families and communities” (Driver and Martell, 1998, pp.130). Many sociologists also said that even the introduction of the HRA was linked directly to the agenda of New Labour to create a new citizenship by promoting individual liberty and individualism (Straw, 1999, Driver and Martell, 1998). With much fanfare, and with the declaration that they were “bringing rights home”, Labour had introduced the Human Rights Bill in the Parliament (Straw and Boateng, 1996). But the limitation of this Act was that it was rather too much focussed on the legalities and the concept of human rights culture was simply left to the rhetoric. Despite the road shows, help desks and departmental websites on human rights, the stagnant growth of human rights culture indicates that there are some serious pit falls in the basic approach itself. The failure of Human Rights Act was accounted for by the perceived absence of “an authoritative and independent body to drive it forward” (Grosz, 2002). This was the circumstance in which the formation of a Human Rights Commission was demanded. There have been apprehensions also raised about the relevance of such a Commission, initially. A big lobbying effort went on to downplay the need of a Human Rights Commission (Institute for Public Policy Research, 1996; Spencer, 1999). On the other hand, some criticised the government for fearing that the Commission, practically, would be a constant opponent of the government itself (Fenwick, 2000, pp.15). The Human Rights Commission was a long-proposed project by the British Institute of Human Rights though initially the government had not heeded to their advice (Klug, 2000). Anyway, The Equality and Human Rights Commission being established in 2007 has been a meaningful step to rectify this, as it had powers to make a sea change. For example, it was expected that issues like religious discrimination faced by a Muslim in a school or while fighting a case in the court, or facing an allegation before the police, might be justly handled by the legal powers of the new Commission (Fredman, 2002). The Commission was envisaged as a “statutory body set up to protect, enforce and promote equality across seven areas: age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment” (ECHR, October 2009, sec1:2). The Commission has powers to “conduct formal investigations, to take judicial reviews, and to assess how effectively public bodies are upholding the equality duties” (ECHR, October 2009, pp.Sec 1:3). The Commission also is entrusted with the task of “promoting and enforcing Human Rights Act” (ECHR, October 2009, pp.Sec 1:3). Again, when the Equality Act 2010 became institutionalised, the human rights regime in the country has been further strengthened. The new Act has a wide range of provisions to protect the equality rights of its citizens and inhabitants which include: The basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions; premises; work; education; associations, and transport; Changing the definition of gender reassignment, by removing the requirement for medical supervision; Levelling up protection for people discriminated against because they are perceived to have, or are associated with someone who has, a protected characteristic, so providing new protection for people like carers; Clearer protection for breastfeeding mothers; Applying the European definition of indirect discrimination to all protected characteristics; Extending protection from indirect discrimination to disability; Introducing a new concept of “discrimination arising from disability”, to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment; Applying the detriment model to victimisation protection (aligning with the approach in employment law); Harmonising the thresholds for the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people; Extending protection from 3rd party harassment to all protected characteristics; Making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out when applying for jobs, by restricting the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health; Allowing claims for direct gender pay discrimination where there is no actual comparator; Making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable; Extending protection in private clubs to sex, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment; Introducing new powers for employment tribunals to make recommendations which benefit the wider workforce,….(and)….Harmonising provisions allowing voluntary positive action. (Government Equalities Office, n.d.). Many of these provisions also come under the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Act and Human Rights Commission as well, thereby reinforcing the human rights culture in the country. Especially, in matters of gender discrimination, unequal treatment of disabled persons, and gender reassignment, the Equality Act will be powerful enough to support the human rights claims of the same nature, and to provide a sound legal basis for such claims. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its first two years had answered 50,563 phone calls through its helpline, and had distributed 10 million pounds to “285 different groups delivering frontline (human rights) services across the country”, as grant (ECHR, October 2009, Sec1:4). Also it had conducted youth programmes ensuring the participation of 2,000 young people and also given guidance on “managing equality obligations” to 136,000 small and medium enterprises (ECHR, October 2009, Sec1:4). The other highlights of the Commission’s activities included: Over 150,000 members of the British Armed Forces…protected by Human Rights Act while serving overseas,…. 3 inquiries undertaken, into race in the construction industry, the meat and poultry processing sector, and sex discrimination in the finance sector,…more than 80 discrimination cases provided with legal assistance… (and)…more than 70 research, policy and inquiry reports published (ECHR, October 2009, Sec1:4, Sec1:5). It has been argued by proponents of a human rights culture that: All rights are interdependent and indivisible, but that it is economic social and cultural rights that touch the vast majority of people’s lives, and therefore that, if taken fully on board in British political culture, the promotion of socio-economic rights could bring about a revolutionary attitude to human rights generally (Beirne, 2005, pp.44). But a major hurdle posed before the development of human rights culture in UK is that there has been a “significant shift in social and economic protection in the UK away from universalist(ic) public programmes towards individual, private and means-tested provisions, in particular in areas such as pensions and housing.” (Democratic Audit, n.d.). This has been part of a shift from a welfare state concept to a globalised economy. This has enhanced the insecurities of the citizens and also made the legality of their rights unclear. What an average human being has to cope with is “a highly marketized, non-sustainable, and grossly unequal set of relations among the peoples of the world with weak structures of legal authority and even weaker sentiments of human solidarity” (Falk, 2000, pp.34). The area of operation of “public authority” is getting shrunk day by day and with that accountability in the delivery of services has been diminishing (Butler, 2005, pp.72). Thus the fight to implement a strict human rights regime will turn into a fight for basic policy changes and the re-orientation of global politics as well. One aspect of the problem why the UK society, or any society in that matter, has not assimilated the human rights culture is because the historical understanding about human rights and its current range of meaning are based on two different paradigms. For example, historically speaking, human rights comprise of “guarantees of life, liberty, privacy, free speech and the right to protest and when threatened by excessive state action, …(the right to have) …the protection of the courts” (Butler, 2005, pp.67). But the concept of human rights has ever since evolved to include a wider range of rights and mandates. Contrary to popular belief, human rights comprise not only of extreme situations like protection form torture, but also are applicable to many comparatively smaller yet serious issues of inequality and discrimination. Thus human rights have to become part and parcel of the day to day lives of all the citizens. This is how it evolves into a culture. Another problem with the notion of human rights culture is that it is never quantifiable. But Butler (2005, pp.68) has warned us against viewing it as “vague do-goodery.” And it has been made clear that a human rights culture will not evolve on its own, but needs to be nourished and cherished (Butler, 2005, pp.68). The most important thing in this regard, is the role that the government has to play in this process. It has been observed that “public authorities have to institutionalise human rights thinking” and “vulnerable people and the organisations representing them need to be made aware of the relevance of human rights and how to access them effectively” (Butler, 2005, pp.70). The British Institute of Human Rights had started a human rights “three year outreach project” in London to take the human rights principles to “voluntary sector” and “community group” within which four core issues-“refugees, mental health, disability and the elderly”- had to be dealt with (Butler, 2005, pp.74). This can be considered as a model initiative from within the society and can be deeply introspected in terms of possible replications. The human rights aspects of the mentally ill, disabled and elderly groups have been the most neglected of the key areas and it is the interventions in these areas which have the maximum potential to lead the society towards a human rights culture. In a recent development, a leading human rights organisation in UK, ‘Liberty’, had won a case in the court against “the use of powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000” (Liberty, 21 January 2010). The European Court of Human Rights has judged that “the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search... are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. ….They are not therefore in accordance with the law”. (cited by Liberty, 21 January 2010). This has been an instance, which shows that human rights violations still happen in the UK Another aspect of human rights issue in UK has been that as the public scrutiny in this regard is focussed on “courts, police and prison service”, the violations by other departments of the government are going unnoticed. For example, the planning authorities have recently been accused of violating the rights of the residents of a locality through creating intolerable noise and pollution by way of a road construction in the locality (Liberty, 21 January 2010). It is in this kind of cases that even the courts fail to understand the human rights dimension involved. After being pressurised by the human rights campaigners, the planning department had decided to choose a less inhabited alternate route for the road construction and had also decided to give its “planning officers”, proper training in human rights law (Liberty, 21 January 2010). Similar reorientation is long due in all other departments as well. In another drastic incident, a transgender human rights lawyer was killed when she was pushed under tube train by another woman allegedly for being cross-dressed (MailOnline, 29 October 2010). This is a shocking revelation about the prevalent lack of awareness about human rights in the society, which creates such intolerance to difference. It is in view of these loop holes and lapses that a culture of human rights needs to be promoted in UK. The citizens have to be taught to absorb human rights principles as moral and ethical values rather than mere legal obligations. The human rights theories have a history ranging between philosophical optimism and political pessimism (Beetham, 1995, pp.23). As Falk (2000, pp.56) has suggested, “the achievements in human rights over the course of the last fifty years are extraordinary, but the obstacles to full realization seem as insurmountable as ever.” As Butler (2005, pp.72) has suggested, the public authorities should stop viewing human rights from a defensive stand point. Instead, the principles of human rights have to be applied in all areas of decision making and they should be the yardstick to assess the quality of services delivered by the authorities (Butler, 2005, pp.72). This is what is meant by “institutionalizing human rights” (Butler, 2005, pp.72). From children to the elderly, the awareness about their and others’ human rights have to be propogated (Butler, 2005, pp.75). Human rights culture is some thing more than blindly following the statutes. It is a value addition of humanitarian concern on every action of the authorities and the society. It has to be always kept in mind by both human rights proponents that “legal rights need not be rights that are morally justifiable” in a given culture and a given intellectual argument (Orend, 2002, pp.26). But the dream of every humanist is a future in which all moral rights are incorporated into the legal rights regime. Human rights culture is the most critical human rights issue of the present world, in the wake of ongoing Muslim persecution in the name of “war against terrorism” (Pollis and Schawb, 2000, pp.171). There is a conscious attempt form the super powers of the world to put human rights on backburner and refill that empty space with fear and paranoia about terrorism (Gereau, 2004, pp.226). The beauty of the discussions going on in UK regarding human rights culture is that it gives the nation, with its rich tradition of democracy and social principles, an opportunity to provide the world, an alternate outlook and a model of human rights culture. The nation should make use of that opportunity. References Beetham, D. 1995, ‘Politics and human rights’, London: Wiley-Blackwell. Beirne, M. (2005) ‘Social and economic rights as agents for change’, in C.J. Harvey (ed.), Human Rights in the Community: Rights as Agents for Change, Oxford: Hart Publishing.  Bernan, 2008, ‘Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-Ninth Report of Session 2007-08: Vol. 2 Oral and Written Evidence: House of Lords Paper 165-II Session 2007-08’, London: The Stationery Office. Birrell, D. 2009, ‘The impact of devolution on social policy’, Bristol: The Policy Press. Butler, F., 2005, ‘Building a human rights culture’, in C.J. Harvey (ed.), Human Rights in the Community: Rights as Agents for Change, Oxford: Hart Publishing. Cotter, A.M. 2006, ‘Race matters: an international legal analysis of race discrimination’, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Daily Telegraph, 21 May 2002, ‘Un-conscionable’, viewed 28 October 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3576888/Un-conscionable.html Democratic Audit, n.d., ‘Democratic audit: Economic and social rights for the UK, based on Audit Evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, www.democraticaudit.com, viewed 27 October 2010, www.democraticaudit.com/download/JCHR-FinalDraft.doc District Audit 2002, “The Human Rights Act: A Bulletin for Public Bodies”, .  Donnelly, J. 2003, ‘Universal human rights in theory and practice’, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Driver, S. and Martell, L. 1998, ‘New Labour: Politics after Thatcherism’, Cambridge: Polity Press.  ECHR, October 2009, ‘Two years making changes’, Equality and Human Rights Commission, viewed 26 October 2010, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/OurJob/two_years_making_changes.pdf Elman, R.A. 1996, ‘Sexual politics and the European Union: the new feminist challenge’, Oxford: Berghahn Books.  Ewing, K. 1990, ‘A Bill of Rights for Britain?’, London: The Institute of Employment Rights.  Falk, R.A., 2000, ‘Human rights horizons: The pursuit of justice in a globalizing world’, London: Routledge . Farran, S. 1996, The UK before the European Court of Human Rights, London: Blackstone Press.  Fenwick, H. 2000, ‘Civil Rights: New Labour, Freedom and the Human Rights Act’, Harlow: Longman.  Fredman, S., 2002, ‘The future of equality in Britain’, Working Paper Series 5, Equal Opportunities Commission. Garaeu, F.H. 2004, ‘State terrorism and the United States: from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism’, London: Zed Books. Gearty, C. 1993, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Protection of Civil Liberties: an overview’, Cambridge Law Journal, 52, 1, pp.89–127. Glendon, M.A. 2001, ‘Rights talk: the impoverishment of political discourse’, New York: Free Press. Government Equalities Office, n.d., ‘Equality Act 2010’, viewed 28 October 2010, http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Scottish Affairs Committee, 2007, ‘Poverty in Scotland: second report of session 2007-08, Vol. 2: Oral and written evidence’, London: The Stationery Office Grosz, S. 2002, ‘The case for a Human Rights Commission’, paper delivered to Judicial Review, 14th Annual Conference, London. Harker, L. and  Great Britain: Department for Work and Pensions, 2006, ‘Delivering on Child Poverty: What Would It Take? a Report for the Department for Work and Pensions’, London: The Stationary Office. Harvey, C.J., 2005, ‘Human rights in the community: rights as agents for change’, Oxford: Hart Publishing.  House of Commons Join, 2009, ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: First Report of Session 2008-09; Report, Together with Formal Minutes and Oral and Written Evidence’, London: The Stationery Office. Institute for Public Policy Research, 1996, ‘A British Bill of Rights’, 2nd edition, London: IPPR.  James, S. and Palmer, S. 2002, ‘Visible women: essays on feminist legal theory and political philosophy’, Oxford: Hart Publishing. Johnson, N. 2004, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998: A bridge between citizenship  and justice?’, Social Policy & Society 3:2, pp.113–121, DOI:10.1017/S147474640300157X  Joint Committee on Human Rights 2001, ‘Making of remedial orders’, London: The Stationery Office.  Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2003, ‘The case for a human right commission’, Sixth Report, www.parliament.uk, viewed 26 October 2010,   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/67/6704.htm#a3  Klug, F. 2003, ‘Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act’, European Human Rights Law Review, 2, 125–133.  MacIwan, M, 2002, ‘Housing, race and law: The British experience’, London: Routledge. MailOnline, 29 October 2010, ‘First pictures of transgender human rights lawyer called Sonia who died after being 'pushed' under Tube train’, www.dailymail.co.uk, viewed 28 October 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324425/Transgender-human-rights-lawyer-Sonia-died-Kings-Cross-Tube-train.html Maritain, J. 1949, ‘Human rights: comments and interpretations’, London: Wingate. Markus, K. 2003, ‘Leonard Cheshire Foundation: what is a public function?’, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol.1, 92–100. Orend, B. 2002, ‘Human rights: concept and context’, Canada: Broadview Press.   Philips, Melanie, 2003, The Daily Mail. Pollis, A. and Schawb, P. 2000, Human rights: new perspectives, new realities, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers. Sachs, A., 2003 ‘The judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights: The Grootboom case’, Current Legal Problems, Vol.56, pp.579. Schneider, C., 2000 ‘The constitutional protection of rights in Dworkin’s and Habermas’ theory of democracy’, UCL Jurisprudence Review, pp.101. Scotland (2001), ‘Citizenship and justice’, The Roscoe Lecture, viewed 27 October 2010, www.lcd.gov.uk/speeches/  Seneviratne, M. 1999, ‘The case for social and economic rights’, in D. Campbell and D. Lewis (eds), Promoting Participation: Law or Politics? London: Cavendish. Skeet, C. 2006, ‘Strengthening women’s international human rights norms in the UK after the Human Rights Act 1998: Lessons from Canada’, in Christopher Peter Michael Waters (ed.) British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Spencer, S. 1999, ‘A Human Rights Commission’, in R. Blackburn and R. Plant (eds), Constitutional Reform: The Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform Agenda, London: Longman.  Starmer, K. 2003, ‘Two years of the Human Rights Act’, European Human Rights Law Review, 1, 14–23.  Straw, J. 1999, ‘Building on a human rights culture’, Address to the Civil Service College, viewed 30 October 2010, www.lcd.gov.uk/hract/cscspe.  Straw, J. and Boateng, P. 1996, ‘Bringing Rights Home’, London: Labour Party.    Usher, T. (2008) ‘Adjudication of socio-economic rights: One size does not fit all’, UCL Human Rights Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp.154-171. Van Bueren, G. (2002), ‘Including the excluded: the case for an economic, social and cultural human rights act’, Public Law, pp.456–472.  Wadham, J. (1999), ‘A British Bill of Rights’, in R. Blackburn and R. Plant (eds), Constitutional Reform: The Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform Agenda, London: Longman.  Waters, C.P.M., (2006) ‘British and Canadian perspectives on international law’, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Watson, J. 2002, Something for everyone: the impact of the Human Rights Act and the need for a Human Rights Commission, London: British Institute of Human Rights. Read More