[Constitutional Convention][10][22 Feb 2014] AOA 2 - Economic/Social/Cultural Rights

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate.

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on 22nd and 23rd of February 2014 to discuss the second of two Any other Amendments. Through the process of private vote we have decided to discuss ...

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Let's do this differently and not discuss what's currently in the Constitution. However, if you would like to see it for reference, it can be obtained here [PDF].

Let's try think outside the box on this one. What are your thoughts around this subject?

This will be the final plenary meeting of the current Constitutional Convention.

I welcome your comments. Discuss.

RangeR

Well this is embarrassing. Attachments below, email in.

Apologies – I meant to get this to you last night but a saga involving Valentine’s Day, Scallops and a 5-year-old meant that my night wasn’t really my own......

For our last meeting, I’m now attaching:
- The latest version of the running order – it requires just one more little tweak but it’s very close to the final version;

- The briefing papers from our 2 experts (an introduction to ESC Rights and a comparison with other countries);

- A letter from Mary Lou with recommendations for any future Convention (for discussion);

RangeR

Yeah, I was going to just let this thread whither and die but...

Our country is going through one of it's worst economic and social disasters in my memory, maybe longer. Our country has been repeatedly raped by the financial institutions with, one could argue, a lending hand from the old Financial regulator. We owe tens of billions to which generations will be paying back.


And there is not one post here. For shame.


Some snips from the docs for the lazy. The attached zip above was only downloaded twice.

Economic rights]are those rights that relate to labour and property rights. These rights include: the right to work and to fair conditions of work, including the right to engage in self-employment. The right to join and participate in trade unions and the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. There is also a human right to peaceful enjoyment of private property.

Social Rights include: the right to social security; the right to social assistance; the right to an adequate standard of living and rights to adequate food, water, clothing and shelter. The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the right to education and the right to adequate social protection of the family are protected.

Cultural Rights include the right to participate in the culture of one’s communities and to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological endeavour. Ethnic, religious and/or linguistic minorities have the right to practice their own culture, faith and language.

Respect
The State must respect the ability of individuals to provide for themselves. States must refrain from engaging in acts or omission that violate ESC rights, such as placing unreasonable limitations on the ability of individuals to take up employment or arbitrary eviction of families from their homes.

Protect
States have obligations to protect individual’s ESC rights, by adopting positive measures that protect right-holders from interference by both state and non-state parties. The obligation to protect includes passing laws that, for example, protect people from exploitative employment practices or tenancy agreements, and enabling individuals to gain redress where such a violation of ESC rights occur.

Fulfil
The final duty on the State is the obligation to fulfil. This includes an obligation to promote ESC rights, so States put in place comprehensive legislative and policy reviews so in ensuring individuals are aware of, have access to and can rely upon their ESC rights. An obligation to facilitate ESC rights, such as the State adopting legal, economic and/or social policies to strengthen ESC rights. This includes putting in place systems to adjudicate on ESC entitlements. The final duty on States is provision of certain ESC rights i.e. food, shelter, clothing, health care etc.

RangeR

The following was sent to me via PM with permission given to post here.

If you want the ultimate 'right' for workers, that would be the right to guaranteed jobs, with government as 'employer of last resort' as part of a Job Guarantee.

"Why does the Job Guarantee advance human rights?"
http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/jo...?question_id=7

It may not be possible to bring this up as part of the constitutional convention though, because although it is economically possible, the political situation in Europe at the moment makes it almost impossible to implement - and it is both politically/economically controversial in general.

If you did want to bring it up, I'd almost certainly try to get good grounding on the topic from an economist that supports it first, otherwise what you put forward will probably be panned.

Cookie_Monster

Economic rights]are those rights that relate to labour and property rights. These rights include: the right to work and to fair conditions of work, including the right to engage in self-employment. The right to join and participate in trade unions and the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. There is also a human right to peaceful enjoyment of private property.

Social Rights include: the right to social security; the right to social assistance; the right to an adequate standard of living and rights to adequate food, water, clothing and shelter. The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the right to education and the right to adequate social protection of the family are protected.

Cultural Rights include the right to participate in the culture of one’s communities and to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological endeavour. Ethnic, religious and/or linguistic minorities have the right to practice their own culture, faith and language.

Are all of those not already covered by a myriad of laws currently in place? why is there a need to add them to the constitution specifically?

RangeR

They are just talking points. We are to decide what or even if to enshrine.

spank_inferno

Will there be a charter of citizen responsibilities to accompany this vast press for more & more rights?

RangeR

spank_inferno wrote: »

Will there be a charter of citizen responsibilities to accompany this vast press for more & more rights?

I don't know what you mean? Obviously you are being sarcastic but can you spell it out for me.

Cookie_Monster

spank_inferno wrote: »

Will there be a charter of citizen responsibilities to accompany this vast press for more & more rights?

now that would be an interesting concept and debate to add in.

RangeR wrote: »

I don't know what you mean? Obviously you are being sarcastic but can you spell it out for me.

what the state can expect of it citizens* as well as what the citizens can expect from their state.

*jury duty, to follow laws, to pay taxes, you could add conscription / community service requirements at the more extreme end

Wildlife Actor

Recipe for disaster.

The meaning and limits of these rights are ungovernable in a document like the constitution. It comes down to subjective views of judges and it takes decades of judicial examination to carve them into something that means something. Slogans are great but when you think about the reality that every right conferred is a right of someone else eroded, the dangers of this sort of thing become easier to appreciate.

At a practical level, things like a right to a job or social welfare sets up all manner of tension between the courts and the other organs of government. Budget balancing should be for he government.

Lots of other reasons but I could be here all night...

Annasopra

Explain that more on a right conferred is a right eroded?

Wildlife Actor

mango salsa wrote: »

Explain that more on a right conferred is a right eroded?

Just on the erosion point. Four examples.

Existing rights:

- I have a right to join a union, you, employer, cannot reserve the right to prevent me doing so by contract (your freedom to contract is eroded)

- I have a right to free speech, you cannot prevent me saying something about you that is true (you right to privacy is eroded)

Possible rights under discussion:

- I have a right to a job. You, taxpayer, must pay for it (your property rights are eroded)

- I have a right to profess my religion with angelus bells or the call to prayer. You must listen to it (your right to bodily integrity or the inviolability of your dwelling are eroded).

The erosion can be ever so slight. But it can apply unequally. The person whose house is next door to the minaret will suffer significant erosion. The person 10 miles away will suffer none. The person who's on the top rate of tax will pay more for having to pay more for the person with a right to a job (and before anyone says they deserve to, fat cats blah blah, consider - where does it stop? When does the higher earner gain any right to own what they have earned? (hence my point about the limitations of such "rights")).

The difficulties arising in the economic rights sector are slightly different to those in the personal rights sector of discussion.

Money-related "rights" are - of course - channelled through the government, so it's not a direct erosion. But it still erodes. Separately (not an erosion argument) the books are to be balanced by the oireachtas, not by judges who don't have the information to do so. So economics should be left to the government of the day (who are, like democracy, the worst solution except for all the others).

On the personal rights side, the erosion point is more direct. It's the rights of one against the other.

Hope that makes sense.

RangeR

eMail in. Draft Report.

‘morning all,

As promised, please find attached a draft report of our final meeting where we looked at Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.......thoughts, suggestions, corrections etc. by next Monday please – as you know, we’re working to a tight deadline because the final curtain comes down on 31st March........

I’m writing our final report at the moment (Conclusions and Final Recommendations) – if you have yet to send me your recommendations for issues which you feel deserve further consideration, please feel free to do so.......

Kindest regards,

Wildlife Actor

I can't begin to go through all the reasons why this is a bad decision.

It's utter infantilism: an assumption that the state is our daddy, with a big dose of cash under the mattress. It proposes an abdication of personal and political responsibility for the state's limited resources, requiring an unelected and ill-equipped sector of the state, the judiciary (who have neither the power nor the responsibility to balance the books) to make decisions that are properly left as a matter of policy.

The bit about "subject to maximum available resources" is meaningless for at least 3 reasons. Firstly, the courts don't know what maximum available resources are. Secondly, nor does anyone else (the govt haven't maxed out on linguistic (god help us) rights for as long as it's got money to spend on, say, international athletics, which is not a 'constutionally mandated' spend. Thirdly, how are the courts to dictate whether, within the maximum resources, more money should go to resources for people in wheelchairs or people with a Down Syndrome? It's all about the balance.

Anyway, nothing will stop the march to universal victimhood and entitlement....