Dear All
Professor Alan Millar gives us his opinion on a question of human rights surrounding the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
I would therefore like to go through his thoughts recently articulated in the press.“Was it right for the justice secretary to give compassionate release to Megrahi?
Professor Millar gives his answer as yes, which I would agree with, more than just the compassionate argument there is also the question of the unfairness of the trial. This in my mind possibly added weight to the argument for release.
However he goes on further to ask other fundamental questions.
“Yes, he made the right call for the right reasons. But it should not have been in his gift to do so. Allowing a politician to be the final decision maker over the liberty or detention of any individual is a serious weakness in the system”.
Here I completely disagree with his assessment that the decision should be taken out of politicians hands. This is a safety valve in a democracy with politicians forced to be open and transparent and more importantly accountable.
The flaw in his argument of an independent and impartial tribunal or court is that Britain is a corrupt country.
This has been articulated with devastating effect by Iris Josiah in my article here.
As well as the case of Ms. Josiah; I have personal experience of corruption which I would say adds further weight to why politicians are better placed.
Sir Muir Russell has been appointed lay chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland which appoints judges.
Russell was involved in covering up bullying and criminal fraud at the University of Glasgow while Principal.
Would such a person be fit to decide on the release of prisoners?
A copy of a letter which he refused to act upon can be found here.
Miller then goes on to discuss "human rights" of various people.
“Have the human rights of the victims, their families and Megrahi been recognised and respected over the past two decades?”
“No”; he suggests.
Firstly, the dead don’t have human rights.
How do we know this?
The European Convention on Human Rights deals with human rights of the living.
Secondly he mentions the “human rights” of the victim’s families but again in the European Convention on Human Rights no such “rights” exists.
“The relatives of the 270 people who lost their lives are entitled to an independent and effective investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy”.
No; they are not, that is the province of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, again no such “right” exists that compels the Crown Office to act but it would be highly unlikely they wouldn’t, which is not the same thing.
He adds;
“the state has a duty to investigate the circumstances and prosecute alleged perpetrators”.
That is complete separate from the human rights issue.
People cannot force the state to act in any crime by invoking what he is claiming is a “right” in this situation.
“Here is where the unfulfilled rights of the families meet the unfilled rights of Megrahi”.
The victims of the Pam Am Flight 103 had human rights up till the time they were killed; then the state acted because a crime was committed.
“Compassionate release wasn't recognition of his (Megrahi) "human rights"; it was due process under Scottish law".
Although Megrahi went through a process established to deal with Compassionate release, it was the decision of the Scottish Justice Minister which in the end was the deciding factor.
Professor Millar’s final concerns relate to matters regarding an inquiry.
“The idea of an inquiry has been raised. An inquiry would only fulfil the rights of the families and Megrahi if it was independent and impartial from the UK government and had sufficient scope and powers”.
Given any inquiry will be into the criminal case then the remit for such an undertaking would be for the Scottish Government to action and not the UK Government.
Finally; Professor Alan Millar said;
“The key lesson is that the human rights of all parties need to be at the centre of the legal process and decision making if the public interest is to be served, and if justice is to be done and be seen to be done”.
As a general concept; I agree that all parties involved in a Court of Law should have the full protection of human rights.
I am slightly puzzled that Professor Alan Millar seems to think that those not directly involved in the legal process should have their “human rights” considered. Their “rights” do not exist in the eyes of the court; as it cannot consider other people’s rights unless they are involved in the process.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Professor Alan Millar gives us his opinion on a question of human rights surrounding the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
I would therefore like to go through his thoughts recently articulated in the press.“Was it right for the justice secretary to give compassionate release to Megrahi?
Professor Millar gives his answer as yes, which I would agree with, more than just the compassionate argument there is also the question of the unfairness of the trial. This in my mind possibly added weight to the argument for release.
However he goes on further to ask other fundamental questions.
“Yes, he made the right call for the right reasons. But it should not have been in his gift to do so. Allowing a politician to be the final decision maker over the liberty or detention of any individual is a serious weakness in the system”.
Here I completely disagree with his assessment that the decision should be taken out of politicians hands. This is a safety valve in a democracy with politicians forced to be open and transparent and more importantly accountable.
The flaw in his argument of an independent and impartial tribunal or court is that Britain is a corrupt country.
This has been articulated with devastating effect by Iris Josiah in my article here.
As well as the case of Ms. Josiah; I have personal experience of corruption which I would say adds further weight to why politicians are better placed.
Sir Muir Russell has been appointed lay chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland which appoints judges.
Russell was involved in covering up bullying and criminal fraud at the University of Glasgow while Principal.
Would such a person be fit to decide on the release of prisoners?
A copy of a letter which he refused to act upon can be found here.
Miller then goes on to discuss "human rights" of various people.
“Have the human rights of the victims, their families and Megrahi been recognised and respected over the past two decades?”
“No”; he suggests.
Firstly, the dead don’t have human rights.
How do we know this?
The European Convention on Human Rights deals with human rights of the living.
Secondly he mentions the “human rights” of the victim’s families but again in the European Convention on Human Rights no such “rights” exists.
“The relatives of the 270 people who lost their lives are entitled to an independent and effective investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy”.
No; they are not, that is the province of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, again no such “right” exists that compels the Crown Office to act but it would be highly unlikely they wouldn’t, which is not the same thing.
He adds;
“the state has a duty to investigate the circumstances and prosecute alleged perpetrators”.
That is complete separate from the human rights issue.
People cannot force the state to act in any crime by invoking what he is claiming is a “right” in this situation.
“Here is where the unfulfilled rights of the families meet the unfilled rights of Megrahi”.
The victims of the Pam Am Flight 103 had human rights up till the time they were killed; then the state acted because a crime was committed.
“Compassionate release wasn't recognition of his (Megrahi) "human rights"; it was due process under Scottish law".
Although Megrahi went through a process established to deal with Compassionate release, it was the decision of the Scottish Justice Minister which in the end was the deciding factor.
Professor Millar’s final concerns relate to matters regarding an inquiry.
“The idea of an inquiry has been raised. An inquiry would only fulfil the rights of the families and Megrahi if it was independent and impartial from the UK government and had sufficient scope and powers”.
Given any inquiry will be into the criminal case then the remit for such an undertaking would be for the Scottish Government to action and not the UK Government.
Finally; Professor Alan Millar said;
“The key lesson is that the human rights of all parties need to be at the centre of the legal process and decision making if the public interest is to be served, and if justice is to be done and be seen to be done”.
As a general concept; I agree that all parties involved in a Court of Law should have the full protection of human rights.
I am slightly puzzled that Professor Alan Millar seems to think that those not directly involved in the legal process should have their “human rights” considered. Their “rights” do not exist in the eyes of the court; as it cannot consider other people’s rights unless they are involved in the process.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
George /
ReplyDeleteThe head of the FBI is condeming the Scottish justice minister for allowing the release of Megrahi.
But supported the Bush/Blair war in Iraq founded on American lies.
What about the Human rights of the dead Iraqs and countless American and British solidiers that died or were injured. Totaly double standards.
Dear Anon
ReplyDeleteyou’re absolutely correct, total double standards on the part of the Americans.
Given the disquiet about how the trial was unfair, it appears that the Americans don't want an inquiry either.
Also the Americans are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed a country on a series of lies; they shouldn't cast up about elected officials in other countries exercising mercy.
None of the Bush senior personnel have ever been charged with authorising torture.
And these people talk about shame?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University