Human rights are local: AIDS victim must die

Human rights beyond our borders

Lawyers call it extra-territoriality, and the question goes like this: does our commitment to human rights only mean that we must protect the human rights of people within our territory, or must we also protect them from violations of their rights that they would experience upon being removed to another territory?

For many reasons, that question is highly politically charged. In the first instance, if we could not remove anyone to any other country that did not have our human rights standards, there would be billions of people who, on arriving here could not be removed. Then there is the question of whether all human rights are equally important. Finally, there is the fact that the government of Uganda is not exactly willing AIDS upon its people, it is in fact actively involved in programmes to alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS. N's inevitable earlier death is the consequence of a human tragedy not a human rights violation by the Ugandan government.

Our courts have responded by saying that people cannot be removed to torture and death, nor to flagrant or fundamental breaches of other rights, but otherwise they can be removed despite the fact that they will experience breaches of human rights upon their return. In short, some human rights do matter more than others.

Opening the floodgates

The instant case, however, does raise the risk of death. In a divided judgement, the majority held that the circumstances weren't sufficiently overwhelming for her return to breach her rights; the minority held that the particular right engaged was an absolute right which shouldn't be decided on principles of proportionality.

They were a courageous three judges who explicitly rejected the "floodgates" argument, against what must have been huge political pressure. But what actually happens if you open floodgates anyway? Water doesn't rush through the floodgates, leaving desert on the other side. It rushes through at first because of the huge pressure, then finds its natural level (causing great inconvenience to those who were protected by the barrier), then gradually subsides.

Isn't that a picture of an outcome that we could tolerate, even advocate, as we strive for a better world in which human rights are truly universal, not local?

 
Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.