A Discussion Site for Good Governance and Corruption in Public Life Issues in the British Overseas Territory of Anguilla in the West Indies, moderated by Don Mitchell CBE QC, of PO Box 83, Anguilla, British West Indies. Email me with your comments and contributions at: idmitch@anguillanet.com.
Restrictions on the right to freedom of movement: We are looking at our constitutionally protected right to freedom of movement throughout and into and out of Anguilla. Of course, as you will imagine, there are several exceptions.
Section 5(2) provides one. It says that if we have been arrested and charged with an offence, the Magistrate in granting bail may lawfully restrict our freedom of movement. She may even make it a condition of our bail that we surrender our passport.
Such a restriction on our freedom of movement when we are out on bail is permitted by the Constitution.
The Constitution permits a law to be made in a whole raft of additional instances where it would be lawful for the government to restrict our movement.
The first instance is when, in time of war, restrictions may be necessary in the interests of defence. So, in England, under the Defence of the Realm Act, people were restricted from travel during the Second World War. West Indians, as part of the British Colonies of the time, also had restrictions on travel. Our parents and grandparents had to get special visas to travel in and out of the islands.
Another example of government being permitted to restrict our travel occurs in time of a declaration of a state of emergency, for example, due to a hurricane or earthquake, or volcanic eruption. Once a state of emergency is declared it will be lawful, if it is authorised by the relevant Act, for travel to be restricted. This usually comes under the heading of restricting travel in the interests of public safety. Those of us who have travelled to our sister island of Montserrat know that was done there. The Montserratian government passed a law which permitted them to declare an exclusion zone over approximately half of the island. Anyone going into the exclusion zone without permission is in breach of the law, and can be convicted and punished for doing so. If the state of emergency is due to political or economic disturbances, it may again be necessary in the interests of public order to restrict travel. The Constitution permits this to be done.
The third exception to the right to freedom of movement applies to people who are not belongers of Anguilla. Non-belongers have no right to expect freedom to move into our out of Anguilla as they wish. The Constitution permits the Anguilla House of Assembly to make laws that place restrictions on the movement or residence in Anguilla of persons who do not belong to Anguilla, or even of excluding them from Anguilla. It is this constitutional exception that permits the government to enforce laws such as the Immigration Act, with work permit regulations and residence regulations. These do not apply to Anguillians, but only to non-belongers.
Protection of freedom of movement: The fourth of our fundamental rights enshrined in the 1982 Anguilla Constitution is protection of freedom of movement. It is found at section 5(1) of the Constitution, which reads:
No person shall be deprived of his freedom of movement, and, for the purposes of this section the said freedom means the right to move freely throughout Anguilla, the right to reside in any part of Anguilla, the right to enter Anguilla, the right to leave Anguilla, and immunity from expulsion from Anguilla.
This right is quite a complicated one. To explain, the section says, first, that this freedom means the right to move freely throughout Anguilla. This seems obvious to us now. But, there was a time when labourers in England and slaves in Anguilla were obliged to reside on the farm or estate they were connected to. It was a criminal offence, punishable with the most severe penalties, for us to be found outside of the farm or estate we were tied to. Those days are long past, but this expression of this fundamental right serves to remind us of the long way we have come in recognition of human rights in the intervening centuries.
The section goes on to say that the right means the right to reside in any part of Anguilla. This, again, seems obvious to us. Who can stop me if I want to move from IslandHarbour to live in West End? But, it has not always been so. In other countries, there are laws that prohibit certain types of people from living in certain places. We find this type of provision in countries that have a poor record on recognising human rights. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea, Israel, China and Burma, spring to mind.
The explanatory words in the section remind us that this fundamental right extends to the right to enter Anguilla. No law can be passed, say, by a West End government of Anguilla restricting the right of people from East End to enter Anguilla, if we could imagine such a thing being done. Similarly, if a law were to be passed stating that any Anguillian travelling outside of Anguilla must pay a $100.00 tax to re-enter Anguilla, that law might very well be unconstitutional as hindering our right to re-enter Anguilla.
This constitutional freedom extends to our right freely to leave Anguilla. Government cannot put any hindrances in our way to travel freely into and out of Anguilla. It is that right that has forced governments to invent all kinds of travel documents to supplement the passport. We have a right to a passport, once we qualify as a citizen, if it is necessary for us to travel. If we cannot get a passport, then government must devise some other type of travel document. If government tries to put too many barriers in our way of getting a passport, we may even be able to bring a constitutional action to oblige the Passport Office to issue a passport that they may be holding up.
I would like to draw your attention to the Challenge Fund that exists under the project to build human rights capacity in the British Overseas Territories.
This Fund is designed to give civil society organisations the opportunity to undertake activities that will help to increase respect for human rights, including in Anguilla. The kinds of actions that can be supported are very broad, as you can see from the attached Guidelines. We have tried to keep formalities limited to the necessary basics.
The next deadline for receipt of applications is Wednesday 30 June. The decision process is swift (within four weeks), which means that successful applicants can usually start their activities within two or three months of the deadline.
If you have any questions abut the Fund or the application process, please feel free to get in touch with me.
It would be very helpful if you will also inform other civil society organisations in Anguilla about the availability of the Challenge Fund.
With best wishes,
Peter Ashman
Peter Ashman
Consultant (Human Rights Capacity Building BOT Project)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUIDELINES FOR THE CHALLENGE FUND FOR BUILDING HUMAN RIGHTS CAPACITY IN THE BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
2010-2011
Overview
The Project “Building Human Rights Capacity in the British Overseas Territories”, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), is being carried out by the Commonwealth Foundation and its project partners, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
This document sets out what activities can and cannot be supported, what the current priorities of the project are, and how to apply for an award.
The Fund will be open to all civil society organisations, as well as National Human Rights Institutions. It will work flexibly and responsively to support initiatives throughout the Overseas Territories rather than allocate funds per Territory.
The deadlines for receiving grant applications during the period covered by these guidelines are 31 March 2010 and 30 June 2010, 30 September 2010 and 31 December 2010
The Challenge Fund aims to encourage civil society organisations to engage with human rights issues by building the capacity of their members and the population at large on key issues, particularly in regard to the human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
About the Project Partners
The Commonwealth Foundation is an inter-governmental organisation resourced by and reporting to Commonwealth governments that exists to promote and strengthen civil society's role in sustainable development, democracy and intercultural learning in the Commonwealth. Its mission is to strengthen civil society organisations across the Commonwealth as they promote democracy, advance sustainable development and foster inter-cultural understanding. It seeks a Commonwealth where civil society organisations realise their full potential, engaging with their governments and the private sector in the shared enterprise of transformational nation-building and international cooperation.
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) is an independent, non-partisan, international non-governmental organisation that promotes human rights through education and advocacy. Its headquarters are in New Delhi (India) and it has offices in London (UK) and Accra (Ghana). CHRI’s mandate is to promote awareness of and adherence to the Commonwealth Harare Principles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally recognised human rights instruments and declarations made by the Commonwealth Heads of Governments as well as domestic instruments supporting human rights in the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) fosters and promotes high standards of legal education in the Commonwealth. Founded in 1971, it is a Commonwealth-wide body with regional Chapters in South Asia, Southern Africa, West Africa, the Caribbean, and Europe and numerous country committees. Its work is overseen by an Executive Committee whose members represent: Australasia, Europe, The Caribbean, East Africa, West Africa, North America, Southern Africa, South Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), South Asia (India), and South East Asia.
How much is available
The Fund has a total of £100,000 to disburse. The maximum award available to any one project is £5,000. Applicants are required to provide evidence of available matching funds in cash or in kind (i.e. voluntary facilities or labour that will be used in the project and that would otherwise have to be paid for to undertake the project activities). These matching funds or in-kind contributions must be approximately 20% of the project costs.
What we can support
Challenge Fund grants may be used towards the costs of the project activity, including supporting participants or resource people, campaigns, publications, awareness-raising, meetings and workshops, study visits, subsistence and travel, and new initiatives (“seed grants”), as well as towards monitoring and evaluation and reporting of an activity. Preference will be given to national activities.
What we cannot support
projects lasting longer than one year;
training courses taking place in a university in a developed country;
academic study or research;
presentation of papers at academic conferences;
the publication of books and films, unless these are learning tools developed as a result of an activity supported by the project;
core funding (such as salaries of permanent staff, office rental and general running costs).
Who can benefit
The Challenge Fund gives priority to activities where the direct beneficiaries are individuals or groups who:
are working in civil society organisations directly engaged in promoting human rights;
are employed in work which has direct relevance to the subject of the activity;
are in a position to transfer their learning to others.
Where funding is to support the participation of individuals in an event, the organisers should try to ensure that women and men participate in equal numbers.
The Challenge Fund does not give grants to support:
individual students;
government employees;
private businesses;
political parties.
Equality
All applicants will be expected to demonstrate how the activity and the organisation include gender and youth in their approach to the human rights issue. This should include:
equitable participation by women and men in the activity for which funding is being sought;
activities addressing a gender or youth issue, or which include a component which addresses a gender or youth issue;
participation in the governance of the organisation of both women and men.
Who can apply
Civil Society Organisations, National Human Rights Institutions and national capacity building committees or a group of people that have been established as part of the project can apply.But one individual, association or organisation must be able to sign the contract and be financially responsible for the use of the funds.
“Civil Society Organisations” broadly include non-governmental organisations, citizens’ organisations, people’s organisations, clubs and societies, faith-based groups, labour unions, professional associations, media organisations and ‘partnership’ organisations (i.e. a hybrid in various blends of public, private, voluntary and community organisations working together towards a common public good).
The Challenge Fund cannot consider applications from individuals.
In assessing applications, the Challenge Fund will give priority to applications from applicants who have not previously received funding from the Fund. An organisation cannot make more than one application per round.
Eligible countries
The Challenge Fund grants programme is intended to assist civil society organisations from, and citizens of, eligible countries listed in Annex 1.
Application process
There are four grant application rounds. The deadlines for the rounds are 24.00 GMT on 31 March 2010, 30 June 2010, 30 September 2010 and 31 December 2010.
There is no formal application form but all applicants must apply providing the information requested in annex 2 to these guidelines.
Applicants must send their applications by e-mail in a document containing the information required in annex 2, and any supplementary information, to geninfo@commonwealth.int. Please insert in the e-mail subject “Challenge Fund Application”.
Supplementary information can be sent by post to:
BOT Human Rights Challenge Fund
Commonwealth Foundation
Marlborough House, Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HY
United Kingdom
If applications do not contain all the necessary information, we will not be able to consider your application during the current round.
Applicants should expect to hear from the Commonwealth Foundation four weeks after the deadline and should not apply to fund activities taking place before then. We cannot award grants for activities that have already taken place.
The decision making process
All potentially eligible grant applications made in the current round are assessed in the light of the Challenge Fund’s grants budget, and the grants which are considered to most closely fit the priorities and areas of interest will be taken forward.
If your application is successful, an email will be sent to you to discuss the details of the grant. Once the details have been agreed by email, a formal letter will be sent setting out the terms and conditions of the grant, along with the reporting templates, requirements and a deadline. Any variation from the grant as approved must first be cleared with the Foundation.
If your application is not successful, you will receive an email informing you of the outcome of your application.
A list of grants approved will be published on the project website - www.OTscapacityCHRI.org.
Reporting
All successful applicants are expected to submit a short narrative report on the activity for which funding was requested, as well as a financial report, within six weeks of the end of the activity. Where funding is provided to support participation in an event, the report should focus on the roles the sponsored participants played in the activity and the benefits they obtained. All grantees should report on how their organisation benefited from the grant, what impact the activity had on the situation addressed by it and any plans emerging for future collaboration and follow-up activities. The reporting templates will available on the Project’s website and will be e-mailed to each grantee.
Any photos, activity reports, newspaper articles or publicity material should also be sent to the Commonwealth Foundation.
Grant beneficiaries should also expect to be contacted by the Commonwealth Foundation up to a year after the activity for which they received funding has taken place. The Foundation will be keen to learn of any longer term impact the activity may have had.
Acknowledgement
It is mandatory for all successful applicants to acknowledge the support of the Challenge Fund in all documents or announcements associated with the activity for which funding is provided. This includes all written documents (reports, publications, press releases) or public announcements (speeches and addresses).
In addition:
the Challenge Fund should be mentioned in all printed material;
all beneficiaries of funding should be informed of the source; and
the Commonwealth Foundation should be sent copies of all documentation produced in association with the activity.
Checklist for submission
Before submitting your application, please check that you have:
read the guidelines thoroughly to see whether your project and organisation is eligible;
provided all the information as requested in the application set out in annex 2;
attached all supplementary information, including, as relevant:
annual report of your organisation;
the last set of audited accounts;
Please note that the Foundation does not acknowledge receipt of applications. Applicants should expect to hear from the Foundation about four weeks after the deadline.
ANNEX 1
ELIGIBLE TERRITORIES
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
Montserrat
Pitcairn Island
Ascension Island
Falkland Island
Tristan da Cunha
St Helena
ANNEX 2
Challenge Fund for Building Human Rights Capacity in the British Overseas Territories
Application Form
Please include all the 21 elements listed below. Please try not to exceed 5 pages and respect the numbering and subheadings. Do not provide the information exclusively by way of annex (e.g. 09. Outline of Project – see Annex). Failure to provide all the information requested will delay consideration of your application.
Applicant information
Name of Organisation
Address of Organisation , including telephone and fax numbers and website (if any)
Aims and Objectives of Organisation
Structure of Organisation, including legal status, number of members and how it is governed (including the youth and gender dimension)
Main activities of the Organisation
Total annual budget of Organisation
Main items of expenditure
Main sources of income
Brief details of projects the Organisation has carried out during the past 5 years
Project information
Title of Project
Outline of Project, including who will be involved in implementing the project, who will benefit from it (with the gender and youth dimension) and the human rights situation the project addresses.
Region/area covered
Total Budget of Project
Main items of project expenditure, broken down into (a) personnel, (b) travel, (c) events, (d) materials, (e) any other project costs, (e) administration costs up to a maximum of (10%) of total project costs.
Period covered by grant
Amount of grant requested
How will the project be co-funded – distinguish between in cash and in kind
Proposals for reform. During the 2006 consultations on constitutional and electoral reform, several persons recommended to the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission that section 3.(3) of the 1982 Constitution of Anguilla is defective. It presently provides that a person arrested is to be brought before the Magistrate “without delay”. What is to be made of the meaning of this phrase?
Is it permissible to keep the suspect in the police cell for three days, or four days, or five days, on the ground that the investigation is still continuing? This procedure has often been used in the past by police officers to break a person's will and force him to confess his guilt. Some of these confessions have been true, but others have eventually been found to have been false, having been pressured out of weak or mentally defective persons who were not able to stand up to the stress of confinement.
In the more advanced constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean the solution has been to provide a strict deadline when a person in custody must be brought before the Magistrate, or he will be entitled to sue for breach of his constitutional rights. In some of our countries it is 24 hours. In others it is 48 hours.
At paragraph 13 of its 2006 Reportof the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission the Commission recommended that Anguilla's new Constitution should replace the present vague “without delay” with the stricter “within 48 hours”.
The police and the Attorney-General's Chambers don't like the proposal. But I believe a majority of us would feel safer and happier with such a reform.
The procedure the officer must follow after arresting me. We are looking at our rights under the Constitution once we have been arrested. Subsection (3) of section 3 of the Constitution provides the procedure that must be followed after a person is arrested. It says that, after an arrest, the arresting officer must bring the arrestee before a magistrate without delay. If a private person makes an arrest, he must give the arrestee into the custody of the police or a magistrate as soon as reasonably practicable.
No time limit for detaining an arrested person has been set in the law of Anguilla, but the courts of our region have frowned on a detention of three days. Such a length of time is too long to hold an arrested suspect without charging him. The purpose for taking the arrestee before the magistrate is for the court to consider whether he should be granted bail pending trial.
It is not lawful for the police to arrest a suspect, take him to the station, and keep him there indefinitely until he cracks and signs whatever statement they want him to sign. That is a considered a serious breach of our fundamental human right, and of our common law entitlement not to be forced to incriminate ourselves. Any confession or admission as to the commission of a crime must be freely given, and not forced or tortured out of us. The court will not allow such a confession to be produced in evidence.
Once a suspect has been charged, he must be brought to court on the first court day after the charge has been laid. In the case of arrest for a summary offence, the law permits the police to grant bail to the arrestee.
A number of cases from the region have established the existence of a constitutional right to an attorney, and the right to be informed by the arresting officer of the right to an attorney. In some Constitutions this right is spelled out, but in Anguilla the right remains one derived from common law. A detention will be illegal if the arrested person is not informed of his rights.
The procedure the officer must follow when arresting me. We were looking at our fundamental right in Anguilla to personal liberty guaranteed by section 3 of the Anguilla Constitution 1982, and the power of the police to arrest us as an exception to this right. At this point it might be useful to recall the proper procedure to be followed during the arrest.
An arrest which would otherwise be lawful will be unlawful if the arresting officer neglects to follow the proper procedure during the arrest. An arresting officer who fails to observe the required procedure may be liable for false imprisonment. The government, and sometimes, if he was particularly badly behaved, the officer himself personally, may be made to pay damages. The following are some of our most important common law rules that supplement or explain the constitutional protection of our right to personal liberty.
First, the rule is that the arrested person must be informed that he is under arrest, and he must be informed of the true ground for the arrest either at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable afterwards. The rule was originally established at common law by the leading case in 1947 of Christie v Leachinsky, but it is now a constitutional rule.
So, it is provided by subsection (2) to the same section 3 of the Constitution, that any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed orally and in writing as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention.
The common law which has developed since Christie's 1947 case remains useful for an understanding of the proper application of the rule. So, it has been held that the purpose of the constitutional right of every citizen to know why he is being detained is so that he will be in a position to know whether he is entitled to resist the arrest. A person who is being unlawfully arrested has the right to resist. If John Smith, a young man who is peacefully liming on the street corner, is approached by a police officer who holds on to him and says, “John Smith, come with me. I am taking you to the Station. The Sergeant wants to speak to you about wounding Mary Jones last week”, that young man is entitled to pull away and to say, “Do not put your hands on me again, or I will sue you for assault.” What the officer has to say is something like, “John Smith, I am arresting you for the offence of wounding Mary Jones”. That would be a lawful way to seize hold of John Smith and take him to the station. It is not necessary for the ground of arrest to be expressed in precise technical language. It is sufficient if the arresting officer conveys to the arrestee the substance of the alleged offence.
The rule that the person arrested is entitled to be told the reason for the arrest does not apply in two circumstances. The first is, where the arrestee must be taken to have been aware of the reason for the arrest, for example where he is caught 'red handed' in the commission of an offence. The second is, where the arrestee made it impossible for him to be told the reason for the arrest by counter-attacking or running away. Of course, if you know that you are being wrongfully arrested, it might be a very dangerous thing for you to resist. You may get injured, if the police officer has lost his self-control. It is much better to permit yourself to be illegally detained, and then to instruct a lawyer to sue for the insult and the injury done to you.
Person arrested not bearing the same name as contained in the warrant. We are looking at issues that can arise on arresting someone and depriving them of their liberty. Officers have to be very careful when arresting someone, even with the protection of a warrant. There are hidden hazards.
So, where a constable arrests the wrong person, that is, a person other than the one named in the warrant, he may be liable in tort for wrongful arrest or false imprisonment. It is important that the warrant correctly name the person to be arrested. This is illustrated by the 2002 Trinidadian case of Maharaj v A-G. The warrant named the plaintiff as “Mary”, when her correct name was Kamaldaye Maharaj. The arresting constables knew her as Mary. There was no doubt that she was the person for whom the warrants were intended, and that she was well aware of that fact. Nevertheless, the court held that the constables had no defence to an action for false imprisonment brought by Kamaldaye after the police case against her had been thrown out. The warrants failed, as the law required, to correctly name the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the arrest of the plaintiff ‘Kamaldaye’ was not in obedience to the warrant, which was for a ‘Mary’.
We may say that can never happen in Anguilla where everybody knows everybody else. That may have been true 30 years ago. I am not so sure it still is.
Proposals to reform section 3 of the Anguilla Constitution. We have been looking at our right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under section 3. Many lawyers consider this section of the Constitution defective in one specific way. In dealing with persons arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence, it does not provide that he is entitled to be told of his rights. These rights include our right to remain silent. If we volunteer any information to the police after we have been given this warning it can and will be used against us in a court of law. We also have the right to an attorney to advise us before we give the police a statement. In the USA, but not in Anguilla, we have the right to be provided with an attorney to advise us before we are questioned by the police.
It has been left to the Courts to interpret and to enforce the ancient common law entitlement to these rights. You may agree with me that such a right is better included as in the fundamental rights in our Constitution, rather than being left as a common law right for judges to interpret one way or the other. The Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police fought hard to have this recommendation deleted from the Report. They would prefer their powers to interrogate and question suspects left a bit more woolly, as it makes it easier for them to secure a confession or an admission that can be used against the suspect.
The better modern practice would require that a person arrested should be entitled immediately upon his arrest, and not after he has been brought to the police station and made to sit on the bench for a few hours, to be told of his rights. You have seen this right at work in US movies, when a police officer pulls out of his pocket a little card with the prisoner's Miranda Rights on it and reads it out to the prisoner. The process is named after the case in the United States which established that it was a constitutional right. The officer must as soon as practicable after the arrest read out these rights to the suspect, even as he is taking him to the car or police van. The 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission recommended that there should be a new sub-section of the Constitution setting out this right in the clearest language.
Another important reform would be to provide for an Ombudsman with power to investigate complaints of abuse of this and other fundamental human rights. The main function of an Ombudsman is to investigate any complaint relating to any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted by any officer of the Government or statutory body in any case in which a member of the public claims to be aggrieved, or appears to the Ombudsman to have sustained injustice as a result of the administrative functions of that officer or body.
The Ombudsman is found in several Commonwealth Caribbean countries. These include Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados. Typical faults in administration that the Ombudsman investigates include delay, bias, unfair discrimination, failure to give proper advice, discourtesy, and failing to follow recognised procedures.
While the Ombudsman is not established to be a national human rights organisation, in practice the office of the Ombudsman performs some of the functions. In addition to dealing with complaints of maladministration in the public service, the Ombudsman could investigate complaints of the public against abuse of power by the police. It would be a very useful reform if, when the office of Ombudsman is introduced into the new Constitution of Anguilla, he was given specific powers to investigate claims of breaches of fundamental rights.
And now for something quite different.A few weeks ago, Wycliffe Richardson, the owner and manager of ATV3, suggested that I do a series of 15-30 minute TV presentations on legal issues in Anguilla. We have now produced over a dozen scripts.
Some of the first ones dealt with the elections law. They were broadcast in the weeks before our recently concluded general elections.
Wycliffe Richardson
When the elections were over, he suggested that I do a review of the Constitution, highlighting some of the major issues. Constitutional reform should be high on the agenda of the new Government. Anguilla and Montserrat are the only OverseasTerritories in the West Indies that have not completed the process of reviewing and updating our Constitutions.
So, let us look at some of the constitutional issues that I feel are worth considering.
When discussing the Anguilla Constitution of 1982, it is as well to start at the beginning. If you should thumb through the Constitution, as one is wont to do in spare moments, the first thing you come to is Chapter 1, Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The Golden Rule that you should treat others as you would have them treat you is of great antiquity, the foundation of some of the great religions. By contrast, the concept of fundamental human rights and freedoms is not something natural to humanity that has existed since time immemorial, through all cultures and nations. Many of us do not realise that the concept is a relatively modern one, a product of the Holocaust and World War II.
It is only recently that it has been generally accepted that we human beings have fundamental rights. Modern recorded history begins with the invention of writing some 3-4,000 years ago. During most of the succeeding time, up until the end of the Second World War, we lived under various regimes that cheerfully permitted our governments to hang, draw and quarter any of us whose lives were deemed to be contrary to the public interest. It was only when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that everything changed.
For this we have to thank a widow, Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt had been the First Lady of the United States while her husband, Franklin D Roosevelt, was the President of the United States from 1933 to 1945. After his death, President Harry S Truman made her a member of the US delegation to the United Nations. There, she was elected to chair the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration. She played an instrumental role in drafting the Declaration, calling it “the international Magna Carta of all mankind”. The Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The vote of the General Assembly was unanimous, except for eight abstentions, by Muslim countries which took exception to the implications of the Declaration as to freedom in marriage. President Truman called her “The First Lady of the World” in tribute to her human rights achievements.
Eleanor Roosevelt at the United Nations
As the Preamble to the Universal Declaration says:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts, which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from fear and want, has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, and
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, and
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, and
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
This Preamble is followed by 30 Articles that enumerate the fundamental rights of all persons. Since 1948, any government offending against the fundamental rights of its people is liable to find itself and its leaders charged before the court with offences of Crimes against Humanity. It was from this date that all humans were perceived as enjoying universal rights, including the right to life.
Not all of the fundamental rights recognised by the Universal Declaration are repeated in our Constitution. But, what we can say, is that those rights that are recognised in our Constitution draw their origin and raison d’etre from the Universal Declaration.
So, Chapter 1 of the Constitution of Anguilla begins with section 1, a recital of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. It provides that every person in Anguilla is entitled to life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property, and protection of the law, freedom of conscience, of expression and of peaceful assembly and association, and respect for his private and family life. There are limits to the protection under the Constitution. Principally, our enjoyment of our fundamental rights is subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others, and for the public interest.
I believe that it is worth remembering that in addition to our rights being enshrined in our Anguilla Constitution, they are also grounded and based in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
