Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Opinio Hiberno: Rules are Made to Protect Us
Read more about: Democracy, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Law
I’ve spent the last half hour staring at a blank page and thinking about what I should write. There are so many things playing on my mind at the moment – world cup politics, Charles Haughey, Big Brother, an historic parades agreement in Northern Ireland but still the page remained blank because what I really want to talk about is this: why have we decided that rules are made to be broken? The theme, of course, runs through all of those issues – world cup referees are being extra-vigilant for unsporting behaviour, Charlie was a rule breaking rogue who many secretly loved in typical ‘fair play you boy’ Irish style, the Big Brother house is full of more back stabbing, bitching, rule breaking vindictiveness than the Dáil bar and does anyone really believe that all the rules historically made in Northern Ireland will ever be adhered to? The culture of rule breaking is one thing when it comes to individuals or (relatively) small-time rule breaking of this nature. The thing that worries me is how rule breaking is becoming a pervasive pattern in international relations.
I’m talking, of course, about the ‘War on Terror’ (yes – again…) and more specifically about renditions. In its report released just last week the Council of Europe named a number of European states who have all been involved in some way with renditions or with the detention of suspected terrorists in secret camps. All of these countries have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. All of these countries have pledged publicly to abide by simple rules that are designed to protect human dignity. These rules are realistic – you can suspend some in times of emergency if you need to; they are international rules designed to help a country navigate their way through times of intense difficulty and strain when passions may overcome reason. They reflect our basic concepts of moral right and wrong; the basic concept of the veil of ignorance; the basic concepts of humanity.
Some of these governments willingly assisted in renditions (this is as a matter of fact in relation to Bosnia & Herzegovina), some governments may have willingly turned a blind eye or invoked a doctrine of (misplaced?) trust (such as Ireland), some governments appear to have created and run secret detention camps on their territories (Poland being the most amazing and surprising example given its history) but no country – not a single one – could say that they could not have had a suspicion that they were breaking the rules or assisting in the breaking of rules. Rules which, as I said, are fundamental to all of us – we are all human, dignified and vulnerable. We make a contract with our governments and those governments with us and with other states through national and international covenants where they agree to act in a particular way. These governments, including our own, are systematically violating those contracts and breaking those rules
We can’t do anything about other governments – although the EU will need to put pressure on Poland with its increasingly appalling human rights record – but we can do something about our own. Those world cup referees are pretty light fingered with their yellow cards, and I think it’s time our government got its final warning as well. Play by the rules guys, or there’ll be more than just yellow cards this time next year.
To play devils advocate- “The rules of the game are changing”-Tony Blair. The current regimes of war and doctrine of preemption are dedicated to challenging a new threat. While i dont subscribe to the thesis personally I can see that in regard to intervention on humanitarian grounds the rules need to be looked at again and drawn up democratically.
With regard to terror the fact is that the men cannot be bombed en masse, they have no state, the idea of rendition is made necessary by the unwillingness to free intelligence from political interference and redesign a security-industry to cope with a new reality.
Our own government once helped draw up the NPT. Where such leadership is lacking in the world why not approach the need for a international democratic response with the same vigour?
Still though theres is the Jack Bauer question. If a bomb is going to go off in 1 hour and this guys knows where it is. Is torture justified?
Simon - there’s no easy answer but my initial answer is a series of questions - how do you know this bomb is going to go off? How dependable is your intelligence? How do you know this person knows where and when it will be detonated?? There are too many variables; too much uncertainty. My gut reaction is no. Torture isn’t justified.
Cian - will respond when have more time!!
Lets say fiona it is an IRA bomb and they have sent in warning with a recognised code word and this guy has traces of bomb making materials proved by forensics and is a known IRA man. It is a very difficult question.
Will torture guarantee you get the right answer?
Whatever about the carefully constructed and highly unlikely scenarios of TV fiction, reality is rarely like that. In the real world torture is rarely used as an information gathering activity. It’s usually just used as another form of terrorism.
Lovely post Fiona. And if i can take it back to your original point about why we think that rules are there to be broken.
I’m a great woman for the sweeping generalisation. So with that warning in mind, I believe that our national psyche is to disrespect and subvert rules where possible.
We love a rogue (CJ), we want to beat the system (e.g. filling coin operated machines in Germany with Irish shrapnel many years ago) and we hate being constrained. Maybe its for historical reasons, maybe its a sign of our immaturity as a nation.
Whatever the reason, we generally don’t value order and certainty. we laugh at people who queue, we invent Irish solutions to Irish problems and appreciate those other nations who are spontaneous like us. We allow isuses to become “business critical” before we act. DIRT, Statutory rape, Speeding……
Interestingly, you wouldn’t expect such a nation such as ours to compose a constitution. Our rule-obsessed neighbours don’t have a written constitution and so constantly re-appraise their position on many items.
But perhaps as we mature we realise the value and limit of value that rules provide. We are a nation that believes paedophilia is morally wrong but can’t impeach our judge save on some technicality. Today, a District Judge can dismiss serious drink driving cases on the basis of a strict interpretation of rules.
Maybe the issue is one of what do we want rules to be - General guiding principles or rigid absolutes?
Paige
This is the longest I’ve thought and blogged for some time, so I’m going to cut n paste this to my blog also!
Another thought. Is terror not the fear we experience when someone else doesn’t conform to our rules of engagement? (e.g. suicide bomber values his/her own life less than they value their particular cause)