It is good news that legislators are once again considering a Human Rights Commission Act, but their recent show of reluctance to move quickly is troubling given the previous decade of delays with the law.
Ever since the implementation of the 2007 Constitution, which provides for an HRC, successive governments have been promising to establish the body. The goal was mentioned in five Speeches from the Throne between 2008 and 2013, and in 2010 the Attorney General’s Chambers hosted public discussions about a draft law.
In 2014, a bill was finally introduced in the House of Assembly, but it was subsequently removed from the agenda with no explanation. Since then, legislators have said little about the law until it was introduced again in the HOA last month.
We’re glad the bill is back, but we were confounded to hear multiple legislators speak as though it were something new. The law is needed, they admitted, but they suggested that they would need much time and a meeting with the attorney general before passing it.
Legislators are of course correct that they should clearly understand any law that they pass. But if they had been paying attention for the past decade — during which most of them have been in office for several years — they would know exactly what the HRC bill is about and why it is important.
As some legislators have admitted, human rights violations are too common in the territory, in spite of protections such as the 2007 Constitution’s rights chapter.
Worse, many victims have precious little recourse. They may, for example, be unable to hire a lawyer; they may fear for their job or their immigration status; or they may not understand their rights well enough to identify violations.
Unfortunately, there are people in the VI who take advantage of this situation.Moreover, there also could be systemic failings in public processes or existing legislation that lead to rights violations on a routine basis.
As envisioned in the Constitution, an HRC would serve various functions that would help:
• hearing complaints and working to resolve them;
• educating residents about their rights;
• serving as a watchdog and notifying the attorney general of abuses; and
• providing input on rights-related legislation and public policy, to name a few.
The only downside is the cost, but we see no reason why it should be prohibitive.
The law, then, needs to come soon, bringing the territory in line with an increasing number of other Caribbean jurisdictions that have enacted such legislation. If HOA members truly need a refresher course from the attorney general, they should get one as soon as possible so that they can move forward straightaway.
Clearly, they know how to act expediently: They are after all the same leaders who in recent months have rushed other bills through the HOA in a single day without giving the public so much as a glance.
When it comes to human rights, ten years of delays is ten years too many.
{fcomment}