The Politics of Human Rights: There are historical phases and instances, within nations, cultures and organisations, where a less prejudicial balance of opportunity & power, and more equitable opportunity & accountability, have produced; very effective, consistent and rapid advances (technological &/or social), relative stability, improved 'expressed' satisfaction and organisational longevity. The most recent commercial examples are Microsoft, Intel and Virgin. From the previous century we have Ford, Bourneville, Cadbury and various Quaker organisations. Most individual Nations have these defined periods. Unfortunately, there are invariably those who wish to seek greater benefits for themselves, others follow and the stability collapses. These statements and anecdotes may appear Political. They are not. I can describe and evidence, institutional consequences of entrenched and simplistic (as opposed to simple) thinking which arise from all persuasions of the political spectrum. Some of these arise from genuine attempts to resolve social problems, which when taken up prejudicially and simplistically, can create more problems than they solve. Political perspectives and issues are central to my studies and theory but this is in a purer, analytic form. For now, I will simply assert that a political inclination is a natural social feature that arises from one or other, or a combination, of predisposed genotypes that we all have in some dominant versus recessive balance, activated according to experience and then moderated by prevailing 'current' circumstances. It is plastic and sometimes fluid. mush like the attitude change model I describe else where. My own persuasion tends to be towards liberal, democratic and socialist inclinations but (as you will see from my wider writing) the more conservative perspectives are equally important. For me, the dynamic balance between these inclinations is the critical function of politics in the evolution of cultures and societies and in the more general, human adaptation to changing, intellectual, environmental and social circumstances. This political component, like in all other institutional and organisational structures, can be corrupted towards selfish ends at the expense of the 'collective' purpose they are usually Institutions 'cover their backs' by laying down Policies that take account of these 'Declared & Ratified' Human Right and other relevant Law. This is done because they fear that professionals in their employ may neglects to act in some required way, or capacity. Professionals then often cover their own and their Institutions backs, by following Policy and Procedures to the letter. In fact, by doing this, both institutions and the professionals, frequently contravene the International, European and Local Conventions on Human Rights. In doing so, they sometimes misrepresent and sometimes blatantly flaunt, the fundamental rights and responsibilities that we each wish to enjoy, and which underpin these International and National, legally agreed frameworks. Following any Law to the letter, as laid down in any 'Lay' documents, however scrutinised to by legal advisors, is very risky. Any erroneous, or inadequate, interpretation that ensues as a result of that documents inadequacies, leaves them open to litigation, rather than protecting them from it. Institutions tend to rely upon the responsibility having been passed to the employee, through this 'method'. Add to this persistent problem, the fact that there are those professionals and managers who are ignorant of these Fundamental Rights & Responsibilities. There are other's (who being aware of them), choose to flaunt them in the reasoned, certain knowledge that they are unlikely to be brought to task. The lack of recording and action in respect of contraventions, is because of the sensed complexities and feared employment risks of doing so, by those who are more insight, if not more enlightened. Moreover, professionals and others, lack confidence in their critical perspectives, believing they will be overridden by those with greater power, apparent status and knowledge. That is how institutional prejudices, and individual disempowerment persist. It is endemic in our institutions and organisations, where responsibility and culpability are moved downwards, while power, resources and status move upwards. This miss-match creates most of the problems that we experience within institutions and our society. Am I surprised at this? Many are. What delusion generates this lack of recognition and culpable neglect. There is a fearful and often mindless, adherence to all-too-frequently erroneous and confounding Policies. Policies, that in their declared attempt to clarify obligations, actually make the basic concepts even more confusing, This is exacerbated by following even more erroneous (in Ratified Human Rights terms) adherence to prescribed processes and methods for applying human rights locally. Further more there are often poor, frequently lazy, interpretations of the 'legally allowed' exceptions. This leads to persistent injustices that are either not fully identified, or if they are recognised; they are not declared and followed up often enough. All human rights, with the exception of those finer aspects which are circumscribed lawfully (and this must be proven in each case), still apply in all instances of a citizen's natural and legal entitlements and required processes. Further more, even where a right(s) is circumscribed in this way, all other rights that are not circumscribed are still applicable in full. So too are the normal requirements and for 'least restrictive practice' and maintaining the person's dignity, etc.. Any variations have to be evidenced. This level of clarification should not be necessary but ignorance, fear and prejudices often get in the way. Put more simply; If you feel, in respect of your own personal position, or that of an individual client, or client groups, that individuals are treated differently to other free living citizens / clients. If you further feel that this 'miss-treatment' is disproportionate to the 'exceptions' declared, or that inadequate compensation and adjustment has been made for following the 'least restrictive' practices and other, simple practice guidelines, including; 'Health Safety' issues; you have a reasonable case to raise the issue. It is your right and your responsibility, under those same Human Rights Conventions (and any practice guidelines based upon these), to disclose your concerns, both as a citizen &/or as a professional. You are advised to do so politely but forcefully, in the clear understanding of the required obligation of managers; to fully consider your concerns, record them, investigate them and take appropriate actions, to satisfy the Human Rights Conventions and the International, National and Local Laws. Subsequent to this, and still without prejudice, if you feel that there is still evidence of a shortfall in obligations and that compensatory actions were inadequate, you are entitled on your own behalf, and that of your clients, to appeal to progressively higher level. All this can be legitimately done in 'company time', with adequate provision made to enable this. This means that if managerial / institutional obligations are not fulfilled at the initial level, you are entitled to move up the latter of accountably, until your concerns are adequately considered. If you reasonably believe that this process has not produced appropriate corrective adjustments, you are entitled, without prejudice, to use any reasonable method to ensure the failures are appreciated. You do not have to be a Solicitor, or Barrister, in fact it is best that you are not. They will usually have angles and are often blinded by their understanding of 'Paper Law'. A good legal guide is to express your concerns in writing, providing basic, summary evidence, with detailed written evidence and accounts of you concerns, to back this up (and a clear account of the deliberate, accidental, or neglectful absence of this recorded information, and the circumstances that may have produced this). The responsibility for ensuring the adherence to the principles underlying the Conventions on Human Rights (to which we subscribe and seek solace) lies with each of us to practice and to police. If we are able to identify anomalies and failings of adherence to the spirit of Human Rights, we have as much entitlement as any government agent, solicitor, barrister, or advocate. More importantly we have equal responsibility and it is in each of our interests to see that these principles are adhered to, to ensure our collective benefit. Concepts fundamental to good practice and decision taking are: 'Informed Choice', 'Least Restrictive Practice' and 'Person Centred '. These take priority, along with 'equality of opportunity', respect of a person's 'entitlement to dignity' and their entitlement to other, fundamental human rights. Another important principle is that each person is assumed to have the capacity to take informed decisions, considered in their best interest, unless there is evidence to the contrary, in any particular instance. In the absence of this capacity, lifestyle precedence and 'evidenced based', disclosed preferences, prior to the loss of that capacity, are to be considered, along with their current wishes (where these present no significant risk over 'normal' lifestyle challenges). Adherence to social institution concepts and principles like; 'Best Value', 'Prioritisation' and 'Accountability', are only meaningful if the above criteria are to be met within these terms of reference. The former concepts are evidential, in that we can check these have been achieved. They former concepts are also primary; If these are not met the latter principles are effectively meaningless. The latter are also judgmental, dependent upon our 'ordering' information according to chosen, or given, criteria that are not fundamental to directly observable actions. They are there to apportion inadequate resources. The former, primary concepts are some of the general rules that reflect an underlying general theory of mutually beneficial social order. These may need refining and still others may have to be discovered and theoretically satisfied. These should underlay all decisions that professionals take and all attitudes and laws within our communities. They should be maintained in all circumstances, irrespective of the specific legal powers available. This means that by following these principles; the least restrictive practices will be used in all instances where capacity is temporarily restricted, or the safety of self, or others is in jeopardy. Anything less than this is lazy thinking, or ignorance. Where knowledge and evidence is available, which could mean that a professional (or service they represent) has adequate information (and could thereby summons the appropriate resources); anything less than the least restrictive option is unacceptable in dealing with any social care situation. Any professional, ethical decision has to be made in the light of the information available and adjusted in the light of any new information, as it becomes available. There is then a responsibility to choose the least restrictive options 'known' to be available generally. On this foundation and in each case; the least restrictive actions should be used to bring risks to a 'normal' level. That is, the level that each of us may reasonably understand and choose to face, or better still, that level the person is known to choose to face under normal circumstances. Any restrictions on personal choice should only be in place for as long as the evidence clearly suggests that this is necessary (which in extreme cases may be indefinitely). The only social care excuse for more extensive legal restriction to personal freedom of choice and action, are those of developmental limitations and persistent psycho-social states, that limit understanding, or social appreciation, or constitute a direct and imminent risk to self and others. These may be where age related and other circumstances of 'understanding' and 'experience' limit the person's ability (capacity) to take decisions which impact on their own and others safety. Even so, given that these risks are evidently imminent, this should still be done in the least restrictive way. In practice, these principles are not adhered to adequately. As a consequence there is often a miss use of and confusion between, the appropriate use of Mental Health, Child & Family, Civil and Criminal Law. In more perfect circumstances Mental Health and Child and Family Law should be the 'least restrictive' but this is not always the case at present. It depends largely upon the institution, or establishment, and the quality and measure of resources made available to the implemented services. More importantly, it is frequently the consequence of the above, coupled with relative ignorance; poor attitude; class, sexual, age and cultural biases; clear prejudices and an over reliance upon the 'restrictive' use of Law, rather than professional ethics and practice. The Legislative powers are being used to severely restrict actions rather than redirect them and minimally contain them, or otherwise reduce risks and consequences (as the modern Laws normally require; taking account of human rights). The services do not adjust adequately to the requirements of human rights and fall short of the principles and ethics that underlay these special Laws. It is often assumed that these less restrictive features of Law (incorporated into the broader legislation) are discretionary. They usually are not, just conveniently interpreted that way and justified by poor 'generalised' assessment rather that sound psycho-social theory. Unfortunately the legal and professional 'experts' are also biased and ignorant in this way. Although it is not acceptable to continue with these distortions and there is a constant need to revise our practices (to get closer to the 'truth' of cause and effect of these 'social' problems); a sound underlying psycho-social / anthropological, theoretical understanding would be very helpful in identifying, clarifying and resolving these social problems and ethical issues. A more general theory would encompass the widest diversity of social and cultural responses to psych-social and wider environmental circumstances. Lets seek to identify the underlying Theory and Laws and do so in a proper scientific manner, without incorporating our preferences (leaving these as separate decisions process). Towards this end, I invite you to introduce you own suggestions and respond to some of our propositions. We are interested in getting this debate going and some logically sound, valid principles, hypotheses and universal laws established and tested. See 'So What?' See also: Relativistic Theory; Transformations, Social Adaptation, 'So What?', Human Rights | NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
