A Post September 11 Morality; A
“paradigm shift” in human rights
ideology?
Chris Gallavin
Lecturer in Law
University of Hull
Thesis:

First Contention:
– The actions of nations such as the United
States and the United Kingdom, post
September 11, 2001, ought not to be viewed in
terms of a “right re-balance”, but rather as
introducing a paradigm shift in human rights
ideology.
Thesis:

Second Contention:
– If the globe is on the brink of a paradigm shift,
from the inviolability of an individual’s rights to
the supremacy of community rights, how will
this effect traditional perceptions relating to
the constitutional protection of rights?
Overview:
Re-balance or paradigm shift?,
 The paradigms,
 Actions of the United States and the
United Kingdom,
 Entrenchment versus flexibility ultra
and intra-constitutional activity.

Re-balance or Paradigm shift?

I’m afraid to say we are all vulnerable - terrorist
want to stop normal civilised life from going on,
the responsibility of the government is to balance
need for caution with life going on, not giving in
to terrorists … this will change the nature of
debate on where the balance of human rights lies
- I introduced the Human Rights act to this
country, that has strengthened rights of those
accused of crime, but you have to balance that
with the right to life. Getting that balance is not
easy- maybe we have to change the balance
within our society ….
• Jack Straw, United Kingdom Foreign Secretary.
Re-balance or Paradigm shift?

Connotations of right re-balance imply:
– a balance between individual rights, i.e. the
right to privacy versus freedom of speech.
– the taking of exceptional measures to meet an
exceptional but temporary threat.

Under these circumstances right rebalancing may legitimately occur within
the ambit of the individual right focused
paradigm.
Re-balance or Paradigm shift?

The nature of the post September 11 terrorist
threat fits uncomfortably with such a
classification.
– Amorphous nature of terrorism means that it is capable
of pervading any number of situations,
– The speculative nature of the terrorist threat means that
it can easily become a permanent consideration.

Under such circumstances calling the actions of
the U.S. and the U.K. acts of “right re-balance” is
to falsify the true nature of the task.
Right re-balance or avoidance? The
Actions of the U.S. and the U.K.

The United States;
– Human rights and their constitutional
protection
– “Illegal combatants”
– Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
– USA Patriot Act 2001

The United Kingdom;
– Human rights and their constitutional
protection
– Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Entrenchment versus Flexibility:

The Constitutional protections of the
United States
– Promotion of ultra-constitutional activity?

The Constitutional protections of the
United Kingdom
– Promotion of intra-constitutional activity?