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 re- balancing 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?