The Salisbury group was established 50 years ago: did the founders think we’d still be needed half a century later?

May 2024, amended in September

Following the Observer article by Peter Benenson in 1961 which led to the formation of Amnesty International, local groups formed around the country and the Salisbury group came into being in 1974. It is the only surviving group in Wiltshire which is disappointing to report. Did the founders, it might be asked, think we would still be campaigning all these years later? It might not have been a question they asked themselves at the time but there was a feeling following the horrors of the war and the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, that we were on some kind of improving path towards better treatment for people wherever they lived. There was some kind of belief in a new future.

To an extent, the history of the UDHR and the true commitment of nations to the cause of universal rights, has been overstated. There was considerable resistance by the colonial powers, in particular the UK, to the ‘universal’ element because of the likely effect of such rights in the subject peoples of the colonies. Many were seeking independence from the Empire and this was not always achieved peacefully. America was fearful of the effects in the southern states in particular because of the treatment of the black population and the Jim Crow laws.

The human rights situation in the world today is dire. Entire peoples have been oppressed or driven from their homes, the Rohingya in Burma for example. China has oppressed Tibet and is currently detaining around a million Uyghurs in what almost amounts to genocide. Russia has invaded the Ukraine and committed many human rights violations. Wars rage in sub-Sahara Africa with millions displaced from their homes and villages – those who have not been killed that is. The Israeli response to the October 7th massacre by indiscriminate bombing in Gaza is causing widespread international concern. Around 36,000 have now been killed.

Flaws

One of the flaws of the post-war agreement was the reliance on countries to be the ‘policemen’ so to speak. The US in particular did not want to grant powers to the newly created UN to enforce rules in countries not obeying them. Since it is countries which are heavily involved in committing the crimes this is a serious weakness.

Another flaw was the rise of corporate power and the ability of major corporations to operate in ways making control extremely difficult. These companies, and the banking system which supports them, engage in arms sales, mineral exploitation, tax evasion and abuse of people in sweat shops almost with impunity. Millions suffer impoverishment and almost non-existent rights as a result of their activities yet little is done to control them.

The Declaration grew out of the European tradition since it was Britain, France and the US who were the key players after the war. Power has slowly drifted away in the last few decades however, with the rise of China, a re-emergent post-Soviet Russia and the rise of new southern hemisphere countries such as South Africa and Brazil not all of whom share all these traditions. The freedom of the individual is not something they are concerned with. The Gulf states are another group of powers where free speech, religious freedom and human rights are not supported. Women enjoy few rights in these states. The world has changed therefore and the comfortable assumptions of European Emancipation is no longer the only game in town.

UK

The international order has changed, so has the climate in the UK. Over the past two decades or so, there has been a concerted move to abolish the Human Rights Act and by some, to leave the European Convention (see the last post). Sections of the media have characterised human rights as a threat not a protection. It is claimed that they enable terrorists and criminals to escape justice because their human rights will be infringed. Stories abound of the act being used to enable pornography in prisons or hostage takers to demand a burger of their choice. Infamously, the then home secretary Theresa May, claimed someone could not be deported because they had a cat. These and other stories provide background music for a variety of MPs to demand that the act be abolished or seriously modified. Local Wiltshire MPs generally vote against human rights measures according the They Work for You website.

Too negative?

Is the above too negative? It is and it isn’t. Millions have human rights but many of those millions do not enjoy them. They live in countries which have signed up to this and that convention – against the use of torture for example – but where police and security services use it routinely and with impunity. They live in countries where free speech is part of the country’s constitution but where the media is controlled, shut down or where journalists are arrested or even gunned down outside their apartment block (Russia).

But it also true to say that human rights have entered people’s consciousness. They know they should have them and they know they are being infringed which induces a tension in society and a deep sense of anger. It has put pressure on countries in their dealings with other countries to be aware of the human rights issue even if they proceed to ignore it in the interests of their economy and jobs. Most of all, it has articulated what rights should be and it is a genie which has escaped the bottle of power and oppression. It has provided campaigners around the world with a cause.

So, fifty years on, sadly the need for a human rights group in Salisbury is still present. With several Wiltshire MPs wishing to see those rights limited, curtailed or even abolished, it is a long way from ‘job done’. Those who are in positions of power and privilege and who consort with other power holders – corporate, City and media for example – there is a natural desire to hold on to that power, and demands by ordinary people are seen as some kind of threat to the natural order of things. Human rights groups, trade unions and protest organisations are seen as a threat to that natural order. Fifty years ago it was other countries which were the subject of campaigning and it is regrettable that we now spend part of our time defending rights in this country, such has been the regression. More and more legislation, ever increasing police powers and a sometimes supine judiciary together conspire to form a pincer movement against the rights of ordinary people. So we embark on the next 50 years …