10/12/2013 Newsnight Scotland

they delay going into a care home or nursing home, they reduced the cost

and improve the care. If it can be done now, it can be done anywhere.

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Lawyers call for new rules to

enshrine human rights in the way governments and local authorities

behave. But will it just end up with what should be political decisions

being made by judges? And does the real threat to human rights in fact

lie elsewhere? Also tonight, Holyrood joins the

great and the good to pay its respects to the late Nelson Mandela.

Good evening. It's International Human Rights Day, so cue a raft of

proposals for more protection of human rights. A group of 500 writers

has petitioned the United Nations to stop governments from snooping on us

online. Here, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has an action plan

it wants public bodies to adopt in areas like welfare and immigration.

But is the real danger elsewhere? Recently, the Guardian newspaper's

publication of material said to endanger national security led to

the paper's editor appearing before a Commons committee. Aileen Clarke's

report begins there. We were both born outside this

country but I love this country, do you? How can you justify publishing

the Edward Snowden leaked intelligence files?

We live in a democracy. Most of the people working on the story of

British with families in this country who love this country, I am

surprised to be asked the question. But we are patriots and one of the

things we are patriotically bow out is the nature of democracy and a

free pass -- free press and the fact we can discuss and report this.

And this is not just a hop topic at Westminster, ask the green brigade

of supporters at Celtic Park. They say this was the hypocrisy of

celebrating the Scottish Nationalist struggle while coming arising the

Irish nationalist struggle. We wish to exercise their right to public

debate about their business. The macro years ago, the Sheriff had no

doubt what this man wrote on Facebook about Catholics and Celtic

fans was a hate crime and he jailed him for eight months, the first of

many cases in a crackdown on sectarian Internet rants.

The height bought has ruled the wife of the Speaker of the House of

Commons is guilty of libel. Tweeting has become a little less

carefree recently. This is not the first defamation

case and it will not be the last, but it illustrates an important

modern truth, publication is publication.

Following that case and a number of others in England, new guidelines

were published there. We could do with some here, says this law

expert. Free speech was protect it. They did not want to have an effect

on free speech should by having prosecutors making cases against

people for what they put on social media. It helps prosecutors and the

police and they would look at things in context, what was said, did they

remove it after it was pointed out the mess it was offensive? Did they

delete the message and express remorse when they realised the tweet

caused offence? It takes a contextual approach about what was

said in the context of free speech. To remind them that it is not just

about the tweet, it is also how you reacted before and after you posted

it. Shut guidance reflects somebody has the right to be an offensive

idiot? -- should the guidance. Absolutely, there is nothing wrong

with being an ED at in public, we have a cultural benefit from

sarcasm, small jokes and humorous jokes, using satire. These should be

protected as fundamental rights. Where it becomes problematic is

where you use free speech and you apply a higher Iraqi -- hierarchy.

Who becomes the barometer, who decides this free speech has not hit

this target? This is where it becomes problematic because we do

not want David Cameron or Alex Salmond saying that they took

offence, the comments were offensive as they made fun of somebody 's

physical appearance or politics. There is a right to be foolish and

it is not criminal necessarily to be foolish. But we do not want. Be

criminals as a result of that. -- we do not want schools to be criminals.

Lord Advocate here has issued guidance specifically on offensive

comment on social media about the bar tragedy. It is important we have

a robust persecution policy towards such offensive comments.

The Crown office is consulting on wider guidance and offensive

comments on social media but in a city shaken by such a research

project loss of life, you will question the balance the Lord

advocates desires between the right to comment and respect for the dead

-- very few will question. And those who mourn them.

I am joined now from Edinburgh by the Chair of the Scottish Human

Rights Commission, Professor Alan Millar. And in Dundee, the

sociologist and commentator Dr Stuart Waiton, of the University of

Abertay. The obvious problem with the

proposals you are putting forward about human rights and public bodies

which talk about things like welfare is that you are turning leading

politicians in the criminals. For example, if Iain Duncan Smith was to

argue that he thought that the spare room tax was a way of helping people

to get accommodation, that is no longer a political argument,

according to you, he should be prosecuted and possibly sent to

prison, which seems ridiculous. It is ridiculous and it is not what I

say or the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The proposals put

forward today which have been accepted and endorsed by the

government and the Parliament and the public sector and voluntary

sector is Scotland 's National action plan for human rights, not

something put forward by the Scottish Human Rights Commission.

This is a big step forward. And, we are joining the ranks of other

European countries. Could you explain why the scenario I described

was wrong? Because international human rights are being denied, being

realised within Scotland and UK because of the refusal to give it

legal status. If Iain Duncan Smith a criminal? No, he is a politician

making decisions contrary to international human rights law and

people should be protected. So if somebody took Iain Duncan Smith the

court and the word to say he was acting in the best interest of

welfare and not people like you who say the bedroom tax is wrong, he

would lose the court case? Let's look realistically. But he would. He

would not made a criminal and sent to jail. He would be told his

actions were contrary to international human rights law. What

about when he says, I think the bedroom tax, along with my other

welfare reforms, and powers people and increases their ability to

fulfil their potential as human beings? You may agree or disagree,

but I am putting forward a legitimate argument which I believe

is right. You would say that that counts for nothing? There such

things as universal human rights and is ironic that today, when we are

celebrating the life of Nelson Mandela and talking about his

legacy, that you look at South Africa and the constitution there,

which is Mandela 's legacy, it enshrines universal human rights,

there are some things more human and enriching of unity than the

short-term political actions of this party and that government in a given

period of time. The inequalities you condemn so strongly in your document

on more endemic in South Africa than the United Kingdom. So the ANC in

South Africa is as criminal as the British government! This talk about

criminals is not appropriate for a serious discussion on human rights.

What you make of this #. I think your line of questioning is

brilliant! Alan Wright -- Allen is right to say it is not the case Alan

Duncan Smith would be a criminal, but we are saying actions surely --

essentially that politics and the public being replaced I law and

lawyers, which is essentially anti-democratic and elitist, that is

the worry. Apparently, it it is International Human Rights Day, I

did not know this, does anyone else? No, the public are not involved with

this, it it is to do with certain legal bodies who define what is and

is not a right. What about the other side? You could argue we potentially

men right of fundamental at just decisions we make and if there is a

consensus in Scotland that the spare room tax is wrong, making it

constitutionally wrong is an arbitrator decision but no more than

any other decision about human rights. -- arbitrary decision.

Yeah, but what is not arbitrary is human democracy. I was in the debate

in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago discussing whether prisoners should

have the vote and a radical lawyer was saying prisoners should have the

vote. Of course, it is anti-democratic means he is using

because it is a law that will enforce people having the vote. So I

said yesterday, perhaps you should go to the public and try to campaign

with them and say prisoners should have the vote. And he said, no, I

wouldn't want that. That is the tyranny of the majority. So

apparently he is in favour of prisoners having the vote but not

everybody else because they wouldn't vote in the way he sees right, so

rather than have the tyranny of the majority, you want himself and elite

groups like him to be able to dictate to the public what is right

and wrong. -- he once himself. I know you say Aiwa is caricaturing

this but the effect of what you are arguing is to make policies

advocated by the Conservative Party, which is one of the major political

parties in this country, contrary to fundamental human rights law as you

would like to see it. -- you would like to see it. -- use AI was. These

matters are then decided by judges sitting in a court, whereas surely

properly they are a matter of discussion amongst politicians and

voters? And the voters don't like what is being imposed on them and

can reject it. Well, it denies what happened made through the 20th

century, which is that the world community got together after two

world Wars, Holocaust, Great Depression, and they said, look, we

have to have a common standard of achievement and a recognition of

universal human rights based on the dignity of individuals and we then

construct laws and forms of government based on these

principles. They did not drop from the sky, they were negotiated by

governments. UK has accepted these treaties but has refused the

recommendations from the United Nations to give them legal effect

within the United Kingdom. And that is therefore why we have measures

such as the bedroom tax, which deprives people of the right to

adequate housing. We haven't got much time. I've briefly wanted to

talk about another area. Do you think we are missing the other area

which is a threat to human rights, which is some of these free-speech

issues. I know people will be very upset by this, but for example, this

idea of criminalising, obviously, any comments made about the

helicopter crash are abhorrent and if they contain comments which are

contrary to laws which are already in place, they should be prosecuted.

But general terms and in other cases, is that really something you

think should be a matter of police action? What is always said is that

it is most important to defend rights like free-speech decisively

where the exercise of free speech is most obnoxious. I would be very

interested to hear what the so-called human rights radicals say

about these issues of freedom. Because the example you used, and

think you are right. It is a moral issue but it shouldn't be an issue

of people being criminalised. Similarly, we have had the Leveson

Inquiry, which is the state taking away the freedom of the press to a

large extent... I don't want to cut you off but we are running out of

time. You are on the rights commission. Are you voicing concerns

about some of the issues we have just mentioned? Yes, in terms of

access to information and freedom of expression and use of information

technology, we are in favour of it. People should be able to enjoy those

rights to the maximum without having their privacy being

unjustifiably... I am asking whether we should prosecute people whose

comments we all might find absolutely abhorrent? Does he

support the Green brigade, for example? If comments were made which

clearly inside violence, then that is not expressing the right to

freedom of expression. We are going to have to leave it there! Thank

you. Tens of thousands of South Africans

joined dozens of world leaders in Johannesburg for a national memorial

service for Nelson Mandela. Barack Obama said he was a giant of

history, the last great liberator of the 20th century. Three Hollywood

parliamentarians created the opportunity to pay their own tribute

as well. He provided an example for people across the planet and

encouraged us all to work for the day when in the words that resounded

around this Parliament when it was open, man to man, brothers shall be.

Today we extend our condolences to the great man's family, the people

of South Africa. The world is much, much poorer for his passing but

much, much richer for his life. When Nelson Mandela walked through jail

tall,, how many across the world found hope again and a belief that

change might be possible because of this man because the individual

decisions to boycott, to support sanctions, to challenge investments

in South Africa. All of us telling that that work could make a

difference and there was a point in politics and in campaigning. Nelson

Mandela was the best of Africa. He was the best of humanity. He was the

best of us all. Many members of my party did not recognise apartheid

for the grave violation of human indignity it was and did not

struggle to end it. It is a stain on our party. Mandela didn't just speak

to South Africa, he spoke to the world. And his message of love, of

faith, of forgiveness and of human dignity made him not just a man for

our time but a man for all time. Today, as we reflect his life, he

lifts us up again to work to a better world. Where, as he said, we

close the circle and herald the advent of a glorious summer of our

partnership for freedom, peace, prosperity and friendship.

Consigning war, poverty, racism, injustice and exploitation to

history might seem impossible. We will need the sense of justice, the

courage, the resilience and the humanity that he showed if we are

ever to be able to say, as he did, it always seems impossible until

it's done. And commemorating Nelson Mandela, figures on many of the

front pages tomorrow. There is a picture of Areca bomber with Nelson

Mandela's widow. He makes me want to be a better man, that is the

headline. -- a picture of President Obama. That is all we have time for

tonight. I will be back tomorrow. Until then, good night.

Good evening. The mild weather continues. It gets a little chilly

in the evening but overall, it is very mild for the time of year. The

mist and fog will be a problem across the East and south-east in

the morning and that is because there is so much moisture in this

relatively mild air that it condenses out during the night. Most

places will have weather looking something like this but the