Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the speaking limit: she is already half a minute over.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Yes, I am just going to draw to a close.
We must be concerned about what happens to journalists, and we should be prepared to sanction those who are interfering with media freedom, which is happening in too many parts of the world, where they close down the internet or go after editors and journalists. Our country should make a commitment to protecting them through targeted sanctions.
Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment
Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Shaws and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I say at the outset that I agree entirely with the words of the Leader of the Opposition on the Labour Benches when she described the full horror of events in Northern Ireland, the losses involved and the particular case that we are dealing with today. One speaker asked what makes this case different, and others have alluded to the other horrifying killings in Northern Ireland and that there should not be a hierarchy regarding those losses and terrible deaths.
I want to make an argument that this case is different, because it goes straight to the heart of the rule of law. All murders are crimes against the people of a nation—there is no doubt about that. I remind people that the rule of law is not something to be easily dismissed, although the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, was unfortunately the author of that famous statement that it might sometimes be possible to breach the rule of law and international treaty law in limited and particular ways. I remind the House that the rule of law should not be broken—and certainly not by the state.
There are two elements of the Finucane case that are important to all of us, as a society: here you had a lawyer, whose role is fundamental to the rule of law; and you had collusion by the state in his killing. You had one part of the state interfering with another—the rule of law, which is fundamental.
Thirty years ago, a special moment took place when the basic principles on the role of lawyers were adopted by the United Nations. In that same year, 1990, the International Bar Association also laid down principles connecting lawyers and their role to the rule of law. It said—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Baroness please make her point swiftly, because we are over the time allowed for this question?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
The independence of lawyers, and the opportunity for them to properly fulfil their function, should never be confused with the cases that they conduct. The lawyer is not to be identified by the authorities, or the public, with the client or the client’s cause, however popular or unpopular it may be. The killing of Pat Finucane was basically an assault on the legal system.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness really must make her point swiftly, please.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I will ask my question quickly. Does the Minister agree that the rule of law is fundamental and that the murder of Pat Finucane takes on particular significance because of the collusion of the state in it?