Freedom from disrimination is a core human right

The Grey Shade considers whether anti-discrimination legislation should be viewed in the same light as "real" human rights:

I have long felt uneasy about the name we give the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission. It's not that I disagree with the act or institution per se. I'm just not sure that the issue they deal with (unlawful discrimination) is really a "Human Rights" issue. Not at least compared to the rights to life, liberty, due process, freedom of expression, etc. Are we devaluing the currency in applying this term too liberally?

I don't think so. While you can produce a broad ranking of human rights from "fundamental" to "vital" to merely "important", and being forced to sit at the back of the bus is somewhat less important in the great scheme of things than being tortured or killed, it's not as if freedom from discrimination is not like the others. Anti-discrimination legislation protects a fundamental human right that is usually overlooked because it seems so obvious: the right to participate fully in society and to be treated as a full and equal human being. This right is affirmed in articles one and two of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, before any of the others, because it is the basic starting point of living together in a society. Like the rest, it is based on universal principles, and applies to all times and societies.

There is however one significant difference between freedom from discrimination and other human rights. Where freedom of expression and the right not to be tortured etc are primarily about how people are treated by their government, freedom from discrimination or the right to participate in society is really all about how people are treated by each other. This explains the different legal approach - while it's fine to lay down broad principles (such as those in the BORA) to guide and bind government action, law aimed at individuals and backed by possible criminal penalties needs to be a lot more specific. And so we get legislation like the Human Rights Act, designed to protect and enable a core right, rather than simply affirm it.

Finally, to turn to the issue which inspired Grey Shade: it is both right and proper to call civil unions a human rights issue, and the Civil Union Bill evidence of a "positive human rights culture". Like anti-discrimination legislation, it is aimed at upholding that core right of full participation in society. I agree that it is not the be-all and and end-all - the Zaoui case is an obvious blot on our record, and the current government is taking several retrograde steps at the moment - but there is no question that it is still a positive step forward.