towards a better Europe   Return to the archives list Only communities can defend their basic freedoms Following the launch of the European Campaign for Jury Rights on 26th March 2003, Hector McNeill, the Campaign Coordinator gave an exclusive interview to European Options. The EO journalist was Larry Goldenstein. Hector McNeill Campaign Coordinator European Jury Rights EO: Well, thank you for the opportunity to find out more about the European Jury Rights Campaign. I must admit, as I listened to your statement, the whole issue seemed to make a lot of sense. So why hasn't this been proposed before? McNeill: Certainly placing the power of defense of freedom in the hands of people, whose freedom is in question, is common sense. But juries have been with us a long time and I feel their fundamental importance is not appreciated and their power for good severely underestimated. EO: Could it be that juries are seen as being an English hang up? McNeill: I hope not, juries are, or have been, used in various forms in many European countries. For example, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Spain and within restricted locations in Austria. I have probably missed several out. But that is sufficient to show that it is not just an English phenomenon. But then what if it was only an English phenomenon? EO: In Europe, people often favour their own things. The "not invented here" syndrome. McNeill: Yes, you might be right. But then protection of one's rights is not an institutional or national issue. It is a matter of having workable mechanisms to exert one's rights. A fundamental component of this process is the freedom to exercise the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of others. This is what the jury does. I am not aware of any other mechanisms which do this so well. EO: Surely institutions protect our rights and our freedoms? McNeill: Institutions do nothing. How can the people in institutions protect our rights and our freedoms. They might draft laws related to rights and freedoms but in practice they cannot provide guarantees. Guarantees can only come from those whose rights and freedoms are in question. In practical terms only communities can defend their basic freedoms, they have to stand in judgement of the effects of institutions, not the other way around. EO: A key part of your Campaign position is that the current status of the European Constitution, being drafted by the Convention, is unacceptable. What, to your mind, are the key points of weakness? McNeill: So far it has been the typical product of the culture of the European bureaucracy. Its the product of a tiny number of people including ex-ministers and working groups chaired by Commission staff. There has been no transparency. Predictably, so far, the document is already too big, it extols the virtues of institutions, the Commission and "social dialogue partners", or lobbies. The document is turgid and boring. It is so bad that it will not be read by most people in the Union because nothing in it grabs the imagination it simply does not inspire. Gistard D'Estaing Chairman of European Convention EO: So you think Valery Gistard D'Estaing, so far, has not done a good job? McNeill: What has been produced is exactly what I would have expected from a process managed by Mr. Gistard D'Estaing. Minimal reference to, or involvement of, European communities, just a product crafted, honed and approved by an elite. And this mark you, in the shadow of the realization that Europe suffers from a major democratic deficit. The very mind sets involved in drafting the Constitution are those which are largely responsible for the democratic deficit. EO: You dont seem to be holding out much hope for a successful conclusion to the Convention. McNeill: It has already failed. It has set up such a rigid framework into which civic society and others are now trying to add their comments that the broad gist is not going to change. EO: So where do juries fit in to this? McNeill: By focusing on this essential element we hope to remind people that they can defend themselves against bad laws or the misapplication of better laws. This is a minimum baseline guarantee of freedom, no matter what the Convention comes up with. Naturally, it would be preferable for the Constitution to place the right to self-defence of the freedoms of all in the hands of the people through the exercise of jury rights. EO: I did some checking, I haven't seen reference to juries anywhere in the current drafts of the Constitution. McNeill: Exactly, that is why there is a European Campaign for Jury Rights!