As leader of today's discussion on human rights, I do not propose focussing much further on the position of Irish Friends, except incidentally. I would hope rather to raise some general questions about human rights and to relate these to the fundamental convictions of the Religious Society of Friends. As I am not an expert in the field and have not been in a position to embark on extensive research, I shall simply make use of such material as I have had readily to hand.

I owe my preparedness to accept the invitation to address you to the fact that when Winifred Rochford telephoned me I was reading an extraordinarily apt passage in John Carey's recent book, What Good are the Arts? (faber & faber, 2005). Here is a slightly edited quotation from pages 172-173:

"...though ethical questions are by their nature insoluble, we cannot avoid making decisions about them. Treatment of other people in our everyday lives necessitates constant moral decisions, though, because they issue from our cultural indoctrination and upbringing, they may seem natural and involuntary. We are unlikely, too, to remain neutral on ethical issues more remote from our daily life - whether, for example, slavery or child prostitution are desirable social arrangements, or whether democracy or dictatorship are preferable political systems, or whether women should be allowed to drive cars or wear Western clothes. There is no global agreement on these issues, and no reason for supposing there ever will be, but we must decide where we stand."

The two issues raised by this quotation that I would like to discuss here this afternoon are, first, the way in which our Quaker convictions influence our ethical choices and, secondly, to ask if Professor Carey is correct in suggesting that there is no reason for supposing that there will ever be global agreement on ethical choices, particularly on matters categorised as "human rights"?

At the heart of Quaker beliefs is the idea that "there is that of God in every person." This is supported by the conviction that through prayer and worship we have access to the Holy Spirit, which Christ claimed as His guide, and who is available to everyone seeking the will of God in their lives and for their community. The logic of such a faith is that each human life is particularly precious. Historically, it has led Friends to espouse pacifism and to be among the earliest and most strident campaigners against practices like slavery and the death penalty. It is also, I believe, the logic behind the egalitarianism that is central to the organisation of Friends and is referred to by many Friends as a key reference in seeking to follow the commandment to love one another.

Having so declared, I think that as Friends we must be constantly aware that we have no monopoly in many of our moral claims. Among the leading voices of pacifism, for example, are and have been atheists - Bertrand Russell being an influential figure for many students of my generation. The apparently simple concept that there is that of God in every person does not lead every Friend to oppose abortion or to address issues of gender with an open mind. Most religious communities find life complicated by notions of science and sin and have enormous difficulties with questions like "When does human life begin?" and "What counts as a sin?" Fortunately such questions need not be part of this afternoon's discussion, suffice it to say that I hope I have explained why Friends have a historic interest in human rights and why that interest has to be pursued with a degree of humility and a recognition that apparently simple insights will not necessarily lead us wisely through the complexities of today's global environment.

Professor Carey suggests to us that there is no possibility of reaching a global consensus on ethical issues. Ethical guides of global aspiration, such as the Koran or the Ten Commandments, for example, are both contested and competitive. Yet one feels that, given the common humanity people recognise in life on earth, it should be possible to win recognition for basic minimum standards of moral behaviour. I hope I may be able to persuade you this afternoon that not only is this a legitimate aspiration but that it is a field of endeavour in which considerable progress has been made. I think we may even be entering a period offering good opportunities for further advance.

Organisations like the United Nations and its agencies, the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation, bodies like the International Red Cross, and regional groupings like the Council of Europe and the European Union have all been active in developing lists of rights and enforcement mechanisms. Even when a superpower like the United States opts out of or deliberately breaches an established code in an organisation to which it belongs there are adverse consequences. There are political difficulties with friends and allies and widespread critical reaction in the global media, at home and abroad. It is virtually impossible today for any army or state to think it can commit acts in flagrant contravention of acknowledged codes of conduct covering theatres of war or governmental responsibility without eventual disclosure. Cases in which former generals and heads of government are successfully arraigned in international courts on human rights issues are becoming more and more common and attract wide publicity.

Because of my familiarity with the EU, through a career spent mainly with the European Commission, and because of my critical interest in the development of the EU through membership of the Quaker Council for European Affairs, I would like to conclude my introduction to this discussion by looking briefly at The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union which is part of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, currently open to ratification by the 25 Member States. (15 Member States have already ratified the Treaty but the process is currently stalled because of the rejection of ratification in referendums in France and the Netherlands last year. No referendum is likely in Ireland before mid-2007 while consideration of this set-back continues.)

One of the reasons I am in favour of ratification of the proposed Constitution - even though there are elements in the Treaty which I would prefer were not there - is that it will create a Union which formally recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Preamble to the Charter opens with a sentence which expresses perfectly my hopes for European integration: "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values". These values are defined under seven Title headings: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, Solidarity, Citizens' Rights, Justice, and General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter. The titles offer a range of rights only achievable in a society at an advanced stage of economic and social development. They enhance the Union's claim to be setting higher levels of protection for its citizens than have been achieved in any other society. The Charter's specific abolition of the death penalty, for example, enables the Union to criticise the conduct of other societies as diverse as the United States and China. (Title I, Article II-62, 2: No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.)

I believe that the enactment of this EU Treaty can have an exemplar effect on the wider international community. I think that the EU experience of bringing the highly diversified peoples of Europe together in pursuit of such goals serves the EU well as, with its Member States, it contributes to the reform of the United Nations Organisation, a process which should also help to advance the possibility of a global consensus on human rights issues. While thus querying the scepticism of Professor Carey, I must nevertheless admit that no matter what global codes or charters may be negotiated politically, the historic challenge of practical implementation will remain. We see today how trained and professional armies betray their own disciplines and political leaders repeat the recognised follies of earlier historic figures.

The weight of Quaker faith and practice has historically carried an influence miraculously more effective than the number of Friends could lead one to imagine. In concluding with the hope that that voice for human rights will be a continuing concern, I would like to pay tribute to two Irish Friends.

I was fortunate to work in Trinity College at a time when Anne Keery and I had become attenders at Monkstown Preparative Meeting. It was a time when we were both opposed to the Vietnam war and supported protest in Dublin. The fact that I could meet Joe Haughton in the TCD Common Room and talk about Quaker approaches to the Vietnam situation and international affairs generally was of lasting value to me. He loaned me a range of FWCC material which showed me how weighty American Friends handled what was, for them, a real and present challenge. I was particularly struck by the way Friends saw it as essential to keep open lines of communication with all sides in a conflict. I feel that today we may not know enough about how American Friends are opposing the Iraq war.

When in 1977 I returned to Dublin as a Friend, and transferred my membership from Belgium and Luxembourg Monthly Meeting to Dublin Monthly Meeting, the late Stella Webb encouraged me to become involved in the Irish United Nations Association. There too it was very valuable to learn more about a complex international organisation and to meet a range of extraordinary people, either as supporters of the Association or visiting speakers.

It is a long time since I heard any Friend mention IUNA. Visiting its website suggests that it is an organisation with which Irish Friends interested in peace and human rights should try to network.

At this month's Dublin Monthly Meeting there was a discussion of follow up to Yearly Meeting's Minute 54 asking Yearly Meeting's Committee to address the question of re-establishing an Ireland Yearly Meeting Peace Committee. Dublin Monthly Meeting's Peace Committee is also pursuing the possibility of establishing an informal network of Irish Friends interested in information about and possible involvement in peace activities. Some of you may have more news than I have of the most recent meeting of Yearly Meeting's Committee. My understanding is that, while it has decided not to proceed immediately towards the re-establishment of a Yearly Meeting Peace Committee, it is indicating its support for steps which may enhance networking on peace issues among Friends in Ireland. Responsibility for the work of the Dublin Peace Committee is, of course, a matter for Dublin Monthly Meeting.

These initiatives, and this Quarterly Meeting session, are welcome indications of a new focus on concerns of fundamental importance to many Irish Friends. I hope this introduction may help to widen and deepen discussion.