In the first of a two-part interview series, The EDIT sat down with Dr Nick McKerrell, to ask him about the documentary, and some of the wider issues it addressed.
You recently introduced “The Fading Valley” at the Human Rights Film Festival, could you tell us a bit about the film?
It’s a short documentary about a group of farmers in the West Bank in Palestine, which Israel occupied in 1967, and their struggle to survive, focusing on the basic commodity of water, which they have very little access to.
What is the situation like for Palestinians living in the West Bank currently?
In the film what’s shown is that the situation for farmers is very harsh because they don’t have access to the kind of facilities that Israeli settlers do – and the settlers are, under terms of international law, illegally occupying these settlements and they have access to much more resources than the farmers do. That being said the West Bank is still doing better than the Gaza Strip which has essentially been destroyed through warfare.
Do you think human rights abuses against Palestinians is partly responsible for the latest Palestinian uprising?
I think the whole question of human rights in that context is important for the whole picture. The situation whereby people can occupy territory illegally breaches international law, but it also breaches human rights laws. Human rights in terms of access to basic commodities like water are fundamental, because when people don’t have access to these sorts of rights they demonise others resulting in the attacks on Israelis. These attacks seem quite unprovoked, but the context of them is that breach of human rights over decades of time.
Moving from the film to the event itself, what is the purpose of the Human Rights Film Festival?
Well it’s a film festival focusing on documentaries that have a human rights dimension to them, and that’s interpreted in quite a broad way. If you have a look at the programme of events there was issues around refugees – very topical – a film focusing on Hungary and how they are treating refugees at the moment. They also focus on the Middle East, the Balkans, and civil liberties in Britain. There is also an award at the end of the event for the film that best highlights the issue of human rights. There are various human rights festivals but Glasgow’s film festival has run for 15 years and now receives funding from various institutions, including our university.
I noticed at the back of the brochure that it said “refugees and asylum seekers go free”. With this in mind, what do you make of the UK governments reaction to the migrant crisis?
Well actually the film festival started around 2000, when there was the first wave of asylum seekers coming into Glasgow in particular, and there was a lot of hostility in the media both local and national. The film festival was partly a reaction to that. The UK’s response to the current migrant crisis is inadequate I would say, and doesn’t fulfil legal responsibilities they have through international covenants on the treatment of refugees. What’s worrying is that the approach the government has taken could foster fear and disquiet from the population. I think good initiatives have been taken by the people within the country which I think should act as a model. The Scottish government has also had a good response but they don’t have the power to influence the situation – even our own university has taken the initiative to launch a refugee-help focus group.
The UK’s Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, just a few months ago travelled to Calais to spread the message to migrants that the UK is “not a land of milk and honey”, and that “the streets are not paved with gold”. What do you make of comments like these?
I think it is a misunderstanding of what refugees are about. Refugees are not looking for a perfect world they’re just looking to end the hell they are living in just now. The problem is that very many parts of the world are like that. Interestingly enough it’s not just the war situation but also the environmental one – as the film highlighted about water. One thing not commented on about Syria is that there is a massive shortage of water and also a massive heatwave. Our government isn’t taking much action on climate change and if they don’t then things like this will continue to happen. The idea of people coming here because of some millionaire lifestyle is just not in touch with what’s going on.
More generally, do you think that Britain’s role in promoting human rights is positive, or negative?
I think the model of human rights which we now have in Britain is under threat to a degree because of the threat of the government abolishing the Human Rights Act of 1998. In Scotland we have our own parliament which has its own commitment to human rights, and we have our own Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Alan Miller – and that body works with international organisations and so on. That aspect is positive. The model being promoted by the UK government I think threatens the model of people being able to access rights, because the Human Rights Act gives people the ability to stand up for their rights in a legal sense – that wasn’t so straight forward before the act was introduced.
Bearing in mind the recent trade deal with China, Xi Jinping’s visit, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and I could go on, do you think that trade is becoming more of a priority than human rights for the UK?
In an international context that’s definitely true, I think trade for the British government is the be all and end all, and the Chinese example is an obvious one, where all sorts of privileges have been given to the Chinese state as long as we get money from them. Saudi Arabia is another one, a recent document showed that Britain lobbied to get Saudi Arabia on the UN body of human rights – which is ludicrous, but the Saudi state is obviously a big backer of Britain. The issue of trade and jobs is obviously important to a lot of people, but I think if it’s explained about what we’re trading for then that’s an important debate to be had, but it’s never really framed like that.
Lastly, what steps do you think Britain could take to improve human rights around the world?
We should start with our own society, and promote the human rights that we legally sign up to. I certainly would be opposed to any attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act. Just this week the UN announced it will carry out a human rights investigation into Britain, specifically the treatment of people with disabilities, and the way benefit changes affect them. So it would be a good start for Britain to be a model of promoting people with dignity and to promote that around the world.
Feature image credit: Emma MacLachlan
