The Graham Turnbull essay competition is run by the Law Society’s international human rights committee. It is open to all law students, trainee solicitors, pupil barristers, solicitors and barristers within three years of admission in or from England and Wales.

The £500 first prize is awarded by the Graham Turnbull Memorial, which was created in honour of the 37-year-old English solicitor, killed in February 1997 while working as a United Nations human rights monitor in Rwanda.


The judging panel was made up by: Michael Birnbaum QC; law professor Kevin Boyle, Centre for Human Rights at the University of Essex; David Gray from Newcastle Law Society; Ifath Nawaz, chairman of the Association of Muslim Lawyers; Katherine Henderson, of the Law Society’s international human rights committee; Alison Stanley, chairwoman of the Law Society’s immigration law committee; and Lucy Winskell, chairwoman of the Law Society’s international human rights committee.


This year’s competition was entitled ‘What is the role of the lawyer in unlearning intolerance?’ It was won by Brian Meenagh, a legal practice course student at the College of Law in Birmingham. This is his entry:





Since June 2004, the United Nations has been holding a series of seminars under the banner ‘Unlearning Intolerance’. So far, these have dealt with anti-semitism and Islamophobia. A further seminar is planned on immigration.

In his introduction to the seminar on Islamophobia in December 2004, Kofi Annan identified the need to unlearn the stereotypes that have become entrenched in ‘so many minds and so much of the media’. He noted that unlearning intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection, but that laws and norms are just a starting point. The UN Secretary-General imparted meaning and purpose to a new and unfamiliar term: unlearning intolerance, the idea that society is required to take active steps to promote tolerance and to stand firm in the face of intolerance.


What part does the lawyer play in this? As noted, the lawyer must offer protection from intolerance. Must the lawyer do more? Yes: protection from intolerance provides a solid foundation; unlearning intolerance requires action to build tolerance. It requires leadership, an ability to challenge stereotypes, and the use of reason to explain, argue and convince, but not force, the intolerant into reassessing their attitudes and beliefs.


Every lawyer has the skill, the knowledge and the training to do this.




Protection from intolerance


As lawyers we are called on to protect against intolerance. We acknowledge the severity of criminal acts involving hostility towards racial, ethnic or religious groups and punish the crime accordingly. We have laws in place to prevent and punish the stirring up of hatred on grounds of race or ethnic origin, and we are working towards enacting laws preventing similar stirring up of hatred on grounds of religion.


We recognise the harm caused by the denial of opportunity, privilege and rights to individuals or groups, motivated by, or demonstrating, lack of tolerance. Accordingly, we have laws to protect against this harm, for example discrimination in the workplace or the denial of beneficial tax status to same-sex partners.


We identify the fact that intolerance is a global problem and requires a global solution. Lawyers are actively involved in the work of international organisations, such as the UN and the International Criminal Court, to bring perpetrators of genocidal acts of intolerance to justice. Lawyers are equally involved in efforts to provide protection from intolerance in other jurisdictions akin to that provided by our legal system.


Lawyers can and will provide the benefit of existing legal protection to groups subjected to intolerance. Protection from intolerance is undeniably a good thing, but it does not address the underlying attitudes and beliefs that lead to intolerance – the ideas that have become entrenched in so many minds and so much of the media. These attitudes and beliefs, these entrenched ideas: they all need to be unlearned.


Legal protection aids the unlearning process. One recognises that the law can influence behaviour and for some, influence their perception of the moral quality of a particular act. As such it can be argued that legislation that prohibits intolerance sends out the message that such behaviour is not merely legally wrong, but morally wrong and therefore the law can change attitudes as well as behaviour.


One cannot ignore the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 in providing protection. The full impact of the Act goes beyond offering protection; the body of positive rights that the Act has introduced has raised public consciousness of the need to respect the rights of others and provided individuals with a bulwark on which they may challenge intolerance.


Legal protection provides groups, who would otherwise be persecuted, with a platform on which to challenge the prejudice, ignorance and fear that feeds intolerance. Protection creates an environment in which individuals are free to confidently participate in society. Confident participation in society enables a group to dispel the myths, lies and half-truths that feed intolerance; dispelling myths unlearns intolerance.





Education, inclusion, example


Unlearning involves education, inclusion and example: education to replace ignorance with knowledge; inclusion to replace isolation with acceptance; and example to provide leadership and direction. One may argue that while it is obvious that there is a role in this for the teacher, the politician and the newspaper editor, there is nothing here for the lawyer to do. One may go further and argue that the lawyer should focus on providing protection, the benefits of which are obvious, and not be distracted from this valuable role by the challenges of unlearning intolerance.


I challenge that argument. Intolerance is a product of reasonable doubt. People, legitimately, have reasonable doubts in relation to groups that they are not part of. These doubts are weighed and, all too often, such is the weight of fear and ignorance that people pass judgement in favour of intolerance. This is hardly fair. There is a battle to be fought here, and no one is better equipped to participate in the battleground of reasonable doubt than the lawyer.


It is not suggested that the lawyer is under a duty to enter into argument with the public on matters of race or religion. The lawyer’s duty is to the client and to the court. It is suggested that in a private capacity the lawyer may use the discourse of evidence to undermine and challenge myths and half-truths. It is further suggested that in a professional capacity the lawyer may carry out their function in a manner that advances the unlearning of intolerance.


In terms of education, the lawyer should appreciate the role of litigation in dispelling ignorance. The court system provides an accepted medium for establishing truth. The lawyer, acting under a duty not to mislead the court in litigation, is a key part of this medium. The public nature of much litigation means that the lawyer acting in court has an opportunity to speak not just to the court, but to those members of the public and the media who take an interest in the matter being disputed. Where this matter involves intolerance, the lawyer, while acting in the interests of the client, should be aware of the opportunity to educate the interested public and media.


One example of litigation where this opportunity was taken was David Irving v Penguin Books & Anor (2000) LTL 14/4/2000. The litigation was covered extensively by the media and provided the subject matter for several books; these notably included the full text of Mr Justice Gray’s judgment which was published in paperback format by Penguin. Other examples of litigation unlearning intolerance include the decision of the US Supreme Court in Brown v Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954), which had national impact in the US, and the operation of the Gacaca court system in Rwanda, designed to promote reconciliation at a local level.


In terms of inclusion, the lawyer should embrace diversity within the profession. Regulatory bodies, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council already do a lot of excellent work in this area.


Such work is augmented by the existence of organisations representing minority interests within the legal profession.


At a day-to-day level, the lawyer can be inclusive by adopting working practices that demonstrate acceptance of difference in religion, gender and physical ability. The benefit of an inclusive legal profession is twofold: the profession attracts the best people and the profession sets an example for the rest of society to follow.


As stated, inclusion is one form of example. The benefit of example is that it establishes a precedent that other professions and society can adhere to. The lawyer can assist others in copying this precedent by means of thought leadership; when advising on matters such as employment rights the lawyer may go beyond minimum requirements to suggest best practices.


Intolerance is a threat to civilised society. Unlearning intolerance, through the challenging of lies and the provision of education, inclusion and example allows the lawyer to fulfil a role that recognises the importance of the lawyer to any civilised society.



Freedom of speech


During the UN conference on Islamophobia, Kofi Annan stated that a key part of unlearning intolerance is finding a balance between the media being used to spread hatred, while safeguarding freedom of opinion and expression.


This topic has been addressed by the press in recent months in light of a play staged in Birmingham that caused offence to members of the Sikh community. It is a topic that has been debated much by political and legal theorists.


This debate will not be addressed in detail here; however, it is respectfully submitted that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others.


Harm does not include offence taken by the expression of an opposing viewpoint. Harm does include physical damage and denial of rights motivated by intolerance. The lawyer has a key role in defending free speech, unlearning intolerance and finding an appropriate balance between the two. It is submitted that the latter role is executed by the lawyer properly identifying the harm that intolerance causes, providing protection to those affected, and unlearning intolerance in the manner outlined above.


Offering the protection of the law to those affected by intolerance is the starting point in defining the lawyer’s role. Protection enables groups to confidently participate in society and challenge the myths and lies that feed intolerance. Challenging myths and lies is one aspect of unlearning intolerance. This aspect is carried out through education, inclusion and example. The lawyer is well equipped in a private capacity to challenge myths and lies and should recognise the opportunity that professional life affords to provide education, inclusion and example.