Does the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners?

[aeolium]

I would though counsel that in the rush to include large parts of the habitable globe under the designation "European" we do not fall into a kind of mental colonialism and revert to that dangerous C18/C19 habit of thought that everything really centres around Europe and European civilisation. Those Eurasian countries which are signatories to the Council of Europe are every bit as Asian as they are European and to deny that Asiatic part of their culture is quite wrong. Absolutely the last thing we want is a kind of "Greater Europe" imo.

[ahinton]

and



this has become a bit of a "catch all" phase, when I first went to Hungary I said to someone I met that I had never been to "Eastern Europe" before, "you still haven't" was the reply this is "Central Europe" ......

Indeed - how right that person was! Well, maybe not, actually, for if, on the grounds that Russia is a signatory to the European Convention, that country can be regarded as part of Europe (and it would surely seem rather silly if it were not?!), Hungary is more properly part of Western Europe. When I was in north east Norway some 35 years ago, I took a trip from Kirkenes to Grense Jakobselv, along which I saw a sign on a somewhat forbidding looking gate which, when translated into English, read "Soviet Union: Keep Out"; some kind of then rather risky joke this may indeed have been, yet the surreality of the image of a gate (with no visible security presence in its vicinity, incidentally) behind which lay at least 7,500 miles of land from west to east and occupying more than 17m square kilometres was hardly lost on me...

[ahinton]

I would though counsel that in the rush to include large parts of the habitable globe under the designation "European" we do not fall into a kind of mental colonialism and revert to that dangerous C18/C19 habit of thought that everything really centres around Europe and European civilisation. Those Eurasian countries which are signatories to the Council of Europe are every bit as Asian as they are European and to deny that Asiatic part of their culture is quite wrong. Absolutely the last thing we want is a kind of "Greater Europe" imo.

We already have it and, whilst I take your point about the horrific prospect of contemporary colonialism, I see little problem in having "Asian Europe" alongside "Mediterranean Europe", "Slavic Europe", "Scandinavian Europe" etc.

[Simon]

... people question 'human rights' as if it's a somehow a wishy-washy 'liberal' idea that can mean anything to anyone. It's actually a quite successful attempt to put right some of the wrongs that led to a world war.

As someone who regularly questions it, I couldn't agree with you more.

What those who question it object to, I think, is that from being a great and most necessary statement of principle it has, in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers, been extended and misused to encompass all sorts of ridiculous situations.

[Lateralthinking1]

Perhaps - perhaps not; who can say; it might have better been written differently, I'll grant you that much, but is the impression that you have gleaned from the discussion so far that I am probably out on a limb here in believing that prisoners should have voting rights restored to them except in cases such as those convicted of electoral fraud?

90% of contributions here indicate opinion similar to yours. About 50% of those have been written by you and two other people.

In terms of the views of individual contributors, that is much more evenly balanced. We do not know the opinion of people who only read the contributions. However, over 90% of British people have indicated consistently in polls since 2011 that they don't agree with opinions that you happen to hold. That is the only figure that concerns me here.

You wonder whether people who "prefer to refer back to those such as Bentham, Mill and the like harbour either contempt or at the very least suspicion of UDHR, the European Convention and the ECHR". That entire phrase strikes me as malign.

No one here has said that they have a preference for Mill over the ECHR. If it is a general point, it glides so close to my contribution on Mill that it is touching it. The word "harbour" suggests "giving shelter to a criminal" and should be withdrawn.

It isn't clear to me whether you really support the ECHR or actually despise it. How you were to answer would not necessarily convince me of your true position. It would be easy for those who oppose the ECHR to pursue deeply unpopular causes there while saying it is absolutely terrific. There is no surer way of encouraging the public to loathe it.

I don't need any statistics to tell me that those who fought in WW2 would fight another war to ensure that this measure didn't get through. What worries me particularly is that the ECHR will become so discredited that countries will leave it. Too much liberalism is very often the direct route to fascism. And the two are often the yin and yang in an individual's identity.

[Pabmusic]

...Too much liberalism is the direct route to fascism.

A sentiment that might have more weight had we not had the ECHR, and been subject to its decisions, for 62 years already.

When I joined the Prison Service, there were several cases from the UK before the ECHR. One was called Silver v UK and was about (1) a prisoner's right to correspond with legal advisors without having his correspondence read, and (2) whether correspondence could be restricted to close family only. Believe me when I say that, seen from within, people saw this as undermining the entire discipline and control of prisoners. The government ducked and dived, dillied and dallied, and came up with great suggestions (What if we just open legal correspondence to check there's no contraband, but we won't actually read it? All right, says the court, but you'll have to do that in the prisoner's presence. Oh no! say we, it would undermine staff authority to have them watched by prisoners...etc, etc ad nauseam). And what happened in the end? Prisoners communicate with their legal advisers without interference, and have done for 20 years or more.

We are witnessing something similar now. The British way of doing things is usually to seem to comply, but not to comply in fact; when that fails, the government gets huffy. In this instance, the self-righteousness encompasses a swathe of anti-European things, such as the EU budget.

The fact is that we belong to the club and have to accept its decisions - as we do readily enough when they suit us.

[Lateralthinking1]

A sentiment that might have more weight had we not had the ECHR, and been subject to its decisions, for 62 years already.

When I joined the Prison Service, there were several cases from the UK before the ECHR. One was called Silver v UK and was about (1) a prisoner's right to correspond with legal advisors without having his correspondence read, and (2) whether correspondence could be restricted to close family only. Believe me when I say that, seen from within, people saw this as undermining the entire discipline and control of prisoners. The government ducked and dived, dillied and dallied, and came up with great suggestions (What if we just open legal correspondence to check there's no contraband, but we won't actually read it? All right, says the court, but you'll have to do that in the prisoner's presence. Oh no! say we, it would undermine staff authority to have them watched by prisoners...etc, etc ad nauseam). And what happened in the end? Prisoners communicate with their legal advisers without interference, and have done for 20 years or more.

We are witnessing something similar now. The British way of doing things is usually to seem to comply, but not to comply in fact; when that fails, the government gets huffy. In this instance, the self-righteousness encompasses a swathe of anti-European things, such as the EU budget.

The fact is that we belong to the club and have to accept its decisions - as we do readily enough when they suit us.

However, there are rules and there is a bending of the rules. A mistake would be to see any bending of rules as always naturally residing among those who are subject to the rules rather than on the side of those enforcing them. Like many liberals, I don't think that it does reside in one place. We see time and again in the UN, the EU and other international organisations as well as the government, local government, companies, public sector organisations, schools.......the list is endless.......how those with decision making powers deceive. And they have law breaking instincts as well as law making instincts. They bend and break their own rules.

In some respects, this has always been the case. Much of new law, or legal principle at the point of its establishment, requires earlier law or principle to be ditched. However, a good deal of it emanates from 1960s liberalism. That was positive and indeed essential in many areas of life but it also has a down side. It effectively stunted development in many people. Children were less inclined to obey rules because the rules of adults became so wishy-washy. The adults themselves frequently flitted about either side of the line, interpreted principle in whichever way suited them best, argued for one thing and then frequently did precisely the opposite, and often twisted things round while simultaneously being shady and covert. Consequently their offspring do the same.

This is now the problem with authority. The offspring are in positions of responsibility themselves but have never found sufficient elevation on big principles. Attlee was straightforward and not untypical of his era. Rules were established with clear and vital objectives. The interpretation of such rules, and new additions to them, are now driven more by clever-cleverness and whim.

If I were to manage a school, I might be given a rule to apply in regard to the lessons and extra-curricula activities. The children should have the right to attend the former and undertake the latter. One child throws a stone through a classroom window. It is my obligation to speak to him and consider possible detention. I arrange the interview for 3pm and consider whether detention is necessary at 4.30pm. What could be more normal, appropriate, simple and for the good of all? It hardly needs detailed thought.

But the inspectors arrive and say "sorry mate, you are breaking the rule". This means, if true, that I have to see the child at 7pm. It also means that the rule effectively rules out any broadly acceptable form of interview or detention. If that were not regrettable enough, it is far, far worse that in actuality it isn't true. The rule does not say "all the children". It makes no specific reference to the real life need of addressing misdemeanour. Quite clearly, it is rightly focussed on general principle. It is those who are claiming to enforce it who are distorting it by presenting it as applicable to everyone and in every situation. This is a direct parallel.

The only ducking and diving that I can see taking place on prisoners voting is at the ECHR. People there are seeking to convince us that the wording of the Article says what it doesn't say. The liberal objective is completely overshadowed by the over-zealous and undemocratic nature of it all. That "but why can't I?" and "that's what I really meant to say, sir" authority which is so obviously being attempted is no authority at all. And naturally it makes me far more inclined even at nearly 50 to go on the rampage.

[Pabmusic]

...The only ducking and diving taking place at the ECHR in this case is among those who seek to convince us that the wording of the Article says what it doesn't say. The liberal objective is completely overshadowed by the over-zealous, undemocratic and the "but why can't I?" and "that's what I really meant to say, sir" authority being attempted.

I really don't sense any prevarication from the ECHR, which has been pretty flexible, allowing the UK more than seven years so far to get our act in order. Our response has been to partly comply on the very last day possible to do so.

Cases at the ECHR do not hang on pedantic finickiness, as do British courts. The Convention was deliberately drafted fairly broadly, so that the approach to any case is "is the thing complained of consistent with the principle in the Article?". The court's usual practice has been fairly 'broad-brush', often leaving the details of compliance to the member state. That is what it has done in this case. It found that a ban on prisoners voting solely because they were convicted was incompatible with the right to enjoy free elections. It is not a right impliedly taken away by imprisonment, and therefore amounts to a punishment not imposed by the court, and which is not given after consideration of the circumstances of the case. The ECHR said there are circumstances in which we can ban voting, but they have to be reasoned and not just because the prisoner is convicted of anything. It left it to us to say how we would achieve this. We have not yet done so.

[Lateralthinking1]

I really don't sense any prevarication from the ECHR, which has been pretty flexible, allowing the UK more than seven years so far to get our act in order. Our response has been to partly comply on the very last day possible to do so.

Cases at the ECHR do not hang on pedantic finickiness, as do British courts. The Convention was deliberately drafted fairly broadly, so that the approach to any case is "is the thing complained of consistent with the principle in the Article?". The court's usual practice has been fairly 'broad-brush', often leaving the details of compliance to the member state. That is what it has done in this case. It found that a ban on prisoners voting solely because they were convicted was incompatible with the right to enjoy free elections. It amounts to a punishment not imposed by the court, and which therefore is not given with consideration of the circumstances of the case. The ECHR said there are circumstances in which we can ban voting, but they have to be reasoned and not just because the prisoner is convicted of anything. It left it to us to say how we would achieve this. We have not yet done so.

Well, given that some countries have had ten years and more to remove the death penalty universally and that gypsies and jews are in others seemingly to be segregated in schools forever more, ECHR is being unduly harsh here and completely lightweight in far more important matters. Mandela would have gladly forsaken the vote when imprisoned if he had felt that priority would be given to ending apartheid. He also knew that prisoners having the vote would not have led to regime change. Arguably, the very last thing he wanted or needed in order to make his point was the "right" to be embraced by, and identified more closely with, the system.

ECHR's interpretation of freedom as in "free elections" is highly selective. My pets shall be free to roam around the garden. The hamster? Sorry, that is, or can be, excluded from the rule. Either all my pets are completely free to roam around the garden or none of them are completely free to do so on the grounds that the rule did not specify when and how they could roam around the garden and some need protection when the fox arrives. The ECHR's attempted application of the law promotes favouritism. It is potentially discriminatory against specific categories of prisoner, if not in a strictly legal sense. And it is highly irrational.

[Serial_Apologist]

Prisons riddled with protectionism, drugs and psychological problems are the last places I'd described as only depriving their inmates of democratic rights for reasons of public safety and/or punishment. It seems an odd premise from which to say the one right they will actually get under ECHR requirements is unacceptable because you are asking me to do x when you are allowing that country to do y. I just don't get the connection here, lat.

[Lateralthinking1]

Prisons riddled with protectionism, drugs and psychological problems are the last places I'd described as only depriving their inmates of democratic rights for reasons of public safety and/or punishment. It seems an odd premise from which to say the one right they will actually get under ECHR requirements is unacceptable because you are asking me to do x when you are allowing that country to do y. I just don't get the connection here, lat.

Aren't they asking us to do x because Italy does x rather than y, although we can define x differently from Italy? That is how I understand it. It isn't that they are asking us to do something different but something similar. At the same time those who do things very differently in terms of, say, jewish people do not have to adjust at all to how we do things here.

Prisons are not the last places in which there are no voting rights. Should the ECHR judgement be enforced, it will further isolate individuals who have been sectioned under the mental health legislation for their own protection. Theirs will then be the ultimate punishable crime in a society that is very lacking, across Europe, in any motivation to cope with mental illness.

All of the negative aspects of prisons you describe are among the reasons why I support prison reform. They are all far more severe in terms of unhelpfulness to assimilation than an absence of voting power. A key word, I think, is priorities. The court is behaving rather like the police who want to be seen to tackle crime but are reluctant to get stuck into gun gangs. They deal with issues of conscience by bumping up arrests on cannabis possession and the like. But at ECHR liberal consciences are being salved.

If and when prisoners get voting rights, a big part of the sickness I will feel will be different from the Prime Minister's. Combined with a small "c" conservative-leaning repugnance will be a big "L" liberal-leaning repugnance. The sight of Shami Chakrabarti leaping up and down with joy that the nation has been made to be liberal will be truly gut-wrenching, not least because there will still be slop buckets, prisoners will still be three and four to a cell and rehabilitation will still be defined in the real world as learning to survive on London's streets. Lawyers are raking it in but it won't be a present to prisoners or society. At most, it's a pretty bow.

In short, it is far too liberal for conservative sensibilities and an excuse for sidestepping liberalism where it counts. And as such, I tend to see it as a rather dangerous trinket. It dabbles and it meddles. It is a genie in a bottle with very unpredictable clout.

[Flosshilde]

over 90% of British people have indicated consistently in polls since 2011 that they don't agree with opinions that you happen to hold. That is the only figure that concerns me here.

Where do you get this figure from? I can't find any opinion polls that ask the question.

The majority of people would bring back hanging - do you think that the death penalty should be re-introduced, just because a majority want it?

[Lateralthinking1]

Where do you get this figure from? I can't find any opinion polls that ask the question.

The majority of people would bring back hanging - do you think that the death penalty should be re-introduced, just because a majority want it?

90% plus would not bring back hanging.

I support the well-established principle that it is for our elected representatives to decide.

Last week's YouGov poll found that 63% of respondents said that 'no prisoners should be allowed to vote at elections', 8% said that 'all prisoners should be allowed to vote', 9% said 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 4 years should be allowed to vote' and 15% said 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 6 months should be allowed to vote'.

I understand that AHinton favours voting for prisoners other than those who have been convicted of electoral fraud or other very narrowly defined political crimes. That to me suggests that he is out of step with 90% plus of the population but if you would prefer that I revised my statement to over 80% or 85% I am happy enough to do so with a proviso.

[ahinton]

As someone who regularly questions it, I couldn't agree with you more.

What those who question it object to, I think, is that from being a great and most necessary statement of principle it has, in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers, been extended and misused to encompass all sorts of ridiculous situations.

It might on certain occasions have turned into that, but this is no excuse; after all, you could say that about all manner of things that can be and are frequently manipulated by lawyers!

[Flosshilde]

Last week's YouGov poll found that 63% of respondents said that 'no prisoners should be allowed to vote at elections', 8% said that 'all prisoners should be allowed to vote', 9% said 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 4 years should be allowed to vote' and 15% saying 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 6 months should be allowed to vote'.

And that adds up to over 90% of British people how exactly?