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

[MrGongGong]

No, I'm not!

Just consult any dictionary ... again ... if you find any definition that claims that anarchy (of any kind) is subject to the people's democratic majority approbation, please let me know.

Anarchism, like fascism, largely depends on thuggery because it eschews democratic political norm and behaviour, as it does not even believe in the rule of law in the first place.

OH dear
you really don't understand AT ALL do you
and have bought the whole "democracy = freedom" script

Personally speaking , I'm NOT an anarchist (or a socialist or any list for that matter ........)

actually this is quite good on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

and this quote might help you

"Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism)," ...........

Thoreau is also worth reading (as John said )

[amateur51]

I suspect that the greater majority of the UK population couldn't care less.

What does that mean?

[MrGongGong]

What does that mean?

nothing , he made it up

[ahinton]

People who won't play by the rules of society deserve to forfeit some of the privileges that belonging to that society bestows upon them. One may be liberty. Another may be the right to influence that society's direction and/or representation. Another may be the right to drive, or to keep animals.

OK, but I think that we can take that as read, given that we have such a thing as a prison system; however, which privileges and who should decide? - and would you seek to deny the same privileges to someone on a one month sentence for a petty crime as for another on life for murder? That said, I wasn't aware that people held in prison are able to drive or keep animals, whatever their "rights" to do either might otherwise be...

Except in the sense that the rule of law and legislation is a function of "political" discussion, there is nothing political about it. They are not imprisoned because they hold a political view (which would be one sensible definition of a "political prisoner"). Rather, they are inmprisoned because they have chosen not to obey the rules that most other members of the society observe.

Or, to put the point another way, how can the removal of the right to vote cause the prisoner to be a "political" prisoner and the removal of liberty or of the right to keep animals not do the same?

It's very simple, Simon; a withdrawal of certain privileges would or might constitute a breach of human rights committed or a\t least endorsed and sanctioned by a government, therefore it is a political decision; furthermore, withdrawing the right to vote and possibly other rights from prisoners is like saying that because we've withdrawn your liberty by banging you up we can withdraw from you any other privileges that we choose, regardless - would you advocate such an attitude in principle or in practice?

Also, what about the timing of incarceration of those who are constantly in and out of prison; has it not occurred to you that some such people might be able to vote more often than others like them just because it so happens that general and local elections (and, heaven forfend, even elections for police and crime commissioners) might be held when some of them are at liberty whereas others might miss them through bad timing?

[ahinton]

This issue is somewhat trumped up by international institutions. More than anything else, it over inflates the importance of an individual vote in practical terms. Any Conservative living his entire life in Hackney is effectively disenfranchised. Ditto any Labour supporter who spends 90 odd years in Henley.

True as far as it goes, but at least some of those have the choice to move to somewhere more conducive to their voting preferences whereas people in prison don't have that freedom.

[ahinton]

It will be interesting to see if this develops into a split along the usual left/right lines. It seems to be going that way to a certain extent, anyway.

Comments about anarchists don't help: anarchy is not just the enemy of the state, it is the enemy of all of us, and all democratic societies which protect freedoms have had a system whereby those who want to destroy those freedoms can be watched and if necessary prevented from so doing. So the usual facile and shallow anti-authority, anti-police comments from a certain quarter are as usual, off the mark.

The idea that the right to vote is also a human right is off beam; the right to vote has never, until a couple of unelected (and who knows how competent?) judges decided to interfere, formed part of the UN Declaration, nor been recognised as a Substantive right. That's not to say that it could not ever be, but that isn't the current point.

If you believe as you do about the right to vote, you should be consistent about the right not to do so; are you?

[ahinton]

No, because they haven't been imprisoned (most of them, anyway) for political beliefs, which I would think is the basic definition of a political prisoner.

Whilst that is true and whilst what you put forward is a broadly accepted and understood definition of a political prisoner, I don;'t believe that this alone means that disenfranchised prisoners cannot likewise be regarded as political prisoners (albeit for different reasons and under an appropriately expanded definition of the term) when the withdrawal of the right to vote will have been withdrawn by government alone.

However, I see no reason why prisoners should not be able to vote. One of the aims of imprisonment is rehabilitation; that is, making them fit to be part of society (yes, that begs lots of questions). If you tell someone that they are unfit to participate in a fundamental human right then that's not going to help that process much, is it?

No, it isn't.

[John Shelton]

I'd be astonished if the police did not have an eye on anarchist thugs who mostly attack trade-unionists/public-service workers like the police in particular, put pressure on others like ambulance crew and nurses, and of course harm innocent private businesses, in their destructive wake. They cannot be compared to most other political groups which are prepared to put representatives up for parliament, and generally abide by the rule of law.

Even the odious BNP is prepared to do that ...

I would be astonished if you and waldhorn #29 further down the thread, have read one - one - text of Anarchist political philosophy. You've perhaps a scholarly knowledge based on those in depth researchers who work for newspapers, and have doubtless watched news bulletins put together by experts in the field.

Disclaimer I am not an Anarchist. But at least I bother to find out about ideas, read books - that kind of tedious business obviously beneath you and waldhorn #29. Much Anarchist thought is of the civil disobedience kind which refuses to respond to violence with violence. There's the Conrad Secret Agent type of Anarchism, of course (it's a novel) and there are always plenty of people prepared to pose for the cameras in the age of rolling News. Some of them might even be agent provocateurs.

On my shelves I have this book Kropotkin: 'The Conquest of Bread' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Published by the Cambridge University Press, that notorious underground publisher and distributor of subversive material. Do you suggest banning the book? Banning the CUP? 24 hour surveillance on people who own a copy? Locking up the CUP syndics?

Or there's Chomsky on Anarchism. Midnight raids to see who has a copy lurking next to a book by the (non-Anarchist) great political philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre? Or Kropotkin's Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution published by the MIT Press, that terrifying publisher of academic books (sorry to keep mentioning books. You and waldhorn #29 probably have a principled objection to them) http://mitpress.mit.edu/ Definitely worth popping into a police station to warn them about that one.

Oh what the hell.

[Bryn]

"I’m an anarchist, same as you when you’re telephoning, turning on/off the lights, drinking water."

John Cage

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you to RM for the good comments.

I am still not sure whether the people who want prisoners to have the vote have addressed the question of prisoners being able to become Parliamentary candidates. If you have one but not the other, there is still a so-called infringement of human rights.

Standing as a candidate would mean them being able to campaign - knocking on doors, leafleting, speaking at the town hall debates, etc - for if they were prohibited from doing those things, that too would be a so-called infringement of human rights.

And then there is the question of whether they should be prohibited from attending Parliament daily if elected. Prohibition of attendance in Parliament by an elected representative would also be a so-called infringement of human rights. Sinn Fein candidates stood for Parliament having declared that they would not take their seats if elected. That though was their choice.

I am not convinced that voting should be artificially selected out as the measure of democratic equality. It isn't rational. Actually, I think it is mainly a money spinner for lawyers. I would be voting against it in any case for the reasons I have outlined.

[John Shelton]

Comments about anarchists don't help: anarchy is not just the enemy of the state, it is the enemy of all of us, and all democratic societies which protect freedoms have had a system whereby those who want to destroy those freedoms can be watched and if necessary prevented from so doing. So the usual facile and shallow anti-authority, anti-police comments from a certain quarter are as usual, off the mark.

Just seen this. To repeat what I wrote responding to the other scholars of political philosophy on this thread, scottycelt and waldhorn , slightly amended to include your knowledgeable self, since it seems just as relevant:

I would be astonished if you, Simon and [scottycelt] and [ waldhorn #29] further down the thread, have read one - one - text of Anarchist political philosophy. You've perhaps a scholarly knowledge based on those in depth researchers who work for newspapers, and have doubtless watched news bulletins put together by experts in the field. (This may not be the case with you Simon since I believe you do not possess a television and eschew newspapers).

Disclaimer I am not an Anarchist. But at least I bother to find out about ideas, read books - that kind of tedious business obviously beneath you Simon and scottycelt and waldhorn #29. Much Anarchist thought is of the civil disobedience kind which refuses to respond to violence with violence. There's the Conrad Secret Agent type of Anarchism, of course (it's a novel) and there are always plenty of people prepared to pose for the cameras in the age of rolling News. Some of them might even be agent provocateurs.

On my shelves I have this book Kropotkin: 'The Conquest of Bread' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). Published by the Cambridge University Press, that notorious underground publisher and distributor of subversive material. Do you suggest banning the book? Banning the CUP? 24 hour surveillance on people who own a copy? Locking up the CUP syndics?

Or there's Chomsky on Anarchism. Midnight raids to see who has a copy lurking next to a book by the (non-Anarchist) great political philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre? Or Kropotkin's Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution published by the MIT Press, that terrifying publisher of academic books (sorry to keep mentioning books. You, Simon, and scottycelt and waldhorn #29 probably have a principled objection to them) http://mitpress.mit.edu/ Definitely worth popping into a police station to warn them about that one.

Oh what the hell.

So how about you offering a non-facile, non-shallow response? Not just ignore this post. Or offer some generalised sneer. But, just for once, debate something showing you are arguing from some position of knowledge, of information. OK?

[scottycelt]

I would be astonished if you and waldhorn #29 further down the thread, have read one - one - text of Anarchist political philosophy. You've perhaps a scholarly knowledge based on those in depth researchers who work for newspapers, and have doubtless watched news bulletins put together by experts in the field.

Disclaimer I am not an Anarchist. But at least I bother to find out about ideas, read books - that kind of tedious business obviously beneath you and waldhorn #29. Much Anarchist thought is of the civil disobedience kind which refuses to respond to violence with violence.

I'm hugely impressed. You have books on your shelves. I am quite prepared to believe that. You are intellectually superior to those who don't have the same books on their shelves. Well, you could be right, I have simply no way of measuring such claims of intellectual superiority based on specially-selected books on household shelves. What the 'thumbs ups' and 'beer pots' are supposed to signify only you will know, though.

Forgetting for a moment the obvious, self-satisfied pride you have in the contents of your bookcase(s), and noting your reference to 'civil disobedience', do you condemn violence by anarchist groups against working-class, public-sector police officers and the trashing of private business premises?

Yes or No.

Oh what the hell.

I feel very much the same from time to time ...

[John Shelton]

I'm hugely impressed. You have books on your shelves. I am quite prepared to believe that. You are intellectually superior to those who don't have the same books on their shelves. Well, you could be right, I have simply no way of measuring such claims of intellectual superiority based on specially-selected books on household shelves. What the 'thumbs ups' and 'beer pots' are supposed to signify only you will know, though.

Forgetting for a moment the obvious, self-satisfied pride you have in the contents of your bookcase(s), and noting your reference to 'civil disobedience', do you condemn violence by anarchist groups against working-class, public-sector police officers and the trashing of private business premises?

Yes or No.

I feel very much the same from time to time ...

You haven't responded to a single word I've written because you are a typical internet loudmouth with nothing to say and no interest in any exchange of ideas. I said not a word about intellectual superiority, and the point I made about the Kropotkin was that the supposedly deadly subversive must be kept under surveillance material is published by the Cambridge University Press. About as academically mainstream as you could get.

I said nothing about pride in my bookshelves, though I am proud to have built a decent library. I love my library. What's wrong with loving books? But loving books wouldn't mean anything to someone as mean spirited and petty as yourself. The thumbs up and beer pots were waldhorn's response to your post. Height of articulacy.

As ever, nothing substantive from you. Just your native viciousness shining through (I bet you'd love to denounce people for reading the wrong books. Give you such a buzz).

Forgetting for a moment the obvious, self-satisfied pride you have in the contents of your bookcase(s), and noting your reference to 'civil disobedience', do you condemn violence by anarchist groups against working-class, public-sector police officers and the trashing of private business premises?

Much of the Anarchist tradition of civil disobedience is peaceful. A refusal to engage with the State on its own terms (including refusing to respond to violence). You've heard of peaceful civil disobedience? Perhaps not.

do you condemn violence by anarchist groups against working-class, public-sector police officers and the trashing of private business premises?

Yes or No.

I condemn violence, and I condemn the trashing of private business premises. (Which is not the same as temporarily occupying them). The "working class, public sector police officers" is another example of the slimy opportunism you use in lieu of discussion. Since you insist on applying a definition of Anarchist which is informed by absolutely no knowledge of Anarchist theory ... if they call themselves Anarchists while doing it, yes again.

I also condemn the violence of the police, and the kind of repression of freedom of thought becoming so prevalent in getting citizens such as yourself to inform on people for thinking for themselves. You, of course, don't. You love it.

[Pabmusic]

Discuss. I, by the way, can not see how it does not.

Whereas I cannot see how is does without devaluing the plight of true political prisoners. In fact, I'd say that no one could truly be a 'political prisoner' just because of the way they are treated in prison; it is the reason for that imprisonment that counts.

Not that I don't think the government is turning this into a political issue. The position in English law is clear (I think it's similar in Scotland, but I'm no expert) and was settled many years ago in a House of Lords decision. A prisoner is entitled to anything not expressly or impliedly taken away by the fact of imprisonment. This has to be seen in the light of a wider principle that a person is not in prison to be punished. The punishment is the fact of imprisonment itself, not what happens in prison. The only exceptions to this since 1948 have been the two periods when we experimented with the "short, sharp shock" of detention centres - failures, because adolescent males on the whole have plenty of energy add quite take to regimes filled with physical activity.

Voting is a right taken away expressly (I can't recall if it's in the Prison Act itself, or something else). That is what the ECHR has ruled on, saying we should not do this automatically. Now to talk as if this is the end of civilisation as we know it is just silly. This particular law occupies that uncertain area where treatment of prisoners amounts to de facto punishment, especially when you hear (as you do), "They shouldn't be allowed to vote - they're in prison". It would certainly be consistent with the general principle that prison is not for punishment, to allow prisoners to vote - it happens (of course) in many countries without dire consequences. The logistics of voting are already in place - people can vote by post in advance. I suspect that very few prisoners would vote, anyway - many are not keen on central or local government knowing where they live, so they probably are less likely than most to register in the first place.

[Pabmusic]

It certainly used to be the case (when I was writing background policy papers) that there was a disproportionate representation of people in prisons who had major problems with literacy and numeracy, dyslexia, mental health problems, alcohol & drug problems etc. Additionally there was a disproportionate representation of people who had experience of family breakdown as children and adolescents and who had subsequently experience of being cared for by the state.

To describe people with these major life disadavantages, as Simon does, as being ".. inmprisoned because they have chosen not to obey the rules that most other members of the society observe" seems to me to be ignorant and facile in the extreme.

You are quite correct about the demographics, Ams.