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

[Pabmusic]

...what if it was restricted to those who would be due, or possibly due, to be released within the following five years (i.e. the maximum length of the parliament for which they would be voting), regardless of their crime?

That would then apply to anyone serving 15 years or less, and to anyone serving a life sentence or IPP (an indefinite period, usually short-medium) who would be due for review within that 5-year period. That's most of the prison population, so you might as well allow it for everyone.

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=Resurrection Man;227580]I suspect that the greater majority of the UK population couldn't care less.

Lateralthinking's very valid and relevant points about the broader issue of rehabilitation deserve a far wider circulation then the ludicrous concept of 'political martyrdom of prisoners'. I have heard Citizen Smith come up with some tosh in my time but this takes the biscuit.[/QUOTE]

Just because lots of people don't care, doesn't mean there isn't a principle at stake, does it?
And just because the majority don't care about a thing , doesn't mean its not important, does it?

Hope you can read this and join in the debate , RM.

[Bryn]

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.

The very removal of what, in the U.K., is otherwise a universal right for those who have attained the age of 18, and are not legally held to be insane or have the right to take a seat in the House of Lords, is what I posit as effectively bestowing upon UK prisoners the status "political". The introduction in the very first sentence, of the concept of true political prisoners, is an Aunt Sally. The sentence "Now to talk as if this is the end of civilisation as we know it is just silly." Is really nothing other than the introduction of another Aunt Sally. I am not aware of anyone previously suggesting in this thread that the removal of the right to vote was the end of civilisation.

[scottycelt]

I condemn violence, and I condemn the trashing of private business premises.

Despite the customary and somewhat hysterical vitriol surrounding it, I am grateful for your answer to my question. Thank you, that vital clarification is much appreciated

In the great scheme of things what you think of me (or I of you) is wholly irrelevant and unimportant.

However, I now belatedly realise that my knee-jerk response to your personal attack on myself and another forum member ... and then subsequently a third ... was rather silly and self-defeating. It just provoked another, even greater, personal attack

What a dunderhead I am ...

[John Shelton]

However, I now belatedly realise that my knee-jerk response to your personal attack on myself and another forum member ... and then subsequently a third ... was rather silly and self-defeating. It just provoked another, even greater, personal attack

What a dunderhead I am ...

If you genuinely think you don't make personal attacks on other forum members - and in a number of cases me - then dunderhead isn't the word. You either have a remarkably selective approach to your own contributions, or the phrase beginning with whited and ending with sepulchre applies.

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'

And then the demand for a Yes or No answer yet again evading the point which is: what do you know about the history of Anarchist political philosophy? You ignored Mr GG's point about Thoreau's gentle position of Anarchist nature philosophy. Have you read any of the texts? If not why do you think you are in a position to hold forth so vehemently on the subject? It's turning this MB into an extension of a pub conversation. "Did you see on the TV ...?

Then there's Simon's habitual mode "facile and shallow ... from a certain quarter." With, of course, no argument facile, shallow, or deep to address my attempts to talk about the history of Anarchist thought based on the reading and research he and you sneer at. As ever, there's no exchange of knowledge.

Ditto

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.

With no explanation why not believing in a certain rule of law entails thuggery. Have you noticed the thuggery being continually perpetrated by the "democratic norm" societies you invoke. The thousands upon thousands blown to pieces.

Whatever "the great scheme of things" is, no of course it doesn't matter if you like me or I like you. All I ask for is the possibility of discussion based on knowledge on this MB. Rather than pub rants. Is that too much to ask?

[Flosshilde]

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.

I'm not certain that they can't stand at the moment. According to the Parliament website, "Who is disqualified from standing as an MP?

Certain groups of people are not allowed to stand, these include:

members of the police forces


members of the armed forces


civil servants and judges


people who are subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order in England or Wales or a debt relief restrictions order


people who have been adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland


people who have had their estate sequestrated in Scotland

[Flosshilde]

What a dunderhead I am ...

Indeed you are, since you continually equate Anarchism, the political and philosophical movement, with what some people, including the dear old Daily Mail, call 'anarchism' (note the upper & lower case), & apply to the riots in England last year.

And as you are so keen on faux-simple 'yes or no' questions, here's one for you. Do you condemn the Catholic Church, up to and including the Pope, for concealing years of child abuse by its priests, and assisting some of them to evade any criminal charges? Yes or no?

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not certain that they can't stand at the moment. According to the Parliament website, "Who is disqualified from standing as an MP?

Certain groups of people are not allowed to stand, these include:

members of the police forces


members of the armed forces


civil servants and judges


people who are subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order in England or Wales or a debt relief restrictions order


people who have been adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland


people who have had their estate sequestrated in Scotland

If that is right, then I change my sentence by one word:

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 equal Parliamentary candidates.

Unless they are also allowed all the same rights to campaign as other candidates and, if elected, they would be permitted to do everything another MP would do.

I think there is also an issue about a prisoner who doesn't want to stand for election but does want to campaign like any other person on behalf of someone who is standing. Presumably he would not be allowed to knock on doors etc.

[MrGongGong]

I'm not certain that they can't stand at the moment. According to the Parliament website, "Who is disqualified from standing as an MP?

Certain groups of people are not allowed to stand, these include:

members of the police forces


members of the armed forces


civil servants and judges


people who are subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order in England or Wales or a debt relief restrictions order


people who have been adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland


people who have had their estate sequestrated in Scotland

seems fair enough to me
So why are ex prisoners still allowed to be "Lords" ?

[Pabmusic]

The very removal of what, in the U.K., is otherwise a universal right for those who have attained the age of 18, and are not legally held to be insane or have the right to take a seat in the House of Lords, is what I posit as effectively bestowing upon UK prisoners the status "political"...

Well, I suppose you can consider anything to be 'political', and no-one can argue with you. Here's what the Council of Europe (guardians of the ECHR) define as a 'political prisoner':

"a. if the detention has been imposed in violation of one of the fundamental guarantees set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols (ECHR), in particular freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association;
b. if the detention has been imposed for purely political reasons without connection to any offence;
c. if, for political motives, the length of the detention or its conditions are clearly out of proportion to the offence the person has been found guilty of or is suspected of;
d. if, for political motives, he or she is detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons; or,
e. if the detention is the result of proceedings which were clearly unfair and this appears to be connected with political motives of the authorities."

It was to this definition, or something similar, that I was referring when I spoke of 'true' political prisoners. None of the five possibilities listed applies to the prisoners we are talking about.

The ban on convicted prisoners voting is currently in the Representation of the People Act 1983 , which states that:

“A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.” This replaced earlier legislation saying much the same thing.

This was primary legislation, not a government whim. I happen to think it was wrong, but then there are many laws I think are wrong; I have to acknowledge, though, that they have gone through our law-making process. The ECHR now says that it breaches Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which gives a right to 'free and fair' elections. The Court did not say it was wrong in all circumstances, rather that a blanket ban breached the First Protocol. Our government is now making it into a big political issue.

I just feel that talk of 'political prisoners' adds nothing to the matter, and devalues the term.

[Bryn]

"a. if the detention has been imposed in violation of one of the fundamental guarantees set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols (ECHR), in particular freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association;"

I can certainly see and arguable case that the removal of the right to vote might indeed fall within this area.

[Pabmusic]

"a. if the detention has been imposed in violation of one of the fundamental guarantees set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols (ECHR), in particular freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association;"

I can certainly see and arguable case that the removal of the right to vote might indeed fall within this area.

No. Because it refers to the imposition of the detention in violation of a guarantee. This is not the case with the sort of prisoners we are talking about, whose sentences are not imposed in violation of the ECHR. Any violation comes from the manner in which their detention is administered. To take any other line is to argue that any breach of the convention creates a political prisoner.

[Lateralthinking1]

Pabmusic - The Article says 'free'. Does it really say 'fair'?? What are 'free' and 'fair' anyway?

The parties have signed up to a requirement that no one shall be killed unless execution is deemed necessary by a state.
Eastern European countries with the death penalty can sleep easily. God forbid that we should require change by them.

The ones they execute can't cast a no vote. Us - we're 'bang out of order' on a democratic technicality in our prisons policy. How warped - but then when was this ever about morality? It's for lawyers. The original Convention was fine without EU interference.

And the priorities are all wrong!

[MrGongGong]

Here you go Scotty (et al) try this !

(Though I would be careful as given the way the country is becoming I might end up inside for spreading it ............)

http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf

[Pabmusic]

Pabmusic - The Article says 'free'. Does it really say 'fair'??

What are 'free' and 'fair' anyway?

The parties have signed up to a requirement that no one should be killed unless execution is deemed necessary by a state.

Eastern European countries with the death penalty can sleep easily in their beds.

Not many no votes coming in there from the ones who they have executed!

Us - we're bang out of order on a democratic technicality in our prisons policy. How warped!

You're right. Article 3 of the First Protocol says "free". There is case law that says elections must be fair.

As far as capital punishment is concerned, Protocol 6 bans it in all circumstances (even though in 1950 there had been a 'get-out' clause). All signatories have signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia, who has signed it but hasn't yet ratified it. The UK ratified Protocol 6 in 1998. None of the 46 signatories allows capital punishment, or can do so and remain within the Council of Europe. No new member can join without accepting the Convention, including Protocol 6.

Here's a digest of Hill v UK (the case that's caused the present hoo-ha):

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D1C71D5D-B63F-47B0-A5A8-6E02940EDAF7/0/FICHES_Droit_de_vote_des_détenus_EN.pdf

And here is the Convention:

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/CONVENTION_ENG_WEB.pdf