Technorati have this hot spot for posting blurbs. Even if you do not agree with the subject matter, but still rate it as a good piece of writing, I would appreciate it if you would click on the title which links to the site and click on where it says WTF and cast your vote for this piece.
This month, 7 March 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) closes the first stage of its consultation exercise, whether prisoners should have the vote. Of course they should, its a human right under Article 3 of the First Protocol under the European Convention on Human Rights. I took the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in HIRST v UK(No2), and the Chamber reached a unanimous decision, finding that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting violated the Convention. The UK appealed to the Grand Chamber and lost.
The government has not taken kindly to losing. It had argued that public opinion would be against enfranchising convicted prisoners. However, the Grand Chamber relied upon the basic principle of universal suffrage. Stating that "Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws which it promulgates. Exclusion of any groups or categories of the general population must accordingly be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Art.3 of Protocol No.1...There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion"
It would appear that the government is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand it is under an obligation to the Convention to give affect to the Court's decision. On the other hand, it is blaming the public for not complying because it believes that the public supports its position for violating human rights. I do not believe that the public support a government which violates peoples human rights. Even if it is only on the ground that prisoners today, us tomorrow. What do you think?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment