'Votes for Murders': the new campaign slogan?

'Votes for Murders': the new campaign slogan?

by Joe Dyke 8.2.2010

The think-tank Barred From Voting has declared that the upcoming British election ‘may be illegal’ as prisoners are banned from voting. An 1870 British law declares that anyone convicted of a felony loses their right to vote whilst in jail but in 2004 the European Court of Human Rights declared this illegal as it violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is obviously problematic: giving voting rights to prisoners is unpopular with much of the population and Labour is keen to avoid the accusation of being weak on crime. But in this case, as much as the government may procrastinate, international law takes precedent over British law and Gordon Brown will eventually have to accept the ruling.

There are a number of options and in April last year the government suggested staggering the right to vote – criminals who have done less serious crimes will be granted the vote but those convicted of murder and other serious crimes will not get the privilege. This, however, will not solve the problem in international law as even serial killers have human rights.

While ‘Votes for murderers’ is far from a popular electoral strategy, ultimately the government will have to accept that European law must be implemented. They may be able to avoid their international commitments for a little while longer but this issue will rumble on on the back burner. The hope for Gordon Brown is that he can keep it off the front pages, at least until after the election.

I don't think much of your campaign slogan, simply because this issue relates to all convicted prisoners eligible to vote, whereas only a tiny proportion of the prison population are convicted murderers.

The Barred from Voting campaign is not a think-tank, but a joining of the forces of the Prison Reform Trust and Unlock. Whilst I attended the meeting in Parliament on 8th of February 2010, my campaign is called the Prisoners Votes Case and is based upon Hirst v UK(No2).

I don't see it as being "obviously problematic" at all. As you point out, international law takes precedence over English law. All the UK has to do is amend the necessary legislation to comply fully with its obligations under the Convention.

As you say, the government is opting for the partial franchise. You refer to voting as a privilege. However, in my case the Court stated that voting is not a privilege but a right.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe meets in March to supervise executuion of the judgment. My submission will ask for the UK to be suspended from the Council of Europe.

Gordon Brown has not got a cat in hell's chance of keeping this story off the front pages until after the general election. Especially, given that 64,000 prisoners are to launch a class action which is seeking £64,000,000 in damages for the loss of the human right to vote. If prisoners feel that justice will be denied, they may exercise the other option open to them. It should be remembered that Strangeways Prison cost £112,000,000 to rebuild and refurbish after the April 1st 1990 riot.