Prisoners votes discussed on The World at One

Prisoners votes discussed on The World at One



Thank you Dominic Grieve for showing us what a bloody idiot you really are. His negligence has contributed to 73,000 prisoners having their human rights violated. Perhaps, a writ should be sent his way? He owes a duty of care being a member of the Opposition to challenge Jack Straw. He claims to have challenged Jack Straw, however, I have never heard of any challenge. All I have heard is Grieve's opposition to the Court's judgment. The problem with Grieve's solution is that it fails to take into account that the Court decision is final. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that MPs and Parliament will have the final say whether prisoners have the vote. It would be a breach of the Convention to debate the issue and then retain the blanket ban. Also, Grieve missed the point about the only countries with a blanket ban are those totalitarian states. He took this as an example of other states doing it and we should follow suit. So, Dominic Grieve, do we live in a totalitarian state or a democracy?

Typescript of the interview (not complete yet)

Should prisoners be given the right to vote?

Martha Kearney: “Should prisoners be given the right to vote? Next week a new attempt to make that happen will come before the House of Lords. Six years ago today the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting was unlawful. The government’s view is that prisoners have broken the social contract, and so forfeited the right to vote. Since the ruling ministers have embarked on a series of consultations. The original case was brought by prisoner John Hirst, who’s serving a life sentence for manslaughter. He told me he could not see why the government had not resolved the issue so long after his legal victory”.

John Hirst: “Yesterday you’ve got the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, talking about rushing legislation through on this methadrone before the election. Now that issue has only just come up in the last few days, and he wants to rush into Parliament and get it through quickly. Here we’ve got a case that’s been waiting to be dealt with by Parliament for six years, and the government isn’t moving on it”.

MK: “But, if it were to become an election issue wouldn’t that damage your cause because I imagine public opinion is firmly against the view that prisoners should get the vote”.

JH: “No they’re not, because this is the thing, that’s the government’s line. They’ve actually conducted two consultation exercises, and the majority of people actually voted for all prisoners to have the vote. There were only 4 people who actually supported the government’s view to deny prisoners the franchise”.

MK: “Don’t you think there would be public outrage at the idea of convicted murderers and convicted rapists being given the right to vote?”.

JH: “No because it actually helps, you know, if people get the vote then it means them coming out having more of a say in society, and it helps towards rehabilitation. What you’ve got at the moment is a position where prisoners are looking at Jack Straw breaking the law on this issue and refusing to change it. All you’re getting there is an example of ‘Oh, it’s alright to break the law. But, it isn’t alright to break the law”.

MK: “But isn’t it a bit strong to say the Justice Secretary is breaking the law over this? And the government are consulting over this, what to do about the Court of Human Rights judgment?”.

(JH talks over MK “No, he is breaking the law. Europe has told him”).

JH: “If he continues down this line, to hold the next general election, and denying 73 thousand people the vote, it legally invalidates the election”.

MK: “John Hirst”.

(To be continued)