Claire Perry and UK are the weakest link on prisoners votes!
Claire Perry one half of Kevin and Perry!
Last Wednesday at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) there was a debate and vote on the subject of Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
The Resolution
The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights see, (in this connection, the Court’s judgment in Greens and M.T, of 23 November 2010, amendment added following the debate).
In my view, any MP (like Claire Perry) who does not know what justice is should not be sat on the cross-party Select Committee on Justice. Quite clearly, the stupid woman thinks justice is just about inflicting punishment upon offenders. Perhaps, she should have the courage to sit down and listen to the following before opening her big mouth and putting her foot in it?
Ms Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – We have all joined this Organisation because we believe in the rule of law, democracy and human rights. The Council of Europe institution that is best known to the public is the European Court of Human Rights. The fact that a citizen in any of our member states can hand in a complaint to the Court is an outstanding sign of democracy that most people in the world can only dream of. In order for the Court to maintain its high public status, member states must implement its judgments.
A chain is never stronger than its weakest link. As is stated in the report, several member states have failed to implement the Court’s decisions, and this undermines the authority of the Court. I am particularly concerned by the situation in Russia. The Russians have started compensating successful applicants to the Court, but that is not enough. They must take general measures to ensure that there will not be similar violations in future.
Some states feel that the Court is against them and that it makes political decisions, but that is not true. Over the past decades, my own country, Sweden, has been convicted 25 times. It is certainly not a pleasant experience to have a judgment against you, either as an individual or as a state. Nevertheless, we must accept it. This is what we have agreed to; we have joined this Organisation and we must live up to it. What matters is the human dimension. The right of an individual to complain against a state is something that we should be proud of and work together for.
The Committee of Ministers has a responsibility to put pressure on the government in question to execute the Court’s judgment. We, as parliamentarians, have the ability and the duty to do so, too. If a member state has had many citizens who complained to the Court about almost the same matter, that is a signal to its government that something is really wrong in the country. It lies in the hands of member states to ensure that the Court does not end up with a heart attack – a complete breakdown. If every state does its homework in living up to the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, I am sure that complaints to the Court will go down immensely.
Claire Perry: As a member of the cross-party Select Committee on Justice in my parliament, and as a member of parliament with a prison in my constituency, Devizes, I take a keen interest in the matter. Although I believe there is much to welcome in the report presented today, in the case of this specific judgment I believe that the Court’s judgment is wrong. It ignores the great differences between member countries in terms of definitions of crime, sentencing and prison regime. It ignores the fact that those are matters for sovereign parliaments. Crime, sentencing and punishment, including the selective removal of voting rights, are constitutional matters for sovereign parliaments and for courts to decide in our member countries. In my view, the European Court is really riding its luck by unilaterally extending its remit to areas where consent to do so has never been granted by our member parliaments.
It is that sort of judgment that creatively – some would say mischievously – extends the reach of the original protocols, while ignoring sovereign law. It is that behaviour that does so much to spoil the appetite in my country, and in other countries, for more European unity and co-operation. It is also the case that by awarding compensation of tens of thousands of euros to convicted murderers, the Court runs the risk of looking unhinged in the international media.
I finish with a quote from Winston Churchill, who in many ways was the founding father of this Assembly. He believed passionately in European co-operation, but from a starting point of sovereign independence. He said: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, but courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” I therefore urge the Court, this Assembly and our national governments to sit down and listen and reconsider the specific implantation plans for this judgment, as they are unworkable, unconstitutional and an unacceptable intrusion in the sovereign independence of our member states.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Ashley Cole wins another gagging order over another affair
Ashley Cole wins another gagging order over another affair
Sportsman wins new gagging order over affair
A well-known sportsman has won an appeal to prevent his identity being revealed in connection with an alleged affair because he had already been exposed as having a previous affair outside his long-term relationship.
Ashley Cole.
There again, could it be Peter crouch?
How do these footballers find the energy to play around, playing away from home, and play football? Of course what they do in the privacy of their own homes is of no public interest, save for the curtain twitchers and over the fence gossips...
I still remember the minor Royal, Viscount Linley, getting a gagging order on his being blackmailed. What ever happened to him?
Guardian Law links from around the web reports
31 Jan 2011
Ashley Cole wins another gagging order over another affair
From Jailhouselawyer's Blog
So, it must be true...
Sportsman wins new gagging order over affair
A well-known sportsman has won an appeal to prevent his identity being revealed in connection with an alleged affair because he had already been exposed as having a previous affair outside his long-term relationship.
Ashley Cole.
There again, could it be Peter crouch?
How do these footballers find the energy to play around, playing away from home, and play football? Of course what they do in the privacy of their own homes is of no public interest, save for the curtain twitchers and over the fence gossips...
I still remember the minor Royal, Viscount Linley, getting a gagging order on his being blackmailed. What ever happened to him?
Guardian Law links from around the web reports
31 Jan 2011
Ashley Cole wins another gagging order over another affair
From Jailhouselawyer's Blog
So, it must be true...
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Should the UK be invited to leave the Council of Europe?
Should the UK be invited to leave the Council of Europe?
In over 5 years since Hirst v UK (No2) was decided by the ECtHR, the UK has gone from totally ignoring the decision to seeking to get away with minimal compliance. Last Wednesday the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted on the following Resolution:
"The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights".
"Joint debate
THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Document 12455, which is presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights; and on preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases in respect of Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights, Document 12435, presented by Mr Darchiashvili on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, with an opinion presented by Mr Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 12471.
The rapporteurs have 13 minutes in total to present their reports, which they may divide between presentation of the reports and replies to the debate.
I call Mr Pourgourides to present the first report.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – Thank you, dear President.
Dear colleagues, paragraph 2 of the draft resolution of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights gives a clear indication of the basic thrust of what this afternoon’s discussions should be about. We know that the Committee of Ministers has the principal task of supervising Strasbourg Court judgments; that is clearly laid down in Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. But what if, despite the efforts made by our diplomatic colleagues, states are dilatory or simply not willing to comply speedily with Strasbourg Court judgments? Are we, the representatives of the legislative organs of the 47 countries, meant to sit back while the greatest achievement of the Council of Europe collapses under the weight of its own work or of the inability of the Committee of Ministers to force a number of states to comply rapidly and fully with Strasbourg Court judgments?
Of course, we cannot let that happen. I understand that there are more than 9 700 – yes, you heard me right: 9 700 – cases pending before the Committee of Ministers right now. Many of those cases concern grave human rights violations and a substantial number relate to major structural problems that have not been resolved for more than five, 10 or even 20 years.
The countries responsible for that unacceptable situation are: Italy, with more than 2 500 unexecuted cases; Turkey, with more than 1 600 cases still pending before the Committee of Ministers; Russia, with nearly 1 000 unexecuted cases; Poland, with more than 760 such cases; Ukraine, with nearly 700 such cases; and Romania, with more than 630 such cases. All that gives one the impression that those countries are dragging their feet in not dealing speedily with the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments.
The Assembly and national parliaments are therefore duty-bound to play a more proactive role in this respect. I quote from paragraph 2 of the draft resolution: “if this is not done, the key role of the Convention, its supervisory mechanism and the Council of Europe as a whole, in guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights in Europe is likely to be put in jeopardy”. The current state of affairs, Mr President, is simply scandalous.
I was appointed rapporteur in March 2008, to take over the work of my eminent predecessor, Erik Jurgens of the Netherlands, who had, since 2002, produced several reports on this subject. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights authorised me to undertake fact-finding missions to eight countries – Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. I visited them all, and my last visit, to Turkey, took place only a couple of weeks ago.
The work has been difficult, very intensive and time consuming, but certainly rewarding, both for the people I met in those countries and for me, and I am now able to present the report to you today. In most countries, I was able to meet parliamentarians, prosecutors, judges, ministers and officials directly responsible for human rights files, and, on the margins of those meetings, civil society representatives as well as lawyers who had experience of litigating at the Strasbourg Court.
I assume that it is not necessary for me to go into great detail on the substance of the report, as most of you have had the opportunity to read the report published last year, as well as the short addendum issued a few days ago. It is enough for me to highlight the principal problems encountered in the execution of Strasbourg Court judgments with respect to nine states in particular, as indicated in the draft resolution. The main problems continue to be: excessive length of judicial proceedings, which is endemic, notably in Italy; chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, which is widespread in Russia and Ukraine in particular; deaths and ill treatment by law enforcement officials and lack of effective investigations into them, which is particularly apparent in Russia and Moldova; and unlawful or overlong detention on remand, which is a problem notably in Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Those problems are a matter of great concern and seriously undermine the rule of law in the states concerned. I find it simply unacceptable, for example, for states belonging to the democratic club that is the Council of Europe not to take immediate and strong measures following deaths or ill treatment suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. The importance of putting an end to impunity cannot be overstated, and not only in the north Caucasus region, although the problem is most virulent there, as my colleague Dick Marty indicated in his report.
In the draft resolution, there is a series of recommendations to each of the states that I have mentioned, urging them to put their respective houses in order urgently – now – and not in five, seven or 10 years’ time.
Furthermore the Assembly is urged by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which adopted this report unanimously, to ensure that national parliaments that have not yet done so introduce specific mechanisms and procedures for effective and regular parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment and for states to set up some form of decision-making body, at the highest political level, to take full and direct responsibility for the co-ordination of all aspects of the domestic implementation process.
Paragraph 213 of the report states: “We, the Assembly, as a statutory organ of the Council of Europe (and at the same time national parliamentarians), should not meekly accept the premise that the Committee of Ministers has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ on this subject. When the Court judgments are not fully and rapidly executed, we – parliamentarians – also have a duty to help supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments. The credibility and viability of our European system of human rights cannot be left solely in the hands of the executive organ of the Council of Europe (in effect, diplomatic representatives of governments). Closely tied to this is the idea which I mooted back in August 2009, to the effect that the Assembly ought to consider – in the future – suspending the voting rights of national delegations when their parliaments do not seriously exercise parliamentary control over the executive in cases of non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Thank you for listening to me.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides, for your experience and for your very important presentation. You have three and a half minutes remaining".
The vote was carried by a landslide majority:
"In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3".
Last Monday the Secretary General of the Council of Europe,Thorbjørn Jagland, stated in his speech:
"We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights".
Provisional edition
Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Recommendation 1955 (2011)1
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1787 (2011) on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, strongly urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution 1787 (2011), and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. ensure that governments improve and, where necessary, set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous non-compliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly;
1.5. ensure, in cases of persistent and flagrant disregard of the Court's case law, that recourse be made to Article 8 of the Council of Europe's Statute of 1949 (suspension/withdrawal from the Organisation).
1 Assembly debate on 26 January 2011 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 12455, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Pourgourides). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2011 (6th Sitting).
Source: PACE website.
The UK will appear before the Committee of Ministers responsible for supervising execution of the Court's judgments on 8 March 2011. I urge the CoM to stand up to the bullying tactics of the UK and confront the bully with the serious threat to invoke Article 8 of the Treaty of London (1949)(The Statute of the Council of Europe).
Article 8
Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.
It is clear from Greens and MT v UK that the UK has failed to execute the Court's judgment in Hirst v UK (No2), therefore it is contended that it would be a pointless exercise and waste of time to send Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court under:
Rule 11 *
Infringement Proceedings
1. When, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation.
2. Infringement proceedings should be brought only in exceptional circumstances. They shall not be initiated unless formal notice of the Committee’s intention to bring such proceedings has been given to the High Contracting Party concerned. Such formal notice shall be given ultimately six months before the lodging of proceedings, unless the Committee decides otherwise, and shall take the form of an interim resolution. This resolution shall be adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.
3. The referral decision of the matter to the Court shall take the form of an interim resolution. It shall be reasoned and concisely reflect the views of the High Contracting Party concerned.
4. The Committee of Ministers shall be represented before the Court by its Chair unless the Committee decides upon another form of representation. This decision shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the representatives casting a vote and a majority of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.
Either the UK climbs into the we're all in this together boat of the Council of Europe, or the Council of Europe must cut the UK adrift to save the Council of Europe being dragged under by the UK. The Interlaken Conference established that Member States which ignored the Court's authority were in danger of killing off the Council of Europe. If the UK is not prepared to honour the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe which are; Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law then the UK has no place being in the Council of Europe because it is a rogue or pariah state, where totalitarianism or authoritarinism and not democracy rules.
In over 5 years since Hirst v UK (No2) was decided by the ECtHR, the UK has gone from totally ignoring the decision to seeking to get away with minimal compliance. Last Wednesday the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted on the following Resolution:
"The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights".
"Joint debate
THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Document 12455, which is presented by Mr Pourgourides on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights; and on preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion cases in respect of Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights, Document 12435, presented by Mr Darchiashvili on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, with an opinion presented by Mr Cilevičs on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 12471.
The rapporteurs have 13 minutes in total to present their reports, which they may divide between presentation of the reports and replies to the debate.
I call Mr Pourgourides to present the first report.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – Thank you, dear President.
Dear colleagues, paragraph 2 of the draft resolution of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights gives a clear indication of the basic thrust of what this afternoon’s discussions should be about. We know that the Committee of Ministers has the principal task of supervising Strasbourg Court judgments; that is clearly laid down in Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. But what if, despite the efforts made by our diplomatic colleagues, states are dilatory or simply not willing to comply speedily with Strasbourg Court judgments? Are we, the representatives of the legislative organs of the 47 countries, meant to sit back while the greatest achievement of the Council of Europe collapses under the weight of its own work or of the inability of the Committee of Ministers to force a number of states to comply rapidly and fully with Strasbourg Court judgments?
Of course, we cannot let that happen. I understand that there are more than 9 700 – yes, you heard me right: 9 700 – cases pending before the Committee of Ministers right now. Many of those cases concern grave human rights violations and a substantial number relate to major structural problems that have not been resolved for more than five, 10 or even 20 years.
The countries responsible for that unacceptable situation are: Italy, with more than 2 500 unexecuted cases; Turkey, with more than 1 600 cases still pending before the Committee of Ministers; Russia, with nearly 1 000 unexecuted cases; Poland, with more than 760 such cases; Ukraine, with nearly 700 such cases; and Romania, with more than 630 such cases. All that gives one the impression that those countries are dragging their feet in not dealing speedily with the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments.
The Assembly and national parliaments are therefore duty-bound to play a more proactive role in this respect. I quote from paragraph 2 of the draft resolution: “if this is not done, the key role of the Convention, its supervisory mechanism and the Council of Europe as a whole, in guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights in Europe is likely to be put in jeopardy”. The current state of affairs, Mr President, is simply scandalous.
I was appointed rapporteur in March 2008, to take over the work of my eminent predecessor, Erik Jurgens of the Netherlands, who had, since 2002, produced several reports on this subject. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights authorised me to undertake fact-finding missions to eight countries – Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. I visited them all, and my last visit, to Turkey, took place only a couple of weeks ago.
The work has been difficult, very intensive and time consuming, but certainly rewarding, both for the people I met in those countries and for me, and I am now able to present the report to you today. In most countries, I was able to meet parliamentarians, prosecutors, judges, ministers and officials directly responsible for human rights files, and, on the margins of those meetings, civil society representatives as well as lawyers who had experience of litigating at the Strasbourg Court.
I assume that it is not necessary for me to go into great detail on the substance of the report, as most of you have had the opportunity to read the report published last year, as well as the short addendum issued a few days ago. It is enough for me to highlight the principal problems encountered in the execution of Strasbourg Court judgments with respect to nine states in particular, as indicated in the draft resolution. The main problems continue to be: excessive length of judicial proceedings, which is endemic, notably in Italy; chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, which is widespread in Russia and Ukraine in particular; deaths and ill treatment by law enforcement officials and lack of effective investigations into them, which is particularly apparent in Russia and Moldova; and unlawful or overlong detention on remand, which is a problem notably in Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Those problems are a matter of great concern and seriously undermine the rule of law in the states concerned. I find it simply unacceptable, for example, for states belonging to the democratic club that is the Council of Europe not to take immediate and strong measures following deaths or ill treatment suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. The importance of putting an end to impunity cannot be overstated, and not only in the north Caucasus region, although the problem is most virulent there, as my colleague Dick Marty indicated in his report.
In the draft resolution, there is a series of recommendations to each of the states that I have mentioned, urging them to put their respective houses in order urgently – now – and not in five, seven or 10 years’ time.
Furthermore the Assembly is urged by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which adopted this report unanimously, to ensure that national parliaments that have not yet done so introduce specific mechanisms and procedures for effective and regular parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment and for states to set up some form of decision-making body, at the highest political level, to take full and direct responsibility for the co-ordination of all aspects of the domestic implementation process.
Paragraph 213 of the report states: “We, the Assembly, as a statutory organ of the Council of Europe (and at the same time national parliamentarians), should not meekly accept the premise that the Committee of Ministers has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ on this subject. When the Court judgments are not fully and rapidly executed, we – parliamentarians – also have a duty to help supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments. The credibility and viability of our European system of human rights cannot be left solely in the hands of the executive organ of the Council of Europe (in effect, diplomatic representatives of governments). Closely tied to this is the idea which I mooted back in August 2009, to the effect that the Assembly ought to consider – in the future – suspending the voting rights of national delegations when their parliaments do not seriously exercise parliamentary control over the executive in cases of non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Thank you for listening to me.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pourgourides, for your experience and for your very important presentation. You have three and a half minutes remaining".
The vote was carried by a landslide majority:
"In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3".
Last Monday the Secretary General of the Council of Europe,Thorbjørn Jagland, stated in his speech:
"We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights".
Provisional edition
Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Recommendation 1955 (2011)1
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1787 (2011) on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, strongly urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution 1787 (2011), and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. ensure that governments improve and, where necessary, set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous non-compliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly;
1.5. ensure, in cases of persistent and flagrant disregard of the Court's case law, that recourse be made to Article 8 of the Council of Europe's Statute of 1949 (suspension/withdrawal from the Organisation).
1 Assembly debate on 26 January 2011 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 12455, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Pourgourides). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2011 (6th Sitting).
Source: PACE website.
The UK will appear before the Committee of Ministers responsible for supervising execution of the Court's judgments on 8 March 2011. I urge the CoM to stand up to the bullying tactics of the UK and confront the bully with the serious threat to invoke Article 8 of the Treaty of London (1949)(The Statute of the Council of Europe).
Article 8
Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.
It is clear from Greens and MT v UK that the UK has failed to execute the Court's judgment in Hirst v UK (No2), therefore it is contended that it would be a pointless exercise and waste of time to send Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court under:
Rule 11 *
Infringement Proceedings
1. When, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation.
2. Infringement proceedings should be brought only in exceptional circumstances. They shall not be initiated unless formal notice of the Committee’s intention to bring such proceedings has been given to the High Contracting Party concerned. Such formal notice shall be given ultimately six months before the lodging of proceedings, unless the Committee decides otherwise, and shall take the form of an interim resolution. This resolution shall be adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.
3. The referral decision of the matter to the Court shall take the form of an interim resolution. It shall be reasoned and concisely reflect the views of the High Contracting Party concerned.
4. The Committee of Ministers shall be represented before the Court by its Chair unless the Committee decides upon another form of representation. This decision shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the representatives casting a vote and a majority of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.
Either the UK climbs into the we're all in this together boat of the Council of Europe, or the Council of Europe must cut the UK adrift to save the Council of Europe being dragged under by the UK. The Interlaken Conference established that Member States which ignored the Court's authority were in danger of killing off the Council of Europe. If the UK is not prepared to honour the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe which are; Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law then the UK has no place being in the Council of Europe because it is a rogue or pariah state, where totalitarianism or authoritarinism and not democracy rules.
There should be no rigid threshold determining a prisoner’s right to vote
There should be no rigid threshold determining a prisoner’s right to vote
Thursday 27 January 2011 by Joshua Rozenberg
Spare a thought for Mark Harper, junior minister at the Cabinet Office who is responsible for political and constitutional reform. A chartered accountant by training, he finds himself responsible for reducing the number of his fellow MPs; for introducing fixed-term parliaments; and for answering the unanswerable West Lothian question. But however demanding these issues must be, they pale into insignificance compared with the problem of allowing prisoners to vote.
Five days before Christmas, Harper slipped out a written ministerial statement announcing an end to the blanket ban on voting by prisoners. Offenders sentenced to less than four years in custody would retain their right to vote, he explained, but the sentencing judge would be able to disenfranchise them if appropriate.
And why four years? That had always been regarded as the dividing line between short-term and long-term prisoners. The government thought that granting the vote to prisoners sentenced to less than four years would be sufficient to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in a case brought against the UK by John Hirst, a convicted prisoner.
Accepting Hirst’s arguments in 2005, the court’s grand chamber did not set a threshold below which the human rights convention would allow prisoners to vote. It merely said that ‘a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation’ – the room for manoeuvre that all governments have.
But the coalition regarded a four-year sentence as the very lowest threshold that it could get away with. That much is clear from what Harper told MPs in a Westminster Hall debate on 11 January. ‘We set a limit which we believe is the minimum required to comply with our obligations,’ the minister said. ‘We will do what is legally necessary and no more.’
Enter Jack Straw. The former justice secretary was seen as largely responsible for failing to implement the Hirst ruling while Labour was in power. Straw knew there were no votes in it – except, I suppose, from prisoners.
Now in opposition, he teamed up with the disaffected Tory David Davis this month to secure a debate on the issue, using new powers that give backbenchers greater control of the parliamentary timetable.
Two days after Straw was told that time would be found for his debate, Downing Street pressed the panic button. Minsters briefed the BBC that they were now hoping to reduce the voting threshold to one year. Asked whether this would satisfy the human rights convention, the prime minister’s spokesman said on 20 January that setting the threshold was a matter for legal advice.
But of course the government has already taken legal advice. As Harper had told parliament little more than a week earlier, four years was regarded as the minimum required to comply with Britain’s treaty obligations – which require the government to ‘abide by’ the final judgment in any case to which the UK is a party.
A one-year voting threshold would not comply with the convention. This is confirmed by a ruling from the European court last April. In a case brought against Austria by a murderer called Helmut Frodl, the court said that ‘disenfranchisement may only be envisaged for a rather narrowly defined group of offenders serving a lengthy term of imprisonment’. That cannot mean everyone serving more than a year.
So where does non-compliance leave the government? Facing a compensation bill of £160m, the prime minister told parliament on 3 November. But commentators such as Adam Wagner of the UK Human Rights Blog find David Cameron’s figures implausible.
There are certainly plenty of prisoners who have lodged claims at the Strasbourg court. The solicitors’ firm Leigh Day represents 550. And, upholding a claim by two Scottish prisoners on 23 November, the court said it had received 2,500 similar applications. That number would continue to grow, the court noted, especially if the law was not changed in time for elections in May.
However, the court’s priority was clearly to get the UK to change the law for the future rather than to compensate prisoners for the past. No damages were awarded to the two Scottish prisoners, Robert Greens and a man known as MT. The government was ordered to pay some of their costs but the court made it clear that no costs would be awarded in the outstanding cases, which were all put on hold.
All this was subject to the condition that ministers introduce amending legislation – which they must do before the summer recess. Exactly what would be needed to comply with the Hirst ruling was left for the government to work out.
Of course, the prisoners’ applications would be restored if the government failed to legislate. But even then, the court seemed to be saying, there might be no financial penalties.
That is not very helpful to the government, which needs to tell its supporters that inaction would be costly. And it gets worse. Last week, the court decided that yet another murderer – this time an Italian called Franco Scoppola – had been wrongly deprived of his right to vote. Italian law sets the threshold for permanent disenfranchisement at five years’ imprisonment, although shorter sentences attract a temporary voting ban. Again, it was the indiscriminate ban on voting that fell foul of the convention.
This judgment is not binding on the UK. But the way forward is perfectly clear. Ministers must abandon the idea of a rigid threshold. No prisoner should lose the right to vote unless the sentencing judge says so.
Thursday 27 January 2011 by Joshua Rozenberg
Spare a thought for Mark Harper, junior minister at the Cabinet Office who is responsible for political and constitutional reform. A chartered accountant by training, he finds himself responsible for reducing the number of his fellow MPs; for introducing fixed-term parliaments; and for answering the unanswerable West Lothian question. But however demanding these issues must be, they pale into insignificance compared with the problem of allowing prisoners to vote.
Five days before Christmas, Harper slipped out a written ministerial statement announcing an end to the blanket ban on voting by prisoners. Offenders sentenced to less than four years in custody would retain their right to vote, he explained, but the sentencing judge would be able to disenfranchise them if appropriate.
And why four years? That had always been regarded as the dividing line between short-term and long-term prisoners. The government thought that granting the vote to prisoners sentenced to less than four years would be sufficient to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in a case brought against the UK by John Hirst, a convicted prisoner.
Accepting Hirst’s arguments in 2005, the court’s grand chamber did not set a threshold below which the human rights convention would allow prisoners to vote. It merely said that ‘a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation’ – the room for manoeuvre that all governments have.
But the coalition regarded a four-year sentence as the very lowest threshold that it could get away with. That much is clear from what Harper told MPs in a Westminster Hall debate on 11 January. ‘We set a limit which we believe is the minimum required to comply with our obligations,’ the minister said. ‘We will do what is legally necessary and no more.’
Enter Jack Straw. The former justice secretary was seen as largely responsible for failing to implement the Hirst ruling while Labour was in power. Straw knew there were no votes in it – except, I suppose, from prisoners.
Now in opposition, he teamed up with the disaffected Tory David Davis this month to secure a debate on the issue, using new powers that give backbenchers greater control of the parliamentary timetable.
Two days after Straw was told that time would be found for his debate, Downing Street pressed the panic button. Minsters briefed the BBC that they were now hoping to reduce the voting threshold to one year. Asked whether this would satisfy the human rights convention, the prime minister’s spokesman said on 20 January that setting the threshold was a matter for legal advice.
But of course the government has already taken legal advice. As Harper had told parliament little more than a week earlier, four years was regarded as the minimum required to comply with Britain’s treaty obligations – which require the government to ‘abide by’ the final judgment in any case to which the UK is a party.
A one-year voting threshold would not comply with the convention. This is confirmed by a ruling from the European court last April. In a case brought against Austria by a murderer called Helmut Frodl, the court said that ‘disenfranchisement may only be envisaged for a rather narrowly defined group of offenders serving a lengthy term of imprisonment’. That cannot mean everyone serving more than a year.
So where does non-compliance leave the government? Facing a compensation bill of £160m, the prime minister told parliament on 3 November. But commentators such as Adam Wagner of the UK Human Rights Blog find David Cameron’s figures implausible.
There are certainly plenty of prisoners who have lodged claims at the Strasbourg court. The solicitors’ firm Leigh Day represents 550. And, upholding a claim by two Scottish prisoners on 23 November, the court said it had received 2,500 similar applications. That number would continue to grow, the court noted, especially if the law was not changed in time for elections in May.
However, the court’s priority was clearly to get the UK to change the law for the future rather than to compensate prisoners for the past. No damages were awarded to the two Scottish prisoners, Robert Greens and a man known as MT. The government was ordered to pay some of their costs but the court made it clear that no costs would be awarded in the outstanding cases, which were all put on hold.
All this was subject to the condition that ministers introduce amending legislation – which they must do before the summer recess. Exactly what would be needed to comply with the Hirst ruling was left for the government to work out.
Of course, the prisoners’ applications would be restored if the government failed to legislate. But even then, the court seemed to be saying, there might be no financial penalties.
That is not very helpful to the government, which needs to tell its supporters that inaction would be costly. And it gets worse. Last week, the court decided that yet another murderer – this time an Italian called Franco Scoppola – had been wrongly deprived of his right to vote. Italian law sets the threshold for permanent disenfranchisement at five years’ imprisonment, although shorter sentences attract a temporary voting ban. Again, it was the indiscriminate ban on voting that fell foul of the convention.
This judgment is not binding on the UK. But the way forward is perfectly clear. Ministers must abandon the idea of a rigid threshold. No prisoner should lose the right to vote unless the sentencing judge says so.
Man escapes jail after admitting having sex with horse
Man escapes jail after admitting having sex with horse
A man escaped jail yesterday after he admitted having sex with a horse.
12:29PM GMT 28 Jan 2011
Derek Woods was caught after police rigged up a paddock with secret cameras and alarms ten months after he first interfered with the horse called Amber.
Police swooped on the stable in Devon after the alarm sounded and Woods, 26, was caught red handed.
Comment: Neigh, neigh, thrice neigh!
A man escaped jail yesterday after he admitted having sex with a horse.
12:29PM GMT 28 Jan 2011
Derek Woods was caught after police rigged up a paddock with secret cameras and alarms ten months after he first interfered with the horse called Amber.
Police swooped on the stable in Devon after the alarm sounded and Woods, 26, was caught red handed.
Comment: Neigh, neigh, thrice neigh!
The Queen of Windsor, Elton John, is not amused!
The Queen of Windsor, Elton John, is not amused!
The homosexual pop singer, Elton John, who does not agree with victimisation of gays, is quite happy to victimise, another vulnerable group in society, gypsies because their proposed camp will spoil his view!
"We are not amused" claims Elton John and his civil partner David Furnish. Because the odd couple cannot naturally have a child, they recently adopted a baby boy.
Anonymous NIMBYs who claim that all gypsies are thieves, are also complaining about the proposed plans for the gypsy camp and state that whilst the gypsies should have somewhere to live they do not wish to see them living in their neighbourhood.
Personally, I would prefer the company of gypsies than a pair of paedophiles.
The Sunday Telegraph's take on the story here...
Sir Elton John, his wealthy neighbours and the fight to keep gipsies out of their village
The wealthy residents of the quiet village of Old Windsor in the grounds of Windsor Castle are up in arms over plans to open a gipsy and traveller camp near their homes amid fears of reprisals if they object.
The homosexual pop singer, Elton John, who does not agree with victimisation of gays, is quite happy to victimise, another vulnerable group in society, gypsies because their proposed camp will spoil his view!
"We are not amused" claims Elton John and his civil partner David Furnish. Because the odd couple cannot naturally have a child, they recently adopted a baby boy.
Anonymous NIMBYs who claim that all gypsies are thieves, are also complaining about the proposed plans for the gypsy camp and state that whilst the gypsies should have somewhere to live they do not wish to see them living in their neighbourhood.
Personally, I would prefer the company of gypsies than a pair of paedophiles.
The Sunday Telegraph's take on the story here...
Sir Elton John, his wealthy neighbours and the fight to keep gipsies out of their village
The wealthy residents of the quiet village of Old Windsor in the grounds of Windsor Castle are up in arms over plans to open a gipsy and traveller camp near their homes amid fears of reprisals if they object.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Animal pictures of the week: 28 January 2011
Animal pictures of the week: 28 January 2011
Telegraph reader Pat Dean sent us this picture of a great white heron in Nottinghamshire, saying: "There are many lakes around Hoveringham due to gravel extraction and we get plenty of rare birds visiting, but this great white egret, which normally lives in very much warmer climes, has lived here all winter and is a spectacularly gorgeous rarity, hanging out with our flock of little egrets and herons. It seems happy to stand in the freezing streams, shuffling its feet to disturb fish and amphibians." If you have a photo you'd like us to feature in a picture gallery, email it to mypic@telegraph.co.uk
Picture: PAT DEAN
Chinese photographer Li Gang (62) from Henan Province has spent the last three winters in the frozen wastes of Mongolia photographing the famous wild horses in freezing temperatures of -30 degrees
Picture: Li Gang / BNPS
A family dog faces off against a fox in Lisiki, Russia. Maxim Kurguzov, aged 10, was playing outside when the fox crossed a frozen lake and set upon the family's chickens - killing one before turning on the boy. Shrek, the family's dog, gallantly leapt to Maxim's rescue, fending off the intruder with a series of bites to the head. Dad Alexey, a professional photographer, ran outside to grab his son before picking up his camera and snapping the stand off, which lasted 25 minutes. Picture: Alexey Kurguzov / CATERS NEWS
More photos here.
Telegraph reader Pat Dean sent us this picture of a great white heron in Nottinghamshire, saying: "There are many lakes around Hoveringham due to gravel extraction and we get plenty of rare birds visiting, but this great white egret, which normally lives in very much warmer climes, has lived here all winter and is a spectacularly gorgeous rarity, hanging out with our flock of little egrets and herons. It seems happy to stand in the freezing streams, shuffling its feet to disturb fish and amphibians." If you have a photo you'd like us to feature in a picture gallery, email it to mypic@telegraph.co.uk
Picture: PAT DEAN
Chinese photographer Li Gang (62) from Henan Province has spent the last three winters in the frozen wastes of Mongolia photographing the famous wild horses in freezing temperatures of -30 degrees
Picture: Li Gang / BNPS
A family dog faces off against a fox in Lisiki, Russia. Maxim Kurguzov, aged 10, was playing outside when the fox crossed a frozen lake and set upon the family's chickens - killing one before turning on the boy. Shrek, the family's dog, gallantly leapt to Maxim's rescue, fending off the intruder with a series of bites to the head. Dad Alexey, a professional photographer, ran outside to grab his son before picking up his camera and snapping the stand off, which lasted 25 minutes. Picture: Alexey Kurguzov / CATERS NEWS
More photos here.
Like all bullying cowards David Cameron is backboneless!
Like all bullying cowards David Cameron is backboneless!
The Sun reports...
2,000 perverts and thugs will get the vote under new Govt plans
By TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
Published: Today
NEARLY 2,000 jailed thugs and perverts will get the vote under the latest Government plans, it has emerged.
European Court judges have said our ban on prisoners voting breaches human rights laws - but to avoid public fury David Cameron wants to limit those given the vote.
He plans to hand the right only to lags in jail for a year or less. But figures show this still means 1,551 violent offenders, 229 sex offenders and 113 robbers would still benefit.
A further 461 burglars and drug offenders would also be enfranchised by the decision.
The Ministry of Justice figures were exposed by new Labour MP Gloria De Piero.
Until recently the plan was to give prisoners serving FOUR years or less the vote - meaning nearly 30,000 lags.
Mr Cameron has told MPs the idea of violent cons voting made him "physically ill".
But he says it would cost taxpayers tens of millions in legal fees to fight the 2005 European Court ruling.
The Government faces a backbench rebellion, with dozens of Tory MPs promising to unite with Labour when the issue is debated in two weeks.
Tory MP David Davis said: "This compromise could be the worst of all worlds. One thing driving the decision is a fear of paying compensation.
"But if you give way to the court one inch, you give way on compensation."
Comment: Rupert Murdoch is paying good money to Tom Newton Dunn, Political Editor, to churn out this rubbish.
Given that The Sun is apparently concerned that 2,000 perverts and thugs will get the vote under the Coalition's proposal, how much greater would the concern be if The Sun discovered that all 75,000 convicted prisoners must get the vote according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? More to the point, the Coalition's present plans must be scrapped by 8 March 2011 when the UK appears before the Committee of Ministers which is to ensure that the UK fully complies with the ECtHR judgment in Hirst v UK (No2).
Tom Newton Dunn fails to understand that David Cameron is not making his platitude because of any public fury, in reality there is no public fuss. The only noises which are being made come from the 1922 Backbench Committee. And the prisoners votes is being used to hide the real agenda. Backbench Tory MPs are angry that some Frontbench places have been taken up by some LibDem MPs as a consequence of the ConLib Coalition agreement.
Given that Europe has made its position very clear that "The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights", I am surprised that The Sun is failing to report on the true picture of David Cameron's embarrassment.
Perhaps, Tom Newton Dunn should read this post and listen to the podcast ?
The Sun reports...
2,000 perverts and thugs will get the vote under new Govt plans
By TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
Published: Today
NEARLY 2,000 jailed thugs and perverts will get the vote under the latest Government plans, it has emerged.
European Court judges have said our ban on prisoners voting breaches human rights laws - but to avoid public fury David Cameron wants to limit those given the vote.
He plans to hand the right only to lags in jail for a year or less. But figures show this still means 1,551 violent offenders, 229 sex offenders and 113 robbers would still benefit.
A further 461 burglars and drug offenders would also be enfranchised by the decision.
The Ministry of Justice figures were exposed by new Labour MP Gloria De Piero.
Until recently the plan was to give prisoners serving FOUR years or less the vote - meaning nearly 30,000 lags.
Mr Cameron has told MPs the idea of violent cons voting made him "physically ill".
But he says it would cost taxpayers tens of millions in legal fees to fight the 2005 European Court ruling.
The Government faces a backbench rebellion, with dozens of Tory MPs promising to unite with Labour when the issue is debated in two weeks.
Tory MP David Davis said: "This compromise could be the worst of all worlds. One thing driving the decision is a fear of paying compensation.
"But if you give way to the court one inch, you give way on compensation."
Comment: Rupert Murdoch is paying good money to Tom Newton Dunn, Political Editor, to churn out this rubbish.
Given that The Sun is apparently concerned that 2,000 perverts and thugs will get the vote under the Coalition's proposal, how much greater would the concern be if The Sun discovered that all 75,000 convicted prisoners must get the vote according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? More to the point, the Coalition's present plans must be scrapped by 8 March 2011 when the UK appears before the Committee of Ministers which is to ensure that the UK fully complies with the ECtHR judgment in Hirst v UK (No2).
Tom Newton Dunn fails to understand that David Cameron is not making his platitude because of any public fury, in reality there is no public fuss. The only noises which are being made come from the 1922 Backbench Committee. And the prisoners votes is being used to hide the real agenda. Backbench Tory MPs are angry that some Frontbench places have been taken up by some LibDem MPs as a consequence of the ConLib Coalition agreement.
Given that Europe has made its position very clear that "The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights", I am surprised that The Sun is failing to report on the true picture of David Cameron's embarrassment.
Perhaps, Tom Newton Dunn should read this post and listen to the podcast ?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Woman returned rescue dog 'because it clashed with curtains'
Woman returned rescue dog 'because it clashed with curtains'
A woman returned a rescue dog to a kennels, saying that it clashed with her curtains.
9:30AM GMT 28 Jan 2011
The woman, who has not been named, picked up the Jack Russell called Harvey from the Jasmil Kennels and Cattery in Lower Halstow, near Sittingbourne, in Kent - but brought the pooch back 48 hours later.
Barry Shuttleworth, who runs the kennels, said was 'horrified' when the woman, in her late 40s, gave such a trivial reason for returning the three-year-old ginger and white dog.
Mr Shuttleworth, 42, said: "In one instance we had a woman come to see us a number of times, who loved a little Jack Russell we had called Harvey. It was perfect for her and she took it home.
"But she brought it back two days later saying it clashed with her curtains and thats why she didn't want it."
Mr Shuttleworth's, wife Corrina, 38, said there had been a spate of dogs returned for 'ridiculous reasons'.
She said: "In Harvey's case the woman was in the kennels looking for a dog when Harvey was brought in as a stray.
"She fell in love with him straight away and visited him for seven days before being allowed to take him home.
"The same day she took him home she called us up and said there was a problem with Harvey as his colouring clashed with her lounge curtains.
"We told her to put him in another room, but two days later she brought him back and said she had spent a lot of money on her curtains and that she didn't want Harvey any more."
Speaking about other 'ridiculous reasons' why dogs were returned she said that one man returned a labrador because 'it wouldn't bark', and another because it was 'no cuddly enough'.
Mr Shuttleworth added: "Some people just don't think about why they want a dog, and they need to so that so many dogs don't end up unwanted.
"I would urge people to consider the implications of rehoming a dog before deciding on any action."
In the last 18 months the kennels has gone from seeing 30 dogs a month brought in to between 80 and 90.
Mr Shuttleworth said: "We do struggle with the amount of dogs that are brought in, but we just have to try and find as many of them new homes as we can."
A woman returned a rescue dog to a kennels, saying that it clashed with her curtains.
9:30AM GMT 28 Jan 2011
The woman, who has not been named, picked up the Jack Russell called Harvey from the Jasmil Kennels and Cattery in Lower Halstow, near Sittingbourne, in Kent - but brought the pooch back 48 hours later.
Barry Shuttleworth, who runs the kennels, said was 'horrified' when the woman, in her late 40s, gave such a trivial reason for returning the three-year-old ginger and white dog.
Mr Shuttleworth, 42, said: "In one instance we had a woman come to see us a number of times, who loved a little Jack Russell we had called Harvey. It was perfect for her and she took it home.
"But she brought it back two days later saying it clashed with her curtains and thats why she didn't want it."
Mr Shuttleworth's, wife Corrina, 38, said there had been a spate of dogs returned for 'ridiculous reasons'.
She said: "In Harvey's case the woman was in the kennels looking for a dog when Harvey was brought in as a stray.
"She fell in love with him straight away and visited him for seven days before being allowed to take him home.
"The same day she took him home she called us up and said there was a problem with Harvey as his colouring clashed with her lounge curtains.
"We told her to put him in another room, but two days later she brought him back and said she had spent a lot of money on her curtains and that she didn't want Harvey any more."
Speaking about other 'ridiculous reasons' why dogs were returned she said that one man returned a labrador because 'it wouldn't bark', and another because it was 'no cuddly enough'.
Mr Shuttleworth added: "Some people just don't think about why they want a dog, and they need to so that so many dogs don't end up unwanted.
"I would urge people to consider the implications of rehoming a dog before deciding on any action."
In the last 18 months the kennels has gone from seeing 30 dogs a month brought in to between 80 and 90.
Mr Shuttleworth said: "We do struggle with the amount of dogs that are brought in, but we just have to try and find as many of them new homes as we can."
Prisoner 'too big for his cell'
Prisoner 'too big for his cell'
A Dutchman serving a two-year sentence for fraud is so tall and fat that he claims he is too big for his cell.
By Andy Bloxham 6:52AM GMT 28 Jan 2011
The man, named only as Angelo MacD, was jailed in September but has now gone to court to try to complete his term at home under house arrest.
MacD is 6ft 9ins (2.07m) and weighs 36st (230kg) and claims he cannot sleep properly or use the toilet.
The bed is 6ft 5ins (196cm) long and 2ft 6ins (77cm) wide.
Prison officials have tried to relieve his discomfort by adding a plank and an extra mattress to the bed but MacD’s lawyer, Bas Martens, told a court in The Hague that the conditions violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
He insisted that MacD was not trying to get out of serving his sentence.
Mr Martens said: “My client just wants to serve a comparable sentence without pain.
“He is 2.7m tall and a metre wide and a metre deep.
“He is not obese. He is a giant. He even walks like a giant, like out of the comic books.”
MacD began his sentence in the prison at Krimpen aan de Ussel on 29 September and is not due for release until 12 April 2012.
Other alleged problems included a lack of adequate space for family visits and suitable seating in the prison canteen.
A ruling on the case is expected next month.
A Dutchman serving a two-year sentence for fraud is so tall and fat that he claims he is too big for his cell.
By Andy Bloxham 6:52AM GMT 28 Jan 2011
The man, named only as Angelo MacD, was jailed in September but has now gone to court to try to complete his term at home under house arrest.
MacD is 6ft 9ins (2.07m) and weighs 36st (230kg) and claims he cannot sleep properly or use the toilet.
The bed is 6ft 5ins (196cm) long and 2ft 6ins (77cm) wide.
Prison officials have tried to relieve his discomfort by adding a plank and an extra mattress to the bed but MacD’s lawyer, Bas Martens, told a court in The Hague that the conditions violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
He insisted that MacD was not trying to get out of serving his sentence.
Mr Martens said: “My client just wants to serve a comparable sentence without pain.
“He is 2.7m tall and a metre wide and a metre deep.
“He is not obese. He is a giant. He even walks like a giant, like out of the comic books.”
MacD began his sentence in the prison at Krimpen aan de Ussel on 29 September and is not due for release until 12 April 2012.
Other alleged problems included a lack of adequate space for family visits and suitable seating in the prison canteen.
A ruling on the case is expected next month.
Newsnight on prisoners votes: My criticisms
Newsnight on prisoners votes: My criticisms
Hundreds of violent offenders could vote, figures show
By Iain Watson
BBC Newsnight
I was disgusted with Newsnight's report on prisoners votes by Iain Watson. Before the programme came on I received a Google Alert and read his report "Hundreds of violent offenders could vote, figures show" in print. As the old saying goes "Lies, damned lies and statistics"! Lo and behold, what did Newsnight run with? "Figures reveal that 1,780 criminals convicted of violent or sexual offences would be eligible to vote under plans to give prisoners voting rights". Iain Watson has broken the first rule that states writers should only write what they know about.
Iain Watson began his report on television with "Newsnight has learnt...". It would have been better had he instead apologised for only now reporting what was in the newspapers and on the internet 2 weeks ago!
The day before yesterday I telephoned Newsnight to report the latest news on prisoners votes and was informed that Newsnight was not doing the story that night. Last night they did do it but only reported on old and inaccurate news!
The day before yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe debated and voted on the issue of implementation of the ECtHR judgments.
FYI:
"Resolution
7.10. The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.
In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour".
FYI:
"Recommendation
In favour 83
Against 10
Abstention 3
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution ... on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution ..., and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. strongly encourage governments to improve and, where necessary, to set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous noncompliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly.
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour".
As this information is already out there in the public domain if you know where to look for it, there really is no excuse for Newsnight not to have covered it. Investigative journalism and not lazy journalism is what is called for with this issue.
The only one who had an idea what he was talking about was Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Instead of giving him a 30 second soundbite, he should have been given more airtime.
Your programme was neither fair nor balanced reporting applying the Wednesbury reasonableness test. That is you took into account irrelevant factors and failed to take into account relevant factors.
For example, you interviewed Sara Payne and described her as "the Victim's Champion" and she stated that in her view prisoners should not have the vote. As a public authority, I contend that you have breached convicted prisoners human rights.
According to the HRA 1998:
"6 Acts of public authorities.
(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right".
The leading authority on prisoners votes is Hirst v UK (No2). According to the Court, convicted prisoners have the human right to vote under Article 3 of the First protocol.
The leading authority on Hirst v UK (No2) is me. Moreover, it is my case in that the Council of Europe has stated via email that I own the case on the ground that it is my intellectual property right.
According to the HRA 1998:
"7 Proceedings.
(1)A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a)bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b)rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,
but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act".
According to Hirst v UK (No2):
"72. Turning to this application, the Court recalls that the applicant, sentenced to life imprisonment for manslaughter, was disenfranchised during his period of detention by section 3 of the 1983 Act which applied to persons convicted and serving a custodial sentence. The Government argued that the Chamber erred in its approach, claiming that it had assessed the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention in the abstract without consideration of whether removal of the vote from the applicant as a person convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to life imprisonment disclosed a violation. The Court does not accept this criticism. The applicant’s complaint was in no sense an actio popularis. He was directly and immediately affected by the legislative provision of which complaint is made and in these circumstances the Chamber was justified in examining the compatibility with the Convention of such a measure, without regard to the question whether if the measure had been framed otherwise and in a way which was compatible with the Convention, the applicant might still have been deprived of the vote. The Divisional Court similarly examined the compatibility with the Convention of the measure in question. It would not in any event be right for the Court to assume that, if Parliament were to amend the current law, restrictions on the right to vote would necessarily still apply to post-tariff life prisoners or to conclude that such an amendment would necessarily be compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1".
In case you missed the point, "He was directly and immediately affected by the legislative provision of which complaint is made", in other words I was a victim.
It follows, that all other convicted prisoners who would be eligible to vote if the government followed the Rule of Law and fully complied with the ruling in my case are victims too. It beggars belief that a public authority, the BBC, has allowed a former public authority figure, the ex-Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Sara Payne, to abuse the human rights of victims!
This is a bit like Monthy Python's Dead Parrot sketch, she is an ex-.
According to Hansard:
"30 Mar 2010 : Column 112WS
Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): I am today pleased to announce the appointment of Louise Casey as Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
The Victims Commissioner's key objectives, as defined in Coroners and Justice Act 2009, are to:
promote the interests of victims and witnesses;
encourage good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses; and
keep under review the operation of the code of practice for victims.
Additionally, the Victims' Commissioner will chair the Victims' Advisory Panel.
The Victims' Commissioner is an independent role appointed through an open recruitment exercise. Although this was not formally an Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) process, the appointment was made in accordance with OCPA principles. The Commissioner will make an annual report to the three Criminal Justice Ministers and will be accountable to parliament as chair of the Victims' Advisory Panel-victims of crime who advise ministers on how we can do things better".
Sara Payne is lucky that she no longer holds public office because I would have demanded her resignation for her comments.
It now remains for the BBC to remedy their abuse of victims human rights. The convicted prisoners are the victims. It would appear that the BBC has failed to note that in my case it is the State which is in the dock for human rights abuse and not the prisoners. Therefore, I demand that fair, balanced and impartial reporting on my case in future.
Hundreds of violent offenders could vote, figures show
By Iain Watson
BBC Newsnight
I was disgusted with Newsnight's report on prisoners votes by Iain Watson. Before the programme came on I received a Google Alert and read his report "Hundreds of violent offenders could vote, figures show" in print. As the old saying goes "Lies, damned lies and statistics"! Lo and behold, what did Newsnight run with? "Figures reveal that 1,780 criminals convicted of violent or sexual offences would be eligible to vote under plans to give prisoners voting rights". Iain Watson has broken the first rule that states writers should only write what they know about.
Iain Watson began his report on television with "Newsnight has learnt...". It would have been better had he instead apologised for only now reporting what was in the newspapers and on the internet 2 weeks ago!
The day before yesterday I telephoned Newsnight to report the latest news on prisoners votes and was informed that Newsnight was not doing the story that night. Last night they did do it but only reported on old and inaccurate news!
The day before yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe debated and voted on the issue of implementation of the ECtHR judgments.
FYI:
"Resolution
7.10. The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.
In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour".
FYI:
"Recommendation
In favour 83
Against 10
Abstention 3
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution ... on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution ..., and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. strongly encourage governments to improve and, where necessary, to set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous noncompliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly.
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour".
As this information is already out there in the public domain if you know where to look for it, there really is no excuse for Newsnight not to have covered it. Investigative journalism and not lazy journalism is what is called for with this issue.
The only one who had an idea what he was talking about was Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Instead of giving him a 30 second soundbite, he should have been given more airtime.
Your programme was neither fair nor balanced reporting applying the Wednesbury reasonableness test. That is you took into account irrelevant factors and failed to take into account relevant factors.
For example, you interviewed Sara Payne and described her as "the Victim's Champion" and she stated that in her view prisoners should not have the vote. As a public authority, I contend that you have breached convicted prisoners human rights.
According to the HRA 1998:
"6 Acts of public authorities.
(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right".
The leading authority on prisoners votes is Hirst v UK (No2). According to the Court, convicted prisoners have the human right to vote under Article 3 of the First protocol.
The leading authority on Hirst v UK (No2) is me. Moreover, it is my case in that the Council of Europe has stated via email that I own the case on the ground that it is my intellectual property right.
According to the HRA 1998:
"7 Proceedings.
(1)A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a)bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b)rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,
but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act".
According to Hirst v UK (No2):
"72. Turning to this application, the Court recalls that the applicant, sentenced to life imprisonment for manslaughter, was disenfranchised during his period of detention by section 3 of the 1983 Act which applied to persons convicted and serving a custodial sentence. The Government argued that the Chamber erred in its approach, claiming that it had assessed the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention in the abstract without consideration of whether removal of the vote from the applicant as a person convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to life imprisonment disclosed a violation. The Court does not accept this criticism. The applicant’s complaint was in no sense an actio popularis. He was directly and immediately affected by the legislative provision of which complaint is made and in these circumstances the Chamber was justified in examining the compatibility with the Convention of such a measure, without regard to the question whether if the measure had been framed otherwise and in a way which was compatible with the Convention, the applicant might still have been deprived of the vote. The Divisional Court similarly examined the compatibility with the Convention of the measure in question. It would not in any event be right for the Court to assume that, if Parliament were to amend the current law, restrictions on the right to vote would necessarily still apply to post-tariff life prisoners or to conclude that such an amendment would necessarily be compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1".
In case you missed the point, "He was directly and immediately affected by the legislative provision of which complaint is made", in other words I was a victim.
It follows, that all other convicted prisoners who would be eligible to vote if the government followed the Rule of Law and fully complied with the ruling in my case are victims too. It beggars belief that a public authority, the BBC, has allowed a former public authority figure, the ex-Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Sara Payne, to abuse the human rights of victims!
This is a bit like Monthy Python's Dead Parrot sketch, she is an ex-.
According to Hansard:
"30 Mar 2010 : Column 112WS
Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): I am today pleased to announce the appointment of Louise Casey as Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
The Victims Commissioner's key objectives, as defined in Coroners and Justice Act 2009, are to:
promote the interests of victims and witnesses;
encourage good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses; and
keep under review the operation of the code of practice for victims.
Additionally, the Victims' Commissioner will chair the Victims' Advisory Panel.
The Victims' Commissioner is an independent role appointed through an open recruitment exercise. Although this was not formally an Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) process, the appointment was made in accordance with OCPA principles. The Commissioner will make an annual report to the three Criminal Justice Ministers and will be accountable to parliament as chair of the Victims' Advisory Panel-victims of crime who advise ministers on how we can do things better".
Sara Payne is lucky that she no longer holds public office because I would have demanded her resignation for her comments.
It now remains for the BBC to remedy their abuse of victims human rights. The convicted prisoners are the victims. It would appear that the BBC has failed to note that in my case it is the State which is in the dock for human rights abuse and not the prisoners. Therefore, I demand that fair, balanced and impartial reporting on my case in future.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Jailhouselawyer claims David Cameron's scalp
Jailhouselawyer claims David Cameron's scalp
I intend to put into context the Daily Express headline and the article following it. I would hardly say that off the cuff remarks by two expenses fiddling Tory MPs, Priti Patel and Claire Perry, constitutes an outrage. For a start the "Paki" Priti Patel is far from pretty, in fact she is "ugly" as hell! And Claire Perry is a banker, which as we all know, is a euphemism for a wanker! Unlike the foreign import Patel speaking to the xenophobic Daily Express, I am a Brit born and bred. Neither of these outspoken Tory MPs have the foggiest clue what they are gobbing off about, whereas I am, on the other hand, a recognised expert in this area.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), can hardly be accused of meddling in the issue of prisoners votes given that the UK signed up to the Council of Europe and as such agreed to abide by the Convention and be bound by the Court decisions. PACE is merely stating that on the issue of prisoners’ votes the UK is failing to honour its obligations under the Convention. It is one of the responsibilities of PACE to ensure full compliance by Member States of their obligations. What is happening here is that the UK is embarrassed like a kid caught with its hands in the cookie jar.
Given the untruthful headline, it is no surprise that the sub-heading is also untruthful. The PACE attack is not against Britain, per se, rather it is against the UK State, which is, the Executive, Parliament, and Judiciary, and not against the Great British Public. It is the UK State which is the guilty party in all of this and as the public is not part of the State the public is an innocent party in No Man’s Land caught up in the cross-fire. In Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the UK attempted to drag the public into the issue and the Court quite rightly excluded the public. Therefore, it is wrong for MPs and the media to keep trying to drag the public into the mess created by the State. It is also wrong for the Daily Express to put “delaying” into inverted commas to give the impression that it is not true that the State has delayed on this issue. The truth of the matter is that there has now been an unjustified over 5 year delay in fully complying with the Court’s judgment, and even under English law there is the legal principle which states that “justice delayed is justice denied”. It is also questionable to claim that the ruling is controversial. Rather, the controversy centres on the UK’s unacceptable attempt to ignore the Court ruling.
By putting this whole thing into context, it allows for a different perspective. For example, whilst the Daily Express states that PACE is warning David Cameron the reality is that PACE is sending a warning to the UK. In other words, David Cameron is an insignificant figure. Whether the Number Ten rat is made Prime Minister or not makes no difference to PACE, because Cameron is but a figure head of the government and it is the 3 arms of the State (Executive, Parliament and Judiciary) which are in big trouble not simply the leader of the Tory party. The extreme right wing Daily Express is elevating Cameron to a larger role player in this whole affair than he deserves credit for.
It is a bit rich of the extremist Daily Express to call the PACE “Euro fanatics”. There are some fanatics within the Council of Europe, but these tend to be Euro-sceptics like UKIP’s Nigel Farage, David Campbell Bannerman and Godfrey Bloom, and BNP’s Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, all of them would not be out of place in Hitler’s Third Reich.
Likewise, it is a bit rich coming from Priti Patel labelling PACE as bullies when it is the UK which has been found guilty of bullying convicted prisoners by denying them their human right to the vote. She is attempting to dodge her guilt by claiming that the issue has now become one of who governs Britain. It could not be further from the truth. Only those Member States which uphold the principles of Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law can remain part of the Council of Europe and European Union. She refers to “our sovereign Parliament”, however, according to the Council of Europe sovereignty rests with the people and not Parliament. If Priti Patel was a honest woman instead of being corrupt then she would not be calling for the government and Parliament to stand up to Pace, rather she would be condemning them for their abuse of the most vulnerable group in society – prisoners. If Ms Patel wasn’t so stupid she would understand that passing another Bill trying to establish the UK’s supremacy how it treats prisoners is a non-starter. The only Bill to redress the issue would be one that granted all convicted prisoners the vote.
Claire Perry should try stand up comedy instead of trying to lay down the law to people more qualified in this respect. What is silly is her comment. The Court reaches its judgment after hearing both sides of the argument, and (under the Convention which the UK signed up to) the Court decision is final. The judgment is then passed to the Committee of Ministers whose role it is to supervise execution of the judgment. The interpretation of the judgment is the responsibility of the Council of Europe; it is not for the losing party (the UK) to interpret the judgment to suit their own ends. This was the mistake made by Charles Falconer. And, Jack Straw’s mistake to seek to cover Falconer’s arse over the gaffe. The Court is constituted constitutionally under the Treaty of London (1949) (Statute of the Council of Europe) and under the Convention the Committee of Ministers has constitutional power to apply the Court judgment, as does PACE. So, for Claire Perry to claim that the Court is unconstitutional is nonsense. If she is claiming that under our unwritten constitution the Court is being unconstitutional, this again is nonsense because we do not have one and if we did it cannot bind the ECtHR because the Court is bound by European and international law and not English law. The UK voluntarily signed up to the Council of Europe to become a part of the United States of Europe, so the UK can hardly legitimately claim that Europe is encroaching upon UK territory which we have already surrendered. The UK is only sovereign in matters solely relating to the UK, when the matters involve European law and/or international law then the UK cannot claim sovereignty over these as the reality is that sovereignty rests elsewhere. Far from the Court being mischievous and straying outside of its remit, it is the UK which is being mischievous by ignoring the Court decision and the Council of Europe’s remit.
It almost beggars belief that many Tory MPs are furious at the prospect of the coalition surrendering to the Court decision in Hirst v UK (No2), until it is taken into account that these same rebellious Tory MPs are furious that the electorate did not trust the Tory party enough to give them a clear mandate to govern. And with good reason because these same Tory rebels have demanded that David Cameron interferes with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, to allow them to continue to fiddle their expenses out of the pubic purse without the need to provide receipts. Same old nasty party! These greedy devils are really upset because in a coalition Ministerial positions and frontbench seats have to be shared with the LibDems, and they feel that they are being left out of sticking their snouts in the trough. It beggars belief that the party which is supposed to be big on law and order has now suddenly become the supporter of breaking the law and disorder! A bunch of hypocrites is all they really are!
What this case proves is that David Cameron is neither fit for the purpose of being leader of the Tory party nor fit to lead the country as Prime Minister. He made a bad judgement call appointing Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. The public should be up in arms about having to pay for somebody to feed lies to them. Anyone wishing to live in a live-a-lie world can do so on the internet playing virtual reality games. In the real world, the disgraced ex-Tory Minister Jonathan Aitken was jailed for perjury because “he lied, and lied and lied”. Another disgraced Tory, Lord Archer, was also jailed for perjury for telling lies. Tory Peer, Lord Taylor has just being jailed for lying about his expenses claims, and the jury did not believe his lies in court. In law, it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth which matters. The truth of the matter is that in Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the ECtHR ruled that all convicted prisoners regardless of the seriousness of the crime and length of sentence are entitled to their human right under the Convention. It also states under the Convention that the Court decision is final, and that Member States are under an obligation to speedily and fully comply with the Court decisions. There is no legal authority under the Convention to pick and choose which Articles, or which parts of the Court’s decisions Member States will abide by. It is all or nothing.
In the speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in a communication to the PACE on Monday, 24 January 2011, he said:
“We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Those Tory backbench rebel MPs are not really challenging David Cameron’s authority because he does not have the public authority to break the law for private purpose. Nor do they have the public authority to seek to break the law for private purpose. In truth, what these rebel MPs are seeking to do is abuse the principles of Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. Any MP or member of the House of Lords or member of the Judiciary not adhering to these three basic principles should not be holding public office in the UK in this day and age of 2011. Anyone supporting them has either no conscience or has lost their moral compass or is insane.
Photo of a scalped David Cameron: Hat-Tip to White Rabbit
I intend to put into context the Daily Express headline and the article following it. I would hardly say that off the cuff remarks by two expenses fiddling Tory MPs, Priti Patel and Claire Perry, constitutes an outrage. For a start the "Paki" Priti Patel is far from pretty, in fact she is "ugly" as hell! And Claire Perry is a banker, which as we all know, is a euphemism for a wanker! Unlike the foreign import Patel speaking to the xenophobic Daily Express, I am a Brit born and bred. Neither of these outspoken Tory MPs have the foggiest clue what they are gobbing off about, whereas I am, on the other hand, a recognised expert in this area.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), can hardly be accused of meddling in the issue of prisoners votes given that the UK signed up to the Council of Europe and as such agreed to abide by the Convention and be bound by the Court decisions. PACE is merely stating that on the issue of prisoners’ votes the UK is failing to honour its obligations under the Convention. It is one of the responsibilities of PACE to ensure full compliance by Member States of their obligations. What is happening here is that the UK is embarrassed like a kid caught with its hands in the cookie jar.
Given the untruthful headline, it is no surprise that the sub-heading is also untruthful. The PACE attack is not against Britain, per se, rather it is against the UK State, which is, the Executive, Parliament, and Judiciary, and not against the Great British Public. It is the UK State which is the guilty party in all of this and as the public is not part of the State the public is an innocent party in No Man’s Land caught up in the cross-fire. In Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the UK attempted to drag the public into the issue and the Court quite rightly excluded the public. Therefore, it is wrong for MPs and the media to keep trying to drag the public into the mess created by the State. It is also wrong for the Daily Express to put “delaying” into inverted commas to give the impression that it is not true that the State has delayed on this issue. The truth of the matter is that there has now been an unjustified over 5 year delay in fully complying with the Court’s judgment, and even under English law there is the legal principle which states that “justice delayed is justice denied”. It is also questionable to claim that the ruling is controversial. Rather, the controversy centres on the UK’s unacceptable attempt to ignore the Court ruling.
By putting this whole thing into context, it allows for a different perspective. For example, whilst the Daily Express states that PACE is warning David Cameron the reality is that PACE is sending a warning to the UK. In other words, David Cameron is an insignificant figure. Whether the Number Ten rat is made Prime Minister or not makes no difference to PACE, because Cameron is but a figure head of the government and it is the 3 arms of the State (Executive, Parliament and Judiciary) which are in big trouble not simply the leader of the Tory party. The extreme right wing Daily Express is elevating Cameron to a larger role player in this whole affair than he deserves credit for.
It is a bit rich of the extremist Daily Express to call the PACE “Euro fanatics”. There are some fanatics within the Council of Europe, but these tend to be Euro-sceptics like UKIP’s Nigel Farage, David Campbell Bannerman and Godfrey Bloom, and BNP’s Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, all of them would not be out of place in Hitler’s Third Reich.
Likewise, it is a bit rich coming from Priti Patel labelling PACE as bullies when it is the UK which has been found guilty of bullying convicted prisoners by denying them their human right to the vote. She is attempting to dodge her guilt by claiming that the issue has now become one of who governs Britain. It could not be further from the truth. Only those Member States which uphold the principles of Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law can remain part of the Council of Europe and European Union. She refers to “our sovereign Parliament”, however, according to the Council of Europe sovereignty rests with the people and not Parliament. If Priti Patel was a honest woman instead of being corrupt then she would not be calling for the government and Parliament to stand up to Pace, rather she would be condemning them for their abuse of the most vulnerable group in society – prisoners. If Ms Patel wasn’t so stupid she would understand that passing another Bill trying to establish the UK’s supremacy how it treats prisoners is a non-starter. The only Bill to redress the issue would be one that granted all convicted prisoners the vote.
Claire Perry should try stand up comedy instead of trying to lay down the law to people more qualified in this respect. What is silly is her comment. The Court reaches its judgment after hearing both sides of the argument, and (under the Convention which the UK signed up to) the Court decision is final. The judgment is then passed to the Committee of Ministers whose role it is to supervise execution of the judgment. The interpretation of the judgment is the responsibility of the Council of Europe; it is not for the losing party (the UK) to interpret the judgment to suit their own ends. This was the mistake made by Charles Falconer. And, Jack Straw’s mistake to seek to cover Falconer’s arse over the gaffe. The Court is constituted constitutionally under the Treaty of London (1949) (Statute of the Council of Europe) and under the Convention the Committee of Ministers has constitutional power to apply the Court judgment, as does PACE. So, for Claire Perry to claim that the Court is unconstitutional is nonsense. If she is claiming that under our unwritten constitution the Court is being unconstitutional, this again is nonsense because we do not have one and if we did it cannot bind the ECtHR because the Court is bound by European and international law and not English law. The UK voluntarily signed up to the Council of Europe to become a part of the United States of Europe, so the UK can hardly legitimately claim that Europe is encroaching upon UK territory which we have already surrendered. The UK is only sovereign in matters solely relating to the UK, when the matters involve European law and/or international law then the UK cannot claim sovereignty over these as the reality is that sovereignty rests elsewhere. Far from the Court being mischievous and straying outside of its remit, it is the UK which is being mischievous by ignoring the Court decision and the Council of Europe’s remit.
It almost beggars belief that many Tory MPs are furious at the prospect of the coalition surrendering to the Court decision in Hirst v UK (No2), until it is taken into account that these same rebellious Tory MPs are furious that the electorate did not trust the Tory party enough to give them a clear mandate to govern. And with good reason because these same Tory rebels have demanded that David Cameron interferes with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, to allow them to continue to fiddle their expenses out of the pubic purse without the need to provide receipts. Same old nasty party! These greedy devils are really upset because in a coalition Ministerial positions and frontbench seats have to be shared with the LibDems, and they feel that they are being left out of sticking their snouts in the trough. It beggars belief that the party which is supposed to be big on law and order has now suddenly become the supporter of breaking the law and disorder! A bunch of hypocrites is all they really are!
What this case proves is that David Cameron is neither fit for the purpose of being leader of the Tory party nor fit to lead the country as Prime Minister. He made a bad judgement call appointing Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. The public should be up in arms about having to pay for somebody to feed lies to them. Anyone wishing to live in a live-a-lie world can do so on the internet playing virtual reality games. In the real world, the disgraced ex-Tory Minister Jonathan Aitken was jailed for perjury because “he lied, and lied and lied”. Another disgraced Tory, Lord Archer, was also jailed for perjury for telling lies. Tory Peer, Lord Taylor has just being jailed for lying about his expenses claims, and the jury did not believe his lies in court. In law, it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth which matters. The truth of the matter is that in Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the ECtHR ruled that all convicted prisoners regardless of the seriousness of the crime and length of sentence are entitled to their human right under the Convention. It also states under the Convention that the Court decision is final, and that Member States are under an obligation to speedily and fully comply with the Court decisions. There is no legal authority under the Convention to pick and choose which Articles, or which parts of the Court’s decisions Member States will abide by. It is all or nothing.
In the speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in a communication to the PACE on Monday, 24 January 2011, he said:
“We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.
Those Tory backbench rebel MPs are not really challenging David Cameron’s authority because he does not have the public authority to break the law for private purpose. Nor do they have the public authority to seek to break the law for private purpose. In truth, what these rebel MPs are seeking to do is abuse the principles of Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. Any MP or member of the House of Lords or member of the Judiciary not adhering to these three basic principles should not be holding public office in the UK in this day and age of 2011. Anyone supporting them has either no conscience or has lost their moral compass or is insane.
Photo of a scalped David Cameron: Hat-Tip to White Rabbit
Miss Piggy snout in the trough Baroness Goudie steals £250,000 and only repays £5,000!
Miss Piggy snout in the trough Baroness Goudie steals £250,000 and only repays £5,000!
Peer let off despite 'doubts' about her expenses
A Labour peer who claimed £250,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat she visited only occasionally was spared punishment after quietly repaying £5,000.
Comment: And they say crime doesn't pay! Obviously, it does for some! The greedy thieving bitch is just adding insult to injury!
UPDATE:
Related content...
A solicitor who stole £1.4m from his firm to fund a lavish lifestyle has been jailed for seven years. All the stolen money was repaid and he still got 7 years. All the more reason for Baroness Goudie to repay all the money she stole and still go to prison!
Peer let off despite 'doubts' about her expenses
A Labour peer who claimed £250,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat she visited only occasionally was spared punishment after quietly repaying £5,000.
Comment: And they say crime doesn't pay! Obviously, it does for some! The greedy thieving bitch is just adding insult to injury!
UPDATE:
Related content...
A solicitor who stole £1.4m from his firm to fund a lavish lifestyle has been jailed for seven years. All the stolen money was repaid and he still got 7 years. All the more reason for Baroness Goudie to repay all the money she stole and still go to prison!
Prisoners votes will cause Cameron real issues with his backbenchers
Prisoners votes will cause Cameron real issues with his backbenchers
By Jonathan Sheppard of Tory Radio blog
I have made no secret of the fact that I am a ‘lock em up’ kind of person when it comes to criminals. Lets just say I am of the Michael Howard school of thought when it comes to putting people behind bars. It will come as no surprise that I am therefore no fan of giving prisoners the vote. I do however recognise the difference between what I’d like and what in actual fact seems to be the legal situation.
If you ask many backbenchers about the issue of prisoners votes they will be quite adamant that they aren’t in favour. In his local paper Andrew Percy has essentially said he would allow prisoners the vote when Hell freezes over.
Andrew Bridgen the MP for NW Leicestershire is sceptical of the merits of giving prisoners the vote in this excusive podcast. In another exclusive podcast Prit Patel the MP for the Essex seat of Witham raises the issue of how the UK is being forced to do this, even though it does not want to by Europe.
Indeed for me the interesting issue is the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe met to discuss this issue yesterday. Attendees including the likes of Brian Binley, Christopher Chope and Claire Perry went out there with two voting for a report which essentially confirms that if prisoners votes are not implemented sanctions against the UK can be taken, with Claire Perry abstaining. Surely I have misunderstood. These three Conservatives would vote no to such a thing? Please say it is my misunderstanding as to what happened yesterday. A parliamentarian wouldnt take the 260ish Euros they get for attending (plus business class travel) speak against and then abstain would they? I must be wrong? Correct me someone!
You may not expect a convicted killer to be an expert on prisoners votes, but I’m afraid you may be mistaken. Tory Radio took the opportunity to speak to John Hirst, known as jailhouselawyer to many online. I think it safe to say that he knows this issue inside out. If anyone can take on the establishment and win then he should certainly not be underestimated, no matter what you think of him.
In five years I have done sone interesing interviews, but if you listen to anything on Tory Radio, listen to the 50 minute interview I did with John Hirst yesterday, where he explains that talk of only offering votes to prisoner serving less than 4 years (let alone less then 12 months) will just not wash, and that the UK, in spite of comments from the likes of Jack Straw and even David Cameron, will be forced to give all prisoners the vote.
For Eurosceptics such as myself it gives added reasons to tell the ECHR and the EU where to go, and certainly underlines who governs this country.
Comment: Listen to Tory Radio's 50 minute podcast with Jailhouselawyer on prisoners votes here.
By Jonathan Sheppard of Tory Radio blog
I have made no secret of the fact that I am a ‘lock em up’ kind of person when it comes to criminals. Lets just say I am of the Michael Howard school of thought when it comes to putting people behind bars. It will come as no surprise that I am therefore no fan of giving prisoners the vote. I do however recognise the difference between what I’d like and what in actual fact seems to be the legal situation.
If you ask many backbenchers about the issue of prisoners votes they will be quite adamant that they aren’t in favour. In his local paper Andrew Percy has essentially said he would allow prisoners the vote when Hell freezes over.
Andrew Bridgen the MP for NW Leicestershire is sceptical of the merits of giving prisoners the vote in this excusive podcast. In another exclusive podcast Prit Patel the MP for the Essex seat of Witham raises the issue of how the UK is being forced to do this, even though it does not want to by Europe.
Indeed for me the interesting issue is the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe met to discuss this issue yesterday. Attendees including the likes of Brian Binley, Christopher Chope and Claire Perry went out there with two voting for a report which essentially confirms that if prisoners votes are not implemented sanctions against the UK can be taken, with Claire Perry abstaining. Surely I have misunderstood. These three Conservatives would vote no to such a thing? Please say it is my misunderstanding as to what happened yesterday. A parliamentarian wouldnt take the 260ish Euros they get for attending (plus business class travel) speak against and then abstain would they? I must be wrong? Correct me someone!
You may not expect a convicted killer to be an expert on prisoners votes, but I’m afraid you may be mistaken. Tory Radio took the opportunity to speak to John Hirst, known as jailhouselawyer to many online. I think it safe to say that he knows this issue inside out. If anyone can take on the establishment and win then he should certainly not be underestimated, no matter what you think of him.
In five years I have done sone interesing interviews, but if you listen to anything on Tory Radio, listen to the 50 minute interview I did with John Hirst yesterday, where he explains that talk of only offering votes to prisoner serving less than 4 years (let alone less then 12 months) will just not wash, and that the UK, in spite of comments from the likes of Jack Straw and even David Cameron, will be forced to give all prisoners the vote.
For Eurosceptics such as myself it gives added reasons to tell the ECHR and the EU where to go, and certainly underlines who governs this country.
Comment: Listen to Tory Radio's 50 minute podcast with Jailhouselawyer on prisoners votes here.
OUTRAGE AT EURO MEDDLING OVER PRISONERS’ VOTES
OUTRAGE AT EURO MEDDLING OVER PRISONERS’ VOTES
Daily Express, Thursday January 27,2011
By Martyn Brown
MEDDLING Eurocrats sniped at Britain yesterday for “delaying” a controversial ruling to give prisoners the right to vote.
And they warned that any attempt by David Cameron to restrict votes to inmates serving less than a year was not acceptable to them.
But last night outraged MPs hit back over the pressure being put on the Government by the Euro fanatics.
Tory MP Priti Patel said the row over prisoners’ votes emanating from the “bullies” in Europe had now become an issue of “who governs Britain”.
She said: “Our sovereign parliament has decided that convicted criminals in prison should not be granted the right to vote.
“This issue has now become a question of who governs Britain, and the Government and Parliament must not stand by and allow Europe to bully our country into changing our laws.”
The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting is illegal.
But yesterday a report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe blasted the UK for not implementing the ECHR judgment.
It claimed that Britain has “substantial implementation problems” and demanded the UK stopped dragging its heels on the issue. The report said: “The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.”
Ms Patel said: “Parliament urgently needs to pass another Bill to redress this matter.
“It needs to ensure that the decision over prisoner voting rights remains one that only the UK department can determine without pressure or interference or threats from Europe.”
Fellow Tory MP Claire Perry said: “The way this judgment is being applied by the European Court of Human Rights is unconstitutional and silly.
“We need to resist the encroachment of Europe on this issue as it is a sovereign matter. The European Council is being very mischievous and straying into that remit.”
A UK delegation of peers and MPs, including former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and ex-Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, was expected to vote on the issue in Strasbourg last night.
Failure to comply could cost the UK tens of millions of pounds in legal costs and compensation, ministers have warned.
Around 2,500 inmates already have cases in motion to challenge any block on their “right” to vote.
But many Tory MPs are furious the coalition government has appeared to be surrendering to the ECHR over its ruling that the 140-year-old blanket ban was illegal. Any concession to grant the vote to more than 28,000 inmates – including those convicted of extreme violence, sex attacks and robbery – in national elections would almost certainly spark a backbench revolt in the Commons.
It is for this reason Mr Cameron has asked officials to look at a proposal to give the vote to only those prisoners serving 12 months or less.
The Prime Minister has admitted to MPs that the thought of prisoners getting the vote made him “physically ill”.
Meanwhile, MPs will have a chance to vote on any proposals in a few weeks’ time.
This is another issue that highlights why thousands of readers have already voiced their backing for the Daily Express crusade to pull Britain out of the EU.
Daily Express, Thursday January 27,2011
By Martyn Brown
MEDDLING Eurocrats sniped at Britain yesterday for “delaying” a controversial ruling to give prisoners the right to vote.
And they warned that any attempt by David Cameron to restrict votes to inmates serving less than a year was not acceptable to them.
But last night outraged MPs hit back over the pressure being put on the Government by the Euro fanatics.
Tory MP Priti Patel said the row over prisoners’ votes emanating from the “bullies” in Europe had now become an issue of “who governs Britain”.
She said: “Our sovereign parliament has decided that convicted criminals in prison should not be granted the right to vote.
“This issue has now become a question of who governs Britain, and the Government and Parliament must not stand by and allow Europe to bully our country into changing our laws.”
The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting is illegal.
But yesterday a report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe blasted the UK for not implementing the ECHR judgment.
It claimed that Britain has “substantial implementation problems” and demanded the UK stopped dragging its heels on the issue. The report said: “The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.”
Ms Patel said: “Parliament urgently needs to pass another Bill to redress this matter.
“It needs to ensure that the decision over prisoner voting rights remains one that only the UK department can determine without pressure or interference or threats from Europe.”
Fellow Tory MP Claire Perry said: “The way this judgment is being applied by the European Court of Human Rights is unconstitutional and silly.
“We need to resist the encroachment of Europe on this issue as it is a sovereign matter. The European Council is being very mischievous and straying into that remit.”
A UK delegation of peers and MPs, including former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and ex-Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, was expected to vote on the issue in Strasbourg last night.
Failure to comply could cost the UK tens of millions of pounds in legal costs and compensation, ministers have warned.
Around 2,500 inmates already have cases in motion to challenge any block on their “right” to vote.
But many Tory MPs are furious the coalition government has appeared to be surrendering to the ECHR over its ruling that the 140-year-old blanket ban was illegal. Any concession to grant the vote to more than 28,000 inmates – including those convicted of extreme violence, sex attacks and robbery – in national elections would almost certainly spark a backbench revolt in the Commons.
It is for this reason Mr Cameron has asked officials to look at a proposal to give the vote to only those prisoners serving 12 months or less.
The Prime Minister has admitted to MPs that the thought of prisoners getting the vote made him “physically ill”.
Meanwhile, MPs will have a chance to vote on any proposals in a few weeks’ time.
This is another issue that highlights why thousands of readers have already voiced their backing for the Daily Express crusade to pull Britain out of the EU.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
PACE: Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
PACE: Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
26/01/2011 Parliamentary Assemly of the Council of Europe
Members participating in the vote on : Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12455)
Resolution
7.10. The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.
In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour
Members participating in the vote on : Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12455)
Recommendation
In favour 83
Against 10
Abstention 3
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution ... on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution ..., and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. strongly encourage governments to improve and, where necessary, to set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous noncompliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly.
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour
26/01/2011 Parliamentary Assemly of the Council of Europe
Members participating in the vote on : Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12455)
Resolution
7.10. The United Kingdom must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights.
In favour 77
Against 8
Abstention 3
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour
Members participating in the vote on : Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 12455)
Recommendation
In favour 83
Against 10
Abstention 3
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution ... on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, urges the Committee of Ministers to increase, by all available means, its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court's judgments, and to that effect recommends that it:
1.1. ensure special priority treatment for the most important problems in the implementation of the Court’s judgments, notably the systemic problems identified in Resolution ..., and regularly inform the Assembly of the results achieved towards resolving these problems;
1.2. induce States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights with structural problems to provide comprehensive strategies which outline a clear and detailed approach to execute Court judgments, and ensure effective assessment of the adequacy of measures taken through such action plans;
1.3. strongly encourage governments to improve and, where necessary, to set up domestic mechanisms and procedures to secure timely and effective implementation of the Court's judgments through action of all national actors concerned, co-ordinated at the highest political level;
1.4. increase pressure and take firmer measures in cases of dilatory and continuous noncompliance with the Court’s judgments by states parties, and to work more closely on this subject with the Assembly.
UK MEPs how they voted
Lord Tim BOSWELL In favour
Mr Christopher CHOPE In favour
Mr Mike HANCOCK In favour
Mr Alan MEALE In favour
Ms Claire PERRY Abstained
Mr Jim SHERIDAN Abstained
Lord John E. TOMLINSON In favour
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Prisoners voting update
Prisoners voting update
25 January 2011
By Prison Reform Trust
Instead of listening to MPs who would rather stick with the punishment of civic death, dating back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870, than comply with the 2005 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the coalition government should listen to the advice of experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments. It is shaming to try and turn something that is both a right and a positive civic duty into something that is tortuous, expensive and tastes like nasty medicine. Things should have never been allowed to reach such a pitch where we risk being in direct breach of our obligations under the European Convention. This is not only bad news for prisoners - it's an attack upon the Rule of Law that could have much wider consequences.
Editorials in the Guardian and Evening Standard have expressed their support for overturning the blanket ban, as has David Aaronovitch [subscription] in The Times and Martin Kettle in the Guardian. A range of high profile figures from politics, human rights and justice sector signed a letter drafted by PRT and published in the Guardian on 11 January supporting government moves to begin to comply with the European Court’s judgment. They included Peter Bottomley MP, Conservative, Worthing West; Robin Corbett, Labour, House of Lords; Kate Green MP, Labour, Stretford and Urmston; Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool; Veronica Linklater, Liberal Democrat, House of Lords; Caroline Lucas MP, Green, Brighton Pavilion; and Eoin McLellan-Murray, President, Prison Governors Association.
There are strong legal, moral and practical reasons to enable people in prison to vote. The 2004 judgment of the European Court, which the UK government appealed and lost in 2005, clearly states that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful. Subsequent cases have indicated that the government’s margin of appreciation for complying with the initial judgment is narrow. The Frodl judgement in Austria (2010) indicates that just as you might lose your driving license if convicted of a serious driving offence, so you could legitimately be stripped of your voting rights as a proportionate additional punishment for an offence of electoral fraud. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime.
Morally, by establishing the right to vote we are recognising that people sent to custody must lose their liberty, but not their identity. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: "The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." Martin Kettle reflected in his column: “As human beings, prisoners are like you and me. They have inalienable human rights. And one of those rights, in the modern world, should be the right to vote.”
It is no surprise that prison governors and senior officials in the prison service see voting as an ordinary part of resettlement and rehabilitation. The Electoral Commission set out, in its response to the Ministry of Justice's second consultation on prisoners voting in 2009, a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners' level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses. As David Aaronovitch argued, “If we can see the value of prisoners having access to books, to study courses, to counselling, then why not to political discussion, hustings and, ultimately, voting? Would it not be a sign of our seriousness in helping prisoners to be useful members of society?”
Enfranchising prisoners would provide an opportunity for the coalition government to catch up with most other European countries where prisoners are able to vote. The UK’s blanket ban is out of place in a modern prison system, and should be overturned without further fuss or delay.
25 January 2011
By Prison Reform Trust
Instead of listening to MPs who would rather stick with the punishment of civic death, dating back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870, than comply with the 2005 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the coalition government should listen to the advice of experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments. It is shaming to try and turn something that is both a right and a positive civic duty into something that is tortuous, expensive and tastes like nasty medicine. Things should have never been allowed to reach such a pitch where we risk being in direct breach of our obligations under the European Convention. This is not only bad news for prisoners - it's an attack upon the Rule of Law that could have much wider consequences.
Editorials in the Guardian and Evening Standard have expressed their support for overturning the blanket ban, as has David Aaronovitch [subscription] in The Times and Martin Kettle in the Guardian. A range of high profile figures from politics, human rights and justice sector signed a letter drafted by PRT and published in the Guardian on 11 January supporting government moves to begin to comply with the European Court’s judgment. They included Peter Bottomley MP, Conservative, Worthing West; Robin Corbett, Labour, House of Lords; Kate Green MP, Labour, Stretford and Urmston; Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool; Veronica Linklater, Liberal Democrat, House of Lords; Caroline Lucas MP, Green, Brighton Pavilion; and Eoin McLellan-Murray, President, Prison Governors Association.
There are strong legal, moral and practical reasons to enable people in prison to vote. The 2004 judgment of the European Court, which the UK government appealed and lost in 2005, clearly states that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful. Subsequent cases have indicated that the government’s margin of appreciation for complying with the initial judgment is narrow. The Frodl judgement in Austria (2010) indicates that just as you might lose your driving license if convicted of a serious driving offence, so you could legitimately be stripped of your voting rights as a proportionate additional punishment for an offence of electoral fraud. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime.
Morally, by establishing the right to vote we are recognising that people sent to custody must lose their liberty, but not their identity. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: "The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts." Martin Kettle reflected in his column: “As human beings, prisoners are like you and me. They have inalienable human rights. And one of those rights, in the modern world, should be the right to vote.”
It is no surprise that prison governors and senior officials in the prison service see voting as an ordinary part of resettlement and rehabilitation. The Electoral Commission set out, in its response to the Ministry of Justice's second consultation on prisoners voting in 2009, a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners' level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses. As David Aaronovitch argued, “If we can see the value of prisoners having access to books, to study courses, to counselling, then why not to political discussion, hustings and, ultimately, voting? Would it not be a sign of our seriousness in helping prisoners to be useful members of society?”
Enfranchising prisoners would provide an opportunity for the coalition government to catch up with most other European countries where prisoners are able to vote. The UK’s blanket ban is out of place in a modern prison system, and should be overturned without further fuss or delay.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland Secretary General of the Council of Europe Communication to the PACE
Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Communication to the PACE
Monday, 24 January 2011
Embargo until delivery / Check against delivery
All great projects in history combine vision with pragmatism. Believing in something, even very enthusiastically, is not enough. It is what we do about it which makes a difference between great ideas and great illusions.
This was true 60 years ago when our Organisation was created, and it is very much true today.
In 1949, Europe had not yet healed from a devastating war, its economies had not recovered while ominous signs of a possible new conflict had already begun to appear. It was time of uncertainty and fear. The response of European governments was the Council of Europe, an Organisation embodying the vision of European unity combined with very practical ways to implement this vision in practice.
Afterwards the European project developed step by step; economic, and later political, integration in the framework of the European Union, and co-operation in the field of security in the framework of OSCE. I mention this because this could not have taken place without the legal framework which was created by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe also helped to foster a culture of tolerance, co-operation and humanism at the grass root level which was also a precondition for the broader European project.
It is a matter of fact that the great European project cannot go forward without the Council of Europe.
I say this because I strongly feel that Europe is being torn apart again by the centrifugal forces of economic globalisation, by xenophobic tendencies, by social exclusion. Basic values like freedom of the media and freedom of religion are being relativised. Terrorism is spreading fear and is being used as an argument by those who claim that Islam is a violent religion. Listen to what a member of the British government – Baroness Warsi - rightly said recently: “Islamophobia has been widely accepted”. I agree. And violence against Christians is increasing in our neighbourhood. Anti-Semitism has unfortunately still not disappeared from our societies. Extreme forces in Europe and in Europe’s neighbourhood are feeding on each other.
Many of our citizens feel that our societies are under threat from the multitude of social, political, cultural, religious and other tensions which foment mistrust and fear. There is a growing distrust in political institutions at national and European level. People feel that the political institutions are ineffective with regard to their concerns.
This is fertile ground for nationalist and populist forces.
We are witnessing a process that weakens the culture of togetherness that we helped build after the war.
A cold wind is blowing over Europe.
The way to respond is not to tell our citizens that we have nothing to fear, that the economic crisis will eventually pass away and that we should all simply calm down a bit and weather this out.
What we need is to restore the ability of political institutions to solve problems – to act and produce results which our populations need and have the right to expect. Yes, national political institutions have to take their share of responsibility. The European Union must take on its responsibility as well. I am glad to see that the European Union is moving slowly towards a more active role to sort out the economic problems that the global markets have caused in Europe. I am confident that the European Union once more will prove how great this project is in creating stability and peace on our continent.
But the European Union cannot do it alone. 20 countries are outside the European Union, including big countries like the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine and of course all the others with less population.
Dealing with the most urgent challenges today must be a pan-European project which includes everyone.
Therefore, we must rebuild a common sense of togetherness, through common legal standards and continue to build a culture of living together as a basis for concrete political action. After the war we built togetherness among democracies in the western part of Europe. Today we have to build this for the entire continent; to pave the way for pan-European action.
The Council of Europe has of course a pivotal role to play in this. Our mandate is to safeguard the moral and legal ground for European unity, not only between states, but more importantly between peoples, cultures, religions. Our task is to see to it that Europe is not a fertile ground for extremism, but a fertile ground for political action on a pan-European level.
The great European project after the war started with the recognition deep down in society that everyone was in the same boat, that they had the same rights and shared the same values.
We have to start from this point once again.
We have to build on the lesson learned. Namely that there is a strong inter-relationship between our ability to uphold basic standards and public morale. If tagging on the underground is not removed, tagging will increase. That is what we have learnt. If nothing is being done against corruption, corruption will continue to spread. If political leaders violate the law, people will do it. If there is not justice for all, there will not be justice for anybody at the end of the day.
This is why we have to sharpen the ability to uphold the basic values enshrined in European Convention on Human Rights.
And I would like to say this: we need to have a geographic scope that includes our neighbourhood. I have already indicated why; because what happens there will affect us as Minister Davutoglu also said. And we need to exploit the full potential of European co-operation with our partners, the European Union and the OSCE. What they do helps us. What we do helps them.
This is what the reform is about;
to sharpen our tools so that we can implement the rule of law, based on democratic and human rights standards, throughout the entire continent;
to build a culture of living together;
to broaden our interaction with our neighbourhood;
to exploit the full potential of co-operation with our partners.
Let me put the reform into a historic perspective.
The Council of Europe has developed in different phases. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was an Organisation of democracies on the western side of the east-west divide. The task was to develop common standards with regard to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to establish mechanisms to ensure that member states comply with their obligations. This we can call the phase of construction.
The comprehensive system for protection of human rights and democracy that was established, represents the only real follow-up of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, this made the Council of Europe very attractive for the countries seeking to establish their European identity and determined to develop societies based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was the phase of expansion. It enabled us to play a crucial role in the emergence of a new Europe. Without the Council of Europe, for example, the European Union could not have expanded so rapidly.
During the period of expansion standard-setting continued along with an increasing number of programmes and activities.
Standard-setting had to continue, of course. We have also to adapt the conventions we have to new realities; for example the data protection convention. We are starting a review of this convention; we had to strike a new balance between public sector and the private sphere because of the technological developments. This is only an example but I do not foresee that the standard-setting will be so heavy and so comprehensive as we have had in the past.
What I am saying is that after expansion must come consolidation. In my view, the third phase of the Council of Europe – the one we have now entered – must be the phase of implementation of our standards and principles – across Europe, and in each and every one of our member states. This is the underlying philosophy of the reform. We need to sharpen our instruments and focus our resources.
And as I said, this work has already begun. Let me briefly recall the achievements of 2010.
The year started with the ratification of Protocol 14 by the Russian Federation, continued with the Interlaken Conference on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights and with the opening of talks on European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The year behind us also saw an unprecedented intensification of co-operation with our main institutional partners, the United Nations – let me only mention my three meetings with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon - the OSCE, but most of all a new quality in relations with the European Union.
We have now established the basis for a close and regular policy co-ordination and consultation with the European Union at the highest level, and we have also recently signed the first “facility” envelope of 4 million Euros in the framework of the European Union Eastern Partnership. A shift to an envelope financing – providing a lump sum instead of a large number of small amounts for individual projects - reflects a qualitative improvement in our relationship, allowing for strengthened partnership and long-term, strategic planning of our joint activities.
In 2010 we succeeded in mobilising a group of personalities with outstanding experience, knowledge and authority on European affairs to examine and report on some of the key challenges our societies face today and will face in the future. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons, led by Joschka Fischer, should help us to plan and act, rather than to react in our work to living together in Europe.
The High Level Meeting on Roma last October, as well as our mediating role in overcoming the political deadlock in Moldova, demonstrated that the Council of Europe can provide quick, concrete political responses to situations related to our mandate, which is of course a precondition for political relevance and impact.
All the achievements above are reflecting a growing political relevance and impact of the Council of Europe in European affairs.
In parallel with these political achievements we have also undertaken the first stage of the reform. We have reformed our external presence by reducing the number of offices and reinforced those we really need, namely where we are conducting assistance programmes. If we did not do that we would have lost our credibility and relevance as partners to important donors on the ground.
We have established a policy planning cell in the Secretariat for being able to anticipate new developments. We have reached an agreement for a biennial budget. And the budget and the programme of activities are now concise, clear and easy to understand, contrary to the seven hundred pages document we have had. We can now set priorities on the basis of a longer-term perspective and intelligible figures.
Our relations with civil society are very important for the Organisation. That is why this area is a part of the reform process. Different civil society representatives, the NGOs be they small or big should have a possibility to present their views to the Council of Europe to be listened to and to be heard without filter. This is not the case today. We cannot limit ourselves to having contacts with only a few; we need to reach out to all NGOs and the whole civil society, which is very polaristic and this is why we have to broaden our perspective also in this respect.
We have also undertaken measures to contain staff cost. Without this, the mechanical increase of staff costs within a stagnant budget would have threatened the entire Organisation.
The second stage of the reform goes deeper.
And it also involves a clarification of the strategic goals for the Organisation, which I hope can be concluded at the Ministerial Session in Istanbul in May.
I have already started consultations with member states on what should be our political objectives for the next decade.
In my view, the first strategic priority comes from what I have already explained: that at the end of this decade we shall be able to say that we have consolidated and implemented the rule of law in all our member states. And that we have created a genuine common European legal space with a fully functioning and credible, backlog-free European Court of Human Rights at its core.
Why?
- Because this is the only way of securing popular confidence in the national political institutions and in the European institutions as well. People do not trust institutions that are not able to uphold laws.
- Because new threats like corruption, money laundering, human trafficking, terrorism, cybercrime can only be combated through the rule of law. If we do not do that, these threats will increase, not decrease. And these are huge threats over security that we are facing.
The most recent reminder of the terrorist threat happened only a few hours ago at the Moscow airport of Domodedovo. According to BBC reports that I got 10 minutes ago, 30 people have been killed, but there will be more probably. I will use this opportunity to express my sympathy with all the victims and also the Russian population. And it only proves what we are up against on this continent.
- We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
This relationship is of course not only formal. An example: corruption cannot be contained without a free press. There has to be checks and balances to avoid a misuse of power. Therefore the Council of Europe has to strengthen its role in securing freedom of expression.
And let me give you another, even more recent example. We are still under shock of what has happened in Tirana last Friday. I certainly hope that I will be able to receive some clarifications this week from Prime Minister Berisha when he comes here. But already at this stage, without any attempts to apportion the responsibility, it is clear that the key part of the solution to the crisis will be the respect of the rule of law; an independent and credible inquiry into the deaths of the demonstrators and the respect for the Albanian legislation and the Albanian state institutions.
This afternoon I also spoke to Commissioner Füle in European Union about the situation in Albania and we agreed on the need to have a clear and common position on what should be done to overcome this very serious situation.
Consequently, the focus on the rule of law does not come at the expense of the work on democracy and human rights, to the contrary as I have explained. The Council of Europe approach must combine all three aspects into effective and comprehensive responses to the problems faced by the member states.
Let me use an example to illustrate this from outside the Council of Europe area. Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison based on China’s criminal law. It was the rule of law. According to their understanding, the verdict said that he had tried to undermine “the people’s democratic dictatorship”, which means the power monopoly of the communist party which is enshrined in the law. For us rule of law means upholding the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty to control the government by an elected parliament and the sovereignty to replace a government.
We must put this emphasis on rule of law also in the context of security. History shows clearly that lasting peace has been achieved only in regions where rule of law and human rights have been safeguarded. Nowadays, there are tendencies to relativise universal values in many places. This is a creeping threat to our security. The Council of Europe must therefore be an uncompromising guardian of these values as a part of a broader security strategy for Europe. As the only convention-based pan-European organisation, the Council of Europe should be part of a security concept that goes deeper than the one we have today.
And all this is why another strategic goal should be to use our enormous machinery of monitoring bodies, our expertise in the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, in this Parliamentary Assembly, in our field offices for action. We have to establish a system in which countries are being confronted with their weaknesses and thus made more accountable in the field of rule of law.
And dear friends, keep in mind that if the accession negotiations with the European Union go well, we will also have the responsibility to oversee that this global power runs its business in accordance with the rule of law.
Can you see the historic perspective? Everybody under the same rules and the same court? Once again, I would like to salute the European Union. Because if the European Union joins the European Convention on Human Rights and becomes a party to the Court, it will be the first time in history that a global power decides voluntarily to be under an international court. Well, I am wrong actually. The Russian Federation was the first. Actually, Turkey which is increasingly becoming a global power, demonstrates, also the need to come at the expense of accountability.
We must understand thoroughly what kind of historic project we are carrying out. Therefore we have to be serious and credible in our core businesses, namely to uphold the rule of law.
Another strategic priority must be to find solutions for multi-cultural interactions which actually work, and allow individuals and communities to live with each other, not only beside each other, or even against each other.
The geographic expansion of the Council of Europe resulted in greater cultural diversity. It can never be a goal to reduce the importance of national cultures and identities. But it is all the more important to define clearly what unites us, namely our values.
We need to reach a higher degree of understanding on how to live together in a multi-cultural and multi-religious reality. It is not sufficient to say that we tolerate each other. Living together should mean that we accept cultures as living entities which evolve and prosper through encounters with other cultures. This means that cultures will thrive and command respect not when they are ghettoised and marginalised, but when they openly express themselves and mix with other cultures.
We should strive for something that goes beyond multi-culturalism as we know it today.
This is part of the study by the Group of Eminent Persons led by Joschka Fischer. It should be a priority for the Council to be a leading institution in this field.
At the same time, the Council of Europe should contribute to more social cohesion. In our day and age it is not difficult to see the connections between democracy, human rights and social rights. When poverty, unemployment and other kinds of social exclusion increases, political extremism and democratic values are under pressure. Achieving more social cohesion should be seen as part of a security concept for Europe that goes deeper than the traditional tools, including military tools can provide.
The Council of Europe should devote special attention to specific categories of persons who are particularly exposed to social, legal, economic, and professional or any other form of inequality, discrimination and marginalisation. There should be no second class citizens in Europe.
This is why we have paid special attention to the Roma people. The Council of Europe now has a decisive role in transforming decades of speeches into concrete action.
Now, to another strategic goal for this decade. We need to look at the map of Europe and fill the gaps. We also need to reach out to our neighbours and decide on whether and how we could work closer together.
When it comes to the first aspect, the key priority is of course Belarus. After the recent elections and the crackdown on the protesters which followed, I said that, unfortunately, another opportunity to end the self-imposed isolation of Belarus in Europe has been missed. However, we should be able to continue to pursue any genuine opportunity to bring Belarus closer to Council of Europe values and closer to Council of Europe standards. Without Belarus, the Council of Europe is not complete.
But I would like to make it clear: those people imprisoned after the elections must be released and it is a first step for new action.
We have to reflect together with our partners on what should be the next step from our side. We need a pan-European strategy also here that also includes the Russian Federation. Belarus has to make a choice: not between Russia and the European Union. But between Europe and isolation from Europe.
When it comes to our neighbours, I also think we should pay special attention to Kazakhstan. In the geographical sense, Kazakhstan is both a European and an Asian country. Kazakhstan is playing a significant stabilising role in Central Asia - as an important partner.
Security policy and economic interests suggest that Europe should strengthen its commitment with countries in its own neighbourhood. This includes Central Asia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa where the Council of Europe can play a greater role.
Our first strategic objectives in this respect should be to get countries from our neighbourhood to accede to Council of Europe conventions, in particular those which are dealing with the new and emerging threats.
And finally, as I see it, there should be, as I’ve already mentioned, a strategic goal to exploit the true potential of co-operation and co-ordination with our other European Institutions.
Now, what are the concrete measures in the second stage of the reform?
First of all, we must focus our resources on the most important issues. We need to restructure the Programme of Activities.
Let me explain what the challenge is. Currently, leaving aside legally-binding, committed activities, the available amount for our operational programmes is limited to around 40 million Euros and we are running, together with European Union, joint programmes, of around 60 million Euros. Today, we have spread our work to over 130 programmes with these limited financial resources.
We are doing too many things with too little money. With very poor prospects for budgetary increase in a foreseeable future, we are obliged to concentrate our resources and reduce the number of programmes. Their size and design will be determined by the expected impact. Programmes which are below a minimum threshold for a meaningful impact should be discontinued.
As a consequence of the new Programme, we need to review the intergovernmental structures. Today we have around 60 intergovernmental committees. Do we need all these?
We have also started a review of the conventions. How many are active, which ones are dormant? The objective is to identify those Conventions which will contribute to the consolidation of a common legal space.
What I am saying, dear friends, is that we need to streamline and rationalise.
In the process of reform, there will be no sacred cows. We shall look at every aspect of our work, critically, but with one objective only – to make us stronger and more effective in the conduct of our mission to defend and extend democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Restructuring of the secretariat is unavoidable. But it should not be seen as a threat to the staff. To the contrary. It is not satisfying to be employed on activities that do not have a real impact. The staff deserves being on a winning team, on something meaningful.
And I should like to express my admiration for the competence and commitment of the staff and thank them for their support to the reform effort.
I understand their concerns and I am extremely attentive to all suggestions and criticisms. But I also understand that concerns and criticisms do not reflect an opposition to the reform, and that a vast majority among the Council of Europe staff, but of course also the governments, parliamentarians, the NGO community and others who know and care about this Organisation, expect and want a change.
Benjamin Disraeli said that “action may not always bring happiness, but there is no happiness without action.”
This is what we are up for now, namely to have action and change, because we want to make the Council of Europe stronger in order to implement the rule of law on the entire continent, I hope within this decade.
This should be a goal for all of us.
Thank you very much.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Communication to the PACE
Monday, 24 January 2011
Embargo until delivery / Check against delivery
All great projects in history combine vision with pragmatism. Believing in something, even very enthusiastically, is not enough. It is what we do about it which makes a difference between great ideas and great illusions.
This was true 60 years ago when our Organisation was created, and it is very much true today.
In 1949, Europe had not yet healed from a devastating war, its economies had not recovered while ominous signs of a possible new conflict had already begun to appear. It was time of uncertainty and fear. The response of European governments was the Council of Europe, an Organisation embodying the vision of European unity combined with very practical ways to implement this vision in practice.
Afterwards the European project developed step by step; economic, and later political, integration in the framework of the European Union, and co-operation in the field of security in the framework of OSCE. I mention this because this could not have taken place without the legal framework which was created by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe also helped to foster a culture of tolerance, co-operation and humanism at the grass root level which was also a precondition for the broader European project.
It is a matter of fact that the great European project cannot go forward without the Council of Europe.
I say this because I strongly feel that Europe is being torn apart again by the centrifugal forces of economic globalisation, by xenophobic tendencies, by social exclusion. Basic values like freedom of the media and freedom of religion are being relativised. Terrorism is spreading fear and is being used as an argument by those who claim that Islam is a violent religion. Listen to what a member of the British government – Baroness Warsi - rightly said recently: “Islamophobia has been widely accepted”. I agree. And violence against Christians is increasing in our neighbourhood. Anti-Semitism has unfortunately still not disappeared from our societies. Extreme forces in Europe and in Europe’s neighbourhood are feeding on each other.
Many of our citizens feel that our societies are under threat from the multitude of social, political, cultural, religious and other tensions which foment mistrust and fear. There is a growing distrust in political institutions at national and European level. People feel that the political institutions are ineffective with regard to their concerns.
This is fertile ground for nationalist and populist forces.
We are witnessing a process that weakens the culture of togetherness that we helped build after the war.
A cold wind is blowing over Europe.
The way to respond is not to tell our citizens that we have nothing to fear, that the economic crisis will eventually pass away and that we should all simply calm down a bit and weather this out.
What we need is to restore the ability of political institutions to solve problems – to act and produce results which our populations need and have the right to expect. Yes, national political institutions have to take their share of responsibility. The European Union must take on its responsibility as well. I am glad to see that the European Union is moving slowly towards a more active role to sort out the economic problems that the global markets have caused in Europe. I am confident that the European Union once more will prove how great this project is in creating stability and peace on our continent.
But the European Union cannot do it alone. 20 countries are outside the European Union, including big countries like the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine and of course all the others with less population.
Dealing with the most urgent challenges today must be a pan-European project which includes everyone.
Therefore, we must rebuild a common sense of togetherness, through common legal standards and continue to build a culture of living together as a basis for concrete political action. After the war we built togetherness among democracies in the western part of Europe. Today we have to build this for the entire continent; to pave the way for pan-European action.
The Council of Europe has of course a pivotal role to play in this. Our mandate is to safeguard the moral and legal ground for European unity, not only between states, but more importantly between peoples, cultures, religions. Our task is to see to it that Europe is not a fertile ground for extremism, but a fertile ground for political action on a pan-European level.
The great European project after the war started with the recognition deep down in society that everyone was in the same boat, that they had the same rights and shared the same values.
We have to start from this point once again.
We have to build on the lesson learned. Namely that there is a strong inter-relationship between our ability to uphold basic standards and public morale. If tagging on the underground is not removed, tagging will increase. That is what we have learnt. If nothing is being done against corruption, corruption will continue to spread. If political leaders violate the law, people will do it. If there is not justice for all, there will not be justice for anybody at the end of the day.
This is why we have to sharpen the ability to uphold the basic values enshrined in European Convention on Human Rights.
And I would like to say this: we need to have a geographic scope that includes our neighbourhood. I have already indicated why; because what happens there will affect us as Minister Davutoglu also said. And we need to exploit the full potential of European co-operation with our partners, the European Union and the OSCE. What they do helps us. What we do helps them.
This is what the reform is about;
to sharpen our tools so that we can implement the rule of law, based on democratic and human rights standards, throughout the entire continent;
to build a culture of living together;
to broaden our interaction with our neighbourhood;
to exploit the full potential of co-operation with our partners.
Let me put the reform into a historic perspective.
The Council of Europe has developed in different phases. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was an Organisation of democracies on the western side of the east-west divide. The task was to develop common standards with regard to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to establish mechanisms to ensure that member states comply with their obligations. This we can call the phase of construction.
The comprehensive system for protection of human rights and democracy that was established, represents the only real follow-up of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, this made the Council of Europe very attractive for the countries seeking to establish their European identity and determined to develop societies based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was the phase of expansion. It enabled us to play a crucial role in the emergence of a new Europe. Without the Council of Europe, for example, the European Union could not have expanded so rapidly.
During the period of expansion standard-setting continued along with an increasing number of programmes and activities.
Standard-setting had to continue, of course. We have also to adapt the conventions we have to new realities; for example the data protection convention. We are starting a review of this convention; we had to strike a new balance between public sector and the private sphere because of the technological developments. This is only an example but I do not foresee that the standard-setting will be so heavy and so comprehensive as we have had in the past.
What I am saying is that after expansion must come consolidation. In my view, the third phase of the Council of Europe – the one we have now entered – must be the phase of implementation of our standards and principles – across Europe, and in each and every one of our member states. This is the underlying philosophy of the reform. We need to sharpen our instruments and focus our resources.
And as I said, this work has already begun. Let me briefly recall the achievements of 2010.
The year started with the ratification of Protocol 14 by the Russian Federation, continued with the Interlaken Conference on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights and with the opening of talks on European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The year behind us also saw an unprecedented intensification of co-operation with our main institutional partners, the United Nations – let me only mention my three meetings with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon - the OSCE, but most of all a new quality in relations with the European Union.
We have now established the basis for a close and regular policy co-ordination and consultation with the European Union at the highest level, and we have also recently signed the first “facility” envelope of 4 million Euros in the framework of the European Union Eastern Partnership. A shift to an envelope financing – providing a lump sum instead of a large number of small amounts for individual projects - reflects a qualitative improvement in our relationship, allowing for strengthened partnership and long-term, strategic planning of our joint activities.
In 2010 we succeeded in mobilising a group of personalities with outstanding experience, knowledge and authority on European affairs to examine and report on some of the key challenges our societies face today and will face in the future. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons, led by Joschka Fischer, should help us to plan and act, rather than to react in our work to living together in Europe.
The High Level Meeting on Roma last October, as well as our mediating role in overcoming the political deadlock in Moldova, demonstrated that the Council of Europe can provide quick, concrete political responses to situations related to our mandate, which is of course a precondition for political relevance and impact.
All the achievements above are reflecting a growing political relevance and impact of the Council of Europe in European affairs.
In parallel with these political achievements we have also undertaken the first stage of the reform. We have reformed our external presence by reducing the number of offices and reinforced those we really need, namely where we are conducting assistance programmes. If we did not do that we would have lost our credibility and relevance as partners to important donors on the ground.
We have established a policy planning cell in the Secretariat for being able to anticipate new developments. We have reached an agreement for a biennial budget. And the budget and the programme of activities are now concise, clear and easy to understand, contrary to the seven hundred pages document we have had. We can now set priorities on the basis of a longer-term perspective and intelligible figures.
Our relations with civil society are very important for the Organisation. That is why this area is a part of the reform process. Different civil society representatives, the NGOs be they small or big should have a possibility to present their views to the Council of Europe to be listened to and to be heard without filter. This is not the case today. We cannot limit ourselves to having contacts with only a few; we need to reach out to all NGOs and the whole civil society, which is very polaristic and this is why we have to broaden our perspective also in this respect.
We have also undertaken measures to contain staff cost. Without this, the mechanical increase of staff costs within a stagnant budget would have threatened the entire Organisation.
The second stage of the reform goes deeper.
And it also involves a clarification of the strategic goals for the Organisation, which I hope can be concluded at the Ministerial Session in Istanbul in May.
I have already started consultations with member states on what should be our political objectives for the next decade.
In my view, the first strategic priority comes from what I have already explained: that at the end of this decade we shall be able to say that we have consolidated and implemented the rule of law in all our member states. And that we have created a genuine common European legal space with a fully functioning and credible, backlog-free European Court of Human Rights at its core.
Why?
- Because this is the only way of securing popular confidence in the national political institutions and in the European institutions as well. People do not trust institutions that are not able to uphold laws.
- Because new threats like corruption, money laundering, human trafficking, terrorism, cybercrime can only be combated through the rule of law. If we do not do that, these threats will increase, not decrease. And these are huge threats over security that we are facing.
The most recent reminder of the terrorist threat happened only a few hours ago at the Moscow airport of Domodedovo. According to BBC reports that I got 10 minutes ago, 30 people have been killed, but there will be more probably. I will use this opportunity to express my sympathy with all the victims and also the Russian population. And it only proves what we are up against on this continent.
- We have to stress the implementation of the rule of law in order also to once again highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally-binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
This relationship is of course not only formal. An example: corruption cannot be contained without a free press. There has to be checks and balances to avoid a misuse of power. Therefore the Council of Europe has to strengthen its role in securing freedom of expression.
And let me give you another, even more recent example. We are still under shock of what has happened in Tirana last Friday. I certainly hope that I will be able to receive some clarifications this week from Prime Minister Berisha when he comes here. But already at this stage, without any attempts to apportion the responsibility, it is clear that the key part of the solution to the crisis will be the respect of the rule of law; an independent and credible inquiry into the deaths of the demonstrators and the respect for the Albanian legislation and the Albanian state institutions.
This afternoon I also spoke to Commissioner Füle in European Union about the situation in Albania and we agreed on the need to have a clear and common position on what should be done to overcome this very serious situation.
Consequently, the focus on the rule of law does not come at the expense of the work on democracy and human rights, to the contrary as I have explained. The Council of Europe approach must combine all three aspects into effective and comprehensive responses to the problems faced by the member states.
Let me use an example to illustrate this from outside the Council of Europe area. Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison based on China’s criminal law. It was the rule of law. According to their understanding, the verdict said that he had tried to undermine “the people’s democratic dictatorship”, which means the power monopoly of the communist party which is enshrined in the law. For us rule of law means upholding the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty to control the government by an elected parliament and the sovereignty to replace a government.
We must put this emphasis on rule of law also in the context of security. History shows clearly that lasting peace has been achieved only in regions where rule of law and human rights have been safeguarded. Nowadays, there are tendencies to relativise universal values in many places. This is a creeping threat to our security. The Council of Europe must therefore be an uncompromising guardian of these values as a part of a broader security strategy for Europe. As the only convention-based pan-European organisation, the Council of Europe should be part of a security concept that goes deeper than the one we have today.
And all this is why another strategic goal should be to use our enormous machinery of monitoring bodies, our expertise in the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, in this Parliamentary Assembly, in our field offices for action. We have to establish a system in which countries are being confronted with their weaknesses and thus made more accountable in the field of rule of law.
And dear friends, keep in mind that if the accession negotiations with the European Union go well, we will also have the responsibility to oversee that this global power runs its business in accordance with the rule of law.
Can you see the historic perspective? Everybody under the same rules and the same court? Once again, I would like to salute the European Union. Because if the European Union joins the European Convention on Human Rights and becomes a party to the Court, it will be the first time in history that a global power decides voluntarily to be under an international court. Well, I am wrong actually. The Russian Federation was the first. Actually, Turkey which is increasingly becoming a global power, demonstrates, also the need to come at the expense of accountability.
We must understand thoroughly what kind of historic project we are carrying out. Therefore we have to be serious and credible in our core businesses, namely to uphold the rule of law.
Another strategic priority must be to find solutions for multi-cultural interactions which actually work, and allow individuals and communities to live with each other, not only beside each other, or even against each other.
The geographic expansion of the Council of Europe resulted in greater cultural diversity. It can never be a goal to reduce the importance of national cultures and identities. But it is all the more important to define clearly what unites us, namely our values.
We need to reach a higher degree of understanding on how to live together in a multi-cultural and multi-religious reality. It is not sufficient to say that we tolerate each other. Living together should mean that we accept cultures as living entities which evolve and prosper through encounters with other cultures. This means that cultures will thrive and command respect not when they are ghettoised and marginalised, but when they openly express themselves and mix with other cultures.
We should strive for something that goes beyond multi-culturalism as we know it today.
This is part of the study by the Group of Eminent Persons led by Joschka Fischer. It should be a priority for the Council to be a leading institution in this field.
At the same time, the Council of Europe should contribute to more social cohesion. In our day and age it is not difficult to see the connections between democracy, human rights and social rights. When poverty, unemployment and other kinds of social exclusion increases, political extremism and democratic values are under pressure. Achieving more social cohesion should be seen as part of a security concept for Europe that goes deeper than the traditional tools, including military tools can provide.
The Council of Europe should devote special attention to specific categories of persons who are particularly exposed to social, legal, economic, and professional or any other form of inequality, discrimination and marginalisation. There should be no second class citizens in Europe.
This is why we have paid special attention to the Roma people. The Council of Europe now has a decisive role in transforming decades of speeches into concrete action.
Now, to another strategic goal for this decade. We need to look at the map of Europe and fill the gaps. We also need to reach out to our neighbours and decide on whether and how we could work closer together.
When it comes to the first aspect, the key priority is of course Belarus. After the recent elections and the crackdown on the protesters which followed, I said that, unfortunately, another opportunity to end the self-imposed isolation of Belarus in Europe has been missed. However, we should be able to continue to pursue any genuine opportunity to bring Belarus closer to Council of Europe values and closer to Council of Europe standards. Without Belarus, the Council of Europe is not complete.
But I would like to make it clear: those people imprisoned after the elections must be released and it is a first step for new action.
We have to reflect together with our partners on what should be the next step from our side. We need a pan-European strategy also here that also includes the Russian Federation. Belarus has to make a choice: not between Russia and the European Union. But between Europe and isolation from Europe.
When it comes to our neighbours, I also think we should pay special attention to Kazakhstan. In the geographical sense, Kazakhstan is both a European and an Asian country. Kazakhstan is playing a significant stabilising role in Central Asia - as an important partner.
Security policy and economic interests suggest that Europe should strengthen its commitment with countries in its own neighbourhood. This includes Central Asia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa where the Council of Europe can play a greater role.
Our first strategic objectives in this respect should be to get countries from our neighbourhood to accede to Council of Europe conventions, in particular those which are dealing with the new and emerging threats.
And finally, as I see it, there should be, as I’ve already mentioned, a strategic goal to exploit the true potential of co-operation and co-ordination with our other European Institutions.
Now, what are the concrete measures in the second stage of the reform?
First of all, we must focus our resources on the most important issues. We need to restructure the Programme of Activities.
Let me explain what the challenge is. Currently, leaving aside legally-binding, committed activities, the available amount for our operational programmes is limited to around 40 million Euros and we are running, together with European Union, joint programmes, of around 60 million Euros. Today, we have spread our work to over 130 programmes with these limited financial resources.
We are doing too many things with too little money. With very poor prospects for budgetary increase in a foreseeable future, we are obliged to concentrate our resources and reduce the number of programmes. Their size and design will be determined by the expected impact. Programmes which are below a minimum threshold for a meaningful impact should be discontinued.
As a consequence of the new Programme, we need to review the intergovernmental structures. Today we have around 60 intergovernmental committees. Do we need all these?
We have also started a review of the conventions. How many are active, which ones are dormant? The objective is to identify those Conventions which will contribute to the consolidation of a common legal space.
What I am saying, dear friends, is that we need to streamline and rationalise.
In the process of reform, there will be no sacred cows. We shall look at every aspect of our work, critically, but with one objective only – to make us stronger and more effective in the conduct of our mission to defend and extend democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Restructuring of the secretariat is unavoidable. But it should not be seen as a threat to the staff. To the contrary. It is not satisfying to be employed on activities that do not have a real impact. The staff deserves being on a winning team, on something meaningful.
And I should like to express my admiration for the competence and commitment of the staff and thank them for their support to the reform effort.
I understand their concerns and I am extremely attentive to all suggestions and criticisms. But I also understand that concerns and criticisms do not reflect an opposition to the reform, and that a vast majority among the Council of Europe staff, but of course also the governments, parliamentarians, the NGO community and others who know and care about this Organisation, expect and want a change.
Benjamin Disraeli said that “action may not always bring happiness, but there is no happiness without action.”
This is what we are up for now, namely to have action and change, because we want to make the Council of Europe stronger in order to implement the rule of law on the entire continent, I hope within this decade.
This should be a goal for all of us.
Thank you very much.