Site Meter

Monday, January 31, 2011

Claire Perry and UK are the weakest link on prisoners votes!

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 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.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I hate Claire Perry, she is a right bitch. I live near to her unfortunately. She is member of the board of governors at the local school, she never replies to problem mail and she sides with the school over matters like staff bullying children. I hope this bitch dies a long painful death she has her head so far up her asshole she will never see the light of day anyway. Battersea might be a better place for her while she still breaths!