Prisoners should be given the vote, signals watchdog
Prisoners should be given the vote or else Britain cannot criticise Colonel Gaddafi and other dictators over human rights, the prisons watchdog said yesterday.
The Government has to consider giving some prisoners the vote after a ruling by the ECHR that a ban on all inmates was unlawful Photo: AFPBy Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 7:00AM GMT 10 Mar 2011
Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons, signalled he was in favour of some prisoners being given the vote, despite admitting he has not come across a single inmate who wants it.
He also accepted that human rights could be a “refuge for scoundrels”.
But he said ignoring a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which said the current blanket ban is illegal, weakened the country’s ability to challenge the appalling human rights atrocities being witnessed in the Middle East.
Tory backbenchers last night attacked Mr Hardwick for becoming involved in a political row and for comparing a debate around voting rights with criticising “torturing tyrants”.
The Government has to consider giving some prisoners the vote after a ruling by the ECHR that a ban on all inmates was unlawful.
It has fuelled a furious row and MPs last month backed a motion to oppose the ruling by 234 to 22, although the vote was not binding on the Government.
Europe’s most senior judge also faced fierce criticism after suggesting that Britain would resemble a 1960s Greek dictatorship if it denied prisoners the vote and ignored human rights rulings.
Jean-Paul Costa, the president of the European Court of Human Rights, said it would be a "disaster" if Britain defied his court's ruling over enfranchising inmates.
In a thinly veiled comparison, he said only Greek military dictators had previously denounced the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a speech in Bournemouth last night, Mr Hardwick said he had been “bemused” by the debate but gave a clear signal he would back some inmates receiving the vote.
But he said: “In my visits to prisons and in all the letters I get from prisoners, no prisoner has ever raised the question of votes with me.
“Of all the things that need to be put right in prisons, this was not high on my list priorities.”
He said that “human rights can be an overused term: like patriotism, it can be a refuge for scoundrels”.
He said it would be wrong for lifers to be given the vote but suggested short term prisoners could be.
He added: “Perhaps the difficulty is that this was a decision by a European (though not an EU court). In my view if, as in recent events in the Middle East, we want to tell other countries how to behave, we surely have to be clear about the standards we ourselves sign up to.
“And having done that, it is a funny message to send to prisoners that if you do not like someone, you do not have to obey the law about how you treat them.”
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “It demonstrates a wholesale lack of moral clarity to say Britain can’t criticise torturing tyrants unless we give convicted prisoners the vote.
“If no prisoner has ever raised the right to vote with the Chief Inspector, it is difficult to understand why he is becoming embroiled in the political debate, instead of focusing on priorities like getting prisoners off drugs and into work. ”
Philip Davies, another Tory backbencher added: “We are used to the chief inspector of prisons just being an apologist for prisoners rather than having any regard for the victims of crime or the law-abiding public.
“It has become a requirement with the post to be out of touch with public opinion and live in an Ivory Tower.
“Given his position is there through the will of Parliament you would have thought he would see the will of Parliament as quite important and that will is that prisoners should not have the vote.”
Comment:
"Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons, signalled he was in favour of some prisoners being given the vote, despite admitting he has not come across a single inmate who wants it".
The impression I get from this is that Nick Hardwick is setting himself up as the moral judge of who he thinks should and should not be entitled to their human rights under the European Convention. He needs to get out more, and ask the right questions after giving prisoners the necessary information to express an informed opinion. It could be claimed that he is in an ivory tower and is therefore suffering from silo mentality. If this is the case, then it could be argued that he is not fit for purpose.
"He also accepted that human rights could be a “refuge for scoundrels”".
George W. Bush used human right as justification for the attack upon Iraq and war on terror. So, in this sense perhaps Nick Hardwick is right. However, it also suggests that he does not understand the subject of human rights. And, if this is the case then a little knowledge is a dangerous thing especially when he is in the position of weilding power. It suggest that he is forgetting that with public power comes responsibility, and prisoners are members of the public. The last thing prisoners need is for Nick Hardwick to be abusing power.
"But he said ignoring a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which said the current blanket ban is illegal, weakened the country’s ability to challenge the appalling human rights atrocities being witnessed in the Middle East".
I agree with Nick.
"Tory backbenchers last night attacked Mr Hardwick for becoming involved in a political row and for comparing a debate around voting rights with criticising “torturing tyrants”".
Dear Tory backbenchers, Nick Hardwick is Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Therefore, it is arguable that he should get involved in what has become a political row. The issue was made political when the ECtHR passed the case of Hirst v UK (No2) over to the Committee of Ministers (a political body) to supervise execution of the Court's judgment. The Convention was set up following the totalitarian or authoritarian Nazy regime during World War 2. The purpose being to act as a warning beacon against States slipping into tyranny. A tyrannical State abuses Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. In Hirst v UK (No2), the UK was found guilty of breaching all three of these objectives of the Council of Europe. Have the Tory backbenchers got such short memories? UK complicit in torture.
"The Government has to consider giving some prisoners the vote after a ruling by the ECtHR that a ban on all inmates was unlawful".
I would contest this. All the UK has to do is fully comply with the judgment in my case. My position is that all convicted prisoners are entitled to the human right to vote. I accept the Court's minimal exception in relation to those, for example, who are convicted of electoral fraud or abuse in a public office. However, in Israel there are no exceptions to the rule.
"It has fuelled a furious row and MPs last month backed a motion to oppose the ruling by 234 to 22, although the vote was not binding on the Government".
I am bemused that stating prisoners are human beings entitled to their human rights should fuel a row. Perhaps, the motives of the media and politicians need close scrutiny? Ceratianly, the Coalition agreement setting up the backbench business committee needs examination. Also, Cameron's appeasment of the Tory rebels. It beggars belief that taxpayers money was wasted on a lengthy debate to no beneficial end. My case is binding on the Government.
"Europe’s most senior judge also faced fierce criticism after suggesting that Britain would resemble a 1960s Greek dictatorship if it denied prisoners the vote and ignored human rights rulings.
Jean-Paul Costa, the president of the European Court of Human Rights, said it would be a "disaster" if Britain defied his court's ruling over enfranchising inmates.
In a thinly veiled comparison, he said only Greek military dictators had previously denounced the European Convention on Human Rights".
In my view, Jean-Paul Costa was right to draw the UK's attention to the one example in the Convention's history where a Member State of the Council of Europe withdrew from the Convention. Ken Clarke has also used this comparison against David cameron. And, the Independent has only yesterday compared the UK with the dictatorship in Belarus.
"“Of all the things that need to be put right in prisons, this was not high on my list priorities.”
He said that “human rights can be an overused term: like patriotism, it can be a refuge for scoundrels”.
He said it would be wrong for lifers to be given the vote but suggested short term prisoners could be.
He added: “Perhaps the difficulty is that this was a decision by a European (though not an EU court). In my view if, as in recent events in the Middle East, we want to tell other countries how to behave, we surely have to be clear about the standards we ourselves sign up to.
“And having done that, it is a funny message to send to prisoners that if you do not like someone, you do not have to obey the law about how you treat them”".
Given that the prison system is in much need of reform, and because their are said to be no votes in prison for MPs to push for reforms, it beggars belief that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, has not got votes for prisoners high up on his list of priorities! Prisoners do have prison numbers, but they are still human beings, and I feel that Nick Hardwick needs to pinch himself as a reminder of what he is dealing with here. A paper shuffler is not what is needed in such an important post.
We have a Human Rights Act, but as Alex Bailin QC, of Matrix Chambers, has recently argued, in relation to my case and prisoners votes the Act is toothless. If Nick Hardwick is too blind to see this then he is the wrong person for the job. In this case, human rights are clearly being under used!
It beggars belief that he can claim it is wrong for lifers to be given the vote, when Hirst No2, Frodl v Austria and Scoppola v Italy all involved lifers and the ECtHR has ruled in each case that the lifers human right to the vote was denied.
The difficulty for me was that an English court abdicated responsibility therefore it left me no option but to pursue the case in a European court. Of course, we cannot moralise in the Middle East (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) when our own moral standard is sadly lacking the high ground. The reality is that the UK is pointing the finger from the low moral ground. The UK was clear about the standards we signed up to 60 yeard ago, and reaffirmed them and re-signed up to them as recently as February 2010 at the Interlaken Conference.
I would hardly call it a funny message, saying that the Government is above the law. It is certainly the wrong message to be sending to prisoners because they are in prison for breaking the law. It is saying one law for one and another law for others.
"Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “It demonstrates a wholesale lack of moral clarity to say Britain can’t criticise torturing tyrants unless we give convicted prisoners the vote.
“If no prisoner has ever raised the right to vote with the Chief Inspector, it is difficult to understand why he is becoming embroiled in the political debate, instead of focusing on priorities like getting prisoners off drugs and into work”".
Dominic Raab is a failed international lawyer, therefore took the easy option and instead became a lazy Tory MP. From his lowly moral stand point it is easy to see from my high moral ground position that he has firmly got his head stuck in the sand like an Ostrich when he was trying to draw his line. Perhaps, if it is difficult to understand then even being an MP seems to be beyond his capability! There are drug rehabilitation programmes in prison. However, this country decided it would rather buy products from countries with sweatshops and slave labour than employ prisoners at home. Besides, the workshops were demolished to make room for new cell blocks!
"Philip Davies, another Tory backbencher added: “We are used to the chief inspector of prisons just being an apologist for prisoners rather than having any regard for the victims of crime or the law-abiding public.
“It has become a requirement with the post to be out of touch with public opinion and live in an Ivory Tower.
“Given his position is there through the will of Parliament you would have thought he would see the will of Parliament as quite important and that will is that prisoners should not have the vote”".
Do the Tories have a monopoly on stupid MPs? Er, Philip Davies, there is a clue in his job title and job description. He's HMCIP and not Victim's Commissioner. Why would he concern himself with the law-abiding public when it is outside his remit and they are outside of prison?
No comments:
Post a Comment