This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/22/give-prisoners-vote-not-because-europe-says

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Give prisoners the vote. But not because Europe says so Give prisoners the vote. But not because Europe says so
(35 minutes later)
British prisoners should be free to vote. Denying them is silly, an archaic spin-off from Britain's primitive obsession with locking up ever more of its citizens. The tabloids howl that villains, thugs and perverts have no rights, and are lucky to be alive. Parliament dares not disagree. British prisoners should be free to vote. Denying them is silly, an archaic spin-off from Britain's primitive obsession with locking up ever more of its citizens. The tabloids howl that villains, thugs and perverts have no rights, and are lucky to be alive. Parliament dares not disagree.
Yet it is one thing to demand votes for prisoners, another to want parliament overruled on the matter by a distant and unaccountable court. The franchise is a hallowed feature of the domestic constitution. British democracy has steadily evolved in tune with public consent expressed in parliament. How Britons vote is for Britons to decide.Yet it is one thing to demand votes for prisoners, another to want parliament overruled on the matter by a distant and unaccountable court. The franchise is a hallowed feature of the domestic constitution. British democracy has steadily evolved in tune with public consent expressed in parliament. How Britons vote is for Britons to decide.
The House of Commons last year denied prisoners the ballot by 234 votes to 22. Such a majority will only be reinforced by being overridden by a panel of judges backed by an army of human rights lobbyists in Strasbourg. Such lofty elitism only encourages the illiberalism of David Cameron's remark that votes for prisoners "makes me physically sick". If his innards are that weak, I wonder what Friday's EU budget talks will do to them. The House of Commons last year denied prisoners the ballot by 234 votes to 22. Such a majority will only be reinforced by being overridden by a panel of judges backed by an army of human rights lobbyists in Strasbourg. Such lofty elitism only encourages the illiberalism of David Cameron's remark that votes for prisoners "makes me physically sick". If his innards are that weak, I wonder what Friday's EU budget talks will do to them.
Giving prisoners the vote is no big deal. We can all dream up "rights" we might deny to those incarcerated at her majesty's pleasure. If they may not vote, should they read newspapers, watch television, talk to an MP or debate politics in prison? We allow them some rights that have evolved over time, such as exercise, occupation, seeing their families and knowing the date of their release. It is hard to distinguish those rights considered fit for a decent, liberal society from those that make a prime minister vomit. Giving prisoners the vote is no big deal. We can all dream up "rights" we might deny to those incarcerated at her majesty's pleasure. If they may not vote, should they read newspapers, watch television, talk to an MP or debate politics in prison? We allow them some rights that have evolved over time, such as exercise, occupation, seeing their families and knowing the date of their release. It is hard to distinguish those rights considered fit for a decent, liberal society from those that make a prime minister vomit.
I am not aware of prisoners banging on cell doors crying for ballot papers, even in the recent election for police commissioners, where their numbers might have been useful. But they are not total outcasts. Most are in prison for getting caught, getting stoned or coming before a postprandial judge. Allowing them some political participation might seem a sensible form of rehabilitation. It is hardly likely to breed a prison riot or turn the outcome of a general election.I am not aware of prisoners banging on cell doors crying for ballot papers, even in the recent election for police commissioners, where their numbers might have been useful. But they are not total outcasts. Most are in prison for getting caught, getting stoned or coming before a postprandial judge. Allowing them some political participation might seem a sensible form of rehabilitation. It is hardly likely to breed a prison riot or turn the outcome of a general election.
My limited experience of prison visiting suggests many inmates are sensible and as knowledgeable of public affairs as any normal voter. Some are more so, given their often considerable experience of the public sector. To add denial of the vote to other curbs on liberty seems as pedantic as pompous talk of "breaking the contract with society". It is like medieval schoolmen debating whether to chop off a prisoner's tongue, hand or testicles. My limited experience of prison visiting suggests many inmates are sensible and as knowledgeable of public affairs as any normal voter. Some are more so, given their often considerable experience of the public sector. To add denial of the vote to other curbs on liberty seems as pedantic as pompous talk of "breaking the contract with society". It is like medieval schoolmen debating whether to chop off a prisoner's tongue, hand or testicles.
Yet this is Britain's own business. A constitutional detail such as the allocation of voting rights is not crucial to international security or some global moral conscience. It does not justify a supranational body exerting legal duress on a sovereign state. The fact that a sprawling industry of international law claims to have found a lucrative identity between human wishes and human rights is neither here nor there.Yet this is Britain's own business. A constitutional detail such as the allocation of voting rights is not crucial to international security or some global moral conscience. It does not justify a supranational body exerting legal duress on a sovereign state. The fact that a sprawling industry of international law claims to have found a lucrative identity between human wishes and human rights is neither here nor there.
Britain voluntarily made a rod for its back when it ratified the European convention on human rights in 1951, agreeing to abide by the "final judgment" of the European court. Like many international treaties, the convention was signed in haste, and is now repented at leisure.Britain voluntarily made a rod for its back when it ratified the European convention on human rights in 1951, agreeing to abide by the "final judgment" of the European court. Like many international treaties, the convention was signed in haste, and is now repented at leisure.
As with the eurozone and the EU budget, regimes designed to avert past evils have proved difficult to reform, even when leading towards future evils. The actual intrusion of human rights rulings from Strasbourg can be overstated. But like Brussels rules on employment, health and safety, they set an agenda out of proportion to the wrongs they seek to correct.As with the eurozone and the EU budget, regimes designed to avert past evils have proved difficult to reform, even when leading towards future evils. The actual intrusion of human rights rulings from Strasbourg can be overstated. But like Brussels rules on employment, health and safety, they set an agenda out of proportion to the wrongs they seek to correct.
Such rulings show little recognition of national subsidiarity. As Lord Hoffman remarked, they "trivialise the concept of human rights". In the case of prisoner franchise, human rights have become confused with civil rights, political rights awarded under national constitutions. As Jeremy Bentham rightly predicted, too much talk of "rights" ends up as nonsense on stilts.Such rulings show little recognition of national subsidiarity. As Lord Hoffman remarked, they "trivialise the concept of human rights". In the case of prisoner franchise, human rights have become confused with civil rights, political rights awarded under national constitutions. As Jeremy Bentham rightly predicted, too much talk of "rights" ends up as nonsense on stilts.
Britain voluntarily joined a club with rules. Parliament may have voted not to give prisoners the franchise, but it also voted to allow a foreign court to define its own jurisdiction in such a matter. It may have been a fool, but foolishness is no defence at law.Britain voluntarily joined a club with rules. Parliament may have voted not to give prisoners the franchise, but it also voted to allow a foreign court to define its own jurisdiction in such a matter. It may have been a fool, but foolishness is no defence at law.
At present the British government, after seven years of stalling, has little scope but to obey the court, as the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has reminded it. Refusing to obey a judgment of the court is near unthinkable. Ministers are charged under oath with obeying the law, including that which incorporates the human rights convention into British law.At present the British government, after seven years of stalling, has little scope but to obey the court, as the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has reminded it. Refusing to obey a judgment of the court is near unthinkable. Ministers are charged under oath with obeying the law, including that which incorporates the human rights convention into British law.
Parliament can certainly exert a "democratic override" and thus claw back sovereignty from Europe de facto, if not de jure. It appears to be already breaking the convention's article 3 against involvement in torture. But where national security is not at issue, ignoring a court ruling risks fines and possible compensation to aggrieved prisoners. It ultimately involves resiling from the convention and leaving the jurisdiction of the court. Coalition ministers would have to forego their favourite pastime, making stentorian judgments on the failings of foreign governments. Parliament can certainly exert a "democratic override" and thus claw back sovereignty from Europe de facto, if not de jure. It appears to be already breaking the convention's article 3 against involvement in torture. But where national security is not at issue, ignoring a court ruling risks fines and possible compensation to aggrieved prisoners. It ultimately involves resiling from the convention and leaving the jurisdiction of the court. Coalition ministers would have to forego their favourite pastime, making stentorian judgments on the failings of foreign governments.
The outcome of the current impasse is Thursday's mealy-mouthed compromise, with Cameron swallowing his pride, and his stomach, and "consulting" on various prisoner voting options. This is intellectual sophistry. The sound of MPs cheering the one option – do nothing – that clearly breaks the law sets an eerie example to their future criminal electors.The outcome of the current impasse is Thursday's mealy-mouthed compromise, with Cameron swallowing his pride, and his stomach, and "consulting" on various prisoner voting options. This is intellectual sophistry. The sound of MPs cheering the one option – do nothing – that clearly breaks the law sets an eerie example to their future criminal electors.
The government should obey the court and get on with what it clearly regards as important. That is defining the limit of jurisdiction it wishes parliament to cede to the institutions – all of them – of European government. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, has plausibly argued that any rights document drawn up under the shadow of Hitler and Stalin "has become, through 50 or 60 years of jurisprudence, very different from what was set out by the creators".The government should obey the court and get on with what it clearly regards as important. That is defining the limit of jurisdiction it wishes parliament to cede to the institutions – all of them – of European government. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, has plausibly argued that any rights document drawn up under the shadow of Hitler and Stalin "has become, through 50 or 60 years of jurisprudence, very different from what was set out by the creators".
The government has commissioned a review of its human rights regime, as a prelude to a possible new bill of rights. The commission is reportedly laden with international lawyers and may yet prove another Cameron own goal. It is due to report at the end of the year. Until ministers have something to put in place of a court to which parliament freely assented, they can hardly pick and choose which laws to obey.The government has commissioned a review of its human rights regime, as a prelude to a possible new bill of rights. The commission is reportedly laden with international lawyers and may yet prove another Cameron own goal. It is due to report at the end of the year. Until ministers have something to put in place of a court to which parliament freely assented, they can hardly pick and choose which laws to obey.