They have not thought it through.
Right-wing Tories, left-wing Tories, mad Tories, sensible Tories are all throbbing with anger. They are wrong. This week in Strasbourg the new Tory delegates queued up to harangue the Council of Europe on a deadly insult to 'UK's national interests'. They have become unhinged by the Daily Mail and Cameron's feigned anger which he claims has turned his stomach.
It's a decision of European Court of Human Rights. That worthy body has the high ambition of improving the standards of justice throughout our vast continent. Most of the objections to their decisions come from Russia and other former communist states. They object to decisions that they say are in conflict with their national interests and traditions. They have some odd traditions that must be challenged.
For centuries they have persecuted minorities, jailed opposition politicians and killed the occasional journalist. That was. and tragically still is, sometimes still their way of doing business. When cases of foul injustices are revealed by the Court of Human Rights, these countries plead their 'national interests.' Advanced European nations have resisted these excuses and backed for the Court's humanitarian decisions. Now the Tories are playing the same game for a unworthy cause.
The Mail and the Tories want to be beastly to prisoners. They can do that by denying them some of the privileges they enjoy now. But there is no demand to take mobile phones, drugs, televisions, gyms or alcohol from our jails. No, they want to deny prisoners the chance to vote. Huh? The line is that you can a lax regime where nothing is denied except the a ballot paper. Is this really one of the great causes of our epoch?
The risks are great. By challenging judgements, that we have agreed to obey, we are risking not only vast compensation to prisoners but a collapse in obedience to the rule of law on serious issues in oppressive states. The wise political move is for the UK to take a hit on this for the sake for improving justice throughout Europe.
The Court of Human Rights is a great institution that can curb the excesses of unjust Governments. Their success depends on respect for the independence of their rulings. If Cameron plays the national card on this piddling issue he will close the door that leads to justice for those mistreated in increasing numbers in gulags across our continent.
It's the wrong cause Cameron.
Strange bedfellows
The Tories are in trouble with weird European allies. The resignation of their leader in the EU was expressed in alarming allegations. It's a bit hairy in the Council of Europe. At a dinner for the Uk Tories and their wild-eyed friends the Russian delegates proposed a toast to 'Greater Russia.' The Czechs shivered, 'Does that mean us?'
The right and duty to vote is at the very foundation of what I believe in and what I believe democracy to be.
It is and always has been wrong to deny the vote to anyone for any reason.
It was shameful of previous administrations to not change the situation and it adds shame to shame, which reflects on us all, for an administration of any colour to fight to preserve a wrong.
Posted by: HuwOS | January 27, 2011 at 04:00 PM
With rights comes responsibilities. If you have broken the law and been found guilty then you are not carrying out your responsibilities as a citizen to respect the rights of your fellow citizens. You forfeit your right to liberty and quite rightly the right to vote as well.
It is time the balance of rights in this country was shifted away from the offender towards the victims of their crimes. Giving convicted offenders the right to vote is only going to rub salt in the wounds of their victims and should be resisted strongly.
Posted by: Gerald | January 27, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Why do the other privileges that prisoners enjoy now not infuriate their victims, Gerald? Do you think that prisoners value a ballot paper above their television, alcohol and drugs?
Posted by: Paul Flynn | January 27, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Quite right Paul, they should be stopped as well and add the Pool tables to the list.
No privileges, never drugs or alcohol, unless they are earned by good behaviour or working for them. And if they don't work then they should only get subsistence rations.
I spent too long as a volunteer with Victim Support in Newport to have any sympathy whatsoever for offenders.
Posted by: Gerald | January 27, 2011 at 09:23 PM
Voting is both a right and a responsibility.
What is more, the validity of the laws and offices of any democratic nation are predicated on everyone having the ability to vote.
It is not about having sympathy for offenders it is about having respect for democracy and your fellow citizens.
Posted by: HuwOS | January 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM
What the tabloid Tories fail to understand is the role of the Court throughout Europe
Posted by: Paul Flynn | January 28, 2011 at 08:56 AM
Huw I'm happy to read that you believe voting is a responsibility. So as a responsible citizen did you vote in last May's General Election?
Posted by: Gerald | January 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Yes, I did Gerald.
Posted by: HuwOS | January 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Giving prisoners the vote safeguards democracy. Everybody benefits. There's a case for debating the balance of rights between victims and offenders, and the reward system in prisons, but I don't see what a twice(max thrice)-per-decade trip to the ballot box has to do with it.
Posted by: D.G. | January 28, 2011 at 02:14 PM
D.G. the balance is not, mainly, between the rights of victims and offenders. The balance is between the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. If anyone wants to refuse to carry out their responsibilities to society and their fellow citizens by committing a criminal act then logically and morally they should not expect to receive your rights. Rights and responsibilities are a balance you should not get one without the other. When they carry out a crime, and stick two fingers up to society and their fellow citizens, they lose their right to liberty and vote.
Posted by: Gerald | January 29, 2011 at 08:33 PM