Parliament for once sticks up for national interest as MPs vote down European ruling

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355640/Prisoners-vote-MPs-stand-UK-rights-overturn-EU-ruling.html

Day we stood up to Europe: In an unprecedented move, MPs reject European court's ruling that prisoners must get the vote


MPs mounted an historic defence of Britain’s sovereign right to make its own decisions last night by defying demands from the European courts to hand prisoners the vote. They voted overwhelmingly to maintain a 140-year-old ban on convicts ­taking part in elections because, they said, those who commit a crime have ‘broken their contract with society’. The decisive stance plunged Parliament into an unprecedented stand-off against the European Court of Human Rights.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/10/article-1355640-0D1EC942000005DC-327_634x366.jpg
No right to vote: David Davis said prisoners had broken their contract with society and should not be allowed the same rights as ordinary citizens.



After six hours of impassioned debate, MPs voted by 234 to 22 – a majority of 212 – to defy a ruling from the ECHR that the ban must be overturned. Dozens of Conservative backbenchers lined up to insist that after decades of toeing the line, the time has come for Britain to tell unelected Strasbourg judges that they have overstepped their authority.

Experts said the vote left Britain’s relationship with the European court in ‘uncharted territory’. It places the Prime Minister under intense pressure to launch a defining challenge against Strasbourg. Proposing the cross-party motion which ­‘supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote’, former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘The ­general point is very clear in this country: that is that it takes a pretty serious crime to get yourself sent to prison.

I'm actually stunned, lets make this more of a habit and send a clear message that the sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom along with its sovereign courts are capable of making decisions for our country as they are accountable to the British people and the British people alone. These guys have a terrible track record when it comes to Europe, but for once I can actually say; well done to those MPs who represented their electorates and voted against this ruling from the European courts. Although that said, I shoudn't really be saying well done as this is only a small part of a massive issue in which numerous MPs have lied and lied to us over again and again - but at least its a start.

See, we can stand up for national interests - and look what happens; nothing, we ourselves remain better off. Next step; a referendum on our membership of the EU and its fellow European bodies, including the ECHR. (but I won't count on it!)

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

Thank Christ for that! Common sense has won the day :D There are quite a few interesting articles on this. The Guardian came out with some random quotes:

"There are some Tories who would vote against anything labelled "European" even if they were warned that Hugo Chávez would personally come to Britain and kidnap their children. ... They found a dozen reasons why we should ignore the ruling of the court."

"This was one of many accusations against the ECHR which, we were told by implication, is full of callow, ignorant judges who would be unfit to oversee a football game in a school playground, and which has so great a backlog that it is 46 years behind."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/11/prisoners-votes-simon-hoggart

I think I can sleep happily now :P Below is apparently what Davis had also said, which is a very good quote.

“When you commit a crime which is sufficiently serious to put you in prison, you sacrifice a number of rights. The concept is simple, if you break the law, you cannot make the law."
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/228309/Prisoners-do-not-deserve-the-vote-say-MPs-in-debates/

It's an obvious concept. To vote in an MP, or to vote in general, is putting your view across on the creation or design of law. There's nothing else you are voting for, especially when many laws are for the free, law-abiding citizens - why would prisoners want to vote or have their voice heard on the location of a new bus stop? Seeing as someone who is in prison has clearly broken the law, you should not be allowed a say on what happens with the law. If it's existed for hundreds of years, then it's been doing a good job. The EU/ECHR does not need to get involved, when our legal system has been tailored to us and works.

It's also interesting to note that, although the ECHR is seperate from the European Union, what it has to say must be heard by members of the European Union. It's quite naughty, really.

[Inseriousity.]

Common sense always wins in the end :)

[alexxxxx]

i don't agree with the MPs on this one at all. Prisoners should have voting rights as i believe it shouldn't be possible or legal to 'remove' someone's rights, even as part of a punishment. although i think what might be more appropriate to think about is that should cases based on the european human rights act be heard in british courts only. should cases like this need to be heard in a european court rather than at the new supreme court?

[-:Undertaker:-]

This ruling is a clear victory for public opinion.


i don't agree with the MPs on this one at all. Prisoners should have voting rights as i believe it shouldn't be possible or legal to 'remove' someone's rights, even as part of a punishment. although i think what might be more appropriate to think about is that should cases based on the european human rights act be heard in british courts only. should cases like this need to be heard in a european court rather than at the new supreme court?

Surely your right of movement/freedom if taken de facto when you go to prison, unless you are proposing abolishing prison altogether as it breaches and removes 'rights'? if not, then whats the argument there - there is no argument over 'rights' as rights are de facto taken when the state locks you up for committing a crime. It is a very simple concept, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime. If the rights of freedom, movement, voting and so forth are not removed as part of the punishment - then what exactly is the punishment?

As for the British Supreme Court, lets make our Supreme Court a supreme court of the land and remove ourselves from the ECJ and ECHR.

[GommeInc]

i don't agree with the MPs on this one at all. Prisoners should have voting rights as i believe it shouldn't be possible or legal to 'remove' someone's rights, even as part of a punishment. although i think what might be more appropriate to think about is that should cases based on the european human rights act be heard in british courts only. should cases like this need to be heard in a european court rather than at the new supreme court?
"Why fix something that isn't broken" comes to mind. It's been law for over a hundred years and has worked. If you've broken the law you should have no say on how to interpret or change the law once in prison. You've lost the right to freedom, thus you've lost the unnatural or "legal" right to vote for the people who are free and law abiding. They may allow it for short-term inmates (4 years max) but anymore it becomes tedious, especially when they're in there for a reason. If a fight breaks out between the ECHR and the UK, I hope we don't back down and other good things come out of it.

Also, a quote from my Head of Law:

"No votes for prisoners as they've "broken their contract with society"? That criterion would instantly disenfranchise all the ConDem MPs!"

It's my favourite quote so far :P

[alexxxxx]

This ruling is a clear victory for public opinion.



Surely your right of movement/freedom if taken de facto when you go to prison, unless you are proposing abolishing prison altogether as it breaches and removes 'rights'? if not, then whats the argument there - there is no argument over 'rights' as rights are de facto taken when the state locks you up for committing a crime. It is a very simple concept, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime. If the rights of freedom, movement, voting and so forth are not removed as part of the punishment - then what exactly is the punishment?

As for the British Supreme Court, lets make our Supreme Court a supreme court of the land and remove ourselves from the ECJ and ECHR.

People have a right to fair justice! You do not have a right to liberty after being punished after a fair trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_5_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Righ ts - this is not covered under your right to liberty. Your rights are not 'de facto' as taken. You either never have the right, or you have rights and they cannot be taken away (in my opinion). However there is a right to Free and fair elections: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-3-of-the-first-protocol-right-to-free-elections.html - this is not related to 'liberty' in the ECHR. Public Opinion in the tabloids could potentially 'ban' civil partnerships - should that be illegal too?



"Why fix something that isn't broken" comes to mind. It's been law for over a hundred years and has worked. If you've broken the law you should have no say on how to interpret or change the law once in prison. You've lost the right to freedom, thus you've lost the unnatural or "legal" right to vote for the people who are free and law abiding. They may allow it for short-term inmates (4 years max) but anymore it becomes tedious, especially when they're in there for a reason. If a fight breaks out between the ECHR and the UK, I hope we don't back down and other good things come out of it.

Again, it's a differing opinion to mine.

[Ajthedragon]

Bet they'll fine us billions. :(

[GommeInc]

Again, it's a differing opinion to mine.
It's an interesting opinion, but from a legal perspective, voting is a legal right than a human right. So the whole right argument back fires in a way :P You do not have to vote, and voting doesn't have a direct link to the quality of your life. A legal right is somewhat synthetic, as is a voting system.

[alexxxxx]

It's an interesting opinion, but from a legal perspective, voting is a legal right than a human right. So the whole right argument back fires in a way :P You do not have to vote, and voting doesn't have a direct link to the quality of your life. A legal right is somewhat synthetic, as is a voting system.

I don't quite understand this. There are no 'natural' rights at all. You don't have a natural right not to be tortured, only legal 'synthetic' ones. I don't understand your argument here. Voting and democracy does improve living standards also.

[Grig]

To put it simply, if you are breaking the law, why should you have the right to vote for who enforces the law. It's is extremely ironic, and hence this is what makes this bill a bit uncomprehending.

[Conservative,]

People have a right to fair justice! You do not have a right to liberty after being punished after a fair trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_5_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Righ ts - this is not covered under your right to liberty. Your rights are not 'de facto' as taken. You either never have the right, or you have rights and they cannot be taken away (in my opinion). However there is a right to Free and fair elections: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-3-of-the-first-protocol-right-to-free-elections.html - this is not related to 'liberty' in the ECHR. Public Opinion in the tabloids could potentially 'ban' civil partnerships - should that be illegal too?


Again, it's a differing opinion to mine.


I don't quite understand this. There are no 'natural' rights at all. You don't have a natural right not to be tortured, only legal 'synthetic' ones. I don't understand your argument here. Voting and democracy does improve living standards also.

Essentially it comes down to whether you think our prison system is supposed to be rehabilitating or punishment.

Personally I'd prefer punishment, but it borders more on rehabilitation. However I firmly believe those who commit serious crimes (terrorism, treason, rape, murder, etc.) should NOT be allowed to vote. Particularly terrorists who want to bring down our Government anyway...

really, it's stupid to let prisoners vote. The right to vote isn't actually a legitimate right, why? Because A) It's only given to those over a certain age (here it's 18) and B) You don't NEED to vote. And some people who can, don't.
It's not a basic necessity like food, water, shelter, clothing, education. It's just an added bonus, and you give those luxuries up when you go out and stab that dude in the back.

[Chippiewill]

I don't mind too much that prisoners cannot vote, however what I disagree with is calling voting a 'right', if it can ever be revoked then it is a 'privilege' and should be labelled as such.

But good on the government on actually going against the EU, hopefully it'll make them back off a bit.

[alexxxxx]

I don't mind too much that prisoners cannot vote, however what I disagree with is calling voting a 'right', if it can ever be revoked then it is a 'privilege' and should be labelled as such.

But good on the government on actually going against the EU, hopefully it'll make them back off a bit.

I think you go down a dangerous path if you start calling votes 'privileges' as in fact you can begin to pick and choose who can have such privileges.

They didn't go 'against the EU' they went against a European Court of Human Rights court (not an EU court).

[GommeInc]

I don't quite understand this. There are no 'natural' rights at all. You don't have a natural right not to be tortured, only legal 'synthetic' ones. I don't understand your argument here. Voting and democracy does improve living standards also.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

^ Above covers it.

Natural rights are considered universally understandable and self-evident. The right to life, for example, is fully understandable, with sub-rights like the right to food in which to live - to live is an important word here. The right to not be tortured (which is probably not a right, as it's common sense and human understanding) follows the idea that pain is a "bad" thing. Natural rights build upon human understanding, ability and instinct.

Legal (synthetic) rights are built by the Government, who in turn create such "rights" for the benefit of the general populace or by the demand of the populace, depending on the legal system a country uses. Voting is a legal right, because voting isn't a necessity, natural and doesn't directly effect a human - it may "improve" living standards, but isn't a necessity to live nor is it "universally understandable". The ECHR may badger on all they want that it should be a natural right, but it isn't - breaking the law, particularly natural rights like taking a life, destroys your natural right to freedom and to not be given the synthetic right to vote is perfectly acceptable and understadable, especially when a prisoner's natural rights are not being attacked - other than the ones that must be taken away, such as freedom.


I think you go down a dangerous path if you start calling votes 'privileges' as in fact you can begin to pick and choose who can have such privileges.

They didn't go 'against the EU' they went against a European Court of Human Rights court (not an EU court).
No, but the ECHR can push legislation they make up upon member states of the EU, as they both work hand in hand. Also, aren't member states meant to follow the Human Rights imposed by the ECHR, to be a member of the EU?

[alexxxxx]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

^ Above covers it.

Natural rights are considered universally understandable and self-evident. The right to life, for example, is fully understandable, with sub-rights like the right to food in which to live - to live is an important word here. The right to not be tortured (which is probably not a right, as it's common sense and human understanding) follows the idea that pain is a "bad" thing. Natural rights build upon human understanding, ability and instinct.

Legal (synthetic) rights are built by the Government, who in turn create such "rights" for the benefit of the general populace or by the demand of the populace, depending on the legal system a country uses. Voting is a legal right, because voting isn't a necessity, natural and doesn't directly effect a human - it may "improve" living standards, but isn't a necessity to live nor is it "universally understandable". The ECHR may badger on all they want that it should be a natural right, but it isn't - breaking the law, particularly natural rights like taking a life, destroys your natural right to freedom and to not be given the synthetic right to vote is perfectly acceptable and understadable, especially when a prisoner's natural rights are not being attacked - other than the ones that must be taken away, such as freedom.


Yes i understand the concept, however I don't think we should distinguish between the two legally - nor do i believe that 'natural' rights are any more important than 'synthetic ones.' I reject the idea that it you can split rights into to categories where you can say 'these are important' and 'these aren't.' Nor do I totally accept that over history people believed in 'right to life,' human sacrifices for example prove that at one point it was thought of as acceptable but now it is not. Human instinct, ability and understanding vary so much between groups of people (religion and culture) i feel it is hard to define what a 'natural' right is. But my main point is that Legally there is no difference between a 'natural' or a 'legal' right.

To be a member of the EU, you need to be a member of the Council of Europe (but you can be a member of the Council of Europe and not be a member of the EU). Russia, for example, is bound by the ECHR. The Council of Europe is a separate body, but the CoE and EU do have a limited number of joint projects.

[Chippiewill]

I think you go down a dangerous path if you start calling votes 'privileges' as in fact you can begin to pick and choose who can have such privileges.
Is that not exactly what they're doing?

[alexxxxx]

Is that not exactly what they're doing?

yeah but as soon as you start removing privileges you can then say - oh we'll remove the right to vote for anyone who's ever committed a crime, we will remove it for people who are/have been members of 'extreme' parties, we will remove it from people who are on benefits, from people who don't pay 'X' amount of tax. Sounds stupid but you open the possibility.

[GommeInc]

Yes i understand the concept, however I don't think we should distinguish between the two legally - nor do i believe that 'natural' rights are any more important than 'synthetic ones.' I reject the idea that it you can split rights into to categories where you can say 'these are important' and 'these aren't.' Nor do I totally accept that over history people believed in 'right to life,' human sacrifices for example prove that at one point it was thought of as acceptable but now it is not. Human instinct, ability and understanding vary so much between groups of people (religion and culture) i feel it is hard to define what a 'natural' right is. But my main point is that Legally there is no difference between a 'natural' or a 'legal' right.

To be a member of the EU, you need to be a member of the Council of Europe (but you can be a member of the Council of Europe and not be a member of the EU). Russia, for example, is bound by the ECHR. The Council of Europe is a separate body, but the CoE and EU do have a limited number of joint projects.
Legally there are no differences. The only difference is how they are made and necessity. Voting isn't necessary, so prisoners do not need it, especially when it's being advertised as a "human right", when it is far from being a human right. It's a wise choice not to allow prisoners the vote - if you break your civil contract with society, then you shouldn't have any say on how the legal process works. It's not hurting prisoners anyway, it's not like capital punishment is coming any time soon.


yeah but as soon as you start removing privileges you can then say - oh we'll remove the right to vote for anyone who's ever committed a crime, we will remove it for people who are/have been members of 'extreme' parties, we will remove it from people who are on benefits, from people who don't pay 'X' amount of tax. Sounds stupid but you open the possibility.
That seems like paranoia to suggest that more people will be removed from the right to vote, especially when this has been in action for over a hundred years. To suddenly come out with "what if..." suggests the law was made five minutes ago, when actually that law has never been contested until now, and that was pointless interfering in the first place :S

[Chippiewill]

yeah but as soon as you start removing privileges you can then say - oh we'll remove the right to vote for anyone who's ever committed a crime, we will remove it for people who are/have been members of 'extreme' parties, we will remove it from people who are on benefits, from people who don't pay 'X' amount of tax. Sounds stupid but you open the possibility.

If they really wanted to they could do that anyway, what I'm calling into question is the fact that they're calling it a right when it can be revoked which means it should really be called a Privilege which really has no effect on whether or not they can remove the privilege from other people if they all agreed upon it.