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

[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...n_Human_Rights - 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/yourrig...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.