Friday, 11 March 2011

Lock me up before giving Prisoners the vote!

It seems that once again, a group of unelected Judges from the Continent have undermined the authority of not only our Courts but also our Parliament and are forcing the UK to give prisoners the vote. This is not the first time this topic has been brought up: a decade ago the demand for prisoners votes was flatly rejected by the courts and a prisoner John Hirst was unsuccessful in his attempts to change that. Now however, the powers that be in the EU have decided that this is not good form.

I personally find the idea of giving prisoners the vote highly offensive and contrary to the principles of a fair and just society. The reason for this is very simple: In society you have both Rights and Responsibilities of equal stature and if you do not adhere to these Responsibilities then you incur penalties on certain Rights you have. Therefore, if you do not respect the rules and decorum of society then you should have no say in how society is run. Simple.

Many would argue that voting is a Human Right and that Rights cannot be suspended or taken away. This is factually incorrect. Although there are many absolute Human Rights that cannot be breached under any circumstances such as "prohibition of torture",  a lot Human Rights are in fact qualified rights where the state may legitimately deprive an individual of them if they have reason to believe it would be detrimental to society. So for example, if I exercised my Right to Freedom Expression and staged a protest demanding death to an ethnic group in society I would (quite rightly) be deprived of the right to express myself by the State. 

Let us also not forget that prisons today are more comfortable than ever. Prisoners received Sky TV before I did in my house, they had access to a fully kitted out gym long before I did, get fed three thoroughly decent square meals a day and yet pay nothing. This sounds more like a Summer Camp than a prison! Prisoners today have better access to facilities and luxuries than a lot of law abiding families in society and therefore have some cheek to even THINK about asking for the vote. 

Some have suggested that a blanket ban is unfair and that those who have committed minor crimes should still retain the Right to vote. I could get behind this idea, but only if the threshold was set very, very low. Even then, there are many practical issues to be considered. For instance, where do we draw the line between what crime constitutes a right to vote and what does not? What is intrinsically "right" about giving someone who hasn't paid their TV license the vote but not a Murderer? I would argue that there is nothing right about it and that it simply boils down to the same principle I mentioned earlier in this blog. It is a very slippery slope we find ourselves on, and how long before we give murderers, rapists and paedophiles the ability to determine how our country is run?

It is pure hypocrisy that Judges from Russia and the Eastern Block should tell the oldest Parliamentary Democracy in the world how democracy works. I am glad to see David Cameron give MP's the green light to defy the EU in this issue, as it is the first primitive signs of the UK growing a spine and standing up for what it believes in.

Long may this continue.


  1. fukc it...

    first 21/47 judges are from EASTERN BLOCK...

    1/6 presidents (croatia) is communist successors.

    Delusion is thinking that minority form Eastern block can take over GREAT NATIONS OF WEST...
    Don't even think bout going the way of 'oh, they came like 5 minutes ago and now they're trying to set rules here! What a hypocrits!'

    Man, they were introduced on the basis which was set BEFORE (6 letters, first 'b', last 'e'...) they came in. So, who is the loser now? ( I think all EU members cos eurocrats sucks) + btw it's pure trade-off...

    'hay man! let's make a deal... you will give up your independence (first very peripherall, then we will see) and you will be given money for your development. So how's it gonna be??'

    You still got this vision of once great empire... overseas etc. Latest News: Japan is destroyed, and from our reporter in UK, we've got info that GB is not an empire... I repeat GB is not an empire any more. Deal with it.

    btw... It's cool that Farage got his really good views. I totally agree upon many of his opinions.

    about right to vote i totally agree. Check out the scandinavian penitentiary... Damn. -.-

    Cheers mate.

  2. I have no delusions of a Great Empire, but rather an EU that allows countries to retain their national identity while feeling like part of a group. The ECHR was enacted to prevent the atrocities that was committed in WW2 ever happening again. This a threat that has now largely evaporated. Countries from the Eastern Block have never had a good human rights record compared to the UK and this is simply a fact. Based on this, the fact that they should now put pressure on the UK to conform to what THEY feel democracy should be is a fundamental hypocrisy. Even if you factored in all of the contracting parties to the ECHR in the EU Britain has always been different and more wary of powers eating away at its Sovereignty. Look at the Euro, many were adamant that Britain was simply being stubborn by not accepting it as its own currency, but as we now watch the Euro burn who is laughing now?

  3. excuse me but euro is not concern even to think of in most (only slovenia, slovakia and estonia changed their currency.) new members(10+) of EU. wtf? where are the laughs? one britain and whole eastern border of EU is laughing... i don't felt that joke 'cos we're on the same side here-.-

    I just wanted to say that before 1991 there was not even one independent country ('iron curtain' - history doesn't hurt) - so if you want to count it in this equations than go for russia - it's their fault for occupying half of europe. or maybe goin' deeper - go for roosevelt and churchill which was too afraid of stalin? (let's leave it for next conversation)

    and from 1991 there is no problem with human right all along eastern border of europe...

    UK and their colonies after II WW...
    maybe I'll just refresh your memory - Sierra Leone, Uganda, Sudan, Bahrain, India (pakistan + india + Bangladesh).. till late '60 and '70... and even now - iraq for example...

    British want to learn others how to treat people?
    Wait a minute...

    Where is this tradition?
    Where is this 'fact'?

    Why you think that only Eastern countries are bad? why the hell they are worse than anyone else in EU? 'cause thay've been played in jalta potzdam adn teheran? THIS IS HYPOCRISY.

    And why british felt like they are to be raped by some EUroctats? for God's sake, this is europe which you founded... And by 'you' I mean british people (i don't know why you are backing them so much - you're indian as I remeber... or do I miss sth?)

    So basically it was a contract - accession treaties. (every friggin thing in EU is another contract) ergo when british are in EU they sacrificed some of their independence. fullstop. if britain got a problem with this than bail out. Simple idea. If making rules for other european countries doesn't feel like good option (and from like 30 years it was vary good option for all western europe) than stop cryin' and whinin' about 'how the hell you can speak to me!?!?!? about this crazy idea'...

    are we kids or partners in EU?
    Or am I missing sth?

  4. Ok lets deal with these points. Firstly, I am not bringing countries from the eastern block as a whole into disrepute, what I AM saying though is that none of these countries have had a track record of democracy like the UK which is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world. Unlike many of these countries the UK rarely/never oppressed its own people. You quote India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? This countries were liberated in the 1940's, a good 30 years before the UK joined the EU, by your own admission the record of Eastern Block stretches back to 1991. Lets not forget either that the UK joined mainly based on the economic benefits and not the social ones. And although we did concede some our independence, it would now seem that our Sovereignty is slowly being sucked into a black hole and believe me Lukasz, if it was up to me Britain would be out of the EU and in a position such as Norway is right now.

    To tackle your second point, in order to bail out the likes Southern Europe and Ireland the Euro is going to have to be inflated to unprecedented levels to cope. This will cause a great reduction in its value. Are the Brits happy they stayed with the pound? You can be damn sure they are. While other Euro countries scramble about trying to figure out how to juggle the situation Britain is a much better condition.

    And to tackle your third point, me being Indian is totally irrelevant to the situation. You ask whether we are kids or partners in the EU. The answer is simple : we are business partners first an foremost.


  5. Anyhow, I feel that we are getting off topic here. This is not about whether Britain should stay in the EU, but whether prisoners should get the vote!


  6. Mau Mau rebellion...

    Malaysia... '57...

    and democracy is not human rights. WE need to DISTINGUISH these two.

    Problem with british people is - the always been like - we've got colonies (we know what is the reason to have colonies) so we are 'over' someone...

    or in other words someone is below us.

    it seems like clear right now with EU when they are on the same lvl...

    Try to think from totally different point of view - contrary to yours.

    India is not like most of any countries that got in it's roots human rights :/
    Why GB hasn't inject human rights in it's colonies?

    and you're right about our offtop...

    We agreed that prosoners shoudn't have right to vote either way:D