At the last general election, I voted for the first time, and gave it to Diana Johnson Labour MP for Hull North. When it came to the local election I voted for the Lib Dem candidate. Notwithstanding Dizzy Thinks posting this on the 1st of April, I just had to have a go at it: “For anyone confused about how they might vote at the General Election, Vote Match 2010 has now been launched. It’s pretty straight forward multiple choice survey that will match what you think against what the political parties have told Vote Match they think”. My score came out 75% in support of the Lib Dems, 52% Labour party, and 36% Conservative party. Result: “Best Match Liberal Democrats”.
When I first heard about the idea of having televised debates I was naturally angry. One of my arguments to the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK (No2) was that Parliament had not debated the issue of extending the franchise to convicted prisoners. That was way back in 2004. In spite of the UK being under an obligation to abide by the Convention and Court decision, Parliament dissolved without debating the issue. And yet, Alan Johnson rushed through legislation banning methedrone at the last minute! At least the televised debate made history of the notion that a vote for the Lib Dems would be pointless, because now it is a 3 horse race.
It all hangs on a hung Parliament. There may even be a second general election. Then, there is the 1st June 2010 Council of Ministers meeting when the legality of the general election under international law will be the subject of discussion. In March, the Council of Europe warned the government that convicted prisoners must get the vote before the general election, or else. There is a danger that the UK will be declared a Rogue State. Comparisons are already being drawn between the sanctions imposed upon Belarus, and the failure to sanction the UK in a like manner. The other 46 Member States are demanding that the UK plays by the rules or leaves the Council of Europe. Also, since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the UK is in danger of being kicked out of the European Union.
The Lib Dem peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill has long been a champion of voting rights for convicted prisoners. Isn’t it about time that the rest of the Lib Dems properly address this issue? This issue will be the real test of whether Nick Clegg is getting away from old style politics. Bearing in mind that the issues at stake are Democracy, Rule of law, and Human rights. How can the Lib Dems not be in support of these 3 basic principles which form the European Convention? The eyes of 800 millions European citizens are watching this country and the general election race. Nick Clegg needs to put distance between the Lib Dems on the one hand and Labour and Tory on the other. He will not do this by burying his head in the sand.
John Hirst is the Legal, Media and Political adviser to the Association of Prisoners, representing 83,000 members. A committed prison reformer who went from law breaker to law-maker whilst in custody, and is the most prolific prisoner litigant in penal history. He won prisoners the right of access to speak to the media, and to set up a trade union, and has won two cases at the European Court of Human Rights. The last being the Prisoners Votes Case. He says, “Having served time under both the Conservatives and Labour, it is time to give the Lib Dems a fair crack at the whip.”
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee - designing resilience into a fragile urban landscape
Potential job losses multiply from NHS England
Adam Harley selected for Strathkelvin and Bearsden
When Not the Nine O'Clock News demonstrated how to deal with chess prodigies
Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Programmes bring out the full capacity of a nation.
Katharine Pindar
David Raw
Mike Peters
78 Comments
Frankly, the issue has just never come up in the right places before. It needs to be on the agenda at the next conference.
It’s already been on the agenda, but I’d have to look up the outcome.
That’s a quaint way to refer to hacking a woman to death with an axe.
John Hirst believes that Internet access is a right for prisoners. I know a lot of people who don’t have satellite television or even television, or Internet access but never have hacked a woman to death with an axe.
Likewise, I know working-class people who are capable of showing remorse.
I am shocked by this post.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Hirst, I for one am with him on this issue.
It seems to me that prisoners are still entitled to representation. Just as they are entitled to choose their representation in court, I think they should be able to help in the choosing of their representative in the highest court of parliament.
Obviously there are those whose crimes have been “malum in se” crimes and whose crimes themselves will not be changed by that representation in parliament. But even these, perhaps especially these, will have complex needs, both for their families at home and for when they are released, as will the communities they have come from and will be returned to in reassimilating them.
But there are also vast numbers of people who are prisoners because of things that are “malum prohibitum” where their crime and criminality rests solely upon parliamentary decisions to make this or that victimless crime a crime. And the experiences of those prisoners too need to be part of the law-making process.
Yes, conviction and punishment entail a loss of freedoms and of some civil liberties as a result. But the right to be represented in parliament is not one of them, and therefore nor should the right to participate in selecting that representative.
Hey, I’ve got a wonderful idea: let’s wait until the Lib Dems are leading in the polls just a few weeks out from a general election and then publish an article that couldn’t scream ‘loony-liberals-are-soft-on-crime’ any more clearly if you’d let the Daily Mail write it for you.
Absolutely astounding.
Love the equivocation! There is no need for it or erroneous appeals to the presumption of innocence… Hirst took an axe and smashed it repeatedly into his landlady’s skull. He was convicted and served 10 years more than the recommended 15 on account of his not showing remorse: in one of the links I gave he attempted to pathologize his victim, who apparently nipped his head and pilfered food from other tenants. Maybe she did, but this does not mean she deserved TO BE HACKED TO DEATH WITH AN AXE.
Note also his stating he “gave his vote”, which maps back into his belief that remorse is a middle-class thing. Voting is just one part of civic society which also includes health care or legal representation or education… yet Hirst believes his access to all this in toto is a given, even if he has shown his contempt for society by hacking a woman to death with an axe (and burglary).
What, that prisoners shouldn’t fall into a legal blackhole in which screws can do whatever they wish? That once released, they should return to civic society (with certain restrictions, depending on the original offense)? I agree with that.
Gaol, however, is all about impressing on prisoners that they have renounced their right – for varying lengths of time – for full involvement civic society when they committed their crime and then are convicted.
There’s is another party in criminal offenses, you know.
Haha, Iain… I was thinking just that.
You wanna a reason for people who never have countenanced hacking a woman to death with an axe not to vote LibDem? Here it is!
Prisoner rights is an important issue, but one would have thought the Party could find a more appropriate individual to front it… such as someone who’s shown remorse.
Sheesh, what next? A failed Jihadist and religious reactionary fronting campaigns to draw attention to the ex jure status of Gitmo?
At the time I submitted the article above for publication, I was unaware of the Frodl v Austria decision by the ECtHR on 8 April 2010.
The Court sends out a strong message in Frodl to the UK:
“Disenfranchisement may only be envisaged for a rather narrowly defined group of offenders serving a lengthy term of imprisonment; there should be a direct link between the facts on which a conviction is based and the sanction of disenfranchisement; and such a measure should preferably be imposed not by operation of a law but by the decision of a judge following judicial proceedings”.
“Under the Hirst test, besides ruling out automatic and blanket restrictions it is an essential element that the decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a judge, taking into account the particular circumstances, and that there must be a link between the offence committed and issues relating to elections and democratic institutions”.
“The essential purpose of these criteria is to establish disenfranchisement as an exception even in the case of convicted prisoners, ensuring that such a measure is accompanied by specific reasoning given in an individual decision explaining why in the circumstances of the specific case disenfranchisement was necessary, taking the above elements into account. The principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned”.
@ Andrew Suffield and Paul Griffiths: Apparently, the Lib Dems did vote for this (all convicted prisoners to get the vote) at a confrence and it bacame policy under Charles Kennedy’s leadership. But, then the Sun and Daily Mail attacked Kennedy’s statement that Ian Huntley should have the vote. Kennedy was then politically assassinated by Ming, Clegg and possibly Cable. Clegg then went from being in the right to being in the wrong by following Labour and Tory policies, that is, only some convicted prisoners getting the vote.
@ Alec: I am shocked by your comment. It reeks of holier than thou attitude. This is a case of State abuse of human rights, not balancing victims of crimes rights against the offenders rights as prisoners.
@IainM: The issues are about Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. Are you by any chance suggesting that Lib Dems should be soft on these issues? Recently a Labour candidate attacked a Lib Dem candidate by publishing a leaflet claiming that a vote for the Lib Dems will mean that murderers, rapists and paedophiles will get the vote. Frodl is clear that all convicted prisoners, regardless of offence and length of sentence must get the vote. Had the Lib Dems been better informed they could have responded more appropriately and turned the situation to their advantage.
Could Alec be a Tory troll?
Unless I am very much mistaken, you are the same John Hirst in those links. Given I don’t have his record of violence and habit of pathologizing my victims, I can live with that.
You have got your vote back. What next? Calling imprisonment in the first place a breach of human rights?
@Alec: “You have got your vote back”.
Only because I am out in the community. I am concerned about the 85,000+ prisoners, possibly as many as 75,000 will on the 6 May 2010 have their human rights breached. Perhaps, you are happy that it will mean the taxpayers footing the £75M compensation bill?
John, why are you reticent about answering my question about your rap sheet?
Yes, because you have desisted from denying others their human rights not to be hacked to death with axes.
Too right. I would support any move which impressed on them that the whole point of being in gaol is to be removed from civic society (for varying amounts of time).
@Alec: “John, why are you reticent about answering my question about your rap sheet?”
I have served time for the crimes on my rap sheet, that means that the punitive element of retribution and deterrence has been paid. I owe society nothing, debt paid.
“Yes, because you have desisted from denying others their human rights not to be hacked to death with axes”.
Wonders never cease, a positive response at last!
“I would support any move which impressed on them that the whole point of being in gaol is to be removed from civic society (for varying amounts of time)”.
Oh dear, did you not know that prisoners remain part of civic society whilst in custody? As the legal maxim goes “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
We all owe something to society. That you think you should be able to operate freely without any reciprocal obligations [*] suggests you’re more anarchist than LibDem.
Expecting LibDem supporters to support the franchize for serving prisoners makes as much sense as expecting us to support the mass-release of prisoners.
This is precisely what I mean. You think that drawing attention to what you have done is a matter of mirth. Plus, you still can’t admit to what you did!
I have no intention of being drawn into one of your word-games. You know precisely what I meant yet this has all become a source of amusement, like a sentient and cognitive cat playing with a mouse.
Congratulations, LDV, you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by an extremely devious and conceited individual who, no doubt, thought of LibDems as the sandal-wearing, granola-eaters in this week’s Economist.
Well, I will not conform, no-one will make me conform, I do not conform.
[*] Anyone who disputes this should try telling their boss to **** off, and see what happens.
@Alec: “We all owe something to society”.
Actually, Alec, society owes me, that is, because I served 10 years more than the 15 year tariff imposed by the judge.
You are missing the whole point about obligations. The obligation is upon the UK to honour compliance with the Convention and Court decisions.
I expect Lib Dem suppoerters to support Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights.
I think you will find that it was you who drew attention to what I did, whereas the ECtHR was only interested in what the UK had done to me and other convicted prisoners.
I like both mind games and word games.
“Congratulations, LDV, you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by an extremely devious and conceited individual who, no doubt, thought of LibDems as the sandal-wearing, granola-eaters in this week’s Economist”.
Surely, you are not claiming to be a mind reader?
I love the way you cannot commit, in writing, to what you did!
From what I see, the CPS (or whatever it was called in 1979/80, just keeping myself right) accepted your plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility… and the judge sentenced you to a *minimum* of 15 years. Because of your conduct in gaol and also – I assume – parole board’s assessment of your lack of remorse (evidenced in this thread) you served an additional ten years.
This was your responsibility. I had a pretty crappy childhood as well, and I know people who’ve had upbringings which’d make readers weep… yet we’ve managed to avoid burglary, never mind homicide.
Conventions are conventions… not necessarily legally binding. Nor do we live in a kritocracy, with judge-made law. If you believe something should be or be, you should be able to make your case without recourse to dull legal arguments. Jurisprudence is peddling in the shallows of philosophy.
Because of your quaint way of referring to panning the skull Bronia Burton (‘cos someone should mention her name) in with an axe as “law breaking”, and your track record of complete lack of remorse. You are entirely responsible for your inconvenience. Nina Burton-Harris (someone else who should be given the courtesy of a mention) was not responsible for her past 30 years of grief.
What? Denying you the franchize ‘cos of the contempt you showed to others? That’s exactly what I approve of; even, though, I’ve said that prisoner welfare is a noble cause.
I know the difference between psychosis and psychopathy, narcissitic personality disorder and Narcisscus of antiquity, schizophrenia and split personality. I would be happy to exchange thoughts with any psychiatrists reading.
Yet, I can read your court records. Mr. Justice Purchis had “no doubt you are an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect” but knew “unfortunately, this is not suitable for treatment in a mental hospital”.
Pathetic thread, prefering to abuse john hirst rather than deal with any of the legal and political issues. Shame on all of you for being so petty and short sighted.
Er…if you had actually read the thread…
@Jock, sorry for the broad brush comment. I just get bored with people who lack the capacity for abstract thought and opt for the personal attack instead.
Let he who has not hacked his landlady to death with an axe and whined when her daughter got upset cast the first stone
I don’t think serving prisoners should retain the vote (although I’d be prepared to listen to cases made for those who hadn’t hacked landladies to death with an axe).
I don’t think anyone who refers to a mere 25 years for hacking their landlady to death with an axe as fulfilling their debt to society as necessarily being reformed.
I am thinking clearly.
@alec, no, you are personalising a politico-legal argument. I assume you have the same problem with the blogging murderer, prisonerben? He admits guilt, expresses remorse and is three times over his tariff. I accept an argument on its merits, not judge it by the character of its author. You should try it.
Mad Albert, no… I am applying a principle. Prisoner welfare should be given airtime (betraying my radio preferences), but arguing for their to be given the franchize whilst in the clink makes as much sense as arguing for their to be released however-early.
If a remorseful prisoner is still being held in gaol, I will listen to argument for their *release* [1]. John “remorse is a middle-class thing” Hist is another matter.
Crime requires victims.
[1] Although, the logical conclusion of taking away someone’s life with malice is that nothing can return said life. So either execution (which I do not believe in) or lifetime imprisonment is a reasonable demand. I, however, am prepared to release individuals who have shown remorse..
@alec, still missing the point… The important thing is the argument, not the author. Ah well. Goodnight all.
@madalbert: You are right to say attack the ball and not foul the player.
@Jock: madalbert’s broad brush stroke has been obliterated, with the airbrushing.
@Alec: “I love the way you cannot commit, in writing, to what you did!”.
If you researched your subject properly, you will find that I committed myself, in writing, in my police statement which can be found with a Google search.
“Because of your conduct in gaol and also – I assume – parole board’s assessment of your lack of remorse (evidenced in this thread) you served an additional ten years”.
I was no angel, but there again I was engaged in a struggle for prison reform. There are two Court of Appeal decisions which prove that I did show remorse, and this was accepted by the Secretary of State and the Parole Board. What do you rely upon? An article written by a journalist with an agenda? One who normally writes for the Torygraph? Do you believe everything you read in the papers? Never heard of loaded questions and taking out of context?
“Conventions are conventions… not necessarily legally binding. Nor do we live in a kritocracy, with judge-made law. If you believe something should be or be, you should be able to make your case without recourse to dull legal arguments. Jurisprudence is peddling in the shallows of philosophy”.
Once the European Convention was incorporated into domestic law with the HRA 1998 it became legally binding. It is also legally binding under international and European law. If the legal argument is dull in your view, perhaps the problem is at your end?
“Because of your quaint way of referring to panning the skull Bronia Burton (‘cos someone should mention her name) in with an axe as “law breaking”, and your track record of complete lack of remorse. You are entirely responsible for your inconvenience. Nina Burton-Harris (someone else who should be given the courtesy of a mention) was not responsible for her past 30 years of grief”.
Alec: Have you not heard of staying on topic? Don’t put your perverted thinking across as being mine? What inconvenience? I am inconveniencing the party leaders, because the Tories have said that Labour’s plan is to keep this issue out of the media until after the election. Naturally, as a political animal, I raise the stakes because it embarrasses Labour, catches the Tories on the wrong foot, and the Lib Dems still sitting on the fence.
Actually, I have written extensively on Nina Burton-Harris. Unfortunately, she blames me for everything that has gone wrong in her life since the killing. She has stated that she believes I should not have been released. Luckily, we do not operate vigilante justice in this country.
“I’ve said that prisoner welfare is a noble cause”.
LOL!
“I know the difference between psychosis and psychopathy, narcissitic personality disorder and Narcisscus of antiquity, schizophrenia and split personality. I would be happy to exchange thoughts with any psychiatrists reading”.
Do you know what Asperger’s Syndrome is?
“Yet, I can read your court records. Mr. Justice Purchis had “no doubt you are an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect” but knew “unfortunately, this is not suitable for treatment in a mental hospital”.”
Pity you have not read the latest report which proved that I am not a psychopath. The person who made the original diagnosis was a MD and had a DSO, but no psychiatric qualifications whatsoever. It was no fun being treated as a psychopath for 23 years only for the Prison Service to say Ooooops we got it all wrong he has Asperger’s Syndrome! It was not all they got wrong, they said I was semi-illiterate. I am very literate, but almost totally innumerate! Thet said I was below average intelligence until they tested me and I scored with an IQ of 155+.
Albert, I have stated quite clearly that I don’t think serving prisoners should expect to retain the franchize. What is opaque about this?
No, removing the franchise is an arbitrary additional punishment. Prisoners do not lose their human rights except insofar as that is *required* to maintain order and prevent reoffending. Do they lose their “right to life”? No. Their “right to a fair trial’? No. They do not even lose their right to a private and family life except where that is rendered impossible by the conditions of their incarceration. So to say that they lose the right to vote is purely arbitrary. Arbitrary does not make good law.
And as i pointed out above there is good reason why they should retain the vote – and I say in all cases, except perhaps those in state hospitals where they are adjudged incapable of making a sound decision and those whose crime is to do with abusing the electoral system in any case (in which case they should not be in prison). They have a right to a representative, both at the bar in court and in the high court of parliament. They have a right to choose that representative or to assist in choosing him or her if it is not an individual decision. Prisoners, and their families, remain constituents of their members of parliament, and in fact, because their entire daily lives are utterly dependent on the state in a way that most normal folk are not, I’d say that representation is at least and perhaps more important, if distinction can be made.
@Jock: Good point.
John, what did you think LibDem voters were going to do? Munch on their granola and tighten their sandals, and agree with you? To be grateful that *you*… John Hirst has chosen to gift your vote to them?
To some extent, I do feel sorry for you. You have had the extraordinarily bad luck to try to piggy-back on the Party just as it realized it didn’t need to rely on consistent unrealized idealism.
And all you did was smash an axe repeatedly into her mother’s skull, and tell Police and the courts that she told you to get the coal in or stole your food or nipped your head (no pun intended).
This is not vigilante justice. Vigilante would have been individuals outwith the courts exacting their desired revenge on you, not expecting the courts to keep you in comfort – and with Internet access – away from the non-criminal public.
I know you studied only law, but you could make the effort to comprehend philosophy.
Nina Burton-Harris complemented you on such when she saw your reading material.
Yes. I suspect I am a high-functioning sufferer. Are you making fun of me/us?
So do minors; that is, those under 16. Yet, I don’t think even the sandal-wearing, granola-munching LibDems of old have called for them to be given the vote.
One corollary of this (which, being an illogical argument, throws it wide open) is that MPs should be entitled to reject requests from those who didn’t vote for them. Yet, even Ian Paisley is reputed to have been a fine MP for his Catholic constituents.
The right to legal representation – which I never have said should be denied to serving prisoners – is not the same as being able to vote.
It does mot follow in the slightest that everyone having the right to assist in the selection of their MP means that that MP should have the right to refuse to assist someone who didn’t vote for them. That’s just nonsense.
You’re not going to dig your way out of this one Alec. Because you are wrong. And the ECHR agrees with me. And I’ve been saying it for a decade and more before they ruled on it. It does not follow that if you lose your physical freedom you lose your right to help decide which c**ts sit in judgement deciding what people should be put inside for – i.e. legislators. Just as it does not follow that you lose your right to life.
And I don’t even have an interest in the matter. As an anarchist I don’t really want anyone to have a vote, or be governed by anyone else who does. Mind you, nor would I have “prisoners” in the conventional sense.
@Alec: “I know you studied only law, but you could make the effort to comprehend philosophy”.
Actually, studied philosophy, sociology, criminology, penology, psychology, history, politics.
What, all at BA level, or just passing modules?
Indeed it would be. Just as it’s nonsense to suggest that without the vote in the first place, someone would be less able to expect the assistance of their MP.
LDV, there is no way you can extricate yourself from this car-crash of a thread. If you leave it open, you are allowing a killer to spit on the grave of his victim and sneer at her relatives (maybe her daughter is partially responsible for her wider misfortune, but it’s not up to her mother’s unrepentant killer to tell her this).
If you close it, it would be far too late. The horse well and truly bolted when you made the morally deficient decision to publish it in the first place.
What next? Is Clegg going to suggest we could buy weapons-grade plutonium from abroad – against the NPT – after closing our nuclear reactions?
John, am wondering if you’re the same John Hirst who runs the justice for Justice for Madeleine blog:
http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/
P.
From the most recent blogpost.
What, like declining three times to confirm what he’d done to Bronia Burton? Given his messiah-complex, and erudition, I have no doubt he would recognize the significance of this.
Note, also, how he becomes the centre of attention in his recollections, in which his adoring admirers are calling for him to go on national telly. He just wants to be a star! If only it weren’t for the bit about his hacking a woman to death with an axe, he could grow on me.
Check also the About page. “I drifted into crime” makes even his burglary convictions sound like jolly japes. Just what is it about his rap sheet that he cannot commit to in writing? Clearly he doesn’t feel remorse.
@Paul Moloney: Hi Paul, yes. But that case seems to have gone quiet and I have not updated it for awhile.
Alec, you’re the one who has caused the car crash. If you were remotely concerned about where it was leading you could have walked away. But no. You changed the thread from one about an issue about how we deal with an issue that has been the subject of a ruling of the European Court (as whoever is in charge after May 6th will have to whether they talk about it now or not) into an ongoing discussion of the OP, whilst others of us have been prepared to discuss the issue.
And your assertion is still wrong. You forget that the right to participate in selecting who governs you has been, whether *you* like it or not, decided to be a human right. Therefore to remove it requires a specific justification just as if you had decided, arbitrarily, that a prisoner had lost the right to life when convicted.
You may believe that too, but you’d still have to justify each of those revocations of their rights specifically, and you haven’t. You have merely asserted it to be the case. Very shoddy logic for someone moaning that their other correspondent has not studied philosophy.
I’ve seen you derail several threads on here. Now I accept that debate and discussion is what these discussions are about, but you have a particular way of going about that that seems deliberately intended to stoke a flame war. Congratulations, you have achieved it again.
Only in the sense that a driver who swerves to avoid another car reversing at high speed into a main street is responsible.
To show sympathy for Bronia and Nina Burton, I should have remained silent whilst someone with a track record of scoffing in their face/memory was allowed to self-promote? I am responsible for whatever I say, but LDV is directly responsible for allowing this grotesque thread… which you are attempting to exonerate it from.
Talk about blaming anyone except the perpetrator!
And you’re not merely asserting your case? We do not live in a tyranny. If you believe something should be or not be, you should be able to justify it without recourse to dull legal points. If you cannot, it is morally vacuous. And you’re the one who drew a distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum
I don’t believe serving prisoners should have the vote (although I’d be prepared to listen to a case for the lower-end of the scale), and have made my case. Gaol is not about getting a bedroom with a lock on the outside, but about being removed from free-movement in civic society because of the contempt shown to society: John’s attempt to present himself as the victim (something clinical narcissists are very good at) (cf. the additional 10 years for further offenses, and lack of remorse) is a good example of the need for this.
Such as showing open contempt for society? The vote is not essential for legal and political representation, so stop suggesting it is. I believe it should be returned on release, so stop suggesting I don’t.
What, by refusing to accept the received wisdom and show unerring respect to the Patricians, as in the old Liberal Party? Sorry about that. The Party’s about to hit the big time, it should get used to being scrutinized.
I should add that I am grateful to LDV for having a “Post Comment” radio-button. I object to submitting so much that I resent pressing a “Submit” button.
This is going to be my last contribution to this thread…
Prisoners have not been removed from civic society. If anything because they are utterly dependent on that society for everything while they are inside they are *more* a part of it than, say, I am, who can voluntarily live a pretty hermitic lifestyle and hardly have to care one jot about what “civic society” does around me. They are a segregated part of civic society, for sure, but not separate from it.
My sort of anarchist justice would place them outside of civic society in extremis, as they would probably end up in exile in a community that was only suited to out-laws and with whom the society whose members they had wronged would likely not have any dealings.
But once you take it into your power to hold someone within that society but separated from most members of it for whatever reason (which should be few and far between in my opinion) you have to justify each and every revocation of a civic or human right over and above their loss of freedom.
John, I’m wondering what the purpose of your campaign against the McCanns, based on the flimsiest of evidence is. If it based on empathy for Madeline? Or just simply that you feel its unfair they got away with killing and you didn’t?
P.
I can quite understand why. If I’d tied myself up in knots as you have, I’d be trying to slink off; but not without a parting-shot.
Our exchange has gone along the following lines:
ME >> I don’t believe that serving prisoners should expect the vote because gaol is about serving justice for the victims of crime, and impressing on the perpetrators that they cannot show contempt for society with impunity.
YOU >> You might believe it this, but why can you not make your case?
ME >> I just have. Allowing serving prisoners to retain the vote makes as much sense as not sending them to bricks ‘n mortar gaols, which is arguably a greater infringement of their liberty.
YOU >> I don’t believe in gaol in the conventional sense. Why can you not make your case?
ME >> What does this mean? That you would allow those who’ve shown their contempt for society to move amongst non-criminal members without some form of punishment? Have you asked the non-criminal members? PS I have made my case.
YOU >> All you’re doing is carrying out personal attacks on this poor man who has been denied his right to vote.
ME >> John Hirst is a Class A example of why some degree of censure and restriction of liberty should be imposed on serving prisoners. He shows no remorse and has pathologized both the woman whose skull he panned in with an axe and her distraught daughter. If he were able to show remorse, I would reconsider… but if he were able to show sufficient remorse, I would assume he’d be aware that he’d deserved to have his liberty restricted. Catch 22, donchaloveit?
YOU >> Even serving prisoners deserve legal and political representation. Why can you not make your case without personal attacks?
ME >> You should ask yourself how minors and non-citizens receive legal and political representation without the vote. PS John Hirst placed himself in this medium, so cannot cry foul when he fails to receive the respect he clearly thinks is his due. And I have.
YOU >> The law’s against you.
ME >> What law? Legal judgments? We don’t live in a kritocracy. Plus, legal judgments made by judges from long-established democratic traditions such as Bulgaria and Greece and Spain? If you don’t mind, I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.
YOU >> Stop derailing the thread! I’m off!
And at the beginning I referred to full involvement/enjoyment. As I’ve also said that prisoner welfare is a noble issue and that they should not be cast into hulks off Deptford, it should be clear that I don’t mean what you’re suggesting I do.
I understand from a contact at AFP, who spoke to the Tories last week on prisoners votes, that the Tories hardline approach has now softened and that they are in favour of a free vote in Parliament.
Personally, I do not believe that this is an issue of conscience. Rather, it is simply an issue of law and doing the right thing.
John, d’you have evidence than Kate and Gerry McCann were actively involved in their daughter’s disappearance? Given your clear lack of remorse for your own actions, and your studies in psychology, have you heard of the concept of projection?
Plus, why d’you consider the fact that you were ‘only’ convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility and not murder to be a source of pride/mirth?
Daily Mail, March 12, 2005
“Last week, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said his party would hand the franchise to all prisoners, including Soham murderer Ian Huntley”.
Given the Frodl v Austria decision on 8 April 2010, Charles Kennedy was right in his approach.
Why is nobody from the Lib Dem hierarchy responding to this issue?
“Why is nobody from the Lib Dem hierarchy responding to this issue?”
I imagine that hitching their wagon to this horse at a point when they might manage an electoral breakthrough might not be the smartest move.
P.
@Paul: “I imagine that hitching their wagon to this horse at a point when they might manage an electoral breakthrough might not be the smartest move”.
Whilst I can understand this tactic, it suffers from being too inward looking. It fails to put distance between the Lib Dems and the Labour and Tory parties. And, fails to take into account the position being taken in Europe.
Edward McMillan-Scott in today’s Guardian CIF states: “It is doubtful whether international election observers would consider the 6 May general election to be fair, even if it was defined as free”.
And, his view has not taken into account the position being taken by the Council of Europe.
Paul, you do not tackle the issue by trying to dodge it.
Given that Edward McMillan-Scott owes his position only to 25% of the vote in a 32% turn-out (after which he changed Parties without re-standing) and serves the undemocratic European Commission, I don’t think he’s an unimpeachable source of all things democratic. Honestly, John, did you think you were going to be against some greensticks here?
As for dodging the issue… where is your evidence against the McCanns, and why d’you consider the fact that you were ‘only’ convicted of manslaughter to be a source of pride/mirth?
It is the UK which is undemocratic under Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention.
The UK could well become a pariah or rogue state very shortly.
My view on the McCanns are more than adequately covered on my other blogs and on forums.
Paul you are a source of mirth!
@alec, why do you insist on contaminating this thread with swipes at john? This is about the votes issue, you can dig john out to your hearts content elsewhere. You are degrading the level of the debate and that you fail to appreciate that is quite sad.
Albert, I understand. I understand just how uncomfortable LDV stalwarts must feel at what’s come bursting out of the box. This isn’t a game, you know. Failing to accept that with influence comes responsibility is, to paraphrase Baldwin, the position a courtesan talks.
If you want an idea of the fire LDV is playing with by promoting this man, do a google for Jack Abbott.
These are very specific pieces of popular parlance. They do not refer to disregarding one legal ruling on one matter which doesn’t result in death, torture or material discomfiture. I wonder how you can read the computer screen with the size of your head.
So why can you not commit to it in writing here? Just one or two sentences. Or, d’you think you’ll loose the support of the adoring public?
@madalbert:
“Baroness Butler-Sloss: Returning to the issue of the votes of prisoners, I hope that whichever party comes into power after 6 May will make this matter a priority. It will be very sad if we continue for years to come to have my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham asking whichever Government are in power to get on with something that has become a disgrace”. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100407-0025.htm
I believe the ex jure status of Gitmo is wrong, but do not think Moazzam Begg is suitable to front impartial campaigns regarding it.
I believe there is an argument to be heard about redefining the age of consent, but do not think Tom O’Carroll is suitable to front impartial campaigns regarding it.
I believe Holocaust Denial laws in Germany and Austria are questionable, but do not think David Irving is suitable to front impartial campaigns regarding it.
I believe serving prisoners should not expect to retain the franchize, and have made my case. Although, I believe there is merit in granting it to the lower end of the scale, I have questioned the suitability of LDV promoting John Hirst because of the baggage he brings.
I only hope that LDV wasn’t fully aware of this when this article was uploaded. The alternative – that there was a Abbottesque thrill of being associated with him – is unimaginable considering the electoral situation the Party has found itself in.
@Alec: “I believe that serving prisoners should not expect to retain the franchise, and have made my case”.
The problem with being a judge in your own cause is that it violates natural justice.
See the sidebar? The writing in the box just below the search? It sets out Lib Dem Voice’s position.
See the editor’s explanation following my article? Of course they know who I am, I am famous. I made history.
When I won the case in Europe the Sun asked “Who is John Hirst?”
If I beat the State, a pathetic Tory troll isn’t even in the same league…
I was speechless when I read this. I really was. It’s a bit chuffing rich of you to place yourself as the arbiter of what can be and cannot be – right down to if someone is allowed to live – and then cry foul when others object. It’s been a hallmark of tyrants and bullies down the ages to appeal to the State when it suits them, and then move to deny others their voice when it’s in opposition.
Gawd, LDV, I hope you’re proud of yourselves. I hope you are proud that you’ve given this disgusting, narcissistic, self-centred yawning-expanse of ego man airtime.
PS Tory? I know you went into gaol with a Tory Government, but it’s been a Labour Government since you got out.
@Alec: I cannot judge whether your indignation is mock or genuine.
In my view, I am entitled to judge because I have been judged and paid the penalty required by law. Therefore, now I am free, I can judge the conduct of others in society. For example, one of the arguments advanced by the government to deny prisoners the vote was that by committing their crimes they had lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise. When the expenses scandal broke, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, opined that Parliament had lost the moral authority to govern. Where is the moral authority to fiddle expenses? Claiming Legal Aid to argue that it is a parliamentary privilege to rob the taxpayers blind?
Alec, I claim the high moral ground.
Gone quiet in here, innit? Where are the principled LDV stalwarts defending this?
http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/so-i-blogged-with-an-axe-murderer/
@ Alec: “Gone quiet in here, innit? Where are the principled LDV stalwarts defending this?”
I think they are letting you suffer in silence, having made a complete fool of yourself. Your conduct is totally indefensible. You are on your own!
Typical of the narcissistic, to try to run their opponents completely into the ground with no quarter and to equate criticism of themselves with criticism of their cause.
That doesn’t even make sense. I was not asking for stalwarts to defend *me*, I was wondering why – after the earlier show – no-one’s defending *you* from me. Weird that the silence fell just as you took off your mask to reveal a leering clown face, eh?
@Alec: They can see that I am quite capable at fighting my own battles, and that I wiped the floor with you.
Good grief, are you logged on permanently waiting for a reply? Bit obsessive, don’t you think?
>> They can see that I am quite capable at fighting my own battles, and that I wiped the floor with you.
No, their ‘defense’ has been to mumble about principles whilst steadfastly ignoring what you are actually are, and then come out with some plaintive middle-class whine about my spoiling the decorum and not letting them pat themselves on the back at how tolerant they are. They completely clammed when at your only affect, which was to fly into a narcissistic fury when I questioned your ‘fame’.
Morally crapulent still poisoned by the Marxist concept of bourgeoisie State power in which any opposition is fare game.
In my view, I am entitled to judge because I have been judged
That might be ‘your view’, but the former does not follow from the latter.
Golly gosh, I didn’t notice that, Mark.
The same could be used in road-rage cases… “in my view because the other driver cut me up, almost making me crash/swerve/brake, I was entitled to pursue him and ‘judge’ him”.
When did LibDem Voice become Sons of Anarchy Voice?
@ Mark T: It does follow if you apply logic.
Only your logic, John.
It’s called vigilantism; which you were keen to [wrongly] accuse me of holding. And that’s only if one holds that your being “judged” was an enfringement of your civil liberties, and not in response to your hacking a woman to death with an axe.
Furthermore, it’s chuffing rich of you to accuse me of violating natural justice by [so you say] assuming the position of judge, and then admit openly to assuming the position of judge yourself.
Yes, v-e-e-e-e-e-e-ry quiet in here.
It does follow if you apply logic.
Let’s see where applying this ‘logic’ gets us, shall we?
I am entitled to imprison, because I have been imprisoned.
I am entitled to rob, because I have been robbed.
And so on.
You’re not quite as clever as you think you are, are you John?
@MarkT: Actually I am very clever. I said apply logic. You instead came up with illogic.
He who has not sinned cast the first stone.
He who has sinned and repented is now entitled to judge the conduct of others. Simples.
The example I gave was corrupt MPs, given that they have been hypocritical about criminals and prisoners and how they claimed to be better. They are no better at all when subjected to scrutiny.
So which of these statements – of the same formal structure – is logical, and which is illogical?
A) I am entitled to judge because I have been judged
B) I am entitled to imprison because I have been imprisoned
Would it help if I point out that you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that whatever you say is by definition logical? Sadly I don’t think it will.
He who has not sinned cast the first stone. He who has sinned and repented is now entitled to judge the conduct of others.
So he who has not sinned can judge.
And he who has sinned can also judge.
Glad we’ve cleared that up. But given that you haven’t repented, that would seem to rule you out of the judging business, would it not?
You’re still not getting any better at this, are you?
No, it’s a simple observation of false modens ponens you were contemptuously applying.
Anyone else notice that John Hirst is detatched – even a simulacrum of courtesy – when a new poster appears and he, presumably, doesn’t know if the LDV stalwarts are going to back-up any onslaught against them?
It’s almost as if, in addition to be a clinical narcissist who flies into a fury when his fame is questioned, he is also a coward and a bully. I mean, that can’t be right, LDV. You cannot possibly have selected the worst possible individual to represent prisoners who *have* shown remorse (and don’t snigger about hacking women to death with axes) and wish to turn their lives around (and not assume the position of judge ‘cos they once were judged for their crimes), can you?
That would suggest rank political amateurs.
Don’t derail the thread with Biblical quotations, Mark!
No, that was him.
But, you gave the *full* quotation.
In terms of homicide, as neither one of us have committed it, I think we can safely judge others.
@Alec: “I think we can safely judge others”.
Wrong. Because you have both failed to pass the Hirst test.
The 3 elements are Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights.
Sorry to spoil your cosy chat, and bring you back to the topic of this thread.
Democracy: selection of specified individuals for specific lengths of time and to preform definite tasks. Nothing necessarily about who does the selecting.
Rule of Law: codified rules about what the State can and cannot do which may affect individuals’ liberty and/or physical safety/comfort. Arguing that denying the franchize to serving prisoners violates this makes as much sense as arguing that denying them their freedom violates this.
Human Rights: lots about representation and access to counsel, which non-voters do have in this country. It also includes the right not to be hacked to death with an axe because John Hirst thinks you are annoying.
You have made it clear that you do not feel remorse for what you did, and see it as a laughing matter. You cannot judge.
“Under the Hirst test, besides ruling out automatic and blanket restrictions it is an essential element that the decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a judge, taking into account the particular circumstances, and that there must be a link between the offence committed and issues relating to elections and democratic institutions”. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.menschenrechte.ac.at%2Fuploads%2Fmedia%2FFrodl_gg._Oestereich__Urteil_.pdf&ei=EQXXS6aaEsqOOOrC1O8G&usg=AFQjCNFtye46KHG-q-KoUxsVXEKdgf6tYQ&sig2=93S9UVzhHtb9vf6P5MOebQ
Thr trick on the campaign trail is not to get distracted by the gnats.
Subsidiarity
“It is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
“Above all, we need a better and more systematic use of the principle of subsidiarity. State Parties have the primary responsibility to respect human rights, to prevent violations and to remedy them when they occur.
All States parties have now incorporated the Convention into their national legal systems, but not all have done so with satisfactory effect.
What we need to achieve is a genuine structural integration of the Convention into national systems, in order to secure its direct application; we need a better implementation of its provisions, including, above all, the obligation to provide effective domestic remedies for alleged violations.
The Convention cannot be fully and effectively implemented at national level unless the authority of the Court’s case-law is properly recognised in the national legal order.
Most obviously, States must promptly and fully execute judgments in cases to which they are party, including any general measures that may be required”. http://www.coe.int/t/secretarygeneral/sg/speeches/2010/20100218_interlaken_en.asp
A quick reminder for commenters about our moderation policy.
I’m all for votes for prisoners but John Hirst ruined his arguments when he slagged of my beloved Andew Neil’s haircut