Another day, another nail in the coffin of liberalism in the Labour Party. Sadiq Khan, the party’s shadow justice secretary, today amped-up the debate on votes for prisoners by condemnIng the Coalition’s proposals as — POPULIST CLICHE ALERT — “a slap in the face for victims of crime”.
But his pandering to the forces of authoritarian conservatism hasn’t gone down well with all Labour members. Over at LabourList, Kevin Peel has an excellent post criticising Mr Khan’s outburst, pointing out that no matter what you think of the decision the UK was under a legal obligation following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights: “Such pointless posturing does no-one any good,” observes Mr Peel.
The whole article is well worth a read, but here’s the conclusion:
We seem to be moving ever closer to a Daily Mail view of the world, in which all criminals should be locked up for life, or worse. This attitude does more harm than good and though it might make us feel better in the short term, and feel that ‘justice’ has been done, it will only make the situation worse in the long term.
To think this is a party whose Home Secretary was once Roy Jenkins.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Lib Dems' briefing on the 'Family Farm Tax'
John Stoa Original Art exhibition #dundeewestend
The Muesli Assassins
David Allen
David Raw
Anthony Acton
Richard
Tristan Ward
22 Comments
umm, “seem to be moving ever closer to the daily mail view of the world”… just shows how deluded labour members are. their former gvt was about as daily mail inspired as any. immigration, mental health, crime, drugs, civil liberties, islamophobia – you name it they were a disgrace. i can never understand progressives who completely ignore just how horribly right wing and authoritarian labour actually is. and you know what – they’ll never change, it’s in their dna.
Stephen
Its so much harder than you imply to make this a question of absolutes, since nobody in the government or opposition is taking an absolutist position, and the question of where to strike various balances, including in securing public legitimacy and consent, is a complex one on which different views might be legitimately held.
For example:
1. The government and the opposition believe the EHRC ruling means the vote does need to be given to some (but not all) prisoners: the government says a 4 year cut off; the opposition says one year.
Neither position entails “a Daily Mail view of the world, in which all criminals should be locked up for life, or worse” – as can be seen by both the government and opposition arguing for more uses of alternatives to custody. (I don’t agree with the Daily Mail on crime, but of course it is simply silly to claim that they or anybody else think that all criminals should be locked up for life). Clearly, Kevin Peel is exaggerating as part of a polemic. You might like the sound
2. Both ministers (Tory and LibDem) and opposition spokesmen have expressed concern about the implications of the EHRC decision.
Indeed, Nick Clegg said at PMQs it was unfortunate that the government had to comply with the legal ruling, instead of saying he was proud to introduce LibDem policy. I take it from this he disagrees with LibDem policy that this is a good thing.
However, if that is the case, it would be absurd to accuse Clegg of taking a Daily Mail line of wanting to lock up all prisoners for ever. He doesn’t. Nor does Khan. Nor anybody in the Labour party, or indeed the Tory party.
3. There are a range of different crime and criminal justice issues – police numbers, preventive work, short prison sentences, rehabilitation strategies, alternatives to custody, community engagement in restorative justice.
It is really unhelpful to the evidence-based case for liberal reform to make the framing of each of these questions “tough v soft on crime”. Ken Clarke has been successful in trying to avoid this.
Clearly, people might reasonably take a range of positions on prisoners voting
– voting is an inalienable right for all prisoners
– the loss of liberty should involve the temporary loss of voting rights (but not being disbarred once out, as happens in the US)
– that some prisoners should be allowed to vote and others not.
One can argue from liberal principles for the second as well as the first, unless one somehow wants to argue that imprisonment is in principle and all circumstances incompatible with liberalism, which would be silly, and I am sure you can find some resources in John Stuart Mill to explain why.
Given that Sadiq Khan has been supportive of the government’s broad prison reform strategy – he does not disagree with anything Ken Clarke has done or said about this – it is simply a simplistic and erroneous exaggeration to somehow claim that preferring a different threshold on when prisoners can vote makes him an opponent of prison reform – and rather a bad strategy given that this is an issue where it is unlikely that progress can be made without a good measure of cross-party consensus. The Fabians worked with CentreForum and PolicyExchange and the Prison Reform Trust to take this issue to all three conference fringes for this reason,
Brilliant and accurate response Sunder.
This is another example of head-in-the-sand by the LibDems. Nick Clegg said that the ECHR decision is unfortunate. In what way does opposing votes for prisoners make a a person “an authoritarian conservative”? Please show me where these people are who believe “all criminals should be locked up for life, or worse.” I have not encountered those poeple even when dealing with some very scary right-wingers. If the LibDem party opposes “horribly right wing and authoritarian labour” then what are the LibDems doing shoring up a Tory government? The kettling of student protestors against the increase in tuition fees looked very “authoritarian” to me as does Nick Clegg being driven around in an armour-plated Jaguar to keep him safe from protesting teenagers. Articles like this will not bring LibDem voters like me back to the party.
Yes Labour is more reactionary and tends to pander to the Daily Mail/Express/Sun readership than even the Tories!
It has been this way for years esp. since new labour came on the scene and has been said now seems part of their DNA.
The list of Labour’s contravention and stamping on human rights and civil liberties is very long – one thing that even I as a critic of the coalition would say that in terms of civil liberties thank goodness labour has gone and we do have Liberals guiding the new government’ on civil liberties. It is true that many conservatives, although right wing on the economy, and state intervention (to ensure a fair society economically etc) nevertheless do have members such as Ken Clarke and others who are more civil libertarian than their labour equivelent. Although it has to be stressed that it is the Liberla Dmocrat influence in government that is at the cetnre of upholding our civil rights as witnessed in the current issue of those illiberal ‘control orders’ , which of course do not work anyway (another good example of ‘pointless postering’).
How long before they start calling for the return of capital punishment?
When you abandon your core principles and pander to populism in the
pursuit of votes then this is the result.
The party that had Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary is long dead. One
of the reasons i call Milibands’ party New Labour is that they are a new
party.
I don’t think Stephen has really stopped to draw breath before posting this silly anti-Labour missive.
Firstly, following on from Sunder Katwala, has he stopped to think what a 4 year sentence is handed down for? It’s a commonly a sentence that incorporates violent crime/manslaughter. The victims of these crimes (and their families) tend to be quite sensitive and the effects of the crime can be permanent or long lasting.
Yes, we are a party that is pro-human rights. So bearing that in mind, were victims/victim’s groups consulted prior to the coalition’s proposals? Were there any attempts to balance the rights of both prisoner and victim or was it a foregone conclusion?
Personally, yes, I think that certain prisoners should vote but perhaps it should be a luxury reserved for those serving shorter sentences.
Sunder,
Thanks for the comment – reasoned and reasonable as ever. However, I think you’re letting off the hook Sadiq Khan for his silly knee-jerk comment which was the point of this post. I’d like to think Sadiq’s outburst was driven more by the hyper-activity of Labour’s new media team than by his own views.
Personally I don’t view prisoners’ votes as a liberal red-line: if the state is entitled to deprive someone of their liberty it doesn’t seem to me outrageous that they can’t also deprive them of their vote.
Like you I accept this is a complex issue, with few clear right/wrong answers. What is depressing is to see the Labour party try and reduce it to that kind of binary reactionaryism for the sake of a cheap Daily Mail headline.
What a profoundly silly piece from Stephen Tall. Comprehensively trashed by Sunder (though the Davids Orr and Warren apparently didn’t bother to read it and just waded in with more silliness),
It’s not really by Stephen Tall, though, is it? He’s quoting Kevin Peel, Labour member.
Good on Labourlist. Nice to see at least one party political website prepared to stand up to the disingenuous right-wing rhetoric of their leadership.
Sunder, that shot at J. S. Mill isn’t entirely accurate. In ‘On Liberty’ he writes…
“All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people” (p130. ed. Warnock 1962)
So I doubt he would forbid imprisonment on principle! Now, if you were to invoke libertarians pejoratively, that’s a different matter all together š
I have issues with Sunder’s 2nd point – if Clegg had followed the Lib Dem line and welcomed the decision, it would have gone against the government line that this is an unpleasant but necessary decision. Clegg was speaking at PMQs as a government spokesperson, so was obliged to give the govrenment’s opinion.
Remember, Clegg got into trouble when he did the opposite at his first PMQs and said that the war in Iraq was illegal, following the Lib Dem line rather than the government’s. He was rebuked by the Speaker who said that contributions from the government front bench must be government policy, not personal or party opinion.
Them’s the rules.
@Duncan Stott
“contributions from the government front bench must be government policy, not personal or party opinion.”
But personal / party views can be clarified outside of the chamber.
The whole issue is strange as looking at length of sentence (which can be lower in some cases due to mitigating circumstances) rather than category of offence seems wrong to me.
Perhaps looking at rehabilitation and reintegration into society as a basis for allowing the vote to pisoners to vote it could be allowed in the last year of any sentence so long as the prisoner meets certain criteria. I’m sure there are problems with this approach as well though…..
As for Khan, misinformation, soundbites and spin should always be discouraged whichever party uses them. Can’t you tell there’s a by election on the Tories and Labour out quoting each other on crime, thankfully it’s Ken Clark and not a Tebbit figure in the justice seat…
Welcome to my world.
When I set off on the campaign trail, in 1990, with the idea to get prisoners the vote, I did not contemplate what a big fuss it would all cause further along as I walked the line. A straight and narrow path in the jungle. The majority of prison officials wrote me off saying I was a waste of time and that I would not amount to anything. However, Hirst v UK (No2) is the leading legal authority on the subject of prisoners votes. It makes me physically sick at the thought of David Cameron trying to ignore the ruling of the highest court in Europe. I cannot say that I thought about the possibility of the media backlash. Rather than attack the State for its abuse of the human rights of prisoners, the media attacked me and other prisoners. This only added insult to the injury.
What hurts most is knowing that I am right, and that I have international law on my side. And yet, the first reaction of the UK was to appeal against the ruling. Then when the UK lost its appeal, to go into denial and ignore the ruling and pretend it did not happen and put a lot of effort into trying to reverse rather than go forward. Has the UK got no honour and no shame?
Bricks of Shame – Britain’s Prisons
“There are supposed to be ‘no votes in prisons’ and no political prizes for doing something about them. Any politician brave enough either to tell the truth about them or grasp the nettle and try to change the way they are run is likely, so it is believed, to run into difficulties with public opinion” (Vivien Stern).
It was the above passage which planted the idea into my head. With my High-Functioning Autism, I read it literally at first and wondered why prisoners did not have the vote? Only later realising that it referred to MPs fearing that they would lose votes from the electorate if they spoke up for prison reform. And yet, there was me reforming myself in prison. Why shouldn’t I, at the same time, push for reform of the system?
Vivien Stern went onto argue: “Yet the evidence that exists does not support the view of a vindictive public thirsting for more and harsher punishment”.
The UK had argued to the ECtHR that giving convicted prisoners the vote might offend public opinion. And that the disenfranchisement was an extra punishment levied by Parliament on top of the loss of liberty imposed by a court. The ECtHR responded by accepting imprisonment is legitimate under Article 5 of the Convention, and listing those rights prisoners do not lose under the Convention:
“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion”.
In the concurring opinion of Judge Caflisch: “…the decisions taken by this Court are not made to please or indispose members of the public, but to uphold human rights principles”.
The principle of European law applied by the Court not only protects vulnerable groups from State abuse but also protects them from being victimised by wider society. Therefore, it serves no purpose for MPs to keep harping on about giving prisoners the vote will offend public opinion. These MPs need to stop hiding behind this invisible shield. And stop giving 30 second sound bites to the media. It would help if the media instead of keep writing the rubbish these MPs spouted, questioned them properly in the spirit of investigative journalism.
The BBC recently wrote that the issue of prisoners votes is a testing time for David Cameron.
In Hirst v UK (No2) the UK had complained to the Court that it provided no guidance as to what would be acceptable to meet the requirements of free and fair elections under Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention. The three objectives are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. Therefore, in Frodl v Austria the Court used the opportunity to provide the guidance sought by the UK.
Para 34 of Frodl: “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”.
Para 35:” 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”.
It follows from this that the government’s proposals of attempting to limit the enfranchisement to those convicted prisoners serving under 4 years, fails on arbitrary grounds. And, that attempting to give judges the power to remove the vote to any they see fit also fails on legitimacy grounds. All convicted prisoners must get the vote to fully comply with my judgment. Then, in only limited circumstances can the franchise be removed. In cases of electoral fraud and abuse in public office, for example, and only if the penalty is imposed by a judge.
I take issue with this “Over at LabourList, Kevin Peel has an excellent post”. What spoils an otherwise good post is the inaccuracy claiming that what the coalition proposals are form part of my judgment. Therefore, my reaction is LabourList served with a cease and desist notice http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/labourlist-served-with-cease-and-desist.html
Perhaps, I should do the same in relation to the MSM guilty of the same or even worse spreading of lies?
Ed the snapper – can you explain why ministers having protection is authoritarian?
The queen has protection, is that a political authoritarian decision or just being safe and sensible?
Whose liberties does an armoured car infringe? There’s no Such thing as the right to beat somebody to death.
Update: LabourList has now amended their post with the appropriate correction.
‘Peter
Posted 7th January 2011 at 10:12 am | Permalink
What a profoundly silly piece from Stephen Tall. Comprehensively trashed by Sunder (though the Davids Orr and Warren apparently didnāt bother to read it and just waded in with more silliness),’
Yes I did read it – so i expect did Dave Warren. When people resort to slagging off others you know they have lost the argument (and the plot)
Of course I know Labour’s record on human rights and civil liberties is an embarrassment for Labour civil libertarian’s but unfortunately their term of office saw our country get ever closer to both an illiberal and police state. Let’s explore the list:
illegal invasion of Iraq and consequent deaths of men, women and children; the attempts to gag public opinion and of course lying to the House of Commons etc; extending police powers of arrest; repressive anti terrorist laws – which are even used against speakers at Labour conferences who dare to heckle; attempts to extend imprisonment without trial (trying to undermine Habeus Corpus); attempt to gradually get rid of trial by jury; extraordinary rendition and then denying it so treating the public with contempt as idiots; imprisoning children of refugees; slavishly going along with Bush’s illiberal foreign policy and its effects on human rights eg not stopping dubious extraditions and hardly saying anything about guantanamo bay etc; turning a blind eye to torture again; ID cards and placing everyone on a national data base etc – I could go on; and generally playing the ‘tough on crime’ stance so beloved once of the Tories and still beloved of the tabloids and so it would still seem new Labour – playing to the galleries . I do so agree with Dave Warren that the party of Roy Jenkins is long gone – it is now the party of Blunkett and other recent ex-Labour home secys. reactionary almost to a man and woman.
Yes the Daily Mail view is, do not forget the victims of crime – the moron view – because no one is ignoring the victims of crime and to fall into that dumb argument that just because you defend civil liberties by definition means you don’t care about the victims is nauseating beyond belief; i really thought seious commentators do not actually believe that tripe. So yes will soon Labour be advocating return of the death penality is not being silly but actually just an extension of the way Labour home policy is moving.
The only real defender’s of civil liberties in this country in the last fifteen of more years have been Liberal Democrat Party as a whole, a number of liberatrian Labour and Tory politicians; and minor parties like the Greens, SNP and Plaid. So Labour Party supporters et el I know you do not like it but your Party (its policies and its leaders) stinks when it comes to upholding the civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad.
I am grateful that prisoners votes has gone up on the political agenda, however, disappointed with the coalition’s pathetic attempt to limit the judgment in my case and with the comments made by the likes of Sadiq Khan and Philip Hollobone.
The first political casualty after my case was Charles Kennedy after stating that Ian Huntley is entitled to the vote. The Sun and Daily Mail crucified him, then Vince Cable and Nick Clegg delivered the fatal thrust. I also stated that Ian Huntley is entitled to the vote. However, because I do not hold political office the media and fellow politicians could do me no harm. Charles Kennedy was right with what he said if my case is interpreted correctly. His political assassins were in the wrong. Like with Ford open prison, normally a blind eye was turned to drink. Then in both cases it was decided to make an issue of it. Unless I am mistaken there will be more political casualities before this is over.
The other day a probation officer admitted to me that in this country we live in a controlled zone. He was responding to me saying that in my case, because Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law do not exist, the Court implied their exists a totalitarian or authoritarian regime in the UK. At least the probation officer every 6 weeks escapes to the freedom of Germany. Over 60 years ago it was Germany that was a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. Europe said never again, hence the drafting of the European Convention. What originally started life as aspirations became solid principles under international law. Churchill’s idea of a United States of Europe was born. I like the European law principle of harmony. The UK’s conduct in my case causes disharmony.
Sunder Katwala is wrong to confuse the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) with either the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Ironically, while the EHRC has supported the Irish and Scottish prisoners votes cases, it has yet to support the case I started in England. The response I received from them was that they are monitoring the situation. Bernard Cribbens springs to mind and the hole in the ground and the staring into the hole. Trevor Phillips and the government are in the hole and they should stop digging. In my view, it does not need a blackman as its head to give the impression of equality. It stinks of tokenism. More to the point, I believe it should be disbanded. As equality is a human right, I believe this can all be managed better by creating a Human Rights Defender instead.
It maybe simply that Sunder Katwala is dyslexic. In any event, under the ECHR there are some human rights which are absolute although with torture and Jack Straw and David Miliband you might be led into beleiving that it is not the case. Some of the rights are not absolute and come with some limitations. And, the Daily Mail has attacked me and and other prisoners and the Court since the ruling. It should have instead attacked Labour for not abiding by the law.
LibDem policy at the time of Charles Kennedy’s political assassination was that all convicted prisoners should get the vote. Nick Clegg and Menzies Campbell decided to ignore this and started muttering that they were only in support of some prisoners getting the vote. Given that Nick Clegg is a former MEP he knows what the score is in Europe, if he did not prior to the TV debates he did during them because I advised his media adviser that the important issues in Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. When the topic of Europe came up, he used this as the starting point of his argument. Given this, how can he truthfully say he is against what he knows to be right? It only makes him a hypocrite.
Sunder Katwala is talking out of his rear end when he states:
“Clearly, people might reasonably take a range of positions on prisoners voting
– voting is an inalienable right for all prisoners
– the loss of liberty should involve the temporary loss of voting rights (but not being disbarred once out, as happens in the US)
– that some prisoners should be allowed to vote and others not”.
The Court stated: āThe present case highlights the status of the right to vote of convicted prisoners who are detainedā¦In this case, the Court would begin by underlining that prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Article 5 of the Conventionā.
Therefore, clearly, there is only one position which has legitimacy that given by the Court. This is the first position mentioned by Sunder Katwala. The second being contraty to the legitimate first one it fails to be reasonable. One of the reasons given by the Republic of Ireland’s Parliament for giving all prisoners the vote is the 2000 election which saw George Bush being elected, but for the disenfranchised felons and ex-felons he would have lost. And the third also falls because it is contrary to the first and only legitimate one.
Sunder Katwala applies flawed logic with this: “One can argue from liberal principles for the second as well as the first, unless one somehow wants to argue that imprisonment is in principle and all circumstances incompatible with liberalism, which would be silly, and I am sure you can find some resources in John Stuart Mill to explain why”. The only principles valid in this issue are those applied by the Court in my case. The Court accepted imprisonment was legitimate under Article 5 of the Convention. John Stuart Mill was a philosopher, Lord Justice Kennedy attempted to get away with leaving the issue to philosophers, however, the Court stated this is a legal issue and not for philosophers to decide.
Sunder Katwala by attempting to defend Sadiq Khan is attempting to defend the indefensible. I am an advocate for prison reform, and clearly anyone who attempts to limit the human rights of prisoners is not interested in prison reform. Rather he is only interested in a damage limitation exercise in a pathetic attempt to belatedly cover Charles Falconer’s arse. It was Charles Falconer who announced what the Court judgment did not say when he had not even read it to see what it did say! There is no need for any cross-party consensus if Kenneth Clarke did what he is supposed to do, make a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998. The time for debate was before the Court made it’s decision, which is final, and my case exposed that Parliament has never debated the issue before disenfranchisement of prisoners passed into domestic law. The UK is still in the dock on this one, all it has to do is fully comply with my case and apply the Hirst test. Anything less and the UK will face severe sanctions under the Interlaken process. I think these MPs have a cheek calling each other Honourable and Right Honourable. Any who oppose Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law are dishonourable rogues and are not fit for purpose. They are doing the same as when the Labour administration was in power. They are in denial. I set out to get the prisoners voice heard in Parliament. They will listen to it, because in 1958 in the Netherlands the publication of Prisoners Speak Out revolutionised the criminal justice system for the better. Professor David Downs in Contrasts in Tolerance states: “If the prisoners’ voice counts for anything in the debate on crime and punishment, it is at one with those who argue that the benefits of reductionist policies tangibly outweigh the as yet undemonstrated costs”.
Sorry, Sunder, you are wrong on this one.
Ed the snapper ā can you explain why ministers having protection is authoritarian? The queen has protection, is that a political authoritarian decision or just being safe and sensible? Whose liberties does an armoured car infringe? Thereās no Such thing as the right to beat somebody to death.
Nothing wrong with ministers have some protection. But…why an armoured car? Who is planning to “beat Nick Clegg to death”? The amount of money spent on excessive protection for politicians is money not spent on protecting members of the public. Politicians should (like citizens) have the minimum amount of protection that they need. I think Clegg’s armoured Jag is massively excessive and is a status symbol plus a way to hide from the public not a sensible protection. Politicians once used to stand on soapboxes to speak (even when they were in danger from the IRA) but now they hide from the public behind layers of security. I called the police to an incident in which a gang of white youths were attacking the black female cleaners in my street. No police have ever turned up. I have reported other serious crimes in my street. No police have turned up. Perhaps our politicians should experience the lives of us ordinary citizens. I can assure you that we are in far more danger of being “beaten to death” than our politicians are. The armoured car is a symbol of an increasingly dangerous distancing between politicians and the public plus the long-standing emergence of a privileged “polticial class”.
Go to a Clegg town hall meeting then, he still does them. Or go up to oldham where Clegg and Cameron were out on ordinary streets talking to ordinary voters.
In may lots of,ministers including the pm wanted to ditch armoured jags but were told it was too dangerous. The recent riots have shown that people are willing to attack public figures such as prince Charles and I’m sure beating up a politician would be on the to do list of a few anarchists at these demonstrations.
Private yachts or limos would be a status symbol, armoured cars are an unfortunate necessity.
,