How the British debate about votes for prisoners misses the international context

It has not been an easy week for the government (and indeed UK politics as a whole) when it comes to sovereignty, rights and responsibilities.

A non-binding motion in the House of Commons yesterday was passed 234-22 in favour of maintaining a blanket ban on prisoners voting, putting the UK political debate further at odds with the 2005 European Court of Human Rights ruling Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) that judged that the blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. This vote is set against the backdrop of Policy Exchange’s paper “Bringing Rights Back Home” that mooted the idea of the UK pushing for reform of the European Court of Human Rights, and if that fails, to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Continue reading →

It has not been an easy week for the government (and indeed UK politics as a whole) when it comes to sovereignty, rights and responsibilities. A non-binding motion in the House of Commons yesterday was passed 234-22 in favour of maintaining a blanket ban on prisoners voting, putting the UK political debate further at odds with the 2005 European Court of Human Rights ruling Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) that judged that the blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. This vote is set against the backdrop of Policy Exchange's paper "Bringing Rights Back Home" that mooted the idea of the UK pushing for reform of the European Court of Human Rights, and if that fails, to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court. At the same time, the Duma in Russia was yesterday passing a motion 234 votes to 22 to ensure the blanket ban on gay and lesbian people organising marches and protests in Russian cities was maintained, despite the European Court judgment in Alekseyev v. Russia. In response, speaker of the Duma Boris Gryzlov stated that it was offensive to Russia's sovereignty for a foreign court to be able to decide how Russia could discriminate against its citizens, and he proposed withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the court. Of course the second paragraph is a counter-factual, although the cited European Court case is real. But this gets to the heart of this issue. Any international commitment entered into by a government implies a ceding of sovereignty, and as a result any country - the UK, Russia, all the other signatories to the ECHR - is not completely free to do as it wishes in the areas in which sovereignty is pooled. Yet of course very few British politicians are saying that - the focus is only on whether prisoners should have the right to vote in the UK or not. The debate is not set in the international context, the context of mutual responsibilities. So when Policy Exchange cites a YouGov poll that of course finds that UK citizens would prefer the final court of appeal for human rights matters to be in the UK, they miss the other side - human rights for all kinds of groups across Europe have been improved thanks to the work of the European Court of Human Rights. The question would better be "Do you want human rights cases to be judged only in the UK, knowing this would endanger the human rights of other Europeans - including gay rights, the rights of women, the rights of minorities - if all other countries did the same?" Add into the mix a completely incoherent approach to sovereignty and international treaties fostered by this government (why no referendum on the new sovereignty-ceding Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty with France for example, but a proposed referendum lock on any ceding of power to the European Union?) and a Prime Minister ill at ease on these matters thanks to those on his back benches phobic of anything with Europe in its title, and you have a very messy and unpleasant situation indeed. [UPDATE] David Rennie of The Economist has more in Bagehot's Notebook, as ever demonstrating he's a top class journalist. Photo: tuxophil “European Court of Human Rights” July 4, 2008 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Email This Post

Print This Post

More on the Roma in Roma predicament

roma-hut

Having been shocked by the horrible living conditions of the Roma in the Italian capital while jogging earlier this week I today returned to the area, camera in hand. There were no police or military present this time.

It’s far from easy to take photos when people are looking at you from all sides and wondering who the guy is with the zoom lens and the black satchel. Plus knowing the tensions between the Roma population and the ‘establishment’ I cannot have known what reactions my presence would have provoked. Still I managed a few shots that convey the depravation of the camp.

Continue reading →

Having been shocked by the horrible living conditions of the Roma in the Italian capital while jogging earlier this week I today returned to the area, camera in hand. There were no police or military present this time. It’s far from easy to take photos when people are looking at you from all sides and wondering who the guy is with the zoom lens and the black satchel. Plus knowing the tensions between the Roma population and the ‘establishment’ I cannot have known what reactions my presence would have provoked. Still I managed a few shots that convey the depravation of the camp. Rather that surreptitiously take photos I decided to walk right up to the camp and try to talk to someone to gain a further insight into what had happened here earlier in the week. I approached an elderly chap and asked in my limited Italian why the military had been present earlier in the week. ‘Perché?’ He replied with a shrug, not wishing to divulge any information. The mention of the ‘militari’ drew an interesting reaction from the small boy beside the old gentleman, hands to his face and eyes darting with nerves. I tried to ask whether such military action was normal as in the UK I had never seen anything like it; this too provoked a shrug. By this time I had drawn the attention of the whole family, bringing the women away from a rough pan of minced meat being prepared beside an old stove outside the metal shack. Feeling I better not pry any more I said goodbye and thank you to the old guy, shook his hand and drew a toothless smile. I’m not sure what he and his family made of this meeting with a stranger who spoke little Italian but at least showed them some respect. I walked back towards my hotel with a sadness in my heart. How in 2009 in the European Union can people live like this? No sanitation, make-shift metal shacks surrounded by puddles and mud? For some added irony the wall of the bridge on the main road close to the camp was plastered with posters with a baby with a crown with the slogan “Roma Capitale della Vita” (Rome Capital of Life) put up by a group on the right of Italian politics, and for Di Pietro’s “Italia dei Valori” party. CGIL’s “Italiano / Straniero” campaign posters adorned a derelict building a little further – does it apply to Roma too? Beside the CGIL posters a dead moped is propped up in front of billboards for Berlusconi’s party stating how the local police had been armed. What do the Roma feel when walking past all of this on their way back to their deprived corner by the Tiber? What do the middle class parents in their Fiats think when dropping their children off at the Circolo Sportivo RAI (the sport centre of the state TV) just a matter of metres from shocking poverty? I don’t know what the solutions are for all of this, but in most of Europe there would be an outcry if prisoners were kept in surroundings like this – where are the people helping out and caring here?

Email This Post

Print This Post