Odd goings on in Blighty

Ed · 6th October 2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights.

Ministers promised a review but said that not all 70,000 prisoners in the country would get the vote.

The Prison Officers' Association said the results in some marginal seats could be affected if inmates were allowed to vote in the constituency that included their prison, rather than in the area where they lived.

The Government's defeat at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, by a majority of 12 votes to five, means that Parliament will have to change the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.

Bjorn · 6th October 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent.

If a nation or state is a member of a union, that union is going to have some laws you like and some you don't. Like the US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide, or vs. California on medical marijuana.

Quote:

silent on the rights of their victims

Almost every victim can vote already.

Ed · 6th October 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bjorn

If a nation or state is a member of a union, that union is going to have some laws you like and some you don't. Like the US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide, or vs. California on medical marijuana.

Almost every victim can vote already.

I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK?

Bjorn · 6th October 2005, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK?

Your source is saying that

Quote:

By signing the human rights convention, Britain undertook to hold elections "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people".
In interpreting this provision, states are allowed a measure of discretion to hold elections according to their own laws and customs.
But the court will step in if national discretion is exercised in a disproportionate way.

It looks like you sign up for the game, promising to follow the rules?

Jon_in_london · 6th October 2005, 10:51 PM

Time to take our ball away and go home then............

Beerina · 7th October 2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights.

Actually, I think they should have the right to vote on principle. If you can be thrown into jail for laws passed by politicians, you should be able to vote for (or against) those politicians who threw you into jail.

And regarding the whole sovereignity thing vis-a-vis the EU, well, we in the US tried to warn ye!

a_unique_person · 7th October 2005, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.

This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US. Thus far, it appears to have effectively barred people from voting who never have been convicted for a crime, for victimless crimes, for those who have done their time and are re=habilitated, etc.

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Actually, I think they should have the right to vote on principle. If you can be thrown into jail for laws passed by politicians, you should be able to vote for (or against) those politicians who threw you into jail.

And regarding the whole sovereignity thing vis-a-vis the EU, well, we in the US tried to warn ye!

Actually, this isn't to do with the European Union. Its to do with the European Convention of Human Rights, which is a Council of Europe thingy.

Ed · 7th October 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US. Thus far, it appears to have effectively barred people from voting who never have been convicted for a crime, for victimless crimes, for those who have done their time and are re=habilitated, etc.

According to the story, the rule goes back to the 14th c. in England.

Who gets barred for never having committed a crime?

Rehabilitated...hahahahahahahahahaha...

Dr Adequate · 7th October 2005, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Who gets barred for never having committed a crime?

Does the word "Florida" ring any bells?

Dr Adequate · 7th October 2005, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.

It's not even a straw man.

It's a corn dolly.

Actually, now I come to think of it, the words ""tawdry halfwitted lie" come to mind.

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK?

We signed up to the treaty back in 1950 or thereabouts, and it was ratified by parliament (i.e. our elected representatives) in 1951.

We've recently had a lot of ill-informed (or perhaps well-informed but dishonest) wittering by the Tories and others on the right about this: they've been saying that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed because it gives rise to the sort of issues being discussed in this thread. It does nothing of the sort, because the Convention has been part of our law since it came into force in the 1950s. All the act actually does is to allow decisions about the Convention to be taken by English judges instead of the European Court of Human Rights.

Ed · 7th October 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Does the word "Florida" ring any bells?

no

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

no

How about "Quasimodo," then?

Darat · 7th October 2005, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK?

Yes, it was a main point of Labour's election manifesto that if they got in they would sign us up to the Human Rights malarkey.

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes, it was a main point of Labour's election manifesto that if they got in they would sign us up to the Human Rights malarkey.

We signed up to it in 1951. See above.

Darat · 7th October 2005, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

We signed up to it in 1951. See above.

But not the UK judges.. oh I see you posted that as well

Jon_in_london · 7th October 2005, 08:53 AM

Which just goes to show that its high time to kick the EU and labour in the cnut.

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Which just goes to show that its high time to kick the EU and labour in the cnut.

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. See above.

Fengirl · 7th October 2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights.

According to our esteemed Lord Chancellor (who was interviewed about this judgement on BBC R4 yesterday) the operative word is "could". The ECHR's ruling was that it was unlawful to deny prisoners the vote without proper consideration of the basis on which such a decision is be made.

So the governement can review, consider, report...and then decide not to change the law at all.

Melendwyr · 7th October 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.

What rights would those be? Victims don't lose any human rights by being victims. Nor do they gain new rights. What concern should there be?

Jon_in_london · 7th October 2005, 10:28 AM

So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights?

Jon_in_london · 7th October 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. See above.

Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe?

Perforatu · 7th October 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights?

Yep. I've pretty much lost the ability to exercise all of them, in fact. Should the killer be stripped of all rights as a result as well? If not all, then which ones? And why those, specifically?

Camillus · 7th October 2005, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe?

The European Court of Human Rights is not a creation of the European Union. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, which has a much wider membership than the EU.

brodski · 7th October 2005, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Camillus

The European Court of Human Rights is not a creation of the European Union. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, which has a much wider membership than the EU.

yeah, but if Jon_In_London admits that, he won't be able to keep on with his EU/ Labour bashing with regards to this decision.

That would make him sad.

SwissSkeptic · 7th October 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights?

Umm, if I kill somebody it's not an offence against any convention of human rights, I'm solely responsible according to criminal (and civil) law. Human rights usually regulate matters between a state or a union of states and its citizens, not between the citizens among themselves.

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe?

Not "nothing to do with Europe," but, as I said, nothing to do with the European Union. The ECHR is a Council of Europe treaty, and the Council of Europe is not the same entity as the European union. But, of course, many Tories and other "little englanders" never pay enough attention to what's going on outside the UK to be able to tell the difference.

Supercharts · 7th October 2005, 05:14 PM

Why does the U.K. want to listen to Europe? Isn't it enough that the Lord God Almighty (Thor), created the English Channel for a reason? Proof of Intelligent Design!

Mojo · 7th October 2005, 05:41 PM

Well, some of us actually approve of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's supposed to give us the same sort of rights and freedoms as the US constitution (etc.) is supposed to give Americans.

Melendwyr · 7th October 2005, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights?

Nope. The set of rights you have the power to personally exercise has necessarily diminished. But you possess the same legal rights as you did before you were murdered.

"Rights" apply to your status with the government, nothing more. Being the victim of a crime does not take away any of your Constitutionally-protected rights -- at least, that's how it works here. Is it different across the pond?

a_unique_person · 7th October 2005, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

According to the story, the rule goes back to the 14th c. in England.

My bad.

Quote:

Who gets barred for never having committed a crime?

Rehabilitated...hahahahahahahahahaha...

Florida, and people do get rehabilitated. Many are in there for victimless crimes. The stereotypical homicidal rapist only makes up a small percentage of the prison population.

brodski · 7th October 2005, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

My bad.

Florida, and people do get rehabilitated. Many are in there for victimless crimes. The stereotypical homicidal rapist only makes up a small percentage of the prison population.

and lets face it, in the UK you can go to prison for watching TV without a license.

How can we let such people vote?

Skeptic · 7th October 2005, 10:11 PM

It looks like you sign up for the game, promising to follow the rules?

The question is not if the UK should respect the human rights convention, but since when is the (alleged) right to prisoners to vote a "human right" that is protected by that convention.

If the human right convention's rules had explicitly said, "prisoner will not be denied the right to vote" and the UK signed it, that's one thing. But almost certainly, it said nothing of the sort--and it is only now that somebody, interpreting the human rights convention, had "discovered" it demands that signatory nations give their prisoners the right to vote.

So the question is, who is that somebody? The body politic of the UK... or unelected beaurocrats in Brussels?

Sure, when you sign up to a game, you promise to follow the rules--but the rules as they were when you signed up, or the rules as they are changed with your participation and consent. You did not sign up to agree to whatever some unelected person who hadn't asked you says the rules are.

This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US.

Actually, this prohibition is ancient and originated in mideaval England.

The idea behind it is that of natural justice: if you break society's laws and harm it, you forfeit your right to determine who will lead that society.

peptoabysmal · 7th October 2005, 10:57 PM

Which political party benefits if prisoners get the vote?

brodski · 7th October 2005, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

It looks like you sign up for the game, promising to follow the rules?

The question is not if the UK should respect the human rights convention, but since when is the (alleged) right to prisoners to vote a "human right" that is protected by that convention.

If the human right convention's rules had explicitly said, "prisoner will not be denied the right to vote" and the UK signed it, that's one thing. But almost certainly, it said nothing of the sort--and it is only now that somebody, interpreting the human rights convention, had "discovered" it demands that signatory nations give their prisoners the right to vote.

So the question is, who is that somebody? The body politic of the UK... or unelected beaurocrats in Brussels?

Sure, when you sign up to a game, you promise to follow the rules--but the rules as they were when you signed up, or the rules as they are changed with your participation and consent. You did not sign up to agree to whatever some unelected person who hadn't asked you says the rules are.

This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US.

Actually, this prohibition is ancient and originated in mideaval England.

The idea behind it is that of natural justice: if you break society's laws and harm it, you forfeit your right to determine who will lead that society.

Of course American states would never find themselves in such position, I mean what right do Judges have to interpret laws and overrule executive branches of government or legislators?

Andy why do you say this originated in medieval england? Exactly who had the vote in a time when the Devine right of kings was prevalent?
The modern UK practise of barring prisioners the right to vote actually dates back to the Victorian concept of "Civic Death".

Also it should be pointed out, that this ruling does not mean that from tomorrow all prisoners have the right to vote, what it means is that the government must examine the legislation around restricting voting rights of prisoners.

brodski · 7th October 2005, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

Which political party benefits if prisoners get the vote?

Given the general level of apathy in the UK at the moment, nobody.
Mind you, given the number of former Conservative MP's in gaol...

Perforatu · 8th October 2005, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US.

Actually, this prohibition is ancient and originated in mideaval England.

The idea behind it is that of natural justice: if you break society's laws and harm it, you forfeit your right to determine who will lead that society.

But that notion rests on the idea that breaking a law of society will always harm society. In the case of murder I tend to agree, but what about people, who, I dunno, were incarcerated for personal drug possession or circumvention of a copyright protection device?

Jon_in_london · 8th October 2005, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by SwissSkeptic

Umm, if I kill somebody it's not an offence against any convention of human rights

It most certainly is. By killing someone you have permanently removed that persons first human right (which 'trumps' all the others) which is the right to life.

Jon_in_london · 8th October 2005, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Nope. The set of rights you have the power to personally exercise has necessarily diminished. But you possess the same legal rights as you did before you were murdered.

"Rights" apply to your status with the government, nothing more. Being the victim of a crime does not take away any of your Constitutionally-protected rights -- at least, that's how it works here. Is it different across the pond?

If you murder me you have permanently removed all of my human rights, not just 'diminished' a few of them- regardless of what the government might think, they cannot restore any rights to me after I'm dead, at least nto until Jesus becomes PM.

Human rights are fundamental and cannot be summarilily(sp?) removed. Any infringement of anyone's human rights can only ever be justified as a proportionate response to further ensure the human rights of the nation as a whole.

6th October 2005, 10:07 PM	#1
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Odd goings on in Blighty Quote: Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights. Ministers promised a review but said that not all 70,000 prisoners in the country would get the vote. The Prison Officers' Association said the results in some marginal seats could be affected if inmates were allowed to vote in the constituency that included their prison, rather than in the area where they lived. The Government's defeat at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, by a majority of 12 votes to five, means that Parliament will have to change the law. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

6th October 2005, 10:18 PM	#2
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Originally Posted by Ed Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. If a nation or state is a member of a union, that union is going to have some laws you like and some you don't. Like the US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide, or vs. California on medical marijuana. Quote: silent on the rights of their victims Almost every victim can vote already.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

6th October 2005, 10:22 PM	#3
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Bjorn If a nation or state is a member of a union, that union is going to have some laws you like and some you don't. Like the US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide, or vs. California on medical marijuana. Almost every victim can vote already. I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

6th October 2005, 10:29 PM	#4
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Originally Posted by Ed I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK? Your source is saying that Quote: By signing the human rights convention, Britain undertook to hold elections "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people". In interpreting this provision, states are allowed a measure of discretion to hold elections according to their own laws and customs. But the court will step in if national discretion is exercised in a disproportionate way. It looks like you sign up for the game, promising to follow the rules?
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

6th October 2005, 10:51 PM	#5
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Time to take our ball away and go home then............
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

7th October 2005, 06:36 AM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Quote: Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights. Actually, I think they should have the right to vote on principle. If you can be thrown into jail for laws passed by politicians, you should be able to vote for (or against) those politicians who threw you into jail. And regarding the whole sovereignity thing vis-a-vis the EU, well, we in the US tried to warn ye!
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

7th October 2005, 06:40 AM	#7
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,329	Originally Posted by Ed Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed. This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US. Thus far, it appears to have effectively barred people from voting who never have been convicted for a crime, for victimless crimes, for those who have done their time and are re=habilitated, etc.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

7th October 2005, 06:50 AM	#8
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Beerina Actually, I think they should have the right to vote on principle. If you can be thrown into jail for laws passed by politicians, you should be able to vote for (or against) those politicians who threw you into jail. And regarding the whole sovereignity thing vis-a-vis the EU, well, we in the US tried to warn ye! Actually, this isn't to do with the European Union. Its to do with the European Convention of Human Rights, which is a Council of Europe thingy.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 06:54 AM	#9
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by a_unique_person This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US. Thus far, it appears to have effectively barred people from voting who never have been convicted for a crime, for victimless crimes, for those who have done their time and are re=habilitated, etc. According to the story, the rule goes back to the 14th c. in England. Who gets barred for never having committed a crime? Rehabilitated...hahahahahahahahahaha...
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

7th October 2005, 07:02 AM	#10
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Ed Who gets barred for never having committed a crime? Does the word "Florida" ring any bells?

7th October 2005, 07:05 AM	#11
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Ed Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed. It's not even a straw man. It's a corn dolly. Actually, now I come to think of it, the words ""tawdry halfwitted lie" come to mind.

7th October 2005, 07:08 AM	#12
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Ed I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK? We signed up to the treaty back in 1950 or thereabouts, and it was ratified by parliament (i.e. our elected representatives) in 1951. We've recently had a lot of ill-informed (or perhaps well-informed but dishonest) wittering by the Tories and others on the right about this: they've been saying that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed because it gives rise to the sort of issues being discussed in this thread. It does nothing of the sort, because the Convention has been part of our law since it came into force in the 1950s. All the act actually does is to allow decisions about the Convention to be taken by English judges instead of the European Court of Human Rights.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 7th October 2005 at 07:10 AM.

7th October 2005, 07:20 AM	#13
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Does the word "Florida" ring any bells? no
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

7th October 2005, 07:21 AM	#14
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Ed no How about "Quasimodo," then?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 07:24 AM	#15
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by Ed I don't see any discussion of attacking the basic law which is what is going on now in the SC. Who made this law? Elected represetitives of citizens of the UK? Yes, it was a main point of Labour's election manifesto that if they got in they would sign us up to the Human Rights malarkey.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

7th October 2005, 08:11 AM	#16
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Darat Yes, it was a main point of Labour's election manifesto that if they got in they would sign us up to the Human Rights malarkey. We signed up to it in 1951. See above.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 08:21 AM	#17
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by Mojo We signed up to it in 1951. See above. But not the UK judges.. oh I see you posted that as well
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

7th October 2005, 08:53 AM	#18
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Which just goes to show that its high time to kick the EU and labour in the cnut.
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

7th October 2005, 08:55 AM	#19
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london Which just goes to show that its high time to kick the EU and labour in the cnut. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. See above.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 09:08 AM	#20
Fengirl Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Posts: 1,194	Quote: Prisoners could be given the vote after the European Court ruled yesterday that laws disenfranchising them were a breach of their human rights. According to our esteemed Lord Chancellor (who was interviewed about this judgement on BBC R4 yesterday) the operative word is "could". The ECHR's ruling was that it was unlawful to deny prisoners the vote without proper consideration of the basis on which such a decision is be made. So the governement can review, consider, report...and then decide not to change the law at all.

7th October 2005, 09:55 AM	#21
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Ed Curious that a nation would care to give up their soverignty to such an extent. Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed. What rights would those be? Victims don't lose any human rights by being victims. Nor do they gain new rights. What concern should there be?
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

7th October 2005, 10:28 AM	#22
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights?
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

7th October 2005, 10:31 AM	#23
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Originally Posted by Mojo The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. See above. Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe?
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

7th October 2005, 01:56 PM	#24
Perforatu Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Posts: 171	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights? Yep. I've pretty much lost the ability to exercise all of them, in fact. Should the killer be stripped of all rights as a result as well? If not all, then which ones? And why those, specifically?

7th October 2005, 02:09 PM	#25
Camillus Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 298	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe? The European Court of Human Rights is not a creation of the European Union. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, which has a much wider membership than the EU.
Camillus Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

7th October 2005, 02:39 PM	#26
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by Camillus The European Court of Human Rights is not a creation of the European Union. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, which has a much wider membership than the EU. yeah, but if Jon_In_London admits that, he won't be able to keep on with his EU/ Labour bashing with regards to this decision. That would make him sad.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

7th October 2005, 02:47 PM	#27
SwissSkeptic Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 390	Originally Posted by Ed Oddly, the concern about human rights of prisoners appears to be silent on the rights of their victims. Very odd indeed. Originally Posted by Jon_in_london So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights? Umm, if I kill somebody it's not an offence against any convention of human rights, I'm solely responsible according to criminal (and civil) law. Human rights usually regulate matters between a state or a union of states and its citizens, not between the citizens among themselves.

7th October 2005, 04:58 PM	#28
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london Are you absolutely sure that the European court of human rights has nothing to do with Europe? Not "nothing to do with Europe," but, as I said, nothing to do with the European Union. The ECHR is a Council of Europe treaty, and the Council of Europe is not the same entity as the European union. But, of course, many Tories and other "little englanders" never pay enough attention to what's going on outside the UK to be able to tell the difference.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 05:14 PM	#29
Supercharts Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,185	Why does the U.K. want to listen to Europe? Isn't it enough that the Lord God Almighty (Thor), created the English Channel for a reason? Proof of Intelligent Design!

7th October 2005, 05:41 PM	#30
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Well, some of us actually approve of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's supposed to give us the same sort of rights and freedoms as the US constitution (etc.) is supposed to give Americans.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

7th October 2005, 06:00 PM	#31
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london So a victim has not lost any rights? If I murder you, have you not lost any rights? Nope. The set of rights you have the power to personally exercise has necessarily diminished. But you possess the same legal rights as you did before you were murdered. "Rights" apply to your status with the government, nothing more. Being the victim of a crime does not take away any of your Constitutionally-protected rights -- at least, that's how it works here. Is it different across the pond?
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

7th October 2005, 09:53 PM	#32
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,329	Originally Posted by Ed According to the story, the rule goes back to the 14th c. in England. My bad. Quote: Who gets barred for never having committed a crime? Rehabilitated...hahahahahahahahahaha... Florida, and people do get rehabilitated. Many are in there for victimless crimes. The stereotypical homicidal rapist only makes up a small percentage of the prison population.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

7th October 2005, 09:57 PM	#33
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by a_unique_person My bad. Florida, and people do get rehabilitated. Many are in there for victimless crimes. The stereotypical homicidal rapist only makes up a small percentage of the prison population. and lets face it, in the UK you can go to prison for watching TV without a license. How can we let such people vote?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

7th October 2005, 10:11 PM	#34
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	It looks like you sign up for the game, promising to follow the rules? The question is not if the UK should respect the human rights convention, but since when is the (alleged) right to prisoners to vote a "human right" that is protected by that convention. If the human right convention's rules had explicitly said, "prisoner will not be denied the right to vote" and the UK signed it, that's one thing. But almost certainly, it said nothing of the sort--and it is only now that somebody, interpreting the human rights convention, had "discovered" it demands that signatory nations give their prisoners the right to vote. So the question is, who is that somebody? The body politic of the UK... or unelected beaurocrats in Brussels? Sure, when you sign up to a game, you promise to follow the rules--but the rules as they were when you signed up, or the rules as they are changed with your participation and consent. You did not sign up to agree to whatever some unelected person who hadn't asked you says the rules are. This notion of barring prisoners from voting appears to have originated in the US. Actually, this prohibition is ancient and originated in mideaval England. The idea behind it is that of natural justice: if you break society's laws and harm it, you forfeit your right to determine who will lead that society.

7th October 2005, 10:57 PM	#35
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Which political party benefits if prisoners get the vote?
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.