shocking abuse of human rights
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 16 Mar 16 3.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent, rights apply to everyone, even if they're the best of us, or the worst of us. Our rights, are only trumped by a state of national emergency or national security issues such as terrorism. Does he deserve them, certainly not, but its something that separates us, from 'them' our capacity to respect their rights and attribute them with protections from abuses of power. Its our Judicary that deems it in conflict, not the EU. They passed it to the ECHR. No it isn't. In 2001, three prisoners challenged the explicit ban on all prisoners—except those on remand and a few other minor exceptions—being able to vote in any parliamentary or local government elections. They claimed that the ban was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, but lost in the High Court. That's our judiciary. One of the prisoners, John Hirst, convicted of manslaughter in 1980, argued at the human rights court in Strasbourg that this rules out a 'blanket' ban on prisoner votes. In 2005, the Court's Grand Chamber agreed that it was. Not our judiciary. It didn't say that all prisoners should have the vote. It's up to the UK to find a way of changing the law so that it's in keeping with what the Convention requires. Or we can just use the one in the act I mentioned before, which is more than adequate, and is what 3 successive, different, governments have done.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 3.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
No it isn't. In 2001, three prisoners challenged the explicit ban on all prisoners—except those on remand and a few other minor exceptions—being able to vote in any parliamentary or local government elections. They claimed that the ban was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, but lost in the High Court. That's our judiciary. One of the prisoners, John Hirst, convicted of manslaughter in 1980, argued at the human rights court in Strasbourg that this rules out a 'blanket' ban on prisoner votes. In 2005, the Court's Grand Chamber agreed that it was. Not our judiciary. It didn't say that all prisoners should have the vote. It's up to the UK to find a way of changing the law so that it's in keeping with what the Convention requires. Or we can just use the one in the act I mentioned before, which is more than adequate, and is what 3 successive, different, governments have done. I thought they were granted leave to appeal, and that resulted in it being passed to the ECHR. The European court is part of our judiciary, and has ratified UK law since its inception, in the 50s I think. The UK also provides input into the ECHR, which serves as a final court of arbitration. Yes, quite right, it stated that the government of the UK needs to pass legislation in keeping with the Human Rights act - Its not just the UK either, several other European countries had similar findings - It suggested that some kind of enfranchisement of prisoners should occur (such as for those serving less than 4 years or serving time for minor offences). The problem isn't the ECHR, its that the UK hasn't acted in a manner coherent with its own laws, or passed legislation that determines an outcome to this conflict of being both entitled to vote and banned from voting. You can't just pick and choose based on convenience. Its an interesting area, because at present the only people not represented by government are prisoners, who correspondingly have seen excessive cuts in funding, overcrowding and generally decreasing levels of both conditions and rehabilitation rates. Edited by jamiemartin721 (16 Mar 2016 3.38pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 3.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
How much time and money would you say the Norwegians should spend on investigating Brevik's lack of moisturiser? As much as anyone else would be legally entitled to. Its not for the state to determine what is and isn't a possible violation of human rights, it down to the legal system. I don't think laws should necessarily be explicitly obeyed, but hold with the notion of the social contract, that in knowingly violating a law, even one you believe to be unjust, that you are then exposed to the consequences of those laws. Rights correspondingly restrict the capacity of the law to be used unfairly or in a biased manner, by the state, and serve to protect citizens in a similar manner to how the law protects the state.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 16 Mar 16 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
As much as anyone else would be legally entitled to. Its not for the state to determine what is and isn't a possible violation of human rights, it down to the legal system. I don't think laws should necessarily be explicitly obeyed, but hold with the notion of the social contract, that in knowingly violating a law, even one you believe to be unjust, that you are then exposed to the consequences of those laws. Rights correspondingly restrict the capacity of the law to be used unfairly or in a biased manner, by the state, and serve to protect citizens in a similar manner to how the law protects the state. Fine, you believe that time and money should be spent on criminals complaining about lack of moisturisers and anything else that they care to dream up.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 16 Mar 16 4.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I thought they were granted leave to appeal, and that resulted in it being passed to the ECHR. The European court is part of our judiciary, and has ratified UK law since its inception, in the 50s I think. The UK also provides input into the ECHR, which serves as a final court of arbitration. Yes, quite right, it stated that the government of the UK needs to pass legislation in keeping with the Human Rights act - Its not just the UK either, several other European countries had similar findings - It suggested that some kind of enfranchisement of prisoners should occur (such as for those serving less than 4 years or serving time for minor offences). The problem isn't the ECHR, its that the UK hasn't acted in a manner coherent with its own laws, or passed legislation that determines an outcome to this conflict of being both entitled to vote and banned from voting. You can't just pick and choose based on convenience. Its an interesting area, because at present the only people not represented by government are prisoners, who correspondingly have seen excessive cuts in funding, overcrowding and generally decreasing levels of both conditions and rehabilitation rates. Edited by jamiemartin721 (16 Mar 2016 3.38pm) It's not, it's another entity altogether that we are unfortunately signed up to. There isn't a problem, it's as clear as it can be: The Representation of the People Act 1983 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It changed the British electoral process in the following ways: Amended the Representation of the People Act 1969. Stated that a convicted person cannot vote at any parliamentary or local election whilst in prison. f*** what the 1998 Human rights act says (or any other act or European ruling), that covers it quite succinctly. Edited by Stuk (16 Mar 2016 4.06pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 4.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
Fine, you believe that time and money should be spent on criminals complaining about lack of moisturisers and anything else that they care to dream up. I'd recommend looking at the application, the primary areas of complaint are to do with segregation and isolation of the prisoner (essentially indefinite solitary confinement). A secondary issue is over the degree of restriction on visitors and correspondence. Much as certain outlets might like you to believe its not about moisturiser. They're selectively picking from the rambling list of complaints of how he is treated differently than other prisoners. The key issues of appeal are segregation, solitary confinement, visitors and the restrictions on mail and correspondence.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
It's not, it's another entity altogether that we are unfortunately signed up to. There isn't a problem, it's as clear as it can be: The Representation of the People Act 1983 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It changed the British electoral process in the following ways: Amended the Representation of the People Act 1969. Stated that a convicted person cannot vote at any parliamentary or local election whilst in prison. f*** what the 1998 Human rights act says (or any other act or European ruling), that covers it quite succinctly. Edited by Stuk (16 Mar 2016 4.06pm) To you maybe, but in terms of law, its contradicts the right to vote, passed in the 1998 Human Rights act. Rights in law, generally take precedence over government legislation, as they're universal in their application, and immutable (a government cannot pass laws that violate a constitutional right). As such, the government actually needs to redress what its a practical problem, without resorting to moralist posturing to popularism. Interestingly the government of the UK did try to introduce legislation to resolve the conflict, but it didn't pass through the House.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 16 Mar 16 4.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
To you maybe, but in terms of law, its contradicts the right to vote, passed in the 1998 Human Rights act. Rights in law, generally take precedence over government legislation, as they're universal in their application, and immutable (a government cannot pass laws that violate a constitutional right). As such, the government actually needs to redress what its a practical problem, without resorting to moralist posturing to popularism. Interestingly the government of the UK did try to introduce legislation to resolve the conflict, but it didn't pass through the House. The 1998 act allows for declarations of incompatibility. Job done. The government just needs to keep doing what it's doing. Ignoring the requests.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The 1998 act allows for declarations of incompatibility. Job done. The government just needs to keep doing what it's doing. Ignoring the requests. Then the government should probably look at doing that. Curiously, the Conservative government wanted to pass legislation allowing some enfranchisement of prisoners. My personal view, is that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, as they are the only people there is no necessity for MP's in society to represent the interests of.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 16 Mar 16 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I'd recommend looking at the application, the primary areas of complaint are to do with segregation and isolation of the prisoner (essentially indefinite solitary confinement). A secondary issue is over the degree of restriction on visitors and correspondence. Much as certain outlets might like you to believe its not about moisturiser. They're selectively picking from the rambling list of complaints of how he is treated differently than other prisoners. The key issues of appeal are segregation, solitary confinement, visitors and the restrictions on mail and correspondence.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Mar 16 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
You could read the news accounts of the hearing. He's been kept in segregation from all other prisoners, apparently denied reasonable communication, visitation and effectively suffered as a result of being in an effective solitary confinement. This his lawyer claims, amounts to a failure to meet several human rights (as well as conditions of the prison service in Norway).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Mar 16 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The 1998 act allows for declarations of incompatibility. Job done. The government just needs to keep doing what it's doing. Ignoring the requests. Or just occasionally attempt to pass legislation that's then defeated in the commons. The problem of incompatibility, is that the two aren't incompatible; I think it would be very difficult to construct a reasonable argument as to why prisoners cannot have some access to enfranchisement, that couldn't be countered effectively.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.