As MPs prepare to vote on prisoners, is voting truly a human right?
It carries no legally binding obligations. While the Government is being supportive of its intent, ministers do not have to follow it. However, tonight MPs will vote on the following motion:
"That this House notes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v the United Kingdom in which it held that there had been no substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification for maintaining a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote; acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK; is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically-elected lawmakers; and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand."
There are some unhelpful misconceptions doing the rounds about the votes for prisoners controversy, the most disingenuous of which is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is riding roughshod over British sovereignty by demanding that all prisoners are granted voting rights. The penalty for non-compliance being a raft of compensation claims via Strasbourg.
First, the Government has made it very clear that were it even to contemplate carrying this out - and through gritted teeth - not all prisoners would be allowed a vote. Ken Clarke stated on the Today programme yesterday that it was "nonsense" to think of votes for murderers and rapists.
Secondly, the ECHR ruling is not plenary. David Blackburn at the Spectator's Coffee House wrote yesterday that a number of EU nations strip prisoners of the vote and still observe European law. The ECHR requires clarification, not necessarily the policy itself.
So some sober perspective is desperately needed on this highly emotive issue. Saying that, it is to be hoped that MPs back the tabled motion tonight and the Government follows their lead, because this should not have anything to do with human rights.
Consider control orders, now under the farcical nomenclature of "terrorism prevention and investigation measures", or Tpims, which sounds like a caffeinated summer cocktail. In vain, I supported their abolition because I believe that they do infringe human rights and natural law. The imposition of a control order - sorry, a Tpim - takes away someone's inalienable rights.
On the contrary, not granting prisoners the vote does not infringe their human rights because you are not taking any right away. The vast majority of prisoners hold no voting rights now. I will go further than that, even. No single person, not even a prisoner, has a right to vote. It is a philosophical point but an important one. We are not born with a right to vote anymore than we are born with a right to live in a democracy. Incontrovertibly, such a condition is desirable. It is Locke's 'civil society', living under a consensual government. But Locke does not say how we choose that government. We have a natural right to liberty but not to a vote.
Sources on the Conservative backbenches are confident that this motion shall pass. The Prime Minister agreed yesterday, saying, "It's in our interests for Parliament to say 'No thanks.' That helps us." Even so, that is no guarantee that the Government will maintain the status quo.
Share this article on Twitter
