You may or may not have heard of John Hirst. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the way he presents his argument here, but the case he brings forward is nonetheless bang on. For the past few years (starting with Jack Straw when it was first implemented), the UK has been circumventing EU law that says prisoners are allowed to vote; in fact, "allowed to vote" (as if it's some kind of privilege) is a bit of an understatement - it's stipulated as a human right.As Andrew Neil (the big guy with glasses) mentions in the video, does it not seem morally "correct" that someone who's taken the life of another person - surely the ultimate breach of human rights - should be denied theirs? I suppose in a black-and-white world that might make sense, but life is a lot more complex than tit-for-tat; to revoke the rights of tens of thousands of non-violent offenders - many of whom shouldn't even be behind bars to start with, and in direct contravention to the European Court of Human Rights - because a percentage of the prison population has committed crimes deemed by society as too heinous for them to be viewed as people, is vile.
Make your own mind up on the sanity of John Hirst; he's probably not the best representative for the whole scenario (going on the BBC and insulting the presenter's hair is never going to do you any favours), but just bear in mind that over 85,000 people didn't get to vote this year and now we're stuck with a government that wants to raise tuition fees, drop benefits, and let huge corporations get away scot free with billions of pounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment