Dear All
I thought I would do a piece on
Conservative MP’s Priti Patel and her take on human rights because someone
should really be taking her to task.
So let’s get cracking, I have blogged on
her before regarding her idea that prisoners shouldn’t get educated, which as
we all know is a route out of crime.
“The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling
on life sentences was deeply disturbing and disgraceful. To have European
judges demand that we scrap our system of life sentences and give the country’s
most evil killers the real prospect of having their sentences reviewed and the
hope of release is sickening”.
Firstly, the rule of law is important, Priti
Patel is simply following a well trodden road of ‘tough on crime, tough on the
causes of crime’ and as we know, David Cameron’s stance, there is nothing
imaginative about playing ‘follow the leader’.
“These judges have claimed that life
sentences were inhumane and degrading unless there was “both a prospect of
release and a possibility of review.” They also believe that prisoners serving
life sentences should “be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the
prospect of release if that rehabilitation is achieved” and that life sentences
are “incompatible with...human dignity.” Few in Britain would agree with these
sentiments and most would rather see these killers, who took away the lives and
dignity of their victims, stay behind bars”.
Well, what does it say that she appears to
think that law is a good thing as long as she agrees with the verdict? I would
say it puts her in a category that is unfit to be a Minister of the Crown. We
expect Ministers to set aside personal views in making decisions, bring your
prejudice in is never a good sign. Some people are too dangerous to be released
from, in their cases a whole life sentence is required, however; it doesn’t
weaken society to uphold the law and allow a review.
Ms. Patel says:
“As a result of these judges’ obsession
with supporting the demands of Britain’s most vile and heinous killers, this
decision has now quite rightly reignited the debate about whether the UK should
remain part of the ECHR and the future of human rights laws in this country”.
This isn’t an obsession about supporting demands
of Britain’s most vile and heinous killers, it is a matter of upholding the law;
they don’t get to exercise personal prejudice which is why they were picked in
the first place to sit on the bench.
She appears to have lost the plot:
“It is a debate we must have and one the
Conservative Party should be leading. But as shocking as this decision was, the
judgement did not surprise those of us who have warned of this undemocratic
Court’s meddling in our affairs”.
Undemocractic court??????
What is she babbling on about, are there
elections to Courts in Britain?
“For too long the ECHR – aided and abetted
by the Council of Europe – has abused the European Convention on Human Rights
and used its powers to circumvent Parliamentary democracy in an unaccountable
way”.
Try thinking that our judiciary and indeed
any judiciary should always be independent of government.
In pressing her argument she uses cases
such as Mohammed Ibrahim, Adow Sufi, Ibrahim Elmi and Abu Qatada’s as an excuse
to simply abandon human rights and place those rights in the hands of
government rather than a court.
Since when is that ever a good idea?
She now turns her attention to an issue I
have previously blogged on, should prisoners get the vote?
In my view, the answer is yes!
I do recognise that there is an argument
for criteria which should be discussed, but that is merely details, the concept
is important. My personal view is that anyone who is with 12 months of release
should be able to get the right to vote. Other people may have a longer or
short view on timesclae, but that is a matter for Parliament, so far, Ms. Patel
can’t be bothered to uphold these fundamental rights.
And given she doesn’t care, how can anyone
take her seriously?
As to her other gripe regarding that Prison
life should be arranged so as to approximate as closely as possible to the
realities of life in the community. That should mean opportunities for
rehabilitation and possibly education and where possible the development of
life skills.
We rightly put people in prison for crimes;
however, some people recognise the value of the rehabilitation process. And if
the bottom line has any meaning for Ms. Patel, there is the cost argument to
consider, it costs a fortune to lock people up.
She waxes lyrically that neither of these
policies received Parliamentary approval in Britain as if that is something to
be proud of, it isn’t. In a country where we are continually told that people
have rights and responsibilities, it should be her duty to uphold rights if her
argument for responsibilities means anything.
As to her solution of 1, 2 and 3!
“Firstly, Ministers must put a stop to
these European institutions’ constant desire to take powers away from the
British people and into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats in Strasbourg.
This can be done by refusing to recognise the policies the Council of Europe
adopts which contravene our interests, and rejecting ECHR judgements that
undermine the sovereignty of our Parliament and integrity of our justice system”.
It rather appears she is making an argument
for UKIP or is it, in the EU but only wanting to choose the good bits?
“Secondly, we should put an end to the ECHR
being used as a final court of appeal by criminals, terrorists and illegal
immigrants. This should also include preventing prisoners from using legal aid to
fund their cases”.
Previously I have blogged and said that the
European Convention on Human Rights needs reviewed, but more than that, the
real problem is appointing people who have such a lack of understanding about
human rights in the first place.
“And thirdly, we should protect human
rights in this country through a British Bill of Rights. Britain has a proud
tradition safeguarding fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial.
Our Parliament and our courts are far more qualified to balance these rights
and the national interest in an effective and democratic way than the
tyrannical bureaucrats and judges in Strasbourg”.
A Bill of Rights, is she having a laugh?
What she really means is removing rights, as to dragging up ‘tradition’ how
bankrupt is that? We also had a ‘tradition’ in this country where innocent people
were fitted up by the State and put in prison. And how are our Parliament and
our courts are far more qualified? Law is a universal concept, human rights are
a universal concept, and are we more superior in the UK?
If we were she wouldn’t be babbling this
load of nonsense and instead she would be pushing for better training of the
judiciary in their understanding of human rights, she would be pushing for a
review of European Convention on Human Rights.
As to “Ministers should reject ECHR judgments
that undermine the sovereignty of our Parliament”, presumably she is angling
for a Cabinet post, how about fisheries, out of mind and out of sight!
Better still send her up the backbenches
till she learns respect for the law.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow
University
No comments:
Post a Comment