Dear All
Kenny MacAskill was the worst Justice Secretary in the
history of the Scottish Parliament.
He got the job because he was basically Alex Salmond’s pal;
this was the criteria it seems to hold Ministerial Office in the SNP
Government. Through-out his rein he was dogged by controversy, one of the cases
which showed him up as a lemming was the Cadder Case.
What is interesting about the Cadder Case was the UK Supreme
Court had to act to ensure that Scots got access to a fair trial. MacAskill
fought tooth and nail against this case, at the time, I opined that human
rights couldn’t be replaced by effectively what was ‘gifts’ by the Crown Office.
Although Cadder the individual wasn’t exactly a pillar of the community, he did
more for justice in Scotland
as ‘deadbeat’ than Kenny MacAskill did while holding ministerial office.
On the Cadder Case, George Laird was right again by the way,
it was they say an open and shut case.
During the Scottish referendum, the SNP deliberately continued
to disenfranchise a section of the population resident in Scotland from
exercising their right to vote. These people were prisoners who were locked in
prison. The issue of prisoner voting is an issue that most politicians won’t
touch with a barge pole because everyone is signed up to ‘tough on crime, tough
on the causes of crime’.
This slogan was Tony Blair’s mantra while in public office.
Anyone not signing up to this was attacked by the other
parties and described as being weak and pro criminal.
Giving people their human rights isn’t and shouldn’t be a
matter of whether we like them, or what they stand for, or even what they have
done previously.
So, a political consensus emerged which was ‘fuck criminals,
we don’t want their votes if they are in prison’.
My position when the issue cropped up at the referendum was
that the prisoners should be allowed to vote. This view is in line with the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) who ruled the blanket ban on prisoners
voting is a breach of human rights.
According to MacAskill view now, the Scottish Government
must review its "shameful" position, during the ‘shame’ episode, Kenny
MacAskill had no problem in doing two things, one, collecting his Ministerial
salary and secondly keeping his mouth shut.
Keeping your mouth shut doesn’t make you a team player, just
in case you motherfuckers didn’t know that!
You are either the Justice Secretary of Scotland or you
are not, is my opinion, plainly MacAskill was Alex Salmond’s placeman.
MacAskill’s sudden conversion to ‘faith’ is that he thinks
the SNP must back prison votes to fight Tory human rights plan.
I get the sense, this isn’t about restoring democracy and
human rights but rather this is a political manoeuvre. The Conservatives want
to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, and replace it with what is termed the British
Bill of Rights.
The problem with the Human Rights Act 1998 isn’t that the
Bill is wrong, but the wrongful judgments which arise from it, like allowing
terrorists to have a revolving door to attempt to defeat the ends of justice.
Another misuse is allowing foreign criminals the right to remain in the UK on
the basis they can cite another part of human rights as a justification as a
breach.
One of the gags used is right to family life to avoid
deportation.
David Cameron wants to replace the human rights act with a
British Bill of Rights but it rather looks like people will get less rights;
and as we head towards a possible exit from the EU, this may look to some as
long term housekeeping.
We don’t have a bad human rights act, we have bad
judges.
Writing in The National newspaper, MacAskill admitted that
he was "complicit" in the "wrong" decision to oppose
granting convicted prisoners the vote.
He added:
"That's an issue that has come before the European
Courts on many occasions and in which they have been quite clear. A blanket ban is unacceptable and in conflict
with human rights, notwithstanding that the UK Government has simply refused to
comply and indeed Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the very thought
of it makes him sick. Shamefully, the Scottish Government has so far refused to
adhere to the spirit and the judgements of the European Courts. Initially it
hid behind the franchise being reserved to Westminster but did indicate that it did not
support its extension to prisoners. That was compounded by replicating the Westminster line in the
franchise for the referendum. Votes were granted for 16 and 17-year-olds but
not prisoners.
Kenny MacAskill also said:
"In that act I am as complicit as any as the former
justice secretary. It was the wrong thing done, albeit for the right reasons. It
was to avoid any needless distractions in the run-up to the referendum, to deny
the right-wing press lurid headlines that could tarnish the bigger picture. But
the referendum is behind us and the Tory press have failed to stop us. To have
credibility on the issue the Scottish Government must now review their position
on votes for prisoners or the defence of the Human Rights Act will ring
hollow."
This is basically rubbish, but lets us home in on this part:
“It was the wrong thing done, albeit for the right reasons. It
was to avoid any needless distractions in the run-up to the referendum, to deny
the right-wing press lurid headlines that could tarnish the bigger picture”.
So, I read this and I think, this is a person who doesn’t
give a shit about human rights, doesn’t give a shit about justice and thinks
that Government exists as an election and referendum tool.
The job of the Justice Secretary is to oversee a justice
system that is fair to both sides in a legal, during his tenure as Justice
Secretary, Kenny MacAskill was so far up the arse of the Crown Office; you
would have thought he was their employee instead of being their boss.
As to Sein Fein SNP adopting MacAskill’s position, I don’t
see unpopular Nicola Sturgeon taking an interest in giving people their human
rights; she hasn’t really expressed an interest in that as a politician.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
I'm going to disagree George.
ReplyDeleteI my mind when someone crosses the line into the inhuman zone, then that person should forfeit his human rights. For example, the evil garbage that abuse children have no human rights in my world, neither do killers, but the problem for me is not whether we should have human rights or not (we should) but where the line is that ends your human rights. Then whatever rights were deemed to apply afterwards would separate us from say the barbarism of religious idiots executing people for witchcraft among other things. It all boils down to the law of the land being dressed up in a human rights facade for the benefit of "us" being superior to "them". "It's just not cricket old sport". 50 years hard labour I say and be done with it.
YEP you just need to look at Kennys Hollie Greig fiasco arresting and jailing pensioner Robert Green to see the clown count be trusted to sell houses.
ReplyDeleteGood old Levy Macrae their name keeps coming up