Tag: uk

Giving Prisoners The Vote?

The UK is apparently fighting a losing battle to prevent inmates from gaining the right to vote in general elections. The European Court of Human Rights, which ruled back in 2005 that the UK’s longstanding blanket ban on prisoner voting was “unlawful”, recently reiterated its ruling and gave Britain six months to set the relevant wheels of compliance in motion. Failure to do so could result in hefty legal costs for the government, but complying with the ECHR’s decision is certain to get MPs a-grumblin’ – particularly in view of last year’s motion opposing the ruling, which passed with support to the practically unanimous tune of 234 votes to 22 and no doubt caused ministers a headache when attempting to explain this response to Strasbourg. David Cameron made things no easier, being quoted as saying that the very idea of prisoners being allowed to vote made him feel “physically ill”. The PM’s delicate stomach notwithstanding, this is an interesting debate and by no means a clear-cut issue.

Now, I’m sure this is a naive and simplistic view, but I thought that prisons were where societies put people who had revealed themselves to be incapable of behaving according to a general set of rules upheld by the majority, and who were therefore required to be temporarily removed from that society until deemed fit to re-enter, with such terms being determined in accordance with the nature and severity of their crime. Not being a legal expert, I nevertheless hope that this is an adequate enough summation for the purposes of this article.

It is a notion held by many individuals that, if a member of society breaches the rights of others with their actions, they should in turn have their own rights impinged upon in some way. This would seem to be the main function of correctional facilities – and, in the view of many people, the overriding purpose of such. So, would it not logically follow that those who have removed themselves from society and forfeited certain rights – such as the rights to walk around unhindered and live in a house – also lose their right to add their opinion to the way in which that society is run? Seems straightforward enough.

But there’s a reason I used the term “correctional facilities” just then. For the overwhelming majority, prisons are also institutions in which inmates may be (and often are) rehabilitated, in order that they can at some point rejoin society and become productive members thereof. For those serving shorter sentences, those showing genuine remorse and a willingness to reform, those due for imminent release… shouldn’t they have the right to be included in the business of shaping the society they’re going to be rejoining?

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, somewhat unsurprisingly, had an interesting view on the matter, and prior to last year’s vote on the motion to oppose the European ruling had urged MPs and ministers to not contest the decision. However, the main thrust of his argument seemed to be that, if the UK did not comply, it would face costly compensation claims brought by prisoners – did MPs really want to risk having to explain to their constituents why exactly so much taxpayer money was being paid out to criminals? Better to just comply with the ECHR’s decision, Mr Clarke suggested – voting is a right that prisoners “probably wouldn’t bother to exercise if we gave it to them.” Given that voter turnout for the 2010 General Election was only 65%, he may have a point. (Labour activist Emma Burnell, blogging on TotalPolitics.com, argues for voting to be compulsory, like jury duty. She may have a point, too.) As an update to Mr Clarke’s opinion, the ECHR has said that, if the UK removes its blanket ban and agrees upon a set of criteria by which some prisoners will be allowed to vote, then it will dismiss the 2,500 or so human rights cases currently being brought by UK inmates, thus protecting the UK from the otherwise likely risk of paying compensation to such complainants. Quite an incentive to comply, I think.

However, it seems that the ban on prisoners voting is one of those issues that has garnered cross-party agreement – Ed Balls has said that the ECHR’s ruling was “the wrong thing” and that Labour will support any action by the Coalition to oppose the decision (after all, it was Labour that was in power when the landmark judgment was initially passed). I would almost hope that politicians’ reticence is merely an indignant, knee-jerk reaction to Europe attempting to force a change in UK law – the alternative is that no senior political figures in our country consider those incarcerated in our prison system worthy of basic rights. The vast majority of prisoners will be returning to society sooner or later – some of them following a term of wrongful imprisonment, such as the recently released Sam Hallam, who spent over seven years in jail after a miscarriage of justice saw him wrongfully convicted of murder. Wrongful convictions are far more common in the UK than we would like to believe and, due to their often routine nature, rarely make the news. The right to vote, as with other rights debated in a court when a person has broken the law, should be decided on an individual basis – tarring all criminals with the same no-vote brush is akin to suggesting that a petty thief is as bad as a serial killer. In short, it is simply not fair.

Our legal system has long been in need of an overhaul; perhaps the perceived inference of the European court is necessary for change in the UK. How to apply the ruling in practical terms, however, is going to be complicated, and balancing the requirements of the ECHR with the wishes of our MPs is sure to be a delicate and longwinded task.

Cyberbullying: How Serious is it?

We’ve all read stories of cyberbullying. We’ve all watched news reports of it. We are all at risk of cyberbullying as well. Social media is increasingly becoming a tool for bullies in their quest for misery and to inflict emotional pain on their victims. According to a report by the Department of Education, published in November 2011, almost 35% of young people and children in the UK have been cyberbullied. The most common forms of abuse were text messages and emails. The staggering statistic is not the percentage of young people who have been cyberbullied, it’s that almost 30% of those young people didn’t tell anybody about the abuse. What is important to realise is that text messages and emails are private to young people. Parents don’t have access to these in most cases, and so surely it’s hard to monitor?

Social media is a new way whereby bullies are increasingly targeting their victims. Hiding behind their keyboard, bullies can inflict as much hurt and pain as they want, with seemingly little consequences. In fact, I watched a story yesterday where a family was grieving the loss of their loved one, a young boy who took his own life because of cyberbullying. It is tragic that cowards behind a keyboard can cause this. The family, grieving and hurt by their loss, set up an online memorial page on the social network Facebook. It was a place where friends and family could mourn the loss of their friend and relative, and remember him in the way they wanted, by leaving messages of love and by sharing their memories. This was not to be though. The same cyberbullies who had targeted the young boy took to his memorial page to further inflict pain on his already suffering family and friends. The father of the boy said it was even strangers who got involved who just wanted to spread hate. Why? It’s simple: people can log onto a website and get away with it. They can set up a page in a fake name, and use it to cause pain and suffering for people. Surely this has to stop. I know there are privacy options on social networking sites, and tools in place so that people can stop others getting into contact with them, but clearly this isn’t doing a great deal.

Another example I would use of cyberbullying is the use of user-generated websites, such as YouTube. Anybody in the world can produce a video and upload it to the site. The video is then viewable for everybody across the world to watch. Great? Yes, great if you want to get yourself noticed, and great if you have a real talent. What strikes me though is the fact that users are able to comment on these videos. We know that some people may give positive feedback, others may give negative feedback. The negative feedback is the one we should be aware of. Negative feedback is all well and good if you’re performing on The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, The Voice or any other talent show; but that feedback is supposed to be constructive from professional people. The users on YouTube, who decide to ‘critique’ a video of someone singing, on the whole, aren’t professionals from the industry. They are, for the most part, people who want to be abusive to other users. Yes, there is the option to remove the comment tool from videos; but where’s the fun in that? People won’t get the comments they long for, and the attention they crave. Maybe it is fair game, if you put yourself out there in such a manner, then you lose your right to only positive comments, much like people who enter talent shows on television.

But what we need to realise is that people should not be able to get away with bullying, just because it isn’t happening face to face. Bullying on all levels needs to be stopped, and sanctions put in place to combat it. I mentioned just one example of a young person who took their own life as the result of being a victim of cyberbullies, but I can guarantee that there are plenty of the same stories across the UK. It has to stop. Our next generation should not have to put up with it; if it happened at school, there would be sanctions and punishments to adhere to; why not the same online?

Regardless of what happens now, it needs to happen fast. The government needs to act quickly, in order to prevent more tragedies across the UK. In my opinion, what has happened is simple: bullies have more tools at their disposal, thus meaning they can spread hate across a number of formats. Young people are constantly bombarded with the idea of fame and fortune. They want to replicate what they see on television; sadly to say, television ain’t all that real, a lot of it is blown up for entertainment. I understand that people who upload videos of themselves are fair game for comments, be it positive or negative. But you just do a search on YouTube; how many people on there are clearly disabled or have severe learning difficulties? Loads. Why were they able to upload videos? Who is caring for them? It’s a question I can’t answer, but perhaps education needs to start at home so that cyberbullying can be minimised. Sanctions should be put in place at home first, and then the Internet needs to be dealt with. But, realistically, can we really ever prevent cyberbullying or are the bullies becoming too creative?

Why Britain is Not a Democracy

Democracy is viewed by many people as a positive political system. Many also believe that Britain upholds our democracy. But what exactly is democracy? And is Britain really up to the high standards that democracy demands?

Democracy is most commonly seen as a government in which the people have the supreme power. This is usually applied through their elected agents, otherwise known as MPs, under a free electoral system. But this definition is vague and questionable, despite being highly praised with positive connotations. Indeed, it has been speculated that democracy is not bound to any one definition. This was pointed out by George Orwell, who was quoted as saying, “The defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

It can even be argued that ‘democracy’ is just used in place of ‘free’ when describing a country’s status; countries which aren’t free are ‘undemocratic’, although ‘undemocratic’ is vague in itself as something which is undemocratic could simply be another political system. The question of whether these ‘undemocratic’ countries have a fair political system never comes into play. After all, how could it possibly be fair when it’s not democratic?

This stems from the idea that democracy is having a vote, not whether your vote makes a difference. In other words, an elected dictatorship. Walter Winchell agreed with this, saying, “too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it”. If holding elections were what constituted a working democracy, then Britain would be just that. But this can be compared to China’s political system in which there are eight parties (other than the CPC) that you can vote for but, essentially, they all stand for the same points.

But if democracy is more about the freedom of the people and whether their vote matters at all in the long-run, then it can be argued that the UK is falling below the democratic standards with almost four in ten voters choosing to abstain as they feel they don’t have a say.

Democracies, in theory at least, should have parties which represent groups of people who stand for different ideas. At the moment, there exists only the three main parties; the Labour party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. If you were to vote for any of the smaller, more obscure parties, it’s highly likely that nothing will come of your vote.

We will forget for a moment what each of the leaders of these three parties say what they stand for and instead look at what they have actually stood for. The Liberal Democrats, during the 2010 elections, promised that they would scrap University fees across Britain. In fact, that was one of their biggest points on their manifesto. But they didn’t do that. They did the opposite and agreed with the Conservative policy of raising tuition fees. Another example would be the Conservative cuts to public spending. This is an expected Conservative move (they have done so on numerous occasions during past recessions, including the Wall Street Crash) but Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, stated, “We cannot make any commitments now that the next labour government will reverse rises or spending cuts.” Ed Miliband, leader for the Labour Party, agreed, saying the Labour government would continue to make cuts. Elections which lack any competing agenda are pointless.

Leading on from this is one of the biggest moves from the coalition government when they first came into power in 2010. They set up the Your Freedom website in the hopes that people would vote on controversial topics and hear what they wanted directly, rather than through their elected agents. But this proved to be useless as the public decided they wanted a review of the smoking ban and were ignored entirely. The Coalition stated they “had no plans” to review it.

If there is no real difference between the ideologies of the main political parties, no difference as to what party you vote for, can Britain really call itself a democracy?