So now what?

To nobody's particular surprise, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld its previous judgement that a blanket ban on prisoners' voting rights breaches their human rights and the fact that the UK Parliament voted to continue with that practice is neither here nor there.

However, the court also decided that the prisoners whose human rights have been breached, are not entitled to any financial compensation.

Where do we go from here, one cannot help asking. Will HMG and the Electoral Commission allow prisoners to vote next time round, say, in next year's General Election? There will be no money handed over to them, which is a relief, as we all know whose money that will be. But what happens if those prisoners whose notion of human rights is a little unbalanced will not be allowed to vote next time either?

For those who are interested, here is the judgement in full.

Peter Tatchell confirms it

The Boss has already explained (here and here) some of the background to the legislation on Same Sex Marriage, which is not nearly through Parliament.but, at least, the date for the Committee stage has been announced: February 12. Interestingly, there is an article, which is really an interview with that mostly tiresome though occasionally admirable campaigner, Peter Tatchell, in yesterday's Evening Standard.

Mostly it is very dull but then articles in the Evening Standard usually are. He does, however, give his own version of what pushed David Cameron into this politically uncertain course of action:

Back to Westminster and the apparent conversion of the PM, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary. In late 2010, continues Tatchell, he arranged for four same-sex couples and four straight couples to file applications at local registry offices for, respectively, civil marriage and civil partnership licences. All were refused, of course. In February 2011, Tatchell and human rights lawyer Robert Wintemute of King’s College London applied to the European Court of Human Rights to strike down the bans that stymied those eight couples, and told the government that, sooner or later, it would have to go to Strasbourg to defend the existing law. Meanwhile, lobbying harder than ever, Tatchell wrote a “briefing paper” extolling gay marriage as a natural extension of the Conservative Party’s traditional support for the existing institution of marriage — and, with a fair amount of chutzpah, circulated it widely within Tory circles.

“That’s when things started to happen,” he says. “Astonishingly, within three months of our application to the European Court, the Government announced that it was going to consult on legalising gay marriage. They knew that there was no argument they could use in Strasbourg that would be anything other than bigoted and intolerant. I think they realised the game was up, and decided it was better to lead on the issue and get the kudos of enacting liberal reform than be dragged through the courts. It may have been a pure coincidence, but it does strike me as very closely mirroring the pattern of events that I set in place.”

So there we are, it was the ECHR what done it. Well, up to a point because I do not think this will be resolved even when the legislation is passed as it almost certainly will be, eventually and probably with some amendments. For who can define marriage to the complete satisfaction of all?

Watchman, what of that rebellion?

There was, as we recall, a rebellion against the ECHR in the matter of prisoners' vote. The House of Commons definitely voted against giving them that right and the ECHR threatened all manners of punishments. Where do we stand on it now?

As usual, it depends who is your source.

The Independent says that

the coalition is poised to introduce legislation to give prisoners the vote.

According to the Guardian, ministers are preparing to launch a draft bill to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

According to the same article, government sources say that nothing will be done until the end of November, that is after the somewhat contentious election of police commissioners, predicted to have the lowest turn-out in history.

The BBC puts the story differently:

Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain will continue to defy a European Court ruling saying prisoners must be given the right to vote.

"No one should be under any doubt - prisoners are not getting the vote under this government," he told MPs.

But he offered a further Commons debate to "help put the legal position".

Is "no one should be under any doubt" the same as a cast-iron guarantee? Also, what is the point of another debate? To explain to MPs that they actually cannot decide such matters for the country, even though, for once they do have the country on their side?

Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-General "warned Britain's reputation would be damaged if it did not follow the European Court ruling" and has also said rather ominously that Britain was negotiating with the Court and that some "flexibility" was needed. Flexibility on whose part, one wonders.

Coming up again

The subject of prisoners' voting rights is about to come up again. Readers of this blog will recall that this was voted out by the House of Commons some time ago. Now the European Court of Human Rights is about to hear a fresh legal challenge on the subject, mounted by George McGeoch, 40, who is serving a life sentence for murder. (I should have thought the solution is obvious: give the man his voting rights as long as his victim can have them as well.)

Officials in Strasbourg are frustrated by the UK letting the issue fester. Nils Muižnieks, the new human rights commissioner at the Council of Europe, told the Guardian: "A blanket and indiscriminate ban is not in line with the European convention on human rights. The UK government seems to have painted itself into a corner through the last few years.

"The ruling does not require states to give all prisoners voting rights but [depriving prisoners of the vote] has to be linked to the nature of their crime."

Britain has repeatedly argued for what is called a '"margin of appreciation", allowing states some leeway in interpreting ECHR judgments. "Now they have it and the deadline to make the changes ends in November," Muiznieks said. "If they don't it will weaken the whole system and set a very bad example for other states.

"In general the UK has been a good citizen within the human rights system. It would be a huge shame and weaken the UK's influence if they delayed [the decision]."

Goodness me, one wouldn't want that, would one. I mean where would we be if the UK's influence were weakened in the Council of Europe or, for that matter in any tranzi organization?

Romanian justice is somewhat different

Romania, as we know all too well, is in the EU and so its government is also our government. Romania is also in the Council of Europe so its judges who have been trained in a somewhat different system from ours are also on the European Court of Human Rights, whose decisions would be adhered to, even if the Human Rights Act is repealed.

The present Romanian member of the ECHR, Corneliu Barsan, has an interesting understanding of his and his wife's position; interesting from our point of view but probably perfectly sensible from his.

Romania's judge at the European Court of Human Rights on Friday (14 October) claimed diplomatic immunity for his wife, a judge under investigation for allegedly receiving jewellery, holiday tickets and expensive restaurant meals for favourable verdicts in the country's highest appeals court.

ECHR judge Corneliu Barsan said prosecutors who searched his home and confiscated his wife's computer and documents violated the Vienna Convention, which covers both him and his spouse, Gabriela.

But legal advice from the country's top magistrate council said the search was legal as immunity is not granted to judges for their own benefit or to hamper the course of justice. A final vote on the legality of the move will be taken by the magistrates' council on Tuesday.

I wonder if he can even understand what all the fuss is about.

In Europe but not run by Europe?

According to the European Arrest Warrant any member state of the European Union can demand the immediate extradition of just about anybody from Britain, whether the crime in question is one in this country or not. But our government cannot extradite condemned terrorists, inciters of mass murder or men accused of raising finance for terrorists to the United States even if our courts have agreed to it after a long and exhaustive discussion.

The BBC reports that the European Court of Human Rights has halted the extradition to the United States of well-known cleric Abu Hamza Al-Masri, who is already serving a seven-year sentence here for "for soliciting to murder and racial hatred" as well as three other men who are accused of breaking laws on both sides of the Pond.

The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for exremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

It seems that the ECHR does not exactly disagree with the fact that these people ought to be tried for the crimes they are accused of committing; the problem is that they might be given very long sentences in the United States, which will have to be served in tough gaols and that will breach their human rights.

Without getting into arguments about human rights for people whose aim in life seems to be to inflict as much pain and damage on other human beings as possible, let us consider the coalition government's attitude.

Back in the days of the election campaign, we were told by the Conservatives that they would scrap the Human Rights Act and return to the Common Law (as well as preserve parliamentary sovereignty but that is another subject). By the time of that famous Coalition Programme for Government, the promise was watered down somewhat [scroll down to the last item]:

We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

Or, put another way: yet another promise bites the dust. Are we surprised? Not overwhelmingly so.

Meanwhile

UK Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."

What can I say? In Europe but not ruled by Europe.