this article was just posted on Paul Murphy's blog the socialist party's own MEP from Ireland part of the CWI- committee for workers international on the recent strikes in Kazakhstan
As I mentioned yesterday, I have spent the past week in Kazakhstan meeting up with NGOs, community activists and striking workers. It was an incredible trip and the scale of the strike wave is unbelievable and is having an enormous impact throughout Kazakhstan, despite the massive repression from the state. Below is a Press Release from this morning outlining what exactly is going on and the importance of a campaign of international solidarity with the workers. In the next few hours, I’ll post up a draft protest letter and I’d encourage everyone to send a copy as well as asking friends, family and colleagues to also do so and if possible, to push for your trade union branch to send a copy too.
Press Statement: 21 July 2011
Official visit of Paul Murphy MEP as part of European United Left delegation to Kazakhstan
*Incredible strike movement impacting oil production in West Kazakhstan
*Strikers are met with jailings, intimidation and brutal repression – right to strike and form independent trade unions are being denied.
*Management is refusing to negotiate with strikers – massive campaign of international solidarity needed
*Sting cancelled concert in support of the striking oil workers
Paul Murphy MEP is currently on a delegation to Kazakhstan on behalf of the European United Left group (GUE/NGL) in the European Parliament. Within the short period of a week, he has traveled across this vast country, meeting with mining workers near Karaganda, campaigners against housing evictions in Almaty, as well as representatives of the government.
A major strike is raging in the Mangistau Oblast in the west of Kazakhstan, where, at its height, up to 16,000 workers in the oil industry have been on strike. This strike has now been ongoing for over two months. Supporting this strike was a key reason for the visit. Paul spoke to open air meetings of thousands of workers, met individually with workers to discuss their cases and had discussions with the management of KazMunaiGas, Kazakhstan’s national oil giant which is closely linked to the government and President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. He also met with the local governor in the area. Before visiting Kazakhstan, he had spoken out about the strike in the European Parliament (http://www.paulmurphymep.eu/kazakhstanvisit)
One of the most pressing demands for the workers is the release of two trade union representatives who have been jailed. Natalia Sokolova was the workers’ lawyer and has been jailed for “fermenting social conflict” and another trade union representative, Akshimat Aminov, has also been jailed. If found guilty, Natalia Sokolova will face a prison sentence of more than 10 years.
“The jailing of two trade union representatives and lawyers of these striking workers is an outrageous attack on the right to strike and the right to form free and independent trade unions. Natalia Sokolova, has now been in jail for over two months. I spoke with her husband, who has been denied the right to see her for all of that time and has received a death threat in the post telling him to drop this case. These breaches of human rights and workers’ rights are only a selection of the abuses that I have witnessed”
“The repression, brutality and intimidation that these workers are faced with is outrageous. Workers’ protests have been attacked by the riot police. The strikers have been sent text messages threatening the lives of their families and threatening to burn their homes. Many have also received official letters from the company stating that if they continue their strike, they will be fired. Hundreds of workers have already been fired, simply for exercising what should be their right to strike.
“I not only met with workers and their representatives in west Kazakhstan, but also with the Governor of the region and very senior representatives of the oil company, KazMunaiGaz. Unfortunately, it was clearly explained by the First Vice President of the company, that the management is not willing to discuss with representatives of the strikers until the strikers return to work, and that those who have been fired would not be able to return. Clearly that is a call for the workers to surrender rather than a serious attempt at negotiation.
“A serious campaign of disinformation is being waged by the Kazakh authorities in downplaying the importance of the strike. The attempt to undermine the strike has now also led to allegations about the character of my visit. The Kazakhstan national press agency released a statement declaring that I am simply here on a ‘private visit’, when in fact I am on an official delegation from the European United Left parliamentary group.
“I am convinced that the workers’ demands are justified. Natalia Sokolova and Akshamat Aminov, the workers’ trade union representatives, should be released immediately. All of the workers who have been fired and all of the strikers should be allowed back to work without any reprisal actions being taken against them. The company must sit down to negotiate with the elected representatives of the strikers.”
“I have given a firm commitment to these workers that I will do everything in my power to assist them and I certainly intend to do that. I will be launching an international solidarity campaign with these workers.
“Sting recently cancelled a concert in Kazakhstan in support of the oil workers’ strike saying that, ‘Hunger strikes, imprisoned workers and tens of thousands on strike represents a virtual picket line which I have no intention of crossing’.
“More solidarity like this is necessary. I am calling on the trade union movement in Ireland and across Europe to take up the cause of these heroic workers and to express their support for the workers in order to increase pressure on the company to negotiate with the strikers.”
subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
What is the Gay agenda ?
Alot of talk today on twitter has been a bout this article by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail
http://istyosty.com/81u
She describes the gay agenda taking over british society and now our children will be indoctranated by having gay examples rammed down their throats effectively.
How this woman can write such inflamatory comments and get away with it astounds me personally.
I am not gay myself but have a lot of gay friends who are lovely people who i respect very much. Some have had to overcome a lot of struggles in their life already.
I treat them just like anyone else as they are just like anyone else, What they choose to do behind closed doors is no business of mine. I find the Daily mail becoming more and more contravertail in their stories these days. Is there not a week that goes by they dont offend a certain minority group in society ?
As a person who likes to stand up for peoples rights and freedoms i find these comments by Miss Phillips intensely sickening and do little to help bring this country to a more equal standing for gay and bisexual people. Why we have to make such a big deal out of it i dont understand anyway.
I would like to hear more about waht the "gay agenda" actually is as i really dont see it at all. It is just hysteria created by a journalist with a axe to grind it seems with the gay community.
It is a crying shame that kids and young people cant feel free to be what they want to be and face no discrimination is unreal.
The fact of the matter is that if this article had been about a different group in society lets say foreigners for example imigrants to this country there would be no end of trouble after this article.
I feel people like Melanie need to consider waht they are doing to help gay rights by publishing these thoughts of hers and how her article has progressed things.
There is still a hell of a lot of homophobia in this country sadly and i still do feel we are along way away from ending any prejudices, indeed if we ever do when articles like this persist in surfacing in our daily national newspapers.
http://istyosty.com/81u
She describes the gay agenda taking over british society and now our children will be indoctranated by having gay examples rammed down their throats effectively.
How this woman can write such inflamatory comments and get away with it astounds me personally.
I am not gay myself but have a lot of gay friends who are lovely people who i respect very much. Some have had to overcome a lot of struggles in their life already.
I treat them just like anyone else as they are just like anyone else, What they choose to do behind closed doors is no business of mine. I find the Daily mail becoming more and more contravertail in their stories these days. Is there not a week that goes by they dont offend a certain minority group in society ?
As a person who likes to stand up for peoples rights and freedoms i find these comments by Miss Phillips intensely sickening and do little to help bring this country to a more equal standing for gay and bisexual people. Why we have to make such a big deal out of it i dont understand anyway.
I would like to hear more about waht the "gay agenda" actually is as i really dont see it at all. It is just hysteria created by a journalist with a axe to grind it seems with the gay community.
It is a crying shame that kids and young people cant feel free to be what they want to be and face no discrimination is unreal.
The fact of the matter is that if this article had been about a different group in society lets say foreigners for example imigrants to this country there would be no end of trouble after this article.
I feel people like Melanie need to consider waht they are doing to help gay rights by publishing these thoughts of hers and how her article has progressed things.
There is still a hell of a lot of homophobia in this country sadly and i still do feel we are along way away from ending any prejudices, indeed if we ever do when articles like this persist in surfacing in our daily national newspapers.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
guest blogpost from an old friend from school
Well this is something a little bit different for you all now. a friend from secondary school approached me earlier in the week claiming to enjoy my blog, thanks for that by the way glad your reading. His name is Steven Basing who attended Richard hale school in Hertford between 1999 and 2006 like myself. He has attended University thanks to low tuitian fees and a good education he appears to have recieved too the wonders of investing in higher education ay Mr clegg ?
Well here is a piece of work steve has done all about David CCameron his views on HRA which he outlines below in great accurate detail. I feel more than happy to publish any of my friends work on my blog if they wish me to do so. Although these are not my views i feel a blog is more than just sharing your own views, if you like what someone else has to say then why not republish their work and spread it out there to the world. Afterall it will hopefully encourage debate and discussion.
Well here below is Steve's post to me please have a read if you can. I'll be sure to pass on any feedback to him if you like.
In 1950 the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe, and intended to ensure the protection of basic human rights, such as the right to life, privacy and a fair trial, to every man, woman and child of Europe. The catalyst for the drafting of the document was largely a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and an attempt to ensure, such atrocities as the Holocaust would never again occur.
When the ECHR came into force in 1953 every citizen of the UK had bestowed upon them the rights it contained, subject to certain limitations. However until 2000, the rights we all had, could only be enforced in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
If an individual felt their rights had been impeded by an employer, a local authority or the government, they were required to first exhaust the British courts, without raising their rights under the ECHR. Only after the House of Lords had found against the individual, could they proceed to Strasbourg, and make accessible the full rights owed to them.
So although, the magnificent ECHR applied universally in principle, in practice, it was only those privileged enough, with time and money, who could pursue a case long enough to actually enforce their rights. Add to this the enormous cost to the taxpayer, of cases proceeding from Magistrate Courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, via the House of Lords, and it was clear the system was not working.
It thus became a cornerstone policy of the 1997 Labour election campaign to ‘bring rights home.’ The simple idea was, to introduce a piece of legislation, which brought the rights we all already enjoyed, into a domestic sphere, so all could enforce them, simultaneously making the system easier and fairer, for the individual, as well as more economical for the nation. Born of this was the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000.
Under the HRA, the ECHR could be applied to UK legislation, as well as being admissible, in any court of the UK. For me, this could not be a more uncontroversial piece of legislation, but for some on the right, the HRA has come to represent, all that is wrong with the world. This right-wing point of view is perhaps unsurprisingly, championed by such media as The Daily Mail and The Sun, however more surprisingly and a lot more worryingly; this is also the view of the man resident in Number 10. Prime Minister David Cameron also adheres to this misinformed, right-wing belief, that the HRA is ‘rotten to the core’ and needs repealing.
During the election campaign of this year, David Cameron pledged to repeal the HRA, although this ludicrous policy seemed to disappear in a haze of broken promises, student demonstrations and disenchanted Lib-Dems after Cameron took office, this week it raised its ugly head again.
After an Iraqi man, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, won his right to stay in the UK using the HRA, after killing a child in a hit and run, Mr Cameron restated his desire to repeal the HRA.
Mr Cameron’s, views on the HRA worry me in two distinct ways; firstly, it worries me that the man in charge can misunderstand the law so much. How can the Prime Minister of the UK, vow to repeal the HRA and free us from Human Rights cases which lack common sense, whilst we remain tied to the ECHR, which grants us all those rights anyway?
But secondly, and more worryingly, it worries me, that in the 21st century, the leader of a free and democratic nation, who supposedly hold fairness, equality and justice as core principles, could ever consider so dramatically undermining a system of human rights, which does far more good, than ill.
If Cameron repealed the HRA although, he would not lower the amount of rights an individual has, he would make their implementation much more difficult and elitist. But he would also send a message to the world, and the message that the world would receive loud and clear is that the United Kingdom government does not care about human rights, and protecting individuals or minorities.
As I have already explained, repealing the HRA would not end the Human Rights available to individuals. But it would make it a lot more difficult to enforce. And if the rights are more costly and time-consuming to enforce, it would be the ordinary citizen who would lose out.
The general outrage towards the HRA, which emanates, from The Sun and Daily Mail, forced upon their readers and designed to purposely mislead, comes mainly from cases which allow terrorist suspects the right to stay in the UK or allow failed Asylum Seekers, like Mr Ibrahim, to stay in the UK despite committing a crime. Whatever the rights or wrongs of these cases, we would not see a reduction in such cases, should the HRA be repealed. For a terror suspect facing deportation to a homeland where he may be killed, would probably be more inclined to use his money or legal aid money, and time to fight the deportation all the way to the Strasbourg. Whereas the single mum made redundant from her job, because she wanted to take time off to care for her sick child, would probably not fight such a redundancy all the way to the top. However under the HRA a Mum in this exact position, was able to successfully take action against her employers.
I do not for one minute believe Mr Cameron misunderstands the law, I believe he knows exactly how the HRA works and its close relationship with the ECHR, which leads us to one very important question, why does Cameron want to repeal the HRA?
It seems totally clear that Mr Cameron desire to repeal the HRA is born absolutely out of political calculation, The Prime Minister, has seen the contempt with which large portions of the public view the HRA, and has thus seized upon this as a way of increasing his popularity. I do not criticise the public for disliking the HRA, although I obviously feel they are very wrong. But for most people the only contact they get with the HRA is what the right-wing press tell them. People are understandably too busy to go and research the cases or the laws, and equally understandably believe that the media is not trying to mislead them, for their own gains.
However I do not have the same understanding for our Prime Minister, his job is not to pander to popular opinion, it is to do what is right for the nation, and regardless of your views on Human Rights, it is clear that repeal of the HRA would be a costly, time-consuming waste of time, which achieves nothing, but create a two-tier system of rights, where instead of applying universally, would apply alone to those wealthy enough to enforce them.
My second gripe with Mr Cameron’s pledge, is that any reduction in Human Rights, even a partially symbolic one that the HRA’s repeal would be, is just plain wrong. When the Labour government of Tony Blair, bought the HRA into effect, they should the people of Britain, the down-trodden, the forgotten, the abused, as well as the people of Europe, that the UK cares about individual rights, and also that the UK feel it is vital that the actions of Employers, Local Authorities, and even the Sovereign Government, are liable to being limited if they breach certain inalienable rights.
However, when Mr Blair did this, he did not do it without regard for the process of Government, or public safety. Under the ECHR certain checks were already in place which allow individuals rights to be limited, in situations which are, ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ In fact under the ECHR, only the prohibition of Torture is absolute and without qualification, the ECHR also allows derogations under Article 15, when ‘there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.’ Furthermore the ECHR under section 3 makes it necessary for legislation to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the ECHR, but only as ‘far as it is possible.’
Should Mr Cameron succeed in his desire to repeal the HRA, he would undermine all of the progress made in Human Rights by the UK since 2000. Mr Cameron has already largely done this, and when he refers to the Act as, a ‘criminal charter,’ a phrase taken straight from the front page of The Sun, it leaves me with great panic for the equality in this nation under Tory rule.
Cameron’s assertion that the HRA only protects criminals and terrorists, may play well for the right wing vote he so needs, but it does not represent the truth. And just like Murdoch and co, Cameron is misleading the public, by scaremongering them into believing, an act which allows them unprecedented rights, is going to allow a failed asylum seeking Muslim terrorist ex-offender, to come and kill them, and then avoid any sort of punishment.
The HRA has done considerable more good than ill, and even when prima facie the decision appears wrong or to as Mr Cameron stated, ‘fly in the face of common sense,’ upon closer inspection it often makes huge sense.
The HRA has, in the decade since it became law, helped pave the way for homosexuals to serve in our armed forces, kept the government in check by holding their policy of treating foreign Terror suspects as different to domestic terror suspects as discriminatory, and allowed injunctions to be won to prevent tabloid newspapers printing lies or private matters. This is without mentioning the literally thousands of cases, where honest citizen have won against, local authorities, the government, or their employers, who seek to discriminate or mistreat them.
It seems clear to me, that Cameron is playing a political game; he is trying to score points and win votes, whilst misleading the public, and undermining the rights we all have, and should have. His pledge is simply an empty promise to appease the right.
This nation has faced down fascists intend on ending our freedoms before, and at this time, we need a lion to roar against the tide and defend the HRA,
Well here is a piece of work steve has done all about David CCameron his views on HRA which he outlines below in great accurate detail. I feel more than happy to publish any of my friends work on my blog if they wish me to do so. Although these are not my views i feel a blog is more than just sharing your own views, if you like what someone else has to say then why not republish their work and spread it out there to the world. Afterall it will hopefully encourage debate and discussion.
Well here below is Steve's post to me please have a read if you can. I'll be sure to pass on any feedback to him if you like.
In 1950 the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe, and intended to ensure the protection of basic human rights, such as the right to life, privacy and a fair trial, to every man, woman and child of Europe. The catalyst for the drafting of the document was largely a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and an attempt to ensure, such atrocities as the Holocaust would never again occur.
When the ECHR came into force in 1953 every citizen of the UK had bestowed upon them the rights it contained, subject to certain limitations. However until 2000, the rights we all had, could only be enforced in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
If an individual felt their rights had been impeded by an employer, a local authority or the government, they were required to first exhaust the British courts, without raising their rights under the ECHR. Only after the House of Lords had found against the individual, could they proceed to Strasbourg, and make accessible the full rights owed to them.
So although, the magnificent ECHR applied universally in principle, in practice, it was only those privileged enough, with time and money, who could pursue a case long enough to actually enforce their rights. Add to this the enormous cost to the taxpayer, of cases proceeding from Magistrate Courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, via the House of Lords, and it was clear the system was not working.
It thus became a cornerstone policy of the 1997 Labour election campaign to ‘bring rights home.’ The simple idea was, to introduce a piece of legislation, which brought the rights we all already enjoyed, into a domestic sphere, so all could enforce them, simultaneously making the system easier and fairer, for the individual, as well as more economical for the nation. Born of this was the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000.
Under the HRA, the ECHR could be applied to UK legislation, as well as being admissible, in any court of the UK. For me, this could not be a more uncontroversial piece of legislation, but for some on the right, the HRA has come to represent, all that is wrong with the world. This right-wing point of view is perhaps unsurprisingly, championed by such media as The Daily Mail and The Sun, however more surprisingly and a lot more worryingly; this is also the view of the man resident in Number 10. Prime Minister David Cameron also adheres to this misinformed, right-wing belief, that the HRA is ‘rotten to the core’ and needs repealing.
During the election campaign of this year, David Cameron pledged to repeal the HRA, although this ludicrous policy seemed to disappear in a haze of broken promises, student demonstrations and disenchanted Lib-Dems after Cameron took office, this week it raised its ugly head again.
After an Iraqi man, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, won his right to stay in the UK using the HRA, after killing a child in a hit and run, Mr Cameron restated his desire to repeal the HRA.
Mr Cameron’s, views on the HRA worry me in two distinct ways; firstly, it worries me that the man in charge can misunderstand the law so much. How can the Prime Minister of the UK, vow to repeal the HRA and free us from Human Rights cases which lack common sense, whilst we remain tied to the ECHR, which grants us all those rights anyway?
But secondly, and more worryingly, it worries me, that in the 21st century, the leader of a free and democratic nation, who supposedly hold fairness, equality and justice as core principles, could ever consider so dramatically undermining a system of human rights, which does far more good, than ill.
If Cameron repealed the HRA although, he would not lower the amount of rights an individual has, he would make their implementation much more difficult and elitist. But he would also send a message to the world, and the message that the world would receive loud and clear is that the United Kingdom government does not care about human rights, and protecting individuals or minorities.
As I have already explained, repealing the HRA would not end the Human Rights available to individuals. But it would make it a lot more difficult to enforce. And if the rights are more costly and time-consuming to enforce, it would be the ordinary citizen who would lose out.
The general outrage towards the HRA, which emanates, from The Sun and Daily Mail, forced upon their readers and designed to purposely mislead, comes mainly from cases which allow terrorist suspects the right to stay in the UK or allow failed Asylum Seekers, like Mr Ibrahim, to stay in the UK despite committing a crime. Whatever the rights or wrongs of these cases, we would not see a reduction in such cases, should the HRA be repealed. For a terror suspect facing deportation to a homeland where he may be killed, would probably be more inclined to use his money or legal aid money, and time to fight the deportation all the way to the Strasbourg. Whereas the single mum made redundant from her job, because she wanted to take time off to care for her sick child, would probably not fight such a redundancy all the way to the top. However under the HRA a Mum in this exact position, was able to successfully take action against her employers.
I do not for one minute believe Mr Cameron misunderstands the law, I believe he knows exactly how the HRA works and its close relationship with the ECHR, which leads us to one very important question, why does Cameron want to repeal the HRA?
It seems totally clear that Mr Cameron desire to repeal the HRA is born absolutely out of political calculation, The Prime Minister, has seen the contempt with which large portions of the public view the HRA, and has thus seized upon this as a way of increasing his popularity. I do not criticise the public for disliking the HRA, although I obviously feel they are very wrong. But for most people the only contact they get with the HRA is what the right-wing press tell them. People are understandably too busy to go and research the cases or the laws, and equally understandably believe that the media is not trying to mislead them, for their own gains.
However I do not have the same understanding for our Prime Minister, his job is not to pander to popular opinion, it is to do what is right for the nation, and regardless of your views on Human Rights, it is clear that repeal of the HRA would be a costly, time-consuming waste of time, which achieves nothing, but create a two-tier system of rights, where instead of applying universally, would apply alone to those wealthy enough to enforce them.
My second gripe with Mr Cameron’s pledge, is that any reduction in Human Rights, even a partially symbolic one that the HRA’s repeal would be, is just plain wrong. When the Labour government of Tony Blair, bought the HRA into effect, they should the people of Britain, the down-trodden, the forgotten, the abused, as well as the people of Europe, that the UK cares about individual rights, and also that the UK feel it is vital that the actions of Employers, Local Authorities, and even the Sovereign Government, are liable to being limited if they breach certain inalienable rights.
However, when Mr Blair did this, he did not do it without regard for the process of Government, or public safety. Under the ECHR certain checks were already in place which allow individuals rights to be limited, in situations which are, ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ In fact under the ECHR, only the prohibition of Torture is absolute and without qualification, the ECHR also allows derogations under Article 15, when ‘there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.’ Furthermore the ECHR under section 3 makes it necessary for legislation to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the ECHR, but only as ‘far as it is possible.’
Should Mr Cameron succeed in his desire to repeal the HRA, he would undermine all of the progress made in Human Rights by the UK since 2000. Mr Cameron has already largely done this, and when he refers to the Act as, a ‘criminal charter,’ a phrase taken straight from the front page of The Sun, it leaves me with great panic for the equality in this nation under Tory rule.
Cameron’s assertion that the HRA only protects criminals and terrorists, may play well for the right wing vote he so needs, but it does not represent the truth. And just like Murdoch and co, Cameron is misleading the public, by scaremongering them into believing, an act which allows them unprecedented rights, is going to allow a failed asylum seeking Muslim terrorist ex-offender, to come and kill them, and then avoid any sort of punishment.
The HRA has done considerable more good than ill, and even when prima facie the decision appears wrong or to as Mr Cameron stated, ‘fly in the face of common sense,’ upon closer inspection it often makes huge sense.
The HRA has, in the decade since it became law, helped pave the way for homosexuals to serve in our armed forces, kept the government in check by holding their policy of treating foreign Terror suspects as different to domestic terror suspects as discriminatory, and allowed injunctions to be won to prevent tabloid newspapers printing lies or private matters. This is without mentioning the literally thousands of cases, where honest citizen have won against, local authorities, the government, or their employers, who seek to discriminate or mistreat them.
It seems clear to me, that Cameron is playing a political game; he is trying to score points and win votes, whilst misleading the public, and undermining the rights we all have, and should have. His pledge is simply an empty promise to appease the right.
This nation has faced down fascists intend on ending our freedoms before, and at this time, we need a lion to roar against the tide and defend the HRA,
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Should prisoners get the vote ?
I was listening to a good debate on radio 5 live last night on the tony livesey show and they were talking about the EU possibly imposing a law forcing the UK to give its prisoners the right to vote still.
I for one am not for this act. I dont want to sound right wing at all but i do think that when you commit a crime of the land that breaks the United Kingdoms laws you are surely forfeiting your rights to such things as teh vote.
People on the other side of the arguement say that even though they have commited a crime it is their human right to vote even if they are in jail. I disagree, life cannot be the same for them on both sides, if you commit a crime you surely cannot expect life to be as it is on the outside. Otherwise what would be the deterrent
?
the reason we have so many prisoners in jail in this country i believe is we are too soft on criminals who commit offences, if the sentances were tougher and life inside was perhaps not so nice people would not want to go inside would they ? its pretty simple to me.
I know my thoughts here are not that liberal and that's fine this is one of the things i take a hard stance on really. I think we could be tougher on criminals in this country. Not to the way america is using the death penalty or anything like that but maybe less comfort in jail and limit their rights inside.
what do other people think ?
I for one am not for this act. I dont want to sound right wing at all but i do think that when you commit a crime of the land that breaks the United Kingdoms laws you are surely forfeiting your rights to such things as teh vote.
People on the other side of the arguement say that even though they have commited a crime it is their human right to vote even if they are in jail. I disagree, life cannot be the same for them on both sides, if you commit a crime you surely cannot expect life to be as it is on the outside. Otherwise what would be the deterrent
?
the reason we have so many prisoners in jail in this country i believe is we are too soft on criminals who commit offences, if the sentances were tougher and life inside was perhaps not so nice people would not want to go inside would they ? its pretty simple to me.
I know my thoughts here are not that liberal and that's fine this is one of the things i take a hard stance on really. I think we could be tougher on criminals in this country. Not to the way america is using the death penalty or anything like that but maybe less comfort in jail and limit their rights inside.
what do other people think ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)