Home

TheSinner.net

Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:09 am

jollytiddlywink, with all due respect, the issue really isn't so clear cut. What is, and is not, terrorism is always subject to the eye of the beholder - double so since, for the purposes of this discussion, we aren't talking about academic distinctions but about prosecutorial ones.

Consider a few examples:

Would a campaign of public assassinations of government officials be terrorism? Government officials are considered valid targets in war, so the 'civilian' rule doesn't necessarily apply to them. The terrorism part would be the public nature, and the way the campaign would be designed to spread fear and undermine a populace's faith in their leadership... but 'real' civilians aren't being targeted for death so... is it terrorism?

What about blowing up key infrastructure? Say someone blew up key nodes in the US electricity grid and made the country blackout for a couple weeks. Is that terrorism? Our Justice Department thinks so. What if the same thing were attempted with a logic bomb? Is cyber-terrorism, terrorism?

Narodnaya Volya( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya ) is generally considered to have conducted a very clear-cut terrorist campaign, and yet their bombings were directed at killing the Tsar and government ministers... so by your definition, it would be wrong to consider their actions terrorist? On what authority?

Allow me to quote the first few lines of my trusty old Penguin Dictionary of International Relations:

"Terrorism The use or threatened use of violence on a systematic basis to achieve political objectives. While there is no agreed comprehensive definition as to its character, motive or mode of operation (for example, Schmid, 1984, lists over one hundred different definitions of the term), most analysts agree that the element of fear-inducement both horizontally and vertically is crucial." (underlining mine)

While I often do think that debaters on The Sinner are too quick to demand sources at times, this is one of those times where I'm going to say... you can't just come onto an online forum say, "This is my definition of terrorism" and then pretend like your clear lines have any meaning in the real world. It is in government's interests (especially governments which are under threat) to define terrorism as broadly as possible. Further, if we're talking about punishing people convicted of terrorism, then what matters is not how you define terrorism or how I define terrorism or how RedCelt defines terrorism or even those 100+ definitions discovered by whoever Schmid is, but rather, how the legal code of the convicting country defines terrorism - and in a nation that suffers terror attacks, it's a sure bet that their definition is going to be more inclusive than yours and the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" won't exist.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:31 pm

Cheers for a bit of clarity, LonelyPilgrim. I was more than a little confused that a term so loosely-defined was being given a cast-iron definition; that anyone in disagreement with deserved the wrath and mockery of the short-of-fused Jollytiddlywink.

There's another interesting example, of course. In Gaza, Hamas were democratically elected into power. Now, they're widely accepted as terrorists (to non-muslims). Everyone who voted for them - are they labelled as terrorists for supporting terrorism? Lock them all up (which is what's been done to them, anyway) and take away their vote; criminals that they are. The extra twist (on Jollytiddlywink's definition) is that Hamas claim that every Israeli citizen is a non-civilian target. Why do they make such a strange claim? Because every Israeli citizen must serve time in the military. This makes everyone a military target - whether current, past or future; babies and pensioners.

Closer to the original question... should people (labelled as terrorists or, commonly these days, supporters of terrorism) lose their suffrage due to their beliefs? Even if they form a significant proportion of the population?
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:42 pm

LonelyPilgrim wrote:jollytiddlywink, with all due respect, the issue really isn't so clear cut. What is, and is not, terrorism is always subject to the eye of the beholder - double so since, for the purposes of this discussion, we aren't talking about academic distinctions but about prosecutorial ones.


I think you misconstrue what I'm trying to get at. I'm not trying to say that the definition of terrorism/terrorists that I offered is the *right one* but rather that to conflate two separate terms is wrong. Offering a definition of sorts for the word "terrorist" was an attempt to make clear that terrorism does have a meaning (complex and contentious, but mostly at the borders of the iffy 'is-it-isn't-it?' zone, as your examples make clear), and that as I said in my last post, terrorism is a method. Freedom is an objective. How you define that method (broadly or narrowly) is problematic, and I'm sorry if my posts glossed over difficulties in drawing a line between terrorism/non-terrorism.

But I absolutely draw a line between wanting to gain freedom, and the way in which that goal is pursued. I make three points:
1. Terrorism is a method. Freedom is a goal.
2. Some people who fight for freedom adopt terrorist methods. I readily acknowledge this. But not all who pursue freedom do so by terrorism. Some do so non-violently (Gandhi, political independence movements like the SNP)
3. The terms freedom fighter and terrorist are not interchangeable, and to treat them as such (regardless of whether some governments are so terminologically irresponsible) is a disservice to dealing properly with the issues.

That said, LP, your point that prosecuting 'terrorism' is our concern on this thread is a good one, and further complicates trying to understand where a line may be drawn between terrorism/not-terrorism by the legal system of a state facing such a security threat. This line is one which can be drawn without any reference to freedom-fighting. I do not pretend that we can prevent people in the real world from using the terms interchangeably (although it would be good if they did), but it would be helpful if we got our terms clear online at least before we try to tackle questions of suffrage (which are, looking back at your post about sedition, sabotage, etc, getting thornier by the second, in my head at least, thanks to your interesting hypotheticals).

The difference between freedom fighting and terrorism remains regardless of how widely a state defines 'terrorism', unless such things as voting SNP are classed as 'terrorism' in which case, the term will have lost all meaning.



Redcelt: My definition of terrorism was not intended to be cast-iron, and I'm sorry if that is how my post came across. As I said, "(the issue of terrorism)is a complex one, and NOT one that can be reduced to 'perspective'." I'm sorry if, in trying to lay out a working definition of terrorism, I came across as being prescriptive. Reading over it, I see a few 'mostly' 'usually'-type qualifiers in there; I should have included more.

RedCelt69 wrote:If you met someone who called a terrorist (in your eyes) a freedom fighter, saying that they're wrong and you're right isn't helping matters much. As they'd say the same about you. As with so many other matters of human interaction, perspective is more-than-nothing.

Suppose I meet someone who tells me the pavement I'm standing on is fictional. Or someone who tells me that President Obama is a socialist, and a fascist, and a terrorist. Just because they care to use words with no regard for facts (or what the words mean) doesn't make their perspective valid. People use the term terrorist as a pejorative, rather than factually. I can call George Bush a tit (and I do), but obviously he isn't a mammary gland.

As LP helpfully reminded us, we're dealing with legal definitions of terrorism, and judges and lawyers are, I think, capable of deciding that the IRA were terrorists, but that Gandhi wasn't, without being bothered that some angry old men may maintain that the IRA were just fighting for the freedom of Ireland, while some even older angry men think that the Raj should still rule and Gandhi should have been stopped however was expedient.

Oh, and Redcelt, to answer your original retort about a terrorist organisation that I strongly support... I can think of one that I strongly support. And so do you. And virtually everyone in Britain supports them, too. The Suffragettes, or the Women's Social and Political Union, to use their proper title.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby wild_quinine on Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:42 pm

In common parlance 'freedom fighter' would not necessarily include Ghandi. Freedom fighters are generally associated with armed rebellion. But, in a way, that is beside the point. If Ghandi were alive today, there is every chance that he would be branded as a terrorist in certain nation states. And sometimes, I wonder, in our own.

This conversation alone should illustrate that a group of sensibly rational people cannot determine what constitutes terrorism - and we have nothing to gain from the outcome. This is precisely the point. It is incredibly dangerous to trust any state body to determine who should be free, who should vote, what kind of speech is appropriate, etc.

Much, much safer to stick with a blanket rule that gives the state no leeway to subvert the rights of citizens. Even with such blanket rules firmly in place, the state is probably going to have a go anyway. A blanket rule, or near as you can get, is the easiest way to bat them back. Look at the history of challenges, both deliberate and accidental, against the First Ammendment to the US constitution.

You get into woolly terms in those cases, and it is a lost battle. The state wins by default. You need to be able to call them out with a clear, unambiguous, argument to a known state of affairs. The moment you say 'if' something, you've pretty much lost.

EDIT: Pertinent news, just in from the 'too-little-too-late' department: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11804899
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:44 pm

wild_quinine wrote:
This conversation alone should illustrate that a group of sensibly rational people cannot determine what constitutes terrorism - and we have nothing to gain from the outcome. This is precisely the point. It is incredibly dangerous to trust any state body to determine who should be free, who should vote, what kind of speech is appropriate, etc.

Much, much safer to stick with a blanket rule that gives the state no leeway to subvert the rights of citizens. Even with such blanket rules firmly in place, the state is probably going to have a go anyway. A blanket rule, or near as you can get, is the easiest way to bat them back. Look at the history of challenges, both deliberate and accidental, against the First Ammendment to the US constitution.

You get into woolly terms in those cases, and it is a lost battle. The state wins by default. You need to be able to call them out with a clear, unambiguous, argument to a known state of affairs. The moment you say 'if' something, you've pretty much lost.


I see your point, but the obvious counterpoint is that we already trust the British government, police, and judiciary to make laws, enforce them, and decide guilt and punishment without fearing for encroachment on freedom, on voting, or on speech.
Indeed, currently, anyone given a custodial sentence doesn't get to vote, but we don't see a surge in convictions from areas with high numbers of opposition party voters near elections, do we? We don't see the Tories suppressing the Guardian or the Independent, or Labour suppressing the Telegraph. Given that the debate we're having is whether to give the vote back to all people convicted and sentenced to jail, or just to *almost all* of them, its a bit difficult to argue that my position is the first step on a slippery slope. Your slippery slope would seem to lead to where we are now. My position is a lot higher up the slippery slope than the status quo. Granted, your position is a little higher up the slope than mine, but I think the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument ill-serves you in this instance.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby wild_quinine on Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:00 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:I see your point, but the obvious counterpoint is that we already trust the British government, police, and judiciary to make laws, enforce them, and decide guilt and punishment without fearing for encroachment on freedom, on voting, or on speech.


Well, that couldn't be further from the truth. I spent a decade being terrified any time anything bad happened in the UK, because it meant New Labour were going to craft another ill-thought out law in response. And they seemed to specialise in laws that rely on interpretation, just so they could be sure that they could get the bad guys on something. But the side effect is a system of laws where you can get pretty much anyone for something, especially if they want to make a point of standing up for their rights.

And lo, there has been much abuse.

Granted, your position is a little higher up the slope than mine, but I think the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument ill-serves you in this instance.


Why, exactly? Because the slope isn't a precipice? Because you think the slippery slope argument no longer applies if you're actually on it?

OK, let me ask you something else.

What, exactly, do you think it is that makes a nice safe, civilized, sensible western democracy like ours - haha - different from some banana republic where the 'democratically' elected president calls himself 'General Something' and a vote counts for just precisely shit?
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby Hennessy on Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:48 pm

Hang the bastards. That used to work.

Prisoner: "I want my rights!"
Public: "What rights? You're scum."

(Cheerful music plays in background as prisoner is whipped and beaten for his insolence)

Far too many learned gentlemen have spent decades finnessing arguments which reflect ideals about citizens and not reality. Which means we are in the disgusting situation of listening to the villainous axe-murdering scum gloat at us on the telly. Thanks HRA 1998.

We need somebody to have the balls to stand up and say society, like life, is not always fair.

Some people seem to think this is some kind of slippery slope. As well as finding that phrase childish and pretty meaningless I would say I am very happy to see a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in return for a safer and more cohesive society. No doubt someone is going to assault me with a Benjamin Franklin quote for saying that.


In other news prisoners let out on probation committed 121 murders, 103 rapes and 682 other violent offences in just two years. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html)

We really need to break out that whip again and get the nooses ready...
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:40 pm

Hennessy wrote:Some people seem to think this is some kind of slippery slope. As well as finding that phrase childish and pretty meaningless

Lots of philosophers would disagree with you... and I'm siding with them, not you.
Hennessy wrote:I would say I am very happy to see a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in return for a safer and more cohesive society.

So long as it is happening to someone other than you? Or will you happily repeat that sentence whilst incarcerated by a miscarriage of justice? No need for Benjamin Franklin; just an empathy bitchslap.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby Al on Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:00 am

Hennessy wrote:Hang the bastards. That used to work.


Did it? Are you sure?
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby Hennessy on Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:05 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:
Hennessy wrote:Some people seem to think this is some kind of slippery slope. As well as finding that phrase childish and pretty meaningless

Lots of philosophers would disagree with you... and I'm siding with them, not you.


I think my point was there is too much philosophising about the prison system and prisoner's rights in the first place. Not enough practical empirical investigation into what works and what doesn't work. We can't even make up our minds if we want to punish or reform, at the end of decades of argument and counter argument.

Hennessy wrote:I would say I am very happy to see a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in return for a safer and more cohesive society.

So long as it is happening to someone other than you? Or will you happily repeat that sentence whilst incarcerated by a miscarriage of justice? No need for Benjamin Franklin; just an empathy bitchslap.


I don't tend to axe murder many people Redcelt. Nor have I ever been arrested on suspicion of axe-murder. I definitely haven't been convicted in court and for those things to happen while I'm innocent a lot more has to go wrong with our system than I think many people give credit for. Meanwhile to remove the smallest possible chance a miscarriage of justice could take place we are prepared to bend over backwards to limit the inconvenience of a prisoner and reward his remarkable ability to stop murdering or thieving or raping with early release and probationary schemes. I prefer the flawed but recognisably decent system over our current shambles.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby Hennessy on Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:44 pm

Al wrote:
Hennessy wrote:Hang the bastards. That used to work.


Did it? Are you sure?


Would have stopped that vile axe-murdering sack of shit from gloating at us all through the medium of telly. I find myself fully in support of the death penalty. Failing that, and because of all this Ghandi "eye for an eye" crap, I see absolutely no problem in stripping murderers of their rights forever, and suspending the rights of those who have committed lesser offences.
It's fashionable now to see these people as victims themselves, or somehow not that different from us. I'd bet £100 nobody from St Andrews who posts on this board will ever commit a murder, if I'm wrong you can have it in packs of cigarettes and porno mags to share with your cell mates. There is no moral relationship between us and them, there is no debt owed by us to them, for anything. They have already lost their humanity by violently depriving another of life, where is the logic in saying that doesn't mean they should lose the privileges and rights of being human as well?
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:55 pm

wild_quinine wrote:I spent a decade being terrified any time anything bad happened in the UK, because it meant New Labour were going to craft another ill-thought out law in response. And they seemed to specialise in laws that rely on interpretation, just so they could be sure that they could get the bad guys on something. But the side effect is a system of laws where you can get pretty much anyone for something, especially if they want to make a point of standing up for their rights.

And lo, there has been much abuse.

Just because you distrust the government and the legal system and the police doesn't mean that everyone else does, let alone that everyone else has to. And I can't say I'm aware of this wave of abuse, false imprisonment, censorship and disenfranchisement you're referring to. I haven't seen anything mentioned on the BBC. Or are they on the 'automatic mistrust' list as well?

wild_quinine wrote:
Granted, your position is a little higher up the slope than mine, but I think the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument ill-serves you in this instance.


Why, exactly? Because the slope isn't a precipice? Because you think the slippery slope argument no longer applies if you're actually on it?

OK, let me ask you something else.

What, exactly, do you think it is that makes a nice safe, civilized, sensible western democracy like ours - haha - different from some banana republic where the 'democratically' elected president calls himself 'General Something' and a vote counts for just precisely shit?


Who said anything about the slope not being a slope? And do you think that the slippery slope argument doesn't apply to you simply because you've put yourself higher up the slope than the people you're talking to? Unless you advocate eliminating laws, the police and the courts so that no state institution has any power to interfere with people in any way, let alone deprive them of a right or two, you're on the slope. If your vision of reform leaves a law-making body, police and courts, then you're on this same slippery slope that you fear so much; where the state has the power to deprive citizens of rights (even if they get to keep voting and are just locked up, regardless of crime).
To re-iterate, perhaps uselessly if you mistrust the government and the independent courts and police so much, where are the current government efforts to strip us all of our rights? The situation pertaining in Britain right now is further down this supposed slippery slope than the position that either you or I are arguing for, and I fail to see that the current situation is so awful.

Why is the UK different from a banana republic? We don't grow bananas, and David Cameron is not a general. Ha ha.
We've got the military subject to civilian control, a judiciary free of political influence, non-political police, and civil servants who can't be bought. It helps, too, that we have a democratic tradition. The Emergency Powers (Defense) Act 1940 was essentially Parliament voting unfettered dictatorial powers to HM Government for the duration of the war, with both civil and military authority empowered to commandeer, direct, or otherwise use anything or anyone in the country as they saw fit. At the end of the war, the government voted almost all of those powers away again (National Service hung around for a while). And you think our government can't be trusted.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:18 am

jollytiddlywink wrote:We've got the military subject to civilian control, a judiciary free of political influence, non-political police, and civil servants who can't be bought. It helps, too, that we have a democratic tradition.

I don't particularly have a horse in this race, but some of the things you're saying really need a comment. Whilst studying modern history, you could do with paying a little more attention to modern presentry. I know it isn't an actual word, but it was a snug carry-through.

Gordon Brown wanted to extend the maximum number of days someone could be detained without being (technically) arrested. When giving a reason for the UK's record detention period being extended even further into the record books, he said that it was what the police wanted. Now... a state that is run on the basis of what the police wants is given a name. 'Scuse the non-Googling, but I'm pretty sure that it's called a police state. Or something similar. I know that that was the previous government, but if memory serves, the Tories weren't objecting to the idea - else their supporters might accuse them of being less sincere about crime than the Labour Party. Democracy is such a great thing, isn't it?

Aside from the whole of the above, we're the most CCTV-embodied nation on the planet... which is more than a little bit insane, given that we're also the nation that gave the world a book called 1984. Social causality has a sense of humour, at least.

Speaking of a sense of humour, on the matter of civil servants being unbuyable, rent/buy/download Yes Minister (Thatcher loved it) and/or Yes Prime Minister (Thatcher hated it). It is fiction, obviously, but it is fiction based on facts. If you're not educated about the buyability of the civil service, you will at least be entertained. Even now, it is immensely relevant; particularly the episodes concerning cutting wasteful spending - and the replacement of nuclear weapons (back then, it was Polaris) rings very loudly.

And yes, our democratic tradition. Our FPTP system where the 1st and 3rd highest-placed parties run the country on the basis of a non-mandate in a non-representative representative democracy (and a constitutional monarchy), with a bicameral system that still includes non-elected secularists and non-elected religious leaders. No room for any wrong-doing amongst any of that, obviously.

The system is flawed and ripe for abuse - so long as you're not naive enough to think that abuse has to look like the shenanigans of a banana republic. Abuse doesn't have to rely on machine guns and coups.

jollytiddlywink wrote:The Emergency Powers (Defense) Act 1940 was essentially Parliament voting unfettered dictatorial powers to HM Government for the duration of the war, with both civil and military authority empowered to commandeer, direct, or otherwise use anything or anyone in the country as they saw fit. At the end of the war, the government voted almost all of those powers away again (National Service hung around for a while). And you think our government can't be trusted.

That's exactly what the Roman republic used to do. It worked just fine for them. Let's emulate them some more. ^.^
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:56 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:Gordon Brown wanted to extend the maximum number of days someone could be detained without being (technically) arrested. When giving a reason for the UK's record detention period being extended even further into the record books, he said that it was what the police wanted. Now... a state that is run on the basis of what the police wants is given a name. 'Scuse the non-Googling, but I'm pretty sure that it's called a police state.


A nice neat little point, except that the police didn't get the extension, did they? And one instance of a politician referring to 'what the police want' hardly makes the UK a police state. Or maybe the NKVD informer reading this board disagrees with me. o.o

RedCelt69 wrote:Speaking of a sense of humour, on the matter of civil servants being unbuyable, rent/buy/download Yes Minister (Thatcher loved it) and/or Yes Prime Minister (Thatcher hated it). It is fiction, obviously, but it is fiction based on facts. If you're not educated about the buyability of the civil service, you will at least be entertained. Even now, it is immensely relevant; particularly the episodes concerning cutting wasteful spending - and the replacement of nuclear weapons (back then, it was Polaris) rings very loudly.


I've seen all of Yes Prime Minister, thanks. Two things: a comedy program is hardly good evidence. Otherwise we could watch Blackadder Goes Forth (fiction, but based on fact) to understand war as it was in 1917 (terribly historically inaccurate, but very funny). I think you took my point about a civil service that can't be bought and decided 'ah, if I can find a single counter-point...'
The point is that, as a whole, civil servants (which I expand from the Civil Service proper to include all public servants) in Britain do their jobs contentiously, neither look for nor accept bribes, and would report any such improper behavior. This alone puts British government light-years away from places like Russia, where bribery is essential to get almost anything done, even in interactions with the police, and indeed, where government officials will often demand a bribe as the price of them doing their job.

RedCelt69 wrote:And yes, our democratic tradition. Our FPTP system where the 1st and 3rd highest-placed parties run the country on the basis of a non-mandate in a non-representative representative democracy (and a constitutional monarchy), with a bicameral system that still includes non-elected secularists and non-elected religious leaders. No room for any wrong-doing amongst any of that, obviously.


And I suppose, Redcelt, that you'd be happier with democracy if the 2nd highest-placed party was in power instead?
And where do you derive the idea that two parties in coalition, between them mustering more than 50% of the votes cast, do not have a mandate?
The House of Lords is a historical vestige. It is not, as you present it, a monstrous threat to a functioning democracy. At certain points in the past, it has gotten in the way, and each time it has been outmaneuvered or brought into line. And as for the constitutional monarchy: what's the fuss? Does the Queen turn her nose up at every third bill and mutter, "One won't sign that. Far to democratic." ?

The system is flawed and ripe for abuse - so long as you're not naive enough to think that abuse has to look like the shenanigans of a banana republic. Abuse doesn't have to rely on machine guns and coups.


I wasn't the one who mentioned banana republics. Take it up with WQ.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby wild_quinine on Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:33 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:
RedCelt69 wrote:Gordon Brown wanted to extend the maximum number of days someone could be detained without being (technically) arrested.


A nice neat little point, except that the police didn't get the extension, did they?


No, they did not. But let us not pretend that this occured as a grand cosmic event, observed only as an echo of the past, from a far distant star system.

It didn't happen because we, as a nation, didn't let it happen.

If you think that this state of affairs supports your position better than mine then, good luck with that and all, but the 'sit back and trust your government' policy you're putting forwards suggests that you were on the losing side of that particular debate, and it's therefore a mite irking to see you trumpeting it as some kind of a soapbox slamdunk.

I've seen all of Yes Prime Minister, thanks. Two things: a comedy program is hardly good evidence. Otherwise we could watch Blackadder Goes Forth (fiction, but based on fact) to understand war as it was in 1917 (terribly historically inaccurate, but very funny).


You're right that they don't *contain* evidence, per se. But in a way, they *are* evidence. Many of the jokes in both of those shows are pure satire. Satire works by referencing known states of affairs, and riffing off them. Satire is very hard to do properly, because if you are self-evidently wrong in your assumptions, then it isn't funny.

The point is that, as a whole, civil servants (which I expand from the Civil Service proper to include all public servants) in Britain do their jobs contentiously, neither look for nor accept bribes, and would report any such improper behavior. This alone puts British government light-years away from places like Russia, where bribery is essential to get almost anything done, even in interactions with the police, and indeed, where government officials will often demand a bribe as the price of them doing their job.


To paraphrase: I find your glut of faith disturbing.

But OK, let's assume that you are absolutely correct here. Let's assume that our civil servants are (nearly) incorruptible. It's actually a better example than the banana republic hypothetical that I put forwards. I'll use the same argument:

What exactly do you think it is that makes Britain better in that respect than Russia?

It can't be the people, obviously. People are people, anywhere you go. You could suggest that it's the culture, and you'd be partially correct, but you'd be on some pretty thin ice. You could suggest it's the economic situation, and I'd agree that this must contribute... but there are probably poor countries less corrupt than our own, and rich ones more so.

I put it to you that the main difference is that the system is better maintained to enable us to be democratic, fair, and responsible. But where we differ is that I do not believe that this sort of thing takes care of itself.

This is a very, very hard state of affairs to manufacture, but it's terribly easy to lose. It takes huge amounts of work, thought, honesty, tolerance and sacrifice to maintain a semi-functional democracy and too, too little to give it away.

Education is very, very valuable here. Understanding is very valuable. Philosophy, believe it or not, is a practical skill.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:09 am

jollytiddlywink wrote:And I suppose, Redcelt, that you'd be happier with democracy if the 2nd highest-placed party was in power instead?

I'd obviously be happier with a different government. That, however, isn't the point I was making. Primarily, the problem is with us using FPTP. It resulted in too many wasted votes... and a shambles of a result.

jollytiddlywink wrote:And where do you derive the idea that two parties in coalition, between them mustering more than 50% of the votes cast, do not have a mandate?

I've mentioned it already, but I'll recap.

A true democracy (the original kind) involved every citizen personally attending meetings to make decisions. That isn't reasonably practical in a state with as many citizens as we have, so we use representatives. The idea is, we choose people to represent our beliefs. They're meant to vote the way we would vote if we were actually in an enormous parliament building. How do we decide who will best represent us? By choosing amongst them, based on them telling us what they're going to be doing. They tell us what they're going to be doing in their manifestos.

That's how a representative democracy works - and ministers who act on their manifestos have a mandate from the people.

If a party gets into power and doesn't follow their manifesto, then they aren't representing those people who voted for them and they lose their mandate.

The coalition government is working without a mandate from the people. Nobody voted for what we ended up with.

Hence my statement.

As with everything else, I was providing a brief synopsis of the type of government we have. It isn't something to be lauded. By anyone. Regardless of how rosey your glasses are.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:00 am

Hennessy wrote:I'd bet £100 nobody from St Andrews who posts on this board will ever commit a murder, if I'm wrong you can have it in packs of cigarettes and porno mags to share with your cell mates. There is no moral relationship between us and them, there is no debt owed by us to them, for anything. They have already lost their humanity by violently depriving another of life, where is the logic in saying that doesn't mean they should lose the privileges and rights of being human as well?


For what it's worth, I very nearly shot someone the other day. Arguably self-defence if I had, what with the individual in question being mentally disturbed and suffering from occasional homicidal rages, having one at that moment, and also in illegal possession of a rifle. And yet... who can say how a jury would have ruled? I know someone who committed as clear a case of self-defence killing as can be (someone was hosing down his house with an AK-47 while his wife and kid were inside so he shot the machine-gun toting maniac with a hunting shotgun) but spent seven years serving a life murder sentence before having his conviction overturned by a higher court... all because of who he was and who he shot in a small town.

Gladly, I didn't have to shoot anyone, staying successfully hid until the individual calmed down and went away (he's since been committed, thankfully), but if I had, I would have liked the porno mags, keep the cigs, thank you very much.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:08 am

I have to call this round for Wild Quinine so far. Pains me to do so since my position is somewhat further down the slippery slope than jollytiddlywink's (though not as far as Hennessey's) but good argument is good argument and I think he has you over a barrel, WQ, regarding the trustworthiness of the state. Also a very good defence of the relevance of satire.

RedCelt, I'm on the fence about the coalition government not being democratic issue. I want to agree with you and yet... a republican or parliamentary system of government is already such an abstraction of democracy that I can't feel that something like your current coalition is that bad, provided the agreed-upon rules permit it. Presumably those rules were created by the representatives, and whatever abides by them can be said to be in accordance with their Will, but then again, it's all so abstract, who the hell can really say?
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby Hennessy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:26 pm

Does anyone else think we should have LP do a little summation at the end of a debate? I rather like it.

As this is the sinner I'll add a disclaimer to say that was NOT intended as sarcasm.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Rights of Suffrage to Prisoners?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:58 am

wild_quinine wrote:No, they did not (get an extension to the length of detainment). But let us not pretend that this occured as a grand cosmic event, observed only as an echo of the past, from a far distant star system.

It didn't happen because we, as a nation, didn't let it happen.

If you think that this state of affairs supports your position better than mine then, good luck with that and all, but the 'sit back and trust your government' policy you're putting forwards suggests that you were on the losing side of that particular debate, and it's therefore a mite irking to see you trumpeting it as some kind of a soapbox slamdunk.


Hang on. Stick to the facts, if you please. I didn't support the extension, thank you very much. And I think you'll find that it didn't happen because Parliament didn't vote for it. If you want to attribute that solely to public pressure, fine, do so, but you can't then pretend that government is broken. Parliament responding to public pressure is government working exactly as planned.
We got into this because Redcelt named a single instance of a single politician supporting a proposed policy partly on the idea that the police were in favour of it, failed to note that the policy didn't come to pass, and then threw out the words "police state". If you want to have a go at someone for not being on the same side as you, Hennessey would seem a better target (apologies to Hennessey, but he did, after all, say "hang the bastards!"). If you want to have a go at someone for soapbox slamdunks, then may I suggest Redcelt?




I've seen all of Yes Prime Minister, thanks. Two things: a comedy program is hardly good evidence. Otherwise we could watch Blackadder Goes Forth (fiction, but based on fact) to understand war as it was in 1917 (terribly historically inaccurate, but very funny).
You're right that they don't *contain* evidence, per se. But in a way, they *are* evidence. Many of the jokes in both of those shows are pure satire. Satire works by referencing known states of affairs, and riffing off them. Satire is very hard to do properly, because if you are self-evidently wrong in your assumptions, then it isn't funny.


They aren't evidence of fact. They are evidence merely of public perception. Blackadder Goes Forth relies on public perception of the war, which is often very far divorced from fact. If you want evidence for this, I can give you a PhD-length bibliography of books to confirm this. I suspect that Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are equally based on public perception, which may or may not bear any relation to fact. So unless you have any actual evidence to back your point, perhaps we can move on.


The point is that, as a whole, civil servants (which I expand from the Civil Service proper to include all public servants) in Britain do their jobs contentiously, neither look for nor accept bribes, and would report any such improper behavior. This alone puts British government light-years away from places like Russia, where bribery is essential to get almost anything done, even in interactions with the police, and indeed, where government officials will often demand a bribe as the price of them doing their job.

To paraphrase: I find your glut of faith disturbing.

But OK, let's assume that you are absolutely correct here. Let's assume that our civil servants are (nearly) incorruptible. It's actually a better example than the banana republic hypothetical that I put forwards. I'll use the same argument:

What exactly do you think it is that makes Britain better in that respect than Russia?

It can't be the people, obviously. People are people, anywhere you go. You could suggest that it's the culture, and you'd be partially correct, but you'd be on some pretty thin ice. You could suggest it's the economic situation, and I'd agree that this must contribute... but there are probably poor countries less corrupt than our own, and rich ones more so.

I put it to you that the main difference is that the system is better maintained to enable us to be democratic, fair, and responsible. But where we differ is that I do not believe that this sort of thing takes care of itself.

This is a very, very hard state of affairs to manufacture, but it's terribly easy to lose. It takes huge amounts of work, thought, honesty, tolerance and sacrifice to maintain a semi-functional democracy and too, too little to give it away.

Education is very, very valuable here. Understanding is very valuable. Philosophy, believe it or not, is a practical skill.


Again, you're ascribing positions to me: "where we differ is...".
I don't think that this situation takes care of itself, either. If you go back to an earlier post of mine, wherein I was arguing my reasons for wanting to deprive voting rights from those guilty of treason, etc, then you'd see that I share many of your concerns about how to preserve a democratic, pluralistic society and government, although I suspect that I may have mentioned them obliquely rather than full-on explicitly at the time. Essentially, my reason for wishing to continue to deprive a certain (very small) number of prisoners of the vote is to help preserve the democratic system itself. You may consider that paradoxical, and it is, but so is the flip-side of an open and tolerant society which tolerates an intolerant viewpoint. But I'd be glad if we could engage on this seriously, without Redcelt flinging "police state" into the conversation, and without you, WQ, implying that I've got a totalitarian streak and support extended police detention.
You and I, WQ, if I've read your case correctly, are so very nearly on the same page, albeit by different routes. You want (correct me, please, if I'm wrong), to ensure that all prisoners have the vote. I want to ensure that almost all prisoners have the vote. Where we differ, over those few prisoners, we're both arguing that our stance is the better one for sustaining our democratic system; you arguing that ALL must have the vote, because any exception is dangerous and a slippery slope, and I arguing that some very select crimes, those opposed to democracy and tolerance, should not get to participate in a system they seek to violently destroy.

Oh, and a little find I made on the BBC this morning. It doesn't address all our discussions about government being trust-worthy, but I hope it illustrates my point about the UK having civil servants who do their jobs without money in brown envelopes changing hands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11954667

Edit for a typo.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron