New Section: CODA: PRISONERS RIGHTS Declare as against Parliamentary Supremacy In 2005, Strasbourg ruled that the blanket

t ban on prisoners votin ri !ts was a breac! of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the European on!ention on "u#an $ights% &he "abo#r overn$ent %aile& to &evelop polic' on this issue before defeat in the election of 2010% oalition polic', %o#n&e& on a co$pro$ise o% rantin a li$ite& class o% prisoners !oting rights, was re(ecte& b' Parlia$ent, and the blan(et ban continued in force%

 &he E t"$ responded b' re) affir#ing its original decision, and ivin t!e overn$ent a si)* $ont! &ea&line %or re%or$* a deadline that was subse+uentl' e,tended% -hile the oalition go!ern#ent !acillates in its approach to prisoner.s rights, critics o% Strasbo#r !ave sei+e& #pon t!e co#rts r#lin s to ar #e t!at its inter%erence in polic' $akin !as one too %ar% &he ti#e has co#e, so the argu#ent goes, to ,stan& #p to Strasbo#r and assert t!e soverei nt' o% Parlia$ent, e!en if this #eans that the -. is in breac! o% its international obli ations%

A: Blanket ban is against fundamental principle, should rule by law &he E#ropean co$$issioner for hu#an rights, T!o$as Ha$$arber , has countered this argu#ent% "e has asserted that/ An' weakenin o% t!e !#$an ri !ts protections in the act would be noted outside the 01, and welco#ed b' less de#ocratic states as tacit enco#ra e$ent to weaken t!eir own !#$an ri !ts protections/ % % % -hat the 01 does toda' will send a powerful signal to other states about what the' can do to#orrow% "a##arberg has criticised the general lac( of (nowledge and the tone of debate in the 01 about the on!ention/ I #ust sa' that I find so#e of the criticis# here in the -. a ainst t!e Strasbo#r s'ste$ surprisingl' ill)infor#ed, and I ha!e hoped that the politicians w!o know better wo#l& stan& #p stron er a ainst t!is pop#list and )enop!obic discourse%

 &he following point is worth pondering/ -niversal s#%%ra e is a %#n&a$ental principle in a &e$ocrac'% 2' position is that a blanket0 a#to$atic ban &oes in&ee& violate basic principles% If &eprivation o% t!e ri !t to vote is to be a p#nis!$ent, t!en t!is s!o#l& be e)pressl' spelle& o#t in eac! in&ivi&#al case b' a (#&icial a#t!orit'/ "a##arberg is not ar #in t!at prisoners s!o#l& * wit!o#t 1#estion * !ave t!e ri !t to !ote% "is argu#ent is that a 3blanket ban is a violation o% !#$an ri !ts principles/

 Such principles are entirel' co!erent wit! t!e ar #$ent t!at prisoners s!o#l& be &eprive& o% t!e ri !t to vote as a punish#ent% 4epri!ing a prisoner of the right to !ote, would, howe!er, !ave to be ,e)pressl' spelle& o#t/ Surel' this general approach is a &evelop$ent o% r#le o% law principles that are #eant to be central to the English legal s'ste# and the constitution% -here the state has the power to depri!e an indi!idual of a right0 s#c! a power s!o#l& be care%#ll' circ#$scribe& b' t!e law% "a##arberg.s point is well #ade% riticis#s of the on!ention and the E t"$ appear to be dri!en b' ,enophobia and ignorance, rather than an understanding of hu#an rights%