When the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement on the claim of breach of human rights against a Muslim woman in France, affected by the government ban on the wearing of the Niqab, was released, I felt bewildered. Somehow the court managed to abrogate her claims of human rights violations and argued instead, that the rights of all others were infringed. Its reasons are even more strange. Read my comment in Open Democracy
Anti-social subjectivity infringing the principle of ‘Living Together’
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided yesterday, that British prisoners have no separate right as European citizens to claim voting rights in European and local elections, along the national elections. The court says that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) apply nevertheless, which requested that Britain qualify specifications as to which prisoners should be allowed or denied the right to vote. ECHR has declared previously that a blank denial to all prisoners was breaching the European Convention of Human Rights. In 2012 Britain set up a commission to examine which prisoners should receive the right to vote. In that they meet ECHR requirements, but the process can take a long time, even if it may be prolonged politically on purpose. David Cameron publicly stated that he disapproves of prisoners being allowed to vote, and went on record last year, that the right to vote would not be introduced under his government. Whilst he called the decision a victory common sense, whilst Juliet Lyon, the director of the Prison Reform Trust said that denial was antiquated 19th Century practice and a waste of resources.