by David Clendon
The UK has come under heavy criticism from both the UN and the Council of Europe for its ban on prisoners’ voting.
Despite this John Key’s Government is pushing ahead with the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill to disenfranchise prisoners. They have provided no evidence that this bill will achieve anything, and it is now clear that it will open New Zealand up to criticism from the UN.
As I argued in Parliament this bill is intended to take away voting rights from all prisoners, will do nothing to make our society safer. If anything it will do the opposite.
As I’ve asked before – what will this bill achieve? Or does this not matter to John Key’s Government with its evident commitment to a populist and irrational approach to the justice system regardless of the cost to society?
Published in Environment & Resource Management by David Clendon on Wed, April 28th, 2010
Tags: David Clendon, electoral (disqualification of convicted prisoners) amendment bill, Green Party, human rights, prisoners
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
By “UN” I have a picture of people from all the worlds nations holding hands. Is that a fair characterisation?
Like or Dislike:
7 
7 (0)
Like or Dislike:
13 
7 (+6)
Like or Dislike:
15 
10 (+5)
It’s not a premise founded on rehabilitation or re-integration. It is simply a move to disenfranchise those who are least entitled and therefore unlikely to vote National.
In short, a National disgrace.
Creating a disenfranchised class is not too clever – no matter whether one supports this nonsense or not.
NZ has more than it’s fair share of the underpriveliged – in spite of this country’s great natural wealth.
And those crooks who don’t get punished?
And those who are wrongly imprisoned?
The UK is about to get a new Government – small wonder.
As the current nz govt pushes ahead with it’s drive to imprison ever more people – a ripple effect will count against this thinking.
To watch this do-nothing good govt self-destruct one need only stand back and watch.
Effective opposition is not required for policies that bear no saving graces.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
jh’s Dictionary:
Colonisation: The natural process of the colonisers becoming a majority and giving up of past rights by the invaded peoples once they become the minority (jh is always in the majority, even when in the minority).
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A woolly document written by a group of long haired, hand holding Pol Pot supporters that may threaten the existence of our white bait huts.
Green MPs: A dangerous group of subversives (with Pol Pot connections) who are undermining the very fabric of society by demanding equality and open, fair processes.
Maori: A group of agitating people with dubious ancestory who need to accept their minority status and stop threatening our white bait huts and the rights of our dairy farmers to earn a good living by claiming historical connections to land.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi: A historical document that has no relevance today.
United Nations: A group of long haired, hand holding, Pol Pot supporters who actively attempt to restrict the rights of the western majority (percieved) to wage decent wars, maximise profits and access recources in other countries.
jh-Am I close? I confess I guessed some of it because there appeared to be a certain logic in your comments.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
…..
In the context of the 1800′s it was a process where people from (Britain) moved to what were considered under populated (100,000) places where native societies were primarily hunter gatherers. The numbers of people arriving and superior technology (plus built up immunity to the diseases the populations carried) meant that they soon had the upper hand. Whether we would do the same today is moot, but the situation wouldn’t be the same today as a native race would have access to the technologies of a modern society.
Some people claim that we are in another phase of colonisation (but Keith says “anti immigration sentiment has no place in the Green Party”).
Maori had a go at it too:
.”In the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individual iwi considered carrying their martial culture beyond the shores of New Zealand. At least three expeditions of conquest were planned: to Samoa, to Norfolk Island, and to the Chatham Islands, which did not become part of New Zealand until 1842. All these proposed expeditions were dependent on finding transport to those places: and that meant finding a European ship’s captain whose vessel was available for charter; or it meant Maori commandeering a vessel for the purpose.
In the event there were no expeditions to Norfolk Island or to Samoa because the necessary transport was not secured. But there was an invasion of the Chathams Islands. Two Taranaki tribes then based in Wellington, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga ki Poneke, hijacked a European vessel in 1835 and had themselves—a total of 900 people—delivered to Chatham Islands. There they takahi’d or walked the land to claim it; ritually killed around 300 Chatham Moriori out of a total of around 1600, and enslaved the survivors—separating husbands from wives, parents from children, forbidding them to speak their own language or practise their own customs, and forcing them to violate the tapus of their culture, whose mana was based on the rejection of violence.
Was this a superior form of colonisation to that imposed by European on Maori? Did it respect the dignity and customs of the colonised? Did it acknowledge the mana whenua of the tchakat henu or indigenous people of the Chathams? It did not. It was what might now be called an exercise in ethnic cleansing. When Bishop Selwyn arrived in the islands in 1848, it was to discover that the Maori called Moriori “Paraiwhara” or “Blackfellas”; and it was to report that the Moriori population continued to decline at a suicidal rate as a consequence of kongenge or despair. Moriori slaves were not released and New Zealand law was not established on the islands until 1862, twenty years after they had become part of New Zealand. And it is that twenty years of neglect of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown that is the basis for the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon. ”
http://sof.org.nz/origins.htm
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Green MPs: A dangerous group of subversives (with Pol Pot connections) who are undermining the very fabric of society by demanding equality and open, fair processes.
…….
equality under te tiritti? 60 seats in parliament??
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
jh-I’ll take that as an agreement to my definition.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Actually Prisoners Rights Are traditionallyat the bottom of the list of Vote Catching issues.
These people have had their humanity stripped already. And No. We just don’t care – save the whale!
However – when the Masterminds in Government boost GST to 15%
Well the Local Labour Guy is gleefull at the prospect of the ensuing electoral bonfire of the vanities – eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Posted this last Nite – travels well hey?
Joseph Conrad; Heart of Darkness.
“But these chaps were not much account, really.
They were no colonists, their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect.
They were conquerors,and for that you want only brute force – nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others.
They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got.
It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind – as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
By ‘jh’ I have a picture …
http://blog.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/graphics/william_gihon.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
missing it’s antennae and a wide-angle lens
obviously taken in happier times
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Green MPs: A dangerous group of subversives (with Pol Pot connections) who are undermining the very fabric of society by demanding equality and open, fair processes.
……
That’s a bit sweeping, I would put them all in the “bunch of nana” basket.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
The ‘bunch of nana basket’ was given to jh by a prankster friend. It sits beside his chair and he gazes at it lovingly, feeling that it gives his life true meaning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
stephensmikm: “the views of people who do wrong is [sic] society should never be considered”
I personally consider people who drive Hummers, who conspire to dig up our national parks, and to take away the vote from a subsection of society as doing wrong, yet I still believe they should still be able to vote. Hell, according to the s 123 of the Crimes Act 1961 I could serve a prison sentence of one year for blasphemy, and I’m sure there are plenty of other prisoners who are serving time for crimes that people wouldn’t consider “criminal.”
What this all really boils down to is people considering criminals as a particular class of people, rather than people who just break they law. You always hear people who whenever they commit some minor offense their response is “but I’m not a criminal”. Criminals aren’t those young people who walk around in Hoodies and drive around in fast cars. They are merely people who’ve broken the law.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
@josh
Yes you are right to an extent I probably over-generalised in that comment but you see society sets the laws by who they vote into power, then the power in question will change it or not , get booted out and the next power will or the like – Our laws are societies governing regulations , our Moral compasses, if you break a criminal offence you are acting immorally no matter what your personal convictions are, the majority has spoken
What I mean by people in jail is that anyone who has been convicted with an indictable offence (an offence over 1-3-14+ yrs in NZ, dependant on crime) would lose their voting privileges during their stay in the jail cells they won’t be contributing towards any more – and they’ll deserve it. If you are a detriment to society why can you have a say, you are draining tax dollars if you are in jail, you can refuse to engage in any activities and people such as Graeme Burton can try to kill as many people as they like and under our legal system would merely serve a concurrent sentence – that’s why they shouldn’t get the vote, they are in their for a reason
- what that will mean is only the heavy trafficking offences , the homicide crimes and violent and sexual assaults will get through really
but since I own a copy of the 1961 crimes act with annotation in full here’s a couple of other weird laws you may not be aware of that’ll get you in the clink for a nice long time:
interfering with someone’s computer -7-10 years
watch out mum’s and dads’ who sneek a peek at their teenager’s computers !
contaminating crops
Misconduct in respect of human remains
the offence who alluded to however is not for us regular public but for people who publish wilfully blatantly wrong information about a person and since ‘good faith’ applies very few people could ever be charged under it unless they had a really crap lawyer and were stupid and there was a really such Attorney General – I very much doubt the Hon. Mr Finlayson would let it happen
I do not support extending the disenfranchisement outside of jail like they can in the USA but the thing is the people who are in Jail made that conscious decision to be there in one way or another – whether a 40yr old maintaining a relationship with a 15 yr old or a drink driver who hit a child or the guy who tries to smuggle in heroin – they all made that choice knowing full well the consequences – and these people cannot be allowed a say in how society run if they are not a part of it
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
stephensmikm – prisoners are not part of society?
Nonsense!
Criminals both inside and outside of prison are part and parcel of society – one doesn’t exist without the other, therefore your claim,
“these people cannot be allowed a say in how society run if they are not a part of it”
is nonsense.
You are simply seeking to extend their punishment with your desire to take their right to vote away.
I’m guessing too, that you would like to see the police extinguish the rights of criminals that they have failed to successfully prosecute, lose their right to vote as well, after all, they are criminals and have made the same conscious decision you cite. Police know too, who those people are who will become criminals, so they too should be barred from voting. Let’s give the police those powers, eh stephen (if they don’t have them already).
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
National MP thinks “It will stop lots of people who are very likely to vote Labour from voting…woops, did I say that out loud?”
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
stephensmikm – further to your oppressive suggestions …
I can see that a sane person wouldn’t give a murderer a gun or a knife, but a vote !
What are you afraid they’ll do with it?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
stephensmikm and fly-perhaps we should exclude many more from voting, a suggested list:
prisoners, drug addicts, those with a history of mental illness, those with suspected dementia, those who have tested low in IQ tests, those who have overdue fines, gang members, alcoholics, currupt financial advisors, muslims, tuhoe, jh, piano accordian players…..and there would have to be an annual assessment of eligibility.
Or we could say all New Zealand citizens of voting age who are directly effected by government decisions should have a vote.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
greenfly: he’s probably afraid that they’ll vote Green! Now that’s a weapon of real political influence right there.
stephensmikm: For a start I take it that you’ll submit on this bill then that voting is not taken away from all prisoners, but only those who are convicted of an indictable (or maybe purely indictable) offence? The bill we are talking about just takes away the vote from all prisoners, including those who are serving time for summary offences.
Second, I disagree with your argument that “Our laws are societies governing regulations , our Moral compasses, if you break a criminal offence you are acting immorally no matter what your personal convictions are, the majority has spoken”. For a start, your definition of moral is just that which the majority of society thinks is moral, which is a plain appeal to the masses.
Second, to allow the majority of people to disenfranchise a particular set of individuals merely because of what they think they do is wrong (note I am not claiming here that everyone sitting in jail not ought to be there) is a clear example of tyranny of the majority. To be a democracy, we ought to include all members of society, even those who’s choices we think are abhorrent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Voting is a privilege people died to gain – those who can not abide by society’s rules to the extent where they get a prison sentence should lose their rights – they have shown none to society, why should they gain from it. It’s about time people took responsibility for their actions and realised those actions have repercussions!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
That is a bit sad and I agree that shouldn’t happen, it should only be people who have been in an indictable offence – if someone’s merely locked up during the election period then they should still be allowed to be given a advance vote (saves having to set up polling stations in jails)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Anne – no ‘rights’ for prisoners, eh!
“those who can not abide by society’s rules to the extent where they get a prison sentence should lose their rights – they have shown none to society, why should they gain from it”
Freedom from torture – gone under your rule, Anne?
Prisoners rights to food and shelter, gone?
That’s hard-hearted (in fact cruel) of you Anne.
Did that prisoner disregard all of society’s ‘rights’ as you state, or just some?
Why do you support the removal of their right to vote, rather than, say, their right to have access to water?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
@josh
Yes I would be willing to make a submission stating that people that have not been indicted should not be punished
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@David Clendon: Good question, “What will this achieve?”
(a) Will it secure votes? It might be a populist move by PM Key trying to secure his tenure by appealing to the “irrationality of the masses” (assuming that the masses will think it’s a good idea, which I think is not certain).
(b) Will it alter the democratic franchise? Well, yes, of course it will. It drives the thin end of the wedge straight into the principle at the heart of democratic franchise – “One person, one vote”. An American would say, “Take that away from me? Over my dead body.”, but we NZers will probably roll over and let it happen.
(c)Is it a diversionary tactic? Goodness knows, the country is in such a mess and being so badly managed by our elected (and corrupt, as the expenses rort/debacle has shown) representatives, maybe a diversion – any diversion – of our attention away from that is considered necessary by the incumbent MPs.
Our American friend might say that this proposal is just another example of how NZ liberty is being progressively eroded by the corrupt, and that we are some 10 years behind the UK in this, which seems well on the way to Perdition.
Whose vote will be affected? Well, if the statistics are to be believed, then the demographics of the NZ prison population shows a massively skewed over-representation by a minority – the Maori group. Would the Maori MPs want their voters reduced in any number?
Personally, I think this proposal is a great idea (NOT). After we’ve taken the vote away from prison inmates (and that could be for life if they are on a life sentence), then we should next consider taking it away from Down’s syndrome sufferers, old ladies with funny-looking faces and people with club feet. Oh, yes – not to forget the Green voters and their MPs – “A dangerous group of subversives (with Pol Pot connections) who are undermining the very fabric of society by demanding equality and open, fair processes.” (thanks jh!) Those ruddy Greenies never vote the way they should oughta.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)