Rudders on the Prowl

The Liberal Lion of Auckland Roars

OK, we consider ourselves thoroughly ticked off. We were just stupidly going along with the idea that prisoners ought not to be able to vote. It seemed reasonable. Paul Quinn's private member's Bill to that effect seemed like a sound common sense measure of retributive justice.

Then, suddenly, out of nowhere Brian Rudman the liberal lion of Auckland dumped on us big time. He pilloried us for "inventing new and twisted ways of pulling the wings off prisoners". How loathsome could we get? Clearly we needed to rethink our position.

We breathlessly began to look through Rudman's indictment for coherent arguments against our naive and stupid opinion. First was a really trenchant ad hominen attack on people like us. Rudders pointed out that we were all elitist snobs who could not bring ourselves to think that our votes should rub up alongside the votes of criminals. Good one, Brian. That really hit the spot. Nothing like a bit of good old poisoning of the well to get people away from your opponents and rushing over to the side of the liberal lion. Clearly Rudders must have been paying attention when he was a neophyte in logic classes at his dear old Auckland University.

Sorry about the sarcasm. We are only imitating our opponent. Consider this for instance:

However, if former Treasury analyst Mr Quinn were to venture out of his economic textbooks, he might discover that a democracy based on universal suffrage is the form of governance that has evolved in countries of our kind, and that however much we might roll our eyes at some of the more odious views and actions of those we disagree with, it's proved to be a more resilient, and fairer, system of governance than any other on offer.

Tut. Tut. Now, just to get this right. Universal suffrage democracy is the big deal. Any restriction, any disenfranchisement is a clear and present danger to democracy--the fairest government of them all. We know so; Rudders asks his magic mirror daily, and he tells us so. So, you see, disenfranchising prisoners is the thin end of the wedge: it is blasphemy, blasphemy, he tells us.

Well, Brian old chap, how about fourteen year olds, or three year olds for that matter? No, seriously. Answer the question. We just want to know whether you are willing to countenance any restrictions upon suffrage whatsoever. Is universal suffrage really universal, old boy? And if not, then presumably you will need to go through some ratiocinations to restrict voting to say, maybe, people eighteen and older. And as soon as you do--well, then, we need to urge you to get your head out of your ideological ostrich hole and just for once in your life learn that

a democracy based on universal suffrage is the form of governance that has evolved in countries of our kind, and that however much we might roll our eyes at some of the more odious views and actions of those we disagree with, it's proved to be a more resilient, and fairer, system of governance than any other on offer.

Don't you for a moment suggest, arrogant chap, that you can roll your eyes at the views of a child, as if somehow the political opinion of a child were not as good or sophisticated as your own. Sauce for goose and gander, old boy.

Next argument. Brian sententiously informs us that banning a prisoner from voting is arbitrary.

You cannot blanket ban anyone who crosses the prison door whether it's one day or three years, because it's arbitrary.

Arbitrary is bad. Blanket bans are bad. So they are on three year olds--and as for withholding the vote from a seventeen year old--cravenly arbitrary. "Arbitrary" would be where there is no rational selection in deciding who should have the vote. One would think that disenfranchising prisoners is anything but arbitrary: it is a clearly defined category, and one which self-selects. And it is hardly a blanket ban. It is a very specific and focused ban.

Ah, but who are we mere mortals to question the superior wisdom of the liberal lion of Auckland? We are backwoods rubes, after all. Let's hasten to Brian's next argument: he gets all worked up citing the expert opinions of the priests and priestesses at the temple of human rights.

The Human Rights Commission echoed this, calling "the right to vote in elections, without discrimination, ... one of the most fundamental of human rights and civil liberties." Arguing that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment, the commission said "disenfranchisement has no proven deterrent effect and it can actively undermine the ability of prisoners to engage constructively with the very society to which they will be released when discharged and, thus, their eventual social rehabilitation."

People are "sent to prison as punishment, nor for punishment . . ." That has to be the most scintillating sophistry we have read in decades. Where do these people get this from? Look, just humour an old hayseed for a moment. Going to prison is a punishment, but you don't go there to be punished? Wow. We never saw that one coming? You need to have a university degree to work that one out. Clearly removal of every freedom right in the book, and the suspension of virtually every demand right in the book is intrinsic to incarceration. Is that punishment, or not? Does it involve a suspension and removal of rights, or not? Well, of course it does. Even we dumb rubes who don't have history degrees from the good old Auckland University can see that.

So the real question--and the one you have to argue to carry your case, old boy--is that voting rights need to be placed in a special category as being more important and more fundamental than every other human right which has been suspended and prorogued by virtue of being a prisoner. Now, we know why you don't want to argue that--it would be a very, very difficult argument to mount. If imprisonment means anything, it means a suspension of rights. You can only carry the case if you prove that suffrage rights trump all those other rights which are lost when one is incarcerated.

Now, through the bluster and emoting, Brian does make an effort, in a sort of half-baked way. Again, citing his mentors, the Human Rights Commission, he parrots their idea that

The commission argued that "modern democracies are based on the concept that all people - including prisoners - have rights simply by virtue of their common humanity" and therefore, "to disregard their right to vote becomes a fundamental breach of the social contract".

Dear me. Question begging is not an argument. What is at issue is whether prisoners have a right to vote. A mere assertion that modern democracies are based on the concept of prisoners being able to vote will hardly do. The issue is whether they ought they to be so based on such a concept. Dear Brian, while it may seem compelling to cite the Human Rights Commission it means nothing. You have to actually stand there and make an argument for the position--not just beg the question.

You are dealing with backwoods rubes, after all. We like to think things through--slowly, to be sure. We cannot keep up with your lightning fast brain. Make an argument, Brian. Don't just assert. Until you do we will cling to old fashioned nostrums such as, maintaining the rule of law and social order is foundational to civil society and civil rights.

An incarcerated criminal, by definition, has acted to attack and undermine both civil society and the civil rights of others. A condign punishment is that for an appropriate time the criminal's demand rights, freedom rights, and civil rights be removed by force by the state. The relevant principle of justice is that the one who undermines and attacks civil society and the civil rights of others should suffer withdrawal from the benefits of civil society and have his rights suspended. Justice therefore requires the suspension of voting rights of criminals during the time of their punishment. It is a grave injustice to allow voting rights for incarcerated criminals.

Your move, Brian.