Confronting censorship in prison
John Bowden, HMP Glenochil | 20.10.2009 21:46 | Analysis | Other Press | Repression
The suppression of political literature and material considered ‘subversive’ is a long-established habit on the part of prison administrations who view the spread and dissemination of radical ideas amongst prisoners as a real threat to the authority of prison staff and the system they enforce.
Preventing the circulation of material critical of the prison system and denying prisoners the right to publically air matters of legitimate public interest (ie the treatment of citizens in state custody) tends also to be considered by prison managers an important and necessary component of a system of absolute control. Secrecy and concealment remain important tools in the disempowerment and isolation of prisoners.
Fortunately, the development of prison-based litigation and the access won by prisoners to human rights law has progressively weakened the power of prison management to hinder and obstruct information accessed by prisoners and the right of prisoners to publically voice their criticism of the prison system. Under current European human rights legislation, in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (freedom of expression) prison managers who impose blanket bans on radical political literature and the dissemination of material critical of the prison system are now acting unlawfully and can be held legally accountable for their actions.
Unfortunately, some prison governors continue to exhibit a contempt for the law in this regard and almost wilfully continue to behave in a way reminiscent of a time when their power over prisoners was absolute and prisoners existed in a vacuum devoid of any legal and civil rights and protections whatsoever.
Earlier this year I wrote and distributed an article critical of prison ‘Close Supervision Centres’ (control units) and a Prison Service policy document called ‘Managing Challenging Behaviour Strategy’. In the article I accused the Prison Service of institutionalising a system of repression that breached the human rights of prisoners. The article was published by the prison newspaper Inside Time and the radical political newspaper Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! (FRFI). Although no attempt was made by prison managers to prevent the distribution of the issue of Inside Time that contained my article, a blanket ban on FRFI was imposed by the governors of Woodhill and Wakefield prisons, both locations of Close Supervision Centres. Following complaints by prisoner subscribers to FRFI at Woodhill and Wakefield, Larkin Publications, who publish and distribute FRFI, wrote to the governors at both jails seeking an explanation for the ban. in her response, the governor of Wakefield jail openly admitted to imposing a blanket ban on FRFI with the jail (in clear breach of the ECHR) and tried to justify her action by claiming that my article about the Close Supervision Centres was 'inaccurate and misleading'. Legal case law has established that interference with ECHR rights in the matter of free expression must only be done with minimum interference proportionate with achieving a legitimate aim, and clearly preventing the dissemination of an article critical of the prison system that a jail governor happens not to agree with is not a legitimate aim. Apart from being unlawful the governor's decision was also irrational because she allowed the free distribution of Inside Time at Wakefield and within it the distribution of my article also.
The really critical issue here is that some jail managers continue to show a blatant disregard for human rights law by delegating to themselves the authority to dictate what prisoners are allowed to read and express politically.
In terms of my article itself, whether it likes it or not, the Prison Service must acknowledge there are serious concerns about its current management strategy in relation to 'difficult' prisoners and these concerns have a legitimacy and right to be openly voiced and expressed. My article drew most of its information from the Prison Service's own policy document 'Managing Challenging Behaviour Strategy' and if my interpretation of that document was 'inaccurate and misleading' then the Prison Service could and should have used the medium of, say, Inside Time, to correct that interpretation and answer some of the concerns raised in the article. instead, the banning of FRFI at Woodhill and Wakefield on the basis that it carried the offending article suggests there is an indefensibility about the treatment of 'unmanageable prisoners in the 'Close Supervision Centre system and a prevailing mentality within the Prison Service that is contemptuous of the basic human right of free expression.
[NB - the governors of Wakefield and Woodhill appear to have backed down in the face of complaints and threatened legal action, but this kind of censorship of political material recurs endlessly and needs to be confronted repeatedly.]
Fortunately, the development of prison-based litigation and the access won by prisoners to human rights law has progressively weakened the power of prison management to hinder and obstruct information accessed by prisoners and the right of prisoners to publically voice their criticism of the prison system. Under current European human rights legislation, in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (freedom of expression) prison managers who impose blanket bans on radical political literature and the dissemination of material critical of the prison system are now acting unlawfully and can be held legally accountable for their actions.
Unfortunately, some prison governors continue to exhibit a contempt for the law in this regard and almost wilfully continue to behave in a way reminiscent of a time when their power over prisoners was absolute and prisoners existed in a vacuum devoid of any legal and civil rights and protections whatsoever.
Earlier this year I wrote and distributed an article critical of prison ‘Close Supervision Centres’ (control units) and a Prison Service policy document called ‘Managing Challenging Behaviour Strategy’. In the article I accused the Prison Service of institutionalising a system of repression that breached the human rights of prisoners. The article was published by the prison newspaper Inside Time and the radical political newspaper Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! (FRFI). Although no attempt was made by prison managers to prevent the distribution of the issue of Inside Time that contained my article, a blanket ban on FRFI was imposed by the governors of Woodhill and Wakefield prisons, both locations of Close Supervision Centres. Following complaints by prisoner subscribers to FRFI at Woodhill and Wakefield, Larkin Publications, who publish and distribute FRFI, wrote to the governors at both jails seeking an explanation for the ban. in her response, the governor of Wakefield jail openly admitted to imposing a blanket ban on FRFI with the jail (in clear breach of the ECHR) and tried to justify her action by claiming that my article about the Close Supervision Centres was 'inaccurate and misleading'. Legal case law has established that interference with ECHR rights in the matter of free expression must only be done with minimum interference proportionate with achieving a legitimate aim, and clearly preventing the dissemination of an article critical of the prison system that a jail governor happens not to agree with is not a legitimate aim. Apart from being unlawful the governor's decision was also irrational because she allowed the free distribution of Inside Time at Wakefield and within it the distribution of my article also.
The really critical issue here is that some jail managers continue to show a blatant disregard for human rights law by delegating to themselves the authority to dictate what prisoners are allowed to read and express politically.
In terms of my article itself, whether it likes it or not, the Prison Service must acknowledge there are serious concerns about its current management strategy in relation to 'difficult' prisoners and these concerns have a legitimacy and right to be openly voiced and expressed. My article drew most of its information from the Prison Service's own policy document 'Managing Challenging Behaviour Strategy' and if my interpretation of that document was 'inaccurate and misleading' then the Prison Service could and should have used the medium of, say, Inside Time, to correct that interpretation and answer some of the concerns raised in the article. instead, the banning of FRFI at Woodhill and Wakefield on the basis that it carried the offending article suggests there is an indefensibility about the treatment of 'unmanageable prisoners in the 'Close Supervision Centre system and a prevailing mentality within the Prison Service that is contemptuous of the basic human right of free expression.
[NB - the governors of Wakefield and Woodhill appear to have backed down in the face of complaints and threatened legal action, but this kind of censorship of political material recurs endlessly and needs to be confronted repeatedly.]
John Bowden, HMP Glenochil
Comments
Display the following 2 comments