I wrote a brief article about the Sam Melia conviction, see HERE. I also mentioned the case in my article about Anarcho-Tyranny, see HERE. Since the aforementioned Mr Melia has apparently been denied access to his children (a new born baby and a toddler) whilst in prison, although I have been unable to confirm this. The apparent reason is to prevent the children from being exposed to racist materials and views. If the story is true then in my opinion this condition is abhorrent.
The idea that (a) a newborn baby and toddler can be indoctrinated towards any political ideology (b) as a result of (a) it is in the interests of the children to be denied access to their father, is preposterous. Indeed it is so preposterous that I question whether the person who made the decision is being mendacious or merely showing an incredible lack of intelligence.
I hope that these restrictions are lifted or successfully challenged. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Act 1998 (which essentially allows the UK Courts to enforce the ECHR) and the Equality Act 2010 are vague and in my view can be applied in a politically biased manner.
With regards to the latter, it could be argued that there has been discrimination against Mr Melia due to his philosophical belief. However, a defence to this could that Mr Melia’s belief is not protected because it is not ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’; see HERE for an example; this criteria inevitably invokes the political biases of a Court or Tribunal.
Article 8 of the ECHR, namely the right to a private and family life, has numerous qualifications and essentially the Court would be considering whether the restrictions were proportionate. Of course if one applied common sense they would be regarded as wholly unnecessary and serving no purpose other than to harm a particular family.
Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This prohibition is absolute, but I infer that if it can be legally justified to prevent some prisoners from having access to their children, then one cannot be certain that article 3 would apply.
In addition to the obvious point about political dissidents being persecuted in yet more extreme ways, this case gives an insight into the attitudes of governments in Western Countries towards the family. I would argue that a parent has an inalienable right to influence their children how they see fit, however abhorrent others may find the views that they seek to pass down. The state should only come between parents and children if the child is at risk of severe injury or death.
The prevailing attitude illustrated by this case is similar that that of the Soviet Union with the case of Pavlik Marozov. In this case the state celebrated the fact that a child chose to report their own family to the secret police for keeping grain against a state edict. The story may not have been entirely true, but what was being celebrated was the supplanting of the family by the state and the child having greater loyalty to the latter than the former.
If restrictions of this kind become typical, then the extent to which families as we know them will continue to exist in a meaningful way, will be called into question.