So, the mayor has been suspended. Following the Danish cartoons and the Irving trial, this feels like another complicated free speech issue. Of course the situation is not exactly the same, but in the popular imagination it is very much about the personal consequences of saying something that is deemed unacceptable by a particular section of the community.
Personally, I do not think the mayor should have been suspended. We already have a mechanism for removing elected officials from office - it's called an election! I understand that there should be safeguards against corruption, but I am not convinced that making offensive remarks after (allegedly) a few glasses too many requires this particular measure. (A quick side note though - Ken's has said that his 'nazi' comment was to do with the Associated Press' record of anti-semitism and Moseley supporting in the 30s. He clearly didn't feel quite so strongly when he was the Standard's restaurant critic.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4749688.stm)
Lastly though, a quick question - what limits on speech should there be for people in or seeking public office. I'm wondering what sanctions we would feel would be appropriate if the Mayor (or any other elected official) started making inflammatory / racist remarks about any given group. Do we want a law that would prevent (say) a racist mayor from mobilising (for example) anti-immigrant sentiment? Genuine question. Interested in the answers.
20 comments:
Because I saved my Livingstone post as a draft I'm not sure if a notification went out, so this comment will serve as one as well as giving a link to Mark Lawson's take on the topic (but please do check out the original post if you can - I'm interested in people's thoughts on this one.)
"This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law," Ken Livingston
A crazy and absurd decision by the adjudication panel. Mark Lawson gets it exactly right when he says Ken has made a fool of himself but that the 'adjudication panel has made a fool of British democracy' which is far more serious.
I'm also inclined to agree with Mark Lawson that Ken's stubborn refusal to apologise stems from his deep seated animus to the Daily Mail.
Excellent post by Wembley above.
Here's Rod Liddle's comment in the Sunday Times:
Ken , Free-speech martyr
Oops, I did it again!
Mayor in fresh Jewish controversy
hat tip: harry's place
As Goldfinger said: "Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. But three times, Mr Bond, is enemy action.”
So what would four times be, Mr Golfinger?
Note (a) how Ken drags Iraq into the issue and (b) as far as I know, he has only had a go at the Yanks, but they are not the only transgressors.
London Mayor Lashes U.S. Ambassador as a 'Crook'
Washington Post
March 29, 2006
The mayor of London considered the virtues of the U.S. ambassador to Britain: "A chiseling little crook," Ken Livingstone concluded of Robert Holmes Tuttle on Monday, further dismissing the colonials' latest representative to Her Majesty's realm as a "car salesman."
Though Livingstone is known for contentious remarks -- he recently likened a Jewish newspaper reporter to a concentration camp guard -- splashing such verbal mud on Tuttle caused a flurry of amusement, embarrassment and tut-tutting among the British. Tuttle is a noted friend of President Bush and, it must be said, a purveyor of automobiles.
At issue is the U.S. government's refusal to pay more than a quarter of a million dollars in traffic congestion fees charged to cars that enter central London. The fees are a tax, the embassy says, and under international law, embassies don't pay taxes.
But Livingstone won't buy that line. "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy," he said Monday, "it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge."
Rick Roberts, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy here, said he did "not want to dignify those remarks by responding to name-calling." But he noted: "We pay our parking tickets. We honor every commitment we have except tax. We are good citizens."
Other embassies in London also are refusing to pay the $14-per-car fee. "Our legal department in Berlin, like that of the State Department," concluded that the charge is a tax, said Michael Fluegger, a spokesman for the German Embassy.
Actually, maybe he should call them Jews, if he wants to raise the bar on his Offendathon.
'Next they'll be refusing to pay the VAT in shops or to buy TV licences.'
Wembley makes an interesting point in his last comment about the clash between the US embassy and our Ken. However, I read that British government ministers and civil servants are exempt from tax (including VAT) so Ken maybe in a glasshouse here.
Red Ken does it again:
Livingstone compares poll tax riots to China massacre
'Looking out over the Beijing square from the steps of the National Museum of Revolutionary History, the Mayor of London said the 1989 massacre, in which -hundreds of protesters died, was part of the city's "interesting history", like London's.
"In the same way that Trafalgar Square has had an interesting history, not always a peaceful one, there's a very clear parallel," he said.
"We've had some interesting riots in Trafalgar Square - I mean, only 20 years ago, the poll tax riots, and flames licking up."'
I read that British government ministers and civil servants are exempt from tax (including VAT) so Ken maybe in a glasshouse here.
This sounds very interesting - do you have a source? I had a quick look and as far as I can tell, MPs, at least, do pay income tax, but I haven't found anything specifically about VAT, civil servants, or memebers of the London Assembly.
On a side note did you know that the mayor's salary is the same as that of a cabinet minister? In other words Ken earns the same as Gordon. Not saying this is wrong, just thought it was interesting. (Assembly members, however, earn about £10K less than MPs.)
I'll see if I can dig up the source. Must say I'm surprised if MPs do pay income tax. Assuming that their salaries are paid out of tax payers money, surely it would make more sense to just pay them the income they would normally recieve after tax and then exempt them from income tax. This would be more cost effective as it would save on the adminstrative expense of collecting that tax.
surely it would make more sense to just pay them the income they would normally recieve after tax and then exempt them from income tax. This would be more cost effective as it would save on the adminstrative expense of collecting that tax.
That's an interesting idea - of course the same argument could be made for all public sector workers: (state school) teachers, NHS nurses, policemen, firemen and so on. I wonder what the rationale is for the current system. It's a bit like VAT registered companies claiming back VAT rather than simply not paying it in the first place.
yes, except with VAT it could be argued that it is easier to apply it to everybody at point of purchase and then VAT registered companies can claim it back later (if anything it might be less complicated than the alternative).
Here's the part of the article I'd read about MPs and tax (it in fact only refers to not needing to pay VAT which doesn't change my point about Ken and glasshouses):
'Since 2000 a further £2m has been added for “policy development”, whatever that means. MPs get gyms, discounts, freebies and trips galore. They are civil servants and pay no Vat. Their travel is free and their second homes (and in the case of some ministers, third ones) are subsidised. They recently voted themselves pension plans of stupefying generosity.
The parties also get an estimated £80m of free letter post, conference security and television propaganda. Even Sinn Fein gets £584,000 a year in cash for “parliamentary allowances”, despite refusing to turn up or even take the oath of allegiance. The money is described as “an act of goodwill”.'
The parties are asking us for a lifeline - well let them sweat
By the way was anyone else shocked to discover that we give Sinn Fein £584,000 a year?
Interesting piece on Livingston in today's Standard (not the biggest Ken fans obviously) by Nirpal Dhaliwal. The Standard don't carry the piece online but here are a couple of the relevant paragraphs:
'His attitude to China is typical of his vacuous post-socialist pick 'n' mix principles. In an article last week, he stated what a big fan he is of the Chinese economic model that has achieved growth "without following the advice of the neo-liberals". But hang on: China's policy is far more extreme than any neo-liberal's. It is anarcho-capitalistic in its denial of human rights. The Chinese curb trade unions fighting for workers in some of the worst conditions on earth through torture and execution.
Still this sits well with Ken's residual leftie sentiments because China "has not pursued a programme of privatisation". Yet privatisation would entail some system of property rights and hence set limits on the otherwise arbitrary power of the state.
Ken lost the battle of ideas years ago and now makes up his politics as he goes along. He is outraged by the US invasion of Iraq - the one that toppled an autocracy and facilitated elections - but is warmed by the current situation in China, where up to 10,000 people are executed yearly and the death sentence is applied to bag-snatchers. "For those of us who believe in human equality" enthused Ken "this is of course, giant progress"'
Incidently, in the same article the writer makes the point that 'he (ken) singles out the US embassy for not paying the congestion charge, though many other embassies don't pay it either'.
I'd go along with your guess that the article is describing a de facto result 'i.e a central government purchasing dept. buys stuff inc VAT, but the MPs offices only cover the net price.'
Re Sinn Fein. The 'surprising' point in the article is that Sinn Fein recieves the money without fulfilling their Parliamentary obligations e.g refusing to turn up or take the oath of allegiance -
'Even Sinn Fein gets £584,000 a year in cash for “parliamentary allowances”, despite refusing to turn up or even take the oath of allegiance.'
Also, not sure about the chronology but it's possible that Sinn Fein was recieving parliamentary allowances before the alleged IRA bank robbery that you alluded to.
Another priceless quote from Ken Livingston - "One thing that Chairman Mao did was to end the appalling foot binding of women," he announced. "That alone justifies the Mao Tse-tung era."
Mao's cultural revolution 'justified' because it improved chiropody. Is this a joke?
To be fair, foot binding is a bit more than chiropody, and ending it was an absolute good. But Hitler was kind to his dog etc etc.
I think it was Private Eye who ran the iconic image of Tiananmen Square with the heading "History According to Ken" and a speech bubble coming from the little dude in front of the tank saying "Maggie Maggie Maggie, out out out!"
Granted it is much too glib to call it 'chiropody'. Still, not sure if 'that alone justifies the Mao Tse-tung era' though.
(The Private Eye 'History According to Ken' joke is very funny btw.)
No of course it doesn't justify insane mass murder. And anyone who says it does is a knave or a fool.
Post a Comment