|
Crime, Policing and Emergencies
Culture
Economic Policy
Education
Environment and climate change
Equality and Diversity
Health
Housing
and Homelessness
International
Planning and Development
Sustainability
Transport
|
Mayor's Statements
28 February 2006
Following the decision of the court on 28 February to 'stay' the suspension
of the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor made the following
personal statement:
'In my view, the ruling of the Case Tribunal to suspend me from office
when there is no suggestion that I have acted unlawfully strikes at the
fundamental principles of democracy. The decision of the High Court today
to stay the suspension ordered by the Case Tribunal is therefore a very
welcome development.
Following the Court's decision my legal team will set out the arguments
not only about whether there was a breach of the Code of Conduct but
also whether the sanction imposed by the Case Tribunal was appropriate.'
Ends
Earlier in the day the Mayor made the following personal statement:
'Yesterday my lawyers lodged an appeal in the High Court against the
decision of the tribunal to suspend me from office for four weeks.
I have taken the time over the last few days to read everything
that has appeared in the newspapers about the ramifications of the decision
of the Tribunal. Irrespective of what people think about the original
issue, there is a virtual unanimity that it is wholly wrong that an unelected
quango should have the power to remove from office a mayor who has committed
no crime and has been elected on two separate occasions by the voters
of this city.
It is difficult to recall the last time I agreed with Lord Tebbit, for
example, but people from across the political spectrum agree that the
basic principle of democracy is that those elected by the people should
only be removed by the voters.
The Standards Board for England argues that I “hold the Code
of Conduct in contempt”. That is not the case, but I have
made no secret that I believe the Standards Board for England is a completely
unnecessary waste of time and taxpayers’ money and should be abolished.
The police and the courts should be the instruments by which wrongdoing
in local government is dealt with. This body was originally established
to prevent the sort of financial wrongdoing that characterised Lady Porter’s corrupt
regime at Westminster City Council in the l980s. Far from identifying
financial corruption the Standards Board has ended up regulating the
use of language and to do this it uses the vague and uncertain concept
of “behaviour that brings an office or authority into disrepute”. The
trouble with the concept of disrepute is that can be made to mean whatever
you want it to mean. It may or may not be appropriate for the regulation
of behaviour in a gentleman’s club or a regimental mess but it
should not have greater sway than the decisions of ordinary voters as
to who should hold public office.
The Standards Board has itself recognised this by reviewing the code
of conduct and has recommended to government that outside of official
duties the code “should be restricted only to matters that would
be regarded as unlawful”. The government has accepted this
proposal. I wonder why therefore the Standards Board continued
its case against me when both they and the government had decided to
change the rules so that such a case can never be brought again.
Unsurprisingly one group of newspapers has stood out against the general
consensus that the Standards Board has usurped powers which should rest
only with the voters.
The Daily Mail stated that I lied and tried to smear their reporter with
the claim that he had sworn at me. The Standards Board investigated
whether I had lied and decided in the light of the six second gap in
the tape of our exchange on the balance of probabilities that I did not
fabricate the allegation that the reporter swore at me.
The editor of the Evening Standard Veronica Wadley complained in her
personally written editorial that I had failed to show “the minimum
standard of behaviour that everyone should respect”. She
then went on to describe me as a liar, a hypocrite, a coward and arrogant. Clearly
Ms Wadley has had an irony by-pass.
Nor is her venom in this instance untypical. Shortly after she
became editor of the Evening Standard on the 21 November 2002 she published
a profile of me in which I was described as a “snappy,
snarling brute”, “ voracious”, “frightening”, “ugly”, “raging” and “gripped
by paranoia.”
I have not been one of those politicians who resorts to the libel courts
every time something like that appears. I do however find it a
bit strange that some journalists have worked themselves up into a frenzy
because I exercise my free speech rights to tell journalists what I think
of them as well.
The Adjudication tribunal found that my comment to the Evening Standard
journalist had been `unnecessarily insensitive’ and `offensive’.
Those are not grounds for overturning the decision of the voters of London
to elect me as Mayor. As far as I am aware there is no law against `unnecessary
insensitivity’ or even `offensiveness’ to journalists harassing
you as you try to go home.
There is, however, an un-stated allegation: the implicit suggestion that
my comment was anti-Semitic. It is not explicitly stated because it cannot
be substantiated. It is nonetheless there and used to give weight to
charges which would otherwise be too trivial to merit the gigantic fuss
that has been made about this brief private exchange.
The Independent alleged that the Community Safety Trust, a Jewish defence
organisation, had claimed that “my comments were to blame for eleven
anti-Semitic attacks in London and the South East”. The
truth is somewhat different. The Community Safety Trust in fact
claim that there have been eleven incidents following my speech of which
the worst was an offensive letter to a Member of Parliament.
The truth is I have appointed Black, Asian and Jewish people to the highest
levels of my administration and waged an unrelenting war on every manifestation
of racism, anti-Semitism and every other kind of discrimination. Associated
Newspapers have always led the charge against these policies.
Since I have been Mayor, racial and religiously motivated incidents in
this city have declined by more than a third. Over the last year anti-Semitic
incidents have reduced by 20 per cent against a background in which they
are rising nationally. There is still a significant problem. A
Jewish person is three times more likely to suffer a racist attack than
a white European. A person of African, Caribbean or south Asian descent
is ten times more likely to suffer a racist attack. And an Arab person
is eleven times more likely to suffer a racist attack in London today.
But significant progress has been made against the trend that is taking
place elsewhere in Europe.
In reality, it is Associated Newspapers that has a long record of anti-Semitism
and support for fascism. It welcomed the Black shirts in the 1930s. It
has admitted that, as recently as the retirement party of the last editor
of the Daily Mail, two of its staff dressed in Nazi uniforms and were
not asked to leave. Associated Newspapers has never apologised for this
or its record of support for fascism.
It was of course the Board of Deputies of British Jews that decided to
refer me to the Standards Board for England. Throughout they have
protested that this issue is just about how I treated one reporter who
happens to be Jewish. I don’t believe a word of it.
Some time before this incident was blown out of all proportion the Board
of Deputies asked to meet me to urge me to tone down my views on the
Israeli government.
For far too long the accusation of anti-Semitism has been used against
anybody who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government. Even
Tony Blair was recently described as a “common anti-Semite” in
an Israeli newspaper. Nor is being Jewish a defence against this charge.
The famous Israeli conductor and pianist, Daniel Barenboim, was recently
denounced by an Israeli Minister as “a real Jew hater, a real anti-Semite.” One
of Israel’s foremost writers, Amos Oz, after criticising right
wing religious settlers, was similarly told the roots of his `bias’ lay
in `the swamp of European anti-Semitism’.
Antony Lerman, director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research
says that equating criticism of Israel policies with anti-Semitism “drains
the word anti-Semitism of any useful meaning”.
For decades the charge of anti-Semitism has been used to try to suppress
any meaningful debate about the policies of the Israeli government. Londoners
who may have seen George Clooney’s recent film, Goodnight and Good
Luck will recognise the tactic of McCarthyism updated for a new age. It
will not stop me from continuing to discuss the need for a just settlement
in the Middle East that recognises the right of Israel to exist side-by-side
with a viable Palestinian State.
One of the positive clarifications to come out of this whole affair is
that, Jon Benjamin, the Director General of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews has had to admit on television last week: `We’ve never
said the Mayor is anti-Semitic.’
I am going to end this statement where I began. The fundamental issue
is not whether or not I was `insensitive’, it is the principle
that those whom the people elect should only be removed by the people
or because they have broken the law.
It is because this fundamental principle is at stake, that I pledge
to do everything in my power to have this attack on the democratic rights
of Londoners overturned.'
Ends
|
|
Home | About | City Hall | Contact | FAQ | Help | Jobs | Site map
