25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThis whole adjudication process was brought about by Parliament's passage of the Local Government Act of 2000, which means that the House of Commons (which include the slew of representatives of Londoners) had a chance to flat out reject the Act. How much more democratic participation do you want from a representative democracy? Ought the Act have been subject to nationwide referendum, or ought particular municipalities be able to opt out of such legislation?
You're pulling an LH. Here's your original assertion:
No, I think that the ban is justified, given that the people of London have agreed that the conduct of their officials ought to be overseen by the adjudication panel. It is perfectly within the rights of citizens to establish reasonable and enforceable parameters upon the conduct of their pu ...[text shortened]... uch a procedure, that it somehow reflects the will of the people is a pretty unconvincing one.
25 Feb 06
Mr Livingstone has said he was expressing his honestly-held political view of Associated Newspapers, but he had not meant to offend the Jewish community.
This honestly held opinion of Associated Newspapers didn't stop gaulieter Ken from working for them as a restaurant critic and columnist, or lead him to disown their support at the two elections for London Mayor.
25 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrIrrelevant. Your original justification is factually incorrect. Come up with another one.
This whole adjudication process was brought about by Parliament's passage of the Local Government Act of 2000, which means that the House of Commons (which include the slew of representatives of Londoners) had a chance to flat out reject the Act. How much more democratic participation do you want from a representative democracy? Ought the Act have been subj ...[text shortened]... tionwide referendum, or ought particular municipalities be able to opt out of such legislation?
Having unelected bodies with the power to punish elected officials by suspending them from the position the people put them is about as contrary to democratic principles as you can get in a "representative democracy". It is even more objectionable when the unelected body operates without any specific criteria on what constitutes misconduct sufficient to overrride the people's wishes as expressed in democratic elections.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou certainly haven't established that my original justification was factually incorrect. Perhaps if you come up with some poll numbers concerning the support amongst Londoners for the Local Government Act 2000, then I'll take your contention seriously. In representative democracies it is not necessary for the will of the people to be respected that they vote for each and every issue. My point is a general one, that citizens have a right to place reasonable parameters on the conduct of their public officials. This is easy to see if we consider the police. I think it should be grounds for punishment if a police officer hurls racial epithets at citizens, don't you?
Irrelevant. Your original justification is factually incorrect. Come up with another one.
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrPlease see my edit. No one elects a police officer and he is subject to specific rules of conduct. And this is not merely a single issue; it is giving an unelected body the power to override the people's wishes freely expressed in an election. I seriously doubt that when Parliament passed the Act they intended that mayors could be suspended from office for flippant comments to journalists.
You certainly haven't established that my original justification was factually incorrect. Perhaps if you come up with some poll numbers concerning the support amongst Londoners for the Local Government Act 2000, then I'll take your contention seriously. In representative democracies it is not necessary for the will of the people to be respected that they vot ...[text shortened]... d be grounds for punishment if a police officer hurls racial epithets at citizens, don't you?
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, local judges are elected and we'd say the same thing about them; they ought to be punished or removed from the bench for hurling racial epithets are people. Look, the representatives of the people of London voted to enact a law that establishes a body to enforce specific rules of conduct. You can look up the code if you want. If this doesn't qualify in your book as consistent with a general principle of consent, then what more should be required?
Please see my edit. No one elects a police officer and he is subject to specific rules of conduct.
25 Feb 06
Here is the provision that the Mayor was found to violate and thus got suspended from his elected office for:
A Member must not in his official capacity [it was found he was not acting in his official capacity - no1], OR IN ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, conduct himself in a manner which COULD reasonably be regarded as bringing his office into disrepute. (Caps added)
http://www.adjudicationpanel.co.uk/documents/notice_of_decision.pdf
Yes, that is certainly a specific and clear code of conduct.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe following is taken from the code of conduct for a local law enforcement agency:
Here is the provision that the Mayor was found to violate and thus got suspended from his elected office for:
A Member must not in his official capacity [it was found he was not acting in his official capacity - no1], OR IN ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, conduct himself in a manner which COULD reasonably be regarded as bringing his office into disrep ...[text shortened]... ts/notice_of_decision.pdf
Yes, that is certainly a specific and clear code of conduct.
"Police officers will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to their agencies or themselves. A police officer’s character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves. The officer’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach."
The following is Canon 2 of the WA state judiciary code of conduct:
"Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities."
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrPoint, if any?
The following is taken from the code of conduct for a local law enforcement agency:
"Police officers will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to their agencies or themselves. A police officer’s character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serv ...[text shortened]... "Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities."
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrAs mentioned (and ignored), police are not elected officials. The removal of police for misconduct does not implicate democracy at all.
That clearly permissible Codes of Conduct placed on public officials are not any more specific than the one at issue in the present case.
It is not required that judges be elected, most are not in the US. Even in places where they are, impropiety is a term of legal art. I have never heard of an elected judge being removed for statements made at a cocktail party. If such a case exists, it was unjust.
Suppose Parliament in Country A passed the following law:
This Act creates the Supreme Power Board. Any elected official can be removed at any time at the whim of the Supreme Power Board for acting in any way that the Supreme Power Board finds bad.
Would you still say that Country A is a democracy?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSuppose an elected judge hurled racial epithets at a reporter. Would this be sufficient grounds, on your view, for punishment? What if the judge knew prior to running that a code of conduct existed for his position that clearly outlawed such behavior?
As mentioned (and ignored), police are not elected officials. The removal of police for misconduct does not implicate democracy at all.
It is not required that judges be elected, most are not in the US. Even in places where they are, impropiety is a term of legal art. I have never heard of an elected judge being removed for statements made at ...[text shortened]... he Supreme Power Board finds bad.
Would you still say that Country A is a democracy?
Depends on the extent to which the passage of the Act was democratic, whether processes were in place to revise the Act if necessary, whether there was an appeals process, whether the members of the SPB were themselves appointed or elected, etc. etc. It will depend on all the sorts of factors that we are discussing in this case.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrIn my view, no. Your example is clearly inapplicable to the present case; it is absolutely obvious that the vagueness of the provision that the Mayor was punished under doesn't "clearly outlaw such behavior" as he engaged in.
Suppose an elected judge hurled racial epithets at a reporter. Would this be sufficient grounds, on your view, for punishment? What if the judge knew prior to running that a code of conduct existed for his position that clearly outlawed such behavior?
Depends on the extent to which the passage of the Act was democratic, whether processes were in place to ...[text shortened]... cted, etc. etc. It will depend on all the sorts of factors that we are discussing in this case.
Anyone who believes that anything like the Supreme Power Board Act could be law and that the State in which it was could still be said to be a democracy has a flawed concept of the latter term.