http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/10/20/unwelcome-trends-in-politics/
Senator Vibert, who can look back on 12 years in the States, complains - with full justification - that Island politics have become too personal....We should look particularly carefully at Senator Vibert's complaint because it alludes to a pernicious, and even vicious, development in Island politics which runs counter to unwritten rules of engagement which, until recently, were observed by all and sundry. The availability of the internet and e-mails has coincided with a shift in behaviour among some politicians and political activists that appears to be based on the premise that anything - including personal vilification, wild accusation, defamation and intemperate abuse - goes, as long as it is in electronic form. This is a gross and dangerous misunderstanding of the essential principles of free speech. The right to comment frankly and fearlessly must always be tempered by a sense of responsibility, respect for other people's opinions and a sense of decency - not to mention an understanding of the libel laws, which apply in cyberspace as well as in the realms of print and broadcasting. There are no immediate signs that the outpourings of online vitriol that have become part and parcel of what some would like to call political 'discourse' are likely to be stemmed. That said, someone at some time is going to say that enough is enough. Then writs will fly.
I'm looking forward for some writs to start heading towards Stuart Syvret, although I suspect the real reason why they will not is that he had solid evidence for all the claims he makes, however intemperate his language may be. Although when one looks at the kind of robust language used in England or America even by leaders of the main political parties or elder statesman, it is clear that part of the problem here is that Jersey is just too insular and unused to that kind of debate. Here are a few choice examples - compare with any of Stuart Syvret's invective, and there is not always that much difference:
"An empty suit that goes to funerals and plays golf."
- Ross Perot talking about Dan Quayle
"A triumph of the embalmers art"
- Gore Vidal on Ronald Reagan
"It is better to be sincere in one language than to be a twit in two,"
Crosbie said in 1983 about former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.
She has the mouth of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula
- Mitterrand on Margaret Thatcher
He is a self-made man and worships his creator.
John Bright on Benjamin Disraeli
If a traveller were informed that such a man was the leader of the House of Commons, he might begin to comprehend how the Egyptians worshipped an insect.
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), British prime minister and author, on Lord John Russell (1792-1878), British prime minister
The right honourable and learned gentleman has twice crossed the floor of this House, each time leaving behind a trail of slime.
David Lloyd George on Sir John Simon (1873-1954)
It is rather clear that only the Jersey Evening Post has a notion of what it means by "unwritten rules of engagement", and most politicians do not abide by those and never have.
Also when you look at programmes like "Have I Got News for You", "Spitting Image", "2D TV", or magazines like "Private Eye", it is clear that part of what has surfaced on the internet - for example, with the blogs "A Holiday in the Sun", and "Moving Finger" (now defunct) are well within that tradition. Private Eye is well known for a section which always purports to come from the Prime Minister of the day, from Mrs. Wilson's Diary to Gordon Brown's "Leadership in the Age of Change". Perhaps the local blogs don't always get it right, and come close to overstepping the mark, but it is not "intemperate abuse", it is part of a long line that goes back at least as far as Jonathan Swift. Perhaps it is new to Jersey, but it has long and honourable historical antecedents.
I also think an accusation that politicians may seem to be acting as hypocrites is fair comment when they state certain positions in their last manifesto, and - as evidenced by their voting record - run counter to those positions, and assume no one notices or cares. Yes, it is personal, but how could it be otherwise? If I say - as one Deputy did - that I will support GST exemptions on children's clothing in my manifesto, and vote the opposite way in two separate votes, what is the public to think? Is an accusation of hypocrisy in such circumstances just personal vilification, or is it a justifiable surmise?
Moreover, regarding Mike Vibert's record, as Education Minister, his voting record seems to run counter to support for that constituency - parents with children at school - in his voting against exemptions on children's clothing, even when cut down to just an exemption on school uniforms, and his voting against school milk. This was just at the point when a major UK study (May 2008) released showed the benefits of school milk (a study overlooked by the medical officer of health, Rosemary Geller).
Against that has to be balanced the provision of 20 hours free nursery education for pre-schoolers, ending in part the postcode lottery on places in the public and private sectors. But one question one might ask on that is surely why this came about so late in the day? Why suddenly, with elections upon us, did the Council of Ministers find the extra funding? Surely it is not beyond the bounds of suspicion to imagine that this follows the same kind of pattern as in the UK, where chancellors have been well known for creating a pre-election boom to help boost their parties popularity. Would that be a wild accusation? Or a reasoned suspicion?
I have not been on many of the online forums, as I have not had the time, so I cannot comment on those. I have seen one site that I would consider defamatory, and to be fair, that site was directed at Mike Vibert, probably in a rather too personal way, even in the name of the site. A friend of mine in Denmark managed to track the domain registration down to France, which does suggest someone covering their tracks rather carefully.
On balance, however, I would say that the Jersey Evening Post's somewhat carping note has perhaps more to do with the fact that it is not longer the only source through which political comment is made or read. Perhaps it would be going to far to say that "The right to comment frankly and fearlessly must always be tempered by the editor of the Jersey Evening Post", but I cannot help thinking that there is a certain disquiet about online comments precisely because they are not subject to editorial control, and as seen from the questions posed to candidates, many of those get their news online from electronic versions of paper sources now anyway.
Senator Vibert, who can look back on 12 years in the States, complains - with full justification - that Island politics have become too personal....We should look particularly carefully at Senator Vibert's complaint because it alludes to a pernicious, and even vicious, development in Island politics which runs counter to unwritten rules of engagement which, until recently, were observed by all and sundry. The availability of the internet and e-mails has coincided with a shift in behaviour among some politicians and political activists that appears to be based on the premise that anything - including personal vilification, wild accusation, defamation and intemperate abuse - goes, as long as it is in electronic form. This is a gross and dangerous misunderstanding of the essential principles of free speech. The right to comment frankly and fearlessly must always be tempered by a sense of responsibility, respect for other people's opinions and a sense of decency - not to mention an understanding of the libel laws, which apply in cyberspace as well as in the realms of print and broadcasting. There are no immediate signs that the outpourings of online vitriol that have become part and parcel of what some would like to call political 'discourse' are likely to be stemmed. That said, someone at some time is going to say that enough is enough. Then writs will fly.
I'm looking forward for some writs to start heading towards Stuart Syvret, although I suspect the real reason why they will not is that he had solid evidence for all the claims he makes, however intemperate his language may be. Although when one looks at the kind of robust language used in England or America even by leaders of the main political parties or elder statesman, it is clear that part of the problem here is that Jersey is just too insular and unused to that kind of debate. Here are a few choice examples - compare with any of Stuart Syvret's invective, and there is not always that much difference:
"An empty suit that goes to funerals and plays golf."
- Ross Perot talking about Dan Quayle
"A triumph of the embalmers art"
- Gore Vidal on Ronald Reagan
"It is better to be sincere in one language than to be a twit in two,"
Crosbie said in 1983 about former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.
She has the mouth of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula
- Mitterrand on Margaret Thatcher
He is a self-made man and worships his creator.
John Bright on Benjamin Disraeli
If a traveller were informed that such a man was the leader of the House of Commons, he might begin to comprehend how the Egyptians worshipped an insect.
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), British prime minister and author, on Lord John Russell (1792-1878), British prime minister
The right honourable and learned gentleman has twice crossed the floor of this House, each time leaving behind a trail of slime.
David Lloyd George on Sir John Simon (1873-1954)
It is rather clear that only the Jersey Evening Post has a notion of what it means by "unwritten rules of engagement", and most politicians do not abide by those and never have.
Also when you look at programmes like "Have I Got News for You", "Spitting Image", "2D TV", or magazines like "Private Eye", it is clear that part of what has surfaced on the internet - for example, with the blogs "A Holiday in the Sun", and "Moving Finger" (now defunct) are well within that tradition. Private Eye is well known for a section which always purports to come from the Prime Minister of the day, from Mrs. Wilson's Diary to Gordon Brown's "Leadership in the Age of Change". Perhaps the local blogs don't always get it right, and come close to overstepping the mark, but it is not "intemperate abuse", it is part of a long line that goes back at least as far as Jonathan Swift. Perhaps it is new to Jersey, but it has long and honourable historical antecedents.
I also think an accusation that politicians may seem to be acting as hypocrites is fair comment when they state certain positions in their last manifesto, and - as evidenced by their voting record - run counter to those positions, and assume no one notices or cares. Yes, it is personal, but how could it be otherwise? If I say - as one Deputy did - that I will support GST exemptions on children's clothing in my manifesto, and vote the opposite way in two separate votes, what is the public to think? Is an accusation of hypocrisy in such circumstances just personal vilification, or is it a justifiable surmise?
Moreover, regarding Mike Vibert's record, as Education Minister, his voting record seems to run counter to support for that constituency - parents with children at school - in his voting against exemptions on children's clothing, even when cut down to just an exemption on school uniforms, and his voting against school milk. This was just at the point when a major UK study (May 2008) released showed the benefits of school milk (a study overlooked by the medical officer of health, Rosemary Geller).
Against that has to be balanced the provision of 20 hours free nursery education for pre-schoolers, ending in part the postcode lottery on places in the public and private sectors. But one question one might ask on that is surely why this came about so late in the day? Why suddenly, with elections upon us, did the Council of Ministers find the extra funding? Surely it is not beyond the bounds of suspicion to imagine that this follows the same kind of pattern as in the UK, where chancellors have been well known for creating a pre-election boom to help boost their parties popularity. Would that be a wild accusation? Or a reasoned suspicion?
I have not been on many of the online forums, as I have not had the time, so I cannot comment on those. I have seen one site that I would consider defamatory, and to be fair, that site was directed at Mike Vibert, probably in a rather too personal way, even in the name of the site. A friend of mine in Denmark managed to track the domain registration down to France, which does suggest someone covering their tracks rather carefully.
On balance, however, I would say that the Jersey Evening Post's somewhat carping note has perhaps more to do with the fact that it is not longer the only source through which political comment is made or read. Perhaps it would be going to far to say that "The right to comment frankly and fearlessly must always be tempered by the editor of the Jersey Evening Post", but I cannot help thinking that there is a certain disquiet about online comments precisely because they are not subject to editorial control, and as seen from the questions posed to candidates, many of those get their news online from electronic versions of paper sources now anyway.
Links
Political Insults in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political_insults.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political_insults.html
Children Should Drink Milk To Help Prevent Osteoporosis -
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108821.php
Classic Pre-election Boom in Action
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6595/is_200404/ai_n25985623
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment