Ken Livingstone
Photo: Sky News
Dr. Ken and Mr. Livingstone
London mayor's acquittal in Nazi slur affair disgraceful
Had I not read it on the news wires, I wouldn't have believed it really happened. The British high court ruled that London's mayor Ken Livingstone didn't breach the Greater London Authority code of conduct, and in so doing annulled his conviction in a lower court. And why was the mayor of London convicted? Because he compared a Jewish reporter from the London Evening Standard to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
According to the court, the malicious comments were not made while Livingstone was on duty but rather during his free time and his comments therefore were deemed as "freedom of speech," the right of every citizen.
Following Livingstone's malicious comment, Standard reporter Oliver Finegold filed a lawsuit and in turn the court temporarily suspended Livingstone from his duties. Livingstone appealed to the court to reverse the ruling and was acquitted.
'Nazi' jibe
Reuters
London mayor cleared of bringing his office into disrepute for likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard, but judge says Livingstone's comments were 'unnecessarily offensive'
If this ruling wasn't so outrageous we could have had a good laugh. Does the mayor cease being the mayor of London after 6 pm, upon leaving his office and until his return the next day? Is this the way it works in Britain? What's going on here? Does Dr. Ken turn into Mr. Livingstone after a set time? Are they two different people? Does Tony Blair cease being a prime minister at a certain time in the day when he suddenly turns into an ordinary citizen?
Is this the way the wheels of justice turn for a person who doesn't hide, even momentarily either as a mayor or as a citizen, his hatred towards the Jewish people and who increasingly attacks and mocks them?
What if it was a Muslim reporter?
Livingstone is a man who mocks his country's elected institutions anyway, and his malicious statements on various topics have become his trademark. By the way, his statements only work towards increasing his popularity among many Londoners, who apparently enjoy his uncouthness and have no qualms about his anti-Semitics slurs.
I can't help wondering how the court would have ruled had Livingstone offended a Muslim reporter. Let's say, he would have told a reporter that he reminds him of a terrorist of the type that bombed London last year. In such an event, would the court also have ruled that the mayor didn't breach the code of conduct following the uproar such a statement would have inevitably created among millions of Muslims in Britain and the world?
Since Britain doesn't have a law against anti-Semitic incitement and doesn't ban distribution of Nazi symbols and denial of the Holocaust, the London high court was able to reach this outrageous verdict ruling that Livingstone didn't breach the Greater London Authority code of conduct.
It seems to me that the justices at the court would do well to learn a chapter or two of ethical codes themselves.
