The Welsh public standards watchdog has commented on Cardiff council's decision to clear a councillor of wrongdoing following a tweet which called the Church of Scientology 'stupid'.

This week we reported the standards and ethics committee had found no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct at the initial stages of an inquiry into Cardiff councillor John Dixon's posts on social networking site Twitter.

Now the public services Ombudsman for Wales, Peter Tyndall, has commented on the council's decision – which found Dixon was not acting in his role as councillor and therefore made the comments privately.

Tyndall said he felt Dixon was acting in his capacity as a councillor – a view which could affect future cases of a similar nature.

Tyndall said:

"Councillors are free to express their views provided they do so in a respectful and considered way. Guidance that I issued to councillors specifically recognises the importance of being able to express ideas and opinion in a democratic society. However, there is a clear distinction between robust debate and expressing views in a way that is disrespectful to others."

Tyndall pointed out Dixon's username was CllrJohnDixon at the time of tweeting, but was since changed to JohnLDixon. The statement said:

In making the 'stupid' remark, the Ombudsman took the view that Councillor Dixon was acting in the capacity of a councillor. There are a number of precedents for circumstances where local politicians have used their title in what are deemed to have been private circumstances. In this case, the Twitter account used by Councillor Dixon specifically contained the title 'councillor' before his name. This was also the account he used to circulate information about Council business.

The Ombudsman's statement also highlighted that it was not his duty to assess whether this was a matter about freedom of speech. The statement concluded that ultimately the matter was up to the standards and ethics committee and was therefore now closed.

Councillors love getting into their local rag. That’s why they spend their time attending school fetes, housing development openings and Rotary Club dinners – the kind of things that any sane individual would rather clean their teeth with a cheese grater than do.

They spend much of their time, it seems, standing in the street, pointing at potholes and dog mess for the benefit of the photographer from the Aberystwyth Bugle. There’s a great – and genuine – website called “Glum Councillors” which brings together these pictures from all over Britain. I implore you to check it out.

Yet one councillor, John Dixon from Cardiff, found himself all over the media like a particularly pernicious rash last week. He was all not just the Welsh national media, but the London-based press – and even made an appearance on Newsnight. And all because of one tweet.

“I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road,” he wrote on Twitter while on a wedding ring-buying mission to Big London. “Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

Fairly innocuous, you might think. The kind of thing people write on Twitter all the time.

But one Scientologist was particularly upset. And complained to the local government ombudsman for Wales that this brief aside, from an obscure Cardiff councillor, “impinged on their right to religious freedom”.

And the ombudsman – not swung by the fact that Scientology isn’t considered a religion in Britain and doesn’t, for example, enjoy the tax benefits that brings – thought he or she had a point. And Mr Dixon now faces a disciplinary hearing.

Now I’m not going to comment on whether Scientology is stupid or not, for precisely the same reason I shy away from commenting on the Middle East problem – it’s a surefire way for journalists to guarantee they spend the whole of the next week dealing with e-mails from people from all over the world with, um, punchy opinions.

So I’ll just point out that Scientologists believe that, 75 million years ago, “Xenu”, the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy”, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8 plane (a four-engined jet manufactured from 1958 to 1972), stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.

The essences of these people remain, Scientologists believe. The religion’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, has written that this was “a disaster which resulted in the decay of life as we know it in this sector of the galaxy”.

It all gets a bit weird after that but, as I say, it’s not for me to cast aspersions.

What some may cast aspersions on, however, is why the local government ombudsman for Wales is spending good time and money pursuing Mr Dixon over his tweet.

Putting aside whether Scientology is a religion or not (and to reiterate: it isn’t, and in those notoriously illiberal countries Germany and France it’s legally classified as a cult), how has anybody’s right to religious freedom been trampled on by what Mr Dixon wrote ?

With the greatest of respect to Mr Dixon – who may well be an excellent local councillor – he’s just that: a local councillor writing what he thought was an amusing tweet. He doesn’t, on the face of it, pose a huge threat to the siting of a new Tesco Extra in Ely, never mind a multi-million member multi-national religion.

Added to that, how convinced are Scientologists of the power of their message if they feel they are genuinely threatened by a silly tweet from a local councillor who only had a handful of followers at the time ?

But most importantly: when did it become the job of the local government ombudsman for Wales to police what people are saying, in their own time, in a country where we supposedly have free speech ?

There are serious problems in local government in Wales; always have been. There are always questions about motivation in making planning decisions, in awarding contracts, in dubious expense claims, in general public conduct. Is there not enough for the ombudsman to be doing without poking their well-paid noses into what people are tweeting on their days off ?

You may be pro or anti-Scientology. You may not care either way. It’s hardly the greatest threat posing Wales at the current time. But there’s something genuinely worrying when anyone – elected councillor or not – faces censure from the State for expressing a genuinely-held opinion.

And can I just restate that I haven’t said Scientology is stupid ?!>

L"Eglise" notoirement litigieuse se plaint à Cardiff City Council que ce commentaire empiète sur leur droit à la liberté religieuse. Le point principal de l'argument de la scientologie était que tweet délicteux est venu de «CllrJohnDixon», laissant entendre qu'il agissait à titre officiel. Il semble que le conseiller Dixon a effectivement transgressé le code de conduite du Conseil et l'affaire sera renvoyée à la commission de discipline.

C'est une situation intéressante et un certain nombre de questions me sont venues à l'esprit. La première est de savoir si le conseiller Dixon a effectivement fait quelque chose de mal . Je pense qu'il est évident que son acte n'était pas un délit d'ordre pénal. Je doute en effet qu'il soit diffamatoire et il est donc peu susceptible d'être ipoursuivi dans une affaire civile sur cette base. Toutefois il a été identifié comme un conseiller et peut avoir agi de façon contraire au code de conduite qui fait partie de ses conditions d'emploi, cela pour autant que ce code de conduite dise quelque chose sur la croyance religieuse. C'est au Conseil de décider et je ne vais pas faire d'interprêtation ni commentaire à ce sujet car je ne sais pas ce que ce code de conduite dit.

La deuxième question est de savoir si lune telle boutade au sujet des chrétiens ou des musulmans (ou toutautre religion) devrait générer une même réaction..Je me suis informé sur ce qu'est la religion de scientologie et je la considère comme un fatras de fantasmes hilarants et risibles concoctés par un auteur de dixième ordre de science-fiction dans le but de duper les naïfs et les plus vulnérables et de mettre la maiin sur leur argent. Je crois que ceux qui ont été happés par ce mouvemant sont comme des sandwichs dans un pique-nique, mais ce que cela me donne le droit de dire qu'ils sont «stupides» en public ?

En fait, je pense que oui. Et je pense que je devrais aussi avoir le droit de dire de telles choses sur les autres religions. Pour leur part, ils ont également le droit de manifester s'ils sont offensés. Mais ils n'ont pas - ou ne devraient pas - avoir le droit d'instrumentaliser la justice simplement parce que quelqu'un a exprimé une opinion . Je n'ai pas de problème avec cela, pas plus que j'ai un problème avec les satires des gens comme Simon Jenkins pour les bêtises qu'ils disent.

Je suppose qu'il ya des athées qui pensent que toutes les religions et les religieux sont stupides, de même qu'il y a des personnes religieuses qui pensent que les autres religions que la leur sont stupides.

Bien que je n'ai pas de critère objectif pour juger notamment comment les différentes religions sont stupides , et donc qu'il est très difficile d'être totalement impartial dans mes attitudes à l'égard des religions, je trouve particulièrement ridicule la Scientologie . Regardez par exemple ce qui a été révélé sur l'Eglise de Scientologie dans track-record. Je ne me sens pas la nécessité de présenter des excuses pour cela.

Derrière cela est toute la question de la liberté d'expression et la mesure dans laquelle elle devrait être limitée, soit par la loi ou par contrat de travail. Tout d'abord je sais que personne n'aime recevoir des commentaires désagéables ou abusifs et je pense qu'il existe des exemples bien pire que «stupide» et qui sont liés aux croyances d'un individu ou à son appartenance à une catégorie différente comme par exemple, la race, le sexe ou l'orientation sexuelle.

Cependant tout ceci ne me semble pas pertinent dans ce cas. Quelle que soit la situation juridique les employeurs ont le droit de décider du comportement qu'ils acceptent de leurs employés dans leur bureau. Dans de nombreux cas - en particulier dans le secteur public mais pas exclusivement- cela fait partie du contrat de travail. Si un employé transgresse les règlements il doit faire face à des mesures disciplinaires. Si ce des décisions ne sont pas prises ou qu'elles le sont de façon arbitraire c'est l'ensemble du système qui devient hypocrite. Mieux vaut alors ne pas d'avoir de règles du tout que de les utiliser de travers...

Je pense que c'est au pire un peu impoli que de faire nommé la scientologuie de «stupide», mais pas davantage. C'est aussi peut-être un peu différent pour un conseiller de le faire à titre professionnel que comme un simple particulier. Toutefois, je me ne dirais pas que l'Eglise de scientologie elle-même est stupide. Je pense que c'est bien pire que cela. Je pense qu'ils savent exactement ce qu'il font.

Il sera intéressant de voir ce qui se passe aujourd'hui dans ce cas. J'espère que le conseiller Dixon n'aura rien de plus qu'une tape sur les doigts. Je crains cependant que les projecteurs des médias contraignent le comité d'éthique à prendre des mesures plus draconiennes.

Scientology and Stupidity

Source: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/scientology-and-stupidity/

[Texte intégral]

The first bit of news that caught my eye this morning as I ate my toast was a local item about Councillor John Dixon of Cardiff City Council. I’m not a big fan of the Council, particularly their bizarre Highways Department which, on the one hand, is narrowing all the roads in the city centre causing ridiculous levels of traffic congestion and, on the other, has completed an appalling road into Bute Park for the purpose of promoting its use by heavy trucks and lorries. When I saw a councillor was in trouble and that the word “stupid” was involved, I assumed I knew what it would be about …

However, that turns out not to be true. The Councillor was on the receiving end of a complaint by the Church of Scientology because of something he posted on Twitter. The message was:

The notoriously litigious “Church” complained to Cardiff City Council that this comment impinged on their right to religious freedom. The main point of the Scientologists’ argument was that offending tweet came from "CllrJohnDixon", implying that he was acting in an official capacity. Indications are that Councillor Dixon has indeed transgressed the Council’s code of conduct and the case will be referred to their disciplinary committee.

This is an interesting situation that brought a number of questions to my mind. First is whether Councillor Dixon actually did anything wrong. I think it’s obvious that his comment wasn’t a criminal act. I doubt if it was actually defamatory either, so it’s unlikely to be involved in a civil case on that basis. However, he was identified as a Councillor and may well have acted contrary to the code of conduct that forms part of his terms of employment if the code of conduct says something about religious belief. That is a matter for the Council to decide and I don’t think it’s helpful to comment here, primarly because I don’t know what the Code of Conduct says.

The second question is whether one’s reaction to a quip that Scientologists are stupid should generate any different reaction to a similar remark about Christians. Or Muslims. Or any other religion. I’ve run into Scientologists myself and read a bit about their religion, which I regard as a hilarious hotch-potch of laughable fantasies cobbled together by a tenth-rate Science Fiction author with the express purpose of duping the gullible and the vulnerable out of their cash. I believe that anyone caught up in it must indeed be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but does that give me the right to say they’re “stupid” in public?

Actually, I think it does. And I think I should have the right to say such things about other religions too. For their part they also have the right to protest if they’re offended. But they do not or should not have the right for any form of legal redress simply because I expressed an opinion. I don’t have a problem with this, any more than I have a problem with lampooning people like Simon Jenkins for the stupid things they say.

I suspect there are atheists who think all religions and religious people are stupid, as well as religious people who think all religions are stupid other than the one they believe in. Then there are people, like me, who don’t follow any religion but also don’t think that all of them are totally silly. I think it’s a reasonable principle that the right to hold and to espouse religious beliefs should be respected, unless, of course, the religious beliefs in question contradict common law or basic morality. Should we consider racism or homophobia to be acceptable if motivated by religion but not if such views stem from an atheistic political philisophy ?

Although I don’t have any particularly objective yardstick for judging how silly different religions are, and therefore find it quite difficult to be entirely even-handed in my attitudes to religions, I do find Scientology particularly ridiculous. But then looking at the Church of Scientology’s track-record I don’t feel the need to apologize for that.

Behind this is the whole issue of freedom of expression and the extent to which it should be limited, either by the law or by employment contracts. For a start, I know that nobody likes to be on the receiving end of abusive comments, but I can think of much worse examples than “stupid”. Abuse related to an individual’s beliefs also belong to a different category to those related to, for example, race, gender or sexual orientation.

However, all this about laws is really irrelevant in this case (I think). Whatever the legal situation in the big wide world, employers have a right to decide on what sort of behaviour they will accept from their employees in their office. In many cases – especially, but by no means exclusively, in the public sector – such things form part of the contract of employment. If an employee transgresses they should face disciplinary action. If that doesn’t happen, or it is done in a discriminatory way, then the whole system starts to look grossly hypocritical. Better surely not to have rules at all than to have them but use them only as window-dressing ?

I think what I’m saying is that I think it’s at worst a bit impolite for a private individual to call Scientologists “stupid” but nothing more than that. It’s also perhaps a bit different for a Councillor to do so in their professional capacity than as a private individual. However, I myself would not say that the Church of Scientology itself is stupid. I think it’s much worse than that. I think it knows exactly what it’s doing.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens now in this case. I hope Councillor Dixon gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I fear, however, that the media spotlight will compel the Ethics committee to take more drastic measures.

His Tweet said:"I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off."

A complaint was made by a scientologist to the Ombudsman for Public Services in Wales. They found there was a case to answer under the code of conduct for councillors and has passed the matter on to Cardiff City Council's standards and ethics committee. Cllr Dixon's Twitter account identified him as a councillor. As councillors we are obliged to be respectful.

Perhaps the Scientologists have a point in demanding equal treatment. What if he had made the equivalent comment about Christianity or Islam? Probably thousands of local councillors are atheists. I think it would have been disrespectful for them to express there views in such terms - but that in a free society it should be allowed. Those who feel Cllr Dixon is a disrespectful fellow have the remedy of voting him out of office.

Supposing I had tweeted: "I didn't know the Lib Dems had an office on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off."

Would Cllr Dixon be entitled to have a complaint upheld against me? The rules have become absurd.

Daniel Finkelstein takes up the case in The Times this morning.He says:

«It can be hard to pin down the theology of Scientologists, but according to one account (pieced together by the Los Angeles Times) they believe that 75 million years ago a tyrant named Xenu ruled the Galactic Confederation, an alliance of 76 planets, including Earth, then called Teegeeack.

To solidify his power, Xenu instructed his loyal officers to capture beings of all shapes and sizes from the various planets, freeze them in a compound of alcohol and glycol and fly them by the billions to Earth in aircraft resembling DC8s. Some of the beings were captured after being duped into showing up for a phoney tax investigation.

The Scientologists may be right on the money with this Xenu stuff, of course, but it doesn’t seem to me that it is a breach of any code of conduct to advance the hypothesis that it is stupid.»

Mr Dixon liked to do this from time to time, sending messages to a few friends who had elected to follow the tweets that he posted. He had just told them that he was on his way to collect his wedding ring, having, one message earlier, informed them of his excitement at finding a cheap loaf of bread in the supermarket. His messages, in other words, weren't of much consequence. They came, passed through the Twitter system and, within a few hours, were gone again.

Things turned out rather differently with his next Tweet. As he passed a branch of the Church of Scientology, he sent his friends the following message: "Didn't know there was a Scientology 'church' on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off." However quickly he hurried past, however, it turned out not to have been fast enough.

There's one more thing you need to know about John Dixon. He is a councillor sitting on Cardiff Council and those who follow him on Twitter, or come across any of his tweets, know this because he tweets under the name cllrjohndixon. And this, presumably, is how a Scientologist from East Grinstead -- obviously not a constituent or a friend, just someone who had googled the word Scientology -- tracked him down and knew how to proceed against him.

Scientologists don't much like criticism and, famously, many are aggressive in using the legal system. And the law presented an avenue down which to pursue Mr Dixon. Over the past decade a series of statutory instruments, legislation and new bodies have been created in an attempt to ensure that local councillors do not engage in corrupt practices. Mr Dixon's googler thought he would have a go at complaining.

This is where the rather prosaic story becomes hard to believe, and introduced me to an issue that I was scarcely aware of. It can be hard to pin down the theology of Scientologists, but according to one account (pieced together by the Los Angeles Times) they believe that 75 million years ago a tyrant named Xenu ruled the Galactic Confederation, an alliance of 76 planets, including Earth, then called Teegeeack.

To solidify his power, Xenu instructed his loyal officers to capture beings of all shapes and sizes from the various planets, freeze them in a compound of alcohol and glycol and fly them by the billions to Earth in aircraft resembling DC8s. Some of the beings were captured after being duped into showing up for a phoney tax investigation.

The Scientologists may be right on the money with this Xenu stuff, of course, but it doesn't seem to me that it is a breach of any code of conduct to advance the hypothesis that it is stupid.

It turns out that the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales does not agree with me. The code of conduct that councillors are expected to follow may have been designed to stop them fiddling their expenses and accepting money for support in planning applications and suchlike. But it has been drawn much wider than that. Councillors are expected to treat the public with respect, to ensure that they are not rude when carrying out their duties and that they are not behaving in a way that might bring their office into disrepute.

Reviewing the case, the ombudsman decided that, because Mr Dixon had posted on a social networking site, and because he called himself a councillor, and because using the word "stupid" is not respectful, he should be referred to the monitoring officer of Cardiff Council so that its standards committee can consider the finding that Mr Dixon may have brought his office into disrepute.

Breathtaking, to use the word employed by the legal blogger Jack of Kent who made me aware of this case.

But not, I discovered as I delved deeper, the only breathtaking part of the story by any means. The legislation that led to the absurd finding against Mr Dixon has, naturally enough, led to thousands of complaints costing millions of pounds, most of the time about basically nothing.

Most seriously of all they have led to the creation of increasingly baroque regulations restricting the freedom of councillors.

Let's say that a concrete car park is to be built in the middle of your local park. You decide to stand for the council, promising to speak out against the car park. You win. But then, guess what? You find that it is a breach of the code for you to speak or vote on any issue relating to the car park. You have "a prejudicial interest" in the matter, and are therefore barred.

This need not involve only planning matters. You could be barred from, say, speaking against the council's decision to contract out its swimming pools if you had told voters in advance that you were against it.

This really happens. All the time. Honestly. It is a rare example in politics of something that actually is as crazy as it sounds. Crazy and dangerous. The Dixon ruling and the "prejudicial interest" policy are a direct assault on freedom of expression, one that impacts on elected officials and restricts democracy.

The coalition partners both agree that things have gone too far. Laudably they plan to do away with the standards board that regulates these codes of conducts and intend to legislate to prevent use of the prejudicial interest bar. This is very welcome. But I don't think that it will prove as easy as that.

To read the Dixon ruling is to be astonished that a public official could rule against a councillor for expressing his or her opinion on a matter of public interest. To follow the course of the prejudicial interest rule is to be amazed as to how a sensible piece of guidance (don't vote if your personal interests are bound up with the decision) has turned into a mad and sinister one (don't vote or speak if you have told your voters how you intend to vote).