Eddie Lowey's Comments

[Theodolite]

What is Hansard: From UK Parliament

 

Hansard (Wikipedia):

Its terms of reference are those set by a House of Commons Select Committee in 1893, as being a report "...which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.

 

Censorship is virtually unknown in the long history of Hansard.

 

When seen by proper folk from the UK. a topper politician saying this sort of thing is probably quite controversial.

 

I would imagine that someone will simply remove the words from the Hansard record. It is not unusual on the Isle of Man for records to be *ahem* amended.

This came up in conversation the other day.

 

I needed to bring this up from last year. The final Hansard record has only recently been made available:

http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/hansards/2009-2010/th20102009.pdf

Go to page 84 for the start of the debate.

Not only do the words not appear in Hansard, but Mr Lowey's whole speech has been removed.

 

Now, I wonder what it is that makes me not one bit surprised.

 

Stalin would be proud of the Isle of Man.

 

That's asctually kinda scary!

Yep, that is kinda scary. Perhaps I should have placed a £1 bet at probably millions to one.

 

The trouble is, through no fault of my own, and reluctantly, I have been provided a deep insight into how our Island can work.

 

And I'm telling you, that is scary.

[Blade Runner]

I would like to hear Mr Robertshaws view on this, as he is the only MHK that has the B**ls to air his thoughts on here.

[Monkey boy]

Two questions:

 

1. Can you give a definite example of someone, one of these idiots (as you've decided they are), who's getting more upset about it than the MEA fiasco?

 

2. Isn't it reasonable to be concerned about the possibility that Hansards may not truly represent the contributions of members of Tynwald, and that it might be possible to alter them to eliminate a gaffe being entered onto the permanent record of parliament's debates?

1. I was referring to the fence - not the MEA

2. Perhaps the best way to truely represent the contributions of members is to record what they actually said - whether you like it or not.

[Blade Runner]

2. Perhaps the best way to truely represent the contributions of members is to record what they actually said - whether you like it or not.

 

The IOM Gov really shoot themselves in the foot with these type of things. Totally agree MB it is just a shame that they think that we cant handle the truth.

 

This obsession with secrecy just makes you think, what the hell are these guys trying to hide?

 

Sad thing is, it is probably nowt, they just must want to appear 007 like! Must make them feel very important as in "I know something that you do not" VERY SAD!

[Terse]

We confidently await the reporting of this on Manx Radio and in IoM Newspapers.

 

If, as both of them protest, they are not in any way controlled by the government and are only too anxious to follow up a good story, surely this one ought to qualify?

[censorship]

The IOM Gov really shoot themselves in the foot with these type of things. Totally agree MB it is just a shame that they think that we cant handle the truth.

What has it got to do with the government? Hansard is record of the proceedings of parliament and comes under the remit of the Clerk of Tynwald's Office. Yet another government conspiracy based on nothing.

[Evil Goblin]

And you really expect us to believe that there is an impregnable Chinese Wall to prevent influences and favours passing? Remember - this is the Isle of Man!

[chandler]

So what exactly was Eddie Lowey trying to say during the Tynwald debate on the airport security fence?

 

He used to trespass on the airport as a lad but he didn't have a towel on his head or look Middle Eastern.

 

Towel head is an offensive term for people who wear turbans.

 

Stop being so touchy and pc, im originally from yorkshire and have had loads of comments about flat caps and ferrets.

the world needs to lighten up and stop taking offence at every comment

[censorship]

And you really expect us to believe that there is an impregnable Chinese Wall to prevent influences and favours passing? Remember - this is the Isle of Man!

I think it is possible that after the headlines his comment produced at the time Mr Lowey may have requested that his speech be withheld from Hansard. If that was the case, he would, presumably, have had to ask the President of Tynwald or Clerk of Tynwald, neither of which are government posts.

The only negative reflection those comments had was on the one making them. Given they were widely reported at the time, what possible motivation would government have for demanding they be stricken from the record now? Would the machinery of government leap into action weeks later to prevent a small amount of embarassment for a non-minister, especially after the embarassment has already been caused.

Why would the current Council of Ministers give a toss that an MLC might be a bit embarassed?

[Terse]

And you really expect us to believe that there is an impregnable Chinese Wall to prevent influences and favours passing? Remember - this is the Isle of Man!

The only negative reflection those comments had was on the one making them.

Which is why it ought to have remained on the official record. Who knows, a social historian in years to come might have found it very interesting that a member of Tynwald used those words - and then be equally interested in the fuss it caused.

In more simple terms it was a speech made in our parliament that we have no record of.

[VinnieK]

As Terse has already said, it is a speech made in Tynwald no longer appears in the official, permanent record of Tynwald.

 

Regardless of whether or not the comments were offensive, or of the motivations behind its omission, this is not something to be dismissed out of hand. The Hansards are the only comprehensive, permanent and readily accessible archive of what's said by our representatives during sittings of Tynwald, and hence one of the few resources we have which allows us to hold members of Tynwald to account. That Lowey's comments were reported in the paper at the time doesn't diminish concerns about what's going on, rather they highlight them: Had they gone unreported, then there would be no record whatsoever.

 

Moreover, if it can happen with Lowey's speech, then it can happen to others. Given that we can't rely on the newspapers to give a complete, permanent account of all of Tynwald's debates, then in principle we can no longer have faith in the idea that the accounts at our disposal of debates (and hence our view into the workings of Tynwald and the actions of our representatives) is substantially correct and complete. In other words, this example of omission, however small or innocent it may seem, represents a much larger problem and one which goes some way towards undermining a basic principle of democracy.

[censorship]

I'm not questioning the fact the record of parliamentary debate shouldn't be changed, only the assertion that this was anything to do with government. They don't control Hansard, couldn't give a shit about Lowey being embarassed and would be acting too late in any case as the story has already been widely reported.

Whether Hansard should be re-written after the event is an important topic which should be discussed, and that discussion should not be clouded by lazy 'government conspiracy' bollocks.

[mannin1]

As Terse has already said, it is a speech made in Tynwald no longer appears in the official, permanent record of Tynwald.

 

Regardless of whether or not the comments were offensive, or of the motivations behind its omission, this is not something to be dismissed out of hand. The Hansards are the only comprehensive, permanent and readily accessible archive of what's said by our representatives during sittings of Tynwald, and hence one of the few resources we have which allows us to hold members of Tynwald to account. That Lowey's comments were reported in the paper at the time doesn't diminish concerns about what's going on, rather they highlight them: Had they gone unreported, then there would be no record whatsoever.

 

Moreover, if it can happen with Lowey's speech, then it can happen to others. Given that we can't rely on the newspapers to give a complete, permanent account of all of Tynwald's debates, then in principle we can no longer have faith in the idea that the accounts at our disposal of debates (and hence our view into the workings of Tynwald and the actions of our representatives) is substantially correct and complete. In other words, this example of omission, however small or innocent it may seem, represents a much larger problem and one which goes some way towards undermining a basic principle of democracy.

 

 

Vinnie K I find your mention of Tynwald and Democracy in the same paragraph highly amusing!!

[VinnieK]

This does reflect on our parliament though, in so much as the president of Tynwald is elected from their number and is held by a political member of Tynwald. If he is failing to uphold the integrity of the permanent record, then questions need to be asked not just about the rules and guidance relating to the final publication of Hansard, but also about his reasons for removing Lowey's speech or allowing it to be removed from the record and whether he's adequately performing his role.

 

Also, as easily dismissed as it may be as a 'conspiracy theory', it raises the related question of whether a member of parliament should have a role in things like the Hansards.

 

 

[censorship]

again, I have no problem with questioning the role of parliamentary members in the writing of Hansard, or the management of Hansard by parliament. The issue I haev is that a couple of people have screamed government conspiracy. Government and parliament are NOT the same thing. This may be a parliamentary conspiracy theory, or a mistake, or within the rules or whatever and it should be looked into.

All I was trying to say is that this is nothing to do with GOVERNMENT it is to do with PARLIAMENT