The proposed code of conduct for Victoria city councillors has good intentions, but it鈥檚 paving the road to democratic purgatory. The code would have councillors walking on eggshells, when they are supposed to speak fearlessly in the interests of the voters.
In an attempt to promote civility, it weaves too tight a straitjacket. Councillors discussed it briefly on Thursday, but decided to put off serious consideration to a later date.
Much of the code is unobjectionable, reminding councillors to obey laws and bylaws, avoid conflict of interest, not abuse their office and not misuse public resources. However, in the sections about what councillors can say and how they should act, the draft goes too far.
Councillors Ben Isitt and Geoff Young said on Wednesday they were concerned about the new rules, with Isitt saying he would probably vote against it and Young standing against the section that says the mayor is the primary spokesman for council.
Like Young, we don鈥檛 know what that means. Council鈥檚 votes speak for themselves. The mayor speaks as the city鈥檚 chief executive. Councillors speak about their own opinions. Designating a 鈥渟pokesman鈥� suggests council has a single opinion or dissenting opinions are not tolerated.
The sa国际传媒 Civil Liberties Association was so concerned about the code that it fired off a letter to council early on Thursday, before councillors鈥� morning meeting.
In its rush, the association could only deal with some of the sections. It said that the one instructing councillors not to cast aspersions on the process after a decision was made is unreasonable.
鈥淐ouncillors are the guardians of these processes on behalf of constituents and they must have absolute latitude and freedom to comment on them,鈥� it wrote.
The section on interpersonal communication casts too wide a net, telling councillors not to use disparaging terms or question the motives of others.
As the civil liberties association pointed out, political debate can get heated, and councillors must be able to question each other鈥檚 motives when they think it is necessary. Limiting expression and punishing those who use forbidden terms is a violation of the Charter of Rights.
鈥淐ouncillors should not have to chill their expression and carefully parse their public remarks for fear of serious penalties,鈥� the association said.
The same thing happens with the section on a 鈥渞espectful workplace,鈥� where councillors are warned they must 鈥渂e supportive of the personal dignity, self-esteem and well-being of those with whom they come in contact during their official public duties.鈥� It鈥檚 a tall order for councillors to do that while being forthright in their criticism.
At times, councillors have serious concerns about the plans or actions of others, and they have to be able to express those without fear.
As with any attempt to control speech and conduct, the terms are dangerously vague. Those who speak hastily run the risk of punishment. Those who obsess about following the code might stay silent when they should speak.
We hope that our elected leaders will treat everyone with civility. If they don鈥檛, it should be up to voters to decide whether they were justified in overstepping the bounds. At times, seemingly harsh expression might be required to make a point that is in the public interest.
Oscar Wilde said: 鈥淎 gentleman is one who never hurts anyone鈥檚 feelings unintentionally.鈥� While we all might aspire to speak and act with such clear intention, expressing ourselves effectively in the public forum is more important than over-thinking the effects of our words on the feelings of others.
Democracy thrives on free expression. A code of conduct that chills expression also undermines the essential exchange of ideas.
