There is plenty of malice about in London and Washington. Canberra has always showed some infection. Politics involves contests, and they can get dirty.
If I see someone disposing of litter illegally, I would not normally be disposed to do much about – in despite of those road signs inviting me to snitch. But if I saw someone I really had it in for doing it, I might be disposed to dob him in. My motive would not be to help the law keep the place tidy, but to hurt my enemy. I would be acting maliciously. But that says nothing about the worth of the allegation itself.
If the evidence shows a breach of the law, then my motive for setting the law in action is irrelevant. Socrates ran this argument – and paid the price. (The law does know of a wrong called ‘malicious prosecution,’ but we can put that to one side. It is, like ‘conspiracy’, a kind of fool’s gold invoked by silly people who have crawled out of the lions’ den, and want to go back for more.)
Consider then the following.
‘Allegations have been brought to the attention of the monitoring officer that Boris Johnson maintained a friendship with Jennifer Arcuri and as a result of that friendship allowed Ms Arcuri to participate in trade missions and receive sponsorship monies in circumstances when she and her companies could not have expected otherwise to receive those benefits,’ a GLA statement said.
Theresa Villiers, environment secretary, said the allegations were politically motivated. Speaking to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme on Saturday morning, she said: ‘I think this whole thing has been blown out of all proportion’. (Financial Times, 29 September, 2019)
This is serious bullshit. There is not even an allegation of malice. The motivation is ‘political’. What other motivation would there be for a political act? Impeachment is a political act. Does that mean its invocation is necessarily flawed?
Yet, on the weekend journalists who know nothing of the law lined up to criticize the U K Supreme Court for making a decision in a ‘political matter.’ If a government could avoid scrutiny by the courts just by saying ‘political’, you could kiss good bye to administrative law and indeed the rule of law.
Still, the erstwhile associate of the Prime Minister was up to it.
In a statement last week, Ms Arcuri said: ‘Any grants received by my companies and any trade mission I joined were purely in respect of my role as a legitimate businesswoman.’ (Financial Times, 3o September, 2019)
I wonder why the lady felt the need to qualify the final noun in that way – or at all. Of course the transaction was merely commercial.
The idea that Trump’s conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart justifies this [impeachment], uniquely in the annals of all US presidential history, is utterly ridiculous.
The Saturday Australian, 28-29 September, 2019, Greg Sheridan.
Mr Sheridan evidently shares the inability of Mr Trump to perceive that the abuse of a public office for personal gain is a serious breach of the duty of good faith. You wonder whether some had the same view of the priesthood. You also wonder what Mr Trump has on Mr Murdoch. But, then, Mr Sheridan was one of those getting into British judges. That suited his current songbook.