I just checked it out. the speaker did read out what the sec 22 of the standing order said. Therefore the member (8) comment could have been misconstrued as being made to him. With that said (8) should have apologized to the speaker and addressed his comment to the PM, who clearly didn't want him going down that road. lol lol. got to listen to these more often. Wow, the tone in the house was rough though.
Help me out here. Is is Parliamentary procedure for the member (PM) to interrupt while there was a dialogue between another member (8)and the speaker? If the answer is yes then the speaker was correct. If no, then the member from constituency 8 was correct.
i like how this hamilton guy handled the situation. he immediatley responded correctly that the remark was not directed at the speaker. then properly qualified his retraction since to do otherwise would be to admit an act (i.e., that he directed the comment at the speaker) for which he was not guilty. hamilton desired neither to admit guilt nor shirk his parliament duty. good for him. the inquisitor, er, i meant speaker "either admit guilt or else."
all the guy said was "there is an attempt to shut me up in parliament" ...clearly implicating the PM objection. he did not say that the speaker is attempting to "shut me up." then he sat down seemingly content to move on. all the speaker needed to say in response was "perhaps?, now on to the next item"....and i like the logic of "i voted for you this morning how could you do this to me this afternoon.....waaaaaa"
give mr. speaker credit, he did not react to the perceived personal affront a la hitler, stalin, lenin, etc., meaning he could have narrowed the likelihood of being verbally attacked again by erasing this guy's existence, thereby causing chills to go down the spines of parliament, but instead merely insisted on an apology or banishment. that will teach this hamilton guy not to speak his mind in government proceedings again.
According to the rules of Parliament, the point of order made by the member for # 6, was in order. This banter was just that, banter. The Speaker was also right in his position to request for the statement to be taken back. But yes, the Speaker is not dealing with the continued interjections of the Prime Minister.
I just checked it out. the speaker did read out what the sec 22 of the standing order said. Therefore the member (8) comment could have been misconstrued as being made to him. With that said (8) should have apologized to the speaker and addressed his comment to the PM, who clearly didn't want him going down that road. lol lol. got to listen to these more often. Wow, the tone in the house was rough though.
gestridge100 2 months ago
Help me out here. Is is Parliamentary procedure for the member (PM) to interrupt while there was a dialogue between another member (8)and the speaker? If the answer is yes then the speaker was correct. If no, then the member from constituency 8 was correct.
gestridge100 2 months ago
i like how this hamilton guy handled the situation. he immediatley responded correctly that the remark was not directed at the speaker. then properly qualified his retraction since to do otherwise would be to admit an act (i.e., that he directed the comment at the speaker) for which he was not guilty. hamilton desired neither to admit guilt nor shirk his parliament duty. good for him. the inquisitor, er, i meant speaker "either admit guilt or else."
dumdumdu1 1 year ago
all the guy said was "there is an attempt to shut me up in parliament" ...clearly implicating the PM objection. he did not say that the speaker is attempting to "shut me up." then he sat down seemingly content to move on. all the speaker needed to say in response was "perhaps?, now on to the next item"....and i like the logic of "i voted for you this morning how could you do this to me this afternoon.....waaaaaa"
dumdumdu1 1 year ago
just what a country needs. a guy wearing a giant wig on his head and his heart on his sleeve as the person running the show.
dumdumdu1 1 year ago
give mr. speaker credit, he did not react to the perceived personal affront a la hitler, stalin, lenin, etc., meaning he could have narrowed the likelihood of being verbally attacked again by erasing this guy's existence, thereby causing chills to go down the spines of parliament, but instead merely insisted on an apology or banishment. that will teach this hamilton guy not to speak his mind in government proceedings again.
dumdumdu1 1 year ago
According to the rules of Parliament, the point of order made by the member for # 6, was in order. This banter was just that, banter. The Speaker was also right in his position to request for the statement to be taken back. But yes, the Speaker is not dealing with the continued interjections of the Prime Minister.
Craigtuckett 1 year ago
If I didn't know of the speaker's political affiliation from before i definitely know now. HE IS TOO BIAS. I guess he is afraid of his boss.
debraa27 1 year ago
SPEAKER IS OBVIOUSLY BIASED !!!
ShaqdiNGO 1 year ago