Civility in the House of Commons

[jbg]

They let you join their club?

They don't like Americans too much there.

[g_bambino]

It just so happens that exercising that freedom has some inconvenient consequences such as imprisonment or execution.

Yes. And?

[CPCFTW]

Yes. And?

And every country in the world has freedom of expression by your ludicrous definition.

Clearly Shortlived's point was that we shouldn't further restrict freedom of expression just because some NDPers panties are in a bunch that the CPC dodge their loaded questions.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Democracy demands the answer!!

[g_bambino]

And every country in the world has freedom of expression by your ludicrous definition.

Clearly Shortlived's point was that we shouldn't further restrict freedom of expression just because some NDPers panties are in a bunch that the CPC dodge their loaded questions.

Actually, you pointed out the fact there are countries that don't allow freedom of expression by highlighting the consequences faced by anyone who tries to exercise such a freedom in those states: "It just so happens that exercising that freedom has some inconvenient consequences such as imprisonment or execution." And I agreed with you.

If anyone's being ludicrous, it's you and shortlived, both of you equating some rules against insults and heckling in the House of Commons with the Iranian regime. I guess this forum, with its rules against incivility and other restrictions on expression, must be run by the Ayatollah himself...

[jacee]

Says...you. I don't agree, I actually think it's a rather interesting show, with much to be learned despite the non questions and non answers.

You don't think they could conduct our business a little more effectively without the sniping and backstabbing?

They conduct their show for themselves and maybe party members, not for all Canadians. Most of us find their behaviour often disgusting.

[Smallc]

You don't think they could conduct our business a little more effectively without the sniping and backstabbing?

They do that all day long. Question Period is a way for the parties to get out frustration, and to keep things alive. Most of the day is not too disgusting for Canadians in general to watch, but too boring.

[g_bambino]

They do that all day long. Question Period is a way for the parties to get out frustration, and to keep things alive. Most of the day is not too disgusting for Canadians in general to watch, but too boring.

But, if Question Period is the only part of the day most Canadians get to see, why should it then be full of contrived performance rather than substantial debate on policy? Debate can be entertaining when the participants know how to get some jibes in on their opponents within a substantive argument. Question Period is just an intellectual vacuum.

[Smallc]

But, if Question Period is the only part of the day most Canadians get to see, why should it then be full of contrived performance rather than substantial debate on policy? Debate can be entertaining when the participants know how to get some jibes in on their opponents within a substantive argument. Question Period is just an intellectual vacuum.

Sure, but, so is Question Time in the UK...because the reality is, people don't care about substance. They want to see a show. People's television preferences should make that pretty clear.

[g_bambino]

Sure, but, so is Question Time in the UK...because the reality is, people don't care about substance. They want to see a show. People's television preferences should make that pretty clear.

Mmmm... True. But, I didn't think Question Period was competing for ratings. If it is, the screaming and insults might be helping, but the repetitive, scripted responses probably aren't.

[Smallc]

Mmmm... True. But, I didn't think Question Period was competing for ratings. If it is, the screaming and insults might be helping, but the repetitive, scripted responses probably aren't.

No, that's true...this government is probably the worst I've ever seen when it comes to explaining their actions.

[cybercoma]

They've adopted the Liberal arrogance Harper was so angry about in the past. They've become what they despised. Instead of being self-loathing, they're patting themselves on the back. They'll do whatever they want and they don't have to answer to anyone. That's the attitude. If the opposition wasn't completely impotent, they would get curb-stomped.

Edited February 3, 2013 by cybercoma

[shortlived]

And every country in the world has freedom of expression by your ludicrous definition.

Clearly Shortlived's point was that we shouldn't further restrict freedom of expression just because some NDPers panties are in a bunch that the CPC dodge their loaded questions.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Democracy demands the answer!!

I can speak for myself. First I'm not partisan, political parties should be banned from recognition, let individuals take their seats but all these perks for parties just wastes tax dollars for a clique to squander public funds and embezzle and give privelege corruptly to themselves.

Frankly, what i meant is language shouldn't be illegal.

Stopping people from communicating is another matter, censorship is wrong.

Now perpetuators of lies, and fraud need to be viciously destroyed, murdered out right I would suggest if it is intentional and to cause the public harm at the benefit of the few.

But language that is deemed foul is just a cultural perception. All language even foul language has meaning, and frankly some actions deserve a foul response because they are foul actions that are disgusting and contemptuous. You don't just say nay to someone suggesting seniors have their pensions taken away so the rich can get more of their money, or that our rivers be allowed to become toxic dumps. These are real issues that are contemptuous and disgusting and deserve a foul response.

Call it what it is.

Criminal behaviour doesn't deserve a civil response. Criminals in parliment should not be pandered tarrings and featherings and set alight would be more appropriate response for the dialouge that would be respectful to society.

Edited February 4, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

I can speak for myself. First I'm not partisan, political parties should be banned from recognition, let individuals take their seats but all these perks for parties just wastes tax dollars for a clique to squander public funds and embezzle and give privelege corruptly to themselves.

Factions and groups--de facto parties--would form, anyway. That's how parties formed in the first place.

Not sure how that even deals with the matter of civility, anyway.

[PIK]

They've adopted the Liberal arrogance Harper was so angry about in the past. They've become what they despised. Instead of being self-loathing, they're patting themselves on the back. They'll do whatever they want and they don't have to answer to anyone. That's the attitude. If the opposition wasn't completely impotent, they would get curb-stomped.

Not even close.

[jacee]

Sure, but, so is Question Time in the UK...because the reality is, people don't care about substance. They want to see a show. People's television preferences should make that pretty clear.

So that's why CPAC's ratings are so high?

[shortlived]

Factions and groups--de facto parties--would form, anyway. That's how parties formed in the first place.

Not sure how that even deals with the matter of civility, anyway.

Yes but they wouldn't be able to lable themselves for tax write offs and free money. It matters. They drain millions from the public's wallets.

They arn't a charity, they should not be treated on the same grounds as people helping those in need and providing a public service.

They are out for themselves not for the people. HENCE PARTISAN NOT PUBLIC.

All the tax write offs for campaigning is nonsense, it is actually Canadians paying to hear what people want to spam them with.

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS like 50+ million in public taxpayer money to let them advance their own causes? It is nonsense.

People should NOT have special status, there should be no POLITICAL class in Canada. They should have NO priveleges that every other Canadian does not have.

If they want to form a corporation fine BUT LETS GET REAL.. political parties ARE NOT CHARITIES, it is embezzlment of public funds, by the political parties who have voted to give themselves free money. THAT IS WRONG. NO MP WHO IS A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD VOTE TO GIVE THEM FREE MONEY. THAT IS EMBEZZLEMENT!

That is exactly what they did by giving themselves tax write offs, that is a CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Edited February 6, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

Yes but they wouldn't be able to lable themselves for tax write offs and free money. It matters. They drain millions from the public's wallets.

They arn't a charity, they should not be treated on the same grounds as people helping those in need and providing a public service.

They are out for themselves not for the people. HENCE PARTISAN NOT PUBLIC.

All the tax write offs for campaigning is nonsense, it is actually Canadians paying to hear what people want to spam them with.

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS like 50+ million in public taxpayer money to let them advance their own causes? It is nonsense.

People should NOT have special status, there should be no POLITICAL class in Canada. They should have NO priveleges that every other Canadian does not have.

If they want to form a corporation fine BUT LETS GET REAL.. political parties ARE NOT CHARITIES, it is embezzlment of public funds, by the political parties who have voted to give themselves free money. THAT IS WRONG. NO MP WHO IS A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD VOTE TO GIVE THEM FREE MONEY. THAT IS EMBEZZLEMENT!

That is exactly what they did by giving themselves tax write offs, that is a CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Not sure you're aware ...

Funding/tax write-offs for political parties are intended to level the playing field, so you don't have to be rich to run for office.

In our democracy, you're supposed to be able to run for office on merit, not because you can afford it.

We could always go back to the feudal era when the rich ruled and the rest paid heavy taxes without any representation in governance.

Not saying it's perfect, but it's better than historical alternatives.

And how is this related to 'civility in the house'?

Edited February 6, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Yes but they wouldn't be able to lable themselves for tax write offs and free money. It matters.

They likely would if the group they formed comprised the majority of population of the House of Commons.

[FulcrumPolitics]

There are plans in the works to rework the power structure in the House of Commons for more civility.

House Sitting, for the Fulcrum spoke with former MP Derek Lee about what can be done to address the unruliness in the House of Commons not just during Question Period, but in general.

http://thefulcrum.ca/2013/01/house-sitting-more-powerful-speaker-less-noise/

Published Jan. 21, 2013

[shortlived]

Funding/tax write-offs for political parties are intended to level the playing field, so you don't have to be rich to run for office.

In our democracy, you're supposed to be able to run for office on merit, not because you can afford it.

We could always go back to the feudal era when the rich ruled and the rest paid heavy taxes without any representation in governance.

Not saying it's perfect, but it's better than historical alternatives.

And how is this related to 'civility in the house'?

First off, no the payoffs are to put money in their pockets and their supporters pockets, not "level the playing field" they were the ones who have removed a level paying field by requiring private auditors even for non spending campaigns, as well as requiring "participation fees" to run in an election, making the cost of running in an election at base a few thousand dollars. This is not to enable the poor access to democratic process and enfranchisement or "level a playing field" it is about putting the process out of reach and turning it into a pay for play. Then the parties give themselves deductions on their fees, but not giving the same benefits to independents. Basically they made a fee, then gave their parties write offs for those fees, while leaving Joe Blow out in the cold to pay the entire fee without cost recovery.

Or we could go to a point where everyone has a vote, and representatives don't get paid by the public, nor do we pay their parties to exist.

Civility in the house isn't about partisanship it is about destruction of the partisanship and turning politicians into Canadians and humans. Those are the grounds to which we can all get along.

They are just trying to remove the humanism from process so people won't reject what they stand for.

Censorship in parliament due to cultural considerations is contrary to a free society that can freely express.

The only type of speech that should be limited is that speech which is illegal in Canada, and not a violation of the constitution..

Edited February 20, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

First off, no the payoffs are to put money in their pockets and their supporters pockets, not "level the playing field" they were the ones who have removed a level paying field by requiring private auditors even for non spending campaigns, as well as requiring "participation fees" to run in an election, making the cost of running in an election at base a few thousand dollars. This is not to enable the poor access to democratic process and enfranchisement or "level a playing field" it is about putting the process out of reach and turning it into a pay for play. Then the parties give themselves deductions on their fees, but not giving the same benefits to independents. Basically they made a fee, then gave their parties write offs for those fees, while leaving Joe Blow out in the cold to pay the entire fee without cost recovery.

Or we could go to a point where everyone has a vote, and representatives don't get paid by the public, nor do we pay their parties to exist.

Civility in the house isn't about partisanship it is about destruction of the partisanship and turning politicians into Canadians and humans. Those are the grounds to which we can all get along.

They are just trying to remove the humanism from process so people won't reject what they stand for.

Censorship in parliament due to cultural considerations is contrary to a free society that can freely express.

The only type of speech that should be limited is that speech which is illegal in Canada, and not a violation of the constitution..

I get it.

You're concerned about the difficulties of running as an independent. That might be an interesting topic to start a new thread.

[shortlived]

I get it.

You're concerned about the difficulties of running as an independent.

No I'm disgusted by the corruptions of the partisan system in Canada. This is about party abuses no independent difficulties. You want civility why not start with fairness, openness and equal access. When you have a majority corruptly attacking minorities there is no room for minority civility.

Civility comes from respect not disrespect and insult.

Based on the charter individuals should have equal access to public office. The party subsidies and benefits are just a corruption, representative of the malignancy, selfinterest and greed of people in Ottawa.

You can't expect an honours system to work with those sorts of people, or powers of censorship to be used fairly and with good reason. It is just another avenue of abuse and corruption for the diabolics.

SHAME!

Edited February 21, 2013 by shortlived

[Paradox]

Mechanisms to control order and decorum in the House of Commons already exist; they just aren't used.

Our rules of order in the House provides for a concept called "naming." This is where a member of the House of Commons has generally been warned a few times for some inappropriate conduct (for example, shouting out during someone else's speech), and the Speaker, having warned the member on a number of occasions, then "names" the member (i.e., refers to the member by real name, and then says "you are named").

When this is done, a member (usually one of the House leaders) rises and immediately moves that "the member be suspended from the service of the House" for some period of time. You see this done at other Westminster-style Parliaments, such as the United Kingdom and Australia. The House needs to start using the mechanisms that are already available to it, before we embark on new mechanisms.

[jbg]

Mechanisms to control order and decorum in the House of Commons already exist; they just aren't used.

Our rules of order in the House provides for a concept called "naming." This is where a member of the House of Commons has generally been warned a few times for some inappropriate conduct (for example, shouting out during someone else's speech), and the Speaker, having warned the member on a number of occasions, then "names" the member (i.e., refers to the member by real name, and then says "you are named").

When this is done, a member (usually one of the House leaders) rises and immediately moves that "the member be suspended from the service of the House" for some period of time. You see this done at other Westminster-style Parliaments, such as the United Kingdom and Australia. The House needs to start using the mechanisms that are already available to it, before we embark on new mechanisms.

What is the political risk that would come to a Speaker who "names"? Especially when the Speaker is from the Opposition as often occurs during minority governments.

[Paradox]

What is the political risk that would come to a Speaker who "names"? Especially when the Speaker is from the Opposition as often occurs during minority governments.

I think that the political risk, rather, is for the party(s) who would dare to act against the Speaker when it is a matter as non-partisan as the basic order and decorum of the House. Besides, the Speaker must be elected by the whole House at the start of each Parliament; so even in a case where it is an opposition Speaker (though they really cease to have any sort of partisanship once they are elected), they would already have a majority mandate from the House of Commons, and be vested with the power to deal with order and decorum in this sort of way.

Besides, it is only the role of the Speaker to name the member and to thereby initiate a poll of the will of the House (through a motion by a House leader). Only the House of Commons can suspend one of its own members, it is up to the Speaker to determine when it might be the most appropriate time for the House to make that determination.