Civility in the House of Commons

[jbg]

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.

How well would it go if a member of the Opposition were "named?" How different would that be from the way Stalin ran the Duma?

Edited February 25, 2013 by jbg

[Paradox]

How well would it go if a member of the Opposition were "named?" How different would that be from the way Stalin ran the Duma?

There needs to be a level of trust that the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to exercise her (or his) powers, functions, and authority appropriately. History has shown this to be the case with our Speakers (of both Houses), and so this is unlikely to be much of a concern. It is tremendously rare, in Canada, that the non-partisanship of the Speaker is challenged by any member, never mind a party.

The Government, and the Opposition, ought to be held to the same standards of order and decorum. Opposition parties do not get a pass just because they are on the opposing side. And like I said, this system already exists, and has been proven to work in other Houses of Commons/Representatives in other Commonwealth realms that use our Westminster system of government.

[shortlived]

There needs to be a level of trust that the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to exercise her (or his) powers, functions, and authority appropriately. History has shown this to be the case with our Speakers (of both Houses), and so this is unlikely to be much of a concern. It is tremendously rare, in Canada, that the non-partisanship of the Speaker is challenged by any member, never mind a party.

The Government, and the Opposition, ought to be held to the same standards of order and decorum. Opposition parties do not get a pass just because they are on the opposing side. And like I said, this system already exists, and has been proven to work in other Houses of Commons/Representatives in other Commonwealth realms that use our Westminster system of government.

It is just a means to silence on cultural grounds.

If the person is within the law, they should not be silenced in a free society. The westminister system's parliamentary censoring violates the constitution, since the federal government cannot deprive constitutional rights, any constitutional aspect is thus null if it violates the principles of the constitution.

" Disruptive behaviour would be by reasonable decorum. The principles of parliamentary rules are to not limit discourse and discovery. The proper process is to bring the member to the bar of parliament not to censor them, members of parliament cannot be suspended, by convention suspended members have continued to sit, but can be fined for doing so, and in that event the fine would be illegal because it is unconstitutional.

The role of parliament is for dialogue not for tyranny. People have a recourse to assault and "harassment" but if it does not meet the criminal grounds it is political and corrupt.

the basis however is that parliament has grounds to bring to the bar a member for crminal conduct within the house but they could still appeal to the queen or courts as applicable.

harassment is

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that

another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person

is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes

that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for

their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

..repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

That is what megaphones are for, if it ain't assault it ain't too loud.

What do they pay the interpreters and sound system people for? get better headphones dolts.

Also both semifore and sign language exist.

we can't allow political freedom and free speech, this is canada afterall....

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[Paradox]

It is just a means to silence on cultural grounds.

If the person is within the law, they should not be silenced in a free society. The westminister system's parliamentary censoring violates the constitution, since the federal government cannot deprive constitutional rights, any constitutional aspect is thus null if it violates the principles of the constitution.

" Disruptive behaviour would be by reasonable decorum. The principles of parliamentary rules are to not limit discourse and discovery. The proper process is to bring the member to the bar of parliament not to censor them, members of parliament cannot be suspended, by convention suspended members have continued to sit, but can be fined for doing so, and in that event the fine would be illegal because it is unconstitutional.

The role of parliament is for dialogue not for tyranny. People have a recourse to assault and "harassment" but if it does not meet the criminal grounds it is political and corrupt.

the basis however is that parliament has grounds to bring to the bar a member for crminal conduct within the house but they could still appeal to the queen or courts as applicable.

harassment is

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that

another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person

is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes

that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for

their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

..repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

That is what megaphones are for, if it ain't assault it ain't too loud.

What do they pay the interpreters and sound system people for? get better headphones dolts.

Also both semifore and sign language exist.

we can't allow political freedom and free speech, this is canada afterall....

The Parliament of Canada has the authority to manage its own affairs.

If a member of the House of Commons is disruptive, then absolutely, the Speaker of the House has the authority to maintain order and decorum. The practice of naming members, and thereby initiating a motion to suspend the service of the member, is entirely within parliamentary rules. Canadians have the rights and freedoms set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subject to such limits as can be reasonably and demonstrably warranted in a free and democratic society; and certainly, orderly debate in the elected national legislature is one such circumstance.

A member of the House of Commons has expansive freedom to speak as the member deems appropriate and necessary, but there are rules of procedure. They need to be called upon by the Speaker and speak during their turn, for example; they cannot interrupt other members under the guise of freedom of expression. These are basic tenets of parliamentary democracy (any orderly and responsible democracy, really). No member of the House has some unencumbered right to disrupt the work of the Parliament of Canada under some perverted reading of the Charter.

[shortlived]

The Parliament of Canada has the authority to manage its own affairs.

If a member of the House of Commons is disruptive, then absolutely, the Speaker of the House has the authority to maintain order and decorum. The practice of naming members, and thereby initiating a motion to suspend the service of the member, is entirely within parliamentary rules. Canadians have the rights and freedoms set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subject to such limits as can be reasonably and demonstrably warranted in a free and democratic society; and certainly, orderly debate in the elected national legislature is one such circumstance.

A member of the House of Commons has expansive freedom to speak as the member deems appropriate and necessary, but there are rules of procedure. They need to be called upon by the Speaker and speak during their turn, for example; they cannot interrupt other members under the guise of freedom of expression. These are basic tenets of parliamentary democracy (any orderly and responsible democracy, really). No member of the House has some unencumbered right to disrupt the work of the Parliament of Canada under some perverted reading of the Charter.

Its affairs cannot lawfully infringe the personal liberties enshrined in the constitution.

Parliament is not above the constitution anymore that ended in 1982.

Those rules and procedure cannot violate the constitution, and peoples constitutional rights. End of story. The federal government is prohibited from violating the constitution by policy, or general law.

An individual has the choice to be bound by parliament but they are not legally required if it violates the constitution.

Any physical attempt to deprive those liberties can meet force with force honourably in defence against assault or violation of security of person.

It is the constitution you are uncanadian if you don't hold those values true and instead put your faith in past fancies that were put under just rule in 1982, as opposed to dictatorial rule that did not provide for a free and democratic society.

You are just trumping the status quo and you are morally wrong.

This just underpins the aspect of parliament not being free or democratic, in a society of supposed equals.

You don't like it, someone dies.

IF parliament does not base its own morality on that expected of society by the laws they pass how do they have moral authority.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[Paradox]

Its affairs cannot lawfully infringe the personal liberties enshrined in the constitution.

Parliament is not above the constitution anymore that ended in 1982.

Those rules and procedure cannot violate the constitution, and peoples constitutional rights. End of story. The federal government is prohibited from violating the constitution by policy, or general law.

An individual has the choice to be bound by parliament but they are not legally required if it violates the constitution.

Any physical attempt to deprive those liberties can meet force with force honourably in defence against assault or violation of security of person.

It is the constitution you are uncanadian if you don't hold those values true and instead put your faith in past fancies that were put under just rule in 1982, as opposed to dictatorial rule that did not provide for a free and democratic society.

You are just trumping the status quo and you are morally wrong.

This just underpins the aspect of parliament not being free or democratic, in a society of supposed equals.

You don't like it, someone dies.

IF parliament does not base its own morality on that expected of society by the laws they pass how do they have moral authority.

That was a rather fantastic ramble, there.

The Constitution Act, 1982, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 1, in fact), states that there are limits to rights and freedoms, provided that they are reasonable in a free and democratic society. This is an irrefutable fact. Also, the Supreme Court of Canada would have no authority whatsoever to hear a case about whether the House of Commons erred, or not, in the suspension of a member of Parliament. The Supreme Court is, remember, a statutory body that exists only because the Parliament of Canada says that it does. It has no authority to make determinations or orders in relation to the internal procedures of the House.

A member of the House of Commons does not have the "right" to heckle and interrupt other members. The Speaker of the House has the absolute authority to preside over the House and to preserve its order and decorum, subject only to an appeal of the ruling of the Speaker, which may then be determined by a vote of the House. These powers are vested in and guaranteed to the Speaker by the Constitution Act, 1867, and are reinforced by the Parliament of Canada Act, 1985, which forms a part of the Canadian constitution (by reference of the Constitution Act, 1982). The Speaker of the House has the constitutional authority to preserve order and decorum.

You seem confused about the workings of our parliamentary democracy.

The powers and authority of the Speaker of the House were not somehow transformed when the constitution was amended in 1982. No individual has the choice as to whether to be bound by the Parliament of Canada; it is the supreme governing body of Canada, composed of the Queen (represented by the Governor General), the Senate, and the House of Commons. Laws passed by the Parliament of Canada bind all Canadians, including members of the House of Commons (except that members may not be prosecuted in court for anything said in the Senate or the House). The role of the Speaker is also enshrined in constitutional law. You will not accuse me of being "un-Canadian" when you so clearly have a very confused and incomplete interpretation of the Canadian constitutional framework, and the most very basic workings of Parliament.

[shortlived]

One persons interferance is another persons expression.

Procedure is not supravires to the constitution.

You can defend your constitional rights to the death.

If it is not against the law, you can do it. That is the bottom line. Anything other than that is fancy.

This isn't about being unreasonable but it is about setting the limits of conduct as exists in the constitution, and the laws which are in place constitutionally.

The only limit on constitutional rights is laws passed in parliament not the commons, based on principles of fundamental justice in accordance with good government.

That's it.

The rest is all mutual agreement, because people have the right to defend their rights to the full extent of the law that means repelling force with force and use of lethal force to prevent life or limb in required to insure security of person.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

That was a rather fantastic ramble, there.

The Constitution Act, 1982, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 1, in fact), states that there are limits to rights and freedoms, provided that they are reasonable in a free and democratic society. This is an irrefutable fact. Also, the Supreme Court of Canada would have no authority whatsoever to hear a case about whether the House of Commons erred, or not, in the suspension of a member of Parliament. The Supreme Court is, remember, a statutory body that exists only because the Parliament of Canada says that it does. It has no authority to make determinations or orders in relation to the internal procedures of the House.

A member of the House of Commons does not have the "right" to heckle and interrupt other members. The Speaker of the House has the absolute authority to preside over the House and to preserve its order and decorum, subject only to an appeal of the ruling of the Speaker, which may then be determined by a vote of the House. These powers are vested in and guaranteed to the Speaker by the Constitution Act, 1867, and are reinforced by the Parliament of Canada Act, 1985, which forms a part of the Canadian constitution (by reference of the Constitution Act, 1982). The Speaker of the House has the constitutional authority to preserve order and decorum.

You seem confused about the workings of our parliamentary democracy.

The powers and authority of the Speaker of the House were not somehow transformed when the constitution was amended in 1982. No individual has the choice as to whether to be bound by the Parliament of Canada; it is the supreme governing body of Canada, composed of the Queen (represented by the Governor General), the Senate, and the House of Commons. Laws passed by the Parliament of Canada bind all Canadians, including members of the House of Commons (except that members may not be prosecuted in court for anything said in the Senate or the House). The role of the Speaker is also enshrined in constitutional law. You will not accuse me of being "un-Canadian" when you so clearly have a very confused and incomplete interpretation of the Canadian constitutional framework, and the most very basic workings of Parliament.

No I'm not confused at all you seem to be omitting there were multiple wars and violence within parliament, how is that for your constitution. It is natural law, the rest is civil conduct, its not you who sets that limit for me. Your views are those of a stooge.

Everyone has freedom of choice. I can take down anything that stops that. God is supreme. That is no man. There are no limits on personal liberties other than ones willingness to be bound by those things.

This is about nothing more than just and reasonable rule. No one not in parliament or the queen has divine right. Persons liberties in a free society are unbound. Those principles can not be drown by an ocean of ink nor many continents of paper.

They cut off the kings head, there are no limits.

Don't test me. This isn't a game. I know what I mean. You can bind yourself to someone elses view, it isn't mine, the speaker has no more right to speak than I , for I am the speaker. My house is the whole. Not you not the other. I'll say what I want if it is to further society.

My choice is martial force to uphold, and I will do so to my last breath. If you want to die trying to stop me or kill someone else to censor then you are the problem.

This is not suggesting unreasonable conduct but it is upholding every individuals right to set there own conduct within the laws of society.

The law is unconstitutional if it restricts my right to free expression without a just and reasonable basis.

This is a "no situation exists" basis. so applying rationale to censor is totally unjust.

Oh, you cannot say a member has any rights another member of society does not have. The privileges in an equal society are free, the constitution does not protect parliamentary rights, rules and procedures, which in an equal society all people have equal access to.

Uhm people have the right of conscience belief and opinion so your view is wrong they very much do have the right to express within the limits of the law which is constitutional in value. restricting constitional rights is not able to be done by the government of Canada.

No member of the commons has the power to pass law, not the speaker not the prime minister.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived

[Paradox]

No I'm not confused at all you seem to be omitting there were multiple wars and violence within parliament, how is that for your constitution. It is natural law, the rest is civil conduct, its not you who sets that limit for me. Your views are those of a stooge.

Everyone has freedom of choice. I can take down anything that stops that. God is supreme. That is no man. There are no limits on personal liberties other than ones willingness to be bound by those things.

This is about nothing more than just and reasonable rule. No one not in parliament or the queen has divine right. Persons liberties in a free society are unbound. Those principles can not be drown by an ocean of ink nor many continents of paper.

So there should be no rules for order or decorum in the House of Commons?

They should just open the doors in the morning and dozens of people should start speaking at once?

[shortlived]

So there should be no rules for order or decorum in the House of Commons?

They should just open the doors in the morning and dozens of people should start speaking at once?

There are no rules for order in the house of commons other than fancy.

Parliamentary process is meant to allow due process (which includes fair facilitation of who has the speakers time). However in an equal and free society it does not facilitate censorship.

Paper exists to as well as a plethora of communication methods.

Sure 12 people can speak at once does that make people happy? does that further society? The speaker can choose to only listen to one of them or to communicate with, its not who is speaking that matters it is who the speaker and clerk is listening to.

The point here is people can do what they want, but processes used by one person are those processes, people can choose to follow that persons view or not.

We are all inviolable individuals. Our rights are upheld only as much as they are upheld.

If 12 people can be put on record than there is no reason why 12 people shouldn't speak. That is what committees are generally for though.

None the less I'll say whatever I want within my rights, the repercussions of that speech is mine to bear for myself whether they result in good or ill, the basis however is to further a good society.

Temporality is not the end all. Meaning is far more important than words.

People can do whatever they want, doing so without a look into the future would be a little imprudent however.

It is a violent world people can get hurt or killed, in making the choice to stand you need to decide who you are willing to hurt and kill and what it will take for you to do that.

Procedure is often abused in parliament rather than employed for public well being.

They send paper to the senate. Woooo.

Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived