Topaz Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 On Nov.18th, the Duffy trial will continues and how many of you think that Harper may get a call from Duffy lawyer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 On Nov.18th, the Duffy trial will continues and how many of you think that Harper may get a call from Duffy lawyer? He's still an MP, and thus cannot be compelled by a summons. Hello Parliamentary privilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 He's still an MP, and thus cannot be compelled by a summons. Hello Parliamentary privilege. He could have been, if Trudeau didn't call parliament back for Dec. 3. If he had called parliament back in January, then it would have been beyond 40 days after the last session and prior to 40 days before the next session. Harper's parliamentary privilege would be expired and he'd be compelled to testify. Trudeau did him a favour here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 He could have been, if Trudeau didn't call parliament back for Dec. 3. If he had called parliament back in January, then it would have been beyond 40 days after the last session and prior to 40 days before the next session. Harper's parliamentary privilege would be expired and he'd be compelled to testify. Trudeau did him a favour here. Yes and Harper had already handed out well over the first 40 days with this ridiculously long campaign. Trudeau should have made him squirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Yes and Harper had already handed out well over the first 40 days with this ridiculously long campaign. Trudeau should have made him squirm. I wonder if that has anything to do with Harper staying on as MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 I wonder if that has anything to do with Harper staying on as MP. He would be squirming if he'd lost his seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 He would be squirming if he'd lost his seat. Yeah. Too bad - it would have been fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 found this online and Harper still could be called. http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/12/can-prime-minister-or-cabinet-duck.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) found this online and Harper still could be called. http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/12/can-prime-minister-or-cabinet-duck.html Poorly written, even for a lawyer. "If the PM is sued he must defend and testify," according to this guy. First off, Harper's not being sued here. Duffy is on trial. And secondly, nobody has to testify if they're up on criminal charges. Edited November 6, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 I would think that Duffy would want Harper to testify, if it proves everything he's saying is true and the former PM is lying but time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 found this online and Harper still could be called. http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2011/12/can-prime-minister-or-cabinet-duck.html That's certainly not what Parliament views as the nature of privilege. From http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.htm, specifically: - freedom of speech; - freedom from arrest in civil actions; - exemption from jury duty; and - exemption from being subpoenaed to attend court. The only limitation on freedom from subpoenas is criminal trials in which the MP in question is an accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 He's still an MP, and thus cannot be compelled by a summons. Hello Parliamentary privilege. Isn't it great how legislators have so much legal immunity. They can lie and slander without any legal repercussions, a politician's dream really. #ruleoflaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Isn't it great how legislators have so much legal immunity. They can lie and slander without any legal repercussions, a politician's dream really. #ruleoflaw Parliamentary privilege is one of the cornerstones of modern representative democracy, and is enjoyed even by members of Congress in the United States. MPs must have the freedom to be able speak openly within Parliament, and without fear of nuisance lawsuits, and must be free from interference by the Executive in the form of subpoenas and other abuses of process. It is hardly absolute (it doesn't cover criminal actions, for instance). Probably the very best example of how important the freedom of speech MPs enjoy can be as the Trafigura Affair in the UK. In the UK, companies and individuals can apply for "super injunctions" which, if they successfully get from a judge, basically forbids anyone; private citizen or member of the press, from publishing anything on the matters held within the injunction. In other words, it's an absolute form of civil censorship. In the Trafigura Affair, a Dutch company was caught dumping toxic heavy metals in the Ivory Coast. When Trafigura was busted, it applied for and got a super-injunction banning anyone within the UK from even referring to the allegations. Except in Parliament, where the absolute freedom of speech and freedom from subpoena and civil action allowed an MP, Paul Farrelly, to table a question in Westminster that blew the lid off of the whole scandal. Because the Parliamentary privilege so hard-won after the English Civil War and entrenched in the Bill of Rights 1689 made him immune from Trafigura's gag order. It is true that privilege could be abused, and doubtless one can find cases where it has been, but ultimately we want our MPs to be able to speak their mind free from concern about court actions against them, at least when they are in chambers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Harper is not on trial On Nov.18th, the Duffy trial will continues and how many of you think that Harper may get a call from Duffy lawyer? And in some fevered little brains, the illusion continues that Harper is on trial or that there is any hint of criminal conduct. Oh wait thats right. He bought off the RCMP and Crown prosecutors in the best kept conspiracy of the century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Harper is not on trial And in some fevered little brains, the illusion continues that Harper is on trial or that there is any hint of criminal conduct. Oh wait thats right. He bought off the RCMP and Crown prosecutors in the best kept conspiracy of the century. If they're not going to charge Nigel Wright with blatant violations of the Criminal Code and Parliament of Canada Act, then I'd say Harper is secure, even if evidence comes out that he was pulling the strings from behind the closed door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 If the liberals really wanted to make Harper squirm they wouldn't have sent him home in a Challenger. Cite: G and M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Parliamentary privilege is one of the cornerstones of modern representative democracy, and is enjoyed even by members of Congress in the United States. MPs must have the freedom to be able speak openly within Parliament, and without fear of nuisance lawsuits, and must be free from interference by the Executive in the form of subpoenas and other abuses of process. It is hardly absolute (it doesn't cover criminal actions, for instance). It is true that privilege could be abused, and doubtless one can find cases where it has been, but ultimately we want our MPs to be able to speak their mind free from concern about court actions against them, at least when they are in chambers. Hi ToadBrother, that may be true, but does that include "lies & slander" which is what Moonlight Graham was alluding to. Smoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Hi ToadBrother, that may be true, but does that include "lies & slander" which is what Moonlight Graham was alluding to. Smoke How much of that really goes on? Any right can be abused, but does that mean the right itself should be revoked. There are sound historical reasons for Parliamentary privilege. Yes, it will be abused, but so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 If they're not going to charge Nigel Wright with blatant violations of the Criminal Code and Parliament of Canada Act, then I'd say Harper is secure, even if evidence comes out that he was pulling the strings from behind the closed door. And even if no evidence comes forward, you had already made up your mind anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 And even if no evidence comes forward, you had already made up your mind anyway. I've stated many times I don't believe Harper knew the particulars of the repayment. What he is responsible for is granting people of such low moral fiber and basic ethics as Nigel Wright and Ray Novak such great power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I've stated many times I don't believe Harper knew the particulars of the repayment. What he is responsible for is granting people of such low moral fiber and basic ethics as Nigel Wright and Ray Novak such great power. Yeah, those bastards sent $200 million of my taxpayer money to themselves and Montreal ad agencies. Oh wait, that was somebody else that did that. These guys sent $90k of their own money. Same thing innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Yeah, those bastards sent $200 million of my taxpayer money to themselves and Montreal ad agencies. Oh wait, that was somebody else that did that. These guys sent $90k of their own money. Same thing innit? There must be a suitable expression in the English language for invoking a fifteen year old scandal from a previous government to justify the ill behavior of your own party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 They should try invoking principles instead of principals, they'd get far better traction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 There must be a suitable expression in the English language for invoking a fifteen year old scandal from a previous government to justify the ill behavior of your own party. Party? Did Nigel Wright send $200 million taxpayer money to his own party? Where did you hear that? Got a link? The piggies are back at the big trough, the one they belong at in their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 Party? Did Nigel Wright send $200 million taxpayer money to his own party? Where did you hear that? Got a link? The piggies are back at the big trough, the one they belong at in their minds. Their argument is that stuff from 15 years ago is no longer relevant wrt the Liberal party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.