"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Danny then and now (V)

Parliamentary privelege. Danny Williams-Government used to be against it:
Let's change it. From my perspective, I think the legislature should have the exact same accountability. That's a democratic practice that goes way, way beyond me. But from my perspective, I'd be prepared to be held accountable...those laws get changed...or anybody else in the House has to be held accountable for what they say. I have no problem with that.

That was before DW-G was not only for it, but started hiding behind its skirt:
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, while there are those who have advocated for Ms Neville’s appearance in this House, including the Advocate herself, it is important to understand that this House is not a court of law. In a court of law, Mr. Speaker, there are procedures and procedural rules which govern things like the admissibility of evidence. There are rules governing the integrity of the process. Witnesses are questioned, cross-examined, evidence of others is called in reply and they are cross-examined. The whole process is overseen by a judge trained in the rules. This House is not a court of law, and these evidentiary safeguards do not exist here. Under the circumstances, it would be thoroughly irresponsible to admit Ms Neville into this Chamber. It is not surprising then, on December 4, 2009, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division dismissed Ms Neville’s application seeking a declaration by the court that she is entitled to an oral hearing with costs awarded to the Speaker.

Chief Justice Orsborn said, and I quote: The law is clear, that the conduct of proceedings and of debate in a legislative chamber is a sphere of activity protected by parliamentary privilege and beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the court.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home