Read on Twitter
Love it when a House ruling makes the news. But on a more serious note: This episode raises important questions about the expectations of our parliamentarians and how we expect them to act in the House.
A recovering youth parliamentarian’s thread:
https://twitter.com/ctv_powerplay/status/1273361939872337921
A recovering youth parliamentarian’s thread:
https://twitter.com/ctv_powerplay/status/1273361939872337921
Anyone whose searched Beauscheane’s to find unparlimentary language knows that there are some zingers (“inspired by 40 rod whiskey”; bringing a bucket of potatoes into the house) but also some more sobering epithets that have been hurled.
As a (frankly mild) example, “an honourable lady” is unparliamentary because it was used in a demeaning way.
But then there are the classics: imported from Westminister: Anything that implies that an Honourable Member is somehow dishonourable, dishonest, or not of good character
Singh’s ejection today shows how these rules can be used to maintain white, male, straight ideas of ‘discourse’ and civility. Is using the word “racist” to talk about another member or a bill so egregious...
...as to deny a parliamentarian their right to speak for the day? What about sexism? What if a member WAS lying in the House (trust me...it’s happened), and got called out for it?
What do we want in the HoC: (sanitized) civility, or (maybe heated) passion? Or do we not care because it seems arcane and out of touch anyways?
(Which, as a clear process nerd hurts me to type, but tbh is pretty valid when situations like this arise)