@JamaicaGleaner@kimzTm Gleaner can’t really say they don’t understand the parliament’s procedures, which have been written down long before the current speaker. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to act as if the decision was not grounded in parliamentary procedures.
@KingBrad_ Red herring - they can’t argue the issue so they point to marital status. It’s because she is married why they can’t abide the standing orders. If she divorce him, the standing orders will immediately become much clearer.
So the issue about following the standing the order, all of which are written in the book long before she got there is because she is the PM’s wife? This is what you call a red herring, a fallacy, a literary device to distract you from the total disorder by OPP like Burke et al.
@kenyatta_pow Radar is about who said it - not some no name on Twitter but- a sitting MP on a popular podcast. Show me a colleague saying that about her.
This is nonsense when the Courts themselves have said over and over again that Parliament's internal proceedings is Parliament's business. The courts seem pretty certain that they can do their work and Parliament can get on with its internal proceedings at the same time.
The Sub Judice rule as applied in parliament per the standing order has nothing to do with enjoining but rather prejudice, political influence and fairness of the proceedings.
The FLA report is being suppressed. I think we all know why it's being suppressed, and that reason has nothing to do with the sub judice rule. And for the last time, the sub judice rule can only enjoin the specific parties in a court proceeding.