Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:14 hours 33 min ago
Beckles: No case for Dana to answer
Published: 7 Nov 2009
While no prima face case of contempt was found regarding Independent Senator Dana Seetahal’s recent controversial Guardian column, Seetahal has come in for criticism from deputy chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee Pennelope Beckles.
In a statement to the House of Representatives yesterday, Beckles said yesterday that she has found no prima facie case of contempt in the recent issue concerning Seetahal’s column which included remarks about Speaker Barendra Sinanan. Beckles, however, said: “What I have found is that the actions by this senator (Seetahal) were pre-emptive and unwarranted and demonstrated discourtesy to the Chair and to this House. “Senator Seetahal cannot argue that she was writing here merely as a journalist...Senator Seetahal is not just a senator, but the second most senior senator on the Independent bench and she ought to know better,” Beckles said. “To compound her glaring disrespect of this House and its Chair, while all you honourable members of this House awaited my ruling, Senator Seetahal chose to call a press conference in this Parliament and reassert the rightfulness of her actions.” Beckles, who is also Deputy Speaker, delivered a ruling yesterday, after a recent application by Information Minister Neil Parsanlal to have the Privileges Committee investigate comments made by Seetahal in an October 25 Sunday Guardian column. This included remarks about Speaker Sinanan.
Parsanlal had alleged the comments might amount to a contempt of the House. Beckles handled the matter since Sinanan, chairman of the Privileges Committee, recused himself from the issue. Detailing the significance of the institution of Speaker as the House’s presiding officer, Beckles said the Speaker was the final arbiter of the rules of the House. However, Beckles said this did not mean that the conduct of the Speaker was immune from criticism and comment. Noting the specific comments by Seetahal which were in question, Beckles said: “These words can be interpreted as reckless and ill-advised, especially written by a person who is a serving senator of this Parliament. “Senator Seetahal is well aware that the interpretation and application of the Standing Orders is the sole discretion of the Presiding Officer and so for a senator to publicly comment negatively on the Speaker’s interpretation of the rules of this House and to assume that her interpretation of what should have transpired was the accurate one, is more than a bit presumptuous,” Beckles added. She said: “I would think it similarly brazen for any member of this Honourable House to presume that he or she could boldly question the rightfulness of a ruling by the Chair of the Senate in a manner that is plainly disrespectful of that office.” Beckles said the principle that the conduct of the chair may only be challenged by substantive motion, prevents disruption of debate and ensures dignity.
She said this principle must be considered to apply, not just within one House of Parliament, “but between the Houses for good relations and civility.” On whether Seetahal’s words constituted a contempt of the House, Beckles said comments on the Speaker’s performance were not uncommon since, she said, many people were uninformed and ignorant of the House’s rules, plus there was wide public participation and interest in the Parliamentary process. “But there is a limit to what is acceptable comment,” Beckles added. She said the test of the limit was whether the comment alleged that the Speaker was biased, unfair or unjust in performance of his duties. “I ask all members to be more mindful of their actions, both inside and outside the House, since they are reflective on this institution which we must always hold in the highest regard,” she said.
....it appears that Penny
....it appears that Penny has mastered the art of speaking from both sides of her mouth simultaneously....she should have just clammed up after exonerating Dana.....we admit it can get rather messy at times, but that's democracy for you...the fact is that Barendra, by his demonstrated hias has bought Parliament into disrepute and we as citizens reserve the right to criticize you and those of your ilk as we are the subscribers of those expensive, parliamentary gong shows you sponsor at times....
If Penny got married to
If Penny got married to twiss mowt Ramesh, it would be a match made in heaven, so to speak. So Dana Seetahal got a bligh from the PNM. The message to her and all others who speak out is loud and clear. She get away this time, but watch out in the future.
NO PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
NO PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CONTEMPT:-
It is refreshing to see that at the end of the day, common sense prevailed.
Ms. Beckles had no choice but to rule in favour of Ms. Dana Seetahal, because after all T&T is still a democracy and Ms. Seetahal violated no rules nor regulations in exercising her freedom of thought, expression and speech.
Ms. Seetahal, however, was in for a stern lecture from Ms. Beckles on the 'virtures of her ways'. Ms Beckles should seriously be considering directing her attention and 'pearls of wisdom' to the violators sitting in our House; and there are many.
Yes, Ms. Beckles "the Speaker was the final arbiter of the rules of the House." And yes, "this institution which we must always hold in the highest regard." We certainly acknowledge the value of these statements and wish to always see professionalism coming from ths 'Seat of the Speaker' as there has been some serious instances of 'disconnect'.
Ms. Beckles, while you are addressing the subject of "presumptuous" may I ask that you look into your 'book of rules' to determine where the likes of Mr. Gary Hunt - the $2M Flag man, and Mr. Colm Imbert - the $10M concert hall/outdoor stage fiasco, fit as these two have been violating the 'code of conduct' of their portfolios and attempting to disrespect the citizens of my country.
Ms. Seetahal, we ask that you never allow anyone or anything to stand in your way when you determine that there is the need to exercise your feedoms, especially in defending the democratic rights of this country.
Freedom reigns.
Gardenia
In the first place that
In the first place that clown Parsanlal should not have referred this matter to the Privileges Committee as there was no basis. Seetahal was merely repeating what was already splashed all over the print and electronic media. So, Beckles had no choice but to reject the imbecilic assertion of Parsanlal. Imagine, Parsanlal, a Cabinet minister saying that you don't get a manual to learn how to be a minister. One would have thought a little common sense would be a qualification in itself, not to mention those frequent "retreats" to shore up Boynes' occupancy rates at his Salibyia resort.What were they for? Did previous Cabinets have these? They seemed to have done a much better job than this lot. But I digress.
What I can't understand is the relevance of Beckles' abuse of her position in trying to justify her attempt to silence legitimate criticism from non-PNM members of Parliament by terrorising Seetahal.
If Beckles thought Seetahal's mild commentary on Sinanan's quiet indulgence of Manning on that fateful and memorable day, what would she say about the mauling the previous Speaker of the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments, received at the hands of virtually all the MPs including his own Party's, not to mention the treatment he got from the press and the public?
The fact is that the dotish Speaker of the House of Commons brought it upon himself by his insensitivity, his abuse of office and his seemingly biased behaviour and conduct of his supposedly impartial office. He most certainly brought the office of Speaker into disrepute and paid the humiliating price.
The British PM and his Government had no alternative but to encourage his resignation. Unfortunately, they merely sent him to occupy a seat in the House of Lords, in keeping with tradition and convention. But would you believe the Labour Government supported the election of a Conservative MP to the Speaker's position, albeit a conservative with a big C, who was a thorn in his own Party's side? Ramesh or Warner for Speaker or even Deputy Speaker??
It reminds me of the judge
It reminds me of the judge who told the thief "I find you not guilty, now don't go and do that again".
Rik Hansel
WISE UP T&T
WISE UP T&T -
We laugh when they do it to UNC, we don't realize that it would be out turn next. It was Mark, Goopesing and Kamla now Seethalal. It was Panday singled out from hundreds who did not comply with the Integrity Laws, now it is One Voice being singled out when many PNM marches, Cudjoe marches have been allowed to take place unimpeded.
They came for the UNC, I did not STAND UP.
They came for the media, I did not STAND UP.
They came for the Judiciary, I did not STAND UP.
They came for the Unions, I did not STAND UP.
They came for NGO's, I did not STAND UP
They came for Sat Sharma, I did not STAND UP.
They came for Rowley, I did not STAND UP.
They came for Civil Servants, Coudrey e.c.t, I did not STAND UP.
When they came for me, there was no one to stand up for me.
He who laughs last laughs best. When you laugh everyone laughs with you, when you cry you cry alone.
Mr. Fairplay, Sir, - Should
Mr. Fairplay, Sir, -
Should they come for you another time,
Gardenia will stand up for you.
You could take that to the bank, my friend.
* * * * *
Thought for Today:- "Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy." ... (Anne Frank)
Gardenia
MISS/MRS GARDENIA I FEEL OH
MISS/MRS GARDENIA I FEEL OH SO SAFE -
I am happy and feel so comforted. But give me the money to take to the bank instead because after reading this they might come for you fust.
Thanks in advance.
SENATOR SEETAHAL SPOKE FOR
SENATOR SEETAHAL SPOKE FOR ALL FOR US!
The debate that day descended into the pit and it was the most ungracious display from the parliament that many of us have witnessed in many, many, many years.
SHAME!
Somebody had to say it!
WE ARE PROUD THAT INDEPENDENT SENATOR DANA SEETAHAL SAID IT AND DID SO GRACIOUSLY!
GUARD OUR DEMOCRACY!
MAKE SURE THAT THIS FREEDOM CONTINUES TO BE ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS (we may have many) SO THAT WE CAN SPEAK THE PEOPLE'S TRUTH FREELY WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR AND MALICE TO NONE!
WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM TO
WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM TO KNOW WHO CONTRIBUTES -
What about the freedom to know who contributes to political parties? Are Drug Lords financiers? The political parties have all joined together to stop John Public from knowing about this. They all want to maintain the status quo of corruption. None have put it forward in their Constitutional Reform Proposal. They tell us that decisions are being made for us and we should stop it. But they would not tell us who contributes and how much. They tell us deals are being made on Constitutional Reform. They do not tell us that they made a deal to withhold this information. They try to call for transparency and good governance and on this fundamental issue they have none. They warn us about the Executive President becoming a Dictator, but are not worried about a clique of investors dictating to a political party. Disclosure is done in the United States. In the United States there is a Executive President who is not allowed to be a Dictator.
It's an easy lesson to
It's an easy lesson to learn, Dana. Do not bite the hands that feed you!!! What a price to pay for a Priority Bus Route pass. keep on sucking up to the PNM. You've made a career out of that.
With the utmost deference to
With the utmost deference to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, would somebody kindly define 'disrespect' to the chair. As a layman who looks at the debates on television, I perceive ( I could be wrong) lots of instances of what may be considered disrespect. For instance, very often when MPs ask for matters of urgent public importance, (eg. serious floods or even shortages of water supply in village x or y) to be debated and it's turned down, is that disrespect to the general public or even the sector of the public that has been aggrieved? Very often when the Speaker appears to chastise members opposed to the government, there are people who have complained that the opposition MPs are receiving unfair treatment. Is that the reality or is it so in truth? I'm not sure.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
THAT WAS EASY
THAT WAS EASY -
With the utmost seriousness intended. If you walk up to a chair and kick it down you have disrespected the chair. If you walk up to a chair and you curse at it you have disrespected the chair. If you are over 250 lbs sit in a chair and the legs buckle or break you have disrespected the chair.
PS: OK Blog Police don't read the riot act for me. Just send me a copy of Blogging for Dummies.