Vice-Regal Saint: Prime Minister of Canada sues Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for libel
This must be unprecedented. When has a sitting prime minister ever in the history of the British Commonwealth of Nations taken the Leader of the Official Opposition to court? Wow.
Under British Parliamentary rules and privilege, Members of Parliament are immune to libel suits by other MPs, and indeed members of the general public, if I'm not mistaken, for anything they say within the hallowed confines of the House of Commons. The Commons Speaker might decide to kick an honourable member out of the House for accusing another honourable member of bloody murder, but he/she cannot be sued for it afterwards.
So it may be that Stephan Dion, the Leader of the Official Opposition and Liberal Party of Canada, made the most costly political blunder of his life by accusing Prime Minister Harper of outright bribery on the Liberal Party official website, of offering a dying MP a $1 million life insurance policy if he would vote with the Conservatives on a key confidence motion in 2005 when the Tories were in opposition. Whatever the merits of this particular accusation (no credible evidence has so far come to light), this is rich coming from the "Libranos" who bribed MP Belinda Stronach with a Cabinet post at that very time, who not only transparently paid her off to go turncoat at the crucial moment, but went out of their way to make a big splash of it with the media. There's undeniable in-your-face bribery for you.
Key Liberals mentioned in the suit better have solid evidence or deep pockets. Prime Minister Harper has called the alleged personal slander "devastatingly defamatory". Things are getting a little complicated for the Liberals methinks.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
12 comments:
As far as I know it's unprecedented, although former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange successfully sued a bunch of journalists and unsuccessfully sued the Australian Broadcasting Corporation during the 1990s for libel.
There was also another case in New Zealand where the Minister of State Owned Enterprises sued a member of the opposition, although in that case it was over the repetition of a claim made in parliament. Essentially the court ruled that MPs parliamentary privilege granted by the Bill of Rights Act 1688 (or 1689 depending on the calendar) only extended to the actual debating chamber, not to statements made outside of parliament.
Fascinating nonetheless.
It's clever, and the right thing to do. I would hate to see it become a regular feature of politics, however - being so open to abuse.
It is nice to know Australia is not the only country with an unbelievably stupid opposition. Though being so far from Canada I cannot really judge.
Things could get ever so complicated for the CPC methinks as well ...
Monarchy - Yes! Political Partisanship and Hackery - No!
I must assure you, my Lord Best, that the Opposition in Canada is exceedingly stupid, shockingly devoid of content, and almost exactly as popular as the government in the polls. We've a strange land, Canadians.
I have been reading your blog with considerable interest for some time. I was hoping you could answer a question for me. I am an American conservative and my leanings have become increasingly Royalist over the years. (I believe that republics are often a good form of government for several generations, but eventually they destroy themselves, as witness Greece, Rome and America.) I have been trying to find works presenting theoretical defenses of monarchy, but aside from a few very short essays online and Mr. Pergrine Worsthorne's excellent Democracy Needs Aristocracy, I have found very little. Could you possibly point me to some?
Thank you in advance,
Moselle
PM Harper's legal threat isn't centred on what was said in the Commons where there is legal protection. Harper's challenge regards what was put on the Liberal Party's web site which suggested Harper bribed the independent MP Cadman. During Question Period the Liberals have directly accused him of bribery, the Tories challenged them to make the accusation outside the House, they did, hence the suit.
Ms. Green:
Of books there are:
Liberty or Equality? -- Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Leftism Revisited -- Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
On Power -- Bertrand de Jouvenel
Sovereignty -- Bertrand de Jouvenel
Democracy -- the God that Failed -- Hans-Hermann Hoppe (anarchist, but prefers monarchy over democracy)
Leland B. Yeager's Monarchy: Friend of Liberty is perhaps a good place to start. It has good references.
You may perhaps also be interested in this part of my blog.
Thank you! *requests books from library*
I recall during the Chretien regime, Canadian Alliance (now Conservative) MP Jason Kenny made an accusation of PM Chretien with regards to a scandal (can't remember which one) in the House. PM Chretien dared MP Kenny to repeat the accusation outside the House. MP Kenny repeated the accusation word for word. PM Chretien never did file a lawsuit against MP Kenny.
I would say that PM Harper is well within his right to file a lawsuit against Citoyen Dion. To me, it shows that the PM has nothing to hide since all the facts will come out in court. Either Citoyen Dion has compelling evidence of his own, or he stepped in some deep merde.
Why the irritation here? Harper is bad for Canada and bad for Monarchy. The sooner he is turfed the better.
Post a Comment