HBS Guy wrote:SHY does not have anywhere near Gillard’s strengths or intellect.
johnsmith wrote:Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot
mothra wrote:johnsmith wrote:Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot
Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?
The man is pond slime.
pinkeye wrote:yes.. unfortunately, this shows that some men in power, be it political, or media, believe that they can say whatever they like, and refuse to rescind, or apologise. we hear their rubbish everyday.. (we , as in many Australians, because I don't listen to the cunts).. and it has seeped into the Australian psyche.
These shlock jock are symptoms of a much wider disease.
Imagine the furore if Senator HansenYoung had yelled out across the chamber to Leyonhelm.? something like..? ???? (…………….)
Add your own invective please.
A very big rift remains in Australian politics, and therefore, as a reflection, in Australian society generally.
mothra wrote:HBS Guy wrote:SHY does not have anywhere near Gillard’s strengths or intellect.
Not meaning, of course, that she is any less susceptible to the blatant sexism inherent in the system.
johnsmith wrote:Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot
mothra wrote:johnsmith wrote:Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot
Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?
The man is pond slime.
johnsmith wrote:mothra wrote:johnsmith wrote:Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot
Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?
The man is pond slime.
he's digging in because he got a few 'atta boys' from people like bernardi and mutton
pinkeye wrote:yes.. unfortunately, this shows that some men in power, be it political, or media, believe that they can say whatever they like, and refuse to rescind, or apologise. we hear their rubbish everyday.. (we , as in many Australians, because I don't listen to the cunts).. and it has seeped into the Australian psyche.
These shlock jock are symptoms of a much wider disease.
Imagine the furore if Senator HansenYoung had yelled out across the chamber to Leyonhelm.? something like..? ???? (…………….)
Add your own invective please.
A very big rift remains in Australian politics, and therefore, as a reflection, in Australian society generally.
David Leyonhjelm ordered to pay Sarah Hanson-Young's legal costs
Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has lost his bid to have Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young's defamation case against him thrown out.
Senator Hanson-Young launched legal proceedings against Senator Leyonhjelm in August, accusing him of attacking her character in a media statement he issued in June and during radio and television interviews in July.
She claims Senator Leyonhjelm suggested she was a misandrist and a hypocrite and that he repeatedly falsely accused her of claiming that all men are rapists.
Last month Senator Leyonhjelm's lawyer Kurt Stoyle called on the Federal Court to stay the proceedings, arguing that the case amounted to an abuse of process because his client could not mount a defence without breaching parliamentary privilege.
"The thrust and current starting point is that the court can't adjudicate on the claim presently before it without the parties inevitably being placed in breach of parliamentary privilege," Mr Stoyle told the court.
Senator Hanson-Young's lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou, told the court parliamentary privilege would not be contravened and there was no basis to the application.
She said her client never said all men were rapists and Senator Leyonhjelm had not produced any evidence to support that allegation.
"A person is not entitled to walk out of Parliament and fabricate an assertion as to what was said and attempt to defend a defamation claim under the guise of parliamentary privilege," Ms Chrysanthou said.
On Wednesday, Justice Richard White dismissed the application for the proceedings to be thrown out.
He also ordered Senator Leyonhjelm to cover the cost of Senator Hanson-Young's legal fees relating to the failed application.
Neither senator was present in the Adelaide courtroom for the decision and their lawyers appeared via videolink from Sydney and Brisbane.
Counsel for Senator Leyonhjelm flagged that his client may lodge an appeal against the decision.
The matter returns to court on December 18 for a case management hearing.
Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.
Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.
So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?
johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.
So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?
no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.
But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that
Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.
So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?
no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.
But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that
How do you know that David Leyonhjelm didn't believe what he was saying to be true?
johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:johnsmith wrote:Auggie wrote:I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.
I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.
So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?
no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.
But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that
How do you know that David Leyonhjelm didn't believe what he was saying to be true?
because he's a lying dickhead
Auggie wrote:That's what you believe.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests