SHY got Gillarded

[Auggie]

That's what you believe.

and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Tell me auggie, did SHY claim all men are rapists? Do you have any reason at all to suspect she sleeps with any man other than her husband?

I'm no fan of Sara Hanson Young, but this sort of bullshit has to stop.

30/06/2018 – On Outsiders I was asked about the exchange with Hanson-Young. You can view the video extract here. The transcript of my comments which seem to have prompted the complaints is as follows:

Senator Leyonhjelm: It was in a motion to consider self-defence. There was a motion calling on the government to make it possible for women to protect themselves, thinking in terms of the Eurydice Dixon case or the Jill Meagher case. And the Greens Senator, Janet Rice making a one minute statement which suggested that it’s all men, that men need to change their behaviour and so forth. Sarah called out, I don’t know the exact words because there was a lot of chatter going on, to the effect “men should stop raping women”, the implication being all men are rapists. Now Sarah’s, this is not a criticism, but Sarah is known for liking men. The rumours about her in Parliament House are well known, so I just said “well stop shagging men then Sarah”. I mean it just doesn’t make any sense if you think they’re all rapists, why would you shag them? So she took great offence to that, which is her problem not my problem. In retrospect she has a right to shag as many men as she likes, I don’t care, you know. But she took great offence and she came over and called me a creep. I told her to — am I allowed to say the F word on TV?...

Senator Leyonhjelm: What I was referring to was the double standards. On the one hand saying all men are responsible for the violence that occurred to Eurydice Dixon, and on the other hand having relationships with men as she does, as she well known for, not that I am critical of that, so that is the double standard that I was concerned about. I am also concerned about the misandry, I don’t think it is legitimate, any more legitimate,e to being misandrist than to be a misogynist and I was calling that out as well. I also take exception to this idea that there is some kind of collective responsibility for men, or women for that matter, for bad things that happen.

—
Senator Leyonhjelm: She is known for having relationships with men, she had a quite famous one, with a Liberal member of parliament a few years ago, Barry Haase. I am not criticising her for that, she is perfectly entitled to do that, but….

[Aussie]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

[Auggie]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

Do you believe that parliamentary privilege should extend to abuse of other members of Parliament?

[johnsmith]

I'm sure he'd make up some sort of excuse, afterall, he's facing court. Gotta prepare some sort of defense, even if it is pathetic.

only a fuckwit like him can claim she accused all men of being rapists ... she should ask him him under parliamentary privilege if he perhaps felt guilty because he raped a woman? i bet Leyonhjelm would be the first to demand they change the rules surrounding parliamentary privilege

And so she had a relationship before this one So has just about every other person in parliament. How does that equate to sleeping with men? How does he know sex was even involved? was he watching?


it was a deliberate attempt to slur her name. And I hope he is made to pay for it.

[Auggie]

I'm sure he'd make up some sort of excuse, afterall, he's facing court. Gotta prepare some sort of defense, even if it is pathetic.

only a fuckwit like him can claim she accused all men of being rapists ... she should ask him him under parliamentary privilege if he perhaps felt guilty because he raped a woman? i bet Leyonhjelm would be the first to demand they change the rules surrounding parliamentary privilege

And so she had a relationship before this one So has just about every other person in parliament. How does that equate to sleeping with men? How does he know sex was even involved? was he watching?


it was a deliberate attempt to slur her name. And I hope he is made to pay for it.

I disagree. I don't condone his actions. I also don't believe he should be sued for it. A member of Parliament should be able to abuse other members to their heart's content.

If some member of Parliament was laying it in on Peter Dutton and accusing him of being a murderer, torturer and sociopath, I doubt I would see the same reaction from you as with this.

[johnsmith]

I don't condone his actions.

sure you do, every time you claim he should be free tro say it without any consequences.

If some member of Parliament was laying it in on Peter Dutton and accusing him of being a murderer, torturer and sociopath, I doubt I would see the same reaction from you as with this.

did we see any MP accuse mutton of being a murderer, torturer or sociopath Auggie?

[johnsmith]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

Do you believe that parliamentary privilege should extend to abuse of other members of Parliament?

parliamentary privilege was not introduced to allow abuse of other members

[Auggie]

sure you do, every time you claim he should be free tro say it without any consequences.

So, you think that defending a member of Parliament's right to speech in the proceedings of Parliament is equivalent to condoning their actions or supporting their beliefs?

did we see any MP accuse mutton of being a murderer, torturer or sociopath Auggie?

No, but if we did, I'm confident you wouldn't be so zealous as you are now with Leyonhjelm.

[Auggie]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

Do you believe that parliamentary privilege should extend to abuse of other members of Parliament?

parliamentary privilege was not introduced to allow abuse of other members

What was it allowed it for?

[Aussie]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

Do you believe that parliamentary privilege should extend to abuse of other members of Parliament?

Yes.......but......they can be hauled before the Bar of the House (I think that is the right expression) to have their arse kicked if there has been an abuse of the privilege.

[Auggie]

Let's not pre-judge the basic issue in this matter. She won a procedural skirmish......not even a battle, let alone the War.

Do you believe that parliamentary privilege should extend to abuse of other members of Parliament?

Yes.......but......they can be hauled before the Bar of the House (I think that is the right expression) to have their arse kicked if there has been an abuse of the privilege.

So, there is convention known as 'unparliamentary' language for example. E.g. it is unparliamentary to call another member a liar.

We all know that politicians are liars, don't we?

[Aussie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

[johnsmith]

So, you think that defending a member of Parliament's right to speech in the proceedings of Parliament is equivalent to condoning their actions or supporting their beliefs?

there is no right to free speech in this country. This isn't the parliament of Narnia, speech comes with consequences.

No, but if we did, I'm confident you wouldn't be so zealous as you are now with Leyonhjelm.

it's not the first time I've complained about MP's abusing the system for their own ends. Your problem is that it is Leyonhelm.

[Auggie]

there is no right to free speech in this country. This isn't the parliament of Narnia, speech comes with consequences.

We're not talking about what is granted to the general citizen. We're talking about a specific group of people.

it's not the first time I've complained about MP's abusing the system for their own ends. Your problem is that it is Leyonhelm.

How is that my problem?

[Auggie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

[johnsmith]

We're not talking about what is granted to the general citizen. We're talking about a specific group of people.

and there is no right to free speech in this country, not even for MP's. You need to stop kidding yourself.

How is that my problem?

it's just shown how wrong you were in claiming I'm only whinging because it's Leyonhelm.

[johnsmith]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

correct. From the article

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.

[Auggie]

and there is no right to free speech in this country, not even for MP's. You need to stop kidding yourself.

According to whom? To you?

it's just shown how wrong you were in claiming I'm only whinging because it's Leyonhelm.

Leyonhjelm is the only case example we have.

[Auggie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

correct. From the article

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.

So, when would 'acting a character' be a breach of law?

When it's defamation.

Thank you.

[johnsmith]

According to whom? To you?

you show me the law that grants MP's free speech and I'll cede to your point

Leyonhjelm is the only case example we have.

in this thread about Leyonhjelm? Gee, who'd a thunk it

[johnsmith]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

correct. From the article

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.

So, when would 'acting a character' be a breach of law?

When it's defamation.

Thank you.

you're just arguing for the sake of it. SHE defamed him in a media statement he released in June, and during a radio and television interview

[Aussie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

Yes.....it is for defamation.....but not because of what he said in Parliament. It is based on what he said outside Parliament.

[Auggie]

According to whom? To you?

you show me the law that grants MP's free speech and I'll cede to your point.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... _Privilege

Immunities of the houses
The principal parliamentary immunity is the immunity from civil or criminal action, and examination in legal proceedings, of members of the houses and of witnesses and others taking part in proceedings in Parliament. This immunity is known as the right of freedom of speech in Parliament, because it has the effect of ensuring that members, witnesses and others cannot be sued or prosecuted for anything they say or do in the course of parliamentary proceedings. This freedom of speech has always been regarded as essential to allow the houses to debate and inquire into matters without fear of interference.

Freedom of speech was codified in the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (hereafter the 1987 Act). The Act declares the scope of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. ‘Proceedings’ are defined in subsection 16(2) of the Act as:

... all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes:

(a) the giving of evidence before a House or a committee, and evidence so given;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to a House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; and

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of a House or a committee and the document so formulated, made or published.

The meaning of ‘impeached or questioned’ is also defined. It is not lawful in any court or tribunal to question the truth, motive, good faith, or intention of any person by reference to parliamentary proceedings, or to draw any inferences or conclusions from those proceedings.

This does not prevent the use of proceedings of Parliament in court to establish a material fact, for example, to prove that a person was at a particular place at a particular time, to test the fairness and accuracy of a press report of parliamentary proceedings, or to prosecute certain offences against Parliament.

[Auggie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

Yes.....it is for defamation.....but not because of what he said in Parliament. It is based on what he said outside Parliament.

His comments outside of Parliament related to what was said in Parliament. He was merely elaborating on what had transpired in the course of Parliament.

[Aussie]

She is not suing him for what he said in Parliament.

I believe she is suing him for defamation.

Is this incorrect?

Yes.....it is for defamation.....but not because of what he said in Parliament. It is based on what he said outside Parliament.

His comments outside of Parliament related to what was said in Parliament. He was merely elaborating on what had transpired in the course of Parliament.

Yes.....and that is where he made himself vulnerable to being sued. He is not even claiming privilege as a defence.