17 February 2014

Dear Sir

In the days when the tradition/rules or whatever created this privileged place called the House of Assembly, things were a little different. It may have been that this was a place where the guys all went on Friday, closed the door and no one ever really listened to nor cared what was said but for sure, whatever was said was kept in the House.

Today, the times have changed and the doors are open; radio, the print, social and other media have full access and what’s said is not private whatsoever. Just because the situation allowed for a level of privilege back in the old days, I have to wonder if the rules of the House (John Barritt, I presume that’s where this rule is written?) need a little review.

A place of privilege surely must have been predicated on the need to keep free and open discussion private. I doubt seriously that anyone ever contemplated the definition to include absolute freedom from prosecution when slinging libellous and slander and unproved allegations at anybody in the political crosshairs.

If we’re going to allow the law of the land to be broken just because it’s broken in the House ... maybe the people should demand that the person making these statements step outside and have the testicular fortitude to make them where they can be challenged. What you say, Markie ... you chicken?

FREEDOM FROM SLANDER