Psycho Milt over at No Minister observed that David Garrett’s offenses were punished with a $10 fine and a discharge without conviction.
It occurred to me reading that one would not get such a discharge if one had previous convictions, as Garrett clearly had. It now turns out that he lied about his Tongan conviction.
As trivial as his other transgressions might be seen, lying to the courts makes him completely unfit to hold office, let alone as a Law and Order spokes person.
I agree with Idiot/Savant – Garrett is way, way out of line.
This sort of thuggery is not acceptable in the modern world. It is particularly not acceptable in Parliament. Threatening or intimidating an MP in the course of their duties – effectively trying to bully them into not performing those duties – is a very serious breach of Privilege, regardless of whether it is done by a member of the public or another MP. Parliament can not function when MPs are physically threatened for their political views and for representing their constituents.
A complaint has been lodged, and hopefully the Speaker will pass it on to the Privileges Committee. In the meantime, one thing has become abundantly clear: David Garrett is a bullying thug who has no place in our Parliament.
Lovely that Idiot is so strong in his condemnation. He’s right – the threat of violence is absolutely unacceptable behavior in an MP.
You’d think a MP actually hitting someone would have even stronger language and a call for a privileges committee hearing or resignation. But you’d be wrong.
Ah well. I’m sure I didn’t get too excided about Mallard’s fist fights and bashing Clarkson either. After all, it’s just a Labour MP, we’ve expect that from them.
Unlike previous Parliaments, any private member’s bills will have to have support of either ACT or National.
I wonder what Sue Bradford will do with all the spare time she will now have? :)
Can anyone think of anything that might get through?
…well, Stephen Franks is a former Act MP. That doesn’t excuse this though.
Hm, now where have I seen something like that?
Does it say something that Rodney’s is a “smart” car?
Heh, some increasingly rare humor from the left.
Well, 3.9% is fairly depressing. It seems the Greens have lost/misplaced half a percent to either the Kiwi Party or Act (up 0.4% and 0.7% respectively). Oops. Expect to see Metiria introduce our Abolition of All Swearwords and Taxes Bill to the house next week.
This analysis is good though, in that it points out the stupidity of “x lost voters to y” analysises. No one went from The Greens to the Kiwi Party or Act, they moved to Labour or National, Labour voters move to National (and back) and National voters move to Act. But even that is a simplification, describing trends on averages. In reality it’s much more complex, with people moving in and out of apathy etc.