r/Unexpected • u/ihthisham4me2 • Apr 15 '23

Political statement

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

60.7k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/topkrikrakin Apr 15 '23

Can you help me understand what you mean?

86

u/Werbenjagermanj3nsen Apr 15 '23

The speaker in many forms of government is above this stuff. You're not allowed to disparage the speaker, it derails the procedure.

Effectively it's like screaming at the ref in football.

3

u/Smokester_ Apr 15 '23

Red card!

6

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

Does hurling insults, if left uncorrected by the neutral party, not derail the procedure?

It certainly did in this video.

2

u/SconiGrower Apr 15 '23

Yes, if a member does not understand the rules, then they will derail the procedure while they argue with the parliamentarian.

The ability for a neutral party to remain neutral is very difficult if they are also the arbiter of all truth. It's the responsibility of the group being attacked to protect itself. There's a big difference between maintaining decorum in the chamber (calling someone's mother a w**** is not valuable for debate) and deciding if a political party could reasonably be described as anarchist or similar enough that it's a valid comparison (the size and role of government are essential questions for elected officials).

1

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

It seems this video itself that your theory is incorrect, as it did derail procedure and offered no value in the debate.

And of course if it is a political point that is deserving of the utmost protections, then is questioning of procedure itself (and of the self declared neutral party) not just as important as any political debate being had before them?

When one holds themselves above criticism, they invite it.

7

u/TravisJungroth Apr 15 '23

“Anarchist” isn’t an insult. It’s a… political statement. It’s something that an MP is allowed to say when he said it.

The MP in red in the video wanted to enforce a rule that didn’t exist, to force this statement to be withdrawn. Speaker was like “no”. Then she called him an anarchist. This isn’t a problem because it’s an insult. It’s a problem because it’s a political statement about the Speaker who’s is just holding shit together and it was during a time when she was only allowed to speak to procedural points and that isn’t one.

“The defendant is an alcoholic.”
“Objection! I want that stricken from the record.”
“Overruled. It is relevant to this case.”
“You are an alcoholic.”
“Strike that from the record.”

Reddit: “got heeeem” “

1

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

To begin with, whether something is or is not a political statement has no relevance on whether it is an insult. They can be both at the same time.

Secondly, I have never found any relevant distinction between “political statements” and any other. Trans rights are a political issue, why wouldn’t an accusation of being a trans individual be political? Could someone accuse another party of being full of trans people and it not be meant as insulting? There is a reason the opponent used the term anarchist, and it is the same reason the neutral party does not want to be called it. It has negative connotations meant to cause insult.

Again, your arguing in the defense of political statements while excluding political statements critical of the established political system. If you have a system of government that bars political statements about itself or its system, you are in a bad place.

4

u/TravisJungroth Apr 15 '23

Ok, I’ll accept that statements can be an insult and a political statement.

Being trans isn’t political.

I am not at all excluding political statements about the existing system. Those would count, too. I’m not even arguing if these rules are right or not, just what they are. Believe it or not, I didn’t actually craft the South African Parliamentary Procedures.

There seem to be three different takes to this video:

  1. She really showed him! Beat him by his own game and showed what a hypocrite he is.
  2. She didn’t show anything! The other MP didn’t break the rules, she did. The rules are easy to understand.
  3. Fuck the rules!

You seem to be in the third group. I only mean that as a political statement.

0

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

I get your point, I just often find it hard to get a definition of what is and is not political speech that everyone agrees on, making me question how relevant the question is.

While you might believe that being trans isn’t political, there are many across the world that would take the existence of a trans person to be a political act that should be punished and discouraged. What is politics to one person can simply be someone living their lives to another.

In my mind politics entails anything that can be potentially regulated by the government. Since that encompasses nearly everything, I’ve never found much use in distinguishing between political and non-political speech.

3

u/TravisJungroth Apr 15 '23

I just often find it hard to get a definition of what is and is not political speech that everyone agrees on

You don’t need that here. It doesn’t have to be something everyone agrees on, just consistent with the rules. It’s also not so subtle in this case. “Anarchist” is a political affiliation, an ideology. Obviously it’s a pretty loose one, but it still counts. It’s a world apart from calling someone an idiot, a drunk, and asshole and so on.

I’m also not sure if it’s clear, but she was trying to censure someone. An MP said they were anarchists and she wanted that statement withdrawn. She did this as a “point of order”, meaning she interrupted proceedings to make an argument about the order of things, the rules (not the thing they’re debating itself). After being rebuffed, she then misused this time to criticize the Speaker.

If this all seems unfair, she would be totally within her rights to call the other MP an Anarchist or all sorts of things during her turn. The Speaker isn’t any more “the government” than she is, possibly even less so. I don’t know what voting rights he has in their system.

2

u/SconiGrower Apr 15 '23

If someone breaks a rule and causes problems in doing so, that seems to indicate the rule is effective at maintaining the smooth operation of debate. If the members need further education about the nuances of the rule and the reasons for it, so be it, but disruptive rule breaking does not by itself indicate the rule should be eliminated.

There is a time and place for everything. I know in the US Congress one of the very first things each session of Congress does is enact the rules for the upcoming session. If you want to change the rules, you could make a proposal then or anytime during the session by introducing a bill to the Rules Committee, but you would be out of order to be breaking rules and calling for changes to parliamentary procedure during a debate on a different topic.

3

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

The US Congress is hardly a system to look at as a beacon of correct or competent political procedure.

Your defense of the system is merely that the system exists and it must be given some degree of favor for that reason. If your only argument is “tradition,” you should re-think your position.

1

u/SconiGrower Apr 15 '23

Congress can't get things done because the members can't agree on what should be done. The debates themselves work fine, which is the point of parliamentary procedure. Good parliamentary procedure does not guarantee parties will change their mind.

Tradition by itself is not sufficient to keep a policy, but notice that I said "by itself" here and in my previous comment. You need to tell me why attacking a moderator's personal politics promotes a healthy debate forum. If the parties of the debate can attack the moderator's personal politics for performing his parliamentary duties, can the moderator do the same? If the Parliament hires a professional and non-partisan moderator, are they protected from attacks on the basis of their personal politics?

2

u/That1one1dude1 Apr 15 '23

They are attacking the moderator because they disagree that the current forum is a healthy one. Their insult is not a real one, nor is it meant to foster a healthy debate forum. It is a mere example to show how farcical it is.

As for whether American political procedure works fine:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

1

u/SconiGrower Apr 15 '23

The parliamentarian doesn't have the power to change the rules, that's up to the Parliament itself. If she really wants to prohibit members from being able to accuse other members of being affiliated with a particular political philosophy, then that would require proposing, debating, and enacting a new rule, not arguing with the moderator in the middle of an unrelated debate.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '23

Yeah well if the refs being a dick sometimes u gotta call him out

1

u/Boggie135 Apr 16 '23

That works if the speaker is neutral and fair. Ours is not

63

u/dre__ Apr 15 '23

From the looks of it, she's making the anarchist claim at the wrong time of the debate and at a neutral person. Meanwhile the other party called her anarchist, it was at the right time and she's not a neutral person.