Our governments are a form of court, and they make life and death decisions. Poilievre's abusive contempt for parliament is toxic for democracy

If Pierre Poilievre Doesn't Like Alex Jones' Endorsement, He Shouldn't Act Like Him

Canada’s Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre left the House of Commons with all of his Members of Parliament after being told he wasn’t allowed to personally insult another MP in his remarks.

This whole nasty fiasco is worse than it sounds - it’s cheap, nasty and dishonest theatre where someone who is

• Deliberately planning ahead to violate an absolutely basic rule

• Presenting themselves as a victim when they’re called on it

• Acting as if he’s being singled out when the system is doing its job.

In sports, it’s like “drawing a foul” - the kind of histrionics we’re used to seeing from soccer players trying to draw a red card by collapsing when an opponent breathes on them.

It would be embarrassing if it the consequences weren’t so serious. That’s not exposing unfairness in the system: it’s repeatedly thumbing your nose at the rules until, at certain point authorities have no choice but to take reasonable steps to intervene.

It’s childish, irresponsible, dishonest, which is why it’s not tolerated, and never has been. It’s why there are actual rules in place to prevent MPs from acting like that.

This is the thing that nobody seems to realize about our politics in Canada.

While it’s all just treated as political theatre, by the participants and the audience alike, our system of Government in Canada comes from the Westminster traditions, where government is a court. A legal court that makes recommendations to the head of state.

Take committees: they are a court of competent jurisdiction. They have the power to call witnesses to testify, who when they speak at committee have parliamentary privilege extended to them so that they can speak the truth without fear of being sued.

In court, you’re expected to show some basic respect. Contempt of court - even talking back to a judge, or refusing to follow a basic court order - can get you thrown in jail. Contempt of the legislature and contempt of parliament are also punishable offences, just as contempt of court is.

That ‘s why there are proscribed limits and centuries of rulings on what you can say about another member of parliament on the record in the chamber.

To try to keep the peace, the rules are that you’re not allowed insult or call people names. You’re not even supposed to call anyone by their name. This is also a workplace.

The government, as a court, is a place where citizens can petition for justice, where laws were written and changed, and public punishment and rewards are meted out.

Government is a court, and when the legislature is in session, and you are on the record, you have an obligation to behave a certain way.

That’s why what Poilievre and every single one of his MPs did was like trashing the place.

Poilievre has been an MP for 19 years. He knows the rules.

First, he deliberately disparaged the character of another member of the House of Commons. That is not allowed, period. It never has been. It doesn’t matter who he referred to, or the term he used.

That is not allowed, and it is strictly enforced, for good reason. It’s abusive. It’s unprofessional.

It’s a blatant, deliberate breach of a really basic rule, which is place to maintain order and some bare minimum quality of debate, because the debate is not about supposed a squabble about whether or not an MP is wacko. That is not a fit subject for debate. That’s why it is out of order.

To leave in protest and claim that you were censored is ridiculous, and blatant lie. When the speaker tells you that it’s not acceptable, you apologize and you move on.

If you want to challenge the Speaker’s ruling you need to come up with a reason they’ve made a mistake, based on previous rulings.

This is not just about “decorum,” it is about the law. It’s about having a functioning democracy, and the Leader of the Opposition is lying to Canadians about the way it works as a political stunt.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh did exactly the same thing, when he was ejected after refused to withdraw the term “racist”. It’s playing to the gallery, for the same reason.

Now, people may be surprised that there are rules requiring civility - and I am not going to pretend innocence, or angelic behaviour. I gave another MLA the finger, in a fit of anger, for which I apologized.

The rules of legislatures in Canada are based on “parliamentary privilege,” which states that the right that members hold highest is freedom of speech.

The privileges enjoyed by the House and its members are part of the Constitution and are vital to the proper functioning of Parliament.

Parliamentary privilege means that you can accuse people of a crime, and level all kinds of other accusations, without fear of being sued.

The privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by members of Parliament. This right is protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act.

Freedom of speech permits members to speak freely in the conduct of a proceeding of Parliament, such as in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings, while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make. In order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony, this right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its members, and witnesses appearing before House committees, were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body.

So, you can not call another Member of the legislature a racist, or a wacko, but you can level accusations that someone has committed a crime.

Again, this is because government is a form of court - people are expected to be free to speak the truth and testify or level accusations, including of crimes being committed, without fear of retribution.

Of course, this can be, and is abused as well - Poilievre and his MPs routinely abuse this privilege by levelling false allegations in the house, including serious charges, so long as they are not personal. This means members can make accusations of criminality and corruption, because they are protected while they are speaking on the record, which if they repeat outside the legislature - even outside the chamber - they can be sued for.

And this brings us to what we talk about when it comes to “freedom of speech” which in Canada is constitutionally protected as “freedom of expression.”

Especially since the explosion of the internet, people have been operating on the mistaken belief that you can say anything without any restraint, whether it is true or not, and that is what freedom of speech expression is.

Speech is meaningful and powerful, and it can make and break lives.

Beyond questions of just getting things wrong in a high-stakes situation can make the difference between life or death. Policing, health care, infectious diseases, bridges, buildings, hazardous materials, clean water, transportation safety, drug safety.

So there are all sorts of rules that are in place, not for the purpose of censorship, but because statements are not all just opinions: they shape perception, they inform decision making they drive actions, and they can kill people. They can ruin businesses, and all the lives attached to it.

There have always been snake-oil salesmen selling deadly miracle cures, fly-by-night outfits that build shoddy buildings, incompetent doctors, crooked politicians business people.

We have laws and regulations because we don’t want innocent people hurt or cheated by criminal predators and swindlers. Sometimes those people are ordered by the court not to do it again.

This is also the reason for professional certification - for why “the professions” are “the professions” - because people who work in the law, health care and engineering all have people’s lives in their hands.

This is another aspect of governing that is completely ignored. It is a life and death business, and it is treated like a circus sideshow, or professional wrestling with the least appealing roster of heels and storylines ever.

They continually lie to Canadians and their constituents about the way things work.

One of the litmus tests for whether something may not be credible

• Is it the kind of point of view you only ever used to read on the toilet stall wall?

• Are they selling supplements?

• Has a court determined that the person made false statements that caused harm?

Because there are people who seem to believe that freedom of speech is running your mouth and saying whatever you want, without ever having to be responsible for it.

All of our rights are balanced by legal responsibilities - that responsibility is to follow the law. You have a right to freedom of expression, but that in Canada, that does not include the right to accuse someone of a crime they did not commit.

You have freedom of speech, but you are also responsible for what you say, and the charter of rights and freedoms only covers government actions. It is a rule that limits government intervention: it does not apply to private companies - employers, universities, or individuals. You can sign away your right to freedom of expression in a non-disclosure clause, which can limit you from making even truthful statements. However, the NDA does not apply to talking to police and courts - because these venues allow protected speech.

That brings me to Alex Jones. Jones is a true moral monster. After a young man went into a school in Sandy Hook and murdered 22 schoolchildren, Jones claimed the entire incident was staged by the government in order to build support for gun control measures. The result was that parents whose lives had been shattered by the murder of their children were hounded by Jones’ fans.

Jones was sued, successfully, in several jurisdictions:

The plaintiffs, relatives of victims and an FBI agent who responded to the scene testified that they were tormented by Jones' followers who believed his lies about the massacre. The families said they were harassed and threatened in the decade since the shooting.

Jones truly destructive and poisonous individual. Someone who is willing to inflict suffering on people in mourning for his own profit.

Tucker Carlson is in a similar position. He was fired after Fox News lost a massive lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems. Carlson and others on Fox had repeated a false claim that the 2020 election had been rigged, and that Dominion’s machines had been used to do it.

Texts showed that Carlson thought Trump had lost, and that the machines

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory.

Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents.

Dominion won the lawsuit, and Carlson lost his job. Fox settled the case for US $787-million.

I make these points to show that there are legal limits to “free speech” in the U.S. In Canada, in our courts and in the way we conduct government business.

But Jones, Carlson, Poilievre and every single Conservative Member of Parliament are all doing the same thing: pretending that the rules don’t matter and they can say whatever they want, even if it’s not true.

This isn’t about pearl-clutching around decorum.

This is saying the rules of how we run the government don’t matter. What the Conservative Party of Canada is preaching is not freedom, it’s anarchy and lawlessness. All of it, the opposite of the very principles Canada was founded on - “Peace, order and good government.”

• DFL