SONA 2015

ZCFOutkast said:
It's a pity none of you are asking yourselves why Maimane & Steenhuisen were not removed(escorted) or asked to leave.
Click to expand...

Because they chose to walk about before they could be assaulted by Baleka's private army.
 
blunomore said:
I recall hearing Mbete say to the EFF that on 11 March (is that correct?) Zuma will answer their questions when there will be a Q and A session on his speech. I seriously doubt he will give a proper answer then.
Click to expand...

she attempted to say that the QA session on his speech is when they must ask the questions - except that the 11 March debate won't have Zuma in attendance

The question that arose is whether as a privilege of Parliament a person who is obligated to answer to Parliament and has evaded attendance at Parliament may be compelled to answer on their arrival at the Assembly. I am not aware of precedent in South Africa but it is the position in the US Senate and save the Crown the position at Westminster. If a US Senate committee has put questions to a person who has failed to answer or appear on their appearance in the Capitol they are compelled to answer as to why they have not appeared or have failed to answer. The question is not so much what Zuma's answer is but rather whether the House must before allowing him to speak further press him for an answer.
 
ZCFOutkast said:
It's a pity none of you are asking yourselves why Maimane & Steenhuisen were not removed(escorted) or asked to leave.
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the SONA?

If you did, tell me what Mmusi did when he was called to order.
 
MickeyD said:
At least he played by the rules.

If either of the co-chairs or the ANC knew the rules they could have nipped the EFF's tactics in the bud within 2 minutes.
Click to expand...

The fact they threw out EFF members who asked to raised an order, without inquiring as to what it was has illegal. Mbete will hopefully be taken to court over this gross abuse of power.
 
Last edited:
MickeyD said:
Don't you come here with your colonialist tendencies! :D
Click to expand...

Nah my Colonialist tendencies would be demanding that the armed forces that entered were wearing red coats and were accompanied by pursuivants on writ

dispatched by ol Sir Harry Smith to quell the natives who were uprising
 
ZCFOutkast said:
1. If people expected Le Clos to walk out right there and there then they should expect the same DA
2. There was no reason for the DA to hesitate. They should have walked out the first time they decided to do so. Being stubborn but not ejected proves that there is one law for DA(not dragged out) and another for EFF (all dragged out bruised).

I heard perfectly clear what Modise and later Radebe said. Bottomline is none of that can be proven, and it was stupid to demand such an answer, while holding SONA speech to ransom, when you know you can walk out approach one of them and demand identification of their stus - saps/parly/pres, then walk back in. Or get an answer at the house's next sitting. Simple! DA was just being petty, and they failed to gain cheap point sform that.

Anyway I can already see a lot of people picked that up so I don't have to say anything.

What was said rings true though - unconventional methods which the rule snever anticipated led to these problems, so people should not compalin when unconventional methods are used to reisist. That UCT prof/commentator was right. Fine line between eveything and DA tried very hard to overstate a simple thing.

EFF are the ttrue winners!
Click to expand...

English lost here.
 
ZCFOutkast said:
It's a pity none of you are asking yourselves why Maimane & Steenhuisen were not removed(escorted) or asked to leave.
Click to expand...

wait so you are saying that if the DA were not coerced in leaving the room to let Mbete and Zuma piss all over the Constitution and the institutions of Parliament but rather started declaring "For Shame" they would not have been assaulted by criminals dressed in white shirts?
 
IwnYh6I.jpg


Cool picture of the DA at SANO. Few parties have so much diversity in their leadership.
 
Paul Hjul said:
moreover armed forces entered the House while the House was SITTING

Unless absolutely impossible to due under the circumstances the Speaker adjourns the assembly when circumstances arise which make the orderly business of the House impossible - it can be done as simply as the Speaker rising and bowing at the House. It would be far more respectful to the House for the Speaker to on ordering that somebody vacate the House to adjourn until the person is outside of the confines of the House.
Click to expand...

Once the assembly has been adjourned, and they resume (let's say 15 minutes later) will the offending member be allowed back in per the rules?
 
Just show me the fashion, I need to see some pigs in froks. I need some comedy. Please tell me someone out done last year's yellow worm.
 
ScottulusMaximus said:
Of course they planned it you dolt... ANC walked directly into it, DA knew EFF would interrupt and be thrown out, and they knew the ANC would piss on the constitution and allow armed thugs into the chamber, they knew the ANC wouldn't amit this, so they knew they had to walk out.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that the strike by parliamentary workers was staged too. Got them out of the way should things go further south than they did.
 
And they dressed in black as a deliberate contrast to the fashion excess that normally accompanies the SONA event, as they believe we're a nation in crisis and the fashion crap is inappropriate.
 
phaktza said:
The fact they threw out EFF members who asked to raised an order, without inquiring as to what it was has illegal. Mbete will hopefully be taken to court over this gross abuse of power.
Click to expand...

if she is taken to court, do you think she cares? Guess who pays for her exorbitantly over-priced lawyers.....
 
Sinbad said:
And they dressed in black as a deliberate contrast to the fashion excess that normally accompanies the SONA event, as they believe we're a nation in crisis and the fashion crap is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Yet in ALL previous years were happy to dress up with the rest of the riff-raff?
 
blunomore said:
Once the assembly has been adjourned, and they resume (let's say 15 minutes later) will the offending member be allowed back in per the rules?
Click to expand...

depends on which ejectment rule was used - the normal disruption one would certainly allow them in as the Speaker needs to hold a disciplinary hearing to suspend a member beyond a session in progress

And here again would be the point:
Lets assume a member of the House is intoxicated and stands and sings the little weavel song or something of the sort. The Speaker should caution the member that the behaviour is disruptive and may require adjournment and disciplinary action, if it is clear that it is an intoxication matter she should insist that the Chief Whip of that member's party attend to the matter and adjourn the House for 15 minutes they (the party members) can then take him (or her) to the showers and return and the Chief Whip can raise to a point of order and report to the speaker that the matter will be handled by the party caucus and apologise for the inconvenience - which would mean that disciplinary proceedings seeing the suspension of the member should not be necessary.
On the other hand if a member stands and has a gun in their hand and threatens suicide the Speaker should try to bring calm to the situation and adjourn the proceedings while armed people do in fact enter the assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X