No Dr. Rowley & Rfari

[PariaMan]

Removing Rowley diabolical, dangerous



Tony Fraser
Published:
Wednesday, May 13, 2015

TONY FRASER
Desperate, the Prime Minister “could not wait for the police investigations”; diabolical and done with cavalier disregard for the rights of the Diego Martin West constituents to have their MP in the Parliament, and for the requirement of natural justice to prevail would be a fitting, however not comprehensive, description of the unilateral and dangerous action taken by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to remove Leader of the Opposition, Dr Keith Rowley from the House of Representatives.

In all of this, the already severely compromised Speaker of the House of Representatives, Wade Mark, was a willing accomplice. I don’t claim any expert constitutional knowledge, but having read Section 55 of the Standing Orders under which the Government removed Dr Rowley from the House, I can find nothing which can be legitimately applied to remove an MP for the kind of violation said to have been committed by the Member for Diego Martin West.

In reality, Section 55, under the heading of “Order in the House and Committee,” deals with behavioural infringements, disobedience shown to the Speaker, repeated bad behaviour and refusal to apologise by the MP for the same, even when required to do so by the Speaker. The provisions are essentially for when a member gets out of hand with unparliamentary language and behaviour and refuses to take the advice of the Speaker and instigates “gross disorder” in the House by his/her behaviours.

Nothing like that transpired two years ago when Dr Rowley presented the emails which claim that there was collusion among the Prime Minister and several of her ministers to threaten murder and more on those standing in their way. The Speaker did not stop the presentation, warn the MP, require that he withdraw statements, that he change language. Nothing like that happened then.

The allegation made against Dr Rowley in the motion of censure was along the lines of abusing the privilege of the House by making claims and allegations under privilege knowing that he/she could not be taken to court. That privilege is allowed by the Parliament so that MPs can freely make allegations and bring matters to the attention of the national community and the security services.

As has been widely noted, the right forum for holding Dr Rowley responsible for allegedly violating the privilege was before the Privileges Committee which has a transparent and more democratic process than a gang-up by members of the ruling party against a member of the opposition. Such a forum, equipped with hard evidence of the investigative kind to be produced by the police and Integrity Commission, it could then be established or not that Dr Rowley abused the privilege and maliciously so.

And surely if such a finding is arrived at, then a similar investigation has to be carried out on Vernella Alleyne-Toppin, who, without a shred of substantiating evidence (not even a “false email” in tow) called Dr Rowley’s father a rapist and himself a second generation rapist and to the applause and full support of every member on the Government benches.

Question for the experts: could any such provision in the Standing Orders be substituted for the constitutional provisions made for dealing with an MP who abused the privilege?

The removal was even more undemocratic in that investigations triggered by the PM on the Emailgate matter to the Integrity Commission and police are yet to be finished and the results announced. Yet she takes action which seems to be a complete breach of the Standing Orders and the Constitution to use her majority to expel the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other MP.

As pointed out by a number of senior counsels and political observers, including the likes of Martin Daly SC, this is frightening and very undemocratic action. What this says far more than what Rowley did was to say to the population that this government is capable of serious interference with the rights of the individual. And if the Government could do so in the national parliament in front the watching eyes of the nation, then what else it would not do with the rights of individuals and groups who have no such clout as the Leader of the Opposition.

This latest attack on freedom carries the same character of the Prime Minister and her cabinet plotting and executing the assassination of the character of Keith Rowley and his father.

What is driving this desperation to demolish the Leader of the Opposition as a strategy to win office after a five-year term?

The desperation is surely more intense than on previous occasions when a government is seeking to hold on to power. Having previously failed to achieve the goal of Rowley’s destruction, the most recent attempt is to make him into a man of violence (and with all of the understood subtext) issuing threats of “rivers of blood,” likening him to Robert Mugabe, the African dictator who uses violence to deal with opponents of a different ethnicity.

Is the ruling party/government running scared of having the opposition party get hold of the government apparatus?

Columnist

[slippy1]

Removing Rowley diabolical, dangerous



Tony Fraser
Published:
Wednesday, May 13, 2015

TONY FRASER
Desperate, the Prime Minister “could not wait for the police investigations”; diabolical and done with cavalier disregard for the rights of the Diego Martin West constituents to have their MP in the Parliament, and for the requirement of natural justice to prevail would be a fitting, however not comprehensive, description of the unilateral and dangerous action taken by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to remove Leader of the Opposition, Dr Keith Rowley from the House of Representatives.

In all of this, the already severely compromised Speaker of the House of Representatives, Wade Mark, was a willing accomplice. I don’t claim any expert constitutional knowledge, but having read Section 55 of the Standing Orders under which the Government removed Dr Rowley from the House, I can find nothing which can be legitimately applied to remove an MP for the kind of violation said to have been committed by the Member for Diego Martin West.

In reality, Section 55, under the heading of “Order in the House and Committee,” deals with behavioural infringements, disobedience shown to the Speaker, repeated bad behaviour and refusal to apologise by the MP for the same, even when required to do so by the Speaker. The provisions are essentially for when a member gets out of hand with unparliamentary language and behaviour and refuses to take the advice of the Speaker and instigates “gross disorder” in the House by his/her behaviours.

Nothing like that transpired two years ago when Dr Rowley presented the emails which claim that there was collusion among the Prime Minister and several of her ministers to threaten murder and more on those standing in their way. The Speaker did not stop the presentation, warn the MP, require that he withdraw statements, that he change language. Nothing like that happened then.

The allegation made against Dr Rowley in the motion of censure was along the lines of abusing the privilege of the House by making claims and allegations under privilege knowing that he/she could not be taken to court. That privilege is allowed by the Parliament so that MPs can freely make allegations and bring matters to the attention of the national community and the security services.

As has been widely noted, the right forum for holding Dr Rowley responsible for allegedly violating the privilege was before the Privileges Committee which has a transparent and more democratic process than a gang-up by members of the ruling party against a member of the opposition. Such a forum, equipped with hard evidence of the investigative kind to be produced by the police and Integrity Commission, it could then be established or not that Dr Rowley abused the privilege and maliciously so.

And surely if such a finding is arrived at, then a similar investigation has to be carried out on Vernella Alleyne-Toppin, who, without a shred of substantiating evidence (not even a “false email” in tow) called Dr Rowley’s father a rapist and himself a second generation rapist and to the applause and full support of every member on the Government benches.

Question for the experts: could any such provision in the Standing Orders be substituted for the constitutional provisions made for dealing with an MP who abused the privilege?

The removal was even more undemocratic in that investigations triggered by the PM on the Emailgate matter to the Integrity Commission and police are yet to be finished and the results announced. Yet she takes action which seems to be a complete breach of the Standing Orders and the Constitution to use her majority to expel the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other MP.

As pointed out by a number of senior counsels and political observers, including the likes of Martin Daly SC, this is frightening and very undemocratic action. What this says far more than what Rowley did was to say to the population that this government is capable of serious interference with the rights of the individual. And if the Government could do so in the national parliament in front the watching eyes of the nation, then what else it would not do with the rights of individuals and groups who have no such clout as the Leader of the Opposition.

This latest attack on freedom carries the same character of the Prime Minister and her cabinet plotting and executing the assassination of the character of Keith Rowley and his father.

What is driving this desperation to demolish the Leader of the Opposition as a strategy to win office after a five-year term?

The desperation is surely more intense than on previous occasions when a government is seeking to hold on to power. Having previously failed to achieve the goal of Rowley’s destruction, the most recent attempt is to make him into a man of violence (and with all of the understood subtext) issuing threats of “rivers of blood,” likening him to Robert Mugabe, the African dictator who uses violence to deal with opponents of a different ethnicity.

Is the ruling party/government running scared of having the opposition party get hold of the government apparatus?

Columnist

Tony Fraser, Moody's, IMF, Ramesh Lawrence Maraj, Transparency International and the Bankers Association are all PNM lackeys #UNCPPLOGIC

[shogun]

Political tyranny.

[greggle71]

@tv6tnt: Breaking: DPP's office says police report, based on US Dept of Justice info, did not clear PM & ex-AG Ramlogan.
More on LateNight news at 10

[UML]

Compulsive LIAR!!!!@

[UML]

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 52.36

oil price seeing some improvement

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 55.42

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 57.07

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 60.72

Rowley and the PNM mussee licking their chaps at this after PPG kept economy stable for them to go and run amok yet again!!

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 61.32

DOOM AND GLOOM!!!!!

[UML]

Removing Rowley diabolical, dangerous



Tony Fraser
Published:
Wednesday, May 13, 2015

TONY FRASER
Desperate, the Prime Minister “could not wait for the police investigations”; diabolical and done with cavalier disregard for the rights of the Diego Martin West constituents to have their MP in the Parliament, and for the requirement of natural justice to prevail would be a fitting, however not comprehensive, description of the unilateral and dangerous action taken by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to remove Leader of the Opposition, Dr Keith Rowley from the House of Representatives.

In all of this, the already severely compromised Speaker of the House of Representatives, Wade Mark, was a willing accomplice. I don’t claim any expert constitutional knowledge, but having read Section 55 of the Standing Orders under which the Government removed Dr Rowley from the House, I can find nothing which can be legitimately applied to remove an MP for the kind of violation said to have been committed by the Member for Diego Martin West.

In reality, Section 55, under the heading of “Order in the House and Committee,” deals with behavioural infringements, disobedience shown to the Speaker, repeated bad behaviour and refusal to apologise by the MP for the same, even when required to do so by the Speaker. The provisions are essentially for when a member gets out of hand with unparliamentary language and behaviour and refuses to take the advice of the Speaker and instigates “gross disorder” in the House by his/her behaviours.

Nothing like that transpired two years ago when Dr Rowley presented the emails which claim that there was collusion among the Prime Minister and several of her ministers to threaten murder and more on those standing in their way. The Speaker did not stop the presentation, warn the MP, require that he withdraw statements, that he change language. Nothing like that happened then.

The allegation made against Dr Rowley in the motion of censure was along the lines of abusing the privilege of the House by making claims and allegations under privilege knowing that he/she could not be taken to court. That privilege is allowed by the Parliament so that MPs can freely make allegations and bring matters to the attention of the national community and the security services.

As has been widely noted, the right forum for holding Dr Rowley responsible for allegedly violating the privilege was before the Privileges Committee which has a transparent and more democratic process than a gang-up by members of the ruling party against a member of the opposition. Such a forum, equipped with hard evidence of the investigative kind to be produced by the police and Integrity Commission, it could then be established or not that Dr Rowley abused the privilege and maliciously so.

And surely if such a finding is arrived at, then a similar investigation has to be carried out on Vernella Alleyne-Toppin, who, without a shred of substantiating evidence (not even a “false email” in tow) called Dr Rowley’s father a rapist and himself a second generation rapist and to the applause and full support of every member on the Government benches.

Question for the experts: could any such provision in the Standing Orders be substituted for the constitutional provisions made for dealing with an MP who abused the privilege?

The removal was even more undemocratic in that investigations triggered by the PM on the Emailgate matter to the Integrity Commission and police are yet to be finished and the results announced. Yet she takes action which seems to be a complete breach of the Standing Orders and the Constitution to use her majority to expel the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other MP.

As pointed out by a number of senior counsels and political observers, including the likes of Martin Daly SC, this is frightening and very undemocratic action. What this says far more than what Rowley did was to say to the population that this government is capable of serious interference with the rights of the individual. And if the Government could do so in the national parliament in front the watching eyes of the nation, then what else it would not do with the rights of individuals and groups who have no such clout as the Leader of the Opposition.

This latest attack on freedom carries the same character of the Prime Minister and her cabinet plotting and executing the assassination of the character of Keith Rowley and his father.

What is driving this desperation to demolish the Leader of the Opposition as a strategy to win office after a five-year term?

The desperation is surely more intense than on previous occasions when a government is seeking to hold on to power. Having previously failed to achieve the goal of Rowley’s destruction, the most recent attempt is to make him into a man of violence (and with all of the understood subtext) issuing threats of “rivers of blood,” likening him to Robert Mugabe, the African dictator who uses violence to deal with opponents of a different ethnicity.

Is the ruling party/government running scared of having the opposition party get hold of the government apparatus?

Columnist

we now seeing the TRUE colours of many like Tony Fraser and Martin Daly.


It explains why the PNM can do no wrong in the eyes of the media!!

[dougla_boy]

lol what? UML u ah real sycophant bai....yuh sick....srsly...yuh mentally unstable if you cannot see what the current admin doing.....blatant bribery and political tyranny as shogun say.....

[Hyperion]

^^^^ of course UML can see. But he is a good employee, he just spewing the cr@p that he is being paid to do.

[rfari]

Yunno I now studying that bas might comeback in the political ring after all that happen with him during his administration. Then I say what nuh?? Is Keith 'not nice' growley that end the man political career and have him in perpetual court. Same way he mash up manning and same way he hang, draw and quarter almost all the pp-unc govt members. I tell ollur long time. Growley not the one to really play around with.
Realise how romona ramdial and Stacey Roopnarine never had to deal with growley? Dey just stay low, stay down, keep quiet. Doh say nuffin outta timing, doh theef no money, doh dealup with/owe favours to drug lords, doh pull gyal bress without permission, doh kill nobody.
Do dat and everything go be alrite

[rspann]

The only reason he never attack them is because they is Indian baytees. The only thing he would do them is wine on them.

[rfari]

Ahhh yes. He have a weakness for sweetness. Ochro slime, swollen roti, processed chicken effects on the body...
Hmmmm...-___-

I understand

[UML]

[rfari]

Shoulda make growley a lil darker tho. Highlight his criminal intent

[K74T]

The baytees like it darker too.

[Habit7]

It so funny to see PP social media watching the sky falling and the impending victory of Dr. Rowley.

Everyone who criticises any PP action is deemed a lifetime PNM member Asst DPP, Panday, Ramesh, Moody, BG, Tony Fraser, etc.

If a poll comes out and Kamla is more favourable than Rowley it is accepted, if the same poll says PNM is more favourable than PP then it is false.

Al Wari can't be a lawyer and witness in the same trial but Kamla and Anand's lawyer exonerates them.

First they boycotting Express, then Guardian now Newsday.

The more PP delays the election the bigger hole they dig.

[pete]

If that's true then why is the PNM in such a rush for elections? Give them rope and make it easier nuh.

[Habit7]

If that's true then why is the PNM in such a rush for elections? Give them rope and make it easier nuh.

Because at the end of the day its not just PP embarrassing themselves, we have a country to live in.

Plus pushing the election to September makes it very unfair for a new government to take a look at the books and come up a new budget in a 2-3 weeks.

[pete]

Small ting. That just means the next election could be January next time right after a bess budget.

[rfari]

I like how u thinking pete. January elections songin like a flick

[dougla_boy]

Shoulda make growley a lil darker tho. Highlight his criminal intent

[RASC]

It so funny to see PP social media watching the sky falling and the impending victory of Dr. Rowley.

Everyone who criticises any PP action is deemed a lifetime PNM member Asst DPP, Panday, Ramesh, Moody, BG, Tony Fraser, etc.

If a poll comes out and Kamla is more favourable than Rowley it is accepted, if the same poll says PNM is more favourable than PP then it is false.

Al Wari can't be a lawyer and witness in the same trial but Kamla and Anand's lawyer exonerates them.

First they boycotting Express, then Guardian now Newsday.

The more PP delays the election the bigger hole they dig.

It fits their general base ideology that everyone is always against them and theirs always a conspiracy lurking in the DARK DARK SHADOWS ready to get them.

[eliteauto]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

[Numb3r4]

There is a house in New Orleans
They call the Rising Sun
And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
And God I know I'm one

[UML]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

are mods allowed to make statements with racial connotations?

u like the DPP bai

[rfari]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

are mods allowed to make statements with racial connotations?

u like the DPP bai

[eliteauto]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

are mods allowed to make statements with racial connotations?

u like the DPP bai

what racial connotation ?

[UML]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

are mods allowed to make statements with racial connotations?

u like the DPP bai

aye dumbo, is he a moderator there? is that trinituner with all the convenient rules?

for a matter of fact just to show u how chupid u is...dem comments not even made by the moderator

so trying to defend a racist comment

[rfari]

there is no room for DARK in the house of the Rising Sun

are mods allowed to make statements with racial connotations?

u like the DPP bai

aye dumbo, is he a moderator there? is that trinituner with all the convenient rules?

for a matter of fact just to show u how chupid u is...dem comments not even made by the moderator

so trying to defend a racist comment

Why we getting upset? I know I chupid.
U eh say nuttin dey

[Chimera]

All bias and thing aside. Who allyuh honestly feel gonna win election? The unc has in fact done a lot for a lot of people in the past few years. Does the average voter honestly care if someone steal this or that or they care who give them good road/water/house/land/subsidies?