Josh captures The ‘not so great and not so good’ essence highlighted by Steve McIntyre. Bishop Hill writes in Acton and parliamentary privilege:
Steve McIntyre notes UEA’s recent submission to an Information Tribunal hearing. McIntyre had pointed out that UEA’s vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, had told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that the emails relating to the Wahl and Ammann affair were available. However, they told McIntyre that they no longer existed.
In their defence, the university invokes the principle of Parliamentary Privilege.
Josh finds inspiration in this.
It is not really acceptable, is it?
Cartoons by Josh with a H/t to mydogsgotnonose for the inspiring Melton Mowbray comment.
(Note: the title is intentional, a fat fingered typo that I decided to keep because it speaks to the issue of pal-review, be it in journals or parliament – Anthony)
Privilege Versus Contempt
http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=ABBC077A-6DD8-4FBE-A29A-3F73554E63AA&sbpid=9686D5B2-9075-4451-8082-1446F8BE3C5E&Language=E&Mode=1
Speaking of fat-fingered typos: Aldous Huxley was typing “the human comedy” but his finger hit the next letter over and it came out as “the human vomedy.” He kept it.
Wow! WUWT is extra fun today. I thought the subtile use of Pal-rimentary (and pal-review) hit the mark for ridicule that works perfectly when one understands the issues well, but John at 12:24 went a step further with coprophagic proctocranial. It describes Hansen and Mann well — those who “consume” their own BS.
Josh has captured another bizarre element in the CAGW saga. This one is like Ford pardoning Nixon for a crime he hadn’t been charged with.
There should be some Latin phrase for this: the prior exoneration for a non-present charge of misconduct.
It is said that when small boys deny breaking the lamp that you saw them break, they are responding to an interior conflict. The conflict is a belief that only bad boys break lamps, and we are not bad boys, so we cannot have broken the lamp.
Jones, Mann, Hansen, Gore, Suzuki, Gleick (sort of), The Heartland, Romm: would this explanation of the state of denial found in juveniles not explain the outrage each of these display when questioned about their claims, charges and predictions?
We need a Latin phrase for that, too. Absurbia non est sum? Denialata, ergo cogito qualiatum? Cogito climatica, ergo non errata?
To be a true catastrophiliac you must also be anthracophobic, i.e. possess a fear or hatred of carbon.
I really like catastrophobes. I’ll be using that. Thank you.
What would the word be when you have a morbid fear of catastrophists?
Catastrophes I can handle. Catastrophists scare me terribly: whatever they do, they can do with the authority of preventing worse things happening to others in a future defined by “later”.
Speaking of Gore, Suzuki etal,
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/when-inconvenient-wind-blows-strobel
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-blown-away-by-own-farts-say-researchers
Parliamentary Privilege was legally tested not too long ago (a matter of a year or so) when an MP stood in the House of Commons and named a woman who was engaged in a legal battle in the Family Court. This is where the Government seizes very young children from their parents and puts them up for adoption. ( Read http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82491) or search the Daily Telegraph site for Christopher Booker for more information of this infamous procedure.
The Family Court operates under rules of very strict security and it attempted to gag an MP before he spoke in the House. The attempt was unsuccessful because Parliamentary Privilege applied.
Only MPs or Lords of the Realm, when speaking only in their respective Houses can claim Parliamentary Privilege. No-one else can avail themselves of this legal cover.
In the Hypocracy that the UK has become, this is , of course, fully acceptable!
The point is not one of a meaningless and bogus claim of Parliamentary privilege by a public body (UEA) but a clear admission by UEA that it failed to comply with Steve’s FOI request.
When an FOI request (or for that matter a Data Subject Access Request is receieved by an organisation, all data requested MUST by law by be supplied (subject to very tight exemptions)
The UEA has opened itself up to a legal claim for any and all losses suffered by Steve as a result of UEA’s failure to comply, and a court order for disclosure of any other data which it is withholding.
Such an action could be pursued through the Small Claims system and cost no more tham £35.
I myself have used this very piece of legislation in court to enforce my rights as a data subject, to my data held by banks in order to sue them for return of funds unlawfully appropriated many years in the past.
( I won, by the way.)
😉
This is a copy of what I posted at Climate Audit earlier about Parliamentary Privilege. US readers probably have a different, but related system. I’d be interested to hear about the differences, if any. It is not often that I get to be an expert at WUWT, but this is something I know inside out. Here we go:
It is quite common for Ministers’ speeches and answers to questions about legislation to be used in the courts to help to clarify what the intention of the legislation is. But that has nothing to do with PP.
Under the doctrine of PP, anything said by a Member of Parliament during parliamentary proceedings is absolutely immune from any external civil or criminal action. The Parliament is expected to discipline its own members. With regard to witness testimony before Committees, as was explained above, sometimes the testimony is covered by PP and sometimes it isn’t.
However, even if testimony (or something an MP admits to) is covered by PP, that doesn’t preclude outside authorities from making inquiries if they believe a crime has been committed, or people suing if they believe that they have been wronged civilly. They just can’t use, or refer to in any way, what was said under PP when presenting their case in a court or tribunal. An MP can’t admit to murder in Parliament under privilege and be immune from prosecution because of it. But the admission has no legal standing if the MP is subsequently charged.
PP is not a get out of jail free card.
I hope that clarifies things.
—————————————————
What this comment doesn’t cover is that Parliament has significant powers to deal with anyone who lies to it (imprisonment or fines). The trouble is, if they did that, it would raise the question of why MPs who lie to the Parliament do not get the same treatment.
P.F. says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Wow! WUWT is extra fun today. I thought the subtile use of Pal-rimentary (and pal-review) hit the mark for ridicule that works perfectly when one understands the issues well, but John at 12:24 went a step further with coprophagic proctocranial. It describes Hansen and Mann well — those who “consume” their own BS.
_______________________________
Both are wonderful but I really like “coprophagic proctocranial.”
For those who are interested: A sitting Senator or Representative cannot be sued for anything he/she says while in chambers. This protection is gone when they step out of chamber.
i don’t know about this. I sure like Josh’s cartoon but as to lying to Parliament another story. That takes place all the time. Very frequently here in Canada and by the government members more often then not. The only consequences so far have seen the present bunch of nuts information-nazies, this time with a majority.
Contempt of Parliament
264. Contempts comprise any conduct (including words) which improperly interferes, or is intended or likely improperly to interfere, with the performance by either House of its functions, or the performance by a member or officer of the House of his duties as a member or officer.[300] The scope of contempt is broad, because the actions which may obstruct a House or one of its committees in the performance of their functions are diverse in character. Each House has the exclusive right to judge whether conduct amounts to improper interference and hence contempt. The categories of conduct constituting contempt are not closed. The following is a list of some types of contempt:
[includes…]
— deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)
— deliberately publishing a false or misleading report of the proceedings of a House or a committee
Penalties: the present position
271. Historically the power to adjudge a contempt is linked to the power to commit to prison.[313] In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries committal to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or to prison, was a regular punishment. The House of Commons has power to imprison until the end of the current parliamentary session, however long or short that may be. The House of Lords has power to imprison indefinitely.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4310.htm
Catastrati
– a global warming alarmist who has lied to Parliament, and suffered the consequences;
– a nutter and a nuttee.
Dennis Nikols says: May 10, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Dennis, I do not understand your above post.
It is true that the Canadian government has as its Environment Minister a former broadcaster who is apparently a warmist, and an Environment Department full of many more warmist scoundrels and imbeciles.
However, the current Harper government is infinitely more competent and less corrupt than its Liberal predecessors. The Chretien empire was as corrupt as many third-world kleptocracies, and shamelessly stole and squandered Canada’s wealth.
Harper and his Ministers are now undoing Chretien’s ridiculous and wasteful policies, but it will take time. Note that Canada was among the first countries to withdraw from the idiotic Kyoto Protocol.
Harper is reportedly a climate skeptic, but is wise enough to keep quiet about it. He knows what just happened to Michelle Smith in the recent Alberta election, when she dared to suggest that “the science was NOT settled”. Michelle’s strong lead in the polls turned into an electoral defeat in just two weeks, as over 100,000 traditionally socialist (Liberal and NDP) voters “voted strategically” for the ruling Conservatives.
Canada now has the strongest economy in the world, the most stable banks, and is the biggest foreign supplier of oil to the USA. All of this was achieved with a Parliamentary Minority – Harper now has a majority and can rid Canada of the rest of Chretien’s nonsense.
I submit that Stephen Harper is the most honest and competent Prime Minister and runs the best government that Canada has seen in generations.
If you disagree, please be specific and provide real evidence.
Allan MacRae says: May 12, 2012 at 9:58 am
Correction: Danielle Smith