Two weeks ago, Green MP Keith Locke put a motion before Parliament asking the House to condemn the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. After organising a pledge to lobby party leaders on the subject, I discovered that most such motions are in fact never voted on - they simply lapse after a week. The Clerk's guide to Effective House Membership [PDF] notes that
Generally members accept that the process ends this way and they have achieved their aim of having the rest of the motion appear on the Order Paper. Those seeking to have the motion considered in the House ahead of other business would need to seek leave for this to occur
Which is exactly what Keith did last Tuesday. Here's the excerpt from Hansard:
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move my members’ motion No. 3 on the Order Paper relating to the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention centre. I have negotiated with all the parties. The wording of the motion is similar to a motion passed by all party blocs in the European Parliament on 16 February, so it should meet with the approval of the House.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
I have just one question about this: Who did it? Which "honourable" Member raised their hand to defend torture and arbitrary detention? Because whoever it is, they need to be named and shamed (and persecuted, villified, and excoriated) for their actions.
5 comments:
Oh yeah I was going to point out it will probably never be voted on.
Objections are verbal and so long as the Speaker hears an objection, leave is not given and they do not record who objected.
Generally it will be the Government Whip though. They have the job of making sure the business of the house stays on track.
Posted by David Farrar : 3/07/2006 07:36:00 AM
It was indeed Labour. It will be interesting to hear what their excuse is.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/07/2006 04:05:00 PM
Jim Anderton has just replied, belatedly, to my email urging him to support Keith's motion (text here). More weaselling I'm afraid. He's not sure a resolution in parliament is the 'appropriate way' for him to express his concerns.
Posted by Jarvis Pink : 3/09/2006 10:09:00 AM
So, what is then? Silence? How does that fit with our condemnation of human rights abuses elsewhere in the world, and our strong support for international law?
BTW, I contacted United Future, and was told that a) the UF caucus had made a decision not to oppose leave; and b) they would "almost certainly" support the motion if it came to a vote.
At least someone is remembering their principles.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/09/2006 10:37:00 AM
So parliament through one of its pissy committees bothers to suggest that the British Govt should consider sharing the Elgin Marbles with Greece, but not that the US Govt stop indulging in torture? Priorities straight then.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/15/2006 12:46:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).