Speaker of the House Bridgid Annisette-George. - File photo by Roger Jacob
SPEAKER Bridgid Annisette-George has censured Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West MP Stuart Young for his controversial remarks against members of the opposition. She said the reprehensible statements generated much public criticism and brought the House into odium and disrepute.
Speaking in Parliament on October 17 after the conclusion of the standing finance committee and the passing of the budget, Annisette-George said she was compelled to address the matter.
She said when the remarks were uttered, the Chair was being handed over to her by the Deputy Speaker and she did not hear them. She said based on the video footage, the opposition members also did not hear them as there was no outcry nor denouncement. She said the statements were not captured on the Hansard but were labelled “cross-talk.”
“However, like the rest of Trinidad and Tobago, I was deeply troubled by the improprieties uttered during a period when the nation should have been focused on the business before the House.”
Annisette-George said the freedom of speech enjoyed by members was to enable them to discharge their functions, but it was a privilege which was subject to the standing orders of the House and to the well-established general rules regarding parliamentary debates as developed by the Practice and Procedures of Parliament.
>
“It is not to be abused in a manner that distracts members, and the public, from the business before the House, or even worse, in a manner that undermines the dignity of the House of Representatives.
“While it is emphasised that the speech of members cannot be challenged in a court of law, parliamentary privilege is not a licence for offensive, insulting and/or unparliamentary language. Therefore as Speaker, I am not constrained in issuing to any member a reprimand commensurate with the severity of his/her degree of unparliamentary, objectionable, abusive, insulting or offensive language.”
She said while younger people might not have been initially familiar with the meaning of one of Young’s remarks, its connotation and meaning have since been explained in the public space.
“Such crass and distasteful references to other members of this House have no place in this august chamber and have rightly been subject to public contempt.
“I exhort us all not to resort to the obscene and the lewd... It will not be tolerated in this chamber by any member.”
Annisette-George said she did not object to light banter across the aisle and would be naïve to expect anything less in a parliamentary setting.
“However, vulgarity can never be considered banter and rude, unparliamentary language and expletives in particular, certainly do not meet the standards expected of each member of this House.”
The Speaker said it did not matter that Young was not making a contribution, his words were uttered sotto voce but unwittingly captured by an open microphone and were not captured by the Hansard. She said what mattered was his remarks had been heard across the country and diminished the dignity of the House and Young in particular.
She said members collectively bore the duty of upholding the dignity of the house by enforcing the standing orders and holding each other in adherence to them.
>
“Any member who actively participated in, supported or passively encouraged such crass discourse has also failed in this duty and cannot escape the focus of this reprimand. Thankfully, one neighbouring member rose to the highest traditions expected of members of this House by showing his disdain for what he heard.
“If we are conscious of our roles as leaders in society, we would understand that the remarks were even more damaging given their misogynistic and homophobic character, as well as their criminal insinuations.
“As a woman, I am naturally led to condemn statements which seek to indecently portray another woman, statements which trivialise criminal activities which exploit women, or statements which impute improper conduct on the part of other members. I once again direct members to refrain from misogynistic, homophobic and disparaging remarks in this House.”
Annisette-George said she noted a statement “akin to an apology” circulating on social media which could be attributed to Young.
“If in fact that statement is from the member for Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West, I am of the view that it does not satisfy that which is required of him to purge himself of his despicable behaviour in this House.
“I rule that the member for PoS North/St Ann’s West at the appropriate time, shall unreservedly withdraw the unparliamentary, offensive and insulting language which he used and apologise to this House and its members for not respecting the dignity and decorum of this House.”
Former Speaker Wade Mark, in a WhatsApp message to Newsday on October 16, said the matter should not be treated lightly.
“This is a grave and serious matter. It is my considered view that an inquiry ought to be held, the facts distilled, witnesses summoned and a report tendered to the House for its deliberation and action.
He said nothing short of an inquiry by the relevant Privileges Committee would suffice to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House and address growing public concern and anger over the matter.
>
“Invectives and expletives should not be normalised in a parliamentary setting and justified under the rubric of ‘cross-talk’ and ‘picong.’
“My advice has always been if one wishes to avoid receiving a yellow or red card or both, one should play the ball and not the player.”
After Annisette-George’s statement, UNC Whip David Lee read a statement asking her to send Young before the Privileges Committee.
Young then gave an unreserved apology to the House, its members, and his constituents, withdrawing the unparliamentary language used.
Deputy Speaker Esmond Forde ruled since Young had apologised to the House, there was no need to send him before the Privileges Committee or take any further action on the matter.
