A perfect example of hpw a debate should be moderated

The subject matter is of no consequence, it’s the Speaker’s words and manner. Worth watching if you’d like to see grace under fire.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=89S1cej9TyU

It’s rare to see the House of Commons so tranquil. Usually it sounds like a riot in a parrot cage. Our Speaker does have that power and can call on the Master at Arms to remove any Representative, hence the mace to the right of his chair, but I’ve never seen it used. When I visited the House most of the back benchers were talking amongst themselves or reading the newspaper while the Speaker was introducing a bill. Pretty boring actually. Nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention to the Speaker.
Cap’t Jack

It's rare to see the House of Commons so tranquil. Usually it sounds like a riot in a parrot cage. Our Speaker does have that power and can call on the Master at Arms to remove any Representative, hence the mace to the right of his chair, but I've never seen it used. When I visited the House most of the back benchers were talking amongst themselves or reading the newspaper while the Speaker was introducing a bill. Pretty boring actually. Nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention to the Speaker. Cap't Jack
Like watching sausage being made, or something like that :cheese:

It looked to me like a most genteel and polite and diplomatic of ways to abridge an elected representative’s freedom of speech (or what I would consider a basic right of freedom of speech, although Brits may not hold freedom of speech to be such a fundamental right as do Americans).

Like watching sausage being made, or something like that
Yeah, pretty much. Most of the time when the Congressmen/women are giving speeches very few of their peers are even paying attention. They're just pandering to the camera. They usually show up for a floor vote and that's what you see on Cspan. Cap't Jack

LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.

LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor.
LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor. Why is it sad? I doubt he was literally dismissed from the session because he's Irish; just some nasty humor on my part.
LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor. Why is it sad? I doubt he was literally dismissed from the session because he's Irish; just some nasty humor on my part. I think it is sad that he was dismissed simply because he wouldn't adjust his speech to what the authority figure demanded, whether his nationality had anything to do with it or not.
LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor. Why is it sad? I doubt he was literally dismissed from the session because he's Irish; just some nasty humor on my part. I think it is sad that he was dismissed simply because he wouldn't adjust his speech to what the authority figure demanded, whether his nationality had anything to do with it or not. Not that no one should ever adjust their speech according to the demands of an authority figure, but one elected official should not have such mi-nute control over another elected official's speech in a governmental session, IMO. But then, as I said, I am an American, sensitive about freedom of speech.
LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor. Why is it sad? I doubt he was literally dismissed from the session because he's Irish; just some nasty humor on my part. I think it is sad that he was dismissed simply because he wouldn't adjust his speech to what the authority figure demanded, whether his nationality had anything to do with it or not. Not that no one should ever adjust their speech according to the demands of an authority figure, but one elected official should not have such mi-nute control over another elected official's speech in a governmental session, IMO. But then, as I said, I am an American, sensitive about freedom of speech. But the House of Commons as a whole has created the rules and the authority figure to keep order, which is an advantage to every menber of Parliament. If there was any substantial feeling among the members that it was excessive there would be a movement to change the rules. Apparently members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle are satisfied with the rule because no one is suggesting a change. Since you are an American "sensitive to freedom of speech," i suggest you loudly and forcefully express your opinions in a church during services, in a courtroom, in a publc library, in a hospital, in a schoolroom, on an airplane, or in a session of Congress. Let us know what happens. Let us know how far your claims of the absolute right to free speech go. Lois
LOL, the Irish are still getting put in their place by the British.
You think it's funny. I think it's sort of sad. But then, pain of some sort often underlies humor. Why is it sad? I doubt he was literally dismissed from the session because he's Irish; just some nasty humor on my part. I think it is sad that he was dismissed simply because he wouldn't adjust his speech to what the authority figure demanded, whether his nationality had anything to do with it or not. Not that no one should ever adjust their speech according to the demands of an authority figure, but one elected official should not have such mi-nute control over another elected official's speech in a governmental session, IMO. But then, as I said, I am an American, sensitive about freedom of speech. But the House of Commons as a whole has created the rules and the authority figure to keep order, which is an advantage to every menber of Parliament. If there was any substantial feeling among the members that it was excessive there would be a movement to change the rules. Apparently members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle are satisfied with the rule because no one is suggesting a change. Since you are an American "sensitive to freedom of speech," i suggest you loudly and forcefully express your opinions in a church during services, in a courtroom, in a publc library, in a hospital, in a schoolroom, on an airplane, or in a session of Congress. Let us know what happens. Let us know how far your claims of the absolute right to free speech go. Lois Lois, you seem to be doing well in "loudly and forcefully" expressing your opinions on this forum. And I commend that. I would not like it if the moderator decided to seemingly arbitrarily have you change a couple of rather benign words that you chose to use, or else, be ejected from the forum. But even if that were the case, it would not, IMO, be as egregious as something similar happening in Congress, which is a governmental agency comprised of our elected representative. And again, if the British Commonwealth is content with how they limit speech in their government, then that's their business. I wouldn't like to see something comparable here.