Disgrace in Parliament

Orville Taylor, Contributor

Give a backbencher MP a lifeline by baiting him with a minor controversy and he will swallow it hook, line and sinker, like a fish. What happened in Parliament last Tuesday was so despicable that the children in primary schools now have three new Rs to learn: reprehensible, reproachable and repugnant. In fact, given the poor command over language and diction evinced by some MPs, it wouldn't be surprising if they all were simply 'rong'.

The drama began when member for North West St Elizabeth, J.C. Hutchinson, got up, ostensibly, to raise a question regarding Tourism Minister Wykeham McNeill's Sectoral Debate presentation. But, instead of getting to the point, Hutchinson turned his five minutes of fame into a diatribe about the colour of the flag on the document.

Clearly out of focus, Hutchinson was actually criticising the representation of the national colours on the cover of the booklet; and, perhaps confused about what he was seeing, Hutchinson doubted his other senses when he was being asked by portly Deputy Speaker Lloyd B. Smith, who was overfilling the speaker's chair in the absence of Michael Peart.

A relentless Hutchinson was then challenged by his colleague MP Raymond Pryce, from the other half of the parish, and told to sit down. It was an offensive interjection by a House novice against a senior member who, although his 20-plus years in Parliament have been at best innocuous, is a big man, old enough to be his father.

valid point

Doubtless, J.C. was rambling like a man unaccustomed to holding centre stage in the House, and understandably so. However, he was making a valid point in all the cacophony because he saw black, orange and green, where there should have been gold in the middle. It could have been the printer's devil or the poor mixture of red and yellow by an incompetent pressman or an out-of-date Heidelberg printer, but orange and gold are as different as a whale and a shark, even though both have fins and are streamlined. One is a mammal which needs nurturing and suckling and the other needs no adult female to tend it.

Given the debacle with the absence of green from the mayoral installation in March, the minister's handlers should have been more vigilant, given that an out-of-power Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will not miss an opportunity to highlight even the smallest of peccadilloes. Politicians do politics! A simple response to J.C.'s comment, dismissing it for the unintended error which it is said to be, would have been sufficient to avoid the total disgraceful sequence of events which ensued.

For the first time since his installation and since the Budget was read, we saw Pryce go down and it looked as if the usual debonair and unflappable Georgian, cut from the same cloth as the Rev Ronnie Thwaites, was showing DNA more akin to the parliamentary dinosaurs.

Responding to his 'upstart', the post-Jurassic J.C. sought to refer to his youthful colleague as a "boy". And in a reference that he clarified later to be based on a comparison between minnows and cetaceans, he spat the word 'fish' in the direction of Pryce. According to JC, he was simply saying that he, being a veteran, was a whale; and thus Pryce, with only a six-month novitiate, was a fish.

The jury is out regarding the explanation that Hutchinson gave. However, whether he was referring to himself as a humpback, blue or the sperm whale Moby Dick, the word should have stayed in his mouth.

Then, caught with his pants down for the second time in six months, though figuratively this time, Smith desperately tried to restore order. When Hutchinson remained petulant, Smith mandated the hapless marshal of the House, Kevin Williams, to remove him. Full of trepidation and looking as if his laxative was about to trip in, the poor civil servant froze like a ram goat caught in the headlights of a tractor trailer and stood beside Hutchinson as if he were on sentry duty or a bodyguard.

opposition walkout

Incensed by the order of the acting speaker, opposition members rose up and vociferously expressed their further objections and faced him down. Unpersuaded, the JLP members walked out in unison, but not before the whole episode had descended into a dogfight. A later apologetic Lloyd B gave two versions which are particularly disturbing, because of the knowledge that he generally has and seeks.

First, he stated that he had not given instructions for the member to be removed. Rather, he simply ordered the marshal to stand beside him. Given the acidic comments made by Hutchinson to Pryce, the putting of another young man to stand beside him would have only helped to worsen the whale of a problem.

Another comment from Smith suggested that he was pleading ignorance because of his newness in the job. However, Peart had already apologised for Smith's behaviour, saying that it was a breach of procedure. So, then, if Smith did not tell the marshal to remove Hutchinson, what was he apologising for? It might have been caused by what sounds like instructions caught on tape which my half-deaf ears interpreted as the order being given. Smith erred, and that is that.

True to form, maverick member, the untameable Everald 'Warminster' Warmington, had to take it up a notch and walk over to the public officer, who has enough concerns with a Parliament which is conspiring to abridge his pension benefit. Warmington pointed his finger at the marshal and did what would either lead to a fight if he did it to the average man or, more likely, would have opened a can of whipping.

Outside Parliament, one wonders whether or not Warmington would have been so brave and disrespectful. It should be noted that Parliament protects the members from liabilities in regard to comments made within the chamber. Thus, whatever might be the true meaning or less-than-subtle innuendo, the piscine reference by Hutchinson is not actionable because it was made in Parliament. Nonetheless, it is an unfortunate comment, despite it being provoked by Pryce's uncustomary lack of panache.

warmington's crime

On the other hand, Warmington committed a crime when he pointed in the face of the marshal. Defined at common law, assault occurs "... when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury". This is the very same offence Norman Manley had Stanley Vernon convicted of when, in his overexuberance, Vernon pointed in the barrister's face.

It is important to note that Parliament does not protect the malefactor when a felony is committed. Therefore, if pursued, the matter could end with a conviction of the MP. This is not a simple matter of getting upset; it could have criminal implications. Warmington was rightfully indignant over Lloyd B.'s faux pas. However, he is a big man, a veteran politician with more than 30 years of service. He should learn to conduct himself better.

Sadly, in all of this, a distressed mother sent me an email on Wednesday. She said that her "... 11-year-old grade-five student, performing at 90 per cent average, watching the news ... remarked that she would rather pick up garbage off the streets than become a politician based on the behaviour of the politicians ... ".

I wonder how many children these men have.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in sociology at the UWI and a radio talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.