Getting Women into Parliaments: Controlling contemptible language

The first half hour of the Current this morning (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent) addressed the cyber abuse experienced by women politicians. The following is the long version of a paper I ended up writing after Newfoundland and Labrador Finance Minister, Cathy Bennett, went public with the abuse she was suffering online. It was originally intended as a blog, but quickly turned into a full paper that I have now revised and sent out. The following is an early draft prior to editing and focusing the argument, which includes more examples of the salacious and outrageous behavior towards women that occurs during parliament debate.

What follows is a suggestion for controlling abusive language by starting with parliament taking seriously and modeling the gender-sensitive and inclusive political system that we expect in 2017. This requires a rebalancing of parliamentary privileges which could be attained by recognizing speech acts in the legislature as sexual harassment and therefore falling within the purview of rulings of contempt.

Sandra Jansen and Premier Rachel Notley

MLAs who happen to have blonde hair

Cathy Bennett Minister of Finance, N.L.

One of three women in the NL cabinet

Getting Women into Parliaments: Controlling contemptible language

On December 12, 2017, another woman Parliamentarian spoke out about the abusive and sexist language levelled at her as she undertook her job. Cathy Bennett, the Minister of Finance in Newfoundland and Labrador’s Liberal Government (she is also Minister Responsible for the Status of Women) spoke of “vile and sexually exploitative” email and Facebook posts, the overwhelming number written by men (Boone, 2016). Bennett had expected backlash in light of the tough austerity budget she had presented in the spring, but “the vitriolic onslaught far exceeded what she imagined” (Boone, 2016). As Bennett said, “have disagreements with me about our policies. Don’t vote for me in the next election. But don’t abuse me online and say things to me that you wouldn’t say in a public space” (Boone, 2016).

This follows on from Alberta MLA, Sandra Jansen’s November speech to the Alberta Legislature, after she crossed the floor from the Conservative opposition to the NDP government, where she recounted receiving comments such as, “what a traitorous bitch”, “Sandra should stay in the kitchen where she belongs,” “fly with the crows and get shot,” “now you have two blond bimbos [referring to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley] in a party that is clueless,” “dumb broad. A good place for her is to be with the rest of the queers.” While she received a standing ovation for her speech, her response was, “while that was nice, the proof will be in people’s actions over the coming weeks and months,” she went on to point out that this is not just a question of internet trolls; “she’s not just sick of the comments, but seeing politicians who implicitly encourage harassment and abusive behaviour by allowing it on their Facebook pages, and by feeding groups and organizations that perpetuate it” (Graney, 2016).

The following day, in the Federal Parliament, NDP Sheila Malcolmson asked the Liberal government what could be done to address the fact that women in politics are much more likely to be the recipients of violent and abusive language than are men. The request was for an end to the violent language in Parliament, and, while Patricia Hajdu, then Minister for the Status of Women, was sympathetic, her response was that the government was pursuing “a comprehensive strategy to combat misogynistic language in the cyber world and the real world” (Ramsey, 2016, my emphasis). There was no mention of Parliamentary legislatures as sites of misogyny and harassment and that the language of Parliament itself might be a problem.

Language can be a potentially alienating feature of Parliamentary life for women, “derogatory and sexist language and incidents of sexual harassment can make women feel like outsiders” (IPU, 2011).  This isolation can be argued to fall within a violation of parliamentary privilege and contempt because it represents the obstruction or impeding of a Member in the discharge of their duties. However, the freedom to speak is also a significant feature of parliamentary privilege and an immunity intended to facilitate full and open debate. Consequently, with the growing numbers of women in parliaments, it is becoming abundantly clear that regarding language there is a tension between two forms of privilege in the House. With the increasing focus on gender-sensitive parliaments it is time to seriously review language and decorum in the House and consider rebalancing what privileges should take precedence.

While Bennett and Jansen focussed predominantly on Facebook and internet trolling, Jansen is clear in pointing that this is connected to the legislative assembly and parliamentary practice. The democratic institution itself is complicit in continuing a culture of misogynistic abuse. The clearest statement was Conservative MP Michelle Rempel’s op-ed in the National Post, April 18, 2016, in which she recounted “the everyday sexism I face involves confronting the ‘bitch’ epithet when I don’t automatically comply with someone’s request or capitulate in my position on an issue,” comments regarding her appearance and demeanor such as a senior cabinet member telling her “to look a bit more cheerful,” and statements attributing her political success to her sleeping with person X,Y, or Z (Rempel, 2016).

Michelle  Rempell in the House

This was illustrated most recently when Conservative trade critic Gary Ritz’s described then International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland’s as having “a meltdown,” needing “adult supervision,” and asking if the PM Justin Trudeau “should grab some adults and head to Europe to fix the accord” (CP, 2016). [Minister Freeland, who is 48, an established author, former editor at the Financial Times, Globe and Mail, and Thomson Rueters, speaks six languages, and holds degrees from Harvard and Oxford, responded that they are all adults. Further to this an EU envoy commented that her walkout was a very appropriate strategy, and praised her decision (CP, 2016).]

Chrystia Freeland, Minister of

International Affairs and adult.

 Such language and behaviour is hardly new, in 1982, when NDP MP Margaret Mitchell rose in the House of Commons to discuss domestic violence, male parliamentarians made a joke of it and laughed (Mitchell 2008, Newman and White 2012, Collier and Raney, 2016). That same year, MP Gordon Taylor stated in the House that Cabinet Minister Judy Erola, “had a nice body… it’s too bad it’s connected to her mouth” (Sweetmen, 1982, cited in Collier and Raney). In 1985, Liberal MP Sheila Copps was told to “quiet down, baby” by PC MP John Crosbie (Collier & Raney, 2016). Throughout the 1980s, Copps was the recipient of much abuse including being called a “slut” by PC MP William Kempling, who also referred to other women MPs as “dear,” “bitch,” and “fish wife” (CBC Archive 1991 cited in Collier and Raney, 2016). At the provincial level, in 1992, Marion Boyd NDP member in the Ontario legislature was so concerned about incidences of “language demeaning to women, efforts to humiliate and intimidate women, the use of sexist language; and a general mood of disrespect, that she made a submission to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly (Trimble & Tremblay, 2003, p 118).  Another egregious example was an alleged incident in 2005 when Conservative MP Peter Mackay referred to MP Belinda Stronach’s, his ex-girlfriend who had just crossed the floor to the Liberal government, as a dog. The remark was alleged to have occurred during heckling in a rambunctious Question Period when in response to a quip asking if Mackay was concerned about pollution affecting his dog, he responded by waving to Stronach seat and saying, “you already have her” (CBC, 2006).

Demeaning verbal abuse a feature of Parliamentary culture

The impact and reaction of women to the language used in Parliament is something both the Interparliamentary Union in its studies regarding Gender Sensitive Parliaments and the Canadian Parliamentary research centre Samara’s review of heckling and parliamentary decorum have identified as significant.  While there are a variety of changes required to build gender-sensitive parliamentary forums, the IPU flags language as a significant feature; not only in the adoption of gender-neutral language in law, publications and debates, but also in the promotion of less aggressive parliamentary language and behaviour (IPU 2008 & IPU 2011). In interviews with parliamentarians, when asked about the culture of their parliaments, men tended to score it higher (better than average) than did women. Women more frequently characterised their parliaments as being dominated by a “gentlemen’s club,” and given to discourse that includes demeaning verbal remarks based on sex (See table below and IPU, 2011, p. 84).

Difficulties faced in fulfilling parliamentary mandates (culture) (N=responses)
	Women	Men	Average score
A ‘gentlemen’s club’ dominates parliament (N=97)	2.95	1.34	2.13
Demeaning verbal remarks based on sex (N=105)	2.08	1.63	1.84
‘Unwritten rules’ and norms have negatively affected your work (N=104)	1.63	1.32	1.46
Disparaging or harassing remarks because of your sex (N=110)	1.62	1.32	1.46
Sexual harassment of women members (N=105)	1.57	1.10	1.32
Sexual harassment of male members (N=103)	1.17	1.05	1.11
Source: IPU, 2011, p. 84. Note: Score calculated on a scale where 1 represents “Never,” 2 “rarely”, 3 “occasionally”, 4 “regularly”, and 5 “all the time.”

The point is, for women, parliaments are particularly masculine spaces. This is both a cultural and structural feature of Parliaments. In a recent paper, Collier and Raney (2016) use a feminist institutionalist approach to examine sexism in the British, Australian, and Canadian Parliaments. Such an approach focusses on the “constructions of masculinity and femininity [that] are intertwined in daily culture or the ‘logic’ of political institutions, rather than existing out in society or fixed within individuals… (Collier & Raney, 2016, citing Krook and MacKay, 2011, p. 6). Collier and Raney argue that Westminster parliamentary systems are “prone” to sexual harassment “through the inclusion of unwritten conventions, including the myth of neutrality, a foundation built on adversarial debate, and the embrace of Parliamentary privilege” (Collier & Raney, 2016, p. 6).

Regarding the language found in parliaments, the foundation on adversarial debate is particularly significant. Parliaments are “talking shops” that thrive on debate and argumentation to vet, oversee, and amend government policy through multiple readings of legislation. This conflict is the reason for the symbolic tradition in Westminster of the space between government and opposition being two-sword lengths and one inch apart.

Two areas where the conflict is particularly obvious in Canadian Parliaments is during Question Period and in the practice of heckling. It arises in Question Period because it is the period of the Parliamentary day that is most likely to be watched by outsiders and covered by the media and as a result also when MPs are most expected to act as “a team.” Further, as Christiane Gagnon, MP for the BQ, comments it is also a period when the frustrations of MPs with the government and the House generally are most likely to peak (Bedard & Virgint, 2010). This point was confirmed by the Samara study on heckling in which one MP said “Like an arena … only a few ‘stars’ get to be on the field, to get up during QP… The rest are enthusiastic supporters of their side and are a little bit frustrated at not being able to participate directly.” Heckling is clearly a way for MPs to get themselves heard either “correcting another party’s errors and omisssions’, ‘getting on the record,’ and supporting their team (Grisdale, Anderson, Anthony, and Hilderman, 2016).  Consequently, it is very much part of the daily logic and practice of debate, an intrinsic part of Parliamentary discourse which is not unique to Canada’s House of Commons but “used across party lines and in many parliaments and legislatures in Canada and around the world.”  

However, as the IPU points out, the spectacle of parliamentary debate and conflict can create an environment conducive to harassment. While the belligerence and bulling might be intended for show, it can facilitate and encourage remarks and exchanges that are meant to give offence.

In some instances, such mock belligerence can cross the line into actual or perceived abuse, including demeaning allusions to women’s concerns, of women parliamentarians themselves, and sexist or exclusively masculine references in debate (IPU, 2011, p. 85).

As the IPU report (table 1) shows there is a significant difference between men in women in assessing the prevalence of demeaning verbal remarks based on sex within parliaments. In the context of the Canadian Parliament, Samara made a similar finding. “[F]emale MPs were more likely than men to report hearing heckles about gender, appearance, age and language. Indeed 79% of women respondents reported hearing heckles related to age and gender whereas no men reported hearing age-related heckles and only 8% heard gendered heckles.” Further to this, “women are more likely than men to report that they hear heckles directed at them “frequently” (36% vs. 15%) and “occasionally” (57% vs. 54%)” (Grisdale, Anderson, Anthony, and Hilderman, 2016). Carolyn Bennett, Liberal Member of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, told reporters that female MPs are often subjected to “personal” attacks in the House of Commons, “when male parliamentarians are heckled it’s usually about the topic at hand … but she’s been told to ‘lay off the coffee’ or ‘take a valium’” (Spurr, 2016). Similarly, Megan Leslie, then federal NDP deputy leader, in 2013 stated that heckling has a nastier tone when directed at women (Daro, 2013).  Interestingly, the Samara report noted that that 90% of the respondents reported the most common hecklers as male (ibid). It would appear that it is predominantly male activity.

Language can be a potentially alienating feature of Parliamentary life for women, “derogatory and sexist language and incidents of sexual harassment can make women feel like outsiders” (IPU, 2011, p. 4). This is borne out in the Samara study where “20% of respondents reported that they participated less at times because of heckling, either by paying less attention or seeking out fewer opportunities to speak.” Four of the five MPs who reported this were female! (Grisdale, Anderson, Anthony, and Hilderman, 2016). In a forum in which we would hope that men and women have an equal right to participate, it appears that for some the practices and behaviours deters participation; “heckling not only affects their job performance in the House but even reduces their willingness to participate at all”. This deterrence has not gone unnoticed by women Parliamentarians and politicians. For example, at a 2010 conference on decorum in Question Period, former MPs Hon. Anne McLellan (Liberal) and Denise Savoie (NDP) spoke of the troubling consequence of the lack of civility as being a deterrence for women in pursing political careers and the sidelining of women’s approaches to national issues (Bedard & Virgint, 2010). In response to sexual harassment allegations made on the Hill in 2014, Sheila Gervais a Liberal Staffer in the 1980s and former party executive commented, “it’s a vicious circle. Until you get more of them there, you’re not going to change that place and you’re not going to change that place until you get more of them there … Women will change it, if they are there in appropriate numbers, but many of them do not want to go there because of that male-dominated and oriented culture” (Ditchburn, 2014).

Privileges and Immunities:

“Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively … and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. This privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law” (Marleau & Monpetit, 2000 3: Privileges and Immunities, quoting Erskin May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges).

Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess …. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons. (Speaker Lucien Lamoureux (Debates, April 29, 1971, p. 5338 cited in O’Brien and Bosc, 2009)

Parliaments are founded on systems of privilege and immunity intended to facilitate full and open debate “because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told and any questions asked” (Marleau & Montpetit, 2000). The understanding is that to fulfill their representative functions within the House MPs must have the freedom to talk and the freedom to act. However, as we have seen, the rules and behaviour within the House creates a great deal of tension between what can be considered two forms of privilege, the immunities required by members to speak freely versus the effect such speech might have on limiting the ability of some members to fulfill their responsibilities if that language makes them feel uncomfortable and an outsider in the House.

Returning to Cathy Bennett’s request that her detractors refrain from saying things that “you wouldn’t say in a public space” (Boone, 2016), the problem is that when it comes to freedom of speech Parliament is not a public space like any other. Parliamentary privilege guarantees Parliamentarians freedom of speech and freedom from arrest in civil actions for their statements and actions within the House and House committees.

This is not to say that the free speech of members is limitless. “All members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. This is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in the House to counter the potential for abuse” (Speaker John Fraser, quoted in Marleau and Montpetit, 2000). The Speaker has the authority and the responsibility to ensure civility and decorum in House including the behaviour and language of members. As Marleau and Montpetit (2000) explain, “the privilege of freedom of speech is an extremely powerful immunity and Speakers have on occasion had to caution members about its misuse.” The Speaker can do this by upholding the decorum of parliament by ruling on whether the language used is “unparliamentarily” or “parliamentary.”

This would seem an obvious place to change sexist and misogynistic discourse in Parliament. However, reference to Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada (Fraser, Dawson, Holtby, 1989, pp 143-150), finds no listing of sexist or misogynistic terms under unparliamentary language and only two, “Baby” and “Honourable lady” listed as causing intervention on the part of the Chair between 1976 and 1987. The term “baby” refers to John Crosbie’s comments towards Sheila Copps discussed earlier. However, from the Speaker’s chair’ decorum and civility is very much in the ear of the listener, and while the “Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary” (Fraser, Dawson, Holtby, 1989, p. 149). A ruling of disorder also rides on whether the Speaker hears the statement or not. In the case of Peter Mackay’s alleged comments regarding Belinda Stronach, while a complaint was lodged by Liberal MP Mark Holland, the Speaker said there was nothing to rule on as “there’s nothing he can do because he did not hear the comment, it does not appear in Hansard and cannot be heard on the audio recording of the proceedings of the House” (CBC, 2006)

Further to this, the position on heckling within the House is ambivalent on the part of both Speakers and Members. As Marleau and Montpetit (p. 314) note, on occasion the Speaker has asked Members not to heckle (see for example Debates, September 16, 1991, p. 2190; March 7, 1994, p. 1887; April 15, 1995, p. 11552), while in other instances, the Speaker has indicated that heckling is part of debate (see for example, Debates, April 1, 1992, p. 9193). As for the MPs themselves, the Samara report found that while 69% of those surveyed believed heckling to be a problem, 72% admitted to doing it (Grisdale, Anderson, Anthony, and Hilderman, 2016). Views regarding heckling are divided between those who view the practice as not being conducive to a respectful workplace and others who view heckling as a product of members engaging in vigorous debate. A quarter of the respondents to the Samara study did not see heckling as a problem, with one noting that “if its good natured, positive and done at the right time, it livens debate.” It is considered part of the culture of Parliament particularly when the disruption was meant to be satirical.   

Efforts have been made to change the tone of parliamentary discourse. In response to the reference to MP Sheila Copps as a slut in 1991 a cross-party Association of Parliamentarians (AWP) responded by proposing an increase in the power of the Speaker to discipline MPs who make sexist, homophobic, or racist comments (Tremblay and Trimble, 2003, pp 118-119).  However, a government motion on respecting decorum and civility introduced at the time while debated three times was never voted upon (Marleau & Montpetit, 2000).  More recently, in 2014, members from the All-Party Women’s Caucus met with then House Speaker Andrew Scheer to discuss the controversies around sexual harassment and offer their services to the Speaker, the Commons Board of Internal Economy (BIOE) which the Speaker chairs, and the Standing Committee on  Procedure and House Affairs (PROC), in any consultation in the drafting of polices regarding harassment and to “foster a respectful culture while recognizing that the Hill is a very different workplace than any other” (Aiello, 2014). However, as Carolyn Bennet, Liberal MP, noted of the meeting, “other than removing someone’s MP’s statement, he doesn’t have the ability to enforce that MPs do or don’t do certain things, the authority is with the House, not with him and that was made very clear” (Aiello, 2014).

While members can claim individual privilege, it essentially belongs to the House as a whole. The House regulates behaviour and effects discipline predominantly through the Speaker who is mandated to impartially interpret the written and unwritten parliamentary rules and traditions and defend the rights and privileges of Members (Parliament of Canada, 2016) and as the Chair of the Board of Internal Economy a cross-party committee plays a key role in the administrative direction to the House. For example, it was to the Board of Internal Economy that allegations of sexual harassment were directed in 2014 which led Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to suspend two members from caucus (O’Malley, 2014). However, in response the Board declared it lacked a mandate to deal with the complaints because “ultimately, the House itself has responsibility for pronouncing on the conduct of its members” (O’Malley, 2014).  As a result, the issue was turned over to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, (PROC) which is mandated to review member business, electoral issues, and administration of the House. After 2014 the PROC was also mandated to investigate and create a code of conduct regarding sexual harassment in Parliament which it tabled in June 2015 (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 2015). While the policy sets out formal and informal procedures for dealing with non-criminal complaints between MPs and political staffers, requires signed pledges from each MP “committing to create a "work environment free of sexual harassment" and to follow the code of conduct, it still exists within a context where only the House can decide on the conduct of its members (Canadian Press, 2015). Consequently, responsibility for ensuring the existence of policy and to address any systemic harassment and discrimination on the Hill lies with the Board of Internal Economy (BOIE), with the implementation of the policy given to the party whips, the Chief Human Resources office, a member of the Clerks management group which acts under the authority of the Speaker and the BOIE, and on appeal the PROC and ultimately the House.  

Therefore, while the House ultimately has the ability to direct and discipline behaviour in the House it does so through the Speaker’s Office and the Board of Internal Economy, which the Speaker chairs. Thus the Speaker does have a fair amount of latitude to guide and control behaviour in the House, and it is for this reason that most recommendations to enhance behaviour in the House of Commons call on the speaker to “play a tough disciplinarian role and assert authority necessary to maintain decorum” (Jay Hill in Bedard and Virgint, 2010). For example, “a more authoritative Speaker could set the tone for a more civil and less confrontational House” (Anne McLellan in Bedard and Virgint, 2010), and “the Speaker should have more options in disciplining MPs for poor behaviour, such as the prerogative to eject them from the House, to impose financial penalities…” (Denise Savoie in Bedard and Virgint, 2010). The recommendations of the Samara report on heckling also put the onus for discipline on the Speaker by “naming and shaming” hecklers, penalizing MPs by removing one of their parties’ allotted questions in question period, ruling out of order excessively partisan language, and removing members from the House or assessing a monetary fine (Grisdale, Anderson, Anthony, and Hilderman, 2016).

Contempt

While the Speaker must allow for freedom of speech, they are also responsible to ensuring that all members are able to fulfill their responsibilities without interference or molestation. As we have recounted above, the problem with language in the House of Commons is that for some members it actually interferes and deters them from fulfilling their role as an MP. As such, misogynistic, racist, and personalized speech acts and commentary in the House of Commons could very well be construed as a form of contempt.

In Marleau and Montpetit (2000), contempt is defined as,

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its Officers.   “The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.” 

Issues of contempt that have been brought to the House have involved intimidations or blockades that kept MPs from their offices, surveillance of a Member as a form of harassment, the withholding of information or cooperation, and protection of parliamentary witnesses. While some cases of privilege were related to matters of contempt when incidents in the House challenged the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament or involved charges between Members or between Members and the Media, no specific individuals were identified and the issues not pursued (Marleau and Montpetit, 2000). In fact, both Marleau and Montpetit (2000) and O’Brien and Bosc (2009) note the reluctance to invoke House authority regarding penalties for contempt. “The reluctance to invoke the House’s authority to reprimand, admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege. …  Members have proven themselves to be fairly thick-skinned when it comes to criticism, even when it appears hard and unfair” (Marleau and Montpetit, 2000).  

However, as the IPU, Samara, and any number of women Parliamentarians have pointed out, when it comes to sexism and misogyny, legislative Houses do not appear capable of protecting its members from senseless abuse both from without and within.  The masculine culture and structure of Parliament that is intrinsically tied up with the practices adversarial debate and Parliamentary privilege and immunity works to significantly “obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest” some members from pursing their work within the House. In 2017, when there is a general consensus to create Parliaments with greater diversity and better representation for women and minorities its is obviously inappropriate to respond to complaints by requiring the members grow thicker skins!

There is real advantage in the use of contempt rulings. As O’Brien and Bosc (2009) point out, “the House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. … This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.” This was something that Canada’s first female Speaker, Jeanne Sauve identified in 1980, “…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere in our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find a contempt of the House has occurred.” Certainly the sexual harassment policy involves aspects that intersect with rulings of contempt. As O’Brien and Bosc (2009) point out, the enumeration of types of contempt set out by the UK’s Joint Committee on Parliamentary privilege includes acting in breach of any orders of the House; and failing to fulfil any requirement of the House, as declared in a code of conduct…” While the code of conduct is linked to declaration of financial interests, it cannot be ignored that the new sexual harassment policy requires all MPs to agree to and sign a code conduct (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs). In the event that action and penalties assessed by the party whips are appealed it falls to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to recommend any sanctions that the House has available to it. This naturally includes finding a member in contempt and allowing the Speaker as the Chair of the House to assess appropriate penalties and discipline.

Why then should the House not use contempt to control the language of Parliament? Fundamentally the concept of contempt is required to maintain the authority and dignity of the House, including the assurance that its members can fully discharge their duties. Regarding the privileges and immunities regarding language we now face what could be considered “a novel” situation, that is the increased of women and minorities in the House. As Sara Child (2016) author of the Good Parliament report for the Westminster Parliament points out,

One hundred years ago, the Commons contained no women, had only ever returned a handful of minority ethnic men, and was largely filled with men of independent means. Much has changed over the last century. Yet, the House remains unrepresentative and its working practices continue to reflect the traditions and preferences of Members who have historically populated it.

In Canada, the latest round of complaints from Canadian women parliamentarians can be attributed to the numbers of young feminist inspired women entering Parliament and who vocal about how unfriendly the institution is to women (Nancy Peckford from Equal Voice in Spurr, 2016). It would appear that around the world, the rise of the number of women in parliaments has created a challenge to what are perceived to be masculinist norms and traditions and the privileging of Parliamentary language which in its misogyny and racism tends to exclude.  Such exclusion should be and can be considered to be in contempt of Parliament.

References:

Aiello, Rachel. 2014. “All-Party Women’s Caucus tells Speaker Scheer they’re ‘happy to help’ inform on Hill sexual harassment policies. Hill Times. 9 December, 2014.

Aiello, Rachel. 2016. “We need to see some significant change,’ government to push substantive overhaul of House rules.” Hill Times. 10 October, 2016.

Barnes, Andre and Laura Munn-Rivard. 2012. Gender Sensitive Parliaments: 1. Advancement in the Workplace. Revised 2013. Publication No. 2012-40-E. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2012. http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/ResearchPublications/2012-40-e.pdf

Bedard, Michel and Erin Virgint. 2010. Questions of Decorum: A Summary of Two Conferences on the Work of Parliament. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Publication No. 2010-67-E

Boone, Marilyn. 2016. Body-shamed, threatened, bullied: N.L. finance minister shares cyber abuse stories. CBC News. December 12, 2016. http://cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/cathy-bennett-online-attacks-female-confederation-building-1.3892208

Canadian Press. 2015. ‘MPs Given Code for Sexual Harassment Complaints,’ Huffington Post. 06/08/2015. Huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/08mpd-finally-get-code-to-d_n_7539372.html

Canadian Press. 2016. EU Envoy: Freeland right to walk out of stalled CETA Talks. Macleans. November 4, 2016. http://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/eu-envoy-freeland-right-to-walk-out-of-stalled-ceta-talks

CBC. 2006. ‘Stronach demands Mackay apologize for alleged ‘dog’ comment.’ CBC News. October 20, 2006, cbc.ca/news/Canada/stronach-demands-mackay-apologize-for-alleged-dog-comment-1.599061

Childs, Sarah. 2016. The Good Parliament. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/news/2016/july/20%20Jul%20Prof%20Sarah%20Childs%20The%20Good%20Parliament%20report.pdf

Selina Chignall. 2016. “Bad MP Behaviour prevents Canadians from pursuing public office.” Hill Times. 22 June 2016.

Collier and Raney. 2016.

CTV News. 2014. “House Moves to establish anti-harassment policy for MPS,” CTV News.ca. November 18, 2014, ctvnews.ca/politics/hourse-moves-to-establish-anti-harassment-policy-for-mps-1.217362.

Daro, Ishmael N. 2013. House of Commons has a ‘locker room’ mentality of casual sexism: NDP MP.’ Canada.com, June 4, 2013. http://o.canada.com/news/megan-leslie-sexism-house-of-commons

Ditchburn, Jennifer. 2014. “In Ottawa, harrasment allegations unfold into discussion on whether Parliament Hill is unfriendly to women,” The Canadian Press. 6 November 2014.

Fraser, Alistair, W.F. Dawson and John A. Holtby. 1989. Beauchene’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada. 6^th Edition. Toronto: The Carswell Company Ltd.

Graney, Emma. 2016. Alta: MLA Sandra Jansen slams sexist ‘poison’ in first statement with NDP. Edmonton Journal. 22 November 2016. http://vancouversun.com/storyline/alta-mla-sandra-jansen-slams-sexist-poison-in-first-statement-with-ndp.

Grisdale, Mackenzie, Kendall Anderson, Laura Anthony, and Jane Hilderman. 2016. Cheering or Jeering? Members of Parliament Open Up About Civility in the House of Commons. Toronto: Samara Canada, January 2016.

House of Commons. No date. House of Commons Policy on Preventing and Addressing Harassment. http://parl.gc.ca/About/House/BOIE/pdf/policy-preventing-harassment-e.pdf.

House of Commons. Hansard #89 42^nd Parliament, 1^st Session. Debates of October 6, 2016. http://oppenparliament.ca/debates/2016/10/6/?page=9.

IPU. 2008. Equality in Politics: A Survey of Men and Women in Politics. Geneva: Inter-parliamentary Union, 2008. http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/equality08-e.pdf

IPU. 2011. Gender-Sensitive Parliaments: A Global Review of Good Practice. Geneva: Inter-parliamentary Union, 2011. http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/gsp11-e.pdf

IPU. 2012. Plan of Action for Gender-Sensitive Parliaments. Geneva: Inter-parliamentary Union, 2012 http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/action-gender-e.pdf

Krook, Mona Lena and Fiona Mackay. 2011. “Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions.” in Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay eds. Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. Palgrave Macmillan. Houndmills, England, p 1-20.

Marleau, Robert and Camille Montpetit. 2000. House of Commons Procedure and Practice http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch001&Seq=0&Language=E

May, Erskin. 1997. May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, May 22^nd ed., Sir Donald Liman and W.R. McKay (eds.). London: Butterworth, 1997.

Mitchell, Margaret. 2008. No Laughing Matter—Adventure, Activism & Politics. Vancouver: Granville Island Publishing.

Munn-Rivard, Laura. 2012. Gender-Sensitive Parliaments 2: The Work of Legislators. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. 17 August, 2012.

O’Brien, Audrey and Marc Bosc, (eds.) 2009. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2^nd edition. http:// http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=7C730F1D-E10B-4DFC-863A-83E7E1A6940E&sbpid=976953D8-8385-4E09-A699-D90779B48AA0&Language=E&Mode=1

O’Malley, Kady. 2014. “Parliament Hill harassment: All-party board lacks mandate to look into complaints,” CBC News. 18 November, 2014.

Parliament of Canada. 2016a. Speaker of the House of Commons. Parl.gc.ca/about/House/Speaker/role-e.html.

Ramsey, Caley. 2016. Alberta MLA Sandra Jansen given security detail after threats. Global News. 23 November 2016. http://globalnews.ca/news/3084612/alberat-mla-sandra-jansen-given-security-detail-after-thrests

Rempel, Michelle. 2016. Michelle Rempel: Confront Your Sexism, National Post. 18 April 2016. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michelle-rempel-confront-your-sexism

Ryckewaert, Laura. 2016. “What do you think about heckling in the House? Should there be some, just not the nasty sort?” Hill Times. 2 February, 2016.

Spurr, Ben. 2016. MP Michelle Rempel paints a picture of routine sexism in Parliament. Thestar.com. 19 April, 2016. http://thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04119/trudeau-taking-tory-mp-complaints-about-sexism-in-parliament-seriously.html

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. 2015. Thirty-Eighth Report. Parliament of Canada. Parliamentary Business. http://Parl.gc.ca/House/Publications/Publication.aspx?Docld=8030727&Language=E&Mode=l&Parl=41&Ses=2

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=8030727

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. 2016. Eleventh Report. Interim Report on Moving Toward a Modern, Efficient, Inclusive and Family-Friendly Parliament. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8354291

Sweetman, Kari. 1982 (November 10). “Erola not amused by ‘sexist’ taunts.” The Ottawa Citizen online. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19821110&id=0KMyAAAAIBAJ&sji d=_O4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1482,5151578&hl=en.

Trimble, Linda and Jane Arscott. 2003. Still Counting: Women in Politics Across Canada. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.