Censure Mathyssen
Much has been written about Mathyssen’s ill-advised attack on MP James Moore, in which she claimed he was looking at porn in the house of commons, and compared him to Marc Lepine, who is infamous for a mass murder of female engineering students at ecole polytechnique. However, most of the posts have been about what Mathyssen should do, which she has now done, apologize. While an apology is appropriate, and a good first step, it does very little to put the genie back in the bottle. Her comments humiliated Moore, and attracted international media attention from as far away as Australia. As evidenced by the manner with which it is being reported to this hour by international sources, which still maintain he was looking at his scantily dressed girlfriend in lingerie, which is not true. The picture was of him and his dog, while they were on vacation at a beach, and his girlfriend was at the beach in a bathing suit, and happened to be in the background of the image. The damage she has done to his reputation is incalulable. That she repeated it outside the house, and was unwilling to properly apologize until her party leaned on her to do so merely demonstrates the malice of forethought that underlies her actions.
It is for this reason, that the house should hold a vote of censure against her for her actions. Censure is a little understood method of providing a formal rebuke for actions which bring the house of parliament or their position as members into disrepute. There is little doubt that Moore would have a slam dunk legal case for slander. She spoke her factually untrue statements outside of the house, and they were obviously damaging. He could sue civilly and win a sizeable award. However, the censure route is probably better for all involved. A defamation lawsuit would be long and costly, and it would make Moore look unforgiving. However, a censure vote would ensure that no MP ever got up in the house and mouthed obviously untrue statements to smear an opponent… well, for a while anyways.
I gotta disagree with you here… I think she should ABSOLUTELY be sued for slander. You think a censure is going to accomplish anything? Doubtful. It’s a parliamentary slap on the wrist. Nothing more. You want to make people think twice before opening their mouths? The threat of lightening their pocketbooks significantly should be enough to do that. She should be hit and hit hard.
—KevinI agree with kevin. Nail her into bankruptcy and then watch her wrap herself in scandle as she skims off the top of her campaign donations in the next election (if she gets any LOL)
—PeterThis falls in the same category as giving a slap on the wrist to young offenders, mostly it just encourages them. Also, a person like this who would jump to such a conclusion and have the temerity to feel she was also owed an apology will not be chastened by having to apologize, she will most likely be embittered. “Do your enemies no small harm.”
—rebarbarian