The Op­po­si­tion Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) has filed a mo­tion of priv­i­leges against Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment for Laven­tille West, Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Fitzger­ald Hinds, for what they deem to be “de­grad­ing com­ments to­ward MP for Ch­agua­nas East Van­dana Mo­hit.”

The mo­tion arose fol­low­ing re­marks Hinds made in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives on May 23, where he re­ferred to the views of UNC mem­bers Khadi­jah Ameen, Anil Roberts and “the Mem­ber for Ch­agua­nas East” as “naked, un­true and skimpy.”

It al­so stems from com­ments Hinds al­leged­ly made to Mo­hit out­side of the Cham­ber.

The mo­tion, filed by Pointe-a-Pierre MP and Op­po­si­tion Chief Whip David Lee, claims Hinds “breached one of the fun­da­men­tal Priv­i­leges of Par­lia­ment which all Mem­bers are en­ti­tled to in the free­dom from ob­struc­tion, in­ter­fer­ence, in­tim­i­da­tion and mo­lesta­tion.”

The UNC claimed in a news re­lease yes­ter­day that Hinds’ state­ment was “un­par­lia­men­tary, vile and vul­gar” and con­tra­vened the im­mu­ni­ties that are af­ford­ed to all MPs.

“At a time when girls and women are vic­tims of un­prece­dent­ed lev­els of vi­o­lent as­sault, the vile lan­guage and be­hav­iour dis­played by Min­is­ter Hinds would have giv­en no re­as­sur­ance that he is ca­pa­ble of treat­ing gen­der-based vi­o­lence with the se­ri­ous­ness it de­serves. Most wor­ry­ing­ly, Min­is­ter Hinds clear­ly dis­plays the same misog­y­nis­tic view of women as those who com­mit phys­i­cal and sex­u­al as­sault,” the par­ty’s state­ment said.

In the mo­tion, which will be brought be­fore the House to­day and which was cir­cu­lat­ed to the me­dia yes­ter­day, Lee will ar­gue that de­spite the rul­ing of the Speak­er that Hinds should be “care­ful with com­ments that are un­par­lia­men­tary,” Hinds “per­sist­ed with the vul­gar, deroga­to­ry, un­par­lia­men­tary and in­tim­i­dat­ing state­ments of same against the Mem­ber for Ch­agua­nas East dur­ing the sus­pen­sion of the sit­ting with­in the Par­lia­men­tary cham­ber where there was no pro­tec­tion of the Stand­ing Or­ders nor the Ho­n­ourable Chair to be sought.”

The mo­tion will state, “It is clear that the un­par­lia­men­tary, vul­gar and of­fen­sive in­sin­u­a­tions un­fair­ly made by the Mem­ber for Laven­tille West against the Mem­ber for Ch­agua­nas East is a clear act of mo­lesta­tion and act to in­tim­i­date as such ac­tions con­tin­ued with­in the Cham­ber dur­ing the sus­pen­sion of the sit­ting af­ter the Mem­ber’s con­tri­bu­tion end­ed. Such ac­tions breached the Priv­i­leges of this House and the Im­mu­ni­ties of­fered to all Mem­bers which are ex­pect­ed to be pre­served, pro­tect­ed as well as up­held at all times.”

Lee will tell the House that “the un­der­tak­ing of such ac­tions by Hinds while the sit­ting was sus­pend­ed but with­in the precincts of the Par­lia­ment still equate to con­tempt as equal­ly as if it was done in a sit­ting.”

The mo­tion will al­so claim that “this form of abuse and dis­re­gard for the priv­i­leges of the House is not an iso­lat­ed in­ci­dent but rather part of a per­sis­tent in­tent of men­ac­ing be­hav­iour by the Mem­ber of Laven­tille West to­wards the Mem­ber of Ch­agua­nas East which must not be al­lowed to go fur­ther.”

CLICK FOR MORE NEWS