What I'm getting at here is that if you go from generally saying that this is all copyrighted material to saying that it's usable for certain purposes but not for the purposes that lie at the heart of what this speech is for.... It's designed to be persuasive. So to say that persuasive speech cannot be used for persuasion and can only be used for....
What on earth defines a non-political use of political...? That's unless we're putting it up to say that, you know, I'm doing a study here on the fashion sensibility of members of Parliament: “Look how ill-dressed this person is. That one over there can't match colours”. The very essence of this is to be persuasive in one form or another by referring to it either favourably or critically. Showing it either favourably or critically would seem to be appropriate. I can't see how paraphrasing the speech improves it. Nobody thinks that my drawing extensively on quotations from the House of Commons and publishing chunks of Hansard or republishing it in the newspapers, even if I do it out of context, is in any way a breach of any law or rule or copyright. I'm having trouble distinguishing how this would represent something different.