Mr. Chairman, if the previous motion and the orders of the day were out of order, this too would be out of order. So if we move to this new item, I'll have to make my point of order all over again for exactly the same reasons. There's no way out of this bind for Ms. Redman while introducing the motion in its current form. If she wishes to change it so that it is not violating the sub judice convention, I suggest to you that could be done, and that it wouldn't violate the other objections I have--presupposing facts that are in dispute and using highly aggressive language. I think she could come up with something, but this particular one, if she introduces it this way.... She can go through the charade of having us vote to overrule the chair and say that there are no rules of order at all here, and that rather the majority has the right to throw aside the rule book whenever it feels like it--something that is nowhere permitted in our rule book, Mr. Chair. She can have us go through that, but if she does, I'll go through my point of order again, because the motion will be out of order in exactly the same way as the first item was out of order. It's got to be dealt with, and the substantive points I've raised don't change.
On September 10th, 2007. See this statement in context.