• rainynight65@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    One, that wasn’t what I was talking about. Shanks had to pay 100k in legal costs in the Barilaro case, pull several videos, and there are some court matters still open in the aftermath of that. Google had to pay Barilaro 715k, and Shanks was referred for possible contempt of court.

    Two, the police investigated the arson attacks, someone was arrested and charged. If that classes as “wouldn’t do shit about it” in your book, then I’m not sure what your expectations are.

    • TassieTosser@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      Shanks was unable to defend himself in the former case because Balilaro invoked parliamentary privilege on evidence Shanks wanted to use.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Which is absolutely fucking ludicrous. Parliamentary Privilege should not be able to be used in that manner. It should protect a politician from any criminal charges against them, and against being sued. It should not be able to be invoked when you are the plaintiff in a case.

        It should be a shield, not a sword.