Well it seems Friendly Jordies otherwise known as Johnathan Shanks can't use the comments the NSW Deputy PM John Barilaro made about himself in FJ's truth defence.

"Mr Shanks proposed to argue that the imputation about perjury was substantially true and the comment about being jailed was honest opinion, because they related to comments Mr Barilaro made in a Parliamentary committee in 2018.

But since he could not do this without Parliamentary privilege being waived, he sought to have that part of Mr Barilaro's case struck out because he could not mount a defence."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/judge-rejects-arguments-in-friendly-jordies-defamation-case/100374936

I am struggling to see why the law works this way. I could understand it if it was Barilaro being sued for defamation, then the protections of parliamentary privilege should apply, but for someone who is being sued by a politician now being unable to use that politician's words as a truth defence seems cockeyed to say the least.

Johnathan Shanks comes across as a bona fide leftie git !

individual,

So what?

The law is the law.

Dear Steele,

Not sure how the law applies in this case and
am unclear as to where the law stands and why?
Questions do need to be asked. But I'm not
sure if it will make any difference in this
case. It sounds like the politician has some
powerful friends in high places.

The law is the law.
Foxy,
Inanity is not against any Law at this stage.

individual,

A little nonsense now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
( Roald Dahl).

Foxy,
I envy your internet connection, you manage to find & copy & paste remarks rather quickly !

Dear Foxy,

Essentially FJ can't use John Barilaro's own words as a truth defence because they were said in parliament.

For instance FJ claimed Barilaro perjured himself on a number of occasions but because he did this in parliament FJ can't use the defense of truth even though everyone accepts that was exactly what Barilaro did.

"In R v Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116 a former New South Wales minister was charged with receiving bribes. Remarks made by him in the New South Wales Parliament were highly relevant to the case and the prosecution attempted to use them to assist in establishing his guilty motive and intention. The question of parliamentary privilege was argued again by the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, and the judge upheld the previously established interpretation of freedom of speech and declined to allow the admission of the statements made in Parliament."
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_02

This has been a lesson to me and I suspect to FJ who faced with, in my opinion, an obviously corrupt politician has had his case notably weakened.

individual,

I specialised in children's literature and children's
fiction during part of my career.
And am very familiar with Roald Dahl's
work. I thought that quote was appropriate.
I'm pleased that you liked it.

Dear Steele,

No wonder the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

Foxy,
Blindfold yes, ear plugs no !

individual,

It seems that in this particular case -
unfortunately - ear plugs YES!

cont'd ...

As well as a gag on the mouth!