Order! Hon members, as I said, that was the last item. Before I conclude, let me say that you will remember that during question time on Wednesday, 15 August 2012, two points of order were put requesting the presiding officer to make a ruling on the use of unparliamentary language by members of this House. The first point of order was put by hon Kalyan. The hon member requested that the presiding officer rule out of order a statement by hon Manamela, who said, according to the Hansard, that:
The second aspect is that the DA has no right to speak about violence during strikes because they are the ones who went to incite violence in front of Cosatu House.
I undertook to study the Hansard. Having had an opportunity to do so, I wish to rule as follows.
Rule 63, which deals with offensive or unparliamentary language, is a broadly framed rule that allows the presiding officer to take into consideration the context and tone of a particular remark or inference. The rule has been elucidated by years of established practice and convention.
Hon Manamela's statement clearly reflected on a political party and not on the character of a particular member of this House. A reflection on a political party, as perceived by a member of another party, is not out of order, as long as the member in question did not cast aspersions on the character of members of this House.
The approach I have taken is consistent with previous rulings by presiding officers of this House, that held that reference to a political party in this manner is not out of order. I therefore rule that the statement by hon Manamela was not unparliamentary. [Applause.]