Filibuster

The term "filibuster" ultimately derives from the Dutch vrijbuiter ("freebooter", a pillaging and plundering adventurer), but the precise history of the word's borrowing into English is obscure.

[3] The term was applied to private military adventurers like William Walker who were then attacking and pillaging Spanish colonies in Central America.

[4] Over the course of the mid to late 19th century, the term "filibustering" became common in American English in the sense of "obstructing progress in a legislative assembly".

[5] As the Roman Senate had a rule requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato's purposely long-winded speeches were an effective device to forestall a vote.

Roman generals honored with a triumph were not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, but candidates for the consulship were required, by law, to appear in person at the Forum.

Caesar, who needed to pass the bill before his co-consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, took possession of the fasces at the end of the month, immediately recognized Cato's intent and ordered the lictors to jail him for the rest of the day.

The day was wasted without the Senate ever getting to vote on a motion supporting the bill, but Caesar eventually circumvented Cato's opposition by taking the measure to the Tribal Assembly, where it passed.

Both houses of the Australian parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible, though this is not the case in some state legislatures.

[6][7] In opposition, Tony Abbott's Liberal National coalition used suspension of standing orders in 2012 for the purposes of filibustering, most commonly during question time against the Labor government.

In an attempt to prevent the passing of Bill C-6, which would have legislated the imposing of a four-year contract and pay conditions on the locked out Canada Post workers, the New Democratic Party (NDP) led a filibustering session which lasted for fifty-eight hours.

[15][16] One such example occurred on October 26, 2006, when he spoke for almost 120 minutes to prevent the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from studying a private member's bill to implement the Kyoto Accord.

Several other opposition MPs made significant contributions to the filibuster, including Conservatives Blake Richards, John Nater, and Jamie Schmale.

To prevent this particular tactic from being used again, changes were eventually made to the Standing Orders to limit the time allocated each day to the introduction of bills to 30 minutes.

The filibuster began on April 2 with the Abbeywood Trail amendment[33] and occupied the legislature day and night, the members alternating in shifts.

The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking.

[50] Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he regularly accepted interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points made in his speech.

[citation needed] A notable filibuster took place in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1936 when Tommy Henderson (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for nine and a half hours (ending just before 4 a.m.) on the Appropriation Bill.

[citation needed] On the election for the President of the Senate of the Philippines in April 1963, he stood on the podium for more than 18 hours to wait for party-mate Alejandro Almendras who was to arrive from the United States.

[66] In 2021, the Senate filibuster's past, particularly its historical usage in blocking civil rights legislation, a practice described by the Associated Press as racist, fuelled arguments for its end.

[73][74] Only 14 state legislatures permit a filibuster: In France, since the duration of speeches themselves are limited,[75] points of order (rappels au règlement) and — especially — amendments are popular tools for parliamentary obstructionism.

The first such option was originally the use of the article 49 paragraph 3 procedure, according to which the law was adopted unless a majority is reached on a no-confidence motion (A reform of July 2008 resulted in this power being restricted to budgetary measures only, plus one time each ordinary session — i.e. from October to June — on any bill.

Before this reform, article 49.3 was frequently used, especially when the government lacked a majority in the National Assembly to support the text but still enough to avoid a no-confidence vote).

In 1993, Jorge Ulloa of the Independent Democratic Union held a six-hour-long speech at the Chamber of Deputies in Valparaíso, to allow Pablo Longueira to arrive from Concepción and vote on the impeachment of three Supreme Court justices.

"[83] Legislators of the Pro-democracy Camp filibustered during a debate about financing the construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link by raising many questions on very minor issues, delaying the passing of the bill from December 18, 2009, to January 16, 2010.

The bill was a response to the so-called Five Constituencies Referendum, in which 5 lawmakers from the pro-democracy camp resigned and then joined the by-election, claiming that it would affirm the public's support to push forward electoral reform.

To ban filibuster, Ip Kwok-him of the DAB sought to limit each member to move only one motion, by amending the procedures of the Finance Committee and its two subcommittees in 2013.

[85] The Secretariat estimated that 408 man-months (each containing 156 working hours) were needed to vet the facts and accuracy of the motions, and — if all amendments were admitted by the chairman — the voting time would take 23,868 two-hour meetings.

In Italy, filibustering has ancient traditions and is expressed overall with the proposition of legal texts such as motions or amendments[86] on which debates take place.

[87] During Iranian oil nationalisation, the filibustering speech of Hossain Makki — the National Front deputy — took four days[88] and made the pro-British and pro-royalists in Majlis (Iran) inactive.

[89] South Korean opposition lawmakers started a filibuster on February 23, 2016, to stall the Anti-Terrorism bill, which they claimed would give too much power to the National Intelligence Service and result in invasions of citizens' privacy.