Firdous Aashique Awan, she was Member of NA and Minister/Parliamentary secretary kind of thing NA on Q-League's ticket andshe defended each and everything the govt and president mushy did back then.... later when wind was against PML-Q she joined PPP and contested election against PML-Q's candidate, (if i am right then the name of candidate Ch. Amir Hussain, the Speaker of Punjab Assembly, need to verify this i am not sure), means she contested against the very govt she was part of and defended for years... now can she be called LOTA?
No. For me she does not fit the definition of a LOTA, at least in the case you mentioned above.
Second case, Malik Zaheer Khokhar, Contested and won on PPP's ticket from Lahore, then changed his loyalties in the Assembly and voted for Q-League's nominated member for Premiership, later he contested elections of 2008 on PML-Q's ticket and lost.. later when PML-Q was on verge of collapse and PPP was not ready to take him back and there was no chance that PML-N would consider him, he joined and contested elections from PTI's plateform, Can he by any chance be called LOTA?
There are many more scenarios, but lets discuss these two first!
If you want to go case by case, in first case: contested on PPP ticket and voted for PML-Q - thats LOTA stuff! If he would have done this after that law against LOTAism was implemented, he would have been disqualified.
Other cases where he decides to join a party for whatever reason BEFORE he contests, that is not LOTA. This is legally allowed and is simply his democratic right.
Now do you want to talk about those PML-Q LOTAs, who are being accommodated by PML-N in PA even today? ;)
No. For me she does not fit the definition of a LOTA, at least in the case you mentioned above.
If you want to go case by case, in first case: contested on PPP ticket and voted for PML-Q - thats LOTA stuff! If he would have done this after that law against LOTAism was implemented, he would have been disqualified.
Other cases where he decides to join a party for whatever reason BEFORE he contests, that is not LOTA. This is legally allowed and is simply his democratic right.
*Now do you want to talk about those PML-Q LOTAs, who are being accommodated by PML-N in PA even today? *;)
if above two do not fit to the definaiton of LOTA, then i don't think any other person can fit to this definition
if above two do not fit to the definaiton of LOTA, then i don't think any other person can fit to this definition
Lets say it this way, if we put corruption aside for a moment, there are two types of LOTAs:
Legal LOTA
subjective LOTA
Legal LOTA:
Elected on one party's ticket & joins another party in the assembly, hence subject to disqualification per law.
*Subjective LOTA: *
As the name suggests, it is all subjective: You don't like someone because he simply left your party and joined another BEFORE he contests the elections.
So again, can you tell us how many legal PML-Q LOTAs PML-N is accommodating in PA? ;)
Lets say it this way, if we put corruption aside for a moment, there are two types of LOTAs:
Legal LOTA
subjective LOTA
Legal LOTA:
Elected on one party's ticket & joins another party in the assembly, hence subject to disqualification per law.
*Subjective LOTA: *
As the name suggests, it is all subjective: You don't like someone because he simply left your party and joined another BEFORE he contests the elections.
**
So again, can you tell us how many legal PML-Q LOTAs PML-N is accommodating in PA?** ;)
In above you are supporting my stance that whoever joins PTI is saint or other things i mentioned...
to the bolded party in PA, none of them have officially joined PML-N, they have formed parliamentarian group within the party and that group happens to have more elected member in it then the actual party, so in legal terms ( since you are found of law and order), they are not LOTAS at all or by any mean, they are still with their party but have serious differences with their party leadership, hence decided to not to obey the orders of party leadership... and decided to elect their own parliamentary leader and that leader have decided to support PML-N...
Whereas I am applying the definition across the board and say it applies to anyone joining ANY party, look at what you are saying:
PML-Q MPAs who have joined PML-N (voting for PML-N) are not LOTAs. So by that you are saying anyone joining PML-N is a saint and if he joins others, he is LOTA, LOL.
I would suggest you read law about changing party affiliations in assembly. I am not a law expert myself but there are many on this forum who could help. I remember however few important points, one of which says something like: If you vote against the party policy on whose ticket you are elected, a reference can be filed against you and you can be disqualified (legal LOTA).
^^ oh Bhai read again and this time pay attention, pasting it again for your reference only
[QUOTE]
to the bolded party in PA, none of them have officially joined PML-N, they have formed parliamentarian group within the party and that group happens to have more elected member in it then the actual party, so in legal terms ( since you are found of law and order), they are not LOTAS at all or by any mean, they are still with their party but have serious differences with their party leadership, hence decided to not to obey the orders of party leadership... and decided to elect their own parliamentary leader and that leader have decided to support PML-N...
[/QUOTE]
If a member M elected on party P's ticket votes for another party O against his party's policy (hence joining that party for whatever cause), is a legal LOTA and subject for disqualification if his original party files a reference against him.
Your stance:
If a member M elected on party P's ticket votes for party O (specially if that party happens to be PML-N) against his party's policy, he is not a LOTA.
If a member M elected on party P's ticket votes for another party O against his party's policy (hence joining that party for whatever cause), is a legal LOTA and subject for disqualification if his original party files a reference against him.
Your stance:
If a member M elected on party P's ticket votes for party O (specially if that party happens to be PML-N) against his party's policy, he is not a LOTA.
Correct?
Bhai sahib, you were talking about the larger group of PML-Q's rebellion against the party leader and was calling them lota... my stance on the issue in in my posts before that... and it is crystal clear however, from above discussion, i have concluded that you either do not read post with due attention or interest and have to work extra (posts) to make obvious things clearer to you. I urge you to read the posts again, try to understand them, because i am i no mood to paste them here and highlighting the parts of the same, just because you can't get it in one go...
If a member M elected on party P's ticket votes for another party O against his party's policy (hence joining that party for whatever cause), is a legal LOTA and subject for disqualification if his original party files a reference against him.
