New Allegations against Kent Hehr

[CaptainCrunch]

I get it Slava you're his friend or collegue, but just because he doesn't do it in front of you, doesn't mean that you're a bad judge of character.

How many times have we heard people say, I can't believe he did that, I never saw it coming.

The problem is that Hehr left himself very little room to maneuver, he has a laundry list of being basically an unsympathetic lout.

He insulted a the wife of a veteran who had PTSD, He was accused of insulting Thalidomide victims.

He was investigated for using his parliamentary resources to help his dad win an election to the school board.

And now this.

Now I can believe that one or maybe two of these things could be a misunderstanding, but now we seem to have a pattern of someone who's got a personality flaw. But its not on you, most people don't expose their darker nature to those that are closest to them, they hide them.

Maybe your friend needs help and this is the kickstart to him getting it.

On the other hand, maybe he's just a jerk and he should find a job that doesn't involve other people.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which is a condemnation on what our society has become.

I will say it til i am blue in the face...better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.

ALL of these are merely allegations until proven otherwise. We have lost our way in this regard and sorry to say, its because of the SJW mentality. Its quite sickening, but they dont care who they bulldoze or destroy to get their version of "justice".

Even if found innocent in a court of law? Damage is long done.

Not Guilty in a court of law you mean. Innocent is not the same thing, and that's the trouble.

Men have gotten away with this sort of behavior since time immemorial and that's not right. The pendulum has swung, perhaps a bit too far, but in these cases (or Gomeshi's) where "everybody knows" that something is up, it's right for the likely perpetrator to be removed while they clear their name (or not).

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

You have?! Maybe I am a terrible judge of character, but I find that just stunning. Like I have never heard him say things that are inappropriate toward women and surely never seen him act in a way harassing or demeaning them. I've seen plenty of greasy guys in my day, and if it were other people I wouldn’t be shocked, but I do find this so surprising.

After the news broke today a co-worker told us that she was warned long ago by a friend of hers, who used to work for him, to "never work for him."

Sounds like this has been an open secret amongst some women for awhile.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The bag was intended to indicate my 'shame' for making a cheap joke.

Captain, it was honestly meant in jest and comes from your legendary status here. You have regaled this board with stories of your exploits (not sexual conquests, granted) over the years and I suppose I thought you fancied yourself a bit of a larger than life character.

My sincerest apology if it offends. I'll take it down.

Nah, I was just confused, because I've done a lot of stupid things in my life that worked out, or didn't.

There are certain lines I just don't cross.

I also enacted a rule after I hit my 30's where I tend to avoid company social gatherings, and if I have to go, I don't really touch the devils truth serum.

no biggy man.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nah, I was just confused, because I've done a lot of stupid things in my life that worked out, or didn't.

There are certain lines I just don't cross.

I also enacted a rule after I hit my 30's where I tend to avoid company social gatherings, and if I have to go, I don't really touch the devils truth serum.

no biggy man.

Thanks for your understanding. It's been made abundantly clear today that my sense of what's funny isn't shared by a significant number of folks on this board.

I'll go back to lurking and chortling to myself for a while.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Not Guilty in a court of law you mean. Innocent is not the same thing, and that's the trouble.

Men have gotten away with this sort of behavior since time immemorial and that's not right. The pendulum has swung, perhaps a bit too far, but in these cases (or Gomeshi's) where "everybody knows" that something is up, it's right for the likely perpetrator to be removed while they clear their name (or not).

No...I mean innocent. I mean guys that get labelled as something that did nothing.

Sorry but just because someone says something happened and it cant be proven in a court of law, that does not make them guilty anyhow....THATS the trouble.

I understand that men have taken advantage of situations forever, and those that have should be drawn and quartered. We used to have a system for determining this. That system has now been replaced by 144 character statements from anonymous to well known people, and voila...a persons life is altered, or even ruined. No real investigative process involved...just allegations.

Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.

[Canehdianman]

Get on outta Hehr.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.

Which is why it's so disturbing to watch Black Mirror - I honestly believe many of the social behaviours presented in the show will become reality in the next 20 years.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get it Slava you're his friend or collegue, but just because he doesn't do it in front of you, doesn't mean that you're a bad judge of character.

How many times have we heard people say, I can't believe he did that, I never saw it coming.

The problem is that Hehr left himself very little room to maneuver, he has a laundry list of being basically an unsympathetic lout.

He insulted a the wife of a veteran who had PTSD, He was accused of insulting Thalidomide victims.

He was investigated for using his parliamentary resources to help his dad win an election to the school board.

And now this.

Now I can believe that one or maybe two of these things could be a misunderstanding, but now we seem to have a pattern of someone who's got a personality flaw. But its not on you, most people don't expose their darker nature to those that are closest to them, they hide them.

Maybe your friend needs help and this is the kickstart to him getting it.

On the other hand, maybe he's just a jerk and he should find a job that doesn't involve other people.

This.

I think most of us have been jarred at one time or another by the behaviour of someone we thought we knew well, or even had been lifelong friends with.

It can be shocking and results in a whole lot of emotions; confusion and disappointment among them.

I don't know whether this is the case for Slava or not but this situation has occurred with people I knew, or thought I knew, and I think it's a very natural instinct to protect the friend or try to rationalize the behaviour.

How many times have we heard loved ones or close friends of someone accused of some misdeed say "I know (insert name here) and this is not him/her. This is not something he/she would do, say, etc."

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...I mean innocent. I mean guys that get labelled as something that did nothing.

Sorry but just because someone says something happened and it cant be proven in a court of law, that does not make them guilty anyhow....THATS the trouble.

I understand that men have taken advantage of situations forever, and those that have should be drawn and quartered. We used to have a system for determining this. That system has now been replaced by 144 character statements from anonymous to well known people, and voila...a persons life is altered, or even ruined. No real investigative process involved...just allegations.

Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.

I was thinking about this last night when I was tossing and turning and my brain goes from sane to insane.

But the whole idea of social media posts has really changed the perception of the news and how its formulated not only into opinion, but into a weapon.

People are so reliant on the 144 limitation that they are basically only getting a snap shot of whatever story and the summary rage creating view that it represents.

In the old days on TV or in the papers, you'd get full columns or editorials where they would have to fill a quarter page or more with words, and because of that no matter the bias, there would be a lot more relevant information.

Now people take that one look at those 144 words and make their decision.

I tent to think that the way that news services and reporters craft their 144 is based on a gut punch creation of an emotional response.

I think in some ways its damaging, and so highly effective at what it does that its literally a smart bomb.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...I mean innocent. I mean guys that get labelled as something that did nothing.

Sorry but just because someone says something happened and it cant be proven in a court of law, that does not make them guilty anyhow....THATS the trouble.

I understand that men have taken advantage of situations forever, and those that have should be drawn and quartered. We used to have a system for determining this. That system has now been replaced by 144 character statements from anonymous to well known people, and voila...a persons life is altered, or even ruined. No real investigative process involved...just allegations.

Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.

There is a certain Star Chamber quality to this to be sure, but doing nothing isn't right either. Jian Ghomeshi shouldn't have been left in his position while he fought his accusers, nor should Patrick Brown, nor should Kent Hehr. They are in positions of power over potential victims.

The right thing would be for them to go on paid leave and to fight the accusations if they wish and to be accepted back if they are proven innocent. I get that this is not necessarily fair to the accused, especially if they are innocent, but that's what libel laws are for.

In the case of Ghomeshi and Brown, folk in the media had heard rumours for a while from a lot of areas (according to their twitter feeds last night), but didn't have enough to publish until they got to a certain point.

The Kent Hehr accusation came late last night on twitter from a named account (and is reminiscent of what came up when the Veterans groups and Thalidomide survivor's groups accusations were swirling), but there were immediate nods from other women with history with him. Maybe Hehr's innocent, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (including from a woman in my personal life of a creepy "flirty" vibe) and that's enough for me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...I mean innocent. I mean guys that get labelled as something that did nothing.

Sorry but just because someone says something happened and it cant be proven in a court of law, that does not make them guilty anyhow....THATS the trouble.

I understand that men have taken advantage of situations forever, and those that have should be drawn and quartered. We used to have a system for determining this. That system has now been replaced by 144 character statements from anonymous to well known people, and voila...a persons life is altered, or even ruined. No real investigative process involved...just allegations.

Social media, for all its awesomeness and usefulness at times, has become a bane on everything I believe this country stands for. Even worse IMO, there seems to be zero desire to alter this course. Frightening stuff.

Can a person be unsuitable for a position of public trust without having been convicted of a criminal offense. Is the moral qualification for premier or MP the lack of a criminal conviction?

I agree it's concerning to destroy people lives on Allegations. And if random dude on Facebook starts being lynched and fired for accusations outside the workplace then we have gone to far. But when you choose to enter a position of public trust you are and should be held to a higher standard than a lack of a criminal conviction.

Really the process for this should be internal HR processes which certainly is a lower standard than the courts and in place of evidence severance is paid. Can't really do that for an elected official.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

There is a certain Star Chamber quality to this to be sure, but doing nothing isn't right either. Jian Ghomeshi shouldn't have been left in his position while he fought his accusers, nor should Patrick Brown, nor should Kent Hehr. They are in positions of power over potential victims.

The right thing would be for them to go on paid leave and to fight the accusations if they wish and to be accepted back if they are proven innocent. I get that this is not necessarily fair to the accused, especially if they are innocent, but that's what libel laws are for.

In the case of Ghomeshi and Brown, folk in the media had heard rumours for a while from a lot of areas (according to their twitter feeds last night), but didn't have enough to publish until they got to a certain point.

The Kent Hehr accusation came late last night on twitter from a named account (and is reminiscent of what came up when the Veterans groups and Thalidomide survivor's groups accusations were swirling), but there were immediate nods from other women with history with him. Maybe Hehr's innocent, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (including from a woman in my personal life of a creepy "flirty" vibe) and that's enough for me.

I agree with all this and i want to make it clear that in this particular case, I am not defending Hehr and claiming he didnt do anything, but moreso i am not convicting him either.

I am smart enough to know what I don't know...and i dont know what happened here. I dont have that kind of information.

With all the different allegations the last few months though, it appears there is something amiss and his resignation was inevitable from a purely political stand point, so even that doesn't point me any more towards being guilty.

I haven't heard if there will be a criminal investigation or not, but I do hope there is. That's how this should be handled in all cases and then let the chips fall where they may.

Oh...and love the Star Chamber reference...a GREAT 80's movie.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can a person be unsuitable for a position of public trust without having been convicted of a criminal offense. Is the moral qualification for premier or MP the lack of a criminal conviction?

I agree it's concerning to destroy people lives on Allegations. And if random dude on Facebook starts being lynched and fired for accusations outside the workplace then we have gone to far. But when you choose to enter a position of public trust you are and should be held to a higher standard than a lack of a criminal conviction.

Really the process for this should be internal HR processes which certainly is a lower standard than the courts and in place of evidence severance is paid. Can't really do that for an elected official.

I would like to see innocent until proven guilty....regardless of the profession or whether the person is in public life or private life. I think all should be treated equally. I realize I might as well ask for a unicorn and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, as thats not how it will ever get back to, but one can wish.

As for the bolded I believe we have already seen some these kind of results and I also think it is just the tip of the iceberg as to whats coming.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would like to see innocent until proven guilty....regardless of the profession or whether the person is in public life or private life. I think all should be treated equally. I realize I might as well ask for a unicorn and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, as thats not how it will ever get back to, but one can wish.

As for the bolded I believe we have already seen some these kind of results and I also think it is just the tip of the iceberg as to whats coming.

A good example of why I thin positions of public trust matters would be the FHRITP guy in Ontario. An MP doing that should be booted, a random guy working for a Hydro company should not.

Also this harassment (at least the comments )is unlikely criminal in nature (or at least something that hasn't been prosecuted) so is the court the right venue for workplace harassment to be dealt with?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except we know the type of damage that harassment and bullying can lead to, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't include it.

And how much of that harm is from being conditioned to feel harmed?

[DiracSpike]

Just because he's a creep in a wheelchair doesn't give anyone a free pass to lob handicapped chirps at him. When you're making fun of his being in a chair you're making fun of all people in wheelchairs, creeps or not.

Whats especially weird is to see one of the leaders of the CP "Sensitivity and Empathy" brigade lobbing those insults.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sure, let's go with empowerment.

I mean, there's an obvious difference between someone else calling themselves, or allowing their loved ones and friends to call them something, than a stranger or acquaintance you barely know deciding what they will call you. Especially in a workplace environment.

But would this not be the same discussion if he were to used the "N" word? Would you be referring to the legions of black people? I doubt it, so why did you need to make a point that other women (not this one) call themselves yummy when another suggested it was inappropriate...

I can't believe people need to be told that calling someone "yummy" is sexual harassment and inappropriate. Probably the same people wondering why women needed to march last week.

I didn't say that people don't know the difference, and if that was directed at me, I certainly do. I just asked the question to add flavour to the discussion

[taco.vidal]

On his own with the help of his advisors, Kent will likely make a statement that he has been suffering some sort of mental disorder or disorders that have caused him to act in a way that is not his true self. He will announce that he is seeking treatment and that he hopes to continue serving his constituents. This may be blamed on PTSD, depression or any number of possible afflictions.

I dont think that is what his problem is. I think he just isnt a very nice guy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

I didn't say that people don't know the difference, and if that was directed at me, I certainly do. I just asked the question to add flavour to the discussion

Why would we need to add flavour to the discussion?

Why can't we leave it at a simple, "It's not okay to call a colleague yummy at the workplace, that's sexual harrasment"?

Especially when you're in a position of power and the person you're talking to has expressed no reason for that to be okay. Unless she was wearing a donut costume.