#metoo Parliament Hill

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that these guys are damned either way though. Patrick Brown gave an emphatic denial and everyone said that was a terrible idea. Kent Hehr hasn't gone the same route and people say that's an admission of guilt. Honestly, if I were in that position I wouldn't know what to do. I would know that it was a false accusation, but how could you convince the public at large?

don't think you can. depends on the popularity of the person beforehand.

politics aside, many people agree that Harper and Trudeau are nice, decent men.
let's say Harper and Trudeau both did the same horrible thing. we both know who would get dealt with easier by the media and more likely to be forgiven by the general public and have what they did glossed over.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

don't think you can. depends on the popularity of the person beforehand.

politics aside, many people agree that Harper and Trudeau are nice, decent men.
let's say Harper and Trudeau both did the same horrible thing. we both know who would get dealt with easier by the media and more likely to be forgiven by the general public and have what they did glossed over.

I know what you're getting at and in conversations with my wife I keep bringing up this SNL skit (which I'm sure someone can find a better video of, but apparently I'm inept on youtube...): https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f76_1323277426

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Whatever it is, the title should be changed.

I vote for “Justin Trudeau Sandal?”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that these guys are damned either way though. Patrick Brown gave an emphatic denial and everyone said that was a terrible idea. Kent Hehr hasn't gone the same route and people say that's an admission of guilt. Honestly, if I were in that position I wouldn't know what to do. I would know that it was a false accusation, but how could you convince the public at large?

He gave a PR denile. What is exactly was he denying. That took these women back to his house or that he took them to his room or that the story's these women told are true and this was consensual.

I mean the first accusation the defense should have been she was not that drunk, I assumed she was of age based on her being in a bar, we fooled around a bit then she said know and I drove her home. That wasn't his defense. He says none of the accusations are true.

The absolute truth is your defense. Look at how Ansari handled his.

The problem is that Brown doesn't want to have to defend himself with the truth because a guy who gets signifcantly younger women drunk and try's to sleep with them isn't exactly the character test for someone wanting to hold public office.

[CaptainYooh]

nm

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

... because a guy who gets signifcantly younger women drunk and try's to sleep with them isn't exactly the character test for someone wanting to hold public office.

Or, sometimes a person can be both – a great philanderer and a great holder of a public office. As long as we accept the fact that the good and bad in people are not mutually exclusive and as long as their bad is not over-dramatized. But that seemingly rational premise disappears really fast nowadays.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Or, sometimes a person can be both – a great philanderer and a great holder of a public office. As long as we accept the fact that the good and bad in people are not mutually exclusive and as long as their bad is not over-dramatized. But that seemingly rational premise disappears really fast nowadays.

Is an article highlighting all the reasons Kennedy wasn’t very good an appropriate indicator of him being a “great holder of public office”?

[zamler]

You're either with us, or with the terrorists.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Or, sometimes a person can be both – a great philanderer and a great holder of a public office. As long as we accept the fact that the good and bad in people are not mutually exclusive and as long as their bad is not over-dramatized. But that seemingly rational premise disappears really fast nowadays.

Possibly but that's for the electorate to decide and doesn't really change the argument that the truth would have been the correct argument for Brown. Make the argument that my character flaws don't exclude them the premiership. I take issue with this argument that an accused person has no defense and no due process.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Possibly but that's for the electorate to decide and doesn't really change the argument that the truth would have been the correct argument for Brown. Make the argument that my character flaws don't exclude them the premiership. I take issue with this argument that an accused person has no defense and no due process.

I take issue with that, but with Erin Weir being suspended from the NDP caucus today we’ve gone past that. The guy has no defence and no due process and beyond that he doesn’t know what the allegations are or who brought them. Yet the NDP explain that we have to listen to the survivors and the resolution should be “survivor based”.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I take issue with that, but with Erin Weir being suspended from the NDP caucus today we’ve gone past that. The guy has no defence and no due process and beyond that he doesn’t know what the allegations are or who brought them. Yet the NDP explain that we have to listen to the survivors and the resolution should be “survivor based”.

How is suspend and investigate any different than a front line police officer or teacher or any other position of public trust. Erin Wier is being prevented from representing the NDP while this investigation takes place.

Without hearing the severity of the allegations it is not possible to know if this warrants a suspend then investigate process but to suggest that this isn't common practice and part of due process and been common practice in dealing with allegations of inappropriate behaviour is ridiculous.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

How is suspend and investigate any different than a front line police officer or teacher or any other position of public trust. Erin Wier is being prevented from representing the NDP while this investigation takes place.

Without hearing the severity of the allegations it is not possible to know if this warrants a suspend then investigate process but to suggest that this isn't common practice and part of due process and been common practice in dealing with allegations of inappropriate behaviour is ridiculous.

It just demonstrates how this is potentially a weapon or attack strategy in politics though. I mean no victims have come forward, and he isn’t aware of what would be alleged. How can we know that he should be suspended when there are no allegations made by victims? Those other positions are suspended because they’re actually accused of something. It doesn’t seem like the allegations are even know here though.

Maybe someone will come forward or something, but Weirs statement was basically “I don’t know what this is about but I don’t think I have sexually harassed anyone”. Seems bizarre at this point?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

Possibly but that's for the electorate to decide and doesn't really change the argument that the truth would have been the correct argument for Brown. Make the argument that my character flaws don't exclude them the premiership. I take issue with this argument that an accused person has no defense and no due process.

And I take an issue with accusers ruining people's lives and careers without having to face consequences for accusations that are trendy. In my example, Kennedy is still considered one of the best US presidents, while being a known and well-documented sexual predator. Would he had become less of an ex-president figure if he was still alive and some of his multiple sexual encounters spoke up today?

Barbara Amiel was known to belittle everyone around her at the Daily Telegraph and rumour has is even showed up at work wearing an open fur coat with nothing underneath it. Nobody has complained or felt unsafe. (She was beautiful though.)

Margaret Trudeau was not exactly a delicate flower either, famously flashing her private parts to the cameras and making a lot of people around her very uncomfortable. Nobody is metooing her.

Debora Drever poses naked in a photo glorifying sex violence, then says "f... you" to the Canadian flag - the party is all-forgiving and understanding... Yet, calling someone "yummy" gets Hehr - an otherwise good, competent and passionate person - pretty much killed politically. I do understand why the media is having a day with all this. But how does the public not see the sheer absurdity of this trend?

All people did things in the past that that they are not proud of. "Errare humanum est". said Seneca. "He, who hasn't sinned..." said Jesus (allegedly). Saying something inappropriate in one's past (and most of the metoo stuff we hear now is about saying something inappropriate) should not be a valid reason for a lynch mob based on uninvestigated and unproven allegation with no real consequences for the accuser, who may be wrong, forgetful, spiteful, delusional, vengeful or sinister. Would Ashley Judd still accuse Weinstein if she did win her Oscar or would she had called him a guardian angel in her acceptance speech?

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, I was at the game... arrrgh...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I vote for “Justin Trudeau Sandal?”

my vote is "Justin Trudeau Scandal? *Fingers Crossed*"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

And I take an issue with accusers ruining people's lives and careers without having to face consequences for accusations that are trendy. In my example, Kennedy is still considered one of the best US presidents, while being a known and well-documented sexual predator. Would he had become less of an ex-president figure if he was still alive and some of his multiple sexual encounters spoke up today?

Barbara Amiel was known to belittle everyone around her at the Daily Telegraph and rumour has is even showed up at work wearing an open fur coat with nothing underneath it. Nobody has complained or felt unsafe. (She was beautiful though.)

Margaret Trudeau was not exactly a delicate flower either, famously flashing her private parts to the cameras and making a lot of people around her very uncomfortable. Nobody is metooing her.

Debora Drever poses naked in a photo glorifying sex violence, then says "f... you" to the Canadian flag - the party is all-forgiving and understanding... Yet, calling someone "yummy" gets Hehr - an otherwise good, competent and passionate person - pretty much killed politically. I do understand why the media is having a day with all this. But how does the public not see the sheer absurdity of this trend?

None of your examples hold weight, though, and they all ignore that fact that society changes over time. Do you really think “this was acceptable 50 years ago, so why isn’t it acceptable now?” is a good line of reasoning when you need to justify for actions? I could name a few things that were perfectly acceptable 50 years ago that would appal anybody (not just members of a social movement) now. The world changes.

Even Drever is a poor example. She got publicly shamed, reprimanded, and booted out of caucus. She got “pretty much killed politically” and had to earn her way back. Could Hehr? It’s possible. The allegations against him aren’t as severe as others, but acting like it’s a sole incident of him calling someone yummy once is the reason you see it all as absurd. There is a bigger context to be considered around the things you’re boiling everything down to.

The fact is, accusers do face consequences. To pretend they don’t is the only absurd thing you mentioned.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

It just demonstrates how this is potentially a weapon or attack strategy in politics though. I mean no victims have come forward, and he isn’t aware of what would be alleged. How can we know that he should be suspended when there are no allegations made by victims? Those other positions are suspended because they’re actually accused of something. It doesn’t seem like the allegations are even know here though.

Maybe someone will come forward or something, but Weirs statement was basically “I don’t know what this is about but I don’t think I have sexually harassed anyone”. Seems bizarre at this point?

So when a kid accuses a teacher of sexual assault what is the appropriate action? Suspend and investigate or investigate and let her continue to teach. If their is a serious complaint against a police officer suspend and investigate or let him continue to perform his duties? And should the reason for the suspension be made public at the time of the suspension?

On the one hand you are arguing that making public allegations damages the career of an individual without due process now you are arguing that you as the public can't decide if it is suitable to suspend the MP because allegations are not known. So which better respect due process you can't have both?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

So when a kid accuses a teacher of sexual assault what is the appropriate action? Suspend and investigate or investigate and let her continue to teach. If their is a serious complaint against a police officer suspend and investigate or let him continue to perform his duties? And should the reason for the suspension be made public at the time of the suspension?

On the one hand you are arguing that making public allegations damages the career of an individual without due process now you are arguing that you as the public can't decide if it is suitable to suspend the MP because allegations are not known. So which better respect due process you can't have both?

Come on. I don't think anyone thinks that someone accused of a serious crime should be remaining in a position of authority over children? What is the allegation against Weir? Singh said that no victims have come forward and that he didn't think it was sexual in nature...so I guess that narrows things down.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

my vote is "Justin Trudeau Scandal? *Fingers Crossed*"

Regardless of how much I dislike him there is no evidence or even allegation that hes done anything wrong.

I appreciate the indulgence of changing the thread title. Thank you.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Locke

Regardless of how much I dislike him there is no evidence or even allegation that hes done anything wrong.

I appreciate the indulgence of changing the thread title. Thank you.

Apparently you should have written that in green, Flash.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Come on. I don't think anyone thinks that someone accused of a serious crime should be remaining in a position of authority over children? What is the allegation against Weir? Singh said that no victims have come forward and that he didn't think it was sexual in nature...so I guess that narrows things down.

So good, we agree that suspension of people in positions of public trust when accused of serious offenses until a proper investigation can take place is reasonable.

Now comes the question of should the public be told what the complaint is in the incidents where suspension is required. I would argue in a perfect world we would not know the details of an allegation prior to the investigation is complete as to limit the damage done if someone is innocent. We don't know what Wier is accused of and we shouldn't.