New Allegations against Kent Hehr

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Perfect example.

Perfect example of what? You using a cliched, right-wing ad hominem? Your point had merit without the need for insulting people who disagreed with you.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No need to wonder. It's happening and has been gaining momentum since the explosion of allegations starting with Weinstein/Spacey et al.

I said early on in that very thread that it was starting to get the feel of a witch hunt, and of course the snowflakes immediately jumped on me for it. Yet, here we are.

As CHL said above, now its come to any sort of communication that any body doesn't like has become considered harassment or misconduct. The whole thing has jumped the shark, and truly takes away from actual victims. That's the saddest part.

With Hehr who knows what's occurred as there seems to be a lot of smoke even if not a lot of fire at this point. That will cost him in some capacity without question. It's really to bad to as we have discussed before, his story and bravery are second to none, regardless of his politics., and if he is innocent inall this...it won't matter in the end.

It isn't just any sort of communication when every female staff brought into the annex is told immediately about the conduct and to be aware of it. So from day 1 on your job you are living in fear of when, not if, you are going to be harassed. That's not jumping the shark. This is women finally feeling empowered enough to bring these issues to light, instead of just "dealing with it" for years. No one deserves to be in a situation where they are made to feel uncomfortable because of obviously inappropriate actions or comments. This isn't hurting the victims, this is the victims finally finding their voice.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It isn't just any sort of communication when every female staff brought into the annex is told immediately about the conduct and to be aware of it. So from day 1 on your job you are living in fear of when, not if, you are going to be harassed. That's not jumping the shark. This is women finally feeling empowered enough to bring these issues to light, instead of just "dealing with it" for years. No one deserves to be in a situation where they are made to feel uncomfortable because of obviously inappropriate actions or comments. This isn't hurting the victims, this is the victims finally finding their voice.

So are these staffers being told by somebody higher up to just ignore the behavior or what is going on there? That seems like aside from Hehr's poor behavior, there is a bit of enabling going on as well. Was this ever escalated beyond simply warning of the female staffers to simply be aware of Hehr's comments? This is kind of astounding that it's at a level where all females are warned of this guys behavior and that's about it (at least the optics from out here seems like that was how this was mitigated).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It isn't just any sort of communication when every female staff brought into the annex is told immediately about the conduct and to be aware of it. So from day 1 on your job you are living in fear of when, not if, you are going to be harassed. That's not jumping the shark. This is women finally feeling empowered enough to bring these issues to light, instead of just "dealing with it" for years. No one deserves to be in a situation where they are made to feel uncomfortable because of obviously inappropriate actions or comments. This isn't hurting the victims, this is the victims finally finding their voice.

Yeah, im not talking specifically about Hehr here...just in general. I thought that was clear in my post where i addressed it.

[killer_carlson]

So if Hehr gets canned, and the other Liberal MP is also being investigated, who does Calgary turn to when seeking the PM's ear?

[Wormius]

Shouldn't any MP be able to get the PM's ear, regardless of party?

[transplant99]

Sorry I wasn't aware that the term snowflake had been cornered by the "right-wing" as an ad hominem attack, I guessed I missed that memo. It has been used on this board for almost 20 years to describe the overly sensitive. Who do I send the cheque to for stomping on their trademarked term?

I use it to describe the easily offended and unable to actually discuss the points being made and instead obfuscate into something else that generally ends with a good old Godwinning or something just short of that.

Will be more aware moving forward.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean, maybe he shouldn't lose his job, but how is it unreasonable to expect a grown ass man to know that telling a woman she's "yummy" might be off-putting?

Not unreasonable at all. I'm confused, who do you see making the argument that it's unreasonable for a grown man to know that telling a woman she's "yummy" might be off-putting? Who exactly are you referring to in this post?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So are these staffers being told by somebody higher up to just ignore the behavior or what is going on there? That seems like aside from Hehr's poor behavior, there is a bit of enabling going on as well. Was this ever escalated beyond simply warning of the female staffers to simply be aware of Hehr's comments? This is kind of astounding that it's at a level where all females are warned of this guys behavior and that's about it (at least the optics from out here seems like that was how this was mitigated).

Yeah, if a woman enters a work-place and gets this kind of warning then someone should have done something about this type of unacceptable behaviour a long time ago.

You dont hire someone and then tell them to 'watch out for the crazy old man.'

You fix the 'crazy old man' problem right away.

What job comes with that kind of disclaimer?

"Thanks but no thanks."

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So are these staffers being told by somebody higher up to just ignore the behavior or what is going on there? That seems like aside from Hehr's poor behavior, there is a bit of enabling going on as well. Was this ever escalated beyond simply warning of the female staffers to simply be aware of Hehr's comments? This is kind of astounding that it's at a level where all females are warned of this guys behavior and that's about it (at least the optics from out here seems like that was how this was mitigated).

This wouldn't be the first case where this happened, where many people knew of an issue but never acted on it. It's not easy to call out someone in a much higher position than you on anything. Regardless of employment laws against retaliation, it still happens and can cost you dearly for taking a stand.

Most of these aren't one-off accusations either. There's usually plenty of evidence over the years of it being a continuing problem. The cultural shift we're having finally allows these things to be openly unacceptable.

[Minnie]

I've been harassed and it sucked. But if someone on an elevator told me I was yummy, my own personal response would have been more than a bit on the blue side and I would have given that person a wide berth and the stinkeye ever after just because I would not want to deal with any more drama beyond that. And if it was Hehr, I realize this is going to sound awful and ableist or whatever, but it's frank and true - what exactly is he going to do to me beyond be a blooming bastard verbally? He would not make me feel "unsafe" muttering a few pipe dream phrases.

But that's *me.* I can't expect anyone else to feel or respond in the same manner I would. And, I have no use for Hehr, I don't like him, but if "you're yummy" is the ONLY thing he's said, well, whatever with his job but again, that isn't up to me. If it's far beyond that, then it should be looked into and dealt with.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So are these staffers being told by somebody higher up to just ignore the behavior or what is going on there? That seems like aside from Hehr's poor behavior, there is a bit of enabling going on as well. Was this ever escalated beyond simply warning of the female staffers to simply be aware of Hehr's comments? This is kind of astounding that it's at a level where all females are warned of this guys behavior and that's about it (at least the optics from out here seems like that was how this was mitigated).

I don't have that information. Simply going by the twitter posts and how multiple women are confirming that they were warning about starting work there. Having the women simply warn each other is a normal practice. Under reporting on harassment due to reprisals has been the norm for so long that no I don't find it astounding at all.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Shouldn't any MP be able to get the PM's ear, regardless of party?

Sure. Well schedule you in 6 months from next Tuesday.
Can you make it ?

[CaptainCrunch]

Sarah Browning‏ @sarahbrowning8









Sarah Browning Retweeted Kristin Raworth
Warnings of Kent Hehr have been circulating the halls of Parliament Hill for over a year: "Stay away from him at receptions." "Don't let his hands get close to you." "Don't get close to him when he drinks." Expect more. The floodgates are open.



Sarah Browning added,

Yikes for the Liberals, if this has been known for a year on top of the other stuff with Hehr.

His career is pretty much over, he'll be booted from the Liberal Party, as his bad behavior being known and ignored makes the PM's office look really bad.

https://twitter.com/SANDRAYYCNW/status/9https://twitter.com/SANDRAYYCNW/stat...0969684983808154809696849838081

Really bad optics, as Hehr looks like a ginormous hypocrite.

[Weitz]

So instead of calling out an MP for inappropriate behaviour they just warned new people coming in? That seems stupid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I've been harassed and it sucked. But if someone on an elevator told me I was yummy, my own personal response would have been more than a bit on the blue side and I would have given that person a wide berth and the stinkeye ever after just because I would not want to deal with any more drama beyond that. And if it was Hehr, I realize this is going to sound awful and ableist or whatever, but it's frank and true - what exactly is he going to do to me beyond be a blooming bastard verbally? He would not make me feel "unsafe" muttering a few pipe dream phrases.

But that's *me.* I can't expect anyone else to feel or respond in the same manner I would. And, I have no use for Hehr, I don't like him, but if "you're yummy" is the ONLY thing he's said, well, whatever with his job but again, that isn't up to me. If it's far beyond that, then it should be looked into and dealt with.

sounds like the "yummy" thing is just an example when they're talking about warnings like

Stay away from him at receptions." "Don't let his hands get close to you." "Don't get close to him when he drinks."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As CHL said above, now its come to any sort of communication that any body doesn't like has become considered harassment or misconduct. The whole thing has jumped the shark, and truly takes away from actual victims. That's the saddest part.

This isn't quite what I said. I get what you're talking about, particularly the part about being unable to distinguish between degrees (see Bill Maher's latest rant on his show about "distinction deniers", which Minnie Driver then hilariously doubled down on).

I was specifically talking about using the language of personal safety to deal with people saying things you don't like (even if, as in this case, you're quite right to object to what was said). There are, surely, some contexts where words can reasonably make a person feel unsafe - if you're standing in an elevator with someone and they say, "I'm going to stab you unless you give me what I want" being a pretty simple example. But, sort of along the same lines as that apparent collective decision not to acknowledge nuance or matters of degree, there's a tendency now to suggest that anything that so much as makes one uncomfortable is tantamount to a safety threat. It's obvious why they do this: safety threats are to be taken more seriously than discomfort, and demand immediate decisive action in response to stop the person in question. So now, vague allegations about "creating an unsafe atmosphere" are everywhere - it's a go-to line to throw in to any complaint about anyone, whether it applies or not. Might as well - if anyone questions you, you can simply accuse them of victim blaming.

If Kent Hehr tweets at you, even something awful that he absolutely should not say that makes you feel bad or uncomfortable, what are the odds he's going to do anything to you directly? It's the internet. Turn off your phone. Not to mention, to put it bluntly, it's Kent Hehr. He's in a freaking wheelchair.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Haha, what? If those are allegations of "sexual misconduct" I hope there is more than that otherwise we have entered the third reich of language police.

Do you believe "you're yummy" is something a straight male would say to another random man in the elevator? If not, then why do you think that's at all appropriate to say to a woman?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you believe "you're yummy" is something a straight male would say to another random man in the elevator? If not, then why do you think that's at all appropriate to say to a woman?

Did he suggest he thought it was "appropriate", as you say he did? Because it looks to me like he just said that it wasn't "sexual misconduct" of a sort that Hehr should be fired for. Maybe less of the words in other peoples' mouths on this topic would be nice.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sorry I wasn't aware that the term snowflake had been cornered by the "right-wing" as an ad hominem attack, I guessed I missed that memo. It has been used on this board for almost 20 years to describe the overly sensitive. Who do I send the cheque to for stomping on their trademarked term?

I use it to describe the easily offended and unable to actually discuss the points being made and instead obfuscate into something else that generally ends with a good old Godwinning or something just short of that.

Will be more aware moving forward.

Fair enough. Sorry for flying off the handle about it. It's not that I find the term particularly bothersome or offensive, just highly irritating because it tends to poison every political debate I see on social media.