#metoo Parliament Hill

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GGG

You sure gave up innocent until proven guilty pretty fast so you could take shots at the other teams hypocracy. Your correct statement given your previous position should have been he's innocent until proven guilty.

Go Local Sports Team!!!

This has got me thinking of if their is a hypothetical situation where you the PM could have an affair with a staff member and be able to obtain free consent? I think it would be difficult and certainly need to involve no coercion or alcohol and explicit verbal communication consent

My stance that the presumption of innocence applies to all, regardless of political affiliation, still stands. No one should face life ruining allegations without the chance to defend themselves and the current MeToo approach doesn’t allow that.

I meant my comment as more a snarky reference to the statements we have been hearing from Trudeau, Singh and the CBC in the wake of the Patrick Brown stuff that says the presumption of innocence is only for the courts, that it doesn’t apply to claims made in the media and that all women who come forward must be believed. Then Trudeau has no problem making the statement that each case is different and due process must be afforded to those accused when questioned on Kent Hehr.

[Looch City]

I'm dying with anticipation here.

[CaptainCrunch]

meh, if something happens it happens, Kinsella has gone pretty quiet on it. Mercedes Stepheson just announced a NDP press conference related to MeTOO in a few minutes.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/959126742974771201

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://twitter.com/user/status/959126742974771201

Seems a bit hypocritical on Singh’s part. If he stood by his own statement, Weir should be removed, not suspended, since there is no presumption of his innocence

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Seems a bit hypocritical on Singh’s part. If he stood by his own statement, Weir should be removed, not suspended, since there is no presumption of his innocence

There is a difference in saying Women should be believed and not having a process to deal with the accused.

The first step is always to believe survivors. We need to believe survivors. Secondly, we need to create safe spaces for survivors or people who want to come forward to be able to come forward in a way that's safe."

To me the above Singh quote which is relatively consistent with what he has said previously isn't inconsistent with his approach to dealing with Wier.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

...

I cringe every time I read this. Survivors... Let's be even more dramatic. Let's call every person insulted by their boss in the past and speaking about it – modern heroines.

These were survivors:





These are survivors:




WTF is happening to our language??? How can anyone blame Peterson for being vocal about it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I cringe every time I read this. Survivors... Let's be even more dramatic. Let's call every person insulted by their boss in the past and speaking about it – modern heroines.

These were survivors:

These are survivors:

WTF is happening to our language??? How can anyone blame Peterson for being vocal about it.

Generally people use the term "survivor" in place of words like "victim" or "patient" (i.e. cancer survivor) because it's supposedly more empowering. Your mileage may vary but it's pretty common.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a difference in saying Women should be believed and not having a process to deal with the accused.

Quite true, but if so, all that's left of the process is a sentencing hearing. He's already presumed guilty. So you'd think it'd be a pretty quick process at least.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Generally people use the term "survivor" in place of words like "victim" or "patient" (i.e. cancer survivor) because it's supposedly more empowering. Your mileage may vary but it's pretty common.

It's typically used for things that it's common to not survive. But I'll shut up before someone accuses me of arguing semantics again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Quite true, but if so, all that's left of the process is a sentencing hearing. He's already presumed guilty. So you'd think it'd be a pretty quick process at least.

It's typically used for things that it's common to not survive. But I'll shut up before someone accuses me of arguing semantics again.

We just need to have a dedicated "language and semantics" thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

We just need to have a dedicated "language and semantics" thread.

In which the only posters are me, and people trolling me.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In which the only posters are me, and people trolling me.

How is that different from any other thread?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In which the only posters are me, and people trolling me.

You could petition the mods to bring peter12 back.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You could petition the mods to bring peter12 back.

Then it'd have to be the "language, semantics, and fancy shoes" thread.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Quite true, but if so, all that's left of the process is a sentencing hearing. He's already presumed guilty. So you'd think it'd be a pretty quick process at least.

It's typically used for things that it's common to not survive. But I'll shut up before someone accuses me of arguing semantics again.

I swear people are being intentionally obtuse around this presumption of innocence vs believing survivors. Both can be maintained and in fact in most criminal situations is maintained.

If I phone the police and say my house got robbed by my neighbour the Polices initial reaction will be to believe me and open an investigation. That is independant from the legal right of my neighbour to be presumed innocent at trial.

Now take in to account the historically typical reaction to sexua harassment or assault of are you sure that's happened, are you sure you don't just regret it, maybe you should just avoid getting into the elevator with him and believing the vicitms becomes a pretty important 1st step.

When judges say women should just keep their legs closed or push themselves further back into the sink believing them becomes a pretty important 1st step.

Believing a victim does not mean eliminating due process to punish people. Believing victims of crime is the default positions for all crimes except sexual assault

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

If I phone the police and say my house got robbed by my neighbour the Polices initial reaction will be to believe me and open an investigation.

But if they ask you if you had any drugs in the house, or any connections to gangs, and you say no, they may or may not believe you. People lie to the police all the time.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

I swear people are being intentionally obtuse around this presumption of innocence vs believing survivors. Both can be maintained and in fact in most criminal situations is maintained.

If I phone the police and say my house got robbed by my neighbour the Polices initial reaction will be to believe me and open an investigation. That is independant from the legal right of my neighbour to be presumed innocent at trial.

Now take in to account the historically typical reaction to sexua harassment or assault of are you sure that's happened, are you sure you don't just regret it, maybe you should just avoid getting into the elevator with him and believing the vicitms becomes a pretty important 1st step.

When judges say women should just keep their legs closed or push themselves further back into the sink believing them becomes a pretty important 1st step.

Believing a victim does not mean eliminating due process to punish people. Believing victims of crime is the default positions for all crimes except sexual assault

This statement confuses me. A) The due process isn't for punishment, it's for whether or not someone actually did a crime, no? B) Believing victims personal accusations of who committed a crime is exactly NOT the basis for the majority of crimes, no? The reason things get shady with sexual assault is that it's one of the few crimes that is almost entirely based on testimony vs actual physical evidence (because there rarely is any).

If someone is murdered, or robbed, the actual instance of the crime can't be called into question. It's there, it happened. There's a dead person. There's stuff missing. Assault like this is tough. There is only one accused person. And if there aren't other corroborated stories of similar behavior or witness accounts, it's tough to judge someone solely based on the testimony of one person. The question is who would lie about it? Certainly not many, but there is evil in the world and it is not exclusive to men, so we can't just assume it's the truth.

[GordonBlue]

so to have it clear, the alleged victim/s didn't complain, but a third party did?
here's the slippery slope.

Singh told reporters that a concern about Weir was raised in an email sent by an NDP MP to other NDP MPs earlier this week. Singh said the email was not sent by someone who had experienced harassment, but said the alleged behaviour was directed at members of the NDP staff. Singh said the allegation was not sexual in nature.
Singh said Weir will be suspended from caucus duties until the investigation is completed.

so the guy is suspended for something that a 3rd party claimed he did, and it wasn't sexual.
just to be curious, is Liz May suspended from anything or has she withdrawn form anything while her non sexual harassment issues are dealt with?

[troutman]

Due process is for the courts, not for #MeToo, argues lawyer

Listen to the full audio near the top of this page


http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...wyer-1.4514238

Criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt argues that due process is a concern for the courts — when someone is charged with an offence — but should not be what sets the bar outside of the legal system.

http://owensoundhub.org/opinion/4497...rom-grace.html

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a difference in saying Women should be believed and not having a process to deal with the accused.



To me the above Singh quote which is relatively consistent with what he has said previously isn't inconsistent with his approach to dealing with Wier.

He is on the record stating that the presumption of innocence is only for the courts and for a “just” society to exist, women who make allegations must be believed. He also said Patrick Brown should step down when allegations came to light, but when it is an NDP member, there is no demand to step down and he wants an investigation.