#metoo Parliament Hill

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Well I believe him when he said he doesn't know what the allegations are. Singh himself didn't seem to have answers to that regard in his presser yesterday. Do you think they know and are covering it up, or should they also not know what they are?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I believe him when he said he doesn't know what the allegations are. Singh himself didn't seem to have answers to that regard in his presser yesterday. Do you think they know and are covering it up, or should they also not know what they are?

I believe all Singh said was they were not sexually related, and a 3rd party complained.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I believe him when he said he doesn't know what the allegations are. Singh himself didn't seem to have answers to that regard in his presser yesterday. Do you think they know and are covering it up, or should they also not know what they are?

I would agree that at the time of suspension that Wier didn't know and should know what he is being accused of though not necessarily who.

Singh I'm not sure that press conference looked very uncomfortable so hard to say if its something that's generally embarrassing that they wouldn't want out there or if he Singh doesn't know.

I suspect Singh has seen the complaint, its serious enough that if true would need to be dealt with, but damaging enough that he doesn't want it out there. I wouldn't call that a cover up though. I would call it due process

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would call it due process

I have to disagree. I don't think due process is suspending someone based on allegations alone without telling them what the allegations are. In my eyes, due process would be to investigate and then determine what the punishment should be, if any. Especially in politics where someones credibility and image are paramount. A lot of people are going to look at this like he's already guilty of doing something wrong without any proof, no actual alleged victim yet apparently and only a 3rd party alleging something may have happened.

It's absolutely crazy to me that someones career, reputation and life can be so derailed and potentially damaged by someone leveling an accusation alone.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I have to disagree. I don't think due process is suspending someone based on allegations alone without telling them what the allegations are. In my eyes, due process would be to investigate and then determine what the punishment should be, if any. Especially in politics where someones credibility and image are paramount. A lot of people are going to look at this like he's already guilty of doing something wrong without any proof, no actual alleged victim yet apparently and only a 3rd party alleging something may have happened.

It's absolutely crazy to me that someones career, reputation and life can be so derailed and potentially damaged by someone leveling an accusation alone.

Until we know the nature of the complaint its impossible to say if an immediate suspension was warranted or not. I assume that you agree that in positions of public trust where the accusation, if true, would put the public or coworkers at risk then the person should be removed from the position with pay until an investigation is complete. This has been common protocol for ever in Public facing positions.

If there was no risk to coworkers or the public if the allegations were true then I would agree that the investigation should take place first. We do not have the information to make this determination yet.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by GGG

If there was no risk to coworkers or the public if the allegations were true then I would agree that the investigation should take place first. We do not have the information to make this determination yet.

I still don't think that it's appropriate to suspend someone based on accusations alone. I understand that it's a nuanced issue with varying levels of severity. But think about it - especially in politics, if this is the precedent that's being set and you're politically motivated to remove someone from the competition, all you have to do is send off an email alleging that something happened. You don't even have to be specific about what happened apparently, just that this person 'harassed' someone. There goes your competition indefinitely, or until an investigation is completed. I doubt any potential elections would be put on hold to accommodate investigations. So that candidate would be forced to drop out. There has to be another way to ensure due process AND potential safety issues at the same time.

I also take issue with Singh saying in his press conference that no "survivors" had yet come forward. That Weir's accusers are already "survivors" in the eyes of his party leader without an ounce of investigation is pretty ridiculous.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Often, words have different meanings depending on context.

Yes, and words also alter context. If I say "I survived a car accident", and the accident in question was my running over the neighbor's cat with my giant SUV, I'm deliberately altering the contextual framing of the event in my listener's mind by using wording in a way that is technically correct, but creates a wildly distorted narrative.

Using "sexual abuse survivor" to describe someone who takes exception to an unwanted lewd remark from her boss devalues language as a tool of effective communication. Insipid twaddle!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yes, and words also alter context. If I say "I survived a car accident", and the accident in question was my running over the neighbor's cat with my giant SUV, I'm deliberately altering the contextual framing of the event in my listener's mind by using wording in a way that is technically correct, but creates a wildly distorted narrative.

Using "sexual abuse survivor" to describe someone who takes exception to an unwanted lewd remark from her boss devalues language as a tool of effective communication. Insipid twaddle!

I’ve been told they are not called accidents, because it suggests no one is at fault.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I still don't think that it's appropriate to suspend someone based on accusations alone. I understand that it's a nuanced issue with varying levels of severity. But think about it - especially in politics, if this is the precedent that's being set and you're politically motivated to remove someone from the competition, all you have to do is send off an email alleging that something happened. You don't even have to be specific about what happened apparently, just that this person 'harassed' someone. There goes your competition indefinitely, or until an investigation is completed. I doubt any potential elections would be put on hold to accommodate investigations. So that candidate would be forced to drop out. There has to be another way to ensure due process AND potential safety issues at the same time.

I also take issue with Singh saying in his press conference that no "survivors" had yet come forward. That Weir's accusers are already "survivors" in the eyes of his party leader without an ounce of investigation is pretty ridiculous.

At that point you can be sued for slander or liable. The system has a remedy for false accusations.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ve been told they are not called accidents, because it suggests no one is at fault.

When I worked for 660News doing traffic we were told, often quite sternly, never to refer to them as accidents.
Crashes, collisions, fender benders, etc.
Never accidents.

[Parallex]

Harper knew...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37847361/

Seriously, that is so ####ing stupid. Pee in Cup = You're outta here! Accused of Rape = Not Grounds for Removal?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Harper knew...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37847361/

Seriously, that is so ####ing stupid. Pee in Cup = You're outta here! Accused of Rape = Not Grounds for Removal?

I imagine if it were switched to 'Accused of Peeing in Cup' vs 'Being Filmed on a Nationally Broadcasted Consumer Watchdog Program Raping Someone' then you probably would have seen different outcomes.

[transplant99]

A top-ranking official in the prime minister’s office resigned from his position Friday, following an investigation into allegations of “inappropriate behaviour.”

Claude-Eric Gagne had been on leave since Nov. 1 from his job as deputy director of operations, as a third-party investigator looked into the allegations.

A PMO spokeswoman says the investigation by Rubin Thomlinson, a prominent employment law firm, has concluded, and Gagne no longer works in the office.

In a Facebook message to The Canadian Press, Gagne says he “fully collaborated” with the investigation, and he “firmly” denies the allegations.

http://calgarysun.com/news/national/...1-cf2f39130d12

[CliffFletcher]

"His name will shock you."

Turns out to be a guy maybe 2 per cent of Canadians have ever heard of. Just shows you how narrow the world of Ottawa insider and media pundits is.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

"His name will shock you."

Turns out to be a guy maybe 2 per cent of Canadians have ever heard of. Just shows you how narrow the world of Ottawa insider and media pundits is.

Is that the guy? It could be that it was/is someone different, or could be that he never had a real name to begin with? I find it hard to believe that if he had actual evidence, given in a deposition, that he would tease it with that kind of thing. Why wouldn't you just fire it out there and get the clicks/exposure or whatever they're after?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is that the guy? It could be that it was/is someone different, or could be that he never had a real name to begin with? I find it hard to believe that if he had actual evidence, given in a deposition, that he would tease it with that kind of thing. Why wouldn't you just fire it out there and get the clicks/exposure or whatever they're after?

It was supposed to be someone close to Trudeau. The guy was a high-ranking official in Trudeau's office. So I assume it's him, unless there are multiple people close to Trudeau implicated.

Few Canadians give any thought to the PMO, but to political insiders and journalists, they're actually major power brokers and figures of immense status, topped only by high-profile cabinet ministers and the PM himself.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Harper knew...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37847361/

Seriously, that is so ####ing stupid. Pee in Cup = You're outta here! Accused of Rape = Not Grounds for Removal?

There's a difference between being accused and being convicted. According to that article Harper's understanding was that the police had investigated, found nothing and closed the investigation.

By that understanding there was nothing there.

It goes back to knowledge of the time .

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

"His name will shock you."

Turns out to be a guy maybe 2 per cent of Canadians have ever heard of. Just shows you how narrow the world of Ottawa insider and media pundits is.

Level of dissapointing as the "it will knock your socks off" cp leadup to calgarynext.

[Wormius]

Somebody should check in with Kinsella and ask when they are going to name this guy.