Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture
Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation
Rev Pesky

I have already placed this in the Erin Weir thread, but it's true, it is not really about Erin Weir, or only tangentally. It is really about Christine Moore. So here is me, quoting myself:

There's something a bit odd about these two events. That is, Christine Moore's interlude with Glen Kirkland, the injured soldier, and her complaint about Massimo Pacetti, the Liberal MP.

According to Blatchford's story today, when Moore met with the two (Liberal and NDP) party whips, and the other complainant, she (Moore) told them that she had a couple of drinks with Pacetti, and then went with him to his hotel room, where he made his desire clear, whereupon:

...she 'froze,' memories of an alleged sexual as a teenager overwhelming her, and "then we had sex with no explicit consent from me." 

But when I look at the two incidents, it appears the incident of Moore pursuing Kirkland (June 2013) was before her experience with Pacetti (given to Trudeau Oct 2014).

If this timeline is correct, my question is, if her teenage experience of sexual assault 'froze' and 'overwhelmed' her in 2014, why didn't it do that in 2013? 

After some further research, it appears the incident between Moore and Pacetti took place in March of 2014, which was certainly after Moore's incident with Kirkland (June 2013).

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky wrote in the Erin Weir thread,

further

Your  concern is that she can be in one situation with Kirkland and in a  similar situation afterwards with a Liberal MP an then claim non-consensual sex.

I don't think that this is healthy or wise to think about this. People can feel pressured or coerced into having an  experience with somebody when they don't feel comfortable being in that situation.  And the fact that she had a positive experience with Kirkland does not mean that she will have a positive experience with every single person and in every single situation. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering discussed in the Erin Weir thread her disbelief that there was a power imbalance between Moore and Kirkland.

Debater and Rev Pesky both stated that she was a standing member of the committee that he was speaking at.

committee members are supposed to be unbiased and impartial. What she did by pursuing a relationship with Kirkland was highly unethical. And yes she was in a position of power and authority in that situation.

Rev Pesky

From Misfit:

Your  concern is that she can be in one situation with Kirkland and in a  similar situation afterwards with a Liberal MP an then claim non-consensual sex.

Pardon me, but that is not my concern. I certainly agree that two similar situations could have quite different dynamics. It wasn't the 'consensual' thing that I was questioning. It was the fact that in March of 2014 Moore stated the memory of an assault she suffered as a teenager caused her to freeze, and to be overwhelmed to the point of not being able to either refuse Pacetti, or to just leave.

What I was wondering is why that same memory didn't overwhelm her in June of 2013 when she was in a very similar situation with Kirkland.

I think it's a legitimate question, and one that would probably have been asked by the people investigating the Pacetti affair, if they had known about her prior experience with Kirkland.

Debater

Misfit wrote:

Pondering discussed in the Erin Weir thread her disbelief that there was a power imbalance between Moore and Kirkland.

Debater and Rev Pesky both stated that she was a standing member of the committee that he was speaking at.

committee members are supposed to be unbiased and impartial. What she did by pursuing a relationship with Kirkland was highly unethical. And yes she was in a position of power and authority in that situation.

Yes, I raised this issue on the Erin Weir thread.

I'm not an expert on the Parliamentary Code of Conduct, but it may be a conflict of interest for an MP to become romantically involved with a witness who has just testified before a Parliamentary Committee which that MP is a member of.

Perhaps this is something the independent investigator or the Ethics Commissioner can look into.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky,

How about there was something that caused her to have flashbacks   When she was with the liberal MP. However, her relationship with Kirkland did not cause her to have flashbacks. 

 One time when I was walking up an incline to the back of a  lecture hall  for one of my classes I got a flashback from a disturbing incident from when I a child. there was an odor  from one of the young guys   That set it off .

 

I have been to hundreds of University lectures since that incident and  I never had a repeat of the flashback. 

Now there could've been something very specific that happened with the Liberal MP,  A certain posture or stance or something he said that caused her to have a flashback.  

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Misfit:

Your  concern is that she can be in one situation with Kirkland and in a  similar situation afterwards with a Liberal MP an then claim non-consensual sex.

Pardon me, but that is not my concern. I certainly agree that two similar situations could have quite different dynamics. It wasn't the 'consensual' thing that I was questioning. It was the fact that in March of 2014 Moore stated the memory of an assault she suffered as a teenager caused her to freeze, and to be overwhelmed to the point of not being able to either refuse Pacetti, or to just leave.

What I was wondering is why that same memory didn't overwhelm her in June of 2013 when she was in a very similar situation with Kirkland.

I think it's a legitimate question, and one that would probably have been asked by the people investigating the Pacetti affair, if they had known about her prior experience with Kirkland.

Because she wasn't in a similar situation with Kirkland. She did not want to have sex with Pacetti, a married man. She did want to have sex with Kirkland a sexy soldier.

Concerning the relative power position. Kirkland did not say he had sex with her because he was intimidated by her superior position or was concerned rejecting her could impact the committee findings. In my opinion the investigation will find that he didn't feel the least bit coerced and was a fully willing participant.

If the investigation finds that Kirkland was not a fully willing participant, that he had sex with her because he felt he couldn't say no, then Moore should definitely face the same outcome a man would have.

The thing is  he already stated that it was consentual. He  wanted to have sex with her and he did.

If she got his personal information, phone number and address, through her committee work, that is an abuse of power.

If he gave her the information, then she did nothing wrong by using it.

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Because she wasn't in a similar situation with Kirkland. She did not want to have sex with Pacetti, a married man. She did want to have sex with Kirkland a sexy soldier.

Concerning the relative power position. Kirkland did not say he had sex with her because he was intimidated by her superior position or was concerned rejecting her could impact the committee findings. In my opinion the investigation will find that he didn't feel the least bit coerced and was a fully willing participant.

If the investigation finds that Kirkland was not a fully willing participant, that he had sex with her because he felt he couldn't say no, then Moore should definitely face the same outcome a man would have.

The thing is  he already stated that it was consentual. He  wanted to have sex with her and he did.

If she got his personal information, phone number and address, through her committee work, that is an abuse of power.

If he gave her the information, then she did nothing wrong by using it.

From Josh in the Erin Weir thread

josh wrote:

Amazing how you'll bend over backwards to try to excuse every aspect of the allegations in the Moore matter while twisting everything in everyway possible against Weir.

Sexual Harrassment is about power, not about sex

Christine Moore as an MP has power. Cpl. Glen Kirkland doesn't.

It is that simple.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sexual Harrassment is about power, not about sex

Christine Moore as an MP has power. Cpl. Glen Kirkland doesn't.

It is that simple.

It is not that simple. If the secretary has sex with her boss because she wanted to and is hoping he will leave his wife that isn't sexual harassment. If the secretary has sex with her boss because she thinks it will impact her job negatively if she doesn't, that is sexual harassment.

Cpl. Glen Kirkland has not expressed any fear that Moore would do him any harm professionally or physically.

If Kirkland states: I had sex with her even though I didn't want to because I was drunk or because I felt intimidated then it is sexual harassment. If he had sex because he felt like having sex then there was no abuse of power.

6079_Smith_W

Entering a sexual relationship with a subordinate, even when the contact is initiated by the latter, is considered unethical by some because of the subordinate's vulnerability to the superior and the inequality of power that characterizes the relationship. In the case of the doctor-patient relationship, having a sexual relationship with the patient even after the professional relationship has concluded is considered problematic for the physician because of the potential for the patient's continuing dependence on and transference towards the physician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct

My partner is in a profession where this is strictly forbidden, as is conducting secondary business. In Ontario the rules are even stricter, and she would not be allowed to have me as a client, even though we have an established relationship.

As the wikipedia listing states, it doesn't matter if the invitation comes from the client. The breach, and the responsibility to say no is on the part of the person in authority.

 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

It is not that simple. If the secretary has sex with her boss because she wanted to and is hoping he will leave his wife that isn't sexual harassment. If the secretary has sex with her boss because she thinks it will impact her job negatively if she doesn't, that is sexual harassment.

Cpl. Glen Kirkland has not expressed any fear that Moore would do him any harm professionally or physically.

If Kirkland states: I had sex with her even though I didn't want to because I was drunk or because I felt intimidated then it is sexual harassment. If he had sex because he felt like having sex then there was no abuse of power.

and as Josh said

josh wrote:

Amazing how you'll bend over backwards to try to excuse every aspect of the allegations in the Moore matter while twisting everything in everyway possible against Weir.

If Justin Trudeau (as an MP and NOT as PM) so if MP Justin Trudeau had sex with a witness he met at committee and the witness said it totally consensual, you'd be calling for Trudeau to resign as MP. and if you deny that Pondering, you'd be lying.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Entering a sexual relationship with a subordinate, even when the contact is initiated by the latter, is considered unethical by some because of the subordinate's vulnerability to the superior and the inequality of power that characterizes the relationship. In the case of the doctor-patient relationship, having a sexual relationship with the patient even after the professional relationship has concluded is considered problematic for the physician because of the potential for the patient's continuing dependence on and transference towards the physician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct

My partner is in a profession where this is strictly forbidden, as is conducting secondary business. In Ontario the rules are even stricter, and she would not be allowed to have me as a client, even though we have an established relationship.

As the wikipedia listing states, it doesn't matter if the invitation comes from the client. The breach, and the responsibility to say no is on the part of the person in authority.

She wasn't his doctor and he was never her subordinate nor client.

Rev Pesky

From Misfit:

How about there was something that caused her to have flashbacks   When she was with the liberal MP. However, her relationship with Kirkland did not cause her to have flashbacks. 

From Pondering:

Because she wasn't in a similar situation with Kirkland. She did not want to have sex with Pacetti, a married man. She did want to have sex with Kirkland a sexy soldier.

How about she was trying to justify her behaviour with those people investigating the particular incident. Bear in mind that in the beginning when she spoke to Trudeau, she spoke as a third party (which leads one to ask whether she had the permission of the other complainant to 'out' the affair). She didn't bring up her own case until the meeting with the two party whips.

As far as not wanting to have sex with Pacetti, she went about that in a rather strange way. It was, after all, her that ended up in his hotel room, not the other way around. In fact the scenario is almost exactly the same as her and Kirkland. 

In fact, it's just as likely that they are the same scenario, with Moore as the suitor, and the other as compliant partner.

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh said he doesn’t know enough about military culture to form an opinion about whether there was a power imbalance between Moore and Kirkland, as the veteran alleges.

On the differences between Erin Weir and Christine Moore, NDP MP Charlie Angus says ”I haven’t seen Christine Moore’s side of the story,” said Mr. Angus. It was something “outside of Parliament in her private life.”

NorthReport
Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:
If Justin Trudeau (as an MP and NOT as PM) so if MP Justin Trudeau had sex with a witness he met at committee and the witness said it totally consensual, you'd be calling for Trudeau to resign as MP. and if you deny that Pondering, you'd be lying.

That isn't true and I am not lying. If he didn't take advantage of her and there is no rule against it then there would be no reason for him to resign.

I thought anti-harassment training was a good outcome and that it would have been fine for Weir to rejoin caucus. Once he claimed it was a vendetta against him it was no longer possible. To reinstate him would be to confirm there was a vendetta led by Mulcair and Angus against him. There would be no need for him to take anti-harassment training.

I think there should be a rule against fraternizing with witnesses not just having sex with them if there is some risk of undue influence in the sense of impacting a committee member's position on an issue. I don't think it is appropriate.

If, as seems the case, Moore was the one writing to the papers every couple of days and the one who released all the details on the Liberal MPs saying she didn't want them to lose their jobs or for their wives to find out she has painfully poor judgement as she was making the situation worse for them not better. I don't think people should go out of their way to "tell the wife" necessarily but neither should they go out of their way to conceal the information. At the time she was very emphatic that she didn't want to ruin their careers or marriages to the point where I questioned her fitness to be an MP without knowing who she was. I recall also faulting the NDP for not stopping her from talking to the press. She was making the situation worse all the way around for everyone concerned.

The manner in which Moore objected to Weir in the email was inappropriate. She could have phrased herself more carefully, said she had reservations, without implying that she would be unsafe alone with him. She should have expressed those reservations to leadership privately giving them a chance to investigate privately instead of on the national stage.

It's been said all along that it was a staff person that intervened not an MP. Either it wasn't a staff person or Moore isn't the complainant, but that really isn't important at this point.

I don't believe that the investigator was biased. I think the report on Weir was accurate and he confirmed that by accepting the findings and agreeing to anti-harassment training.

I don't believe that Kirkland felt in any way coerced to have sex with Moore. I think it was 100% consentual and she thought (wrong) they were starting a relationship not having a one night stand. My perception of her is that she is remarkably naive and promiscuous. Kirkland strikes me as promiscuous but not naive.

It seems Moore learned nothing from the liberal mps situation about how to handle her concerns over inappropriate behavior. Three other women did complain of behavior that was deemed to be sexual harassment. That isn't just standing too close and talking too long. I believe Moore that it was on the grapevine. She should have reported it through the proper channels not blurted it out in an email.

I think Moore has exceptionally poor judgement. It concerns me that she is an MP. I guess it is a topic for a different thread but why are these the people who become our MPs?  Can we not get smarter ones? In this day and age there is no excuse for an MP to drift anywhere close to what could be called sexual harassment. Weir should have known that he had to be careful showing sexual interest towards an employee. Better to just not do it. At most you ask for a date and shrug if you get turned down. Moore should learn to go through her party. Mulcair would have been willing to speak to Trudeau or to the men directly. He was turned down. The NDP was blindsided when she spoke to Trudeau directly. The NDP was blindsided when she sent the email. The Liberal MPs were both married men trying to get a little on the side.

None of them know how to behave with a minimum of maturely and professionally.

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh said he doesn’t know enough about military culture to form an opinion about whether there was a power imbalance between Moore and Kirkland, as the veteran alleges.

But surely he is aware that the military is under government control.  

Pondering

I hope that if the investigation clears Moore the people now condemning her admit their error. Rosie DiManno should be first in line as she did a great deal of embelishing Kirkland's words.

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

That isn't true and I am not lying. If he didn't take advantage of her and there is no rule against it then there would be no reason for him to resign.

and I don't believe for a second you'd apply the same standards to Justin Trudeau if he went to bed with a witness he met at committee.

Debater

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh said he doesn’t know enough about military culture to form an opinion about whether there was a power imbalance between Moore and Kirkland, as the veteran alleges.

On the differences between Erin Weir and Christine Moore, NDP MP Charlie Angus says ”I haven’t seen Christine Moore’s side of the story,” said Mr. Angus. It was something “outside of Parliament in her private life.”

Charlie Angus seems to be making the same mistake that Pondering is making.

It was not something “outside of Parliament in her private life.”

She pursued a romantic relationship with someone who was a witness before a Parliamentary Committee that she was a member of.  That is a professional conflict of interest.

If it's true that she also gave him alcohol in her Parliamentary office, that is also an ethical problem.  MP's should not be serving alcohol to people (particularly witnesses) in their Parliamentary offices.

Hopefully the party leaders will be stricter about these things in the future and make it clear that relationships with witnesses are not allowed and that serving alcohol in Parliamentary offices is not allowed.  No good can come of it and problems need to be prevented in the future.

Misfit Misfit's picture

MM, Pondering likes JT. Perhaps you could've found another person to use as an example.

Mighty Middle

Misfit wrote:

MM, Pondering likes JT. Perhaps you could've found another person to use as an example.

Maybe I'll use Doug Ford as a future example.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Good idea.

Rev Pesky

What is most troubling about Moore is the fact that in two of the three cases she was involved in, she was a third party. In the Weir case, it was his emailed request to become House leader that set her off. Where she claimed to have information form others as to his unsuitablility for the position. That is what started the investigation. We don't know, nor will we ever, whether the three confirmed cases against Weir were the cases she was talking about.

In the Pacetti case, Moore first complained to Trudeau, not about her interlude with Pacetti, but about a third party who may or may not have given her the right to out the story. It wasn't until later that she brought forward her story of her night with Pacetti.

She was ever ready to bring forward complaints about others, while her own behaviour with Kirkland, which was highly unprofessional, was apparently okay. 

As Kirkland said, it was very ironic that Moore raised the allegations against Weir because "she took it upon herself to be an ethical warrior in this, and I believe she has no place being there."

 

Unionist

Moore supposedly knew about victims of Weir. Instead of filing a complaint confidentially, she sent an email to all NDP MPs, which instantly became public, saying how she'd be afraid to be in the same room with him. On those two grounds alone, she should be investigated and if found responsible (as it would appear from information that is already public), action should be taken against her. As for her tryst with some good-looking guy in uniform... pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As he pointed out, she didn't rape him.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Moore supposedly knew about victims of Weir. Instead of filing a complaint confidentially, she sent an email to all NDP MPs, which instantly became public, saying how she'd be afraid to be in the same room with him. On those two grounds alone, she should be investigated and if found responsible (as it would appear from information that is already public), action should be taken against her. As for her tryst with some good-looking guy in uniform... pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As he pointed out, she didn't rape him.

I don't know what should or shouldn't be done about it but I also have a problem with Moore saying she would be  afraid to be in a room alone with him in an open email. Nothing in the report suggests he was a physical threat to anyone. I do believe he is minimizing to the degree of denial. But I also think that Moore has behaved inappropriately in the manner she brought the complaints forward and it was exagerated to suggest women should fear being alone with him.

Debater

Unionist wrote:

Moore supposedly knew about victims of Weir. Instead of filing a complaint confidentially, she sent an email to all NDP MPs, which instantly became public, saying how she'd be afraid to be in the same room with him. On those two grounds alone, she should be investigated and if found responsible (as it would appear from information that is already public), action should be taken against her. As for her tryst with some good-looking guy in uniform... pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As he pointed out, she didn't rape him.

As has been explained, MP's should not be pursuing a romantic relationship with a witness who is appearing before a Parliamentary Committee that the MP is a member of.  That is unethical and a conflict of interest.

It is also not acceptable for an MP to be serving alcohol to a witness in her Parliament Hill office.

Such factors are bound to lead to trouble, as they did in this case.

Rev Pesky

From Unionist:

As for her tryst with some good-looking guy in uniform... pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As he pointed out, she didn't rape him.

This is not to say I disagree with the above statement, but what does it sound like when we change it slightly to reflect the Moore/Pacetti tryst.

As for his tryst with some good-looking NDP MP, pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As she pointed out, he didn't rape her.

Unionist

Debater wrote:

As has been explained, MP's should not be pursuing a romantic relationship with a witness who is appearing before a Parliamentary Committee that the MP is a member of.  That is unethical and a conflict of interest.

It is also not acceptable for an MP to be serving alcohol to a witness in her Parliament Hill office.

Honestly, Debater: Do you believe the two sins you mentioned (which I have difficulty taking seriously - not being a Victorian) are comparable to the ones I mentioned? To remind you: 1) Alleging she has heard stories of harassment, and never reporting the information through appropriate channels. 2) Disclosing the information broadly, in a way that guaranteed it would become public, only in response to Weir's expression of interest in becoming caucus chair. 3) In doing so, making an outrageous public slanderous claim against Weir (that she wouldn't want to be alone with him in the same room), notwithstanding that she herself had never experienced any impropriety from Weir, and had never troubled herself to report the impropriety allegedly suffered by survivors?

I repeat: The MP and the dude in uniform - who cares? For the real sins, she should be shown the locked door, from the other side. Her shitty email would have gotten her fired from any workplace. But apparently, MPs can do whatever they like, so long as they are useful to the secret inner-party elite. Thankfully, it appears that Moore's usefulness may be diminshing.

R.E.Wood

NDP MP Moore has thankfully painted herself into a corner

NDP MP Christine Moore has painted herself into an ideological corner with the rules she expects men to follow when it comes to sexuality. As a result, she has destroyed several political careers — and, at last, hopefully she has inadvertently impaled her own.

On the one hand, Moore expects men to pick up on women’s “non-verbal cues,” and on the other, to completely disregard all non-verbal cues and only pay attention to “explicit verbal consent.”

... Absurdly, despite the minor nature of these complaints — initiated by Moore — Weir has been kicked out of caucus for, essentially, disagreeing with the report findings and defending his reputation.

.. So, according to Moore, the above-mentioned, close-talking Weir should have been able to pick up on “non-verbal cues”; but when she pulled a condom out of her handbag during foreplay at 2 a.m. in a man’s hotel room, that “non-verbal cue” should have been ignored.

If you’re gobsmacked by the absurdity of all of this, then welcome to the real world.

Hopefully, if Moore is not permanently kicked out of the NDP caucus, then perhaps the citizens in her Quebec riding of Abitibi-Temiscamingue will send her a non-verbal cue during the next federal election, and vote for someone else.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/corbella-ndp-mp-moore-has-thankfu...

R.E.Wood

Christine Moore could be in for a lesson about karma

Social justice activist, self-appointed moral arbiter and Quebec NDP MP Christine Moore is about to learn something of the old idiom about living in glass houses and throwing stones.

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/gormley-ndp-woes-and-tv-sta...

 

josh

Didn't the NDP say they were going to release portions of the "Weir report"? 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Unionist:

As for her tryst with some good-looking guy in uniform... pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As he pointed out, she didn't rape him.

This is not to say I disagree with the above statement, but what does it sound like when we change it slightly to reflect the Moore/Pacetti tryst.

As for his tryst with some good-looking NDP MP, pardon me for saying so, but who really gives a shit? As she pointed out, he didn't rape her.

I believe she stated that at one point he blocked her from leaving, that she was reluctant. I don't remember the details and don't want to go hunting.

Kirkland is not expressing any reluctance at all in what happened. The sex was consentual. Apparently they walked to his hotel together. His sole point is what he considers their relative power positions. He is not claiming to have felt intimidated or taken advantage of at the time. It sounds like a one night stand that she thought was more.

Kirkland said he came forward because of Weir, not because he had felt sexually harassed or victimized. He just thinks the optics are wrong. He even said if a woman were in the same situation the MP would be condemned but that isn't true unless the woman was unwilling and felt intimidated. Kirkland said she "followed him" back to the hotel without invitation. He didn't say she was unwelcome. He even said it was consentual. To me he is trying to make it look like something it wasn't.

I agree MPs shouldn't be having drinks and sex with witnesses. I think parliament should be alcohol free. I think they all need consent training like college students. I find all the behavior incredibly immature for people who have been granted the power to make our laws.

Moore didn't make up what she heard on the grapevine and she did the right thing to come forward with it. The problem is the manner in which she did it. In both cases it was blurted out impulsively in such a way as to make it immediately public.

The Liberals/Trudeau handled it pretty much perfectly. They only made three statements as I recall. To announce the suspensions, the investigation, and the outcome of the investigation. The public circus was wholely caused by the NDP victim. Trudeau had no choice but to act quickly.

I think Singh is handling it well too. If Moore had not, yet again, felt the need to explain herself through the press, everything would have been fine. I think Weir was wrong to react as he did. I think every time he opened his mouth he made his own situation worse. That's not on Moore. Both their reputations are damaged.

The manner in which this came to light is problematic but that does not mean the men are innocent.Weir claims all he did was talk a little too long and a little too close. I don't believe a lawyer would define that as sexual harassment. It isn't just being a little socially awkward.

 

josh

Then release the evidence.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky,

christine Moore said that she did not give her consent when she was with Pacetti.her non-consensual encounter likely did not register high on the trauma scale  but she did say that it was non-consensual   And that it did bring back flashbacks from an encounter that she had with a man when she was a teenager. 

I don't think it is healthy or wise to claim that she was not raped.  I was not there, and you were not there. You don't know what happened and all we have to go by is what she said. 

 You are free to not believe her story and you are free to question  some of the details pertaining to the case. But it is not OK to make a claim that she was not raped.

your glib statement like "who cares she was not raped." trivializes violence against women. 

I do believe that Christian Moore had a relationship with Pacetti  and that she felt pressured into having sex with him   And that this experience had a negative impact on her life. 

Again, You don't have to believe her story and that is your choice, but it is not up to you to say that she was not raped.

Rev Pesky

From Misfit:

Again, You don't have to believe her story and that is your choice, but it is not up to you to say that she was not raped.

What she said, specifically, was that she did not give her 'explicit​​' consent. If, in fact she had claimed she was raped, that would have been a matter for the police, and would have been referred to the police when it becames known to the two party whips. Not to do so would be obstruction, and I really doubt either party whip would have consented to such an obstruction.

​So where does that leave us? Either there was a rape, and the investigation was turned over to the police, or there wasn't, and the problem was dealt with by the party whips. To suggest the party whips knew of a rape, and became accessories by withholding that information is just too much for me to accept

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Misfit:

Again, You don't have to believe her story and that is your choice, but it is not up to you to say that she was not raped.

What she said, specifically, was that she did not give her 'explicit​​' consent. If, in fact she had claimed she was raped, that would have been a matter for the police, and would have been referred to the police when it becames known to the two party whips. Not to do so would be obstruction, and I really doubt either party whip would have consented to such an obstruction.

​So where does that leave us? Either there was a rape, and the investigation was turned over to the police, or there wasn't, and the problem was dealt with by the party whips. To suggest the party whips knew of a rape, and became accessories by withholding that information is just too much for me to accept

I think you are off base. Most rapes do not get reported to police. Whether or not it was technically rape she was not expecting him to come on to her. I don't remember all of the details but she definitely felt coerced. He was a married man. He had no reason to believe she would want sex with him.

Knowing about and not reporting a rape is not illegal.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
He was a married man.

Uh, so?

Quote:
He had no reason to believe she would want sex with him.

Uh, so?

If she said "no" to him or whatever then that's salient.  But the fact that he was married is a non sequitur, and whether he judged himself worthy or not is also a non sequitur.

People aren't supposed to just "know" that they're "out of their league".  How gross is that??

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
He was a married man.

Uh, so?

Quote:
He had no reason to believe she would want sex with him.

Uh, so?

If she said "no" to him or whatever then that's salient.  But the fact that he was married is a non sequitur, and whether he judged himself worthy or not is also a non sequitur.

People aren't supposed to just "know" that they're "out of their league".  How gross is that??

Being married has nothing to do with "league".  She went to his room to talk. They did not have a prior sexual relationship. There was no reason for him to assume she wanted sex. She did try to leave and he pulled her onto the bed.  Unless he had an open marriage he wasn't available for a relationship.

Pogo Pogo's picture

 A witness to a committee would be the almost the lowest level of workplace conflict, just above a spectator in the gallery.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Being married has nothing to do with "league".  She went to his room to talk. They did not have a prior sexual relationship. There was no reason for him to assume she wanted sex.

Oh, is that how it works?  If someone hasn't already had sex with you then there's no reason to imagine they might want to have sex with you?

Quote:
Unless he had an open marriage he wasn't available for a relationship.

Really?  Is that a law or something?  Tell us as quickly as you can, because I think a lot of married people still seem to  feel autonomous in that regard, and if they're not then the sooner they know, the better.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

I think you are off base. Most rapes do not get reported to police.

This is almost funny. You're the Liberal party whip, and you're in a room with the NDP whip and two complainants, one of which accuses a Liberal MP of rape.

You would be insane not to report that to the police. Just think of the way the decision to ignore the accusation could come back and haunt you. 

In fact the instant that crime was mentioned, the two party whips should have ended the meeting, got on the blower to their respective lawyers, and suggested that Moore, at least, contact her own lawyer. I can't imagine how anyone with even a teeny tiny brain in their head could think that an accusation of rape could just be tossed out there, then ignored.

Which leads me to believe that there wasn't an accusation of rape. In fact, the specific wording Moore used was, 'I didn't give my explicit consent'. The reason for that was she was too overwhelmed by the memory of her experience as a teenager. So overwhelmed that she dug into her purse and brought out a condom and handed it over to Pacetti.

And the business about him preventing her from leaving. In Moore's own description of the events, she said Pacetti 'made his desire clear' (which could be pulling her down on the bed), whereupon she went to the bathroom. It was after she returned from the bathroom that they had sex. So it's clear he wasn't holding her down on the bed. If she could go the bathroom, she probably had enough freedom to leave the room.

You know the old saying, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night...

Debater

Pondering wrote:

I agree MPs shouldn't be having drinks and sex with witnesses. I think parliament should be alcohol free. I think they all need consent training like college students. I find all the behavior incredibly immature for people who have been granted the power to make our laws.

On this we agree, Pondering.

MPs should not be pursuing a romantic relationship with a witness who is testifying before their Parliamentary Committee that they are a member of.  Particularly when that witness is a wounded veteran giving emotional testimony who may be in a vulnerable condition.

And MPs should also not be serving alcohol to a witness in their Parliament Hill office.  This is bound to lead to trouble, as it did in this case.

Unionist is a good person, but I'm surprised he doesn't see the conflict of interest that this MP has gotten herself into.

As for Erin Weir, there's probably no point in people asking him to be reinstated.  Singh has made it pretty clear that will not be happening.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
 This is almost funny. You're the Liberal party whip, and you're in a room with the NDP whip and two complainants, one of which accuses a Liberal MP of rape. 

Whether or not to report to police is left up to the victim. As I said, I don't care if you call it rape or not. She didn't want to have sex with Moore. As an adult, she should have handled the entire situation differently. She was stupid not to foresee that after an evening of drinking he was interested in more than political discussion or just hanging out in his room. As a married adult, Pacetti had no business having sex with anyone other than his wife and he should have been smarter about cheating on her. Choosing a young MP from another party that had not given him any indication of sexual interest was stupid. Yeah I know married people break their vows all the time. That doesn't make it right. I'm in bunch that thinks you should end your marriage first. 

I do think there is going to be a massive reduction in sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior in general. 

For a long time I agreed that a politician's private life had no bearing on their professional life. If man cheated on his wife that was his business. I've changed my mind. Lying, cheating and stealing in someone's private life shows poor judgement. 

Unionist

Debater wrote:

MPs should not be pursuing a romantic relationship with a witness who is testifying before their Parliamentary Committee that they are a member of.  Particularly when that witness is a wounded veteran giving emotional testimony who may be in a vulnerable condition.

And MPs should also not be serving alcohol to a witness in their Parliament Hill office.  This is bound to lead to trouble, as it did in this case.

Unionist is a good person, but I'm surprised he doesn't see the conflict of interest that this MP has gotten herself into.

Debater, I do see the problem, I do see the conflict of interest, I agree with you. If you re-read what I said, I never suggested this was not a problem. What I suggested - and I repeat - is that it's so minor and personal that it can be dealt with without media headlines and babble debates. That's my opinion, anyway.

Christine Moore's improper and toxic email is another matter. Likewise with Erin Weir's expulsion from caucus and the potential irreparable damage to his career by means of pure innuendo, from the mouth of the party leader. These are disturbing matters of public interest and concern. I asked for your opinion as to the relative importance of all these "sins". Because I always value your assessments, I repeat my request.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Debater wrote:

MPs should not be pursuing a romantic relationship with a witness who is testifying before their Parliamentary Committee that they are a member of.  Particularly when that witness is a wounded veteran giving emotional testimony who may be in a vulnerable condition.

And MPs should also not be serving alcohol to a witness in their Parliament Hill office.  This is bound to lead to trouble, as it did in this case.

Unionist is a good person, but I'm surprised he doesn't see the conflict of interest that this MP has gotten herself into.

Debater, I do see the problem, I do see the conflict of interest, I agree with you. If you re-read what I said, I never suggested this was not a problem. What I suggested - and I repeat - is that it's so minor and personal that it can be dealt with without media headlines and babble debates. That's my opinion, anyway.

Christine Moore's improper and toxic email is another matter. Likewise with Erin Weir's expulsion from caucus and the potential irreparable damage to his career by means of pure innuendo, from the mouth of the party leader. These are disturbing matters of public interest and concern. I asked for your opinion as to the relative importance of all these "sins". Because I always value your assessments, I repeat my request.

Three substanciated charges of sexual harassment is more than inuendo and that wasn't why he was expelled. He was expelled for releasing information and publically rejecting aspects of the report he had previously agreed with. 

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

She didn't want to have sex with Moore.

I disagree with everything you say on this subject, but that little gem needs to be called out. 

She GAVE HIM THE CONDOM. There isn't a clearer non-verbal cue than that.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here's a hypothetical situation. A man corners a woman down a deserted back alley. He pulls a gun to her head and says, "You either have sex with me or I'll kill you."

She pauses for a moment, ruffles through her purse, pulls out a condom and asks, "will you at least use this?"

so in this situation, did she consent to having sex because she gave him a condom to use?

You were not with Christine Moore and Pacetti in that hotel room. You don't know what went on leading up to the sexual act nor what she was faced with.

simply giving a condom to a man does not necessarily mean that consent was given. You were not there and you do not know another person's reaction to the situation and what they would do when the feel cornered and trapped.

You simply do not know.

it is not wise to say that someone consented to a bad situation when they said that they did not fully consent.

you cannot override another person's consent. It is a way of trivializing violence against women and negating the traumatic impact that violence has on women's lives. It is denying their story and denying what they say happened to them.

and if the roles were reversed I doubt that you would like others who were not there to redefine what happened to you. Trivialized your pain and denied that what you said happened to you actually did happen.

when it comes to issues of violence, all of a sudden the men have reputations that are being destroyed and women somehow have no reputations. They are nothing more than lying deceitful destroyers of men's reputations.

yes, strong empathy for those who hurt others and nothing but vile condemnation for the women who have to learn to survive the violence.

evert minute detail of the woman's actions falls under careful scrutiny to find a flaw in her decision making process, yet men are not responsible for the things they do. We don't want to hold them accountable for their actions.

you were not there but yet you know. Wow!

pietro_bcc

I'd be interested to see how many other times she's abused her power in this way in her 7 or so years as an MP, the powerful rarely stop at one.

Perhaps my favorite quote from Jimmy Dore is "The silent sinners always scream the loudest. So whenever I see somebody in public moralizing, I know that guy is doing something with his penis he feels bad about."

Christine Moore has held true to this quote like so many others (minus the penis.) Always be suspicious of those who mug for the camera to prove how "woke" they are on the left of the political spectrum or how moral they are for those on the right.

Badriya

Misfit wrote:

Here's a hypothetical situation. A man corners a woman down a deserted back alley. He pulls a gun to her head and says, "You either have sex with me or I'll kill you."

She pauses for a moment, ruffles through her purse, pulls out a condom and asks, "will you at least use this?"

so in this situation, did she consent to having sex because she gave him a condom to use?

You were not with Christine Moore and Pacetti in that hotel room. You don't know what went on leading up to the sexual act nor what she was faced with.

simply giving a condom to a man does not necessarily mean that consent was given. You were not there and you do not know another person's reaction to the situation and what they would do when the feel cornered and trapped.

You simply do not know.

it is not wise to say that someone consented to a bad situation when they said that they did not fully consent.

you cannot override another person's consent. It is a way of trivializing violence against women and negating the traumatic impact that violence has on women's lives. It is denying their story and denying what they say happened to them.

and if the roles were reversed I doubt that you would like others who were not there to redefine what happened to you. Trivialized your pain and denied that what you said happened to you actually did happen.

when it comes to issues of violence, all of a sudden the men have reputations that are being destroyed and women somehow have no reputations. They are nothing more than lying deceitful destroyers of men's reputations.

yes, strong empathy for those who hurt others and nothing but vile condemnation for the women who have to learn to survive the violence.

evert minute detail of the woman's actions falls under careful scrutiny to find a flaw in her decision making process, yet men are not responsible for the things they do. We don't want to hold them accountable for their actions.

you were not there but yet you know. Wow!

Here is a report of what Moore said happened.

https://www.cp24.com/news/new-details-surface-about-harassment-allegatio...

Pages