Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:
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.

But will you believe it when the investigation shows zero?  Kirkland is trying to play "but if I was a woman." But he isn't a woman. He did not feel intimidated by Moore. He gave her his contact information. He wanted to have sex with her and he did.

As you noted, and I have noted before, the  powerful rarely stop at one.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

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. ...

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. 

As far as Moore not wanting to have sex with Pacetti, you don't know that. You know what she said many months after the fact. The fact is the scenario with Pacetti is eerily similar to the scenario with Kirkland. The drinks, the going to the hotel room, the having of sex while in an alcoholic haze. Remember, the scenario with Kirkland was prior to, by several months, the scenario with Pacetti. It wasn't as if she didn't know that following someone to their hotel room at 2 am as entirely innocent. As far as Moore not showing any interest in Pacetti, that is another think you do not know.

There is also a revealing statement from Moore in the article that was posted a couple of posts upthread. I'll quote it:

Is she alleging rape then? The MP said she's no expert in criminology, and so doesn't want to put a legal label on it.

I honestly don't believe you need a degree in criminology to understand what rape is. But this confirms that she didn't tell the two party whips that she had been raped.

Unionist

Unbelievable speculation about incidents by people who weren't present, didn't read any reports, didn't interview any participants. It's all based on, "I'm siding with Moore, so here's what I think happened - I'm against Moore, so..." It's really shameful to have discussion this way.

I'm sticking to what I know Moore did, because it's public, and there are no "two sides" to the story. 1) Her failure to report second-hand reports of wrondoing through the proper channels. 2) Her first raising that issue through a broad email bound to go public. 3) Her ugly charge against Weir, that she would be afraid to be in the same room with him - not based on her own experience, but on hearsay - and making the charge publicly rather than reporting it for investigation.

For all this, she should be turfed. For the tryst with the soldier? Their private business, other than the possible matters of public interest such as "conflict of interest" and proper protocol in dealing with committee witnesses.

But babblers re-telling bedroom incidents based on speculation and inference? Am I the only one who thinks that's out of bounds?

Debater

Unionist, I agree that people need to be careful in speculating about bedroom incidents.

It goes to show how very difficult sexual harassment cases are, because often no one but the participants really knows what happened.

I think the reason this is happening is because Christine Moore has become involved in multiple incidents now involving several different MPs.  This has also led to a whole series of critical columns over this past week by Christie Blatchford, Licia Corbella, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy, etc on this whole subject.

I'm not sure what can be done about it or how it can be resolved.

We will have to wait & see what the new investigator discovers.

Paladin1

 

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.

In my experience as a constant reciepient of this type of training, a witness and observer with cases and supervisor that teaches and deals with it I'm very confident saying that 99% of the time the tyransgressors know what their doing is wrong and just don't give a shit. They feel the rules don't apply to them. It's a very strage disconnect to see someone "get training" on this type of stuff then turn around and do it a week later. I think leaders (which I include politicians) in piticular  feel they're above the law.

 

I haven't really been following this story too closely but I totally get why people are making a big deal about it not just because of the uncommon situation but because of Mrs Moore's issues (and fall out) from those other MPs. 

 

 

 

Pondering

Moore was very explicit and detailed in her sharing of what happened with Pacetti. I don't believe she lied because her account put her in a bad light.

I really don't care if you label it rape or not. His behavior rose to the level of misconduct unacceptable for an MP associated with the Liberal party.

Debater

New interview with Libby Davies:

Singh finds himself in ‘a really tough situation’

https://globalnews.ca/news/4202946/libby-davies-ndp-jagmeet-singh/

Unionist

Debater wrote:

New interview with Libby Davies:

Singh finds himself in ‘a really tough situation’

https://globalnews.ca/news/4202946/libby-davies-ndp-jagmeet-singh/

I wish I hadn't listened to that.

How sad that Libby Davies, one of my heroes, has had nothing substantive to say about anything for the past 8 years, ever since Tom Mulcair bullied her into submission, forced her to apologize, and Jack Layton shamefully "apologized" to the Israeli ambassador for her remarks. She has never said a word about Israel since, nor can I recall a single courageous or controversial statement about anything. I don't know how exactly it happened, but it happened, no question. I do know that she retained her deputy leader position, despite Zionist calls for her head.

Sadly, her refusal to say anything of substance obviously extends into her retirement. The Israel-worshipping of Layton and Mulcair appear to have had long-lasting effects.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

I really don't care if you label it rape or not. His behavior rose to the level of misconduct unacceptable for an MP associated with the Liberal party.

One does wonder why Moore didn't call it rape, when what she described was sex without consent. That, I think, in most books qualifies as rape.

As per Unionist above, I agree we don't know for sure what may have happened with Moore and Pacetti. However, we do know that Moore approached Trudeau and informed him, not of her tryst with Pacetti, but of some other person's problem with another Liberal MP. Moore didn't even bring up her circumstance until a meeting with the two party whips. And that definitely fits in with her penchant for publicising such things as a third party.

Pondering

I think if something is on the grapevine it should be reported and investigated. Moore did the right thing. She just didn't do it the right way.

6079_Smith_W

Davies I can understand, sort of. But why didn't the interviewer ask the obvious question, if they already strayed into the issue of how hard it is for Singh?

Even odder that Davies would suggest this being looked after by the board of internal economy, which has already been used in partisan ways, so much to that the NDP has taken them to court. I'm sure they'd be rubbing their hands at the prospect of having this kind of material to put the screws to minority parties

If it is a workplace issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction, no? If a complaint is serious enough that a party can't deal with it internally should it not go there, or to the police? I think she hasn't quite thought that one through.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

I think if something is on the grapevine it should be reported and investigated. Moore did the right thing.

Moore's own words:

The woman, who spoke at length to The Canadian Press on Tuesday, also explained that she doesn't want to reveal her name or go to police out of concern for the long-term impact it will have on her life and that of her family.

"It's not a question of shame. From the moment your name goes public, and the way the media works today, you'll never get out of it," said the NDP MP.

"Maybe years from now, if I have children, they're going to find that on the Internet and I will have to talk to them about it. Revealing your name means losing complete control over when you'll have to deal with the subject again."​

Pity she didn't think of that before she sent the mass emailing about Erin Weir.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If it is a workplace issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction, no?

If it involves an employee of Parliament, or of an MP, it falls under a very special jurisdiction called the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

Quote:
If a complaint is serious enough that a party can't deal with it internally should it not go there, or to the police? I think she hasn't quite thought that one through.

Sexual assault is a criminal offence - you call the police. Though we all understand the roadblocks for victims and survivors. They may seek out other channels, or not at all unfortunately. The one channel no one seeks out is having some Christine Moore character doing her public smear jobs, and allowing identification of victims who may not welcome that.

Moore needs to be gone, very fast. There really is no need to wait for an investigation into her soldier-boy jaunt.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

I think if something is on the grapevine it should be reported and investigated. Moore did the right thing.

Moore's own words:

The woman, who spoke at length to The Canadian Press on Tuesday, also explained that she doesn't want to reveal her name or go to police out of concern for the long-term impact it will have on her life and that of her family.

"It's not a question of shame. From the moment your name goes public, and the way the media works today, you'll never get out of it," said the NDP MP.

"Maybe years from now, if I have children, they're going to find that on the Internet and I will have to talk to them about it. Revealing your name means losing complete control over when you'll have to deal with the subject again."​

Pity she didn't think of that before she sent the mass emailing about Erin Weir.

What Rev Pesky said.

Mighty Middle

Christine Moore announces that she will file a defamation lawsuit against Glen Kirkland, as well as columnists Neil Macdonald, Christie Blatchford and Rosie DiManno, who reported on the matter.

http://www.timescolonist.com/christine-moore-denies-sexual-misconduct-pl...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
All three men were expelled from their respective caucuses following the investigations.

"My private life was exposed" she said. "My sex life was exposed. It was hard for me. It was hard for my family...for everyone around me."

I'm sure it must suck to be publicly accused of something gross.  BUT HOW IS SHE NOT MAKING A CONNECTION??

If she were a Conservative, I'd be baking a "middle finger" shaped cake, and eating it no-hands.  The only downside here is that it's NDP vs. NDP, so everyone else wins.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks Unionist.

Though she said the board of internal economy, which is what raised my eyebrows.

Odd that they keep that in-house rather than going by provincial regulations. In fact, that raises the question of what their rule book is.

And yes, I agree about the seriousness. To my mind it would only be a party issue insofar as it concerns a members' suitability to remain in caucus. Anything serious enough to be a workplace, discrimination or criminal issue and you'd think they have a duty to turn it over to the proper authorities.

Another thing which makes their whole process seem odd.

(edit)

And gee, that escalated fast.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
All three men were expelled from their respective caucuses following the investigations.

"My private life was exposed" she said. "My sex life was exposed. It was hard for me. It was hard for my family...for everyone around me."

I'm sure it must suck to be publicly accused of something gross.  BUT HOW IS SHE NOT MAKING A CONNECTION??

If she were a Conservative, I'd be baking a "middle finger" shaped cake, and eating it no-hands.  The only downside here is that it's NDP vs. NDP, so everyone else wins.

Well, I guess that, unlike for example with her e-mail about Weir, where her claims, while rather vague and second-hand, still went undisputed, in this case she's saying that outright false allegations were made.

Though I assume her lawyer is telling her that if she wants to win, she's gonna have to show that there really WERE false allegations made, and that it won't be enough just to say "My private life was exposed!" (Or at least I think I've got that right; can you sue in Canada just because your private life was written about in the media, even if no one disputes that the statements were true?)

Rev Pesky

From Voice of the Damned:

Well, I guess that, unlike for example with her e-mail about Weir, where her claims, while rather vague and second-hand, still went undisputed,

But how is one to disupute claims that you don't know what they are, and where they're from. If someone in your workplace sends everyone an email saying tha they've heard people have been uncomfortable around you, what do you do? That is a problem with hearsay, and especially a problem with anonymous hearsay.

I think it's worth adding that if you looked hard enough, you could probably find three people that were uncomfortable around any given person. 

Remember, in Weir's case, he was tossed from caucus not becuase of the 'substantiated' allegations against him. He was tossed  because he talked about it afterwards. Really, he was in a situation where there was no winning.

Perhaps he should have done what Moore is doing, that is, suing all and sundry. As it is, he played nice, accepted all that was done to him, and what did that buy him? A permanent position as a guy who lost his job because of sexual harrassment.

robbie_dee

voice of the damned wrote:

Though I assume her lawyer is telling her that if she wants to win, she's gonna have to show that there really WERE false allegations made, and that it won't be enough just to say "My private life was exposed!" (Or at least I think I've got that right; can you sue in Canada just because your private life was written about in the media, even if no one disputes that the statements were true?)

there is apparently a tort of Public Disclosure of Private Facts recognized in Ontario, if that’s where she decides to sue.

http://www.slaw.ca/2016/01/31/yet-another-privacy-tort-comes-to-ontario/

 I’d have to think there would be a pretty strong public interest defense here given she’s a public figure and was in the middle of exposing several other people’s “dirty laundry” before anyone spilled the beans on her, but I guess we may find out.

Rev Pesky

Given that at least some of the 'private facts' were in fact very public, I doubt she has much of a case. For instance, if Kirkland had divulged some details of their sexual tryst perhaps that would be considered a 'private fact'. But her meeting him in a hotel, meeting him on a golf course where he is with his friends, and her showing up at his front door are hardly private. 

Perhaps if you have a communication with someone using means that are normally considered 'private' (telephone conversation, say) the divulging of that conversation might be actionable. But if you have the same conversation in a coffeeshop it seems to me that wouldn't be considered private.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pity she didn't think of that before she sent the mass emailing about Erin Weir.

I said she did  the right thing the wrong way. I would hate for this to make it less likely that grapevine information will be reported.

Badriya

Ms. Moore plans to sue for defamation.  She is suing Kirkwood, as well as Neil MacDonald, Christie Blantchford and Rosie Dimanno.  The following details how journalists can defend themselves against accusations of defamation.  I'm not a lawyer, but I don`t think she has much of a case according to Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.

There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libel_and_slander_what_are_my_rights_to_...

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pity she didn't think of that before she sent the mass emailing about Erin Weir.

I said she did  the right thing the wrong way. I would hate for this to make it less likely that grapevine information will be reported.

In the Erin Weir case, Moore never "reported" anything - nor did the people she was giving second-hand information about, as far as I can determine. That's precisely how all the damage was done. All she had to do was report her second-hand information. Instead she did her keyboard warrior grandstanding. That's why she needs to be dumped. Simultaneously, effective support systems need to instituted, or strengthened, so that victims/survivors will have confidence that they have a better way to resolve issues than waiting for the grapevine to reach another Christine Moore.

Oh, and could someone contact her legal team and please ask them to add my name to the lawsuit? Details available on request. I'm saying terrible things about her, no? But certainly nothing private. The whole world has witnessed her antics by now.

Pondering

She is doing the right thing. I said in this very thread that the editorialists were embelishing. Also that Kirkland's wording was suspect. She offered him drinks but there was no discussion concerning his medication. He was just aware that she is or was a registered nurse. She didn't "follow" him back to is hotel room. They walked together. He wanted to have sex with her and did. She says they had a 4 and half month relationship. He just left out a whole lot to make it sound like she was stalking him. He didn't feel the least bit intimidated by her power.

I bet Moore's lawsuits will be official before any of the men's. Certainly before the Liberal MPs. Weir still has a chance to get the ball rolling before Moore. Let's see if he does.

Won't you enjoy seeing  the editorialists have to retract or face lawsuits? They are going to try to blame it all on Kirkland but they embelished to try to equate her behavior to the behavior of men.

One of the articles proclaimed it was power not sex that lead to exploitation using Moore as an example. It was perposterous.

Moore's manner of reporting is awful but she was being truthful. Kirkland is not  truthful. He is easy to see through. Weir is also easy to see through.

Pondering

I don't think they can use any of those defenses. They should have been listening more carefully to what Kirkland did and didn't say.

Martin N.

In the real world, women do not go to men's hotel rooms alone. Meetings are held in public places. Christine Moore and women like her are the reason men need to carefully assess any private associations, especially those where stimulants are involved.

Moore may simply be socially awkward but the carnage in her wake is ample evidence that anyone in public life must be cautious mixing public and private lives.

josh

robbie_dee wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Though I assume her lawyer is telling her that if she wants to win, she's gonna have to show that there really WERE false allegations made, and that it won't be enough just to say "My private life was exposed!" (Or at least I think I've got that right; can you sue in Canada just because your private life was written about in the media, even if no one disputes that the statements were true?)

there is apparently a tort of Public Disclosure of Private Facts recognized in Ontario, if that’s where she decides to sue.

http://www.slaw.ca/2016/01/31/yet-another-privacy-tort-comes-to-ontario/

 I’d have to think there would be a pretty strong public interest defense here given she’s a public figure and was in the middle of exposing several other people’s “dirty laundry” before anyone spilled the beans on her, but I guess we may find out.

And I think there's the generally recognized, "that takes a lot of chutzpah," defense.

Unionist

josh wrote:

And I think there's the generally recognized, "that takes a lot of chutzpah," defense.

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

I don't think they can use any of those defenses. They should have been listening more carefully to what Kirkland did and didn't say.

Again, I am no lawyer, but I think that these points could be applicable in this case.

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

As to your point that they “should have been listening more carefully, both the CBC and the Star contacted Ms. Moore after speaking with Kirkland.

Neil MacDonald “sent a list of questions to Moore, asking whether her behaviour with Kirkland meets the strict standard set by Singh when he expelled Weir from caucus. She replied that she would prefer to wait a couple of days to discuss the matter.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-says-he-always-believes-sur...

“Moore did not respond to an emailed interview request from the Star.” https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/09/christine-moo...

Mighty Middle

Martin N. wrote:

In the real world, women do not go to men's hotel rooms alone.

Harvey Weinstein allegedly (I use that word because it has not been proven in a court of law) raped half-dozen women by inviting them into his hotel room for a meeting.

Pondering

The complaints were substanciated as sexual harassment not just standing too close or talking too long. Weir had a chance to read the descriptions of events. 

The investigator wasn't looking for people who felt uncomfortable around him. Investigating any man does not turn up accounts of sexual harassment. 

Weir was not in a no win situation. Had he not gone to the press he would be in caucus right now. There was no need for him or anyone else to speak to the press about it. Even when he talks about the event he says he wasn't angry and belligerent then explains why he was justifiably. 

Weir can still sue now. He should do so if he feels his reputation was unfairly damaged. 

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

Moore's manner of reporting is awful but she was being truthful. Kirkland is not  truthful. He is easy to see through. Weir is also easy to see through.

Pondering, with your amazing X-Ray, truth-detecting vision I'm surprised the entire court system of Canada doesn't just pack up and appoint you judge & jury in all cases. For that matter, since you know everything about everything, and your opinions are clearly superior to everyone else's, we should just appoint you Grand Supreme Leader of Canada and let you govern the country as well as handling the justice system. Your ominscience and omnipotence are limitless and should be revered by all.

That said, I believe Moore's victims: Weir and Kirkland.

JeffWells

I wonder how many times a day Singh wishes he'd stayed in provincial politics.

Mighty Middle

DP

robbie_dee

JeffWells wrote:

I wonder how many times a day Singh wishes he'd stayed in provincial politics.

All the more reason for Singh to take the plunge and run in the forthcoming Burnaby South byelection. If he wins he can change the channel on some of these issues, if he loses he can quit and go look for something else to do. Who knows, if the NDP forms government maybe Horwath would appoint him to something. Maybe even that his brother (assuming Gurratan wins the seat) will step aside and let him return to the Ontario legislature?

I do have to say this, though. I am a longtime New Democrat and I supported Jagmeet for leader both financially and with my vote. I'm still rooting for him, despite the mistakes that he's made. But if, as of the time the writ drops in any such byelection, Christine Moore is not out of caucus and Erin Weir is not at least on his way back in, I would seriously consider writing a substantial cheque to Jagmeet's Liberal opponent. What's happened here so far is not acceptable.

Mighty Middle

robbie_dee wrote:

 But if, as of the time the writ drops in any such byelection, Christine Moore is not out of caucus and Erin Weir is not at least on his way back in, I would seriously consider writing a substantial cheque to Jagmeet's Liberal opponent. What's happened here so far is not acceptable.

I can't believe you would say that. What about the bigger picture?

robbie_dee

I say it because I think the NDP's totally lost the plot on this issue and if Jagmeet doesn't come to his senses then he should be pushed aside so someone else can try to fix it. In the context of one byelection with a Liberal majority government that stays in office either way, I think that is the bigger picture. Don't ask me how I'm voting in the next general election yet, though, I would have to concede that's a totally different scenario.

Notalib

Watch Moore presser here at CBC youtube, the CTV interpreter was outrageous and even bias, much like their coverage of the issue and much of the conversation that has occurred in this thread. She is suing, and for good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_WyArL4YJ0

 

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering, with your amazing X-Ray, truth-detecting vision I'm surprised the entire court system of Canada doesn't just pack up and appoint you judge & jury in all cases. For that matter, since you know everything about everything, and your opinions are clearly superior to everyone else's, we should just appoint you Grand Supreme Leader of Canada and let you govern the country as well as handling the justice system. Your ominscience and omnipotence are limitless and should be revered by all.

That said, I believe Moore's victims: Weir and Kirkland.

This is a message board not a court of law. Hopefully someone will follow-through and sue. I've been wrong and when I am I eat humble pie. Right now I am predicting only Moore will sue and yep I think I am right. We shall see soon enough. 

Pondering

Notalib wrote:

Watch Moore presser here at CBC youtube, the CTV interpreter was outrageous and even bias, much like their coverage of the issue and much of the conversation that has occurred in this thread. She is suing, and for good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_WyArL4YJ0

I was okay with the translation and video. She did point out that Moore's account is full of facts and witnesses with names. I hope Moore still has the texts and emails but even if she doesn't her credibility just shot up. Kirkland looks like a first class jerk which I believe he richly deserves. I hope he just tanked his almost political career. 

pietro_bcc

Well judging by her statement there were a few emails and texts sent between them, if she produces those emails and texts I will believe her side of the story. But I have a feeling she "won't be able to find" any of them.

Unionist

As I have mentioned, I couldn't care less who did what to whom in the soldier-boy saga. My indignation is limited to Moore's public attack against Weir and failure to report stories of harassment beforehand.

But while we're in this thread, can someone please explain something to me?

Singh has removed Moore from her critic duties and ordered an investigation - just as he did when allegations first surfaced against Weir. Weir never said a word while the investigation was ongoing - notwithstanding Moore's public attack - nor even for days after it was over and the report was sitting on Singh's desk. We know what happened then, when some unnamed complainant decided to talk to the CBC, and Weir, not getting an answer still from Singh, gave his side.

So my question:

Why exactly is Moore speaking to the media now?

I guess Singh must have approved that, right? Otherwise he'd be throwing her out of caucus... right?

Martin N.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

In the real world, women do not go to men's hotel rooms alone.

Harvey Weinstein allegedly (I use that word because it has not been proven in a court of law) raped half-dozen women by inviting them into his hotel room for a meeting.

That's my point. Weinstein was compromising these women simply by asking them to his hotel room. Women usually have a pretty good risk assessment ability so these women agreed to his request against their better judgement because of other factors. Unless, of course, female movie stars are drawn to creepy middle aged slobs.

Pondering

What does their reason for accepting have to do with anything? It doesn't give men leave to attack women. And yes, perhaps it's naive, but when men say come to my room to read the script or to discuss the character or to pick up some documents we actually believe the men. Because these are men we know, not strangers in elevators, if we do have second thoughts we dismiss them as paranoia. To refuse to go seems rude and insulting. I got stuck sharing a room with a male business associate, two beds. Nothing happened. He was a perfect gentleman. We had worked together for a long time. It is true women shouldn't trust men but it is very hard going through life like that. It's not fair to us and it isn't fair to the grand majority of men from whom women have nothing to fear. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

As I have mentioned, I couldn't care less who did what to whom in the soldier-boy saga. My indignation is limited to Moore's public attack against Weir and failure to report stories of harassment beforehand.

But while we're in this thread, can someone please explain something to me?

Singh has removed Moore from her critic duties and ordered an investigation - just as he did when allegations first surfaced against Weir. Weir never said a word while the investigation was ongoing - notwithstanding Moore's public attack - nor even for days after it was over and the report was sitting on Singh's desk. We know what happened then, when some unnamed complainant decided to talk to the CBC, and Weir, not getting an answer still from Singh, gave his side.

So my question:

Why exactly is Moore speaking to the media now?

I guess Singh must have approved that, right? Otherwise he'd be throwing her out of caucus... right?

Right. He must have approved her statement. In Moore's case nothing she has said exposed the identity of the complainant because Kirkland was happy to get the media exposure. 

Moore had a wealth of facts and witnesses to back herself up. For example, Kirkland stated under oath that he was only taking arthritis medication, during the committee meeting. Other veterans were present when she offered them all drinks and she didn't serve them. She just said to help themselves. That will be something those other veterans will remember. There is more.

I thought Kirkland was just framing things that happened in a dishonest way. He's been doing more than that. He's been lying. Moore has solid proof. 

In contrast the allegations against Weir were substanciated in the report. Weir didn't clear his statements in advance even though he knew the party would object. Weir threw the NDP under the bus. 

josh

JeffWells wrote:

I wonder how many times a day Singh wishes he'd stayed in provincial politics.

LOL.  

Ciabatta2

Mighty Middle wrote:

I can't believe you would say that. What about the bigger picture?

It's an internal culture thing.  The NDP is a value-based proposition, so nearly every NDPer is always one betrayed principle away from throwing in the towel.

Rev Pesky

Moore, in her own words (courtesy CBC):

"I have done nothing but cry [since the story came out.] It's terrible to see how someone can want to tell so many lies and I really don't know for what reason he's doing this," she said in French during a media conference in her riding of Abitibi-Temiscamingue Monday.

"It's so mean as an attack."

Not much one can say to that, except I wonder whether Moore is actually two people, unknown to each other.

 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

So my question:

Why exactly is Moore speaking to the media now?

I guess Singh must have approved that, right? Otherwise he'd be throwing her out of caucus... right?

Jagmeet Singh says when someone makes an accusation PUBLICY, the person (Christine Moore) has every right to defend themselves in public

How this differs from the Erin Weir situation is that the person making a complaint did so in private. And that it was Erin Weir who went public, which just re-victimized the complainant all over again.

Pages