Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Mighty Middle wrote:

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.

In "private"? She went to the CBC. That's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, FYI. Broadcasting. Understand? We must be using different dictionaries.

Someone blabbed to the CBC while Weir was waiting for Singh to get off his ass and release the report. Weir replied, without ever identifying the individual who had gone public (got that? public - not private - understand the difference?). Do you know the name of the person Weir "re-victimized"? Didn't think so. Neither do I. Poor thing, went to the media, and then to her utter shock, got re-victimized, when Weir called bullshit on her.

We're talking about the staffer who tried to stop Weir from talking at his own party convention, and got upset when he responded in an "angry and belligerent" fashion. She was so upset that she had to go to the CBC. I haven't heard what action has been taken against her for that. Have you? Didn't think so.

 

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

In "private"? She went to the CBC. That's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, FYI. Broadcasting. Understand? We must be using different dictionaries.

I'm just telling you what Jagmeet said, this is not me saying it.

Meanwhile Glen Kirkland has scoffed at Christine Moore version of events. Saying that to see someone 3 times over a 9 month period is not a relationship, adding that he had a better relationship with his dentist than her!

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

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.

No, he was attacked publically.  

Mighty Middle

josh wrote:

No, he was attacked publically.  

According to Jagmeet, if the person doesn't reveal their name it is not public.

Rev Pesky

From MM LOC:

According to Jagmeet, if the person doesn't reveal their name it is not public.

All I can say to that is that Singh better take another look at what 'public' means. If someone gives my name to the media, at the same asking for anonymity, that is publicising an event. 

In any caes, Moore was very public in her third party accusation, sending an email out to all and sundry. It is remarkable to me that Weir was told to remain silent after that. 

And we know now that Moore doesn't like it much either, now the shoe is on the other foot. She's crying every day. I wonder what she thought Weir was doing every day?

Misfit Misfit's picture

MM said  that Jagmeet Singh claims that if the complainant does not reveal their  identity to  the media then it is not public.

but the arrows that she slings to Erin Weir through the media are very public and very damaging to Erin Weir's reputation.

 And this was over an incident that occurred in public and in plain view of all the delegates at the NDP convention in Saskatoon.  In fact it was at the podium where he was wanting to speak to the delegates. 

 I don't dispute that an incident took place. My question is how threatening and  intimidating can Erin Weir be in such a public place and in front of so many people watching?

I am not disputing the fact that she felt intimidated and I'm sure that she did.  I am just trying to put it into perspective the nature of the incident in relation to her need for privacy.

yes people who come forward to complain in a harassment case need to feel that their identity is going to be kept private.

But I somehow find it hard to grasp the fact that Erin Weir  somehow "re-victimized" the woman by clarifying what took place after she went public with it. and all of this is over a disagreement about him speaking on carbon pricing at the NDP convention on centre stage in front of hundreds of delegates.

 

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

And we know now that Moore doesn't like it much either, now the shoe is on the other foot. She's crying every day. I wonder what she thought Weir was doing every day?

The difference is  that Weir is guilty of harassment as per the findings  of the  investigation and his acceptance  of the report. In my opinion there witnesses to the altercation between Moore and Weir. That prevents him from suing. To sue, Moore would have had to be lying. She wasn't lying. He can't sue.

Moore can sue because Kirkland lied.

https://news.google.com/gn/news/video/zTKkSZFlr1c/dPlCjOE-9QyeR8MaxD5SdC...

Can you really watch that video and say you believe that Moore took advantage of Kirkland against his will? All he really has to say is that it was inappropriate because of her position, not that he felt intimidated or reluctant. He harps on "if I were a woman" rather than what actually happened. He isn't a woman. It would not be automatically wrong for a male MP to have sex with a female witness unless she felt he was using his power to coerce her. It isn't automatic.

The reporter went easy on him. They won't all do that. Moore is willing for the report on her conduct to be made public. He is going to look like the piece of shit he is. And before you go telling me I shouldn't talk about him like that because he is the victim, he hasn't actually claimed to be a victim.

Pondering

This is what Weir said on May 1st.

In an emailed statement to CTV News, Weir states that he was presented with an anonymous complaint but claims he knows where it came from, and expressed concern over the "misuse of a harassment complaint to retaliate for his expression of differing views on public policy."

"I object to the use of backroom procedural tactics -- and now a trumped-up harassment complaint -- to shut down democratic debate in the New Democratic Party," Weir said....

Weir alleges the individual was a former NDP staff member who “intercepted” him on his way to the microphone at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention to prevent him from speaking about concerns over the regional impact of the federal government’s price on carbon.

In an interview with Don Martin, host of CTV’s Power Play, Weir denied there was any “anger or belligerence” in the interaction, calling it a “disagreement.”

Weir said the complaint arises from an effort of party insiders to “shut down a debate they seemed contentious.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-erin-weir-alleges-harassment-comp...

Why would Moore be trying to shut down democratic debate now?

Given that it happened in public there were plenty of witnesses. If  the investigator found the complaint substanciated they must have spoken to witnesses. Men can still be physically intimidating in public if they are angry. I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

When tall men stand too close they know they are forcing the other person to look up at them.

I do not buy Weir's act nor Kirkland's. In both cases there are witnesses. If Moore is lying it can be proven.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

The difference is  that Weir is guilty of harassment as per the findings  of the  investigation and his acceptance  of the report.

You keep harping on this, but there is a problem with your analysis. Number one, Moore didn't know for sure when she passed along rumours of Weir's behaviour. Number two, we don't know that the rumours that Moore passed along had anything to do with the final findings in the report.

I'll just add number three. We don't know what the sexual harassment consisted of. It wasn't serious, we know that because Weir wasn't tossed from the caucus for those findings. So whatever they were, they weren't much.

Further from Pondering:

It would not be automatically wrong for a male MP to have sex with a female witness unless she felt he was using his power to coerce her.

Except, of course, it is completely unprofessional.

Edited to add this, from the CBC:

Moore told The Canadian Press she and Kirkland had a romantic relationship for four months, but she ended it due to the long distance involved. She added that Kirkland was going through a difficult divorce at the time.

This is the second married man she went after, or rather the first (that we know of). Pacetti was the second (that we know of). 

So on top of complete unprofessionalism with a witness, a relationship with a married man.  And now everyone's being mean to her. Pardon me while I chuckle.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

The difference is  that Weir is guilty of harassment as per the findings  of the  investigation and his acceptance  of the report.

You keep harping on this, but there is a problem with your analysis. Number one, Moore didn't know for sure when she passed along rumours of Weir's behaviour. Number two, we don't know that the rumours that Moore passed along had anything to do with the final findings in the report.

I'll just add number three. We don't know what the sexual harassment consisted of. It wasn't serious, we know that because Weir wasn't tossed from the caucus for those findings. So whatever they were, they weren't much.

Further from Pondering:

It would not be automatically wrong for a male MP to have sex with a female witness unless she felt he was using his power to coerce her.

Except, of course, it is completely unprofessional.

I don't like the manner in which Moore came forward. That has no bearing on Weir's guilt or innocence.

I tend to agree it was unprofessional but unprofessional isn't the same thing as sexual harassment.

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

When tall men stand too close they know they are forcing the other person to look up at them.

And now you're blaming Weir for being too tall, and believing Moore because she's apparently "pretty short".  Ridiculous. 

Debater

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

Unionist, I agree with you that Moore did not handle the Weir matter in the best manner.

Moore should probably have shared her concerns about Weir with the NDP Leader or the NDP Whip before sending out the mass e-mail.

The mass e-mail was picked up by the media, and that's what caused the Weir matter to get out of hand so fast before it could be handled by the NDP first.

Rev Pesky

And now, with Moore threatening all and sundry with legal action, she has effectively stopped the NDP investigation into her interaction with Kirkland. Anything anyone says may now end up in court, so most people will probably say nothing. If Singh hasn't figured this out yet, he better start thinking. It's also true she has prejudiced the investigation. I don't think anyone could believe she would abide by any 'rehabilitation' that might be recommended.

I don't he has any option now but to toss Moore from caucus. 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

And now, with Moore threatening all and sundry with legal action, she has effectively stopped the NDP investigation into her interaction with Kirkland. Anything anyone says may now end up in court, so most people will probably say nothing. If Singh hasn't figured this out yet, he better start thinking. It's also true she has prejudiced the investigation. I don't think anyone could believe she would abide by any 'rehabilitation' that might be recommended.

I don't he has any option now but to toss Moore from caucus. 

That's ridiculous. The investigation is still happening. Men also threaten legal action. They will speak in confidence to the investigator just like the 3 women Weir harassed did.

Kirkland spoke under oath at the committee hearing saying he was taking was only insulin and arthritis. That is on the record so I doubt Moore was lying about it. When Kirkland was in her office after the hearing they were not alone and they did not go to his hotel room. She let everyone serve their own drinks.

Moore said that, after their testimony, she invited Kirkland and other veterans for a drink in her office, adding the door was kept open and staff were on hand. She said she doesn't remember what liquor she had on hand, but that she doesn't drink gin.

She said the gathering moved to a patio on Ottawa's Sparks Street while she attended an event in Parliament's East Block at 6:30 p.m. Eventually, she said, she met up again with the veterans, along with some staff.

So he didn't go to her office directly after giving his emotional testimony. He claims that after that, making sure he had his medication list with him, he returned to her office to consult with her in her professional capacity as a nurse.

Yet he testified under oath that he was only taking 2 medications. Why would he need a list? Why would he want her advice? Even if he wanted a second opinion another doctor or a pharmacist would make more sense.

Moore did not follow him back to his hotel. She went and voted in the house of commons, which is on record so I doubt she is lying. She joined him after the vote, she claims in response to a text. Kirkland has had no alternative explanation for how she found out his hotel room.

Kirkland stated that he heard a knock on his door and it was her.  He picked her up at the airport, which he now admits. That is very different.

When questioned on the inconsistencies he reverts to saying she was in a power position relative to him and that if he were a woman things would be different. But that isn't true. The Ghomeshi affair is proof of that. Women claiming to be victims most certainly do get questioned and doubted. Inconsistencies are examined. A more powerful person having relations with a less powerful person isn't automatically harassment or exploitative. When it is consensual it is a non-issue.

Some men, yourself included, seem to be playing with parallels as though this is some sort of team event. There is no effort to examine the actual facts. What Kirkland said and what Moore said.

Credibility isn't determined purely on who is speaking. There is also believability. My 3 year old daughter was pretty honest but when she told me the scrape on her knee was due to a turtle jumping up and biting her I was skeptical.

Moore may have gone about it the wrong way with Weir but the investigator did find 3 cases of sexual harassment and that the 4th incidence was workplace harassment. There were witnesses to the last.

You may not like Moore, I agree she should have reported through channels. Nevertheless she wasn't wrong. Weir accepted the findings of the report. Are we assuming he was lying  about that and taking the anti-harassment training as a deal to get back into caucus?  Standing a little too close and talking a little too long is not harassment sexual or otherwise. There has to be more to it than that. There were witnesses.

Moore has clear facts, many verifiable with either hard evidence or witnesses while Kirkland is all innuendo.

Well, I guess I mean you could look at it a couple different ways. One, you know, maybe I mean maybe she was just trying to do a service. I'm just joking.

Hardy har har.

In my personal experience men are better at seeing through men and women are better at seeing through women. People who exclaim they can't be friends with others of the same sex are immediately suspect in my eyes.

There has been some suggestion that I am biased but I have logical arguments. I'm examining Kirklands actual "testimony" and attitute. It was suspect before Moore responded and it is even more suspect now. I find it very difficult to read what some of you men are saying here. It's painful. It's as if the truth doesn't matter. It's the battle of the sexes. Those evil women ruining the reputations of innocent men. It is deeply disillusioning for me to see "progressive" or "leftist" men treating this like some sort of game... or I don't know what, closing the ranks.

Like Kirkland, many of you are ignoring the facts in favor of repeating generalities or harkening back to Weir and the number of men she has reported on as if it proves something.

The facts are investigators did find fault with all 3 men's behavior. They did all accept what was in the reports. None of them have called or are calling for the reports to be publically released. None of them have sued.

Kirkland has lied. He deliberately twisted events to make Moore look bad. He mislead the eagerly  gullible press. She has proof.

josh

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

And we know now that Moore doesn't like it much either, now the shoe is on the other foot. She's crying every day. I wonder what she thought Weir was doing every day?

The difference is  that Weir is guilty of harassment as per the findings  of the  investigation and his acceptance  of the report. In my opinion there witnesses to the altercation between Moore and Weir. That prevents him from suing. To sue, Moore would have had to be lying. She wasn't lying. He can't sue.

Moore can sue because Kirkland lied.

https://news.google.com/gn/news/video/zTKkSZFlr1c/dPlCjOE-9QyeR8MaxD5SdC...

Can you really watch that video and say you believe that Moore took advantage of Kirkland against his will? All he really has to say is that it was inappropriate because of her position, not that he felt intimidated or reluctant. He harps on "if I were a woman" rather than what actually happened. He isn't a woman. It would not be automatically wrong for a male MP to have sex with a female witness unless she felt he was using his power to coerce her. It isn't automatic.

The reporter went easy on him. They won't all do that. Moore is willing for the report on her conduct to be made public. He is going to look like the piece of shit he is. And before you go telling me I shouldn't talk about him like that because he is the victim, he hasn't actually claimed to be a victim.

Kirkland lied?  Why, because he is a man and Moore is a woman?  Sounds like Anita Hill in reverse.

Unionist

Folks, please be very careful - Pondering is making up tall tales again:

Pondering wrote:
In my opinion there witnesses to the altercation between Moore and Weir. That prevents him from suing.

Pondering wrote:
Men can still be physically intimidating in public if they are angry. I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

Pondering seems to think - or wants us to think - that the incident at the Saskatchewan NDP convention involved Christine Moore and Erin Weir!!!

This is a lie - or, let's be generous, a dumb and defamatory mistake on Pondering's part. But you know what happens when lies are repeated over and over and over again. Some babblers above are starting to believe her.

I'll wait for Pondering to retract, apologize, or (this should be fun) provide some evidence that Christine Moore attended the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist wrote, "Some babblers above are starting to believe her."

Really? Where is your evidence of that?

Unionist

Misfit wrote:

Unionist wrote, "Some babblers above are starting to believe her."

Really? Where is your evidence of that?

Seriously? Where to start?

1. I waited for someone to call her out - since I'm not really interested in this whole issue of sex games between the soldier boy and the grandstanding MP. When no one did - I did.

2. Here's some "evidence":

R.E.Wood wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

When tall men stand too close they know they are forcing the other person to look up at them.

And now you're blaming Weir for being too tall, and believing Moore because she's apparently "pretty short".  Ridiculous.

See what I mean? R.E.Wood, a serious and careful poster, didn't say: "What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Moore was one of Weir's alleged victims?"

Pondering should spend a little more time pondering. And so should we all.

robbie_dee

I hope one day Pondering has the experience of having a colleague like Christine Moore, and being in a position where she has to trust that colleague with something important and confidential in nature.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Folks, please be very careful - Pondering is making up tall tales again:

Pondering wrote:
In my opinion there witnesses to the altercation between Moore and Weir. That prevents him from suing.

Pondering wrote:
Men can still be physically intimidating in public if they are angry. I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

Pondering seems to think - or wants us to think - that the incident at the Saskatchewan NDP convention involved Christine Moore and Erin Weir!!!

This is a lie - or, let's be generous, a dumb and defamatory mistake on Pondering's part. But you know what happens when lies are repeated over and over and over again. Some babblers above are starting to believe her.

I'll wait for Pondering to retract, apologize, or (this should be fun) provide some evidence that Christine Moore attended the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention.

First I specifically stated I was expressing my opinion. Second the mainstream press have said it now and it has been said in this thread. If I am wrong and the altercation was not between Moore and Weir I stand corrected, but if that is  so it doesn't lessen the charges against him. The event was still public. People still witnessed the altercation between Weir and the staff person. All four claims were substanciated by the investigator. Weir accepted the findings. He did not  dispute them. If, as he claims, they were trumped up lies, then he should sue. If he says all he did was stand a little close and talk a little too long he should ask for the report to be made public.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

First I specifically stated I was expressing my opinion. Second the mainstream press have said it now and it has been said in this thread. If I am wrong and the altercation was not between Moore and Weir I stand corrected, but if that is  so it doesn't lessen the charges against him. 

You really don't get it. You made up this story in your head. Not one "mainstream press" source has suggested that Christine Moore was the staffer who complained about Weir. You should just realize what you've done and retract that myth, which is yours and yours alone. Your method of speculating about events (which you've used full bore in recounting the sexual romps between the blabbermouth and the Aghan invader) is very dangerous. It's called "fake news". Could you please just acknowledge that you made this up, and move on?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Unionist wrote, "Some babblers above are starting to believe her."

Really? Where is your evidence of that?

Seriously? Where to start?

1. I waited for someone to call her out - since I'm not really interested in this whole issue of sex games between the soldier boy and the grandstanding MP. When no one did - I did.

2. Here's some "evidence":

R.E.Wood wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

When tall men stand too close they know they are forcing the other person to look up at them.

And now you're blaming Weir for being too tall, and believing Moore because she's apparently "pretty short".  Ridiculous.

See what I mean? R.E.Wood, a serious and careful poster, didn't say: "What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Moore was one of Weir's alleged victims?"

Pondering should spend a little more time pondering. And so should we all.

There is nothing wrong in what I said. "Personal space" is not a new issue.  Trump's forceful handshake, Trudeau going "mano a mano" with men is not an accident.

I haven't read any accounts from men that Weir has a habit of standing too close or talking too long.  Surely he has some male colleagues who would say he does the same with them.

NDP MP Erin Weir: Harassment Accusation Was Retaliation For Questioning Carbon Tax

OTTAWA — A federal NDP MP is alleging that a member of former leader Tom Mulcair's staff levelled an unfounded harassment complaint against him in retaliation for having questioned the Trudeau's government national carbon-tax plan.

Saskatchewan MP Erin Weir says the harassment complaint was the most recent in a string of efforts by Mulcair and other party brass to clamp down on debate about the carbon tax and its potential impact on western Canada.

I'll agree that it isn't Moore because it makes no difference and I don't want to hunt up references. He is still claiming that the allegation was in response to or retaliation for his position on the carbon tax therefore not true.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

All four claims were substanciated by the investigator.

What are you taking about? Moore didn't make any claims. She merely sent out a mass mailing accusing Weir of unspecified actions. It took another mass mailing by the NDP to come up with three people who felt uncomfortable with Weir. And we know it wasn't much because Weir wasn't removed from the caucus because of the report. He was removed from the caucus for replying to the publicization of some supposedly confidential material.

As far as the staff member who was ordered to prevent Weir from speaking, as I said before that person should have refused the order. It was wrong for the NDP to make such and order, and wrong to send a staff person to enforce it.

Further from Pondering:

He is still claiming that the allegation was in response to or retaliation for his position on the carbon tax therefore not true.

Actually the very fact that the party sent a staff member to prevent Weir from speaking about the issue makes it likely that his claim is true. 

Mobo2000

He did not accept the findings.   He accepted that a summary of the allegations shown to him indicated that he needed to be more aware of social ques.   He did not agree that the findings consituted sexual harrassment and he also said he thought most Canadians would not accept that his actioons constituted sexual harrassment.   I imagine he initially expressed contrition because the complaints did prompt some self reflection, and also a path was presented to him -- accept the training, say your mea culpas and be welcomed back to the fold.   Then the complaintant spoke to the CBC and made it clear that the finding of sexual harrassment was substantiated in the report and Weir felt obligated to respond.    By the way, at this point we still don't know if Weir has actually seen the final report.  

It feels like a step backwards for equality in the workplace for progressives to be urging people to expect anonymity when making complaints, or to expect the accused to sue privately when responding to confidential, anonymous complaints.   I don't think lawyers need our help drumming up business.

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I'll agree that it isn't Moore because it makes no difference and I don't want to hunt up references. 

Why did you say it was Moore? Doesn't that trouble you just a bit? I plan to keep asking you until you admit that you invented that, all by yourself.

And does anyone have a clear answer as to why Moore hasn't been thrown out of caucus for going public with her story about Kirkland, when the party has just ordered an investigation?

Did Singh tell her: "Go ahead, go to the media, we're not going to do an Erin Weir on you"?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

Christine Moore is an MP from Quebec. The anonymous woman who went public to the media about her incident with Erin Weir after the report was completed where she said that he was belligerent and that she felt intimidated by him at the Convention was a staffer who worked in Tom Mulcair's office.

Christine Moore is not a staffer who worked in Tom Mulcair's office. She is an elected MP from Quebec.

and as Unionist puts it, she is the "BLABBERMOUTH" who heard about the incidents from these other women  and then sent out an email to all the caucus members something to the effect that Erin Weir was unfit for the position he applied for and that she would be afraid to be alone in a room with him.

it was the blabbermouth email that went public that set off the sexual harassment investigation against Weir.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist,

Mighty Middle wrote in post 105,

"According to Jagmeet, if the person doesn't reveal their name it is not public."

So Cpl. Kirkland went public and disclosed his name as well as the details surrounding his harassment complaint to the media so the entire affair falls within the PUBLIC realm.

even though the female NDP staffer went public with the details surrounding her case against Weir, she chose to remain anonymous and so Erin Weir is said to have violated her confidentiality by elaborating on the details of the case.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:

Unionist,

Mighty Middle wrote in post 105,

"According to Jagmeet, if the person doesn't reveal their name it is not public."

So?

Quote:
So Cpl. Kirkland went public and disclosed his name as well as the details surrounding his harassment complaint to the media so the entire affair falls within the PUBLIC realm.

Oh really? When Singh has just ordered an investigation? Will that consist of public interviews, and the report will be made public? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?

Quote:
even though the female NDP staffer went public with the details surrounding her case against Weir, she chose to remain anonymous and so Erin Weir is said to have violated her confidentiality by elaborating on the details of the case.

So she can go public with the details of her complaint, but he violated her confidentiality by replying - even though he never named her?

That's a rather convoluted argument. Erin Weir has done absolutely nothing wrong. And Moore has no business compromising the investigation into Kirkland's complaint (no, Misfit, that investigation is not "public") by flaunting her sex adventures in public.

For Singh to expel Weir, but to allow Moore to continue her toxic activities while remaining in caucus, says more about Singh than I possibly could without needing a replacement keyboard.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Oh, I'm so sorry. I was just noting what Jagmeet Singh said and the so called rationale about it.

i personally do not agree 

Unionist

Misfit wrote:

Oh, I'm so sorry. I was just noting what Jagmeet Singh said and the so called rationale about it.

i personally do not agree 

Ok - I guess I'm the one who's sorry - linear text conversations lack body language and other non-verbal cues!

But I still don't understand. Is anyone suggesting that Jagmeet Singh actually gave his blessing to Christine Moore bragging publicly about her sex life? I can't believe he did, nor can I believe that she won't be expelled from caucus for this blatant undermining of what is supposed to be an independent third-party investigation.

Or is Singh more concerned about losing seats in Québec (16) than in Saskatchewan (2 minus 1 CCFer = 1)?

 

garden

Pondering wrote:

Kirkland stated under oath that he was only taking arthritis medication, during the committee meeting. 

The minutes of that meeting show that this is incorrect.  He talked at length about insulin, because of its high cost, urgent continual need and he was in danger of losing that. When asked if there were other medications he might lose, he said arthritis pills, then went off on overmedication being a problem and mentioned taking morphine and oxycodone in the past.  Then the Chair moved on to other questioners.  All one can conclude is that he was taking at least these 2 medications and losing them was a specific concern. Since he also talked about PTSD and ongoing anxiety related to that, it would not be surprising, or inconsistent with any of his testimony under oath, if he had a prescription for an anti-anxiety drug and had taken one that day.

This is just one example of how some things Moore claims as "proof" may not be proof of what is being contested.  I think MPs under investigation are better served by saying as little as possible and hoping that their own party's investigation will be fair to one of its own MPs. If it isn't fair, then they have other problems within the party to worry about.  At least by staying quiet, they come across as somewhat professional and confident in the competence of their own party.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

But I still don't understand. Is anyone suggesting that Jagmeet Singh actually gave his blessing to Christine Moore bragging publicly about her sex life? I can't believe he did, nor can I believe that she won't be expelled from caucus for this blatant undermining of what is supposed to be an independent third-party investigation.

He did. Jagmeet said since Kirkland opened the door and made these statement ON-CAMERA, Moore has every right to defend herself in the same way.

R.E.Wood

Sorry to interject, but I just wanted to clarify that I didn't interpret Pondering's post about Weir's height in relation to Moore as insinuating that she was the one who didn't let him speak at the SK convention. I simply read that post as Pondering saying that Weir is seemingly tall, and Moore is seemingly short, and therefore he's a dominating evil male force who clearly is responsible for sexual harrassment, while Moore being a frail little shrinking violet needs to be believed as a victim. I perceived that Pondering was using ridiculous stereotypes about tall men dominating little women to characterize Weir and Moore, and to help justify Pondering's own pretzel-shaped rationalizations, which - in their entirety - I consider ridiculous.

That said, please carry on Unionist - I agree with all of your recent posts in this thread, and thank you for taking Pondering to task for her misleading logic twists and manufacturing of plot points to suit her own narrative.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'll agree that it isn't Moore because it makes no difference and I don't want to hunt up references. 

Why did you say it was Moore? Doesn't that trouble you just a bit? I plan to keep asking you until you admit that you invented that, all by yourself.

And does anyone have a clear answer as to why Moore hasn't been thrown out of caucus for going public with her story about Kirkland, when the party has just ordered an investigation?

Did Singh tell her: "Go ahead, go to the media, we're not going to do an Erin Weir on you"?

Because I didn't invent it. I thought what I was reading implied that Moore was the complainant that made the allegation of non-sexual harassment. If I was mistaken that is great. I'm happy to agree. It's one less mark against Moore.

Weir is  saying that the accusation was fabricated by the staffer because of his political views on the carbon tax. I don't see why a staffer would fabricate that when it happened in public therefore there were witnesses. Can't Weir remember anyone who was there at the time and can say that they didn't notice him getting particularly angry?

He is  saying the other accusations are trumped up and that everyone would have complaints against them if a few hundred people were asked.

Do you think that is true? I ask each man here individually. If there was an investigation into your behavior do you agree that there would be harassment complaints against you sexual or otherwise just because people were asked?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All four claims were substanciated by the investigator.

What are you taking about? Moore didn't make any claims. She merely sent out a mass mailing accusing Weir of unspecified actions. It took another mass mailing by the NDP to come up with three people who felt uncomfortable with Weir. And we know it wasn't much because Weir wasn't removed from the caucus because of the report. He was removed from the caucus for replying to the publicization of some supposedly confidential material.

As far as the staff member who was ordered to prevent Weir from speaking, as I said before that person should have refused the order. It was wrong for the NDP to make such and order, and wrong to send a staff person to enforce it.

Further from Pondering:

He is still claiming that the allegation was in response to or retaliation for his position on the carbon tax therefore not true.

Actually the very fact that the party sent a staff member to prevent Weir from speaking about the issue makes it likely that his claim is true.

So you are claiming that because a staffer was sent to ensure Weir did not take the mike when he wasn't scheduled to it is more likely that the staffer made a false claim of harassment? I don't follow your logic. I don't see why a staffer would care so much about the carbon tax. I don't believe that Mulcair and Angus would conspire to have a false accusation made against Weir by a staffer.

I do believe that he was angry and belligerent when a staffer stopped him from speaking at the mike.

Whether you want to call it complaints or allegations or whatever the investigator found 4 accounts of harassment to be substanciated. Weir should go ahead and sue if he believes the accounts were trumped up.

Pondering

Also, speaking at a conference isn't a free for all where whomever feels like it gets to speak. It would be normal for a staffer to be taking care of the list of speakers and informing them when they were next rather than the leader of the party.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

1. So you are claiming that because a staffer was sent to ensure Weir did not take the mike when he wasn't scheduled to it is more likely that the staffer made a false claim of harassment?

No.

2. How do you know that he wasn't scheduled?

3. I do believe that he was angry and belligerent when a staffer stopped him from speaking at the mike.

I think that most people will agree that he was angry and that she did feel intimidated by him. But in a highly public place you can scale down the magnitude of drama.

4.  it is more likely that the staffer made a false claim of harassment?

No.

Unionist

R.E.Wood wrote:

Sorry to interject, but I just wanted to clarify that I didn't interpret Pondering's post about Weir's height in relation to Moore as insinuating that she was the one who didn't let him speak at the SK convention.

I know it sounds bizarre, but indeed that's exactly what she was claiming - not insinuating - as she admits in the post immediately following yours. And I quote:

Pondering wrote:
I thought what I was reading implied that Moore was the complainant that made the allegation of non-sexual harassment.

I know. That's the difference between "reading" and "reading into".

R.E.Wood wrote:
That said, please carry on Unionist - I agree with all of your recent posts in this thread, and thank you for taking Pondering to task for her misleading logic twists and manufacturing of plot points to suit her own narrative.

We're all taking her to task on that point, but she seems to feel she has a right to make stuff up rather than looking stuff up.

Unionist

FFS Misfit, don't get sucked in to Pondering's diversionary B.S. There's a thread about Erin Weir and the complaints against him. This isn't it. Pondering still owes us an explanation as to why she invented, out of whole cloth, the slanderous nonsense that Erin Weir harassed Christine Moore - a fantasy that not even the most outlandish of the MSM has come up with yet.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So is harrassment just any time someone feels uncomforatable, now?

I always thought it was a pattern of intentional behaviour, not just "being tall" or "being frustrated".  Was whatever happened at that microphone "harrassment" (or actionable behaviour, under a different label perhaps) the way "manspreading" is basically sexual assault?

Because I do have to say that from what I've read on these associated threads, it doesn't seem like Weir was doing anything particularly out of the ordinary, or at least not on the scale of how it all played out.  I'd rather have a person talk to me too long and not get the hint than talk to me for a "normal people" amount of time having not showered and with coffee breath.  But those are all life sized things.

And so is two adult humans hooking up who probably shouldn't.  And it seems like that's about the worst we can say about what happened with Moore and soldier-boy.  If he'd led with "I was violated; I didn't have PTSD from combat, I got it from what Moore did to me against my will" then I suppose we'd all have to gird our loins and take that seriously (hashtag #HIMtoo), but it kind of seems like he was mostly prompted to raise a stink about Moore because Moore had raised a stink about Weir, who she didn't even interact with.

Maybe there's nothing for any of the actors to be proud of, all 'round.  But it's not clear why any of this normal-scale poor behaviour should gobble up the news cycle.

tl;dr:  an awkward fellow stood too close to someone once, so a woman that he didn't stand too close to publicly ripped him a new one for it, his boss duffed the response to this, and some guy who boinked that woman felt that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and publicly ripped her a new one, and all of this in the interest of "justice" and "personal safety".

End tally:

1.  an expelled NDP MP and a lost seat

2. a discredited NDP MP who's lawyering up

3. an NDP leader who looks like if someone says "This NDP person put a jinx on me" would piously promise to bring in only the best wizards and necromancers to get to the bottom of whether the milk was soured (#MyMilkIsSour) by witchcraft or not.

Unionist

Your point is well taken, Magoo - but you're in the wrong thread. Take it here please.

Well on second thought, I guess the last half of your post is on point. I get what you're saying. Thanks for the reality check.

And the reason this has "gobbled up the news cycle" is because the NDP is wandering in the wilderness, wanting to do the right thing, but unable to recognize "the right thing" even when it bites it on the buttocks.

Unionist

Pondering: Let's look at the facts. Christine Moore slandered Erin Weir publicly, leading to his expulsion from caucus. Christine Moore screwed the Afghan vet, leading to an investigation about her actions. Christine Moore "defends" herself in public, before the investigation even begins. And no, I don't believe Jagmeet Singh gave her "permission" to do that. If I'm wrong and he did, then he should be thrown out of caucus. After he wins a seat, of course. But her case is settled. She should be put out to pasture ASAP.

Notalib

Excerpt:

You know the basics, but they bear repeating. There are three claims of sexual harassment and one claim of harassment against you. It’s not an easy or trivial thing to allege (sexual) harassment – especially given the fact that those who do come forward (mostly women) are almost always disbelieved and discredited, while (white) men are protected and forgiven.

Your “behaviour resulted in significant negative impacts to the complainants,” Jagmeet Singh read from a report by a third-party investigator, which has not yet been made public. The same report also found that once you were told your advances were unwanted, you stopped. In those moments, you were able to learn and change your behaviour.

But the last few weeks have inspired less confidence.

One complainant spoke to the CBC, which published a story on May 1 without identifying her name. In the same story, you furiously denied the allegation, calling it “politically motivated” and all but outed the complainant by suggesting that her allegation was your punishment for speaking out on import/export carbon pricing adjustments, an issue the NDP was staying quiet on.

By calling the allegations a “trumped-up harassment complaint” aimed to “shut down democratic debate” you’re effectively dog-whistling to those who seek to blame women for their own experiences of harassment. By quoting right-wing pundits attacking the #MeToo movement in an email to supporters, you’re spurring on those who would characterize the widespread outings of abusive men as “witch hunts.” This case is not just about you – it’s about feeding into a system that silences and punishes women for coming forward.

Found Here: https://briarpatchmagazine.com/blog/view/dear-erin-weir-what-are-you-doing

Unionist

What a superficial, supercilious, mansplaining article. And why the hell are you citing it in the Christine Moore thread? 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

FFS Misfit, don't get sucked in to Pondering's diversionary B.S. There's a thread about Erin Weir and the complaints against him. This isn't it. Pondering still owes us an explanation as to why she invented, out of whole cloth, the slanderous nonsense that Erin Weir harassed Christine Moore - a fantasy that not even the most outlandish of the MSM has come up with yet.

I told you that I was mistaken. It was a different woman that Erin Weir harassed at the convention. I'm not sure why that fact is so important to you. Personally I think it would have been worse for Moore if she were that woman because in the letter she stated she had no direct experience of harassment by him.

You have stated that what happened did not amount to harassment in any of the 4 cases. You seem to be calling into question the investigator's ability to comprehend harassment. The investigator seems qualified to me.

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

FFS Misfit, don't get sucked in to Pondering's diversionary B.S. There's a thread about Erin Weir and the complaints against him. This isn't it. Pondering still owes us an explanation as to why she invented, out of whole cloth, the slanderous nonsense that Erin Weir harassed Christine Moore - a fantasy that not even the most outlandish of the MSM has come up with yet.

I told you that I was mistaken. It was a different woman that Erin Weir harassed at the convention. I'm not sure why that fact is so important to you.

Because you invented that story out of your head, then doubled down on your lie, then said "I'm not going to hunt down references". And you don't even comprehend that your form of invention and slander is toxic. Instead you ask why it's so important to me. It's not important to me. It's important to our conversation here, where I have always appreciated your interventions even when others dismissed you as a Liberal shill. But now you invent facts, including trying to suss out what really happened when Moore and Kirkland were screwing each other. It tends to reduce one's confidence in your comments when you have only a passing acquaintance with verifiable facts.

Quote:
You have stated that what happened did not amount to harassment in any of the 4 cases. You seem to be calling into question the investigator's ability to comprehend harassment. The investigator seems qualified to me.

I never stated any such thing. I have not read the report, and neither have you. I have heard Erin Weir and Jagmeet Singh's take on the report, and I have yet to hear anything that resembles sexual harassment (those were the findings, we are told, in 3 cases). Most importantly, I think anonymous complaints are bullshit, I have never seen such a thing in the workplace where my experience is, and someone really should call bullshit. I'd actually like to see a copy of a complaint protocol that allows for anonymous complaints against individuals. Can you refer me to one?

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't know how tall Weir is but he looks pretty big to me, like someone who could have been a football player. Moore looks pretty short.

When tall men stand too close they know they are forcing the other person to look up at them.

And now you're blaming Weir for being too tall, and believing Moore because she's apparently "pretty short".  Ridiculous. 

No. Weir agrees that he "stands too close". It is Weir that I am believing.  If  you look at pictures of him he is a tall man. Maybe you don't find it intimidating when a large man stands too close to you but I assure you many if not all women do find men they aren't in a relationship with who stand too close without cause intimidating or aggressive.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debate-2016-what-goes-on-in-y...

But Holt noted that there are many factors that influence the size and flexibility of personal space, including cultural influences, whether the person standing close to you is the same or opposite gender or of the same social status. 

I'm only 5'2" but even I know that when I am approaching someone smaller than I if I stand too close they will have to tilt their head back to look at me and it's uncomfortable. I will naturally stand farther away from someone in a wheelchair not to loom over them. I very much doubt that even socially awkward men reach adulthood without understanding that when they stand too close to people it is intimidating and uncomfortable. Even people on the autism spectrum learn the basics.

What Weir is describing standing a little  too close and talking a little too long as all that happened. I find it difficult to believe an accomplished law professor in the field would describe that as harassment, sexual or otherwise.

Unionist

This thread is about Christine Moore and her sexual intercourse with the Afghan hero.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Because you invented that story out of your head, then doubled down on your lie, then said "I'm not going to hunt down references". And you don't even comprehend that your form of invention and slander is toxic. Instead you ask why it's so important to me. It's not important to me. It's important to our conversation here, where I have always appreciated your interventions even when others dismissed you as a Liberal shill. But now you invent facts, including trying to suss out what really happened when Moore and Kirkland were screwing each other. It tends to reduce one's confidence in your comments when you have only a passing acquaintance with verifiable facts.

Quote:
You have stated that what happened did not amount to harassment in any of the 4 cases. You seem to be calling into question the investigator's ability to comprehend harassment. The investigator seems qualified to me.

I never stated any such thing. I have not read the report, and neither have you. I have heard Erin Weir and Jagmeet Singh's take on the report, and I have yet to hear anything that resembles sexual harassment (those were the findings, we are told, in 3 cases). Most importantly, I think anonymous complaints are bullshit, I have never seen such a thing in the workplace where my experience is, and someone really should call bullshit. I'd actually like to see a copy of a complaint protocol that allows for anonymous complaints against individuals. Can you refer me to one?

I did not deliberately lie and if I were to deliberately lie I would choose better as it is immaterial whether it was Moore or another woman. That does not mean I am wrong in other instances in which I have quoted articles.

Women are not willing  to go on record because it backfires on them. That is how Ghomeshi, Cosby, and countless other men get away with what they do for decades.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harassment-investigators-allegations-1.465...

And a workplace investigator recently cleared TVO host Steve Paikin of sexual harassment allegations.

Up until now unless women were willing to step forward nothing was done even if the abuse was an open secret. It looks really bad for any organization to do nothing like CBC did, and say nothing like the union did, because women are afraid to go on the record.

In most cases he said she said means the woman loses. Benefit of the  doubt goes  to the accused. While that seems fair it isn't to women because what happens to us usually happens without witnesses. Now things are changing, but he said still wins over she said. When it becomes he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, women are beginning to win the credibility battle even when they aren't virgins.

Pondering

The report being kept private is to the accused benefit because it leaves them free to minimize the events. Christine Moore has already stated she is fine with the report on her being made public.

Pages