Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Agreed.

Pondering wrote:

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, accused of sexual harassment and assault. Try to keep it straight.

NorthReport

dp

NorthReport

Do you disagree Unionist?

NorthReport wrore

Agreed.

 

Pondering wrote:

 

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

NorthReport, you're in the wrong thread. Go post your theory in the proper thread and I'll answer your question. This thread is about Christine Moore's happy times with the boy in uniform. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport, you're in the wrong thread. Go post your theory in the proper thread and I'll answer your question. This thread is about Christine Moore's happy times with the boy in uniform. 

Because Moore is involved in both situations, as accuser in one, accused in the other, there is going to be some crossover.

You yourself have been indignant that Moore hasn't been expelled for talking to the press because that is what happened to Weir. That leads to comparison between the two cases. With Moore involved in both cases there will be drift back and forth. In the best of cases there is some drift in the majority of threads. I think your expectations of thread purity are unrealistic.

Notalib

The two cases should be and are seperate in terms of the respective independent investigations, however, Kirkland has repeatedly said his story would not be an issue today if Moore had not behaved as a " self appointed" moral and ethical arbiter. IOW, the forwarding of his years old issues is directly related to, or in retaliation for, Moore's involvment in the Weir case - by Kirkland's own admission. This has made it impossible to tease out the two issues as entirely separate, despite some people's desire to do so.

Further it seems Madame Moore had little to no choice to defend herself against the revisionist history retaliation strategy of Kirkland as suggested here:

NDP MP Christine Moore, who has denied harassing a wounded Afghanistan veteran in 2013 on the Hill, likely had no choice but to publicly defend herself in a nationally televised press conference on Monday in her Quebec riding when she offered intimate, personal details and a chronology of their first sexual encounter, say some political observers.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/05/16/ndp-mp-moore-likely-no-choice-defen...

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

The two cases should be and are seperate in terms of the respective independent investigations, however, Kirkland has repeatedly said his story would not be an issue today if Moore had not behaved as a " self appointed" moral and ethical arbiter. IOW, the forwarding of his years old issues is directly related to, or in retaliation for, Moore's involvment in the Weir case - by Kirkland's own admission. This has made it impossible to tease out the two issues as entirely separate, despite some people's desire to do so.

What's that? Kirkland tried to seduce Weir also? This is getting interesting.

notalib wrote:
Further it seems Madame Moore had little to no choice to defend herself against the revisionist history retaliation strategy of Kirkland as suggested here:

NDP MP Christine Moore, who has denied harassing a wounded Afghanistan veteran in 2013 on the Hill, likely had no choice but to publicly defend herself in a nationally televised press conference on Monday in her Quebec riding when she offered intimate, personal details and a chronology of their first sexual encounter, say some political observers.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/05/16/ndp-mp-moore-likely-no-choice-defen...

Hahaha.

Thanks for another stupid laughable article, like your previous one from Briar Patch. This one quotes "experts" Nancy Peckford (named one of the Women's Executive Network Top 100 Powerful Women in Canada in 2014) and Rachel Curran (former strategic advisor to Stephen Harper) explaining why Christine Moore just had to publicly flaunt her sexual adventures once the Afghan invader boy had gone public.

Great champions Moore has! They deserve each other. Has she been dumped yet? Haven't heard the news this morning...

But thanks for posting in the correct thread.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

You yourself have been indignant that Moore hasn't been expelled for talking to the press because that is what happened to Weir. 

LOL, I'm not in the least bit "indignant" about Christine Moore. She's not worth such a righteous emotion. I'm watching the NDP and Jagmeet Singh flounder and sink, unable to deal with the kind of issue which we handle fairly and transparently every day in the workplace. I'm sad.

My indignation lies elsewhere - the destruction of Erin Weir's political reputation and career by people not fit to shine his shoes. That's what I'm indignant about.

As for the Moore-Kirkland affair? Netflix should pick it up while it's still available. I'll provide the popcorn. It's not a matter of public interest, not in the slightest.

Notalib

It's possible Unionist that you might be taken seriously if you were less insulting and dismissive, stuck to the relevant issues and behaved less like a thread cop.

That said, I have not the slightest idea what you are trying to imply here when you state:"What's that? Kirkland tried to seduce Weir also? This is getting interesting."

I imagine its just more of your petty obfuscation and distraction as nothing I wrote would indicate anything of the sort.

Its clear to me the NDP Leadership worked to give Weir material to save face, despite the investigation results confirming three counts of sexual harrassment with signficant impact on the women involved.  Weir chose to use that material very aggressively in his defence while also undermining the sanctity of a process he agreed to and accepted the results of. Sadly doing so may result in forcing the hand of the administrators to make public what should have been kept confidential, which well could result in the disclosing of much more damaging details with respect to the extent of Weir's behaviour.

Ah well, in the end, there could be opportunities for Weir and his band of agitators in the new CCF.

The last NDP convention focused almost entirely on establishing these processes to address these issues, Weir almost single handidly has destroyed the entire effort, which had great political potential to not only make gains for women (and Men) in establishing proper work place policy, but also putting the NDP at the forefront of that effort. Now due to these shenanigans, the party is in public disarray and these gains for  a better workplace set back.

Not unusual for the NDP to screw up a good thing, but this one could devolve into a civil war that sets the party back for sometime. So good luck with all that.

 

 

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

It's possible Unionist that you might be taken seriously if you were less insulting and dismissive, stuck to the relevant issues and behaved less like a thread cop.

I'm a part-time unpaid self-appointed moderator. And I'm not interested in being "taken seriously" by anyone who finds it annoying to be reminded that they should not disperse the discussion among various threads, making proper replies difficult or impossible.

Quote:
That said, I have not the slightest idea what you are trying to imply here when you state:"What's that? Kirkland tried to seduce Weir also? This is getting interesting."

It was just petty obfuscation and distraction, to illustrate my sincere opinion that the Moore-Kirkland affair is not a matter of public interest in any way whatsoever. Either call the police (whoever feels they were sexually assaulted - sorry I haven't followed the sordid details), or get on with your life.

Quote:
The last NDP convention focused almost entirely on establishing these processes to address these issues, ...

Ah, they did a great job! Great processes! But I didn't realize the convention was almost entirely focused on that. That helps explain why they had no time to even allow the Young New Democrats' motion on Palestine to reach the floor. They were too busy setting up a complaint process based on secret accusers. McCarthy's spirit must have been in the guest section.

Quote:
Weir almost single handidly has destroyed the entire effort, which had great political potential to not only make gains for women (and Men) in establishing proper work place policy, but also putting the NDP at the forefront of that effort. Now due to these shenanigans, the party is in public disarray and these gains for  a better workplace set back.

Weir is indeed a powerful force, to have almost single handidly [sic] destroyed the bulk of the achievements of an entire NDP convention. And now he's taken the controls of history, thrown it into reverse, and is driving the party back to the CCF. Wow, just wow! No wonder the NDP is in total disarray. Unfair fight!

Quote:
Not unusual for the NDP to screw up a good thing, but this one could devolve into a civil war that sets the party back for sometime. So good luck with all that.

I can see Weir starting a new religion maybe, but civil war? Naw, that requires warring parties that care about something. Where would you find those?

josh

It may be a "process," but apparently due process is not part of it.  And Weir hasn't single handidly destroyed anything.  The NDP leadership did that.  In addition, what are the sexual harassment allegations.  And what is the substantiation.

robbie_dee

Notalib wrote:

Its clear to me the NDP Leadership worked to give Weir material to save face...

It is interesting how people can draw such different conclusions from the same set of facts. You are entitled to your opinion, Notalib, which I assume you've reached in good faith. My conclusions are very different, but I hope you will at least hear them out in the same spirit.

I think the NDP has been protecting Christine Moore all along, not so much because they like her (although I am sure she has allies in caucus) but because she's obviously dangerous. I think its also possible that Singh and his team weren't fully aware of her back story at the time, since they are relatively new to Ottawa. If that's the case that may have just ended up compounding their error.

In any case, though, I think when Moore pressed reply all on her her hit email against Weir, Singh and his team concluded that they had no choice but to make a public statement and launch an expensive investigation because they were afraid that if they didn't she would go public and demand one anyways. I think they were also really hoping that the investigation would find *something*, so that - notwithstanding the totally inappropriate way Moore had acted towards a fellow caucus-mate - they wouldn't have to burn her and lose her seat, but also that the investigation would not find *too much*, such that they had to kick out Weir. I think Flaherty understood her mission and fulfilled it well. Everything was on track until somebody fucked it up.

The timeline is really important here. There was a deal in place on April 19th for Weir to make a (likely carefully negotiated) admission of wrongdoing, undertake some visible steps of rehabilitation and return. But then Singh's office sat on it. Someone must have been holding it up, possibly Moore, possibly someone else.

On May 1, eleven days after the deal was in place but with it still not announced, a complainant goes to CBC and spills the beans, selectively, about the nature of her complaint. Notably, though, this is not one of the sexual harassment complainants. This was a senior staffer for the party who had previously worked for Mulcair when he was leader and who, I also understand, is quite close to Charlie Angus. Her complaint, about which she only revealed selective and inflammatory details, was regarding an actual policy dispute that she and Weir had been involved in, and which took place in a public forum (2016 SK NDP convention). She said Weir spoke to her in an angry and belligerent way and she felt intimidated. Weir felt differently about this interaction, and once the complainant had gone public, he wanted to respond. He contacted Singh's office first, but when Singh did not get back to him and the story ran, he decided he would respond to the story. He did not identify the complainant. He limited his comments to the one complaint and to the context behind it which he felt exonerated him.

It is obvious that this one complaint has very little to do with the other three. Totally different context, totally different allegations, totally different power dynamic involved. The only reason why it got mixed in with the other three complaints is because of the dragnet-style investigation the NDP had launched. In my opinion, this particular complainant should never have been offered confidentiality in the first place - the situation she describes would not appear to warrant it. In any case, I think she waived any expectation of confidentiality by going public, and the fact that people are still giving it to her is allowing her to use it as a weapon instead of a shield like it should be. She was able to say things publicly about Weir - with no apparent repercussions - while he is only able to respond with significant repercussions.

The question I have to ask is why did she go public when she did? The conclusion I draw, which frankly I think is the only reasonable one, is that she was trying to blow up the deal that the Party had entered into with Weir. Why would she do that? Maybe she thought the deal was unfair and her concerns hadn't fully been dealt with. But I find it dubious that this person could rise to such a senior position as working for the Party leader, without having been yelled at by a man before. I think it is more likely that she was acting at the behest of someone else, probably Angus, to try to make Singh look bad. If that's the case, it worked like a charm.

I realize I've drifted now from the topic of this thread - Christine Moore - towards the topic of the other thread - Erin Weir. So I will bring this back around to the other conclusion I've drawn, which is that no matter what you believe about what has happened to anyone else - Christine Moore is bad news. I don't know whether she is telling the truth about what happened between her and Kirkland , or if Kirkland is telling the truth, or if (as is often the case) the truth is somewhere in the middle. What I do know is that she should not have slept with someone who testified before her committee. I also know that she ruined two other MPs careers before her and Erin Weir ever crossed paths - in a similar fashion where she had information that could have been the subject of a proper complaint but she chose to circumvent any such complaint processes for whatever purpose. The effect of her actions was both to betray the confidences of whoever had confided in her, and to place others in a very difficult position when called upon to respond to her actions. I don't think this is a person that any organization can keep on, without seriously crippling itself. She is poison. The NDP needs to find a way to push her out. Once she is gone, I would hope that cooler heads will prevail on both sides and they can find some way to resolve the dispute with Erin before the next election.

NorthReport

98% of this thread is just the usual Liberal gangup of any chance to attack the NDP. And 1% is the usual Unionist any opportunity to attack the NDP. 

Guys you really need to reflect on what you are saying here at a supposedly progressive website.

Notalib

The last NDP convention was opened by the President with a speech that focused on establishing processes that have so far failed women in the party. She sincerely apologised to the affected women past and present, and committed to righting the wrong on behalf of the entire party.

The plenary went on to pass emergency motions in addition to vetted "regular" motions all of which detailed this effort.

Further, people were deployed on the floor of convention in an effort to educate and forward the issues and policy the party was already crafting to update decades old party policy in this respect.

There were also speakers and panels devoted to the issue.

IOW, it was one of the most coordinated efforts I have witnessed to not only prioritize the issue but to have it at the centre of the convention's effort.

Such undertakings are typically evidence of a coordinated effort that has put the highest political priority on ensuring the party successfully addresses the issue in order to appeal to a large politically important demographic for the party.

Weirs lack of respect for the unanimous will of convention, and his subsequent actions to undermine the very processes the party is grappling with installing as a result of the members and leaders unequivocal desire to properly address these issues, suggests a suboridance that can only result in his explusion. He must have knew this was the case when he decided to roll the dice and attack his accusers , as he clearly understands the discipline required among caucus to forward party policy given his experience with carbon pricing at the Saskatchewan convention.

Weir could have simply accepted the publicly offered material for him to save face, underwent the training he agreed to  and it would have been done with. The party could have delivered on its convention's mandate while ensuring the caucus reamined whole. Weir made that impossible, tainted the directive of convention by usurping the process they mandated and decided to crusade on the issue while simultaneously looking to boost his own profile by appealing to yesteryear when misogyny was normal and women were largely marginalized in the work force.

This was a fatal mistake.

 

6079_Smith_W

Wow. Did he kick small puppies and steal candy from children too? So is it all about misogyny and marginalizing women in the workplace because he spoke to the press after someone took it upon themselves to make a public accusation (the actual reason given for canning him), or because he wanted to speak his mind at a convention?

 

Unionist

robbie_dee wrote:

Notalib wrote:

Its clear to me the NDP Leadership worked to give Weir material to save face...

It is interesting how people can draw such different conclusions from the same set of facts. You are entitled to your opinion, Notalib, which I assume you've reached in good faith. My conclusions are very different, but I hope you will at least hear them out in the same spirit.

I think the NDP has been protecting Christine Moore all along, not so much because they like her (although I am sure she has allies in caucus) but because she's obviously dangerous. I think its also possible that Singh and his team weren't fully aware of her back story at the time, since they are relatively new to Ottawa. If that's the case that may have just ended up compounding their error.

In any case, though, I think when Moore pressed reply all on her her hit email against Weir, Singh and his team concluded that they had no choice but to make a public statement and launch an expensive investigation because they were afraid that if they didn't she would go public and demand one anyways. I think they were also really hoping that the investigation would find *something*, so that - notwithstanding the totally inappropriate way Moore had acted towards a fellow caucus-mate - they wouldn't have to burn her and lose her seat, but also that the investigation would not find *too much*, such that they had to kick out Weir. I think Flaherty understood her mission and fulfilled it well. Everything was on track until somebody fucked it up.

The timeline is really important here. There was a deal in place on April 19th for Weir to make a (likely carefully negotiated) admission of wrongdoing, undertake some visible steps of rehabilitation and return. But then Singh's office sat on it. Someone must have been holding it up, possibly Moore, possibly someone else.

On May 1, eleven days after the deal was in place but with it still not announced, a complainant goes to CBC and spills the beans, selectively, about the nature of her complaint. Notably, though, this is not one of the sexual harassment complainants. This was a senior staffer for the party who had previously worked for Mulcair when he was leader and who, I also understand, is quite close to Charlie Angus. Her complaint, about which she only revealed selective and inflammatory details, was regarding an actual policy dispute that she and Weir had been involved in, and which took place in a public forum (2016 SK NDP convention). She said Weir spoke to her in an angry and belligerent way and she felt intimidated. Weir felt differently about this interaction, and once the complainant had gone public, he wanted to respond. He contacted Singh's office first, but when Singh did not get back to him and the story ran, he decided he would respond to the story. He did not identify the complainant. He limited his comments to the one complaint and to the context behind it which he felt exonerated him.

It is obvious that this one complaint has very little to do with the other three. Totally different context, totally different allegations, totally different power dynamic involved. The only reason why it got mixed in with the other three complaints is because of the dragnet-style investigation the NDP had launched. In my opinion, this particular complainant should never have been offered confidentiality in the first place - the situation she describes would not appear to warrant it. In any case, I think she waived any expectation of confidentiality by going public, and the fact that people are still giving it to her is allowing her to use it as a weapon instead of a shield like it should be. She was able to say things publicly about Weir - with no apparent repercussions - while he is only able to respond with significant repercussions.

The question I have to ask is why did she go public when she did? The conclusion I draw, which frankly I think is the only reasonable one, is that she was trying to blow up the deal that the Party had entered into with Weir. Why would she do that? Maybe she thought the deal was unfair and her concerns hadn't fully been dealt with. But I find it dubious that this person could rise to such a senior position as working for the Party leader, without having been yelled at by a man before. I think it is more likely that she was acting at the behest of someone else, probably Angus, to try to make Singh look bad. If that's the case, it worked like a charm.

I realize I've drifted now from the topic of this thread - Christine Moore - towards the topic of the other thread - Erin Weir. So I will bring this back around to the other conclusion I've drawn, which is that no matter what you believe about what has happened to anyone else - Christine Moore is bad news. I don't know whether she is telling the truth about what happened between her and Kirkland , or if Kirkland is telling the truth, or if (as is often the case) the truth is somewhere in the middle. What I do know is that she should not have slept with someone who testified before her committee. I also know that she ruined two other MPs careers before her and Erin Weir ever crossed paths - in a similar fashion where she had information that could have been the subject of a proper complaint but she chose to circumvent any such complaint processes for whatever purpose. The effect of her actions was both to betray the confidences of whoever had confided in her, and to place others in a very difficult position when called upon to respond to her actions. I don't think this is a person that any organization can keep on, without seriously crippling itself. She is poison. The NDP needs to find a way to push her out. Once she is gone, I would hope that cooler heads will prevail on both sides and they can find some way to resolve the dispute with Erin before the next election.

I'll take off my thread cop badge temporarily and forgive your drift, robbie_dee, because finally we have, in detailed form, a plausible explanation of what happened. I don't know about the Charlie Angus speculation, nor do I know or care (as I have repeatedly said) what happened in bed between Moore and Kirkland. But this makes sense, however sadly it reflects on the integrity and competence of the party leadership. It certainly beats some of the asinine opinion pieces we've seen in the media. Thanks for doing this.

robbie_dee

Thanks for giving me a pass this time, officer unionist, and for your nice words about my post. I wanted to respond to Notalib's last response as well, but will do so here to keep the threads clean.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

My indignation lies elsewhere - the destruction of Erin Weir's political reputation and career by people not fit to shine his shoes. That's what I'm indignant about.

As for the Moore-Kirkland affair? Netflix should pick it up while it's still available. I'll provide the popcorn. It's not a matter of public interest, not in the slightest.

Then why are you in this thread?

As to Weir, what has he done to impress you so much?  Your defence of Weir seems hyper-partisan to me possibly also fueled by your anger at the non-democratic way the NDP is run in general.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

My indignation lies elsewhere - the destruction of Erin Weir's political reputation and career by people not fit to shine his shoes. That's what I'm indignant about.

As for the Moore-Kirkland affair? Netflix should pick it up while it's still available. I'll provide the popcorn. It's not a matter of public interest, not in the slightest.

Then why are you in this thread?

Because Moore is yapping publicly about how she is good and Kirkland is bad, while the investigation ordered by the party hasn't even begun - whereas Weir was expelled from caucus for that very sin. It's a sobering example of how the party can't get anything straight.

Quote:
As to Weir, what has he done to impress you so much?  Your defence of Weir seems hyper-partisan to me possibly also fueled by your anger at the non-democratic way the NDP is run in general.

That idle speculation on your part is on a par with your having imagined that Weir had harassed Moore. You have a bad habit of making things up - maybe it's all innocent, you can't control it - as you are doing throughout this thread by imagining what happened in that steamy bedroom. As for Weir, my defence of him is based on two things: 1) his work as a progressive economist on behalf of the trade union movement; and more importantly 2) that he is an innocent victim of people that are more clever, conniving, calculating, and amoral than he is - and that injustices like those committed against him are a distressing indication of a party that has totally lost its sense of principle and humanity. It's not a small thing. As for "hyper-partisan" - that's your idle speculation, and unworthy of being taken seriously long enough to formulate a reply.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

My indignation lies elsewhere - the destruction of Erin Weir's political reputation and career by people not fit to shine his shoes. That's what I'm indignant about.

As for the Moore-Kirkland affair? Netflix should pick it up while it's still available. I'll provide the popcorn. It's not a matter of public interest, not in the slightest.

Then why are you in this thread?

Because Moore is yapping publicly about how she is good and Kirkland is bad, while the investigation ordered by the party hasn't even begun - whereas Weir was expelled from caucus for that very sin. It's a sobering example of how the party can't get anything straight.

Quote:
As to Weir, what has he done to impress you so much?  Your defence of Weir seems hyper-partisan to me possibly also fueled by your anger at the non-democratic way the NDP is run in general.

That idle speculation on your part is on a par with your having imagined that Weir had harassed Moore. You have a bad habit of making things up - maybe it's all innocent, you can't control it - as you are doing throughout this thread by imagining what happened in that steamy bedroom. As for Weir, my defence of him is based on two things: 1) his work as a progressive economist on behalf of the trade union movement; and more importantly 2) that he is an innocent victim of people that are more clever, conniving, calculating, and amoral than he is - and that injustices like those committed against him are a distressing indication of a party that has totally lost its sense of principle and humanity. It's not a small thing. As for "hyper-partisan" - that's your idle speculation, and unworthy of being taken seriously long enough to formulate a reply.

You are full of shit. I pointed out where you were malicious so you ignored it.  You have accused me of hyperpartisanship several times. Goose Gander.

Being a progressive economist, if he is, does not mean that he cannot also harass people. He initially accepted the findings of the report so perhaps not so innocent as you proclaim. Weir did and still does have recourse. It is his own actions that have resulted in his current situation. That he hasn't sued yet doesn't mean he won't. It can take time to get it together. I don't believe he will.

Moore and Weir are in very different situations so there is no reason why they would be treated identically. It was to Weir's benefit to stay silent while the investigation looked into the rumors. It was to Moore's benefit to respond quickly because her accuser went public with his name and she had physical proof that he was lying. Her statement was so well-crafted I suspect she did go through the party and they were aware of every word before she said it. I could certainly be wrong. I am expressing my opinion not claiming fact.

garden

It is certainly debatable whether it is to Moore's benefit to speak out and attack the accuser publicly. The fact that she lied or mislead on an matters that can be checked, such as his testimony, where she first said he said under oath he was only taking insulin, then a day or two later claimed he said he was only taking two medications, when he said no such thing.  There was no statement that these were the only medications he was taking.  Given this unreliability of something that is in public records, it seems foolish to trust Moore's words on things that cannot be checked.  She has a strong motivation to make herself appear innocent and to have behaved appropriately for an MP.

ETA: I believe the reason the accused is expected to not say much while the process is going on is, in part, to create an environment where people feel confortable reporting.  When people know that an MP will speak out, likely with the aid of communications experts, not to mention an MP's experience in public speaking, one can certainly expect fewer complaints to be made.

Pondering

garden wrote:
 It is certainly debatable whether it is to Moore's benefit to speak out and attack the accuser publicly. The fact that she lied or mislead on an matters that can be checked, such as his testimony, where she first said he said under oath he was only taking insulin, then a day or two later claimed he said he was only taking two medications, when he said no such thing.  There was no statement that these were the only medications he was taking.  Given this unreliability of something that is in public records, it seems foolish to trust Moore's words on things that cannot be checked.  She has a strong motivation to make herself appear innocent and to have behaved appropriately for an MP. 

Moore claimed that under oath Kirkland stated he was only taking insulin and arthritis medication. I haven't read anything stating that is untrue. Have you?

garden wrote:
 ETA: I believe the reason the accused is expected to not say much while the process is going on is, in part, to create an environment where people feel confortable reporting.  When people know that an MP will speak out, likely with the aid of communications experts, not to mention an MP's experience in public speaking, one can certainly expect fewer complaints to be made.  [/quoteETA: I believe the reason the accused is expected to not say much while the process is going on is, in part, to create an environment where people feel confortable reporting.  When people know that an MP will speak out, likely with the aid of communications experts, not to mention an MP's experience in public speaking, one can certainly expect fewer complaints to be made. 

Was anyone instructed not to speak during the investigation?

 

 

garden

The transcript of Kirkland's testimony to Moore which is available on gc website. He clearly mentions 2 medications but is not asked and does not state whether these are the only 2 he currently is taking (either regularly, like the insulin and arthritis medication or perhaps as needed, as anxiety medication would be.)

I assume parties with a reporting process ask their MPs not to speak out, since all Liberal and NDP MPs say they will not be speaking out to respect the process.  Note, Moore also said she would not be speaking out to respect the process. Then the next day she spoke out just to say Kirkland had said under oath that he was only taking insulin.  Then a couple days later she scheduled a press conference. Moore has not come across as very reliable in my opinion.

ETA: it seems NDP either gave her permission to speak out or at least is supportive of her speaking out, since she has not been expelled from caucus for doing so and, as far as is known, the NDP still expects to proceed with an investigation. Although I am not sure if Moore launching a lawsuit (which she has said she will do) delays or interferes in any way with the usual investigation.

Pondering

Here is the public record of what Kirkland said, and he was under oath.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/NDDN/meeting-84/evidence

 So the main medication that at this point you would be potentially losing by premature discharge would be insulin.

    Are there any other medications that are at risk by—

Cpl Glen Kirkland:

    Yes, I take an arthritis pill.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-says-he-always-believes-sur...

He began a daily regime of drugs, including antidepressants, powerful opioid painkillers, insulin and antibiotics, and was still taking them in early June 2013, when the House of Commons standing committee on defence summoned him, against the wishes of the military, to testify about his treatment by the military following his injuries...

As the committee dispersed, committee member Christine Moore handed him her card, asking him to come to her office for further discussions. A few hours later, he did, not knowing quite what to expect: "You have to realize what an elected MP is to a grunt soldier," he said....

Kirkland says when he arrived at Moore's office, she offered him gin, and persisted even after he told her he was taking antidepressants and painkillers, and was not supposed to be drinking. "She's a nurse," he says, "and I thought I suppose if she's a nurse and says it's OK, it is."

There were a few more drinks, and it became clear Moore's intentions went beyond a professional interest in his case.

That night, he says, she "followed" him back to his hotel, where he says she spent the night....

Was I a willing participant? I guess it depends on your definition of willing. There was a power imbalance. There was a level of authority there."...

My definition of willing is did you want to have sex with the person or did you have sex with them for fear of what they might do if you didn't? If an adult groupie has sex with a band member because they both want to there is a power imbalance but it isn't harassment of any sort.

From day one Kirkland has tried to make what happened sound like he was taken advantage of without actually saying so. The press foolishly fell for it without even asking him the most obvious questions, like how did she get your phone number and address? Did you respond to her texts? How did she know where you were golfing? Were you afraid that if you didn't cooperate it might negatively impact the weight she put on your testimony before the committee?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-media-conference-allegat...

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.

Moore said Kirkland followed her back to her office and kissed her, and she responded to the kiss. She said he asked her if she wanted to take her clothes off and she said no, that she didn't think there was time because she had to return to the House of Commons for votes and was also afraid of staff members catching them.

She said Kirkland sent her a text inviting her to his hotel and she joined him after voting; she described what followed as a consensual sexual encounter.

The parliamentary record shows that Christine Moore was present for the vote at 10:40 PM which ended an hour later.  I don't see how she "followed" Kirkland to his hotel.

 

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

You are full of shit.

Perhaps, but I do attempt to evacuate it in timely fashion.

Quote:
I pointed out where you were malicious so you ignored it.

My comment about your misspelling of "publicly" was actually intended as a quip, in a desire to lighten up the discussion. You seem to be immune to that concept. Sorry about that.

Quote:
You have accused me of hyperpartisanship several times. Goose Gander.

You've spent years here being called a Liberal shill by a multitude of babblers. Not by me. I've always appreciated your interventions, especially on feminism, your thoughtful analysis of Québec issues, and many others. But something's going wrong her. You say I've accused you of hyperpartisanship several times. That's weird. Remind me of a single time. If I did, it was not intended, and I will retract. But it's your accusation, so over to you.

Quote:
Being a progressive economist, if he is, does not mean that he cannot also harass people.

Yes it does. He can lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Ok seriously, what a stupid comment. I told you how I came to know him and why I had a tendency to respect him - in response to your question. So you use my sincere response to type that utterly inane sentence above? What is wrong with you today?

Quote:
He initially accepted the findings of the report so perhaps not so innocent as you proclaim.

Yes of course he did. How many times do I have to repeat that? He explained how he read about the allegations of his standing or sitting too close to people, and talking longer than they liked, and came to understand how this could be seen as unwelcome behaviour, and he resolved to take it to heart. No one has contradicted his description of these situations. And no, Professors Pondering and Flaherty, that's not "sexual harassment", even if the kind Professor apparently characterized them that way (and why did the party release those findings at all? couldn't that risk identifying the complainants?). When he accepted those findings, he did it in a spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, of genuine reconciliation, of not nitpicking, of trying to recognize his own faults and changing. This was after being treated like shit - not told the names of the complainants - not even being told the allegations weeks into the process - having to hear himself publicly reviled by that creepy Christine Moore (with no penalty to Moore for her abhorrent email) - and then the Senior Staffer deciding she hadn't done enough damage (must have heard that Weir was accepting the report, holy crap, that wasn't part of the plan), so she went public again with her bizarre claim that she felt "physically intimidated" by him - not naming herself, giving no context. After waiting and waiting for guidance from the party - or at least, maybe, Singh publicly denouncing this former senior staffer for violating the terms of the investigation - Weir couldn't contain it any more.

Yeah, I admire him and his restraint. And I'm coming to a rather speculative conclusion, because I haven't seen all the witness accounts. Here it is: Erin Weir did nothing wrong. Moore issued her wild attack; Singh fished for complainants, and they reeled some in; they did a Star Chamber process in direct violation of the NDP's own harassment policy (as I have proven repeatedly - no one has contradicted me on that); and they couldn't come up with a single allegation against Weir that would shock a resident of Canada in the 21st century.

Erin Weir is the victim here, and an innocent victim at that.

Quote:
Weir did and still does have recourse. It is his own actions that have resulted in his current situation. That he hasn't sued yet doesn't mean he won't. It can take time to get it together. I don't believe he will.

How generous of spirit you are, to give Weir advice about his recourse. I don't care if he sues. I don't need to advise him. The problem to be resolved is in the secret inner circle which leads the NDP, and the rival factions. Unless that poison is addressed, other Moores will arise with their toxic behaviour, and other Weirs will fall victim. Like all the excellent candidates who have been turfed by secret processes because they weren't sufficiently pro-Israeli (5 names come to mind off hand). The NDP is sick, and that's a shame.

Quote:
I am expressing my opinion not claiming fact.

I know. I'm trying to stick to the facts.

garden

Pondering, if you included the rest of that statement, you'd see he veered off and talked about over medication and then the Chair turned to other questions with no followup. As I said, this is not stating he was taking only two medications. Those two meds, for insulin and arthritis, he likely will take for the rest of his life, in which case, they would be a concern upon his future termination from the military and, consequently, relevant to the question. In his testimony he described his ongoing anxiety and, with his statement about overmedication, it would be quite surprising if he did not have medication for anxiety. It is disingenous of Moore to claim that he said those are the ONLY medications he was taking. Had he been taking anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications that he thought he would be free of in the near future, they would be no reason for him to mention them in his testimony.

Not sure how Moore being at the vote shows she didn't follow him unless one knows where Kirkland was after the vote.  On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirkland does not remember some details of the night as his condition sounded pretty rough, his testimony shows he was struggling with his injuries including mental health issues at that time, both sides seem to agree he been drinking, possibly combined with medications, he was in the midst of a messy divorce and, to top it off, he had been warned against testifying.    However, that in itself, does not mean there was no misconduct on Moore's part. That is something the investigation and to some extent, the courts (if Moore follows through on her promise to sue) will sort out.  

I'm not so interested in debating the two versions, just pointing out that Moore's statements are not accurate and no court would find Kirkland's testimony to be inconsistent with him taking other medications. 

I see you want to believe Moore's statements, despite evidence to the contrary, so I'll bow out.

 

 

Pondering

First off Unionist, thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer me and the manner in which you did so. I genuinely appreciate it.

Unionist wrote:
You say I've accused you of hyperpartisanship several times. That's weird. Remind me of a single time. If I did, it was not intended, and I will retract.

Post 333 of the Weir thread, but I don't blame you for forgetting if it is not something you think of me in general.

Unionist wrote:
 What is wrong with you today?

I have learned to listen to me "spidey senses" on men which is really just recognition of a set of characteristics different types of men exhibit. I think everyone has the same to a greater or lessor degree. I'm not saying it's infallible factual information, but taken together it's pretty reliable.

Weir strikes me as alpha-male type which isn't a crime. It's strongly encouraged in our society and certainly something a politician wants to project, even Trudeau for all his "feminism". I don't see "angry and belligerent" as such a terrible accusation. Couldn't everyone be accused of behaving that way at some point when they have felt unfairly treated? He could have said "I didn't mean to be intimidating I was  just upset over something I feel strongly about" and "that was a few years ago and I don't think anyone has reacted to me that way since." "I'm a big guy so in future I'll be more aware of how that can impact other people." He  wasn't accused of attacking anyone. Knowing the circumstances convinces me he was upset at the time and did express it in a manner that the recipient felt intimidated and said so.

I will say it is a sensitive issue to me. I'm a woman. Statistically we are unlikely to report transgressions against us large and small because of how we are put on trial. This is why organizations are hiring private investigators and giving absolute confidentiality. It's to find out the truth. It does upset me to see the women involved attacked. That is the very reason women hesitate to come forward.

I think it is likely the CBC was investigating, they also broke that the report had been complete for a couple of weeks. I'm not sure if it is even the staffer herself that spoke to the CBC.

Unionist wrote:
 - or at least, maybe, Singh publicly denouncing this former senior staffer for violating the terms of the investigation -

I don't believe complainants can be sworn to silence.

Unionist wrote:
 Here it is: Erin Weir did nothing wrong. Moore issued her wild attack; Singh fished for complainants, and they reeled some in; they did a Star Chamber process in direct violation of the NDP's own harassment policy (as I have proven repeatedly - no one has contradicted me on that); and they couldn't come up with a single allegation against Weir that would shock a resident of Canada in the 21st century.

It wasn't a wild attack, it was an outburst, and she isn't creepy. Moore is not responsible for Weir's expulsion. Weir was expelled for revealing details that could identify the staffer and accusing her of being politically motivated in her complaint. Regardless of the provocation that was his decision alone.

You said Singh fished for complainants. What does that say about the women who came forward? The grand majority of women do not come forward. The grapevine is used as an alert system for other women. There is no benefit to women for coming forward.

NDP policy does not forbid investigations in the absence of formal complaints and I don't see where policy was contravened anyway. Weir  was provided with enough information that he believes he knows who it was on one complaint. There was no need for him to know the names of the other complainants if he was acknowledging the behavior. If he rejected the alegations that might present a need to know.

Unionist wrote:
 The problem to be resolved is in the secret inner circle which leads the NDP,and the rival factions. Unless that poison is addressed, other Moores will arise with their toxic behaviour, and other Weirs will fall victim. Like all the excellent candidates who have been turfed by secret processes because they weren't sufficiently pro-Israeli (5 names come to mind off hand). The NDP is sick, and that's a shame.

I think the NDP is like any other professional political party in terms of factions, management and the limited power of members. I think the battle is between idealism and pragmatism and finding the right balance between the two.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

Weir strikes me as alpha-male type which isn't a crime.

Have you ever met and talked to Erin Weir?

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, I admire him and his restraint. And I'm coming to a rather speculative conclusion, because I haven't seen all the witness accounts. Here it is: Erin Weir did nothing wrong. Moore issued her wild attack; Singh fished for complainants, and they reeled some in; they did a Star Chamber process in direct violation of the NDP's own harassment policy (as I have proven repeatedly - no one has contradicted me on that); and they couldn't come up with a single allegation against Weir that would shock a resident of Canada in the 21st century.

Erin Weir is the victim here, and an innocent victim at that.

Unionist wrote:

I know. I'm trying to stick to the facts.

Bullshit.  You don't know the facts, since they haven't been released publicly.  You're really just guessing.

Pondering

garden wrote:
I see you want to believe Moore's statements, despite evidence to the contrary, so I'll bow out. 

You mean take a last shot and  cop-out. Not quite the same thing.

garden wrote:
 Pondering, if you included the rest of that statement, you'd see he veered off and talked about over medication and then the Chair turned to other questions with no followup. As I said, this is not stating he was taking only two medications.

I linked to the entire statement. The point is Kirkland is claiming that because Moore is a nurse and knew he was on medications he trusted her to know if he could drink or not. He claimed he make sure to have his medication list with him when he went to her office because he thought that was why he was there. At the hearing he talked about over-medication and that he refused to take oxycodone. I should think if there was anywhere he would be sure to have his medication list with him would be when he was testifying about the impact of his injuries.

The first visit to her office was with a group of veterans so he must be referring to his second visit which occurred later, after hanging out on the patio. He doesn't claim that she offered to check his medication or anything like that. He claims that he assumed he was going back to her office to discuss medication because she is a nurse which she said during the hearing when she asked him a question.

After that visit to the office she went to vote and it is on record that she was there. So did Kirkland wait for her in her office or go to his hotel? If he waited for her, why? If he didn't, how did she follow him?

He keeps saying "it would be different if I were a woman".  Well yes it would be. A woman would not go back to an MPs office alone under the assumption that the MP was going to advise her on medication unless he stated that was his intention, and even then. If that were the purpose the consultation could be on the patio. Once he went to vote she would take that as an opportunity to leave. She would not give him her hotel information.

Kirkland claimed she just showed up on his doorstep on Winnipeg yet she emailed him two days before and he picked her up at the airport.

Kirkland  worded himself to the press in such a way as to imply things happened a certain way without explicitly saying so. It is perposterous that he puts the responsibility of his drinking on her shoulders because she is a nurse and didn't exclude him when she offered drinks to all the veterans. He made it sound like she was getting him drunk to take advantage of him and he didn't want her to go to his hotel with him and that after that their only contact was her texting him and tracking him from golf course to his home so she could show up.

He knew what medications he was and wasn't taking and his doctors and pharmacists are the people with the authority to tell him if he can drink or not on his medication. Not an MP who used to be a nurse. 

It is obvious that he worded himself in such a way as to imply he was unwilling and felt intimidated by her status without actually saying so. He let the editorialists expand on the meaning of his words.

He has not denied a word Moore has said about their meetings and communications. He scoffed at the idea they could have been in a relationship because of the number of times they met and claimed it was "proof". I guess he never heard of long-distance relationships. I agree he never thought of himself as being in a relationship but that doesn't mean he didn't leave Moore with that impression.

He did add that the reason he picked her up at the airport was his concern over what she might do because he thinks she  is mentally unstable.

He hasn't given another interview since. The truth will out and Moore will be vindicated and Kirkland will look like the cad he is.

robbie_dee

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I know. I'm trying to stick to the facts.

Bullshit.  You don't know the facts, since they haven't been released publicly.  You're really just guessing.

You’ve stated on the other thread that you “believe the allegations” but unless you are party to non-public information you don’t know any more than Unionist does. So I am going to repeat (slightly rephrased) the question you were asked there. What is it that you believe Erin Weir actually did and why do you believe it? And what do you believe about Christine Moore?

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I know. I'm trying to stick to the facts.

Bullshit.  You don't know the facts, since they haven't been released publicly.  You're really just guessing.

You’ve stated on the other thread that you “believe the allegations” but unless you are party to non-public information you don’t know any more than Unionist does. So I am going to repeat (slightly rephrased) the question you were asked there. What is it that you believe Erin Weir actually did and why do you believe it? And what do you believe about Christine Moore?

I'm not wage zombie but I will answer anyway.

Believing something doesn't mean you are claiming it as a fact. Some facts that we know.

An experienced lawyer and professor in human rights and labour defined the incidences as harassment and provided a summary to the NDP.

The NDP decided anti-harassment training would be sufficient which implies the events were not extreme. 

A complainant spoke with the CBC saying one of the complaints wass due to what she termed as angry and belligerent behavior. 

Weir responded by saying it wasn't true while describing the incident in such a way as the complainant could be identified. He attributed the motive of political payback to the complainant.

For that reason the offer of anti-harassment training was withdrawn and he was expelled from caucus.

Debater

Pondering wrote:

He hasn't given another interview since. The truth will out and Moore will be vindicated and Kirkland will look like the cad he is.

It may very well be that Kirkland is not telling the truth about some of the details of the relationship, or that he and Moore remember it differently.  She's certainly entitled to a full investigation to determine whether Kirkland has made misleading statements.

But one fact remains -- Moore still had an inappropriate relationship with someone who was a witness before a Parliamentary Committee that she was a member of.  It's still a conflict of interest, and still raises ethical issues.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
or that he and Moore remember it differently

Isn't that the typical thing, tho?

We wouldn't have a #meToo movement if everyone could just remember it differently and that meant 'it's all up in the air'.

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Pondering wrote:

He hasn't given another interview since. The truth will out and Moore will be vindicated and Kirkland will look like the cad he is.

It may very well be that Kirkland is not telling the truth about some of the details of the relationship, or that he and Moore remember it differently.  She's certainly entitled to a full investigation to determine whether Kirkland has made misleading statements.

But one fact remains -- Moore still had an inappropriate relationship with someone who was a witness before a Parliamentary Committee that she was a member of.  It's still a conflict of interest, and still raises ethical issues.

It doesn't seem to be against any rules.  It seems as though the committee was fact-finding not decision-making. I still agree on principle that MPs and committee witnesses shouldn't be fraternizing. Lobbiests should also be avoided. 

 

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

I'm not wage zombie but I will answer anyway.

Believing something doesn't mean you are claiming it as a fact. Some facts that we know.

An experienced lawyer and professor in human rights and labour defined the incidences as harassment and provided a summary to the NDP.

The NDP decided anti-harassment training would be sufficient which implies the events were not extreme. 

A complainant spoke with the CBC saying one of the complaints wass due to what she termed as angry and belligerent behavior. 

Weir responded by saying it wasn't true while describing the incident in such a way as the complainant could be identified. He attributed the motive of political payback to the complainant.

For that reason the offer of anti-harassment training was withdrawn and he was expelled from caucus.

Hi Pondering, I think that the facts you have stated above are basically  accurate. Based  on our exchange on the other thread it seems our main point of disagreement is that I believe (for reasons I’ve set forth several times already) that Weir was probably telling the truth when he alleged that the one non-sexual harassment claim from the former Mulcair senior staffer (FMSS) was politically motivated. Because I believe him and because I believe he should be entitled to comment publicly once a complainant has gone public (just as Moore has done), I think it was unfair for the NDP to conflate this issue with the three other “sustained” complaints (which everyone seems to agree were “not extreme”) and the NDP should not have withdrawn its offer to allow Weir to remain in caucus so long as he completed the other agreed-upon rehabilitative steps. You feel differently about some or all of this. I also share Unionist’s other concerns about the fairness of the process the NDP followed and the fact that it may have departed from what it appears was actually passed at convention, which does not appear to be a concern you share. But that’s a second level of disagreement, our main point of dispute seems to be with respect to the situation between Weir and FMSS. So be it, everybody isn’t going to agree on everything all the time. I appreciate your time in spelling out your thoughts and I found it informative.

What I don’t know is how Wage Zombie got to his or her position and I was curious to know if s/he either drew a different conclusion about what has been made publicly known about the investigator’s findings than you or I have, or if WZ knows additional non-public facts s/he is willing to share.

With respect to Moore, I don’t know who is telling the truth between Moore and Kirkland. Instinctively I am inclined to believe Kirkland, (1) because Moore’s past behavior leads me to question her credibility,  (2) because Kirkland did not come forward on his own, but only after being contacted by a reporter, (3) because Kirkland has no obvious motive to lie and (4) because I believe that as a man from a “macho” culture like the army it is probably very difficult to admit one has been taken advantage of sexually as it signifies “weakness”. I could well be wrong, of course.

What is undisputed though is that Moore had sex with a witness who testified before her committee within 24 hours of his testimony, which seems ethically problematic to me (and also, frankly, just pretty seedy). What also appears to be undisputed is that Moore made allegations outside of official channels that ended up costing two MPs their careers and will potentially end up doing the same to a third unless Weir somehow finds a way to continue despite the circumstances in which he finds himself. Moreover, on the facts it sounds like there was actually a lot less to the allegations than there would have initially appeared to be based on the sensational way in which Moore presented them. While the conduct of the other MPs in question may not have been perfect, it was more the attention that Moore drew to them, rather than the conduct itself, which proved fatal. For these undisputed reasons, regardless of who is telling the truth over the disputed issues between Moore and Kirkland, I think Moore is not someone who should be in caucus and in fact the longer she remains the greater the chance is that she will do further damage to the Party. Jagmeet Singh should give her the boot ASAP.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

A woman would not go back to an MPs office alone under the assumption that the MP was going to advise her on medication unless he stated that was his intention, and even then.

So then why did Moore go back to Pacetti's hotel room, without so much as an 'even then'?

Pondering

Apologies to Unionist for drifting back into the Weir situation. I will respond to the comments on that in the other thread when I have a chance.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply robbie.

Between Kirkland and Moore, listen to what he has to say here:

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/primetime-politics/episodes/61971507

He goes out of his way to say he is not accusing her of anything but says if their sexes were reversed she would be in jail. The interviewer tries to get him to say he felt harassed but Kirkland dodges it.

Here is another account

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/more-harrassment-allegations-within-n...

and another

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-9-2018-1.4654246/...

I'm at my house in Brandon and I get a knock on the door and I'm getting surprised. So it was very, it was pretty disturbing.

He has since admitted that he picked her up at the airport. It seems he is easily "disturbed".

This is her account and his response.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/05/13/new-democrat-mp-christine...

You are predisposed not to believe Moore which is fine but you are ignoring proof that Kirkland lied. If you listen to him it is obvious he is skating around and trying to make it look like Moore took advantage of him while claiming he isn't saying that. He keeps harping on if she were a man. It would not be different if she was a man. If the woman did not feel harassed or coerced in any way it would be a non-issue. The man certainly wouldn't go to jail for a consensual relationship however brief or casual.

Kirkland may have been approached but he was milking it for all it was worth. Now that there are clear discrepancies the media has seemingly lost interest instead of delving into them.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

A woman would not go back to an MPs office alone under the assumption that the MP was going to advise her on medication unless he stated that was his intention, and even then.

So then why did Moore go back to Pacetti's hotel room, without so much as an 'even then'?

Because they were friends and he invited her for a nightcap in the same way a female MP would. They weren't strangers. Even so I do think it was naive of her. That doesn't excuse his behavior.

I don't believe Kirkland thought he was going to discuss his medication or medical condition when he went to her office somewhere around 10PM. He is  not saying that she said anything to suggest it. He claimed she "followed him" to his  hotel. Well either he waited around while she voted so she could "follow" him or he gave her his hotel room number so she could meet him there. Kirkland states whatever they did was completely consensual so there is no behavior to excuse. They both wanted to do whatever they did sexually. No harm no foul.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Because they were friends and he invited her for a nightcap in the same way a female MP would. They weren't strangers. Even so I do think it was naive of her. That doesn't excuse his behavior.

They weren't friends. The story was they played in the same sports league. And you don't know what Pacetti's behaviour was, so you can't 'not excuse' it. And let us not forget that the Kirkland event happened before the Pacetti event. I really have a hard time believing Moore was 'naive' enough to have forgotten what happened when she went to Kirkland's hotel room. 

And it bears repeating. When Moore took her complaint to Trudeau, the event with Pacetti wasn't part of it. Her complaint was on behalf of another NDP MP, and we don't know whether Moore received authorisation from the MP to reveal that episode.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Both of these stories are hinky as all hell.  Moore's (third party!) claims against Weir, and Kirkland's (half-hearted, opportunistic) claims against Moore.

I find it interesting that anyone would outright reject one, while supporting the other.

The undeclared "third actor" in all of this is, of course, the #meToo movement, which suggests that at the very least we -- as good allies -- should "believe" survivors... both of them.  The people who survived an awkward guy talking at them too long, AND the retired soldier who chose to get boinked against his will.

Mobo2000

The mainstream press, now including Rosie Dimanno, are very interested in undercutting the "believe survivors" langugage,  and both these cases are great examples for them to use to do so.  Kirkland was sought out by the CBC to make this point, and a wider point about double standards in expectations for men's behaviour compared to women's.  

I think the lawsuit threats from Moore has quieted them down for a bit, but either way there will be more on this.   If she actually serves them they will have a field day with it, and if she doesn't they'll just resume once it becomes apparent she is not going to sue.

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Both of these stories are hinky as all hell.  Moore's (third party!) claims against Weir, and Kirkland's (half-hearted, opportunistic) claims against Moore. I find it interesting that anyone would outright reject one, while supporting the other.

Moore just reported that from what she had heard she would not be comfortable being alone with him. She didn't invent the 4 women that came forward with complaints. I can't assume there are more that didn't come forward but it wouldn't surprise me.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 The undeclared "third actor" in all of this is, of course, the #meToo movement, which suggests that at the very least we -- as good allies -- should "believe" survivors... both of them. ....AND the retired soldier who chose to get boinked against his will.

The soldier said it was completely consensual. He just thinks it's inappropriate that Moore was intimate with her because of their relative positions.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  The people who survived an awkward guy talking at them too long,

You seriously believe that 4 women made complaints against Weir just because he was awkward and talked to them too long? If it were six women would it be more believable? Ten?

Yes, we believe survivors, not charlatans who say straight up that the sex was consensual and lies or misleads about facts that can be  verified. We can and do judge the credibility of women all the time. Women never win the he said she said stand-off. The first reaction is always doubt. That is why the Me Too movement began.

Women, not men, are by far the greatest victims of sexual misconduct. Men are by far the majority of people who commit sexual misconduct not only towards women but towards other men as well.

It is obvious that Kirkland is misrepresenting his interactions with Moore to draw parallels between her and the men who have been accused of sexual or other misconduct or harassment. The situations are not equivalent and were the sexes reversed the MP would not be in trouble. As  long as the woman said it was consensual that would be the end of it.  Kirkland claimed a man would be thrown in jail for the same.

Unionist

We need to see photos / videos of what happened in bed between Moore and Kirkland. In this day and age of smartphones, there must be an audio-visual record. If anyone can provide those, I'm offering to volunteer my time and expertise. I'll submit my report as to who took advantage of whom. That's the only way to tell for sure. Waiting for evidence... And I'm claiming the movie rights.

Pondering

As both participants stated it was consensual I see no reason to think otherwise.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Moore just reported that from what she had heard she would not be comfortable being alone with him. She didn't invent the 4 women that came forward with complaints. I can't assume there are more that didn't come forward but it wouldn't surprise me.

But we don't know that the three complainants had anything to do with the supposed complainants Moore was talking about. And they didn't 'come forward'. They were solicited, and as I mentioned earlier, if you cast the net wide enough, you could find any number of people that are 'uncomfortable' with other people.

The only complaint we know the facts of is the one where a party staffer accused Weir of being  belligerent with her because she refused to allow him to speak to the NDP convention.

But you yourself haven't offered any explanation for why a staffer from Mulcair's office was sent to the Saskatchewan NDP convention to prevent Weir from speaking. 

Here's another question (which I posed elsewhere, but I'll add it here), did Moore already have the hearsay complaints when Weir applied for the position of caucus chair? If so, why not present that to the party as soon as she got it? Or are we to believe that when Weir sent out his email, all of a sudden a series of women phoned Moore to tell her of the uncomfortable encounters they had with Weir?

The only other option is that Moore had the information, and sat on it, presumably waiting for an opportune moment to publicise it.

Pondering

Mobo2000 wrote:

The mainstream press, now including Rosie Dimanno, are very interested in undercutting the "believe survivors" langugage,  and both these cases are great examples for them to use to do so.  Kirkland was sought out by the CBC to make this point, and a wider point about double standards in expectations for men's behaviour compared to women's.  

I think the lawsuit threats from Moore has quieted them down for a bit, but either way there will be more on this.   If she actually serves them they will have a field day with it, and if she doesn't they'll just resume once it becomes apparent she is not going to sue.

I think they are equally invested in creating an equivalency between men and women that doesn't exist. One of the arguments was that the issue was power not gender. It's power, but most of the time it is male power.

There were a multitude of clues in the manner in which Kirkland phrased himself. He did a lot of implying while avoiding answering direct questions. I should think that would be a big red alert to any so-called journalist. The biggest clue is that he said the sex was consensual.

Regardless of what Moore does, they won't go after her again because they know they let themselves be had. That Moore has proof things did not transpire the way Kirkland claimed.

He had several complaints.

His first is that Moore took advantage of him simply by virtue of being an MP even though the sex was entirely consensual.

That isn't the way it works. As long as the sex is entirely consensual, and there is no parliamentary rule against it, MPs both male and female can have sex with whomever wants to have sex with them.

Next he claimed that she had plied him with alcohol knowing he was on powerful medications and that he had accepted because she is a nurse. He even brought his medication list along because he thought it was a consultation.

She  then followed him to his hotel where they had consentual sex.

Next she kept texting him and showed up unannounced when he was playing golf with friends and later on his doorstep in his hometown.

So, the accusation was, she took advantage of her position to get him stuplified by a combination of drugs and alcohol, even though she is a nurse. He didn't invite her to his hotel but somehow she ended up following him there where whatever they did was consensual. Then she started stalking him until he got firm when she showed up on his doorstep.

The reporters she has threatened to sue elaborated on Kirkland's story. They liberally embelished it without asking any questions.

Yes we believe survivors, but we also ask them the obvious questions. Like, did  you feel intimidated by her? and "Did you respond to her texts? How did she get your personal information? Did she have it because she is a committee member? How did she find out where you were golfing and why was she in that area?

Nope. Suddenly reporters have no questions. They don't bother checking HoC records. They paint Moore as a sexual predator and stalker who took advantage of a drugged out emotionally vunerable vet.

But then we find out the first time they were at the office it was as a group and it was a general offer with everyone pouring their own drinks. Afterwards the party moved to a patio where the drinking continued. Kirkland said he was drinking non-alcoholic beer. Moore then had to go back to vote.The vote was happening at 10:40PM.  Let's agree she invited him back to the office with her. This was when he assumed he was going for a medical consult because she is a nurse?  Well okay. So they go back to the office and she goes to vote. Either he waited for her until almost midnight, or he returned to his hotel. If she had just showed up at his hotel door he would not have used the term "followed".

He claimed he was with friends on the golf course. I hope the investigator speaks to them.

Turns out he picked her up at the airport in Winnipeg and drove her to his house.

He has no good answers when confronted with the discrepencies. He is suddenly not doing any more interviews, or he isn't being asked. The journalists don't want to expose themselves as fools.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
But we don't know that the three complainants had anything to do with the supposed complainants Moore was talking about. 

Absolutely. All Moore reported was what was on the grapevine. It isn't at all unlikely that was a whole different set of complainants. It's habitual behavior.

Rev Pesky wrote:
And they didn't 'come forward'. They were solicited, and as I mentioned earlier, if you cast the net wide enough, you could find any number of people that are 'uncomfortable' with other people. 

A lawyer who specializes in human rights and labour law described it as sexual harassment, not "uncomfortable". What you are really saying  is "if you cast the net wide enough all men are guilty of sexual harassment" so women will come forward. Or are you saying, "if you cast the net wide enough women will come forward with false accusations". That's just not true.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 But you yourself haven't offered any explanation for why a staffer from Mulcair's office was sent to the Saskatchewan NDP convention to prevent Weir from speaking. 

We know there were three claims of sexual harassment because Singh said so and had he lied the investigator would have contradicted him immediately. Weir isn't releasing the details he knows either. He's gone pretty quiet.

This enormous net only covered the people Weir worked with through the NDP.

Rev Pesky wrote:
 Here's another question (which I posed elsewhere, but I'll add it here), did Moore already have the hearsay complaints when Weir applied for the position of caucus chair? If so, why not present that to the party as soon as she got it? Or are we to believe that when Weir sent out his email, all of a sudden a series of women phoned Moore to tell her of the uncomfortable encounters they had with Weir?

Of course not. Grapevine information is widely known. That is why it is called a grapevine.

Rev Pesky wrote:
The only other option is that Moore had the information, and sat on it, presumably waiting for an opportune moment to publicise it. 

Or, like everyone else who knew, she didn't know what to do with the information. When Weir said he was going for the chair position she blurted it out.

New procedures for reporting are not going to work unless they include a means for third party reporting of grapevine information and unofficial reports with a promise the individual reporting won't get dragged into it.

Mobo2000

Pondering, with regard to this:

"Regardless of what Moore does, they won't go after her again because they know they let themselves be had. That Moore has proof things did not transpire the way Kirkland claimed."

Please consider the reason he has gone quiet on this, as has the press, is that there was an indication from Moore that he personally, and the CBC, National Post and Toronto star would be sued for defamation.   Of course he's stopped giving interviews.    She's bought herself some time with the threat to sue, that's all.

Also, please consider that the parallel situation here, were we to extrapolate from your advice to Weir about suing, would be for Weir to personally sue the complaintants, not just the press for reporting it.  

We'll see what happens.   You've offered your prediction.   I think it is only a matter of time before this is opened up again.   Rosie Dimanno, perhaps uncharacteristically,  was incensed about the Patrick Brown situation.   The National Post writers were predictably incensed.   As Christie Blatchford detailed, the press covering these issues was already familiar with Moore, and they were not very sympathetic to her earlier press tour as anonymous accuser to the Liberal MP.   They will not be more sympathetic now.  Perhaps they agree that these allegations in general, are being used to remove people that others in the party want removed for political reasons that have nothing to do with their conduct, as both Patrick Brown and Weir have said.

With regard to equivalency and double standard between men and women, my point is that these situations invite us to debate it with no positive outcome on the table.   Whatever standards we arrive at in future for properly/more fairly conducting harrassment investigations, or reporting on them, will have to apply equally to men and women to be seen as fair by the majority of people.  

 

Pages