Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

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. 

Huh?

Mobo2000 wrote:

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.  

What?

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

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.

We can see it here on Babble in the thread titles.  Weir is accused of "harrassment", with quotes, as if harrassment was a nonsense word that the NDP made up to push through a carbon tax.  For Moore it's straight up harrassment, she doesn't get the quotes.

Mobo2000

Wage zombie:   Pondering advised Weir to sue the NDP and the CBC if he thought the allegations/report and reporting were politically motivated and unfair.   I am pointing out that in this parallel situation Moore is actually suing the complaintant as well.    I am asking if this is the progressive path for more equality and less harrassment that we want to be pursuing.

Debater

Pondering wrote:

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.

That may technically be the case, but the fact remains that Moore admits she had a romantic relationship with someone who was a witness before a Parliamentary Committee that she was a member of.

Our MPs should not be having romantic relationships with Parliamentary witnesses.  It may not technically be against the actual rules, but it shows bad judgement and is ethically questionable, and a possible conflict of interest.

I agree that some of Kirkland's account is questionable, but so is Moore's conduct.

robbie_dee

Debater wrote:

Our MPs should not be having romantic relationships with Parliamentary witnesses.  It may not technically be against the actual rules, but it shows bad judgement and is ethically questionable, and a possible conflict of interest.

I agree that some of Kirkland's account is questionable, but so is Moore's conduct.

Moore's role in taking down Pacetty, Andrews and now Weir is also "questionable" to say the least. I understand there may be  a useful social function to "calling out" suspected wrongdoers, e.g. but not exclusively in the sex abuse/harassment context, and particularly if there are inadequate established processes for investigating and holding to account the suspected wrongdoers for the suspected wrongdoing in question.  But there's also an enormous risk of tarring people's reputations if the alleged wrongs you "call out" turn out not to have occurred or to be much less than you imply they are. I have seen no evidence that Moore lacked access to other avenues to raise her concerns in the cases in question, avenues that could have allowed the individuals who were accused to be investigated and to be held to account for their actual conduct, but also for them to receive due process in responding to the allegations made without a huge and damaging public spectacle.

From an organizational perspective, the NDP really needs to consider whether having someone on the "team" who does what Christine Moore did, three times now, is a risk worth continuing to take.

robbie_dee

I was not sure exactly where to put this as it touches on at least three threads. I don't agree with Michael Harris's thoughts on Notley but I thought his comments on Christine Moore were worth noting:

Quote:

And then there is the question about Singh’s sense of fairness. Recent events suggest the NDP leader should revisit his handling of the whole Christine Moore case if he wants Canadians to endorse his sense of in-house justice.

Temporarily suspending the Quebec MP from caucus duties while an investigation takes place into allegations against her of an alleged improper relationship with a former Canadian soldier is one thing. But saying he is not interested in finding out who knew what and when inside the party about the whole affair won’t inspire much confidence in those who still think justice should be transparent.

The need for Singh to personally invest in getting to the bottom of this matter is more pressing than ever. Moore, herself now accused of improper behaviour, is the same complainant who got two Liberal MPs thrown out of the party, and helped trigger the ouster of fellow NDP MP Erin Weir from caucus.

Canadians need to know that all of these people were treated fairly.

 

Michael Harris, "To avoid a political divorce, Singh must stand up to Notley," iPolitics, May 24, 2018.

Pondering

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. 

I think the staffer was probably in charge of th list of speakers or something because she had the authority to stop him. Weir called it procedural tactics. He could be right. That doesn't justify harassment of the staffer. He needed to take it up with Mulcair. 

Mobo2000 wrote:

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.  

It isn't a parallel situation. Moore has one accuser who identified himself and lied about her which she can prove with documentation. The investigation has not yet happened nevermind concluded. 

Weir has multiple accusers most of whom he can't identify for sure. They have not accused him publicly. The NDP hired an external investigator who investigated and presented findings.

Singh announced Weir sexually harassed 3 women. He can sue the NDP not the complainants whom he does not know the identities of. 

I think these private investigations are great. It seems like the investigator presents a report which is then summarized to the accused giving them an opportunity to respond. They have the opportunity to plead "not guilty". They can reject the findings.

Unionist

I believe survivors.

I believe Christine Moore, because she was obviously taken advantage of by the soldier boy in uniform, and she has no reason to talk dirty in public, so I believe her.

I also believe Kirkland. He volunteered to go to Afghanistan to kill people for... freedom... I suppose. He's a hero. He obviously has PTSD, because every soldier boy has PTSD, which explains why they act like fucking assholes. Am I right? So if he says Moore seduced him, I believe him. If he says it wasn't rape, I believe him.

I believe them all.

I want the movie rights. This is juicy shit. And it's of profound national importance, which is why we're making up stories about what we think must have happened. And why shouldn't we? We have survivors to rely on. And we believe them. All of them.

#NotMe.

Rev Pesky

Pomdering wrote:

I think these private investigations are great. It seems like the investigator presents a report which is then summarized to the accused giving them an opportunity to respond. They have the opportunity to plead "not guilty". They can reject the findings.

What kind of investigation can you have if anonymity is guaranteed? No kind of investigation. You can have someone write down what people tell them, but you can't check anything because to do so would identify the complainants.

For that matter, when you present the 'report' to the accused, you can't give the accused enough information about the events to provide them with the identity of the complainant.

Now, what kind of an  investigator undertakes such an investigation? 

Oh, and by the way, the sex between Moore and Pacetti was consensual as well. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky wrote, 

"Oh, and by the way, the sex between Moore and Pacetti was consensual as well." 

And you were present in the hotel room to witness this  for yourself. We've already covered this territory earlier in the thread.

you are not in a position to make such rude and arrogant .

 

Remark.

there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and with not believing the whole scenario. This is way different than proclaiming that what she said happened did not happen.  Your erasing of her  like that is misogynistic.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky wrote, 

"Oh, and by the way, the sex between Moore and Pacetti was consensual as well." 

And you were present in the hotel room to witness this  for yourself. We've already covered this territory earlier in the thread.

you are not in a position to make such a rude and arrogant remark..

there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and with not believing the whole scenario. This is way different than proclaiming that what she said happened did not actually happen.  Your erasing of her experience  is misogynistic.

Rev Pesky

Misfit wrote:

And you were present in the hotel room to witness this  for yourself. We've already covered this territory earlier in the thread.

you are not in a position to make such a rude and arrogant remark..

It is neither rude nor arrogant, it is merely a reflection of fact. Non-consensual sex is a crime. To have knowledge of a crime and not report it to the police makes you an accessory.

After reviewing the facts of the tryst between Moore and Pacetti, both the Liberal and NDP caucus whips agreed there was no crime. Moore herself, even though certainly not afraid of publicity, did not go to the police.

One can only assume there was no crime, thus the sex had to be consensual.

If you have some other way of figuring this out, let me know.

wage zombie

Rev Pesky wrote:

What kind of investigation can you have if anonymity is guaranteed? No kind of investigation. You can have someone write down what people tell them, but you can't check anything because to do so would identify the complainants.

Are you under the impression that the people who did the investigation did not know the names of the complaininants?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Rev Pesky,

The logic in your post in #213 is so backward and vile that I don't know if you are being serious or are just trying to bate me.

I think you believe that misogynistic opinions are funny.

Clearly they are not.

quizzical

there's not enough info in this thread yet to make a needless opinion.

I.e. do witnessess before parliamentary commitee remain witnesses once they're done witnessing? or do they become regular folk when done?

was he lighting her fire to get her on his side?

now those pesky missing links might have a chance to be answered maybe someone could explain why there are secret accusers costing someone their career? 

the secrecy is not Moore's doing from what's been said here anyway.

oh and btw in case some men's have forgotten the majority of women don't report rape because we're not believed and raped again mentally and emotionally by patriarchy for daring to speak out.

deciding Moore is Eve in the garden of eden tempting adam with an apple and destroying innocence aka careers is bs..

 

 

Pondering

I'm very late responding but I appreciated your post and didn't want to ignore it.

robbie_dee wrote:
  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. 

The other complaint was still from a staffer who had no decision-making power. She was just following orders. That his aggression wasn't sexual in nature doesn't make it an isolated incident so different from the others that he should be excused. It was inappropriate for him to express any anger at her. It's like getting mad at the garbage man because he only picks up once a week. It's not in his power to do otherwise. It was a public incident so it ended up on the grapevine. 

robbie_dee wrote:
  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).

Was it seedy for Kirkland to have sex with Moore? I think people harm themselves by treating sex so casually but I wouldn't say seedy in this day and age.

Concerning your leaning towards believing Kirkland, I hope your opinion has changed on that after discovering his outright lies about events, such as his picking her up at the airport and saying she just showed up out of nowhere on his doorstep.

robbie_dee wrote:
  What also appears to be undisputed is that Moore made allegations outside of official channels that ended up costing two MPs their careers 

Because they were guilty of inappropriate conduct therefore a liability to the party.

What costed those two MPs their careers was their behavior. Both are married men who came on strong to women they had contact with, not relationships with, and they did it in the workplace or through the workplace as MPs hang out at local venues after hours.

Men are so used to women protecting them that a woman telling the truth is guilty of destroying their careers. If what the men did was so minimal, it wouldn't have "destroyed" their careers.

What Kirkland and Moore did was fully consentual. It is true that Moore handed Pacetti a condom and it is reasonable for him to construe that as some form of consent but he certainly knew it wasn't enthusiastic consent. He was using her not hoping to start a new relationship. If a woman is "into" casual sex her enthusiasm shows. "As long as she tolerates it" isn't rape but it is still taking advantage and using someone. It illustrates values that I don't want in a lawmaker.

robbie_dee wrote:
  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. 

She didn't exagerate. She could have handled it more discreetly but she isn't responsible for their behavior.

robbie_dee wrote:
  

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.

It's always been that way. Men get away with bad conduct because women don't draw attention to it because they know they will be blamed (and worse) for ruining things for men.

The Me Too movement heralds a change. The majority of men who behave that way will still get away with it but the tide has turned. Men in the public eye are going to have to be more  careful or risk being  taken down.

robbie_dee wrote:
 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. 

That would be a suicidal move. Cutting an MP from caucus for reporting sexual misconduct would reflect terribly on the NDP no matter the manner in which she reported them. All three were found guilty by an independent qualified investigator and all three accepted the reports findings.

In  all cases caucus supported the leader in the ejection of the MPs from caucus even though they recently rebelled against Singh to protect another caucus member. None are criticizing Moore or defending Weir.

Moore may have handled the situation better but compared to the sins of many other MPs she's an angel. The cracks Angus has take at Singh were not good for the NDP. Defying the whip to vote in favor of the Conservative motion on summer funding was not good for the NDP. Caucus members going against Singh on that was not good for the NDP. Weir sexually harassing employees  was not good for the NDP.

Moore hasn't done anything that would justify expelling her from caucus. Singh saw Kirkland's attack for what it was. A misrepresentation of facts to make it appear that Moore had taken advantage of him sexually and followed up by stalking him.

I honestly don't mean to be insulting. I really can't see how anyone can listen to Kirkland and not see what he is up to. The investigation will find no more "victims" just because an investigator is "soliciting" complaints. Moore strikes me as more "socially awkward" than any of the men concerned but no one else will come forward even anonymously to say they felt intimidated by Moore or felt pressured sexually or felt taken advantage of in any way.

The investigation will find that Kirkland misrepresented events and that their interaction was entirely consensual and she did not stalk him.

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

there's not enough info in this thread yet to make a needless opinion

[...]

deciding Moore is Eve in the garden of eden tempting adam with an apple and destroying innocence aka careers is bs..

Finally, someone agrees with me. Let the investigation take place and let the facts come out.

It's amazing how people have days and weeks to spend speculating on who seduced whom, who assaulted whom, what exactly happened under the sheets. I know it's lotsa fun, but it's just as destructive as Moore's public attack on Erin Weir, which made even Pondering sincerely believe that she must have been one of his victims.

I honestly don't comprehend how the sexual antics of Kirkland and Moore are a matter of public interest, unless a criminal act was committed - and no one has suggested that, there has been no police involvement, etc. This "conflict of interest" stuff, or the purity of Parliamentary committee procedure, is frankly so esoteric that I'm trying, and failing, to suppress a yawn.

It doesn't matter.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

It doesn't matter.

Why do you think it's happening?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
It's amazing how people have days and weeks to spend speculating on who seduced whom, who assaulted whom, what exactly happened under the sheets. I know it's lotsa fun, but it's just as destructive as Moore's public attack on Erin Weir, which made even Pondering sincerely believe that she must have been one of his victims.

I got confused around the time the Liberal MPs came up and it was revealed that Moore was one of the complainants in that case but had originally been reporting a different incident not her own.

The criticism against her has been so bitter for lack of a better word that I misunderstood and thought it applied to this current case.

Moore was not diplomatic, to say the least, but the bottomline is that she reported what was on the grapevine and investigators confirmed misconduct on the part of the men whose names she reported.

Rev Pesky

wage zombie wrote:

Are you under the impression that the people who did the investigation did not know the names of the complaininants?

Nope. What I'm saying is that if an investigator guarantees anonymity, they cannot ask questions that would tend to identify the complainant.

Think of the spying trade, for an example. When a government acts on information received, the 'bad guys' take a look at who had access to that information. The higher the level of security, the fewer people who have access. Thus, governments have to be very careful about how they use information because just the fact they have the information may identify the source. 

This is true of any investigation, that is, an investigation where the investigator tries to confirm the truth of what someone tells them. A real investigation almost always has to ask leading questions, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to ask those types of questions without letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak.

Of course, an investigator could just record information received, and pass that along without trying to confirm the truth of it. But that's not a real investigation, is it?

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Both are married men who came on strong to women they had contact with, not relationships with...

Actually, in the case of Moore and Pacetti, it was Moore who went to Pacetti's hotel room at 2:00 AM for more drinks. It was not Pacetti who went to Moore's room.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Both are married men who came on strong to women they had contact with, not relationships with...

Actually, in the case of Moore and Pacetti, it was Moore who went to Pacetti's hotel room at 2:00 AM for more drinks. It was not Pacetti who went to Moore's room.

Yes, for a nightcap not for a sexual encounter. That wasn't what she was expecting when she got there.

Some of us still like to think men that we know, that we work with, that are in our circle of friends, mean what they say when they invite us somewhere. We aren't expecting a sexual encounter of any sort unless that has been part of our relationship.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Are you under the impression that the people who did the investigation did not know the names of the complaininants?

Nope. What I'm saying is that if an investigator guarantees anonymity, they cannot ask questions that would tend to identify the complainant.

Think of the spying trade, for an example. When a government acts on information received, the 'bad guys' take a look at who had access to that information. The higher the level of security, the fewer people who have access. Thus, governments have to be very careful about how they use information because just the fact they have the information may identify the source. 

This is true of any investigation, that is, an investigation where the investigator tries to confirm the truth of what someone tells them. A real investigation almost always has to ask leading questions, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to ask those types of questions without letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak.

Of course, an investigator could just record information received, and pass that along without trying to confirm the truth of it. But that's not a real investigation, is it?

Look up the definition of "investigation".  Not all investigations require telling the accused identifiable details. In this case Weir admitted to the behavior so there was no need to expose the women to more stress or the kind of treatment Moore has received.

Again, this is a he said she said situation. There are probably no witnesses in the 3 cases of sexual harassment as defined by a legal expert in human rights and labour laws.

These are not legal proceedings. It is not necessary for Weir to confront his accusers. It would change nothing. He would just call them all liars as he already has. We  still wouldn't believe him. Not because we believe survivors blindly but because an investigator found their claims credible and there are 3 separate complainants + 1.

In any case the tide has turned for men in the public eye. Their behavior is being exposed and we have no need of trials to deal with it because they are not being accused of criminal offences. They are being accused of bad behavior; reminds me of the guy that urinated in a mug and put it in the sink. Some behaviors take you out of the  running.

This is what got him ejected:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/04/the-curious-c...

Earlier this week, Weir suggested one complaint against him resulted from a run-in he had with a member of former leader Thomas Mulcair’s staff at the 2016 NDP Saskatchewan convention. He says she was trying to prevent him from raising questions about the impact of a federal carbon tax. The harassment charge, he argues, is payback for that policy disagreement. He adds that he only responded to the allegation after it surfaced in a CBC report and became part of the public record.

That isn't credible to me. Why would a staffer want payback for a policy disagreement? It makes no sense. The staffer was following instructions not personally invested in the issue of carbon taxes.

Accusing one of the complainants, a staffer, of being motivated by revenge was over the line.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Accusing one of the complainants, a staffer, of being motivated by revenge was over the line.

When the former staffer went, anonymously, to the media, in the course of a private and confidential investigation, and made public her two-year-old complaint that Erin Weir was "angry and belligerent" toward her once... that wasn't "over the line"? And she wasn't "motivated by revenge"?

Please, Pondering, use your ESP to tell us what she was motivated by in performing this scurrilous act - since you have telepathically sussed out what she was not motivated by?

CAUTION: Please do not reveal the staffer's name (although no doubt you have divined that as well). That could place her in physical danger from the harasser. Oh wait a sec, he already knows who she is... never mind.

Waiting for words of wisdom...

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Yes, for a nightcap not for a sexual encounter. That wasn't what she was expecting when she got there.

How do you know that's true?

further from Pondering:

The staffer was following instructions

What instructions was she following, and who gave her those instructions?

wage zombie

Rev Pesky wrote:

What instructions was she following, and who gave her those instructions?

Have you ever been to a party convention before?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote,

"These are not legal proceedings. It is not necessary for Weir to confront his accusers. It would change nothing. He would just call them all liars as he already has."

Say what???

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
When the former staffer went, anonymously, to the media, in the course of a private and confidential investigation, and made public her two-year-old complaint that Erin Weir was "angry and belligerent" toward her once... that wasn't "over the line"? And she wasn't "motivated by revenge"?

I think it's more likely the CBC was investigating because they found out the report was completed. The investigation was complete and even if it were not she had every right to repeat what happened to her. An investigation cannot compel witnesses or victims to be silent.

What would this staffer be wanting revenge for? If you are going to accuse someone for acting out of revenge they must have some grievance and a pretty strong one at that.

The investigation uncovered misconduct by Weir and Weir, not the victims, made an agreement with the NDP that he would take anti-harassment training as a condition of reinstatement. Once Weir denied the allegations against him by putting it down to revenge on one case and witch-hunting on the other anti-harassment training was no longer appropriate. If all he did was talk too long and stand to close all he has to do is not stand so close or talk so long. No need for training.

Unionist wrote:
Please, Pondering, use your ESP to tell us what she was motivated by in performing this scurrilous act - since you have telepathically sussed out what she was not motivated by?

In my opinion she was simply telling  the truth, maybe even trying to clear his name a bit as he was just angry and belligerent not sexually aggressive.

Unionist wrote:
CAUTION: Please do not reveal the staffer's name (although no doubt you have divined that as well). That could place her in physical danger from the harasser.

Why would you think that? Her name was kept confidential because that is the agreement that she made with people she spoke to and to protect her from all the attacks that would be launched at her for daring to complain about a man's behavior.

Rev Pesky

wage zombie wrote:

Have you ever been to a party convention before?

​That is not an answer, that is a question which has nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion. But perhaps you can answer my question - in that Pondering refuses to - about who was responsible for a federal leader's office staff member showing up at a provincial convention, apparently with the specific instructions to prevent Weir from speaking.

If that scenario is true, as I present it, that speaks to how seriously Mulcair took the issue of Weir's ideas on carbon taxation, and how seriously the federal party wanted to quash those ideas. I mean, to the extent of trying to prevent a party member from speaking at a convention which the federal party had nothing to do with.

If my scenario is wrong, let me know. Pondering keeps saying the staff member was 'just following orders'. What orders, and who gave them?

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
The investigation was complete and even if it were not she had every right to repeat what happened to her. An investigation cannot compel witnesses or victims to be silent.

She had every right to anonymously smear Erin Weir on CBC - yes, I agree. But apparently, he had no right - after waiting in vain from the cowards at head office to give him direction - to reply. You really are amusing.

Quote:
What would this staffer be wanting revenge for? If you are going to accuse someone for acting out of revenge they must have some grievance and a pretty strong one at that.

I don't think she acted out of "revenge". Who said that exactly? I sure didn't. Show me where Weir used the word "revenge". Oh wait, you used it. Ok.

Quote:
Once Weir denied the allegations against him by putting it down to revenge on one case and witch-hunting on the other anti-harassment training was no longer appropriate.

You're just making shit up. He definitely called out the Mulcair staffer who tried to shut him up and went public about a confidential investigation. You would have loved for him to use the term "witch-hunting" and you would have loved for him to attack the other 3 women who filed complaints. Sadly for you, that never happened. Prove it, Pondering. If you can't, have the integrity and decency to retract it.

Quote:
In my opinion she was simply telling  the truth, maybe even trying to clear his name a bit as he was just angry and belligerent not sexually aggressive.

What utter concocted nonsense. She said she felt "physically intimidated". Did you miss that small point? But of course, she didn't think any of this worthy of complaint or attention at the time. In the right time and place, she anonymously made it public. Obviously trying to clear Weir's name. Do you read what you right before you post?

As for the other three women, I believe their complaints were legitimate, I believe Erin Weir understood and accepted what they said (he said so, didn't he?), and I believe him when he said he would try to change. Why don't you?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
If my scenario is wrong, let me know. Pondering keeps saying the staff member was 'just following orders'. What orders, and who gave them?

It doesn't matter who gave the order. A staffer is an employee. If that employee did not have the right to stop Weir he should have just walked on by or gone to the staffer's employer.

Please present a scenario in which it matters who the staffer was working for.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
 She had every right to anonymously smear Erin Weir on CBC - yes, I agree. But apparently, he had no right - after waiting in vain from the cowards at head office to give him direction - to reply. You really are amusing. 

No, he had every right, and he used it. He was not arrested in response. He didn't even lose his job. He is still an MP. Singh, with the support of the rest of the caucus, ejected him from the NDP caucus.

Unionist wrote:
 I don't think she acted out of "revenge". Who said that exactly? I sure didn't. Show me where Weir used the word "revenge". Oh wait, you used it. Ok. 

He used the term "payback"

an act of revenge or retaliation.

"the drive-by shootings are mainly paybacks" google

Unionist wrote:
  You're just making shit up. He definitely called out the Mulcair staffer who tried to shut him up and went public about a confidential investigation. You would have loved for him to use the term "witch-hunting" and you would have loved for him to attack the other 3 women who filed complaints. Sadly for you, that never happened. Prove it, Pondering. If you can't, have the integrity and decency to retract it.

I quoted him. He said that anyone would have  complaints against them if they were "solicited". He's a politician. He worded himself carefully but he still inferred that the complaints were due to the investigation rather than his behavior.

Unionist wrote:
 What utter concocted nonsense. She said she felt "physically intimidated". Did you miss that small point? But of course, she didn't think any of this worthy of complaint or attention at the time. In the right time and place, she anonymously made it public. Obviously trying to clear Weir's name. Do you read what you right before you post? 

Of course she didn't complain officially at the time. Women rarely do. Unless there are a collection of complaints we know better than to try, and even then. Yes, she felt physically intimitated because he was angry and belligerent. That doesn't mean she thought he was going to haul off and beat her. Men are physically intimitating when they are angry and standing close based on size and strength not intent or verbal threat.

Unionist wrote:
 As for the other three women, I believe their complaints were legitimate, I believe Erin Weir understood and accepted what they said (he said so, didn't he?), and I believe him when he said he would try to change. Why don't you? 

Maybe he does intend to change and will never behave that way with women ever again. I hope he does mean it. He still maintained that the reason for the complaints is that they were solicited and that the "outlier" was "payback" otherwise known as revenge. That is why he was ejected from caucus.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

...will never behave that way with women ever again...

What way? Please tell us exactly what he did.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

...will never behave that way with women ever again...

What way? Please tell us exactly what he did.

The way that got him accused of sexual harassment by three women. I don't need to know the specifics. It isn't a criminal trial. This is a case in which opinion rules not law. He is a politician and will be judged by his peers and eventually the electorate. So shall it be with Moore as well.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't need to know the specifics.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't need to know the specifics.

Correct. The  rest of the facts surrounding the events is sufficient for me to judge. It was defined as sexual harassment by a competent lawyer specializing in labor law and human rights. Weir himself accepted the findings of the report. That is why he accepted anti-harassment training. Which of his versions is the truth? The one where all he did was stand a little close and talk a little too long and the complaints were soliticited so of course there would be complaints? Or the one where he recognizes that he did sexually harass women and is looking to correct his behavior.

So no, I don't need the specifics on how close he was standing or what he was saying. I wouldn't mind if Weir calls for a release of the report's findings so we can get some more details.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I don't think she acted out of "revenge". Who said that exactly? I sure didn't. Show me where Weir used the word "revenge". Oh wait, you used it. Ok. 

 

He used the term "payback"

an act of revenge or retaliation.

"the drive-by shootings are mainly paybacks" google

So now Weir also called all the complaints "drive-by shootings"? Seriously?

WHEN - WHERE? SHOW US PLEASE.

And Pondering, when I keep asking for PROOF - SOURCE - QUOTE - you think that's just a joke? You wouldn't make a very trustworthy witness in any kind of investigation. Do you really think it's appropriate to heap shit on Weir, invent things he never said, and then just run away when asked for your source? Weir is worth far more than those like Moore and Singh who have collaborated to destroy his political career.

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

  You're just making shit up. He definitely called out the Mulcair staffer who tried to shut him up and went public about a confidential investigation. You would have loved for him to use the term "witch-hunting" and you would have loved for him to attack the other 3 women who filed complaints. Sadly for you, that never happened. Prove it, Pondering. If you can't, have the integrity and decency to retract it.

I quoted him. He said that anyone would have  complaints against them if they were "solicited". He's a politician. He worded himself carefully but he still inferred that the complaints were due to the investigation rather than his behavior.

So, your allegation that he attacked the other 3 women is also based on... nothing? He never cast the slightest doubt on the truth of what those women had said. He read the summary of their complaints (he wasn't allowed to know their names), thought it over, realized what he had done, and committed himself to change.

If you have a QUOTE where Weir attached these 3 women - please provide it. Otherwise, try being a little more like Weir and saying (you can insert your own words here):

"You know, on reflection, just as I invented in my head the notion that Weir had harassed Christine Moore, it now is clear to me that Weir never once attacked the veracity or sincerity of those 3 women complainants. I retract that and apologize - and will try harder in future to speak on the basis of what I know to be true, rather than what I want to be true."

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
 So now Weir also called all the complaints "drive-by shootings"? Seriously? 

You seriously don't know how a dictionary works? Look up the word payback and look up the word revenge.

Unionist wrote:
 And Pondering, when I keep asking for PROOF - SOURCE - QUOTE - you think that's just a joke? 

I have quoted my sources but you keep ignoring it. So here are some sources again.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4180566/investigation-results-for-harassment-...

“It’s certainly the case that if you solicit complaints from hundreds of staff people, you will get some complaints. Particularly in a political context where there are disagreements, there are rivalries, there are axes to grind,” Weir countered.

Is he not claiming there would be complaints about anyone if a couple of hundred people were asked? Please give your interpretation of that statement.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/04/the-curious-c...

Earlier this week, Weir suggested one complaint against him resulted from a run-in he had with a member of former leader Thomas Mulcair’s staff at the 2016 NDP Saskatchewan convention. He says she was trying to prevent him from raising questions about the impact of a federal carbon tax. The harassment charge, he argues, is payback for that policy disagreement.

It's the staffer, who when asked, reported the harassment. He is saying the claim is payback. The definition of payback that applies in this instance is revenge. A desire to get back at someone for something.

Those are sources and my interpretations of what he said are fair.  I don't know if you are his buddy or you just admire his politics or you are angry with the way the NDP is run from the top. I do know you are out of line to take it out on me.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:
 So now Weir also called all the complaints "drive-by shootings"? Seriously? 

You seriously don't know how a dictionary works? Look up the word payback and look up the word revenge.

I looked up the phrase "drive-by shootings", which you attributed to Weir, and I'm still looking for your SOURCE for that QUOTE. If he said that and you find the proof, I will thank you and move on. But your attempts at diversion are distressing. What exactly do have against Erin Weir that merits inventing charges against him (e.g. that he harassed Christine Moore), even if you did that in mistaken good faith?

Pondering wrote:

I have quoted my sources but you keep ignoring it. So here are some sources again.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4180566/investigation-results-for-harassment-...

“It’s certainly the case that if you solicit complaints from hundreds of staff people, you will get some complaints. Particularly in a political context where there are disagreements, there are rivalries, there are axes to grind,” Weir countered.

Is he not claiming there would be complaints about anyone if a couple of hundred people were asked? Please give your interpretation of that statement.

Actually, why don't you interpret that statement for me. It says "Weir countered". You'd expect the previous sentences to talk about what Weir was countering. I can't find it. Show me. If not, this thing was ripped out of some longer story in the editing process. It's not clear exactly what complaints Weir is referring to, nor what he is "countering". 

Pondering wrote:
It's the staffer, who when asked, reported the harassment. He is saying the claim is payback. The definition of payback that applies in this instance is revenge. A desire to get back at someone for something.

Absolutely correct. When that staffer (who you have claimed for weeks now, on zero evidence, was "following orders" of some unknown person) went public in violation of the rules of the investigation (while of course still hiding her name), and Erin Weir got tired of waiting for Jagmeet Singh to tell him what to do to protect his reputation and the integrity of the investigation process... Weir finally responded in public, and gave his opinion that this staffer was retaliating against Weir because of a policy difference and an attempt to shut him down, and his angry response. When exactly (show me) did I say any different? Why are you defining the word "payback" for me? That's exactly what Weir claimed.

Quote:
Those are sources and my interpretations of what he said are fair.  I don't know if you are his buddy or you just admire his politics or you are angry with the way the NDP is run from the top. I do know you are out of line to take it out on me.

I'm his buddy, I admire his politics, and I'm angry with the way the NDP is run from the top. I'm not taking it out on you. You're the one who, contrary to your normally well-informed and thoughtful postings (yes, I'm aware that not all babblers agree with me), have unaccountably decided to pile on to the leadership-led attack on this young progressive MP, and going to the extent of inventing charges and quotes that even Weir's enemies haven't thought of.

So here's my suggestion. Stop it. And stop defending Christine Moore while you're at it (are you her buddy?) - she needs to be tossed and fast.

There are real complaints of sexual harassment within the NDP which simply get buried, forgotten, as the media cycle shifts. Why not help to expose the injustices where they really exist?

Like, this (thankfully) defeated NDP MP who is still SLAPP-suing his accuser, and the NDP never investigated anything as far as I can tell?

Do you admire him? Is he your friend? Or has the news cycle passed, so let's forget about that and pile on to Erin Weir?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
I looked up the phrase "drive-by shootings", which you attributed to Weir, and I'm still looking for your SOURCE for that QUOTE. If he said that and you find the proof, I will thank you and move on.  

I did not attribute "drive-by shootings" to Weir. That was an example given for the definition of payback in the dictionary. Payback can also be stealing someone's cookies. That doesn't mean Weir stole someone's cookies.

I don't understand what is going on in your brain that you could think I was accusing Weir of drive-by shootings.

Unionist wrote:
 What exactly do have against Erin Weir that merits inventing charges against him (e.g. that he harassed Christine Moore), even if you did that in mistaken good faith? 

I did not invent charges against him. I mistook one of the original complainants to be Moore because you are so freaked out over her. All she did was repeat what she heard on the grapevine which turned out to have merit because 4 women did step forward.

Unionist wrote:
 Actually, why don't you interpret that statement for me. It says "Weir countered". You'd expect the previous sentences to talk about what Weir was countering. I can't find it. Show me. If not, this thing was ripped out of some longer story in the editing process. It's not clear exactly what complaints Weir is referring to, nor what he is "countering". 

I provided the links. I quoted what I am basing my opinion on. If you don't believe what I quoted leads to my conclusions that's fine. I disagree. I think it is clear from the article and from his words what he was referring to. He was countering the accusations against him.

Unionist wrote:
 Absolutely correct. When that staffer (who you have claimed for weeks now, on zero evidence, was "following orders" of some unknown person) went public in violation of the rules of the investigation (while of course still hiding her name)

Oh my gosh. Let's say she wasn't following orders and she stopped him from speaking on her own initiative. What difference does it make? Personally I don't think the NDP allows staffers to make a decisions on which MPs speak. If she does have that much personal authority in the party all the more reason for Weir to be respectful.

Why are you saying she broke the rules of the investigation? I don't think an investigator or the party would have the authority to stop her from speaking. It isn't a two way street. The individual being asked to step forward is given confidentiality because otherwise they would not step forward. The individuals stepping forward don't have to promise confidentiality unless the investigator tells them something. If you tell us something you can't tell anyone else? That would never fly.

Unionist wrote:
 , and Erin Weir got tired of waiting for Jagmeet Singh to tell him what to do to protect his reputation and the integrity of the investigation process... Weir finally responded in public, and gave his opinion that this staffer was retaliating against Weir because of a policy difference and an attempt to shut him down, and his angry response

How long did he wait? How long was it between the time the media reported that he had been "angry and belligerent" and the time he responded? From what I recall it was very fast. He should not have spoken to the media before speaking with the party leadership through whatever channels are provided. Not informing them. The reason he should have done this have nothing to do with justice or right and wrong. It has to do with politics and political organizations. There had been negotiations. He was back in caucus. Politically he needed to keep his head down. The correct response from the party and him was no response or the announcement that he was taking anti-harassment training. His accusatory attitude towards the staffer made it politically impossible for Singh to keep him in caucus.

I do not think it is credible that two years after the fact a staffer would still be so irrate over a policy difference that they would make a false claim of harassment.

Unionist wrote:
. When exactly (show me) did I say any different? Why are you defining the word "payback" for me? That's exactly what Weir claimed. 

Because you claimed I was wrong to use the word revenge. Revenge and payback mean the same thing in this context. That is, he wasn't paying back a loan. 

Unionist wrote:
 So here's my suggestion. Stop it. And stop defending Christine Moore while you're at it (are you her buddy?) - she needs to be tossed and fast.

I was critical of Moore when she kept spewing information on the Liberal MPs. I said she was making herself look just as bad as them and she wasn't helping them. I said she was incredibly naive.

I have said that Moore should not have said she wouldn't be comfortable meeting alone with him. She could have shared that more privately, but as someone else pointed out, those communications are supposed to be caucus only. She was still telling the truth. She had heard things about Weir that make her leary of him. An investigation turned up several incidences.

Unionist wrote:
 Do you admire him? Is he your friend? Or has the news cycle passed, so let's forget about that and pile on to Erin Weir?

It's the news cycle. Most discussions here revolve around recent news.

Unionist wrote:
 I'm his buddy, I admire his politics, and I'm angry with the way the NDP is run from the top. I'm not taking it out on you. You're the one who, contrary to your normally well-informed and thoughtful postings (yes, I'm aware that not all babblers agree with me), have unaccountably decided to pile on to the leadership-led attack on this young progressive MP, and going to the extent of inventing charges and quotes that even Weir's enemies haven't thought of.

Thank-you. I usually feel the same way about your posts. I didn't invent any charges against him. My only "crime" is mistaking Moore for one of the 4 complainants.

I don't see a leadership led attack. If their intent was to attack him they wouldn't have offered to reinstate him in caucus. They would have used the findings to get rid of him. Instead they offered him a way to stay which he accepted.

You may think all the good he does makes up for some minor sexual harassment and I might even agree with you. He was not expelled based on the findings of the report. He was expelled because he publicly accused one of the women of claiming he harassed her as political payback and he shared identifying information about her. He is 36. He should have known better. He made a bad political decision. He made himself a political liability.

Let's say the NDP had still reinstated him. The NDP would have to pick. They would have to say they believed Weir not the woman who reported him even though the report found her accusation credible. What do you think the media would have done with that? What about women's groups? If Singh had chosen to support Weir against the woman he accused of being motivated out of a desire for payback he would have been sacrificing the NDP.  Trudeau would be the undisputed champion of women's rights. It would not have helped Weir to be used as a cudgel against the NDP.

I think you see the NDP as a party different from the others. It promotes different policies but it isn't inherently different. Winning  elections is still the goal not righteousness.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
I don't understand what is going on in your brain that you could think I was accusing Weir of drive-by shootings.

1. That's true, you don't understand what is going on in my brain.

2. I never once, anywhere, in any way whatsoever, said you were accusing Weir of drive-by shootings. I'll let you scroll back up and see where the mix-up took place. Let me know if you have trouble finding it.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 Absolutely correct. When that staffer (who you have claimed for weeks now, on zero evidence, was "following orders" of some unknown person) went public in violation of the rules of the investigation (while of course still hiding her name)

 

Oh my gosh. Let's say she wasn't following orders and she stopped him from speaking on her own initiative. What difference does it make? Personally I don't think the NDP allows staffers to make a decisions on which MPs speak. If she does have that much personal authority in the party all the more reason for Weir to be respectful.

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether she was "following orders" or acting on her own spiteful dictatorial initiative.

You seem to forget, Pondering, that you and you alone created this red herring that "oh, she had to be following orders" - as if it made a difference. Thank you for now realizing and asserting that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The key question remains - that she tried to stop Weir from approaching a mic and expressing a policy opinion at an NDP convention. If she wasn't fired, she should have been - don't you think?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 Absolutely correct. When that staffer (who you have claimed for weeks now, on zero evidence, was "following orders" of some unknown person) went public in violation of the rules of the investigation (while of course still hiding her name)

 

Oh my gosh. Let's say she wasn't following orders and she stopped him from speaking on her own initiative. What difference does it make? Personally I don't think the NDP allows staffers to make a decisions on which MPs speak. If she does have that much personal authority in the party all the more reason for Weir to be respectful.

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether she was "following orders" or acting on her own spiteful dictatorial initiative.

You seem to forget, Pondering, that you and you alone created this red herring that "oh, she had to be following orders" - as if it made a difference. Thank you for now realizing and asserting that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The key question remains - that she tried to stop Weir from approaching a mic and expressing a policy opinion at an NDP convention. If she wasn't fired, she should have been - don't you think?

She didn't just try to stop him. She stopped him. However the NDP defined her job, whatever authority she used to prevent him from speaking, it appears the NDP approved or she would have been fired for insubordination.

Let's say for the sake of argument she was 100% in the wrong and the NDP just didn't fire her for whatever reason.

It still makes no difference.

It does not matter at all if Weir was in the right and was entitled to speak and the party abused procedures to stop him.  It doesn't matter if the staffer took it upon herself to stop him even if she had no right to.

The investigator found 4 counts of harassment valid one of which was non-sexual. Weir had and has the right to contradict the independent investigator and plead innocence but that opens up a whole new can of worms. It is asking the party to disbelieve the investigator they hired and the woman, who stepped forward on request, in favor of believing Weir. Should they hire investigators until one agrees with Weir?

I don't think Weir is some terrible scary guy. I think he behaved aggressively enough to make a woman feel physically intimidated because he was upset over being prevented from speaking. Perhaps he is insufficiently aware of how his behavior feels from the perspective of a woman. I think he was after no-strings sex with staff and was too persistent. Women deal with this kind of stuff all the time so it's really easy to believe.

If he is a strong progressive it's a real shame that he defended himself unnecessarily getting himself kicked out of caucus permanently. In my opinion Singh considers it a great loss. It's a tough hit for the party to take while it's down.

In my opinion the reality is that the NDP could not be seen to be taking Weir's side against the complainant when the complaint had been upheld by the investigator. It would have been political suicide.

It is a shame that he was too focused on his reputation to see the larger picture. That is the situation he would be placing the NDP in. I can understand why he was but understanding doesn't change the political situation.

The report upheld the complaint. He claimed that the motivation for the complaint was political payback. That's an explosive accusation. The NDP had to pick a side. Politically the only side they could pick was the complainant.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
She didn't just try to stop him. She stopped him. However the NDP defined her job, whatever authority she used to prevent him from speaking, it appears the NDP approved or she would have been fired for insubordination.

You're still writing instead of reading. How do you know she "stopped him"? You believe Weir now? And who told you she wasn't fired for insubordination? How did you draw that conclusion? You don't even know her name, or when she ceased employment, or why. Why all this speculation?

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
You're still writing instead of reading. How do you know she "stopped him"? You believe Weir now? And who told you she wasn't fired for insubordination? How did you draw that conclusion? You don't even know her name, or when she ceased employment, or why. Why all this speculation?

Because if he had spoken at the convention despite her trying to stop him it would have been reported. If she had been fired for insubordination Weir would have said so. You are clutching at random straws.

It doesn't matter if he was provoked. It doesn't matter whether or not she still works for the NDP. Only one thing matters. His attitude towards her when she intercepted him. The investigator found enough to define it as harassment.

I believe Weir was describing the incident that let to the complaint of harassment against him. Singh confirmed it when he said Weir had given identifying information.

You are arguing points that don't change anything.

  • The investigator found cause to define what happened as harassment.
  • The NDP and Weir agreed on anti-harassment training and a return to caucus.
  • The woman who had been allegedly harassed said he was angry and belligerent to the press.
  • Weir then went to the press to defend himself and said the accusation was political payback and described the incident.
  • Singh ejected Weir for accusing the complainant of being out for payback and for giving information that could lead to her identification.
  • To take Weir's side against the complainant when the investigator supported the allegation would be political suicide.

Those are the only points that matter. It's a political calculation not a moral dilemma.

 

Pages