Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That's unfair Unionist. They did have a relationship. It became clear very early on that soldier-boy was trying to leave the impression that she took advantage of him without actually saying so. Every time someone tried to nail him down he avoided giving straight answers.

I actually don't care who screwed whom, or whether anyone had an orgasm. It's rather telling, though, that the so-called secret "investigation" didn't actually benefit from the testimony of the alleged survivor - pretty soldier boy. Some investigation. What a pathetic farce.

Pondering wrote:
Fortunately she had hard evidence on her side.

I have no doubt it was hard, but what difference does it make that she had it on her side?

Pondering wrote:
If Moore is guilty of "sitting on information" so is everyone on the grapevine because that is where she got the information that led to her saying she wouldn't be comfortable alone with him.

Oh well, if there were a whole bunch of cowardly abettors of sexual harassment like her, that makes it all better. Yes indeed, Moore is a saint, because everyone was crooked. Great argument.

Pondering wrote:
She definitely could have handled it better but she was telling the truth.

She was telling the truth. Amazing conclusion. Based on nothing.

Pondering wrote:
Weir is the author of his own misfortune. 

He did nothing wrong. He said he stood or sat too close to people, and talked longer than they wanted to hear. No one - no one - has come forward to refute that statement. That's why the NDP is terrified of making their so-called McCarthyite investigation public. Because Singh and his inner circle are chock full of shit.

That isn't why he was ejected. All he had to do was take the training to be reinstated. There is no need to see the report because it has nothing to do with his leaving caucus. Both you and he seem to have a mental block on that. 

Christine Moore said she would feel uncomfortable being alone with him based on what she had heard on the grapevine. What part of that do you think was a lie?

I don't think you know what the grapevine means or how it works. The grapevine works on rumours. It's gossip. Until recently it was meaningless. Nobody reports what is on the grapevine because it is 3rd hand information. The private caucus email was discussion amongst equals. I don't believe Moore intended her email to become public. Have you heard  of any other caucus emails becoming public? 

Calling it nothing more than standing too close and talking to long is dismissive of what the women experienced. It was deemed sexual harassment, on the milder side. What he was saying while he was standing too close and talking too long matters.  Multiple women used the grapevine because that is what we do when men get out of line with us. It is the best way for us to handle it. We  tell each other which uncle/executive/friend to avoid. "Me too" is an apt name because that is how it grows. One woman recounts an experience to a friend. That friend puts it out anonymously. Someone pipes up and says "me too".  Within days there is third "me too". 

What Ghomeshi did is far worse than anything Weir did and that wasn't officially reported even when the union was aware because no woman wanted to launch an official complaint. Your condemnation of Moore for not reporting rumours up the chain internally is misplaced. It is not the norm.

The NDP MPs didn't want to make their complaints "official" either. They did not want Mulcair to speak to Trudeau about it. Women are still shamed for sexual promiscuity or imagined sexual promiscuity. They are deemed naive for not realizing they might get raped if they go to a man's hotel room alone, that the only reason to do that is if you want to have sex. 

Soldier boy is an apt name for him. He probably thought he was a hotshot bedding an MP. He lied about her by implication but if you listen to his words it was clear. He defined it as sexual harassment purely on their supposed power relationship. He made it sound like he went straight from the hearing to her office, was plyed with alcohol, then followed back to his hotel room. He said Moore texted him and stalked him showing up on his doorstep. (he picked her up at the airport.) When Moore provided hard evidence that contradicted his story he hemmed and hawed with reporters then disappeared. My bet is this did not impact his business (real estate) the way he intended. 

I suppose you think it is some sort of poetic justice because you blame her for Weir's downfall. Her mistake was putting grapevine information in writing. She did not act maliciously. She just blurted out the truth. She had heard rumours that would make her uncomfortable to be alone with him. It was in an internal caucus email. Who leaked it to the press? I would question that person's political or personal motivations. 

Caucus was and is united behind Singh on Weir. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Singh didn't centralize power in the leadership or executive. No leader is going to be a magic bullet that instantly reverses the culture of the NDP. 

I can see how angry you are about the way in which the NDP is run but that isn't Singh's or Moore's fault. It is the fault of the executive and to a lessor extent caucus (including leader) followed by the membership as a whole. 

 

Pondering

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-nothing-to-see-here...

This is an NDP-funded investigation, with terms established by the NDP, which just cleared an NDP MP,” he said in a phone interview from his home in Brandon, Man., where he works as a realtor.

Kirkland, for the record, says he initially declined to participate in the investigation on the advice of his lawyer. (Six days after Singh announced the investigation and suspended Moore, Kirkland, like the news agencies involved, received a purported libel notice, only his described his claims as “a tissue of lies”)

But, he told the Post, less than a week later, perhaps as soon as three days after, he called the investigator back “to participate in an interview” but was told his version of events had been “pieced together” from news accounts and no one needed to speak to him.

He told the Post he spoke to Jelly for “about three minutes” and she was “so rude to me I asked would you be speaking to me like that” if he was a woman....

He was told, he said, the investigator had what she needed from press accounts.

“I was a witness (before a legislative committee) and we slept together,” Kirkland told the Post. “You’re allowed to sleep with witnesses? That’s going to make a lot of lawyers happy.”

As I said, Kirkland thinks it is automatically wrong for Moore to have sex with him regardless of who instigated or if anyone was reluctant. It was easy to piece together what happened from his own statements to the media in comparison to Moore's hard evidence and witnesses.

Whenever he was challenged on any contradiction such as between her "showing up on his doorstep" versus being picked up at the airport by him he reverts back to whining about her position. Of course it is legal for her to have  sex with witnesses. It wasn't a trial. 

If Moore was a man it would still be legal for her to have sex with a witness. It is also legal for a boss to have sex with his secretary or a manager to have sex with a cashier. 

I don't know if it has impacted his business or not but I wouldn't use him as a realtor. 

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

Christine Moore said she would feel uncomfortable being alone with him based on what she had heard on the grapevine. What part of that do you think was a lie?

I don't think you know what the grapevine means or how it works. The grapevine works on rumours. It's gossip. Until recently it was meaningless. Nobody reports what is on the grapevine because it is 3rd hand information. The private caucus email was discussion amongst equals. I don't believe Moore intended her email to become public. Have you heard of any other caucus emails becoming public?

Gossip and innuendo should not cost someone their career. What Christine Moore did was to send a histrionic mass email to all of Erin Weir's caucus colleagues, alluding that he was a frightening person who was guilty of very bad things (i.e. that's why she was afraid to be alone with him). She did so to block him from seeking the caucus chair job because presumably she either wanted it for herself or for someone else. I believe that not only could Moore have reasonably foreseen that the email would go public, but that she probably intended it to and was indeed probably the one who leaked it. But it doesn't really matter. Regardless of whether Moore intended the email to go to the whole world or just her caucus mates, what she wrote did not reflect a genuine desire to get to the bottom of the rumors she was allegedly hearing. Rather it was clearly done to publicly shame Weir and cause him harm. It was a cruel and reckless act.

As it turns out, a thorough investigation yielded evidence only of some very minor behavior by Weir that most people felt could be corrected through his receiving some counselling on his interpersonal skills. Erin Weir got the counselling. The counsellor wrote a report. The report is public, you can read it here: Noonan letter.

Erin Weir still ended up out of caucus, because the situation that Moore precipitated through her reckless conduct subsequently snowballed due to the intervention of a former senior staffer for Thomas Mulcair (the Former Mulcair Senior Staffer, or "FMSS") who had her own axe to grind, and Jagmeet Singh's ultimate decision to take FMSS's side over Weir's despite FMSS's leaking of sensitive information at a sensitive time for the apparent, express purpose of blowing up Jagmeet's deal with Weir. I can't say whether this whole scenario was planned out from the start or just exploited opportunistically by the actors involved. But I don't think it's left women in the NDP any better off, I don't think its been good for the movement against harassment generally, I know its been bad for the NDP and the stability of Jagmeet's leadership position and it's definitely been very bad for Weir. And it all stems from Moore's decision to smear Weir to his colleagues for her own ends based on what turned out to be, at best, a major exaggeration of what the facts actually were. She is not someone I would want to work with in any capacity and she is going to be a cancer on the caucus and the party so long as she remains involved in any capacity.

Pondering

She did not say she would be afraid to be alone with him. She said she would be uncomfortable to be alone with him based on grapevine comments. I don't see anything histronic about that. 

Why would you assume she wanted the chair for herself or someone else? Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair. 

Nothing snowballed. Moore is not responsible for the staffer who spoke to the media nor is she responsible for Weir's reaction. He is  a grown man responsible for his own words. Even if he felt he had to defend himself and couldn't hold his tongue he could have done so without the disparaging remarks about Mulcair, Angus, and all 4 complainants. 

The proof of the mildness of his transgressions was in being readmitted to caucus which he knew was coming. He is out due to his own poor judgement not only in his manner towards women but also in throwing people in the party under the bus. If he hadn't accused Mulcair, Angus and the staffer of being vindictive even though they won he would be back in caucus now. 

It seems caucus would rather work with Moore than Weir and they are closer to the situation. 

josh

Thanks for posting the letter, R.D.  Makes me angry all over again at the way Weir was treated.  Odds are after next year's election, the caucus won't have to worry about Moore.

Pondering

Is Weir an imbecile that can't be held to account for his actions? 

josh

Imbecile?

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:
Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair.

Because she had previously ruined the careers of two other MPs through "informal" disclosure of what, in one case, she had heard from someone else; and what, in another case, was based on her subjective characterization of a sexual encounter she charaterized as nonconsensual but which  even in her words sounded like something the other individual involved in the encounter very plausibly would have believed was consensual. She reportedly said that she did not want either of those other two MPs to lose their jobs she just wanted them to get some counselling, but the former is what happened. Consequences "snowballed" from her disclosure. Moore knew or should have known what she was doing when she went after Weir.

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

Is Weir an imbecile that can't be held to account for his actions? 

Weir has paid dearly for his actions. It's Jagmeet Singh who looks foolish. (And in the future please try to avoid ablist medical terms like 'imbecile' to describe people who you simply think have done dumb things, it has an uncomfortable history).

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair.

Because she had previously ruined the careers of two other MPs through "informal" disclosure of what, in one case, she had heard from someone else; and what, in another case, was based on her subjective characterization of a sexual encounter she charaterized as nonconsensual but which  even in her words sounded like something the other individual involved in the encounter very plausibly would have believed was consensual. She reportedly said that she did not want either of those other two MPs to lose their jobs she just wanted them to get some counselling, but the former is what happened. Consequences "snowballed" from her disclosure. Moore knew or should have known what she was doing when she went after Weir.

Not the same woman. Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs. 

This was in a private caucus email that someone leaked to the press. 

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Is Weir an imbecile that can't be held to account for his actions? 

Weir has paid dearly for his actions. It's Jagmeet Singh who looks foolish. (And in the future please try to avoid ablist medical terms like 'imbecile' to describe people who you simply think have done dumb things, it has an uncomfortable history).

Will do on the vocabulary. I wasn't familiar with the history. I don't see how Singh looks foolish when his entire caucus is behind him. This hasn't been in the news since May. 

Weir chose to deal with the NDP through the media because he wasn't getting answers fast enough through inside channels. That was his decision to make but he should have known there would be consequences to doing such a thing.  Apparently he did not because he claims he would not have said anything had he realized what the reaction would be. 

Even then he might have been able to smooth things over had he apologized to the staffer and retracted his statement about her motives. Instead he doubled down. From that moment on it was not about the harassment anymore. I don't see how Angus could be expected to work with him again. 

Paladin1

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? Would be be appropriate to refer to Mrs Moore as Cutie politician girl?

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

Not the same woman. Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs.

I don't know what you think Unionist thinks but Christie Blatchford says she has email correspondence with Moore that confirms it was Moore who talked to Trudeau at Nathan Cirillo's funeral, and I haven't heard Moore deny it.

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

Weir chose to deal with the NDP through the media because he wasn't getting answers fast enough through inside channels. That was his decision to make but he should have known there would be consequences to doing such a thing.  Apparently he did not because he claims he would not have said anything had he realized what the reaction would be. 

Even then he might have been able to smooth things over had he apologized to the staffer and retracted his statement about her motives. Instead he doubled down. From that moment on it was not about the harassment anymore. I don't see how Angus could be expected to work with him again.

The staffer went to the media first and Angus was the one who disciplined Weir in 2016, not the other way around. Weir managed to continue to work with Angus for two years thereafter. I am sure Angus could figure out a way to move forward and continue to work with Weir and Angus ought to take responsibility for his own actions anyways. I suppose Angus could have resigned from caucus if his feelings were hurt because Weir accurately described Angus's prior actions towards him when Angus was caucus chair. But that would have been on Angus, and I think his motivations for so doing would have quickly become transparent. Jagmeet didn't have to kick anyone out of caucus. He chose to do so ostensibly in order to protect people who were not in fact in need of protection and who are not his friends in any case.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair.

Because she had previously ruined the careers of two other MPs through "informal" disclosure of what, in one case, she had heard from someone else; and what, in another case, was based on her subjective characterization of a sexual encounter she charaterized as nonconsensual but which  even in her words sounded like something the other individual involved in the encounter very plausibly would have believed was consensual. She reportedly said that she did not want either of those other two MPs to lose their jobs she just wanted them to get some counselling, but the former is what happened. Consequences "snowballed" from her disclosure. Moore knew or should have known what she was doing when she went after Weir.

Not the same woman. Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs. 

This was in a private caucus email that someone leaked to the press. 

Wow. Can you spell delusional? I never said, nor thought, any such thing. What I made crystal clear was that Moore had never alleged being a victim of Weir - which you repeated endlessly before apologizing for your error.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Wow. Can you spell delusional? I never said, nor thought, any such thing. What I made crystal clear was that Moore had never alleged being a victim of Weir - which you repeated endlessly before apologizing for your error.

Can you spell unnecessarily rude and aggressive? 

So, Moore was the person who approach Trudeau, the leader of another party, on the bus. She told him about an NDP MP who had been abused by a Liberal MP. Later after hearing what was said during a meeting she realized her own experience also qualified and shared it. She followed up by shared too much information that made the situation worse not better. Are we in agreement so far?

In this case in response to Weir's request for support to become caucus chair Moore sent an internal private email to caucus members saying she would be uncomfortable to be alone with him therefore he would be unsuitable for the position. In this case she is not one of the complainants. 

I do not see why this is all so important. It seems the latest argument against her is that because of how the first incident went down she should have known better. But in this case she was speaking privately to the NDP caucus of which she is a part. 

I do think she could have handled it better but hindsight is 20/20. That she is being accused of ruining the careers of 3 men is why women hesitate to step forward. Somehow talking about or reporting sexual misconduct is worse than actual sexual misconduct. The men's misconduct isn't responsible for their downfall. No, it's the person who talked about it who is to blame. 

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

I do think she could have handled it better but hindsight is 20/20. That she is being accused of ruining the careers of 3 men is why women hesitate to step forward. Somehow talking about or reporting sexual misconduct is worse than actual sexual misconduct. The men's misconduct isn't responsible for their downfall. No, it's the person who talked about it who is to blame. 

Context is key here. For example, Harvey Weinstein was an extremely powerful person who, allegedly, may be guilty of some very serious things. There were clearly no proper channels within his company to report and seek investigation of his wrongdoing because he controlled  it; and before #MeToo happened law enforcement had proved ineffective to date to make any charges stick. The women who came forward to publicly expose Weinstein, at personal risk to themselves and their careers, deserve to be applauded.  They are heroes.

Erin Weir, as the publicly available evidence now shows, was guilty of standing too close to some women and talking to them longer than they wished to be spoken to, hoping that they would want to date him when in fact they were not interested in doing so. A lack of interest that apparently they were indicating primarily "non-verbally," and through "social cues"  - the ability to read which is shall we say not evenly distributed through the population and in some cases an area where people can actually have an otherwise largely invisible disability.

Some of the women gossiped behind Weir's back. Maybe they did feel uncomfortable with him, although it is hard to tell what people really felt at the time vs. what they might have told the investigator after Moore's public intervention had framed the issue. But in any event there's no evidence he ever tried to coerce anyone to do anything and certainly no evidence he acted inappropriately towards anyone over whom he exercised professional power. What was out there on the "grapevine" was basically juvenile and trivial stuff. Weir wasn't a predator he was just awkward. Christine Moore called him out in front of his colleagues because she wanted to feel powerful, she likely was trying to achieve a political advantage over him and in any case, based on her demonstrated past conduct, she clearly considers herself a whistleblower and has appointed herself as a campaigner for "voiceless" other women regardless of said women's actual wishes. If she really was concerned about the impact of  Weir's behavior on other women, rather than simply how she could leverage her presumed knowledge of it to benefit herself, she had other, far more appropriate avenues available to raise such concerns. Her decision to try to publicly shame Weir rather than pursue such other options was, in this case, worse than anything Weir was guilty of. There is a real and present danger that people who do what she did  are going to discredit the whole movement started by the people I referenced in my first paragraph. The fact that this is the third time she has taken someone down under circumstances like this demonstrates that she is a dangerous person to be around. It's a mistake for the NDP to reinstate her to caucus.

Unionist

Christine Moore is a toxic gossip. She should be thrown far far away from any progressive gathering.

And I have no problem whatsoever, Pondering, with her having approached Trudeau to squeal on two Liberal MPs. You concocted that out of thin air, and a rather abject apology would be in order.

On the other hand, when Trudeau immediately excluded the two from caucus, the NDP complained that this could possibly maybe identify the victims. That, IMHO, was as sick a response as they come. They should have publicly thanked him for his swift action and offered to participate fully in any investigation. It would appear, however, that they don't really care that much about sexual harassment and assault. It's more about childish partisan point-scoring.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? Would be be appropriate to refer to Mrs Moore as Cutie politician girl?

I too found the reference extremely condescending. Moore sleeps with people she meets through work and then complains about other MP's behaviours based strickly on what she hears on the rumour mill. I think she should cross the floor to the Liberals because she is the same type of feminist as our ass grabbing Prime Minister.

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? 

No he doesn't. He volunteered to go kill people in Afghanistan, in an unjustifiable invasion by the U.S., Canada, and other countries. He should be grateful he survived, despite his criminal behaviour. Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report. If, however, he decided the sex was "consensual" (his word), he should really shut up and be thankful that he can get on with his life, where so many thousands of real victims of his cannot.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs. 

This is a bald-faced lie.

Please retract it now, along with an apology.

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? 

No he doesn't. He volunteered to go kill people in Afghanistan, in an unjustifiable invasion by the U.S., Canada, and other countries. He should be grateful he survived, despite his criminal behaviour. Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report. If, however, he decided the sex was "consensual" (his word), he should really shut up and be thankful that he can get on with his life, where so many thousands of real victims of his cannot.

Sexualizing someones name still seems creepy and unprogressive to me, YMMV. He didn't volunteer, his unit was sent to Afghanistan and he followed. Suppose you could say he volunteered for the army. He probably thought that since the UN approved of the mission he probably wouldn't be charged with warcrimes for his unjustifiable invasion in the phoney baloney war.

Quote:
Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report.

Why should he have? Shouldn't it be a personal choice?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs. 

This is a bald-faced lie.

Please retract it now, along with an apology.

I already did correct myself in post 267 but you don't deserve an apology so you won't get getting one because you assume malicious  intent where there is none. You are so consumed by your anger you can't even read. You just attack. 

I made an unintentional mistake. Your nastiness is intended. You owe me an apology but I am not expecting  one. You can go ahead and keep attacking me but you won't drag me into a flame war no matter how badly you want one. It's water off a duck's back. 

You act like this is such a major point. It's not. It makes no difference. In the one case she spoke to Trudeau, in the other she spoke to her own caucus in a private email. No one seems concerned that a private caucus email was leaked to the media. 

Weir was ejected from caucus due to attacking the women who had reported him. That was his choice. He had every right to do it. That had consequences. He is an adult. He wasn't "driven to it". He chose to cast aspirations on their motives and to dismiss the complaints as something that would happen to every man if complaints were "solicited". Apparently you agree with him. It seems I have a higher opinion of men than you do if you think all or most would have complaints against them. Either that or your opinion of women is so low that you think they would fabricate complaints if solicited. 

Pondering

In all cases Christine Moore has been telling the truth. Weir's reaction to the staffer speaking to the media is not on Moore it is on Weir. We can't always choose what happens to us but we can choose how we behave in response. 

Paladin1

A bully prone to making snide comments then running away.

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

It seems I have a higher opinion of men than you do if you think all or most would have complaints against them. Either that or your opinion of women is so low that you think they would fabricate complaints if solicited. 

while your comment appears to be addressed towards unionist, I just want to say I believe that both men and women are capable of abusing power when the opportunity presents itself. #Metoo has rightly been about confronting men who abused their power and got away with it for too long. But the process of investigation that the NDP took in Erin Weir’s case put the shoe on the other foot and handed power to unscrupulous women (Moore, FMSS) to apparently successfully take down a good man for some pretty minor stuff and that’s not right either.

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It seems I have a higher opinion of men than you do if you think all or most would have complaints against them. Either that or your opinion of women is so low that you think they would fabricate complaints if solicited. 

while your comment appears to be addressed towards unionist, I just want to say I believe that both men and women are capable of abusing power when the opportunity presents itself. #Metoo has rightly been about confronting men who abused their power and got away with it for too long. But the process of investigation that the NDP took in Erin Weir’s case put the shoe on the other foot and handed power to unscrupulous women (Moore, FMSS) to apparently successfully take down a good man for some pretty minor stuff and that’s not right either.

Absolutely, but he said any men not some men. So do I take it if complaints were solicited you would have a few against you? Because that is what he said. 

They did not take him down. Is he not an adult? Is he not responsible for his own behavior? 

He says all he did was stand too close and talk too long. If that were true he would not have been accused of sexual harassment. For example, if he was talking too close while saying "want to go out for coffee" that would not be sexual harassment. On the other hand if he were saying. "want to go to my office and fuck?" that would be sexual harassment.  And yes, men actually do say that in real life. I'm not saying that is what Weir said. I"m just saying it wasn't as inoculous as asking for date. 

There is no evidence that Moore was after Weir. He doesn't even accuse her of anything. There is no evidence  showing any of the women are unscrupulous. 

Weir won. He was being reinstated. All he had to do was take the training. He was in. He knew it. It was case closed.

Wier reopened it when he attacked the credibility of ALL the women when he put the complaints down to being solicited. If  Weir had kept his mouth shut he would be sitting in caucus now. Were the women supposed to apply tape to his mouth so he couldn't get himself into more trouble? 

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:
   ​Erin Weir, as the publicly available evidence now shows, was guilty of standing too close to some women and talking to them longer than they wished to be spoken to, hoping that they would want to date him when in fact they were not interested in doing so. ​  
 You are embellishing to minimize his actions. He is  36 not 13. It is  not sexual harassment to ask a woman out for coffee no matter how close you are standing. It was on the lower end but it was still sexual harassment. 

If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. 

robbie_dee wrote:
   Some of the women gossiped behind Weir's back. Maybe they did feel uncomfortable with him, although it is hard to tell what people really felt at the time vs. what they might have told the investigator after Moore's public intervention had framed the issue. But in any event there's no evidence he ever tried to coerce anyone to do anything and certainly no evidence he acted inappropriately towards anyone over whom he exercised professional power. ​  
 His behavior was directed at staffers and he's an MP so he did have more power than them. Sexual harassment is inappropriate behavior and the finding was that he did sexually harass them and intimidate the staffer. 

robbie_dee wrote:
     If she really was concerned about the impact of  Weir's behavior on other women, rather than simply how she could leverage her presumed knowledge of it to benefit herself, she had other, far more appropriate avenues available to raise such concerns. Her decision to try to publicly shame Weir rather than pursue such other options was, in this case, worse than anything Weir was guilty of. ​  
 She didn't publicly shame him. He wrote a private group email asking for the groups support in his bid to become chair. She replied to the private email group that she would feel uncomfortable meeting alone with him. 

She could have handled it better but challenging or reporting sexual harassment is not worse than sexual harassment. 

robbie_dee wrote:
  The fact that this is the third time she has taken someone down under circumstances like this demonstrates that she is a dangerous person to be around. ​  
 It is dangerous for men who sexually harass women or take advantage of them. Men who don't behave that way are perfectly safe. 

robbie_dee wrote:
   It's a mistake for the NDP to reinstate her to caucus. 
 She was cleared. On what grounds would they not reinstate her?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? Would be be appropriate to refer to Mrs Moore as Cutie politician girl?

He doesn't deserve respect. He lied publicly about a woman he had a relationship with humiliating her because he decided it was inappropriate based on her position as MP not based on any sense of having been taken advantage of. 

However, using the term "soldier boy" as a derogatory slur is inappropriate. I don't think soldiers are automatically patriots but they don't choose their assignments either. His being a jerk has nothing to do with his having been a soldier. 

I'm betting he is having a harder time getting  dates. Women have to wonder what he will have to say about them to his buddies if not to the press. 

Kirkland did this specifically in retalition for her having spoken up about the men who were all found guilty of sexual harassment even if it was on the milder end of the scale. 

When women warn each other about men it is not gossip it is self-preservation and we take it into account if the complainant is a disgruntled ex or a drama addict. When we hear multiple warnings we take it seriously. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. "

Famous people with autism or aspergers.

https://www.aspergerstestsite.com/898/famous-people-autism/

  • Bob Dylan (musician)
  • Dan Akroyd (actor)
  • Bill Gates (entrepreneur)
  • Temple Grandin (author)
  • Al Gore (politician)
  • Daryl Hannah (actress)
  • Alfred Hitchcock (director)
  • Garrison Keillor (public radio)
  • Clay Marzo (surfer)
  • Craig Nicholls (musician)
  • Keith Olberman (sportscaster)
  • Tim Page (author)
  • Oliver Sacks (author)
  • Charles Schultz (cartoonist)
  • James Taylor (musician)
  • Andy Warhol (artist)
  • Robin Williams (comedian)
  • Jane Austen (writer)
  • Ludwig Van Beethoven (musician)
  • Thomas Edison (inventor)
  • Albert Einstein (scientist)
  • Henry Ford (auto maker)
  • Benjamin Franklin  (politician)
  • Abraham Lincoln (politician)
  • Henry Thoreau (writer/philosopher)
  • Mark Twain (writer)

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pentagon speculates that Vladimir Putin has Asperger's Syndrome

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/04/putin-aspergers-syndrome-study-pentagon/2285

Coming from the Pentagon, I can only empathize but this is speculation take it for what it's worth.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. "

Famous people with autism or aspergers.

https://www.aspergerstestsite.com/898/famous-people-autism/

I didn't say they couldn't be successful but that is like a pregnant man website. 

In many ways we may never truly know how many other famous people may have Asperger’s because as mentioned previously, those under the spotlight tend to prefer to control what the public does or doesn’t see in regards to themselves? That said, what are some of the traits that these people exhibit that lead to that conclusion?

The author is diagnosing these people just like posters here are diagnosing Weir with Aspergers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Social_interaction

Diagnosis is most commonly made between the ages of four and eleven.[7] A comprehensive assessment involves a multidisciplinary team[8][4][70] that observes across multiple settings,[7] and includes neurological and genetic assessment as well as tests for cognition, psychomotor function, verbal and nonverbal strengths and weaknesses, style of learning, and skills for independent living.[4] The "gold standard" in diagnosing ASDs combines clinical judgment with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), a semistructured parent interview; and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), a conversation and play-based interview with the child.[11] Delayed or mistaken diagnosis can be traumatic for individuals and families; for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior.[70][71]

http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/

“Is every man in America somewhere on it?” Nora Ephron wondered about the autism spectrum in an e-mail to a friend a few months before her death. “Is every producer on it? Is every 8-year-old boy who is obsessed with statistics on it? Sometimes, when we say someone is on the spectrum, do we just mean he’s a prick? Or a pathological narcissist? I notice that at least three times a week I am told (or I tell someone) that some man or other is on the spectrum.”...

Meanwhile, out on the Great Plains, one Dennis Stillings, writing in the Bismarck-based Dakota Beacon about Barack Obama, has adduced such telltale evidence as his “legendary clumsiness … He has actually bowled a 37,” “verbal glitches—possibly the reason for the ever-present teleprompters,” and “infamous inability to relate” to arrive at a boldly contrarian thesis: “Obama may well not be narcissistic at all, but simply manifesting a typical feature of autism.” Stillings then passes along the opinion of a friend of a friend “who actually works with autistic people” that the president of the United States “likely” has Asperger’s, and speculates that this “may or may not be of significance” to the Obama administration’s considerable funding of autism research....

Every generation has its defining psychiatric malady, confidently diagnosed from afar by armchair non-psychiatrists. In the fifties, all those gray-suited organization men were married to “frigid” women. Until a few years ago, the country of self-obsessed boomers and reality-TV fame-seekers and vain politicians and bubble-riding Ponzi schemers made narcissistic personality disorder—diagnosis code 301.81 in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition—the craziness of the moment. And who among us has not proudly copped to our own “OCD” or “ADD,” deemed a mercurial sibling “seriously bipolar,” written off an erratic ex as “obviously borderline,” or nodded as a laid-off friend pronounced his former boss a “textbook sociopath”? Lately, a new kind of head case stalks the land—staring past us, blurting gaucheries, droning on about the technical minutiae of his boring hobby. And we are ready with our DSM codes: 299.00 (autistic disorder) and 299.80 (Asperger’s disorder).

The  list includes only 2 women so this seems to be an overwhelmingly male diagnosis. 

Christine Moore blurts stuff out. Surely that is a symptom of Aspergers yet people here are ganging up on her when all she did was tell the truth (at the wrong place and time). She thought she was in a relationship with Kirkland. She didn't understand Pacetti and didn't know how to say no. 

Between Weir and Moore it seems at least equally likely that she, not he, is the one with Aspergers. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

Go back to your fantasy world!

You criticize everyone for suggesting those that they think have Aspergers.

It is a very obvious symptom for some with Aspergers or Autism to be unable to pick up on social queues and to violate other people's space like to sit too close or to stand too close. They are unable to pick up on when they are talking too long and are making other people feel uncomfortable.

While no one is medically diagnosing Erin with this condition, many on this thread are aware of the connection his symptoms have with Aspergers. And Erin Weir even publicly admitted that he is unable to pick up on social queues.

then you turn around and have the audacity to medically diagnose Christine Moore as having Aspergers over the flimsiest of reasons.

You certainly have a lot of gall.

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It is a really bad sign when a person makes unsolicited psychiatric and psychological diagnoses. It is 'pop psychology' which you see on TV talk shows. It is designed to categorize and shame people.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Famous people with autism or aspergers.

How many, if any, of the people on this list have been diagnosed as or identify as being on the autism spectrum?  

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

then you turn around and have the audacity to medically diagnose Christine Moore as having Aspergers over the flimsiest of reasons.

You certainly have a lot of gall.

Flimsy?

We have Weir: admitted to standing to close, talking too long, and not picking up on social cues. 

We have Moore: who went to Pacetti's room not realizing he wanted to have sex with her. She tried to get out of it non-verbally by going to the bathroom and trying to get to the door. She blurted out sensitive information to Trudeau on impulse on a bus. She wrote explanations released to the media thinking she was helping when she was putting both herself and Pacetti in a worse light. She thought she was in a relationship with Kirkland while he was just using  her for sex. She blurted out information in the email concerning Weir. Throughout all she has been entirely truthful. 

It seems to me she speaks the truth seemingly without any understanding of how other people will react. She is reckless in accompanying men to their hotel rooms. Wait, isn't promiscuity a sign of childhood abuse?

Even if Moore thought she was going to Pacetti's room to have a drink or continue their conversation she should have at least considered the possibility he might make a pass at her. Like duh, hotel room past midnight drunk with a man. What a shocker. Did she grow up under a rock? How could she think her sharing of the details would be helpful to either herself or Pacetti? To me that does show a deep lack of social awareness that goes well beyond anything exhibited by Weir. 

Why are Weir's symptoms pathological while Moore's symptoms signal a character flaw even though she was telling the truth? She was being honest. 

I see nothing calculating in her behavior suggesting ulterior motives. If she were a calculating person she wouldn't have shared the details in the first incident. If she had it in for Weir she would have been better off spreading the word privately so he wouldn't know than saying it in an email, even within a private group. 

So why is it poor Weir and bitch Moore? She had the audacity to tell the truth about the way men were behaving. The good ol boys  sexually charged"atmosphere"on the hill is decried unless it involves specific men. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Mr. Magoo,

I can honestly say that I do not know how many of those people self identify as being on the spectrum. I have not read any of their biographies and am not in a position to say.

I posted that list because Dr. Pondering made the diagnostic assessment that:

"If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. "

My list was posted to show that there are many people who excelled in their professions and contributed to society despite having a disability.

Misfit Misfit's picture
Misfit Misfit's picture
Misfit Misfit's picture

I want to strongly emphasize that I am not claiming that Erin Weir has Autism or Aspergers.

It just so happens that Erin Weir personally claims that he has trouble picking up on social cues. He was also criticized for standing too close, sitting to close to people, and for talking longer than they wanted him to talk to them.

There are many people who claim to be socially awkward who do not have Autism or Aspergers. But some people who do have Autism or Aspergers do share these very same social awkwardness and boundary and space issues that Erin Weir talks about.

There is a commonality between Erin Weir's social awkwardness issues and symptoms of Autism or Aspergers even though many socially awkward people are not on the spectrum and that not all people with Autism or Aspergers are socially awkward.

And I repeat, no one on this board has ever diagnosed Erin Weir as having any medical conditio only to say that if he does have a medical disability then he is in a position to take legal action.

Pondering claimed that "if Erin Weir's social skills were lacking to the extent of a disability then he would never have been this successful as a politician."

That list shows people who self identify with Autism and others who were never diagnosed but whom others suspect may be on the spectrum. The list includes politicians who excelled in politics despite having a disability or are suspected of having a disability.

instead of realizing that she was out of line in making such a statement she then medically diagnoses Christine Moore as having Aspergers.

Wow!

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Between Weir and Moore it seems at least equally likely that she, not he, is the one with Aspergers. 

At first you said that a high level politician like Weir could not have become a successful politician while having Asperger's but now you are saying that both successful high level politicians, Weir and Moore, could have Asperger's? 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I still don't get what Weir did other than make people uncomfortable. I also understand that Moore was cleared of her misconduct allegations. Did Weir's accusations get the same review process as Moore? Am I missing something?

Unionist

laine lowe wrote:

I still don't get what Weir did other than make people uncomfortable.

Same here.

Quote:
I also understand that Moore was cleared of her misconduct allegations. Did Weir's accusations get the same review process as Moore? Am I missing something?

We're all missing something - transparency. Under the hoax of protecting "survivors". You know, like the anonymous staffer who tried to shut down Weir from speaking at his own party convention, and claims to have been met with "anger and belligerence". Poor thing! So she went public with her accusation, to CBC, without bothering to give her name, because, you know, trauma, reputation, I don't know.

This is utter bullshit and the NDP - or rather, Singh's handlers - should publicly explain and recant their anti-democratic and abusive activities.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Between Weir and Moore it seems at least equally likely that she, not he, is the one with Aspergers. 

At first you said that a high level politician like Weir could not have become a successful politician while having Asperger's but now you are saying that both successful high level politicians, Weir and Moore, could have Asperger's? 

I am saying that neither of us can diagnose Moore or Weir and they are both adults responsible for their behavior. In my opinion politicians need basic social skills to advance therefore it is not an excuse. People on the spectrum still learn coping mechanisms so they don't behave inappropriately. In any case he was not expelled from caucus for harassment. 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
My list was posted to show that there are many people who excelled in their professions and contributed to society despite having a disability.

I never said otherwise. Politicians require a specific skill set. People with mild disabilities can learn coping mechanisms so that it doesn't impede their success. In my experience men with this sort of disability, standing too close, talking too long, learn not to do it very quickly because it is embarrassing for them to get set downs from women. 

The women did experience significant distress. It is not sexual harassment to ask a woman out for coffee. The content of the conversation is all important and we don't know that. All we know is that it did qualify as sexual harassment but on the minor side. For that reason he was being readmitted into caucus after training. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I am saying that neither of us can diagnose Moore or Weir.... 

If we can't diagnose Weir why did you say earlier that he could not possibly have Asperger's? I agree that we are not in position to diagnose people. I also think that if you change your position in the middle of a discussion it is important to acknowledge it as it makes discussing things difficult when you don't. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"It seems to me she speaks the truth seemingly without any understanding of how other people will react. She is reckless in accompanying men to their hotel rooms. Wait, isn't promiscuity a sign of childhood abuse?"

Even if you are saying this sarcastically this is very disturbing and inappropriate.

Christine Moore claims that she was sexually assaulted and did not fully consent. She claims that he really hurt her. I do not appreciate you calling her promiscuous even in jest.

if I went into a hotel room with a man that I trust that does not mean that I am consenting to have sex with him. He may ask but if I say no then that means no. If I trust a man that I feel safe in going to his hotel room I am not being reckless.

it was wrong for you to label her promiscuous when she was sexually assaulted. Then you imply that she was sexually abused as a child.

this is all very distasteful and out of line on many levels.

josh

Unionist wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

I still don't get what Weir did other than make people uncomfortable.

Same here.

Quote:
I also understand that Moore was cleared of her misconduct allegations. Did Weir's accusations get the same review process as Moore? Am I missing something?

We're all missing something - transparency. Under the hoax of protecting "survivors". You know, like the anonymous staffer who tried to shut down Weir from speaking at his own party convention, and claims to have been met with "anger and belligerence". Poor thing! So she went public with her accusation, to CBC, without bothering to give her name, because, you know, trauma, reputation, I don't know.

This is utter bullshit and the NDP - or rather, Singh's handlers - should publicly explain and recant their anti-democratic and abusive activities.

Well said.  But if you’re waiting for that explanation, your wait may be in vain.

Misfit Misfit's picture

And it was at a packed convention with hundreds of onlookers right there.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"It seems to me she speaks the truth seemingly without any understanding of how other people will react. She is reckless in accompanying men to their hotel rooms. Wait, isn't promiscuity a sign of childhood abuse?"

Even if you are saying this sarcastically this is very disturbing and inappropriate.

Christine Moore claims that she was sexually assaulted and did not fully consent. She claims that he really hurt her. I do not appreciate you calling her promiscuous even in jest.

if I went into a hotel room with a man that I trust that does not mean that I am consenting to have sex with him. He may ask but if I say no then that means no. If I trust a man that I feel safe in going to his hotel room I am not being reckless.

it was wrong for you to label her promiscuous when she was sexually assaulted. Then you imply that she was sexually abused as a child.

this is all very distasteful and out of line on many levels.

There is no such claim concerning her encounter with Kirkland. It is naive or reckless for women to trust men enough to go to their hotel rooms alone day or night. Even if it is their brother's best friend. That does not mean they are to blame if they are attacked. The perpetrator is always to blame. 

What I find distasteful is that Moore is being attacked for telling the truth in an inappropriate manner. If inappropriate social behavior is evidence of some form of disability then Moore has it. Rather than pathologizing it I would just say she is naive but if you are going to pathologize Weir's behavior then she deserves the same consideration. 

Pages