Erin Weir accused of harassment 2

133 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Erin Weir was being reinstated to caucus as a result of the investigation's findings. No one seems willing to deal with the actual reasons Weir was expelled. I have rarely seen such determined misrepresentation. No matter how much you adore Erin Weir without intellectual honesty it's just self-perpetuated propaganda rooted in prejudice. No different than what the rest of  the parties do. It makes it very easy to be cynical about politicians and followers of all the parties. 

josh

Singh doesn’t even say that that was the reason he was expelled or the reason why he refuses to reinstate him.

Notalib

Quote:

i'd like to see the petition and the names on it.

and know just what they're disgusted about.

https://www.change.org/p/regina-lewvan-constituents-and-concerned-member...

Aristotleded24

Notalib wrote:

Quote:

i'd like to see the petition and the names on it.

and know just what they're disgusted about.

https://www.change.org/p/regina-lewvan-constituents-and-concerned-member...

All the description does is rehash the same general things that have been said about Weir without adding any new information. Vague statements like "found to have harassed" or "significant negative impact" don't cut it. The only thing we know, based on what Weir said, is that maybe he stood to close to people. If there's more to that, then that information should be brought froward. If it was, for example, something like repeatedly asking a staffer for dates and calling all hours of the night to the point that the staffer had panic attacks every time her phone rang, we would all understand.

How many court cases involving people accused of sexually molesting children are reported in the media? The media generally does a good job of describing the allegations while protecting the identity of the young accusers. If the media can pull of that, then surely this investigation can release a few more specific details to clear things up and hopefully put this matter to rest.

Misfit Misfit's picture

What Aristotle said!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yeah, its not like a former staffer and campaign volunteers matter anyway right?

What do you mean by "matter"?

Do you mean I should regard their opinion of something they know SFA about as more important than someone else's opinion of something they know SFA about?

If one of these signatories saw Weir talk too long and had to vomit in a trash can as a result, they should say that.  Otherwise, they're literally just giving their opinion of what they've read somewhere.

And I'll just say again:  I don't really have a horse in this race with regard to Weir staying or not staying.  But it's fascinating to see that this one time we don't seem to need to "believe victims".  And this one time, making an effort to do better is a totally acceptable remedy.  And this one time we can all weigh in on the injustice of it all because this one time we've been given all the information we need to do that.

I don't, personally, think Weir actually did anything that couldn't have been dealt with in an e-mail or two.  But we can't just say "well, he said sorry, and he's trying his best" without asking why saying sorry, or trying one's best mean jack shit for every other participant in #metoo.  This is one of those incongruous and inexplicable "exceptions" like when it was OK for "real" progressives to say that the accusers of Julian Assange were paid-off liars.  Remember that?

 

Aristotleded24

Let's use another example of a harassment accusation. Former Manitoba MLA Stan Struthers was accused. It became public that he tickled women, to the point that he was nicknamed "Minister Tickles." Some women did speak publicly to that, however it is reasonable to assume that he did that to more women we don't know about. When that became public knowledge, he never tried to downplay or defend himself, just offered up a mealy-mouthed apology that politicians often do. I don't see anybody defending him, and the general consensus is that what he did was inappropriate.

How is that different than the Weir case? There was a specific accusation, and we have enough information to know what happened. Funny enough, most of us didn't need an investigation or a report to conclude that what Struthers did was wrong. Somehow we were all able to figure that out on their own.

So to recap: a vague accusation in an e-mail that became public knowledge* comes to light. This after the NDP has been left reeling from other accusations of harassment long past that were not properly dealt with, and at the height of the #MeToo era. Rather than properly investigate (and considering that leading a group of people is never easy and there are always conflicts, I believe this could have been fairly resolved internally without the public evisceration) Singh used this case to capitalize on the movement and claim that the NDP was at the forefront of women's rights. Unfortunately it has backfired.

*As a pro-worker discussion board, how do you think we would react to a supervisor who had an issue with an employee's performance, and sent an e-mail sharing those issues with staff other than higher managers or HR people who would have needed to be copied on that e-mail for documentation purposes?

Pondering

Weir was not expelled from caucus based on the findings of the report. He was accepted back into caucus. 

Pondering

This is what Erin Weir was expelled for:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/investigation-finds-multiple-complaints...

Weir claims "trumped-up" complaint is punishment for wandering off-script on carbon pricing..

Weir, meanwhile, now alleges that "the complainant" is an individual who he claims blocked him from speaking on a resolution on carbon pricing at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention.

"I suggested that the federal government safeguard local jobs and help reduce global emissions by extending its carbon levy to the carbon content of imports from countries that do not price emissions and by rebating it on Canadian-made exports," said Weir in a media release.

He suggested the harassment complaint was payback for his decision to engage in a debate the party leadership considered "contentious." In the release, he said that "Caucus Chair Charlie Angus ... and Federal Leader Tom Mulcair ... banned (him) from Question Period for several months as punishment for having tried to raise the issue."

He claimed the harassment complaint was false. That it was motivated by revenge to get back at him for even trying to raise the issue even though he failed. He attacked Mulcair and Angus who had nothing to do with any of the accusations unless he is suggesting Mulcair and Angus conspired with the complainant. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

And nor is every response to a finding of sexual harassment the same. Some incidents may be a firing offence. Others may result in a warning to change. Singh gave Weir a path back to caucus membership by accepting the findings and heeding some conditions. Weir rejected that path by lining up TV interviews and publicly complaining that one incident was “trumped-up.”

That sort of claim must necessarily go unanswered. Because if workplace harassment and sexual harassment are really going to be ended—not just for political staffers, but in workplaces everywhere—the details will not be broadcast. Sorry, AM talk shows.

Now we have Jagmeet Singh taking a stand—at some political cost. Weir hasn’t accepted the outcome, even asking other men if they would “volunteer” to be subject to such a process. It’s not voluntary.

Condemning confidentiality or encouraging speculation based on one side’s claims cannot be allowed to become an AM radio discussion that undermines #MeToo gains. It won’t just hurt Singh. Or just women who work in politics. It will erode the workplace safety of everyone. Refuse to take part.

While on the milder end of the scale Weir's behavior was classified as sexual harassment. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/06/erin-weir-jagmeet-singh_a_23519...

However, it was Weir's response to the findings — publicly dismissing one complaint as payback for a policy dispute he had with a member of former leader Tom Mulcair's staff — that got him booted out of caucus permanently in May.

"I have not seen evidence of a genuine understanding of how your behaviour needs to change or an expression of regret and remorse for describing sustained findings of harassment as 'trumped up,'" Singh writes.

This was all made clear at the time Weir was expelled. He just keeps talking as if it was the initial findings that got him expelled from caucus. It was not. 

josh

“I am not confident that the harassing behaviour won't be repeated.”  Singh.

Pondering

josh wrote:

“I am not confident that the harassing behaviour won't be repeated.”  Singh.

Correct. He said the accusations were trumped up and politicly motivated. That made his taking anti-harassment training pointless. When Singh first expelled Weir he gave his reasons. If the reason had been the contents of the report he wouldn't have been invited back to caucus in the first place. Weir's ego led him to lash out blaming Mulcair and Angus instead of accepting responsibility. He 100% rejected the complaint of the woman staffer he publicly intimidated to which there were witnesses. To his mind it wasn't harassment. That means he has no reason not to repeat the behavior. 

As is usual, when there are multiple complaints, every incident is not reported. If someone gets in your face, like say 6 inches away, and says he wants to fuck you and continues telling you whatever to try to persuade you that is standing too close and talking too long. I don't know that is what he was doing but he wasn't just asking for a date, which is what a man should do if he is attracted to a woman. Coming on to women without asking them out generally indicates that a man is after no strings sex.  That can get offensive and qualify as harassment real fast. 

According to Singh, the union leader said welcoming Weir back into the fold “would put staff at risk and would violate their rights under the collective agreement to a safe, healthy and harassment-free workplace.”

It has been said that the union leader is biased because they are press secretary to Singh. So basically, everyone is lying or exagerating or biased except Weir, the choir boy. 

Harassment on the milder end of the scale is still harassment. 

Weir might have been accepted back into caucus if he had apologized for accusing the complainant, Angus and Mulcair of being driven by a desire to punish him. Weir and his supporters are doing untold damage to the party not Singh. Singh is not above criticism but in this case he is not at fault. Weir dug his own grave. Maybe in other ways Weir is a wonderful guy. From my perspective his problem is ego not autism.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

“I am not confident that the harassing behaviour won't be repeated.”  Singh.

Correct. He said the accusations [plural] were trumped up and politicly motivated.

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? 

josh

Singh’s not talking about the accusations, he’s talking about the “harassing” behaviour.  Singh won’t let him back in because of that even though it was found to be on the lower end of the spectrum, and even though Weir successfully completed training.

NDPP

Mr. Magoo wrote:

This is one of those incongruous and inexplicable "exceptions" like when it was OK for "real" progressives to say that the accusers of Julian Assange were paid-off liars.  Remember that?

NDPP wrote:

Why not continue your sleazy mendacities and smear campaigns be they against the government of Venezuela, Julian Assange or any of your other favourite reactionary hobby-horses in the actual threads dedicated to the topics? Answer: Because there they will be soundly refuted. Get my drift?

"There is no cause to answer here, no crime was committed." Eva Finne Chief Prosecutor, Sweden.

https://therealnews.com/stories/jpilger0522assange

NorthReport
NorthReport

dp

NorthReport
NorthReport
Pondering

josh wrote:

Singh’s not talking about the accusations, he’s talking about the “harassing” behaviour.  Singh won’t let him back in because of that even though it was found to be on the lower end of the spectrum, and even though Weir successfully completed training.

You are picking one statement and ignoring all the rest. 

Unionist, I am not sure what you are referring to as a falsehood. Weir stated that if any man were investigated the way he was there would be complaints against them too. That certainly suggests to me he thinks his behavior was average. If we investigated you Unionist, would we find multiple complaints? Do any of the other men here agree with Weir. If you were investigated women would lodge complaints against most of you? 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist, I am not sure what you are referring to as a falsehood. 

Your lie that Weir described more than one accusation as "trumped up" and "politically motivated". You should stop lying about that. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist, I am not sure what you are referring to as a falsehood. 

Your lie that Weir described more than one accusation as "trumped up" and "politically motivated". You should stop lying about that. 

He said any man would get the same response if complaints were solicited. To me that is saying his behavior was normal therefore the complaints are trumped up. He behaved like any other man.

Concerning the non-sexual complaint of harassment to my understanding it took place in public therefore there were witnesses. The investigator would have spoken to them and Weir could have contacted them and asked them to back him up.  

I don't find it credible that the complainant wanted "payback" or fabricated the accusation over political differences. I do find it credible that in his frustration at being stopped from speaking by a staffer he expressed himself aggressively in a manner that the recipient felt intimidated by. 

Singh says his office received this week an email from the president of the union representing staffers working for New Democrat MPs, expressing concern about Weir's request to be reinstated to caucus.

According to Singh, the union leader said welcoming Weir back into the fold "would put staff at risk and would violate their rights under the collective agreement to a safe, healthy and harassment-free workplace."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/06/erin-weir-jagmeet-singh_a_23519...

Although apparently this union leader can't be trusted because she is also a press secretary for the party.

http://www.ufcw232.ca/index.php/en/our-union/president-s-message

How is a union president selected? Has Nasha Brownridge done other things that call her character into question or suggests she is willing to lie for political reasons? Could it be she is representing the staff who were sexually harassed by Weir? Isn't that what a union representative is supposed to do? Defend the interests of employees? 

It seems to me that who Erin Weir is matters too much. He has handled this very poorly since he decided to go to the press. Even after that there was a chance he would have been reinstated but not the way he went about it. He launched a war instead of apologizing to Angus and Mulcair for the unwarranted accusations he  flung against them. 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
josh

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Singh’s not talking about the accusations, he’s talking about the “harassing” behaviour.  Singh won’t let him back in because of that even though it was found to be on the lower end of the spectrum, and even though Weir successfully completed training.

You are picking one statement and ignoring all the rest. 

One statement?  That’s the issue that triggered this whole thing.

Pondering

josh wrote:

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Singh’s not talking about the accusations, he’s talking about the “harassing” behaviour.  Singh won’t let him back in because of that even though it was found to be on the lower end of the spectrum, and even though Weir successfully completed training.

You are picking one statement and ignoring all the rest. 

One statement?  That’s the issue that triggered this whole thing.

The investigation led to Erin Weir being accepted back into caucus after training. That was the end of it. After being accepted back into caucus he retracted his acceptance of responsibility instead blaming Mulcair and Angus for his troubles and dismissing the counts of sexual harassment as invalid because they were "solicited" and that they were no more than standing too close and talking too long. If standing too close and talking to0 long was enough to get a man accused of sexual harassment it would be way more common. 

I believe the women.  I don't consider it feasible that 3 grown women working for the NDP came forward just because Weir stood too close and talked too long while discussing flavors of tea and what not. I believe there was more to it than that. That means Weir is lying by omission. He is trying to leave the impression that ALL he did was talk too long and stand too close. I don't know anyone who would classify that as sexual harassment. 

If Weir is telling the truth then the lying female staffer who accused him based on his political views must be fired.  If she did it at the behest of Mulcair and Angus they must go. In fact if Mulcair and Angus sought to punish Weir for his views that would be an abuse of power so they should go. 

What are the rules for question period? As I understand it each party gets X number of  questions based on number of seats therefore not all MPs get to ask a question. Who has the authority to decide who gets to speak and on what criteria? What is the norm? As I understand it, the leader or someone within the party allocates whatever number of questions they have to a few MPs with the leader asking most or many questions if they are in the house.  It's a high profile task so distributed based on what the party (leader) wants to express on behalf of the party. Do I have that generally right? 

Again, as  far as I understand Weir's views, he is against the carbon tax and wanted it debated. Who decides what issues will be debated at  convention and on the floor of the house?

Was Angus in a position of authority to determine who spoke in the house and on what criteria did he decide? Did he use his power inappropriately to punish Weir as payback for his views as Weir claims? Did Mulcair abuse his power as leader to punish Weir after the convention by preventing him from speaking in the house? If so how is the "punishment" connected to the accusations of harassment? If there is no connection why bring it up? 

Is there reason to believe the union president is corrupt, confused, or exagerating? 

So far we have Singh, Mulcair, Angus, (with the support of the entire caucus) the staffer, and the union president all persecuting Weir unfairly when all he did was stand a little too close and talk a little too long to some female staffers. Those staffers only came forward because they were solicited therefore that somehow taints or lessens the significance of what they said. This is all happening, according to Weir, because of his attempt to debate carbon taxes at the NDP convention. 

If Weir is correct then the NDP is beyond any form of redemption or transformation. It means the entire caucus is corrupt along with the union president and even staffers willing to torpedo a man's reputation and political career for standing a little too close and talking a little too long. 

josh

Believe the women?  We don't even know the actual allegations beyond standing too close, if any.  All we know is that the expert who reviewed the allegations found them to be on the lower end of the spectrum.  And that Weir successfully completed training.  Yet Singh says women would be at risk of harassment if Weir were readmitted.

NorthReport
josh

Don't know what Kavanaugh has to do with Weir.  Other than an effort to derail the thread.

Pondering

josh wrote:

Believe the women?  We don't even know the actual allegations beyond standing too close, if any.  All we know is that the expert who reviewed the allegations found them to be on the lower end of the spectrum.  And that Weir successfully completed training.  Yet Singh says women would be at risk of harassment if Weir were readmitted.

The president of the union said that. 

Edited to add Weir's public statements contradict the trainer's words. Whatever he said to her in private does not reflect what he has said publicly which has  been to trivialize the  women's complaints. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

XXXXX, we’re missing your name

Since you visited, this petition now has 76 supporters. Every signature helps — add your name today.

You recently viewed this petition but didn’t sign.

Regina-Lewvan constituents and concerned members: Demand Erin Weir's Resignation from the NDP

Sign now with a click

Visit petition page

If you just signed it, please ignore this email. Thanks in advance!

Sincerely,
The Change.org team

Unsubscribe  ·  Manage your email preferences  ·  Privacy policy

This email was sent by Change.org to XXXXXXX, because you registered as a Change.org user on 09/03/2016. We’d love to hear from you! Send us feedback or contact us through our help centre.

Change.org  ·  548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA

This showed up in my e-mail yesterday. Imagine an American organization funded by who the fuck knows inserting itself directly into our party politics.  This was one of the players in the last election that I thought looked like a Liberal trojan horse site.

Does anyone else think this is inappropriate or have we now gone completely into vassal state mode.

josh

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Believe the women?  We don't even know the actual allegations beyond standing too close, if any.  All we know is that the expert who reviewed the allegations found them to be on the lower end of the spectrum.  And that Weir successfully completed training.  Yet Singh says women would be at risk of harassment if Weir were readmitted.

The president of the union said that. 

 

Singh said:  "I am not confident that the harassing behaviour will not be repeated."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/06/erin-weir-jagmeet-singh_a_23519469/

Mobo2000

Yes, seconded, why is Change.org getting involved in this at all?   That is so weird.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Believe the women?  We don't even know the actual allegations beyond standing too close, if any.  All we know is that the expert who reviewed the allegations found them to be on the lower end of the spectrum.  And that Weir successfully completed training.  Yet Singh says women would be at risk of harassment if Weir were readmitted.

The president of the union said that. 

I already explained much earlier in the thread that this is what I politely call a "yellow" union - one whose loyalty to the boss exceeds its loyalty to its members:

1. The NDP federal staffers used to be part of the CEP (then Unifor, which was created in 2013 as a merger with the CAW). In 2014, Unifor decided not to unequivocally endorse the ONDP in the Ontario election. This led to the 500 federal staffers deciding to leave Unifor - they are now represented by COPE. It was an "amicable divorce", with Jerry Dias saying: “Their position is they want to belong to a union that has complete, blind loyalty to the party and I understand that … But the facts are that one local union within Unifor is not going to dictate the politics of an organization of over 300,000 people.”

2. It's very telling that when Christine Moore issued her gossipy email in January, and Jagmeet Singh went fishing for complainants - no one had approached their union to ask for redress, to trigger the harassment complaint procedures, etc. - not even after they came forward to Singh. Strong signal that the members have no confidence in that route.

So for the president of the staffers' union to say: "Ready, aye ready, Jagmeet!!!!!" leaves me somewhat cold. The leadership are public advocates for the employer. Literally.

quizzical

huh. change.org. why?

this didn't pass the trigger test already. 

Unionist, thanks for being strong on the bs NDP staffers union have done.

bekayne

Pondering wrote:

The president of the union said that. 

Is that the one who is also Press Secretary for the NDP caucus?

robbie_dee

Quote:

The article Campaign workers want Weir to resign reports, “The petition accuses (MP Erin) Weir of choosing to publicly politicize the investigation …” The petitioners are concerned this politicization makes it harder for women to come forward with harassment complaints.

When the rumours and innuendo from MP Christine Moore’s email opposing Erin’s candidacy for NDP caucus chair became public, it was federal leader Jagmeet Singh who chose to politicize the investigation.

Singh could have said, “Although we don’t have any specific complaints, we do have established processes to address harassment through the NDP staff collective agreement and the House of Commons. We will assist any complainants to access these processes.”

Those two processes offer confidentiality to both the complainant and the accused. They encourage the parties to work out their differences either directly or through a mediator.

Erin’s sins were having an argument with one complainant or standing too close and talking too long with others (while not picking up on non-verbal cues that this was not wanted). The discomfort surrounding these interactions could easily have been resolved by communication between the parties, likely leading to some education, an apology, and an effort to improve in the future. This approach would have provided a much more satisfying resolution for the complainants than what has happened.

Instead of reaching for this available solution, Singh attempted to outdo Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by making a big splash with the #MeToo movement. He basically declared Erin guilty by suspending him from caucus duties while baying on about “believing survivors” before he had even received a specific complaint.

Having announced an investigation on national TV, Singh needed something to investigate, so his office sent an email to 250 NDP staffers soliciting complaints. Singh’s office also cold-called female employees in the Regina-Lewvan constituency office and invited them to complain.

Singh made up an investigative process that seemed designed to achieve a finding of harassment, rather than to constructively resolve misunderstandings. And sure enough, the investigator was able to jumble the complaints together to make something out of very little.

Singh has continued his poor decision-making by dismissing longtime Saskatchewan New Democrats as “privileged” rather than addressing their substantive concerns about this flawed process. Singh responded to calls for an appeal by pouting that, since he was satisfied with the investigation and the findings, there was no need for an appeal.

Singh’s grandstanding is what has created the media circus. The petitioners’ disgust should be directed at his decision to create a public spectacle. They need to stop enabling and defending Singh’s tragically poor choices.

David Weir

, father of Erin Weir
Regina

Letter: Singh's grandstanding has created media circus around Weir

NorthReport

One is too many but now with three this should be the end of the road for Kavanaugh, but will it be!

https://globalnews.ca/news/4488260/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-allegations/

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

One is too many but now with three this should be the end of the road for Kavanaugh, but will it be!

https://globalnews.ca/news/4488260/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-allegations/

Maybe start a new thread for this?

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Quote:

The article Campaign workers want Weir to resign reports, “The petition accuses (MP Erin) Weir of choosing to publicly politicize the investigation …” The petitioners are concerned this politicization makes it harder for women to come forward with harassment complaints.

When the rumours and innuendo from MP Christine Moore’s email opposing Erin’s candidacy for NDP caucus chair became public, it was federal leader Jagmeet Singh who chose to politicize the investigation.

Singh could have said, “Although we don’t have any specific complaints, we do have established processes to address harassment through the NDP staff collective agreement and the House of Commons. We will assist any complainants to access these processes.”

Those two processes offer confidentiality to both the complainant and the accused. They encourage the parties to work out their differences either directly or through a mediator.

Erin’s sins were having an argument with one complainant or standing too close and talking too long with others (while not picking up on non-verbal cues that this was not wanted). The discomfort surrounding these interactions could easily have been resolved by communication between the parties, likely leading to some education, an apology, and an effort to improve in the future. This approach would have provided a much more satisfying resolution for the complainants than what has happened.

Instead of reaching for this available solution, Singh attempted to outdo Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by making a big splash with the #MeToo movement. He basically declared Erin guilty by suspending him from caucus duties while baying on about “believing survivors” before he had even received a specific complaint.

Having announced an investigation on national TV, Singh needed something to investigate, so his office sent an email to 250 NDP staffers soliciting complaints. Singh’s office also cold-called female employees in the Regina-Lewvan constituency office and invited them to complain.

Singh made up an investigative process that seemed designed to achieve a finding of harassment, rather than to constructively resolve misunderstandings. And sure enough, the investigator was able to jumble the complaints together to make something out of very little.

Singh has continued his poor decision-making by dismissing longtime Saskatchewan New Democrats as “privileged” rather than addressing their substantive concerns about this flawed process. Singh responded to calls for an appeal by pouting that, since he was satisfied with the investigation and the findings, there was no need for an appeal.

Singh’s grandstanding is what has created the media circus. The petitioners’ disgust should be directed at his decision to create a public spectacle. They need to stop enabling and defending Singh’s tragically poor choices.

David Weir

, father of Erin Weir
Regina

Letter: Singh's grandstanding has created media circus around Weir

His  daddy supports him, what a shocker. According to daddy there shouldn't even have been an investigation.

Badriya

Pondering, that is just not true. Weir père  clearly stated in his letter that there were procedures in place through the employees’ collective agreement and the House of Commons that should have been used rather than the ad hoc investigation Singh instituted 

NorthReport
Unionist

* trying to get past NorthReport's maniacal thread diversion *

NorthReport

Trump says he could withdraw support for Kavanaugh depending on the testimony

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-third-kavanaugh-accuser-comes-forward/

Unionist

Badriya wrote:

Pondering, that is just not true. Weir père  clearly stated in his letter that there were procedures in place through the employees’ collective agreement and the House of Commons that should have been used rather than the ad hoc investigation Singh instituted 

Truth is not Pondering's strong point in this thread. Not sure why she is doubling down on this character assassination, and repeating one falsehood after another to do so. But correcting the record is getting tiresome.

Pondering

Badriya wrote:

Pondering, that is just not true. Weir père  clearly stated in his letter that there were procedures in place through the employees’ collective agreement and the House of Commons that should have been used rather than the ad hoc investigation Singh instituted 

That would have required the complainants initiate proceedings. That hasn't been happening. Instead, grapevine information becomes public which sets off an investigation. Whatever means through which allegations become known they should be investigated. 

Complainants didn't come forward about Ghomeshi. The Star heard about it on the grapevine and investigated. The NDP MPs did not make complaints against the Liberal MPs. The investigation was a result of grapevine information. 

Investigations resulting from grapevine information are completely appropriate. It would be inappropriate to ignore grapevine information because it isn't coming through official channels. 

To claim the investigation was faulty in some way, led to an unjust conclusion, calls into question the complaints. It suggests that they are invalid or less valid due to the process through which they were uncovered. 

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Instead, grapevine information becomes public which sets off an investigation. Whatever means through which allegations become known they should be investigated. 

Complainants didn't come forward about Ghomeshi. The Star heard about it on the grapevine and investigated. The NDP MPs did not make complaints against the Liberal MPs. The investigation was a result of grapevine information. 

Investigations resulting from grapevine information are completely appropriate. It would be inappropriate to ignore grapevine information because it isn't coming through official channels.

That is absolutely unacceptable. It's one thing to talk about why women don't report when harassed and what kind of improvements can be made. For example, one of the steps taken in Manitoba was the introduction of a "no wrong door" policy when reporting harassment. But gossip, rumours, and innuendo should never be the basis upon which to ruin somebody's life. Or I guess neither you nor someone close to you had the experience of rumours getting around in high school and destroying your reputation?

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
josh wrote:

Singh’s not talking about the accusations, he’s talking about the “harassing” behaviour.  Singh won’t let him back in because of that even though it was found to be on the lower end of the spectrum, and even though Weir successfully completed training.

You are picking one statement and ignoring all the rest. 

Unionist, I am not sure what you are referring to as a falsehood. Weir stated that if any man were investigated the way he was there would be complaints against them too. That certainly suggests to me he thinks his behavior was average. If we investigated you Unionist, would we find multiple complaints? Do any of the other men here agree with Weir. If you were investigated women would lodge complaints against most of you?

Maybe you have been so perfect in your interactions with people your whole life that if we looked into every single interaction you've had we would never find someone who found one of their interactions with you to be unpleasent. That is not the case for others. You dig far enough into anyone's past, you're going to find people who had unpleasant interactions with them.

bekayne

Pages

Topic locked