Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

569 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Inside the explosive Conservative Party fight over Rick Dykstra

During the 2015 election campaign top Conservative officials exchanged tense emails about whether to drop the MP over a sexual assault allegation

February 2, 2018

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/inside-the-explosive-conservative-party-fight-over-rick-dykstra/

Pondering

Christine Moore's career is on the line here too not just Weir's. If he is cleared she sounds hysterical for saying she wouldn't want to be in a room alone with him. Those are very strong words. She said employees had spoken to her. The investigator better find something. 

josh

Rev Pesky wrote:

From cco:

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's...

The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, it assumes that everyone who makes an allegation is telling the truth. Otherwise what would they be surviving from?

But that is also why the word was chosen, to  emphasize that all allegations will be accepted as true.

You mean the quaint notion of withholding judgment?  Not a blanket “believe the survivors.”  Because if you do that, what’s left to prove?

mark_alfred

Quote:
Not a blanket “believe the survivors.”  Because if you do that, what’s left to prove?

Everything is left to prove.  "believe" and "confirm" are two different ideas.  For instance, in science, a belief (or hypothesis) is put forward.  This is not accepted as confirmed.  The belief needs testing (investigation) first .  The standard of proof required will be different for different circumstances, which I add for those who advocate a criminal court's 'beyond a reasonable doubt standard' (note that civil court has a lower standard of 'balance of probabilities', and workplaces will have something more akin to that).  When belief is not a starting point (with "belief" going beyond believing the actual events transpired and including believing that these alleged events are important), then we see that claims will often be dismissed or hidden, or misdirected toward discrediting the claimant.  Thus, it's felt belief must be a starting point for these claims to be investigated.   Edited to add:  good discussion here in this video with Michael Spratt -->  https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/with-metoo-does-political-arena-need-sam...

Pondering

josh wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From cco:

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's...

The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, it assumes that everyone who makes an allegation is telling the truth. Otherwise what would they be surviving from?

But that is also why the word was chosen, to  emphasize that all allegations will be accepted as true.

You mean the quaint notion of withholding judgment?  Not a blanket “believe the survivors.”  Because if you do that, what’s left to prove?

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven. Between two accounts with no proof people have to choose who to believe or suspect both. People are now choosing to believe women because they have been proven right so many times and because the women coming forward are credible with no apparent reason to lie. We also usually discover that the people around the men are not at all shocked by the accusations. There is more a sense of something "coming out" rather than something being "discovered".  

"Proof" is only required when taking legal action. Other than that people are free to believe whatever they choose to believe. 

If these men were the equivalent of the supervisor at the local plant and the women were temp workers we wouldn't be hearing anything. The women would just try to protect themselves through the grapevine. 

Even now, with Weir, the complaints were apparently from employees not a woman as powerful as Christine Moore. She just heard the complaints and in the current climate felt she couldn't remain silent. It is only in politics and entertainment that things are coming out and even then not from the script "girl"

Part of Weir's defence is that there is a union and a robust reporting procedure etc. It doesn't matter. Without proof or willingness to make an "official" complaint and put their name to it nothing is done. 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Christine Moore's career is on the line here too not just Weir's. If he is cleared she sounds hysterical for saying she wouldn't want to be in a room alone with him. Those are very strong words. She said employees had spoken to her. The investigator better find something. 

I don't see why her career would in any way be in jeopardy.  She did nothing wrong.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven.

Actually, the truth matters, whether in a court of law or not. 

josh

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven.

Actually, the truth matters, whether in a court of law or not. 

No it doesn’t.  Belief is all you need.  Who cares if their reputation is on the line.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Children_s_Hour.html?id=iLO-HYqgp8kC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven.

Actually, the truth matters, whether in a court of law or not. 

If it's he said she said nothing can be proven either way so it comes down to credibility and even the courts make judgements based on credibility.

In the cases we are seeing, in my view, the women have more credibility in part because it is not he said she said it's he said she said she said she said. I find it easier to believe that one man is lying than multiple women sometimes over decades are conspiring to bring a man down for no apparent reason. 

This case like all others seems to come down to credibility.

I can believe Erin Weir, that he has done absolutely nothing, and he is completely bewildered by the accusations.

I can believe Christine Moore, that two or more employees have told her they had issues with Weir's behavior to the extent that she wouldn't want to be alone with him.

It's possible the employees were lying, or that they don't exist, but I don't think it's the most plausible explanation. 

It's possible that Christine Moore has some ulterior motive. In particular that she made this story up because she wants someone else to be caucus chair, either herself or someone else. So she made up the story to give herself or this mysterious other person a better chance at the spot. That's not a particularly plausible explanation to me. She is unlikely to run for the spot because it would put her motives in a questionable light. So that leaves having done it to advance someone else. Lying publically about something this inflamatory to advance someone else's political career doesn't sound plausible to me. 

Credibility goes to Christine Moore. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence.

I suppose that private individuals can more or less use whatever term they like, the same way that we can assume someone is guilty for any reason, including based on facts, or "he always seemed a little 'rapey' to me".

But in the recent trial of Larry Nassar, the U.S. Gymnastics doctor, the trial judge made the unconventional choice to allow "open mic night" prior to his sentencing, allowing young women who were not part of the trial to tell the court how Nassar had harmed them -- basically, a "victim impact statement".  Apparently, she also took a moment to respond to every speaker, reassuring them that they were brave, thanking them for coming forward, etc.

And that all sounds good, and maybe sounds like how we wish the system could always work, but I have to wonder whether it might also have been an early Christmas gift to Nassar's lawyers.  The vast majority of speakers were not involved in the trial, no evidence was presented on their behalf, they did not give sworn testimony, and were never cross-examined.  For the judge to vocally take every one's word for it just might be construed as bias.

And I say this having no doubt that Nassar probably did assault every single one of them.  And with no doubt that he'll die in prison regardless.   But I'm not sure that turning a routine sentencing hearing into a #MeToo celebration was necessarily appropriate or advisable.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I am totally aghast at the mysogynist tone this thread has reduced itself to.

 

Rev Pesky, in post #58 you wrote, "actually the truth matters whether in a court of law or not". You have been concern trolling for a few posts now on accused men's honour with dishonest allegations made by women of harassment in the work place.

Well, a small minority of allegations made by women are discovered to be untrue. This means that the overwhelming majority of harassment complaints are shown to be true. YET!!! The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

So who really are the liars?

And why are so many of the men who are quick to point fingers at the integrity of women who come forward with allegations of abuse and harrassment are later found to be so conspicuously silent when the men are proven to have initially lied about their abusive behaviour?

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Oh, and your issue with the term "Survivor"

this pertains specifically to Josh post 44, CCO post 48, and Rev Pesky post 50.

I know that you have an insatiable urge to trivialize the long term traumatic impact that violence has on people's lives, and your taking issue with the term "survivor" and redefining it to suit your personal needs only confirms to many on this board your shallow callousness to the social realities that too many women face with violence at home and at work every day. 

Michele Landsberg summed it up best on CBC's Out in the Open on Jan 28, 2018 on the final segment of "The F Word" time 7:20.

She said in response to the question of how to bring men on board,

"...if they are grown up adult men and they cannot see what we are talking about then I think they are past redemption..."

 

josh

The only “insatiable urge” I have is for truth and fairness.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

Isn't that true of a lot of accused?

Yes, I know that some do plead guilty.  But plenty of them who seem to us like they're probably (or almost certainly, or totally certainly) guilty choose to plead innocent.

A plea of "not guilty" is, for some, the very last "Hail Mary pass" they get to throw.  It's not part of some morality play, it's part of the legal system.  And for the record, I, too, roll my eyes when someone caught holding a knife with the victim's blood all over it pleads "not guilty".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I know that you have an insatiable urge to trivialize the long term traumatic impact that violence has on people's lives, and your taking issue with the term "survivor" and redefining it to suit your personal needs only confirms to many on this board your shallow callousness to the social realities that too many women face with violence at home and at work every day.

The term "survivor" was defined a long time ago.

A "survivor" of a hurricane is someone who experienced a hurricane.

A "survivor" of cancer is someone who had and was treated for cancer.

I can't be a "survivor" of the Holocaust, because I was only born in 1967.

josh
Misfit Misfit's picture

That is my point  Mr. Magoo. I "survived" a mid-term exam, yet according to some on this thread, people who have have endured work place harrassment are somehow mocked for using the term. They seem to act as if harrassment has no short or long term psychological ramifications.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Josh wrote,

"The only “insatiable urge” I have is for truth and fairness."

Congratulations! That is exactly what these women are seeking as well.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That is my point  Mr. Magoo. I "survived" a mid-term exam

Do you mean that you scored a passing grade, or do you mean that it had the potential to kill you?

Quote:
They seem to act as if harrassment has no short or long term psychological ramifications.

Or, they wonder if harrassment is somehow fatal.

But the real concern is that the term presupposes events that may or may not have happened, or may or may not have happened to the person purported to be a "survivor".

I'm sure I'll get to say this lots of times, but doesn't the term "survivor" suggest that something happened to that survivor, and they survived it?  It's not just any old adjective.  If you're a "survivor" of the sinking of the Titanic then that assumes you were a passenger on the Titanic, and when it sank you survived.  Yes?

That the Titanic sank is beyond dispute.  What of the things that others have "survived"?  I'm certainly not saying they didn't happen, but we can't just promote things to the rank of truth because we want to believe.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Language is often problamatic. I really dislike the term "victims of" but I find "survivors of" only marginally better. I survived a nasty man pointing a gun in my face when I was a youth and I also experienced sexual assault as an adolescent. Spouses in some relationships literally survive the relationship when the partner gets charged with attempted murder. The problem is taking a very loaded word like survive, and using it for all types of trauma. Of course the OED has three meanings and one of them makes me think the usage is somewhat acceptable. The first two usages are the most common and the reason why people think it is over the top to use survivor.

  • Continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardship.

    ‘against all odds the child survived’

    1. 1.1with object Continue to live or exist in spite of (an accident or ordeal)

      ‘he has survived several assassination attempts’

    2. 1.2with object Remain alive after the death of (a particular person)

      ‘he was survived by his wife and six children’

    3. 1.3 Manage to keep going in difficult circumstances.

      ‘she had to work day and night and survive on two hours' sleep’

However the term survivor requires that the person has at minimum experienced difficult circumstances which implies that if there are survivors in this case then Weir has done something to cause those difficult circumstances. It must be remembered that quote above from the Leader was not referring to the women in Weir's case as survivors but other traumatized people from other circumstances. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Typically an official complaint must be made or nothing is done. That is what has changed. No official complaints required anymore. The onus has been put on executives to investigate when rumours surface regardless of whether or not there is an official complaint. 

The onus on the employer in human rights law in Canada is to ensure a discrimination free workplace. It is not a new thing that if any possible discrimination has occurred the employer upon getting wind of it must investigate. I am not saying they do but when taken to task for discrimination in the workplace they will be held to be willfully blind and that usually hurts their credibility.

Pondering I mock Liberal shills and sanctimonious religious zealots not women who claim they have been harrassed. I think you are a Liberal shill so I often mock you for it but it has absolutely nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your posts.

Rev Pesky

From MisFit:

I am totally aghast at the mysogynist tone this thread has reduced itself to.

Rev Pesky, in post #58 you wrote, "actually the truth matters whether in a court of law or not".

Please note that saying 'the truth matters' is now considered mysogynist.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

But the real concern is that the term presupposes events that may or may not have happened, or may or may not have happened to the person purported to be a "survivor".

I'm sure I'll get to say this lots of times, but doesn't the term "survivor" suggest that something happened to that survivor, and they survived it?

That was precisely my point. Calling someone a 'survivor', when it is not known whether the incident they speak of ever happened, assumes that it did happen. But if we changed the subject to brain surgery, and someone said, 'there's Rev Pesky, a survivor', that would presuppose I had in fact had brain surgery. If it turned out that I had not had brain surgery, I think one could justifiably say to me that I was a liar (or whoever said it in the first place).

Rev Pesky

From Misfit:

YET!!! The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

I will just point out that earlier Pondering said that those men who didn't declare themeselves to be innocent were perforce to be considered guilty. So, if they don't say they are innocent, they are guilty, and if they do say they are innocent, they're liars. Doesn't leave a lot of room to defend oneself.

And as far as lying goes, you know what, everybody lies. It's almost the first thing a human learns, how to lie. 

There are, however, two basic types of lie. Lie that are known to be lies by the teller, and lies that are not known to be lies by the teller. In a certain sense one cannot be to hard on people who lie without knowing they are lying. At the same time, that doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is notto true. 

Remember the Jian Gomeshi trial? What did the judge say about the testimony of the complainants?

On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.

"Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yeah, people do lie.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Misfit:

YET!!! The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

I will just point out that earlier Pondering said that those men who didn't declare themeselves to be innocent were perforce to be considered guilty. So, if they don't say they are innocent, they are guilty, and if they do say they are innocent, they're liars. Doesn't leave a lot of room to defend oneself.

And as far as lying goes, you know what, everybody lies. It's almost the first thing a human learns, how to lie. 

There are, however, two basic types of lie. Lie that are known to be lies by the teller, and lies that are not known to be lies by the teller. In a certain sense one cannot be to hard on people who lie without knowing they are lying. At the same time, that doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is notto true. 

Remember the Jian Gomeshi trial? What did the judge say about the testimony of the complainants?

On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.

"Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yeah, people do lie.

Rev I'm broadly sympathetic to your line of argumentation here, but I really don't think the Ghomeshi case is a great example of lies in this context - even if the women were lying about the details (consent, motivation for coming forward), it's not disputed that Ghomesi has a sadistic streak in his encounters with women. Couldn't you have used a better example to make your case, like the Rolling Stone hoax, or maybe the "mattress girl" case?

brookmere

Cody87 wrote:
I really don't think the Ghomeshi case is a great example of lies in this context - even if the women were lying about the details (consent, motivation for coming forward)
Consent was not an issue at the trial. The defense did not acknowledge that the alleged actions relating to the charges (hitting, choking) took place.

pookie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence.

I suppose that private individuals can more or less use whatever term they like, the same way that we can assume someone is guilty for any reason, including based on facts, or "he always seemed a little 'rapey' to me".

But in the recent trial of Larry Nassar, the U.S. Gymnastics doctor, the trial judge made the unconventional choice to allow "open mic night" prior to his sentencing, allowing young women who were not part of the trial to tell the court how Nassar had harmed them -- basically, a "victim impact statement".  Apparently, she also took a moment to respond to every speaker, reassuring them that they were brave, thanking them for coming forward, etc.

And that all sounds good, and maybe sounds like how we wish the system could always work, but I have to wonder whether it might also have been an early Christmas gift to Nassar's lawyers.  The vast majority of speakers were not involved in the trial, no evidence was presented on their behalf, they did not give sworn testimony, and were never cross-examined.  For the judge to vocally take every one's word for it just might be construed as bias.

And I say this having no doubt that Nassar probably did assault every single one of them.  And with no doubt that he'll die in prison regardless.   But I'm not sure that turning a routine sentencing hearing into a #MeToo celebration was necessarily appropriate or advisable.

Nassar pled guilty.  That makes this a fundamentally different ball game.   The judge applied a sentence that was statutorily available to her.  Multiple US crim appellate lawyers have said an appeal would be futile. 

Even if if he succeeded, do you really think any appeal court is going to reduce the sentence given to a multiple child molester?  At most, they will give the judge a tongue-lashing.

josh

Yes, they could very well reduce it.  Assuming the system is one governed by equal justice under the law.  It may not, but I thought the judge in this case often acted as if she were preparing a run for political office.  I was surprised that she let security stop one of the victim’s father’s from attacking the defendant.

pookie

josh wrote:

Yes, they could very well reduce it.  Assuming the system is one governed by equal justice under the law.  It may not, but I thought the judge in this case often acted as if she were preparing a run for political office.  I was surprised that she let security stop one of the victim’s father’s from attacking the defendant.

On what basis?  Legal errors by the sentencing judge do not make a sentence demonstrably unfit. 

On what basis was Nasser denied equal justice?  Was he treated differently from other defendants convicted of similar crimes?  How do other American sentencing judges behave?  Do you know?  Other than by channeling social media outrage?

Legal errors at sentencing doesn't necessarily change quantum.  In fact, that happens all the time here.  Appeal court will recognize the error, but leave sentence as is.

josh

That depends on a number of factors.  Primarily whether the sentencing guidelines have been exceeded, including consideriration of aggravating and mitigating factors, length of sentence, whether they are consecutive or concurrent, etc.  

Unionist

Yes, I clearly see the connection between the trial and sentencing of Nassar, and the Erin Weir situation. It's so obvious once you think of it. Thanks for introducing that, Magoo!

cco

Misfit wrote:

Oh, and your issue with the term "Survivor"

this pertains specifically to Josh post 44, CCO post 48, and Rev Pesky post 50.

I know that you have an insatiable urge to trivialize the long term traumatic impact that violence has on people's lives, and your taking issue with the term "survivor" and redefining it to suit your personal needs only confirms to many on this board your shallow callousness to the social realities that too many women face with violence at home and at work every day. 

What I actually said, with key bits bolded:

cco wrote:

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's, where "We don't have any survivors in this case" doesn't initially read as "We don't have anyone willing to put her name to a complaint publicly", but rather as "Erin Weir murdered every woman he harrassed".

Please don't read into my comment about phrasing any additional subtext along the lines of "Harrassment is fine", or "I believe the women are lying". I neither said nor believe either of those things. My point, in its entirety, was that "We don't have any survivors" sounds like "Erin Weir is a serial killer", not "No victim has come forward".

Misfit Misfit's picture

CCO, thank you for the clarification.

mark_alfred

https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/shared-values/why-we-need-to-get...

Interesting article that does dwell on some technical aspects of "due process", pointing out how some of the commentary from DiManno and others is flawed.  It then sets that aside and concludes with the following appeal to common sense, quoted below.

Quote:

To be clear, when I ask that we free ourselves from our fixation on due process, I’m not saying it’s not an important pillar of our legal system or that an accusation alone merits someone’s loss of employment. I’m asking that it not take up all the oxygen in the room. Letting it do so suggests that innocent men felled by false accusations is a trending pattern in the wake of #MeToo and that our empathy and concern should first be directed at the potential victims of this danger — instead of at the overwhelming number of women who have experienced some form of sexual harassment or violence at work and don’t feel safe speaking about it. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thank you Mark.

I found a podcast on CBC's the Current about the role of "due process" in the #metoo movement. A defence lawyer suggests why we need to shy away from that paradigm. You can find that podcast here...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit wrote:

Thank you Mark.

I found a podcast on CBC's the Current about the role of "due process" in the #metoo movement. A defence lawyer suggests why we need to shy away from that paradigm. You can find that podcast here...

I heard those interviews and preferred the woman investigator's views. Having done training for investigation I think that done properly they are the only way to provide fairness to all parties. However the devil is in the details and an improperly conducted invesigation is likely to do further harm to any people who have survived harrassment. If it is slanted to the powerful in an organozation they are harmful so it is really important to bring in independent people to conduct them.

But employment lawyer and workplace investigator Hena Singh worries that we are rushing to judgment with politicians like Brown.

"I don't think fairness is being achieved here," Singh told Tremonti. "I don't necessarily think we need to have a strict adherence to the courtroom standard. I think we need to implement some sort of fairness so we're not drawing conclusions without the factual basis to do so."

"As a society... there's a magnifying glass on behaviour with respect to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and I think we need to be careful," she said. "I don't think that the public is getting... all of the relevant facts."

'We've shown women if you come forward, actions will be taken without due process.'- Hena Singh, employment lawyer and workplace investigator 

Singh would like to see an investigation in these cases, similar to the ones employers are required to do when someone comes forward with an allegation, where an investigator is hired to interview all parties. She would have liked to see this happen before Brown resigned as party leader.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-february-1-2018-1.451...

Edited to Add:  It appears that in Erin's case this is a potential workplace problem and clearly requires a proper independent investigation.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 The onus on the employer in human rights law in Canada is to ensure a discrimination free workplace. It is not a new thing that if any possible discrimination has occurred the employer upon getting wind of it must investigate. I am not saying they do but when taken to task for discrimination in the workplace they will be held to be willfully blind and that usually hurts their credibility. 

That didn't happen at the CBC even though it was an open secret, known on the grapevine, women had spoken to the union but did not want to make official complaints. 

Didn't happen in Parliament when it was on the grapevine that 2 NDP MPs had been harassed and worse. It was only when the information got to Trudeau that an investigation was begun. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think you are a Liberal shill so I often mock you for it but it has absolutely nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your posts.  

 

Well you are behind the times. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of Singh to the extent that I have already been accused of being a cheerleader. 

brookmere

But employment lawyer and workplace investigator Hena Singh worries that we are rushing to judgment with politicians like Brown.

I think in Brown's case, it's becoming increasingly clear that his behaviour (the big picture, if not all the details) was well known within the party for some time. The only politically feasible option for the caucus once the story got out was to dump him immediately.

Remember a party leader doesn't hold an ordinary job. It's a position that de facto can be held only as long as the caucus thinks the leader is not a handicap. Just ask Carole James.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Just because the CBC was not taken to the human rights tribunal doesn't mean they would have been exonerated if the women who were subjected to a poisonous attmosphere had gone that route. You have to choose your forum so if you choose to file a human rights case then you can't be suing over the same subject matter at the same time. The standard of proof required when it is a criminal matter is far higher and more demanding than for a labour board or a human rights tribunal or a civil suit. 

It is like what does the term "sexual harrassment" mean? The answer is it is a term of art that means precise but slightly different things in various courts and tribunals.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

But employment lawyer and workplace investigator Hena Singh worries that we are rushing to judgment with politicians like Brown.

I think in Brown's case, it's becoming increasingly clear that his behaviour (the big picture, if not all the details) was well known within the party for some time. The only politically feasible option for the caucus once the story got out was to dump him immediately.

Remember a party leader doesn't hold an ordinary job. It's a position that de facto can be held only as long as the caucus thinks the leader is not a handicap. Just ask Carole James.

In the case of a Leader that everyone knows is a sexist asshole then indeed the rest of the misogynist pigs had better throw him to the wolves before an investigation shows that they either turned a blind eye or added to the poisoned atmosphere that an adjudicator could find to be sexual harrassment. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Just because the CBC was not taken to the human rights tribunal doesn't mean they would have been exonerated if the women who were subjected to a poisonous attmosphere had gone that route. You have to choose your forum so if you choose to file a human rights case then you can't be suing over the same subject matter at the same time. The standard of proof required when it is a criminal matter is far higher and more demanding than for a labour board or a human rights tribunal or a civil suit. 

Think of the Ghomeshi case. It was uncovered by a reporter that found out about the open secret and spent a year or more investigating and finding women who had experienced abusive behavior from him. They did not initiate the process. After the article was published police invited the women to come forward in confidence which they did after which charges were laid. I doubt they could go to the human rights tribunal now and I doubt it would have been the appropriate venue earlier either. I don't even know why you are bringing up the Human Rights Tribunal. 

 The women involved in the NDP-Liberal case didn't even want to make their complaints official. They certainly would not have gone to a human rights tribunal. It was again a case of an open secret to the extent that reporters had already heard about it. Mulcair knew about it as did other high level NDP people. The two MPs in question did not want to make an official complaint so nothing was done. 

People who don't want to make an official complaint are not going to go to the Human Rights Tribunal before or now. Executives are no longer waiting for official complaints. They are initiating investigations without official complaints. The norm has shifted. Something being "on the grapevine" has become enough to launch a private investigation. No police required. No lawyers required. I'm guessing the investigator talks to everyone possible individually promising complete anonimity. No need to take a witness stand. No need for proof. The investigator can even ask "in your opinion, did he do it".  In my opinion this is a terrific turn of events for women. Official channels haven't worked well for us in the past and to some extent that is understandable. "He said, she said" is a difficult call. What these investigations turn up is "he said, she said, she said, she said" because men who abuse their power in this fashion don't do it just once. It's a pattern of behavior that starts small and grows.

What Moore said specifically was that she had had complaints from employees serious enough for her not to want to be alone with him therefore he would not be a suitable liason. An investigation should have no trouble picking up information if he has behavioral issues. I think the Liberal investigation took 4-6 weeks? 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Just because the CBC was not taken to the human rights tribunal doesn't mean they would have been exonerated if the women who were subjected to a poisonous attmosphere had gone that route. You have to choose your forum so if you choose to file a human rights case then you can't be suing over the same subject matter at the same time. The standard of proof required when it is a criminal matter is far higher and more demanding than for a labour board or a human rights tribunal or a civil suit. 

Think of the Ghomeshi case. It was uncovered by a reporter that found out about the open secret and spent a year or more investigating and finding women who had experienced abusive behavior from him. They did not initiate the process. After the article was published police invited the women to come forward in confidence which they did after which charges were laid. I doubt they could go to the human rights tribunal now and I doubt it would have been the appropriate venue earlier either. I don't even know why you are bringing up the Human Rights Tribunal. 

 The women involved in the NDP-Liberal case didn't even want to make their complaints official. They certainly would not have gone to a human rights tribunal. It was again a case of an open secret to the extent that reporters had already heard about it. Mulcair knew about it as did other high level NDP people. The two MPs in question did not want to make an official complaint so nothing was done. 

People who don't want to make an official complaint are not going to go to the Human Rights Tribunal before or now. Executives are no longer waiting for official complaints. They are initiating investigations without official complaints. The norm has shifted. Something being "on the grapevine" has become enough to launch a private investigation. No police required. No lawyers required. I'm guessing the investigator talks to everyone possible individually promising complete anonimity. No need to take a witness stand. No need for proof. The investigator can even ask "in your opinion, did he do it".  In my opinion this is a terrific turn of events for women. Official channels haven't worked well for us in the past and to some extent that is understandable. "He said, she said" is a difficult call. What these investigations turn up is "he said, she said, she said, she said" because men who abuse their power in this fashion don't do it just once. It's a pattern of behavior that starts small and grows.

What Moore said specifically was that she had had complaints from employees serious enough for her not to want to be alone with him therefore he would not be a suitable liason. An investigation should have no trouble picking up information if he has behavioral issues. I think the Liberal investigation took 4-6 weeks? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So you agree with me Pondering. Thats good to know.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So you agree with me Pondering. Thats good to know.

If you are talking about Jagmeet Singh and you are a supporter, then yes, we are in agreement. Whether you agree with me, or I agree with you, depends on when you started supporting Singh. For me it was a little after the incident with heckling which didn't impress me all that much. What did impress me were two things. His support for decriminalizing all drug use and his focus on inequality as his primary issue. If you supported him before that then yes, I agree with you.

But, we are off topic. I guess there is not much to say on Weir until the investigation comes to some conclusion. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am indifferent to the federal NDP at this point. The Leader will not make any difference in my riding and it is one of the safest NDP ridings in the country.  What the last election taught me was a lesson I understood in my twenties but then spent forty years trying to deny. Citizens in my region of the country cannot change the oiligarchy's plans no matter how they vote. Given the demographics of our Confederation the voters of Central Canada will always take precedence over BC.  I spent fifteen years when I lived in Burnaby helping to elect first Svend and then Bill because I am a crazy old fart who believes it is better to have a few good voices to speak truth to power than it is to muzzle a caucus of progressive activists to try and form a govenment by stealth. All the people I know on this Island who are not NDP members but voted for them did so despite Mulcair because they are would never trust a Liberal from Quebec, after Trudeau, Martin and Cretien. It always leads to BC getting shafted.

I am still glad you agree with me.

 

 

Unionist

Kropotkin, other than your rampant regional prejudices, I tend to agree with all your basic pro-people instincts. But for fuck sakes, can you get over your Central Canada and Québec hatred? It's truly unseemly. And if you're so envious of the POWER of the centre, pack your bags and relocate.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Moving to somewhere that elects fewer progressive MLA's and MP's to try to gain more power seems counter productive.

Unionist

How many months does the NDP feel it needs to disclose the allegations against Erin Weir, let alone complete its investigation and either exonerate him or not?

Mobo2000

I think the over/under on that should be set at 6 months.    Maybe by then we'll hear the results of TVO's investigation in to the Steve Paiken / Sarah Tomson allegations as well.

6079_Smith_W

I don't agree with all of k's spin on regional issues (language, for instance). But saying one is indifferent, and pointing out that some don't trust the federal government's central Canadian bias is fair, IMO. Living in the land of oil and extreme racism those regional biases are pretty obvious.

If I was to say to someone in Nunavut or Quebec that if they resent central Canadian power they should just move I can imagine the response I would get.

Do these biases somehow play into why Weir has been left twisting? I don't know, but I can certainly think of ways in which those in the bubble have shown their own indifference and tone deafness to the political and social realities in my region.

Pages