Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

766 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

“Erin Weir has singlehandedly killed . . . .”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJfyFoZcetY

robbie_dee

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I’m not addressing this to you, nor to any specific individual.  But I think that we do, in general, see a difference.

serious misconduct = when someone we don't care for is accused of something.

bad but remediable = when someone we sort of respect or like is accused of something.

basically a whole lot of nothing = when someone we really respect or like is accused of something.

I appreciate that you say you are not addressing me in particular but since you’re quoting me I want to respond. Obviously when someone you know personally gets caught up in something like this, your subjective judgment of that person’s character plays a big role. I am not an unbiased observer here. I know Erin personally and I do quite like and respect him. Based on my experiences with him I would not be surprised to hear he was slow to pick up nonverbal cues in a social situation. I can see how that would extend to dating and I can even see how that would annoy people who he was seeking to date and who felt that he should be picking up on their nonverbal cues that they were not interested in dating him. I would be surprised, though, to hear about him acting in a malevolent or predatory manner, or for that matter in failing to respond to being verbally told to “back off”. He just didn’t seem like that to me. Maybe I judged him wrong, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that. What I have seen, IMO, is some sloppy damage control from the party braintrust along with a lot of signs to suggest sabotage from actors behind the scenes. So while I admit I am not an unbiased observer I think that this case can actually be assessed seen a number of the available facts.

As a general matter, I would also say I have seen a number of people who seem unable, or unwilling, to make clear distinctions between different levels of alleged behavior between different accused wrongdoers on these sort of issues, not just on babble and not just with respect to Erin Weir. Moreover the rise of “call out” culture and an increasing willingness to throw out due process as well as proportionality in cases like these really scares me. 

robbie_dee

notalib wrote:

Further, this is why I asked what the policy is on internal email. My sense is something went wrong there and I highly doubt it was Moore leaking her own stuff.


Actually I do want to address this as well. Are you suggesting the NDP might have been hacked?

Rev Pesky

Well, I can say I don't know any of the parties involved in any way. So I don't know whether Weir can be malevolent, vindictive, sexually inappropriate, or whatever.

It is still clear to me that the process that ended with him being tossed from the caucus was unfair. The initial email from Moore was extremely unfair to Weir. The following process whereby people were solicited to bring forward complaints was unfair, and the 'investigation' that apparently didn't consult with the accused was unfair. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, you can't run a real investigation where anonymity is guaranteed.

The fact that a 'progressive' party can't get it together to figure out a fair process for dealing with such situations means to me that they shouldn't be anywhere near government. I mean, almost every union in the country (and many other organizations) have policies in place, and deal with such matters on a regular basis. 

Rev Pesky

robbie_dee wrote:

Actually I do want to address this as well. Are you suggesting the NDP might have been hacked?

I well remember taking MS Certified Systems Engineer courses, where we were told by an email specialist, "If you don't want to see it in tomorrow's headlines, don't put it in an email today." Good advice then, good advice now.

Given the 'shotgun' way Moore sent out the email, I believe the most likely source was Moore herself.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

Given the 'shotgun' way Moore sent out the email, I believe the most likely source was Moore herself.

Are you suggesting Moore likes to grandstand publicy about sexual matters? Colour me shocked!

Anyway, let me repeat that in any workplace where our union is organized, if someone sent out an email like that, we'd have a tough time defending him/her from dismissal - even assuming we wanted to.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

I think a lot of babblers are wrong about what happened with Erin Weir.

He was expelled for minimizing the sustained allegations of sexual assault.  People here might want to make it about the single incident involving FMSS, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I think the public record supports this.

Great post. You laid it out extremely well. 

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:
What's more relevant to my view is the current political situation in the NDP. Anyone who has been watching even moderately closely would see there are significant divides. I believe there is a cabal within the caucus and the Party, centered around Charlie Angus, which would like to undo the results of the last leadership convention. I think this is the most immediate and pressing threat that Singh needs to deal with if he wants to keep his job. 

I agree with the above. I have been pissed at Angus but I will say this for him. He did say that Singh did the right thing in expelling Weir.

robbie_dee wrote:
 I do not think that Erin Weir was part of the anti-Singh cabal, but I have reason to believe that FMSS may be. I'm sure that the interaction between Weir and FMSS at SK NDP convention was not a pleasant one, but I also believe that FMSS brought it up now, retrospectively characterized it in the worst possible light to the investigator, and then leaked it to the media following the conclusion of the investigation and negotiation of an agreed-upon resolution, in order to further her or her co-conspirators current political end of undermining Singh by discrediting his handling of this whole matter.

I do agree that is a possibility. 

robbie_dee wrote:
​Notwithstanding your valid critique of the way some harassment complaint processes have been conducted in the past, particularly in the case of sexual harassment, the approach that was taken here dramatically overcorrected in the other direction and opened itself up to other problems. 

There I disagree. The arms-length investigation was the perfect response to rumours of serious wrong-doing. If there were rumours of theft, the investigation would be internal, but there would be one. 

robbie_dee wrote:
 

 The interaction that occurred between Weir and FMSS would appear to have little to do with sex other than that one of the participants was a man and the other was a woman. It was apparently simply an interpersonal conflict, and...

Not an interpersonal conflict. The staffer was doing her job. She did not have the power to allow him to speak. She was just doing her job. Weir was not. It could be argued his job was to try to get to speak to represent his constituents but he needed to take that up with someone who had the power to decide. She was acting as an employee not a decision-maker.

robbie_dee wrote:
if anything, the power imbalance betweeen the two disputants would have appeared to skew towards FMSS rather than Weir since (1) FMSS worked for the Leader while Weir was a lowly backbencher, (2) FMSS apparently prevailed in the original interaction 

"Worked for" is the operative term. She did not prevail. Whomever decided on the speakers list prevailed. Every MP can't speak because there would be no time so someone has to schedule speakers and Weir wasn't on that list. A staffer to Mulcair is not above an elected MP. She could be fired for failing to do her job. She would certainly have to answer to her employer. She didn't have the power to change the position. When an angry man, particularly a large one, is looming over you, even if you know he can't do anything it still makes most women feel intimidated which is exactly what is intended by that behavior on the part of men in general not just Weir. When men or women get in each other's faces while angry it is intended as intimidation. It gives rise to the flight or fight response.  

robbie_dee wrote:
 (3) Weir got disciplined for his role in the interaction already by Angus. 

So he claims. All we know is that he didn't speak in question period for 6 months. As I understand it questions are limited. As 3rd party the NDP is alloted the fewest questions. The leader decides what questions will be asked by whom.  As a lowly backbencher I wouldn't expect Weir to be high on that list. It wasn't necessarily "punishment". Even if Weir is a great MP, extremely progressive, that doesn't mean he can't have a type A personality. 

robbie_dee wrote:
Under these circumstances, even if we accept that Weir acted in an "angry and belligerent" manner towards FMSS at the time, it looks to me like FMSS was not acting in good faith by bringing forward a complaint now, a year and a half after the incident, but rather was abusing a poorly designed process for her ulterior purpose. 

Reporting harassment is the exception not the norm even when it is non-sexual. When there is an investigation of this sort they are looking for a pattern of behavior not an individual event. People will come forward in confidence because they do expect others will also report and there is strength in numbers. They won't be singled out. 

The norm is not to report or complain, certainly not officially. There were witnesses to that event so if the staffer was exagerating for political purpose Weir could refer to other witnesses asking if they saw or heard anything that they found overly aggressive on his part. 

I think the process is very well designed and fair. It's an investigation on workplace manners not a criminal investigation in which the guilty party benefits by making someone else look guilty. 

robbie_dee wrote:

You and I don't have to agree on this. I've been around long enough to know I can't always convince everyone I meet on the internet of the rightness of my views. And in any case it's not like I have smoking gun proof, although I do think I have based my conclusions on some informed and reasonable suspicion.  

I totally agree that there is a faction that wants to overturn Singh's win. Some believe it was illegitimate and that Singh didn't "pay his dues".  Many would like Angus to lead the party. 

robbie_dee wrote:
 Since you have expressed before that you are a Singh supporter, though, I hope you at least consider what I am suggesting here. 

I am a Singh supporter, and I do think your suspicions have merit, but I don't think it changes what Singh had to do. I wish Weir had shut-up and accepted the anti-harassment training. I think he misjudged the significance of being called angry and belligerent. He should have said something like, "I wasn't threatening anyone, this was a public event, but I was upset so I can understand how it may have come across as intimidating. That's why I'm taking anti-harassment training. I need better insight into how I come across to people." He could maybe have added. "I doubt I will ever reach perfection but there is always room for improvement". Which depending on tone would have earned him a laugh.

I think that, given Weir and his supporters were not really enemies before, the way Singh's team has handled this situation has made Singh some new enemies unnecessarily.

I don't think he had any choice. Weir gave information that publically identified one of the complainants which is unacceptable. Whether or not it is fair is besides the point. That's the accepted standard. He flouted it. He said the accusation was trumped up and politically motivated. If that is what he believes he is entitled to say so but in my opinion he left Singh no choice. Weir subsequently minimized the sexual harrassment complaints as well. 

I also hope Singh thinks very carefully before throwing his lot in all together with Christine Moore. She's trouble.

That isn't what he is doing. Moore is still a lowly back-bencher. She isn't being invited into his inner circle. Other than her words starting the investigation she has nothing to do with it. 

I don't think she is trouble in general. She is impulsive and very honest. The expression "TMI" was invented for her. She wasn't wrong to think that what she was hearing on the grapevine was sexual harassment. In all three cases her reports on what she had heard were substanciated by independent investigators who were lawyers with expertise in that area. 

She went about it really poorly but the men were guilty. It is not Moore's fault that Weir has been expelled from caucus. Weir's own behaviors led to the word on the grapevine. He sexually harassed 3 women. Even so he would still be in caucus had he not given identifying information about the 4th woman and claimed it to be trumped up. Weir is not a victim of anything other than his own behavior. Men are just so used to getting away with this shit that it seems unfair.

It is not unfair that Weir didn't know the names of his accusers. All he had to say was "No, I didn't do that".   I don't need to know who is accusing me of theft to know I didn't steal anything. I'd want to know, but I wouldn't need to know. Weir didn't have to prove his innocence. When presented with the report he could have said the accusations were trumped up. He could have said, "I might have stood a little too close and talked a little too long but nothing that rises to the level of sexual harassment."

Notalib

Unionist writes:

Notalib wrote:

There is no reason Madame Moore should have felt her email would have automatically been public.

You apparently think she has a right to mass email the caucus saying: “There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you are harassing to them and as a woman I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone." And she never reported these "too many women"'s issues to the appropriate party authority, or to the employees' union? Even if it never went "public", she should have been thrown far away just for that outrageous act.

Notalib responds:

Thank you for your opinion, but unfortunately, it is only that and has little bearing on the reality of the circumstance.

Caucus can be quite raucus in my experience. I am sure this is also reflected in frank email conversations, which is why there is likely a strict policy on the management of caucus related communications and specifically email. Caucus members are encouraged to debate and their effectiveness is gauged on how they perform in this particular forum. Caucus confidentiality is a thing that protects the members of caucus and in so doing encourages frank and open discussion. You may not agree with Madame Moore's approach but that has little bearing on things. Finally with respect to established processes such as those available through a union's greivance processes, the problem that exists in the workplace today is a result of ineffective policies of the past. Hence the need for the new policy. IOW - those processes are not adequate to address the concerns being raised.

Notalib wrote:

so there is no evidence besides the very early crys from Weir about not knowing about the process and who is involved. It was clear to me at the time there was little to share with him as the process was just getting underway.

To this day, Weir has not received a copy of the written complaints (and no, the convention policy does not allow for redacted copies missing the signatures). If you believe it's appropriate, policy or no policy, to "investigate" a "harasser" without telling him who the complainants are, then you are a scary person indeed. Even murderers get to know the names of the witnesses - shouldn't we make that anonymous, to avoid intimidation and retribution? Maybe they shouldn't be told the names of their victims?

Notalib responds:

This is where you stretch your credibility once again, by going over the top, reading into my commentary stuff that is not there, then drawing false conclusions, not only about my commentary but about me personally - "a very scary person indeed."

Is this necessary?

I expect the policy to be carried out. I expect the investigator, whom one assumes is trained in these matters, to properly undertake the process. If that includes redacted aspects of the statements of survivors, there is probably good and justifiable reasons for that.

IF Weir continues to make these claims today, then he could simply ask for clarification from the investigator, and if he is still of the mind, that the process was somehow unfair, unjust or not adhered to then that is all he needs to carry forth with legal action to fully vindicate himself. I suspect none of this will occur, as this was a pretty high profile case and no doubt the administrators involved would have ensured it was bullet proof.

But I could be wrong, and it all could be a conspiracy to oust Weir, to satisfy Angus, and lose a seat to the conservatives. While making the leader you need to defeat Trudeau look incompetent on one of the central files the current government has spent a lot of political capital on. That would surely be in tune with much of the steelworkers strategic genius I have been exposed to.

Rev Pesky

Notalib wrote:

But I could be wrong, and it all could be a conspiracy to oust Weir, to satisfy Angus, and lose a seat to the conservatives.

Or it could just be an over the top obeisance to a concept of feminism that requires returning to the days of the star chamber. 

By the way, Notalib, how do you know that the recipients of Moore's email were only caucus members?

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote, quoting wage zombie:

(WZ) He was expelled for minimizing the sustained allegations of sexual assault...

(P) Great post. You laid it out extremely well. 

I will just point out that sexual assault is a crime. If indeed there were sexual assaults, Weir should have been criminally charged, and the courts would have their say in the matter. To not do so in the face of evidence would have made the NDP, the investigator and the party leader accessories to the crime.

In that there were no such charges, one can only assume that there was no sexual assault.

Notalib

Its stunning to me that convention and subsequent work focused a lot of political capital on establishing a process leadership and membership felt was of the highest priority, yet folks here devolve the whole notion into a "star chamber" based on speculation spin and hearsay.

In effect you are proving the need for the  so called "star chamber" in your reactions. You see that right?

And if not, looks like there is a lot more work to do, to not only change the culture, but attempt to level playing field for women in this party.

The NDP has had a litany of problems from coast to coast on these issues, leaders and other prominent elected officials have taken it in on the chin and all branches are updating their policy.

IF that is not indicitive of a need for change. A clear need for exactly the clear and well established 10 page policy on the issue, I don't know what is.

Continually undermining not only the leadership and party convention will, but the political potential of the party in this fashion only bears out how truly screwed up things are.

The 10 page policy is about protecting all involved including the accused. Anonymity and confidentiality is essential in ensuring this protection, to the degree it is achievable and warranted. Instead of railing on and on over speculation and spin, one might simply look to improve the newly established process, if that is indeed one's intent, or find another means of restoring Weir's credibility, which unfortunately at this point, due to Weirs actions, seems impossible.

Notalib

With respect to the posters here who have queeried further about Madame Moore's original response to Weir's Caucus chair candidacy. As I stated, it is my understanding her e-mail was shared amongst her peers in caucus. IF someone here has information that suggests otherwise or knows how that email escaped long established caucus confidentiality practices then lets clear that up. Regardless, it has little bearing on the subsequent actions and outcomes. There could be a reprimand for whoever was responsible for breaking the confidentiality but that would be the long and short of it, I assume.

I think in the end, due to the now seemingly endless push back, leadership is going to be forced to address the issue. Ensure fairness and due process was actually intended and carried out. In so doing this could well result in more damaging information being made public. Which ultimately seems like a no win situation to me.

Weir was on the right path. The leader prefers rehabilitive approaches, that door was open and Weir even chose to come through it, but he stumbled on the threshold, went public and attacked his accussers, while simultaneously accusing leadership and colleagues of maliscious intent.  Caucus colleagues supported the leadership decision of expulsion and simply noted that Mr Weir's interpretation of events was a "mischaracterization." To me this is a polite way of saying he was obfuscating the issues. Remember this is a caucus that has not exhibited blind loyalty to the leader, as they recently pushed back on disciplinary action he undertook with one of their peers and caucus colleagues. IF there was any reason to do so here, I am sure the same result would have occurred. It did not.

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

With respect to the posters here who have queeried further about Madame Moore's original response to Weir's Caucus chair candidacy. As I stated, it is my understanding her e-mail was shared amongst her peers in caucus.

The "public" thing is utterly irrelevant. In one short email, she made an ugly smear about Erin Weir based on no personal experience; alleged that she had been approached by "many" women - mostly employees - who told her Weir had harassed them; and implicitly confessed that she had never reported these "many" serious allegations to any authority that could actually handle them. You invent this laughable excuse for her - that the reason she kept all this to herself is because the party and union avenues were ineffective. 

If she had made such a statement, in conversation, to a fellow employee at my workplace, and the employee reported her, she would be subject to severe discipline, if not termination, on all those counts.

She doesn't belong in Parliament, never mind caucus. Fortunately, her constituents will have the opportunity to turf her soon. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Given the 'shotgun' way Moore sent out the email, I believe the most likely source was Moore herself.

Are you suggesting Moore likes to grandstand publicy about sexual matters? Colour me shocked!

Anyway, let me repeat that in any workplace where our union is organized, if someone sent out an email like that, we'd have a tough time defending him/her from dismissal - even assuming we wanted to.

A manager responding to an internal group email saying they wouldn't be comfortable alone with another person in management would get someone fired? Even if they had just cause for not wanting to be alone with that individual?

It's no wonder women don't look to unions to protect them from harassment. The grapevine is much more effective at protecting women from harassment than unions are. 

Notalib

Unionist writes:

You invent this laughable excuse for her - that the reason she kept all this to herself is because the party and union avenues were ineffective.

Notalib responds:

Ummm, the employees of caucus are in a union. Assuming Moore's now substantiated claims are true, she mentioned employees were mostly affected. Given that there is enough history and multiple allegations were upheld, that would suggest whatever processses were in place in both the party and its union environment to either protect from harrassment or provide means for reporting and reconciliation, were completely ineffective. Additionally, the motions at convention, subsequent renewal of policy throughout the entire party and unanimous support from many union delegations would suggest the same. I would call it a complete and thorough recognition of a broken and ineffective policy, but you can continue calling it a "laughable excuse I invented" if you wish as I respect you have an opinion, I just don't accept it.

wage zombie

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote, quoting wage zombie:

(WZ) He was expelled for minimizing the sustained allegations of sexual assault...

(P) Great post. You laid it out extremely well. 

I will just point out that sexual assault is a crime. If indeed there were sexual assaults, Weir should have been criminally charged, and the courts would have their say in the matter. To not do so in the face of evidence would have made the NDP, the investigator and the party leader accessories to the crime.

In that there were no such charges, one can only assume that there was no sexual assault.

That's a fair comment.  I was writing quickly, didn't mean to use the word assault, and didn't proofread closely enough.  I noticed it immediately just now when I read Pondering's quote.  I'll edit my post.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
The following process whereby people were solicited to bring forward complaints was unfair, and the 'investigation' that apparently didn't consult with the accused was unfair. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, you can't run a real investigation where anonymity is guaranteed.

I think you are referring to legal investigations and crimes. Sexual harassment isn't a crime. You can't go to jail for it. 

If Weir were facing legal procedings of course he would have to know who his accusers are to form a defence. Because it is not a legal proceeding all Weir had to say was he didn't do it. The next move would have been up to the NDP. 

Weir did not say "I didn't do it".  Weir said "I did do it and I am willing to take anti-harassment training." Now he is saying "I didn't do it but I am willing to take some training anyway".

Unionist, I am not being flippant. If Singh lied and all Weir did was stand a little close and talk a little too long then Weir should sue to clear his name. 

Men are claiming that a lawyer specializing in labor and human rights defined standing a little too close and talking a little too long as sexual harassment. I think this is unlikely as it would negatively impact their career if found out.

The words Weir was saying while he was standing a little too close matter. I don't think it was "Would you like to go out for coffee or maybe see a movie?". Weir is old enough to know how to ask a woman for a date even if he is a little "socially awkward". 

Debater

Unionist wrote:

She doesn't belong in Parliament, never mind caucus. Fortunately, her constituents will have the opportunity to turf her soon. 

Since the NDP numbers have dropped in Quebec, perhaps Moore will be one of the NDP MP's that loses in 2019.

wage zombie

Erin Weir held a barbecue today.

josh
Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

I think you are referring to legal investigations and crimes.

Nope. I'm referring to anything called an investigation wherein anonymity is guaranteed. The minute you start to back check information received, anonymity is out the window, which means that you can either investigate and forget the guarantee of anonymity, or you can write down those things that people tell you without doing any kind of check.

That has nothing to do with legal or not legal. It has strictly to do with whether you want an investigation, or not.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I think you are referring to legal investigations and crimes.

Nope. I'm referring to anything called an investigation wherein anonymity is guaranteed. The minute you start to back check information received, anonymity is out the window, which means that you can either investigate and forget the guarantee of anonymity, or you can write down those things that people tell you without doing any kind of check.

That has nothing to do with legal or not legal. It has strictly to do with whether you want an investigation, or not.

There are no rules to investigating something. For the sake of argument lets say someone lied and said Weir raped them and the investigator did not tell Wier the name of his accuser.

I think Weir would say "I didn't rape anyone". "I am not leaving caucus based on false allegations so you better present your witness or reinstate me."

The "check" is when the findings are presented to the accused. If he has to know who is accusing him of rape to deny it that tells me he is guilty. He needs the name to know which victim's account he has to undercut.

robbie_dee

Pondering your post is outrageous. Weir was found by the investigator (notwithstanding the fundamental flaw in the “investigation” noted by Rev Pesky above) to have “failed to pick up nonverbal cues in social interactions.” It is insulting and wholly inappropriate for you to suggest, even “hypothetically”, that he committed rape or was accused of rape. You should withdraw your post as wage zombie did earlier when s/he inadvertently referred to the allegations as “sexual assault”. This is what I mean when I say some people have lost all sense of perspective.

In any case your argument fails because it is premised on this faulty (and potentially defamatory) assumption. If he had been accused of something so severe that he would obviously have to be kicked out of caucus (among other things) then of course (assuming he was innocent) he would have to deny it vigorously. Because he was accused of something much less severe and much more ambiguous, though, he chose to accept that while he may not have agreed on what exactly he was alleged to have done (or even understood what exactly he was alleged to have done), that it would be better to try to move forward, take his medicine and stay in caucus; rather than to try to fully litigate the issue. After all, he’s not perfect, it did sound from the report like he may have upset some people even if he didn’t realize it at the time and he thought maybe this could be a learning experience so he could do better in the future. And the NDP agreed! Yet he still got kicked out, because he and Singh got played by FMSS and whoever she is aligned with. And now has to deal with people like you claiming his efforts to be conciliatory were an admission of something more serious than had ever even been alleged!

Unionist

robbie_dee - you may have missed the discussion a couple of weeks ago, where Pondering finally had to acknowledge that Erin Weir was never accused of sexually harassing Christine Moore. She was quite reluctant to come to that conclusion, but finally admitted it, when asked repeatedly to provide the smallest shred of reference or source to that defamatory concoction.

So it doesn't surprise me that Pondering now uses "rape" in reference to Weir. She has refused from day 1 to acknowledge that the only things that have been made public about the complaints against Weir is that he sometimes stands or sits too close, talks more than is welcome, doesn't pick up on non-verbal cues - and that he never realize that what he was doing was offensive, and always backed off when asked to.

Pondering's latest and sole peg to hang her hat on is that the distinguished professor who was paid by the NDP leadership to conduct a McCarthy-style investigation - where the accused are required to answer to accusations without being told who the accusers are nor to question the allegations directly - that this professor, being a putative expert in human rights, must know what she was doing. Pondering has even posted the great professor's curriculum vitae as proof that Weir must be guilty as charged.

This illustrates a serious disorder, not just of an individual, but of many of us in progressive circles. You yearn for a particular conclusion so badly that you are prepared to defend any injustice, and make up fake news (without even realizing that you're making it up - because I'm sure Pondering was sincere in her whole-cloth invention of Weir harassing Moore). 

This is not good.

robbie_dee
Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering your post is outrageous. Weir was found by the investigator (notwithstanding the fundamental flaw in the “investigation” noted by Rev Pesky above) to have “failed to pick up nonverbal cues in social interactions.” It is insulting and wholly inappropriate for you to suggest, even “hypothetically”, that he committed rape or was accused of rape. You should withdraw your post as wage zombie did earlier when s/he inadvertently referred to the allegations as “sexual assault”. This is what I mean when I say some people have lost all sense of perspective.

No I didn't. I said if someone LIED.  That means said something that isn't true. I was using an example his being FALSELY accused. 

Pondering

He obviously doesn't get it as he still doesn't know why he was ejected from caucus even though he has been told why. 

Unionist. It makes zero difference if Weir's accuser was Moore or someone else. It changes absolutely nothing. It doesn't make him more guilty or less guilty. I just got the name wrong. Please explain what the name of the person changes. 

josh

Weir should stop trying to get back in and tell that fraud Singh to shove it.  Instead, he should run as an independent.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Instead, he should run as an independent.

And turn his back on all the resources the CCF can offer??

6079_Smith_W

Well we'll see what the riding association has to say.
By the by, I was driving through Regina Lewvan today and what did I see but two huge Erin Weir NDP billboards. Evidently neither party cares enough to make sure that gets corrected

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote in post 624:

"The "check" is when the findings are presented to the accused. If he has to know who is accusing him of rape to deny it that tells me he is guilty."

Pondering, this statement is beyond bizarre. It is chillingly disturbing.

if someone in your workplace went through the proper channels and formally accused you of rape, you would want to know who made the allegation, especially if you are innocent.  You would want to know who the person is so that you can piece through your interactions with the accuser to try to figure out why that allegation was made in the first place. And the fact that you wanted to know who the person was who accused you does not make you guilty rape.

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It is clear Pondering has no concept of the civil right of 'face your accuser'.

josh

Wow.  I missed that one.  That really is frightening.  

robbie_dee

“He gets it” is a quote from a letter written by a third party mediator/coach, hired by the House of Commons, and reporting back to to the House of Commons Chief Human Resource Officer. It’s not Weir’s words. The article includes a link to the full letter. It’s worth a read.

The problem I have with Pondering’s whole “what if you were accused of rape” hypo is that that clearly didn’t happen here. There was no such accusation, false or otherwise. It’s not really a fruitful discussion point and actually diverts from the issue while tacitly smearing Weir. 

The mediator/coach actually read the investigator’s report. Her description of it is quite helpful, I think to assessing what happened and what may be the right thing to happen next.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
 

Unionist. It makes zero difference if Weir's accuser was Moore or someone else. It changes absolutely nothing. It doesn't make him more guilty or less guilty. I just got the name wrong. Please explain what the name of the person changes. 

You're absolutely correct. Your error makes no difference to Weir's "guilt". But I wasn't using your error (which I called sincere) to assess Weir's "guilt". I was using it as an example of this, which I will quote again so that you can read it again:

Unionist wrote:
This illustrates a serious disorder, not just of an individual, but of many of us in progressive circles. You yearn for a particular conclusion so badly that you are prepared to defend any injustice, and make up fake news (without even realizing that you're making it up - because I'm sure Pondering was sincere in her whole-cloth invention of Weir harassing Moore).

Likewise with your abhorrent defence of a procedure where the accused, obviously a terrifying and dangerous individual, doesn't get to know the names of his accusers nor to face them. And when one of them breaks the rules of the McCarthyite "investigation" by going public - he's not allowed to defend himself!

The only ones whose "guilt" needs to be investigated here are: 1) Christine Moore, who went public. 2) The poor innocent anonymous staffer, who went public with her story (but not her name). 3) The leader of the party, who was too chicken to say, "we will have a proper investigation", but threw Weir out of caucus for no justifiable reason.

quizzical

robbie_dee wrote:

“He gets it” is a quote from a letter written by a third party mediator/coach, hired by the House of Commons, and reporting back to to the House of Commons Chief Human Resource Officer. It’s not Weir’s words. The article includes a link to the full letter. It’s worth a read.

The problem I have with Pondering’s whole “what if you were accused of rape” hypo is that that clearly didn’t happen here. There was no such accusation, false or otherwise. It’s not really a fruitful discussion point and actually diverts from the issue while tacitly smearing Weir. 

The mediator/coach actually read the investigator’s report. Her description of it is quite helpful, I think to assessing what happened and what may be the right thing to happen next.

where is this so we can read?

Paladin1

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote in post 624:

"The "check" is when the findings are presented to the accused. If he has to know who is accusing him of rape to deny it that tells me he is guilty."

Pondering, this statement is beyond bizarre. It is chillingly disturbing.

if someone in your workplace went through the proper channels and formally accused you of rape, you would want to know who made the allegation, especially if you are innocent.  You would want to know who the person is so that you can piece through your interactions with the accuser to try to figure out why that allegation was made in the first place. And the fact that you wanted to know who the person was who accused you does not make you guilty rape.

 

I agree with Misfit here Pondering.  Even when someone is innocent they should be made aware of who their accuser is so they can begin to mount a defense against the accusations. Anyone who thinks "I'm innocent so it doesn't matter" has never dealt with the court system after being falsely accused of something.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

@quiz,

the link to your article you are seeking is in posts 627, 629, and 630.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I had my brother visiting from Saskatoon and he has met with Erin on a number of ocassions. He says that he has no sense of personal space and in a conversation will end up getting far closer to people than is comfortable. He is not qualified to diagnose anyone but always presumed that the behaviour was some type of mild the autism spectrum disorder. It would explain both his inappropriate behaviour and his inability to see the problem as some type of sexual harrassment.

So far of all the theories being but forward it makes the most sense. Strangely if it is true the NDP should have figured out how to accomodate his disability rather than tell him he just has to change and by the way if you don't agree that you can change then we have to throw you out of cacucus.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ k

Yup. That also speaks to Weir's assertion that there was a political reason for the way the NDP handled this, which would mean that accommodation would not have even been considered.

josh

I guess he didn’t fit into the cool, GQ image the party wanted to set.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If Weir informed the NDP that he'd been diagnosed as being on the spectrum (hence his behaviour) and they ignored that and gave him the boot instead, he can pretty much just decide how much money he wants from them. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If Weir informed the NDP that he'd been diagnosed as being on the spectrum (hence his behaviour) and they ignored that and gave him the boot instead, he can pretty much just decide how much money he wants from them. 

I suspect he doesn't want money, he wants a career in politics, trying to help the working class.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  Promising not to tell Canada that the NDP fired him for having a disability would be a pretty good bargaining chip in the pursuit of that too.

But it all hinges on him actually having such a disability.

6079_Smith_W

Or a demonstration that the process was in part politically motivated.

Or a serious enough demonstration of support at the grassroots level.

Both of which are a possibility.

quizzical

Misfit wrote:

@quiz,

the link to your article you are seeking is in posts 627, 629, and 630.

i read the articles wanted to read full report robbie refered to but ty for responding.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Or a demonstration that the process was in part politically motivated.

OK.  But that's a tough one.  Sometimes it's possible to demonstrate that something was completely politically motivated (specifically:  when there's no plausible non-political explanation).  But if the process is partly politically motivated and partly legitimately motivated, it's hard to un-mix the vinegar and the water, and even if you can, the best hope is to be able to prove that "it was 35% political and only 65% reasonable!")

As to the grassroots, that's true.  If the electorate stands behind him then the NDP would be throwing away a seat if they continue to exclude him.  I'm not, personally, convinced that if the NDP goes on to lose a "safe" seat in New Brunswick then it's surely because the electorate supported Weir and voted Liberal instead, but the NDP would need an answer to that all the same.  Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc.

6079_Smith_W

Actually it isn't Magoo. Look at the Galloway case. He got an award from a mis-handled investigation. It was quite independent from the investigation against him, though some seem to think otherwise.

Similar thing with Weir; the investigation is about his alleged actions. How the investigation was conducted is about the Party's actions. They are two different things.

And I don't think in Weir's case it would be a matter of award at all. As was said already he wants to get back in. But if it is true it was important for him to say, because it does put some aspects of how the NDP handled this (and one of the accusations) in a different light.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Similar thing with Weir; the investigation is about his alleged actions. How the investigation was conducted is about the Party's actions. They are two different things.

OK.  Would you be bigly offended if I cross-posted this in the "Jordan Peterson" thread?  Because it's interesting to see that how something is handled is independent of whether or not it needed handling.  You seem to be suggesting that even well-meaning people can produce a clusterfuck.

Pages

Topic locked