Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

766 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness. 

Maybe it's the NDP that should have not responded to the CBC reports and not expelled Weir? I think Weit felt that remaining silent would have left a negative lasting impression about him with the public. Why should he remain silent after his accuser has chosen to change their position and not remain silent?

Because he, not "his accuser" made a deal to be reinstated to caucus which included his accepting responsibility for his actions by going to anti-harassment training. People who didn't do anything don't need anti-harassment training. 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering,

This statement from you is self-contradictory...

"There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness. "

First of all you said that he should not have responded to the CBC report. It is when he responded to the report that he admitted that he is socially awkward.

then you say that if he kept his mouth shut where he said that he was socially awkward, then people would have accepted his plea of "social awkwardness."

but you say that he should have kept his mouth shut?!?!?

All that was said was that he had been angry and belligerent. What did he think people would think about his going to anti-harassment training? He could have stated that he was going to anti-harassment training to deal with his awkwardness (when it was announced by the NDP). If the woman was lying and it was political payback of some sort why would he go to anti-harassment training? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What if he does have a medical condition that hasn't been diagnosed.

Step One would have to be diagnosing it, yes?

Misfit Misfit's picture

MM,

You said "what if he has a medical condition that hasn't been diagnosed?"

 I think you are totally missing the mark. 

 He said that he does not have the ability to read social cues that other people can easily pick up on.  He also said that if people tell him to step back or just stop talking that he listens and accommodates.

That is all he had to say.

He does not have to tell people that he has a specific medical condition. that is frankly none of our business.

i am also quite confident that if he does have a specific medical condition  that it would have been diagnosed during his childhood. 

 Whether he has a diagnosed or undiagnosed medical condition or not, the only relevant thing is that he said  That he does not have the ability to pick up on social cues that other people can easily pick up on.

this social handicap does not require a formal medical diagnosis to be legitimate  and if he does have a particular medical condition then that is none of our business

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Who cares? Just throw him under the bus. No one will mind. 

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I don't blame Jagmeet Singh in the slightest for what he did - he's fumbling and trying to learn, and he's following the advice of the toxic team in charge of the party. For that I do "blame" him. I call on him to follow the policy and principles of the party, and start firing whoever he has the constitutional authority to fire (like the character who complained about Weir to the media - if she isn't already gone, hopefully, which isn't clear from the half-assed rumours published so far).

Unionist, as a federal party leader the buck stops with Jagmeet. He wears this decision, no matter who advised him on it. That is leadership.

What transpired, who said what and how things got this far is beside the point. The bottom line is that expelling Erin Weir was overkill. As pointed out by Chantal Hebert, other NDP MPs have blabbed to the media and didn't even receive a reprimand by Singh.

The fact is Erin Weir is expendable. While MPs like Romeo Saganash and Charlie Angus are not.

Aparently the entire caucus is behind this expulsion 100% which says to me that Erin Weir had no defenders inside caucus. And the braintrust used this as opportunity to get rid of him. Jagmeet basically destroyed his political career, and he better hope karma is not a bitch.

Well said.

josh

Pondering wrote:

Weir destroyed his own career. All he had to do was stay silent. How much time did he give party brass to respond to his aggressive question. He didn't ask how it would be handled. He asked who would be responding, as if that was a given. 

The woman didn't "go to the CBC" The CBC was investigating. She didn't say anything that we didn't already basically know from Christine Moore. Christine Moore said she was afraid to be alone with him. My reaction to him being described as "angry and belligerent" is "Is that all?" Nothing sexual in nature. He didn't hit anyone. "Angry and belligerent" means "loud" to me, and maybe "obnoxious".

The complainant doesn't sign any confidentiality agreement. Confidentiality is promised to complainants because without it they will not speak openly. Only the investigator knew their identity. 

Yes, Mulcair had a lot of staffers. Of those staffers I doubt there were a lot of them with the authority to block Weir and were at the 2016 convention. 

There is no point in someone taking anti-harassment training if they aren't admitting guilt. That is the first step. He accused the complaintant of lying which made anti-harassment training no longer appropriate. That is why I said it doesn't matter whether he is guilty or innocent. If you are claiming innocence and that the complaints were trumped up then there is no point to anti-harassment training. 

Singh had no choice but to expel him. 

 

 

He sure as hell had a choice.  Your “big lie” version of the events, unless you’re privy to additional information, doesn’t hold water.  And your “honest confession for redemption” brings to mind Judge Danforth in The Crucible.

josh

Pondering wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Pondering,

This statement from you is self-contradictory...

"There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness. "

First of all you said that he should not have responded to the CBC report. It is when he responded to the report that he admitted that he is socially awkward.

then you say that if he kept his mouth shut where he said that he was socially awkward, then people would have accepted his plea of "social awkwardness."

but you say that he should have kept his mouth shut?!?!?

All that was said was that he had been angry and belligerent. What did he think people would think about his going to anti-harassment training? He could have stated that he was going to anti-harassment training to deal with his awkwardness (when it was announced by the NDP). If the woman was lying and it was political payback of some sort why would he go to anti-harassment training? 

Uh . . . to avoid being expelled from the caucus?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If you disagree with the NDP on this issue, you are obviously a very bad person. Whatever the NDP says is right, and anything you might think which is against that is wrong. Erin Weir is obviously a very bad person as well, and it was decided he should not be in the NDP. It is none of our business as common working people who actually create the wealth in this country what the paper-pushing parasites in the NDP do. They are our masters, and we are their slaves.

You are either with the NDP or you are a very bad person. There is no compromise on this whatsoever.

Now quit your complaining and fall back in line. The NDP needs your money and it needs your support, and that is what matters. There is an election to fail to win, and a reputation as the "good conscience" of Parliament to maintain.

Rev Pesky

There's no doubt in my mind that Weir was put in an impossible position. He was compelled to remain silent while all sorts of accusations were flung at him, and, to his credit, he managed to suffer the slings and arrows in a way that very few people would, or could.

And as far as Singh's responsiblity, I agree completely that Singh is responsible. In this test of his leadership he failed, miserably.

NorthReport
Unionist

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I don't blame Jagmeet Singh in the slightest for what he did - he's fumbling and trying to learn, and he's following the advice of the toxic team in charge of the party. For that I do "blame" him. I call on him to follow the policy and principles of the party, and start firing whoever he has the constitutional authority to fire (like the character who complained about Weir to the media - if she isn't already gone, hopefully, which isn't clear from the half-assed rumours published so far).

Unionist, as a federal party leader the buck stops with Jagmeet. He wears this decision, no matter who advised him on it. That is leadership.

Of course I agree. My original formulation was a bit clumsy. I didn't mean to say I don't blame Singh for this decision (because as you see, immediately after saying I didn't blame him in the slightest, I said I did "blame" him).

Here's what I should have said:

"I don't attribute this decision to Jagmeet Singh."

I attribute it to the inner circle which runs the party, behind the backs of the members and the MPs.

My takeaway: It's dangerous and counterproductive to view this as a "test of Singh's leadership". I view it as a test of the party's culture, its inner-party democracy or lack thereof - much bigger issues than one individual leader - because, as you know, I don't believe in the cult of the Leader, and neither does the NDP constitution.

Here's what I'll be looking for: Which MPs or members will stand up and question this despotic action - you know, the way they "courageously" stand up and scream when the party does something right (gun control, the Christopherson affair, etc.)? The precedents, in a progressive or democratic sense, are few and far between. There was the Young New Democrat statement questioning Mulcair's silence on the latest invasion of Gaza, along with a couple of dissidents like Boulerice (who seems to have been brought into line since then unfortunately), which actually managed to change Mulcair's public stance. I wish I could think of another one offhand.

So that's what I meant, and I'm sorry for having misspoken. Of course Singh is to blame. But root causes and solutions are important. Otherwise shit like this will continue to happen. And it can't be left only to outsiders, and the MSM, to raise the alarms.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

"I don't attribute this decision to Jagmeet Singh."

Actually you have to because as Leader the buck stops with him. He is the one who makes the final desicion, no mater who advised him.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i would think that if blame is to be handed out for weir being dumped. and if it is to be handed out mostly because of weir's political positions being to radical. and if the whole of ndp caucus was behind the descision. then it isn't just a matter of the trust or leadership. why not also blame romeo saganash, charlie angus and even niki ashton. they are not just bit players in a singh/trust run drama.

..i understand that it was an unjust process. i understand there was sharp political differences between weir and the ndp. i still would like to see more information surrounding the accusations of sexual harassment and the findings of a supposedly independent woman.

NorthReport

One person brought this whole resolution to the ‘Weir’ issue crashing down and that was the person who was interviewed by the CBC. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NorthReport wrote:

One person brought this whole resolution to the ‘Weir’ issue crashing down and that was the person who was interviewed by the CBC. 

..that's almost biblical. like blaming eve in the garden of eden for original sin. meanwhile someone else created the garden. made up the rules. created the serpent and the forbidden fruit. and someone else who handed out the punishment.

Mighty Middle

epaulo13 wrote:

..that's almost biblical. like blaming eve in the garden of eden for original sin. meanwhile someone else created the garden. made up the rules. created the serpent and the forbidden fruit. and someone else who handed out the punishment.

Exactly people are putting the "alleged" victim on trial right now.

josh

epaulo13 wrote:

..i would think that if blame is to be handed out for weir being dumped. and if it is to be handed out mostly because of weir's political positions being to radical. and if the whole of ndp caucus was behind the descision. then it isn't just a matter of the trust or leadership. why not also blame romeo saganash, charlie angus and even niki ashton. they are not just bit players in a singh/trust run drama.

..i understand that it was an unjust process. i understand there was sharp political differences between weir and the ndp. i still would like to see more information surrounding the accusations of sexual harassment and the findings of a supposedly independent woman.

Other than the carbon tax, what were the sharp policy differences?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

josh wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i would think that if blame is to be handed out for weir being dumped. and if it is to be handed out mostly because of weir's political positions being to radical. and if the whole of ndp caucus was behind the descision. then it isn't just a matter of the trust or leadership. why not also blame romeo saganash, charlie angus and even niki ashton. they are not just bit players in a singh/trust run drama.

..i understand that it was an unjust process. i understand there was sharp political differences between weir and the ndp. i still would like to see more information surrounding the accusations of sexual harassment and the findings of a supposedly independent woman.

Other than the carbon tax, what were the sharp policy differences?

..i don't know about policy differences. i spoke of political differences in that weir's carbon tax  is from what i see of it..effective in a global perspective. this makes it a political issue not a just policy issue.  

Unionist

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

"I don't attribute this decision to Jagmeet Singh."

Actually you have to because as Leader the buck stops with him. He is the one who makes the final desicion, no mater who advised him.

You know what, I hate to keep raising this point, but if you ever bothered to read the NDP constitution (which you obviously haven't), you'd realize that the Leader has no power to expel anyone from caucus. What s/he can do is prevent them from running under the NDP label. That's it, that's all.

And when I say I don't "attribute" the decision to him, I mean that even if he's gone, the same brain trust will carry on in the same way. So blaming Singh doesn't even begin to address the problem, which is a deep one - an opaque, top-down, dictatorial party and culture. As reflected in those babblers (and everyone else) who believe the Leader can and should dictate. I find it painful to even discuss.

I don't believe this problem (top-down dictatorship with the tacit consent of the members) can be solved without taking a couple years out for the entire party to talk about it openly, or maybe disbanding and starting from scratch. But if rank-and-file democracy is so diminished and misunderstood and relegated to last place in the name of winning elections or whatever, then even a new party won't address the malaise.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

You know what, I hate to keep raising this point, but if you ever bothered to read the NDP constitution (which you obviously haven't), you'd realize that the Leader has no power to expel anyone from caucus. What s/he can do is prevent them from running under the NDP label. That's it, that's all.

Politics is about optics, it is about perception. If it wasn't Jagmeet wouldn't be elected NDP leader. Singh is the face of the party, and whatever goes right or wrong the general public holds him to account as he is the leader. No matter what the constitution says.

Rev Pesky

From Unionist:

And when I say I don't "attribute" the decision to him, I mean that even if he's gone, the same brain trust will carry on in the same way. So blaming Singh doesn't even begin to address the problem, which is a deep one - an opaque, top-down, dictatorial party and culture. As reflected in those babblers (and everyone else) who believe the Leader can and should dictate. I find it painful to even discuss.

I agree with this absolutely. The New Democratic Party was supposed to be 'democratic'. The membership was supposed to provide direction, which the leadership was suppposed to follow.

Well, the party is no longer new, and it's no longer democratic. Perhaps they should change the name to the Old Bureaucratic Party.

NorthReport
NorthReport
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..drift

..there is a culture that developed within the ndp a long time ago. this culture was the creation of the trust whereby the more militant aspects of the party were weeded out. it is similar and in conjunction with what occured within the labour movement. now and again you see some rail against this culture but the trust is powerful and might fall back on occasion but it doesn't really loose. it bids it's time and attacks again and again. we can see this going on in the labour party. 

..after many years of filters being applied the candidates that are selected for election have non militant politics. so it's not just a matter of a dictatorship but something systemic that alters the ability to be anything else. you can even say out of control. 

..one remedy is what we have seen in the labour party. when movements from the outside decide to become involved. i'm sure there are other possibilities but i believe they need to come from the grassroots.

...end drift

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

This is the party that hasn't publicly condemned the sins of Peter Stouffer and others of the same ilk. Erin Weir - who as far as I can see, is guilty of nothing except awkward social interactions, which he has acknowledged once he was made aware of them and apologized - stands head and shoulders above these low-life creatures who are destroying the NDP. I don't blame Jagmeet Singh in the slightest for what he did - he's fumbling and trying to learn, and he's following the advice of the toxic team in charge of the party. For that I do "blame" him. I call on him to follow the policy and principles of the party, and start firing whoever he has the constitutional authority to fire (like the character who complained about Weir to the media - if she isn't already gone, hopefully, which isn't clear from the half-assed rumours published so far).

Weir was accepted back in caucus. That in itself would clear his name. 

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..drift

..there is a culture that developed within the ndp a long time ago. this culture was the creation of the trust whereby the more militant aspects of the party were weeded out. it is similar and in conjunction with what occured within the labour movement. now and again you see some rail against this culture but the trust is powerful and might fall back on occasion but it doesn't really loose. it bids it's time and attacks again and again. we can see this going on in the labour party. 

..after many years of filters being applied the candidates that are selected for election have non militant politics. so it's not just a matter of a dictatorship but something systemic that alters the ability to be anything else. you can even say out of control. 

..one remedy is what we have seen in the labour party. when movements from the outside decide to become involved. i'm sure there are other possibilities but i believe they need to come from the grassroots.

...end drift

I mostly see things the same way, epaulo.

Just one quibble: When you say "it's not just a matter of a dictatorship", I just wanted to reiterate my formulation: "... top-down dictatorship with the tacit consent of the members..." That's why I said the Leader can be replaced, but nothing will change. The problem is the members. They need to be replaced (e.g. what you said, movements from the outside getting involved) - or awakened to a new sense of their power and most importantly their mission, both long-term and day-to-day. If they're not in motion in social and community causes every day, they can win all the elections they want, and nothing will change.

... end of drift part 2.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..txs unionist. our differences are small so i'll drift no more for now. :)

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think Weir has no alternative now but to sue

Well, for starters, he'd need to identify as being on the autism spectrum.  And given that we can't reasonably just "identify" as having a cognitive deficit, he'd probably need a doctor or psychologist to back that up.

Quote:
If Weir ever chooses to make this case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—that he was discriminated against on the basis of genetic characteristics and that the NDP caucus is an employee organization—it would be a very public test of Singh's claim of being a champion of human rights.

I could be mistaken.  But the NDP would then have a duty to employ him -- in an office, writing letters or doing research? -- but not a duty to endorse him as a candidate.  The problem with saying "I have a disease that makes me unable to read non-verbal hints that I'm violating personal space" is that there's no cure for that.  So I guess it would come down to whether he just wants a job, or he wants the same job he's got.

 

josh

If he does have some sort of psychological issue, he should.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

I wonder when this event took place

https://mobile.twitter.com/Erin_Weir/status/992972165011070976

Says last night.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think Weir has no alternative now but to sue

Well, for starters, he'd need to identify as being on the autism spectrum.  And given that we can't reasonably just "identify" as having a cognitive deficit, he'd probably need a doctor or psychologist to back that up.

Quote:
If Weir ever chooses to make this case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—that he was discriminated against on the basis of genetic characteristics and that the NDP caucus is an employee organization—it would be a very public test of Singh's claim of being a champion of human rights.

I could be mistaken.  But the NDP would then have a duty to employ him -- in an office, writing letters or doing research? -- but not a duty to endorse him as a candidate.  The problem with saying "I have a disease that makes me unable to read non-verbal hints that I'm violating personal space" is that there's no cure for that.  So I guess it would come down to whether he just wants a job, or he want's the same job he's got.

 

They may have to readmit him to the caucus in that event.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm not at all saying what the NDP should or shouldn't do (or, should or shouldn't be required to do) but accommodating an employee doesn't just mean letting them keep doing a job that their disability prevents them from doing properly.  It typically means finding a suitable role for them that's compatible with what they can do.  But if you're a surgeon who develops Parkinson's Disease, you don't get to keep being a surgeon.

Quote:
They may have to readmit him to the caucus in that event.

It occurs to me that maybe I'm misreading a non-verbal cue?

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

The NDP will get strong negative publicity for picking on someone's disability that they have no control over. . 

Erin Weir  is perfectly capable  of doing his job and he has an impeccable resume and an outstanding career in political life. 

 The NDP also has a responsibility to reasonably accommodate people who have a handicap. And in Erin's case,  it is extremely easy to reasonably accommodate him. 

 For instance, if he is standing too close to a woman all the woman has to say is please back up. And he will. 

 If he is sitting too close to ro someone all he/she has to Say is please move your chair back and he will. 

 If he is talking too long and all someone has to say is I have to go thank you for the conversation. And he'll quit. 

NorthReport

I wonder what the person who issued the report is now thinking.

NorthReport

During leadership contest:

NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh gains traction in B.C. by showing he's a warrior with a heart

https://www.straight.com/news/943141/ndp-leadership-candidate-jagmeet-si...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
 The NDP also has a responsibility to reasonably accommodate people who have a handicap. And in Erin's case,  it is extremely easy to reasonably accommodate him.

Before we get ahead of ourselves:

1.  What handicap?  Did Weir claim one?

2.  Again, accomodating a bona fide disability doesn't mean you get to keep being a microsurgeon after you say you've been diagnosed with Parkinson's.  It means you're not unemployed.

IF Weir has a disability that means he can't reasonably be expected to understand social cues, the NDP would not be discriminating against him if they reassigned him to a position -- like, not a candidate, nor MP -- for which being able to take a hint wasn't part of the job.  Would everyone be OK with that?  Reassigned, basically, but certainly not fired?

NorthReport

 

 

Statement on Erin Weir

The following statement was issued by Jagmeet Singh, Leader of Canada’s NDP:

http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-erin-weir

 - dated May 3 '18

NorthReport
NorthReport

Erin Weir and Erin Weir, both NDP candidates with the same name

https://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/06/ces-deux-candidats-portent-l...

Pondering

Erin Weir was not ejected from caucus based on social awkwardness. And some "socially awkward" people are boors not autistic. I suspect he is horrified that people are suggesting it. This is a man with a big ego. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I am sure you know him personally.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Well Magoo, 

yes he did say that he has no ability to pick up on subtle cues. And if he has no ability to pick up on social cues then he does have a valid social disability.

and unfortunately there are people out there who have to insist on a formal medical diagnosis to feel satisfied. But in reality, it is none of our business. But we do know that he lacks the ability to pick up on social cues that most other people can pick up on.

Some of us have hypothesized that Erin Weir is autistic or has Asperger's syndrome which is a mild form of autism. He may or he may not have any of these. But we do know that some autistic people cannot judge human distances and that they do have a tendency to stand too close to their people. Some also have the inability to pick up on social cues like yawning or looking away as an indicator that they want the conversation to end.

when Erin is told to stop talking he stops. When he is told to step back he dies. If you ask him to move his chair farther away, he does.

so reasonable accommodation would be for others to make verbal requests rather than subtle hints.

abraham Lincoln is believed to have had Aspergers Sundrome.

vice president and Democratic hopeful Al Gore has Aspergers.

there are very many famous and successful people who have overcome their social adversity to become successful politicians and leaders in their fields.

people with Parkinson's disease cannot be surgeons. Blind people cannot drive semis. Their disabilities prevents them from being able to do their jobs without causing serious harm to others.

With Erin Weir, there are simple and effective ways of working around his disability so there is a need for accommodation for him.

if a crippled person can type but the office where she worked before her disability only has stairs into the building then reasonable accommodation would be for the business to build a ramp so that she can return to work.

erin Weir can be accommodated also.

 

Pondering

Because it is so shocking that a politician has an ego, or that many people would be insulted at the suggesting that they are autistic if they were never diagnosed as such. I think suggesting someone is on the autism spectrum suggests a much more personal relationship with the person. I also think it is highly unlikely that he would be so successful as a politician if his awkwardness rose to that level. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

how do you know that he was never diagnosed. It sounds like a personal relationship to me that you have had with him, eh?

he does not have to disclose anything to the public because really it is none of our business and he knows so. And it is none of your business either.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote, "I also think that it is highly unlikely that he would be so successful as a politician if his awkwardness rose to that level."

Vladimir Putin with autism, article

if Putin is autistic and has been in power for 18 years, how can that be?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister if UK likely autistic

article here...

Gordon Brown was described as having major social awkwardness issues. But he was successful and had a rewarding career in politics.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Why speculate on the character of a man you do not know? He has been demonized. Isn't that sufficient for you?

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

Why speculate on the character of a man you do not know? He has been demonized. Isn't that sufficient for you?

 

Really? Being angry and belligerent is being demonized? He wasn't accused of sexual misconduct or violence. 

Nevertheless, there are a few politicians who are suspected to be at some level of the autism spectrum.

But have they been diagnosed by Dr. Phil yet? 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It seems to be ok to sell him down the river without due process. This reveals the chilling totalitarian nature of those who are still NDP supporters.

Pages

Topic locked