Erin Weir saga #3

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

wage zombie wrote:

The party screwed up by soliciting allegations against Weir specifically, rather than leaving it open to any MP.

Still, I think sexual harrassment that is found to have "significant negative impact" on others is something that needs to be addressed, and calling it "behaviour that made you uncomfortable" is downplaying it quite a bit.

I thought that the article said that "behaviour that made you uncomfortable" was the choice of language used by the party in its e-mail. As an union side labour lawyer I would have rammed that process down any employers throat and out their corporate asshole. You don't protect women or anyone with processes like the one they used. The really sad part of it is that  the NDP has many people in its ranks who could have done the process properly but that didn't happen.

Pondering

All he was required to do was complete a short training on harassment after which he was accepted back into caucus. 

He was not expelled based on anything Christine Moore said. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
It was a private email to caucus not a public accusation.

There's no such thing as a "private email." Never say anything in an e-mail today that you are not prepared to defend on the front page of the Globe and Mail tomorrow. That is a basic rule of e-mail privacy, and that goes double for politicians.

I supervise employees in a workplace. When I have an issue with something one of them has done, I don't send out mass e-mails for all their co-workers to see. I deal directly with that person, and maybe my managers depending on the issue. You don't go sending mass e-mails to large groups of people talking about how you are uncomfortable with one particular person.

Aristotleded24

wage zombie wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

Quote:

Concerning the three findings of sexual harassment, if close talking and running on at the mouth amounts to that, does this justify removing someone elected by citizens?

I don't believe these three findings were limited to close talking and running on at the mouth.  And I expect that a human rights law professor knows the difference.  If 11 allegations were dismissed then the investigation was not as trigger-happy as Weir's defenders would like to pretend.

Also I know one of the complainants who was found to have been significantly negatively impacted.

That doesn't add any new information to the whole scenario. What the public knows is that maybe Wier stood too close to people when talking to them. And as krop says above, the interactions were "uncomfortable?" I'm sorry, but uncomfortable interactions with people are a part of life.

What we have here is that Singh a) expelled Weir for minor ettiquette violations of standing too close or talking to someone for too long, or b) is sitting on relevant information that would shed light on this case and provide a clear reason for why Weir was expelled. Neither looks good on him or the NDP, and has guaranteed that the Conservatives will take at least one seat away from the NDP in the next federal election. Everyone is afraid of what Scheer will do if he gets elected? Thank you Jagmeet Singh for removing some obstacles Scheer had on the way to 24 Sussex.

swallow swallow's picture

Christine Moore's original email has been posted on babble before - http://www.rabble.ca/comment/5352851#comment-535285

Erin,

As an individual I think we need to be able to be honest at each other and not doing plans or others thing on the back of people. So you will maybe find me really rude but this have to be done.

As a caucus chair you are representing our voice to the leadership, you are there for us when we feel no one else is there for you and you are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position.

There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone.

Given what’s going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble.

You were the only NDP colleague I have to complaint against in my political career, I know since that you probably understood and try to change but for now I don’t tink you should run in any leadership position.

I know it harsh but I can’t lie

Christine.

 

Pondering

What we have here is that Singh a) expelled Weir for minor ettiquette violations of standing too close or talking to someone for too long, or b) is sitting on relevant information that would shed light on this case and provide a clear reason for why Weir was expelled. 

That simply isn't true. Weir was expelled based on comments he made concerning the women after he had been accepted back into caucus. He gave identifying information about one of the women and dismissed the complaints of the other women as complaints that all or most men would have against them if complaints were "solicited".  

That you don't accept the reason doesn't make it a mystery. 

Thank you Swallow, the author lied about what Moore said.  The entire account is slanted.

Aristotleded24

swallow wrote:

Christine Moore's original email has been posted on babble before - http://www.rabble.ca/comment/5352851#comment-535285

Erin,

As an individual I think we need to be able to be honest at each other and not doing plans or others thing on the back of people. So you will maybe find me really rude but this have to be done.

As a caucus chair you are representing our voice to the leadership, you are there for us when we feel no one else is there for you and you are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position.

There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone.

Given what’s going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble.

You were the only NDP colleague I have to complaint against in my political career, I know since that you probably understood and try to change but for now I don’t tink you should run in any leadership position.

I know it harsh but I can’t lie

Christine.

 

And it was absolutely inappropriate for Moore to send an e-mail to Weir in this way, with several people copied to it. Was she not aware that such an e-mail would become public and cause reprecussions? That suggests either malicious, underhanded intentions or lack of intelligence.

As krop said, a union rep would be all over this. I as a supervisor would never send out this kind of e-mail copied for all the world to see. If I was a manager, and one of my supervisors sent out this kind if e-mail, I would reprimand that particular supervisor. Furthermore, as a pro-worker board, if we heard of an employer sending an employee an e-mail in this way, copied for other people to see, would we be defending it?

swallow swallow's picture

It was a "reply-all" to a candidacy for a caucus leadership position sent to all caucus members. Who at work has not hit "reply-all" and sent a critical message in reply to a work-related issue? Aristotle, I'm sure you're a more careful e-mailer than most people, but not everyone is so wise! Would all the people who've done so face union trouble? I can't even get my union to acknowledge my e-mails! 

The e-mail says it's sent to all because Moore did not believe in spreading innuendo behind Weir's back. A mistake, perhaps. But i dunno, it seems to me that Moore has also been hounded out of politics by sniping. 

Aristotleded24

swallow wrote:
It was a "reply-all" to a candidacy for a caucus leadership position sent to all caucus members. Who at work has not hit "reply-all" and sent a critical message in reply to a work-related issue? Aristotle, I'm sure you're a more careful e-mailer than most people, but not everyone is so wise! Would all the people who've done so face union trouble?

If it was a manager or supervisor who did so and the recipents included people who reported directly, then yes they might. Just because something might be a mistake doesn't mean  you still don't face reprecussions.

swallow wrote:
The e-mail says it's sent to all because Moore did not believe in spreading innuendo behind Weir's back. A mistake, perhaps.

So instead she gets to spread innuendo directly to his face. So much better.

swallow wrote:
But i dunno, it seems to me that Moore has also been hounded out of politics by sniping.

She is a liability to the NDP, and most likely would have lost her seat anyways. What has she actually contributed in 8 years of public service?

wage zombie

The NDP was never Weir's employer.  These analogies don't quite hold.

If someone is running for caucus chair, voted on by the caucus, then who should Moore have talked to instead?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

wage zombie wrote:

The NDP was never Weir's employer.  These analogies don't quite hold.

If someone is running for caucus chair, voted on by the caucus, then who should Moore have talked to instead?

If Moore had real concerns she should have started a confidential complaint process, or better still one of the women she claims to have spoken on behalf of should have brought forward a justified complaint. Instead she smeared him in an e-mail sent to the whole world. That is the action of a nasty political operative not a defender of anyone's rights and it is not how one builds a climate of trust and respect in an organization.

ETA: You are right Weir's employers were the citizens who elected him. They deserved to have their representative treated openly and fairly not run out of Ottawa by another politician.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

The "reply all" was either a really stupid click or purposeful. I know I spend much time teaching new fieldwork workers the importance of when to click reply all. In other words, it is far easier to click reply. In my view, to click reply all was a purposeful decision.

Mighty Middle

Meanwhile the NDP has only nominated six candidates out of 14 needed to run a full slate of candidates in Saskachewan.

Unionist

Singh should have turfed Moore for: 1) covering up knowledge of harassment allegations, until it served her petty purposes to come forward; 2) making accusations against a fellow caucus member outside the formal harassment complaint process. Instead, Singh acted on the usual poor advice of the secret inner circle, gave a speech ranting on and on about "survivors" (no one had yet filed a complaint at that point - Singh had to go fishing for them), and ended up getting rid of the victim instead of the perp. I hope Singh has matured politically and developed some sense of principle since then - but I've yet to see any evidence of that.

Pondering

Moore said very little in the email and of course she hit "reply all" because it is an elected position. 

There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone.

I don't believe Moore leaked the email to the press so that means another NDP MP leaked it.  It seems Weir does have an enemy in the NDP but it isn't Moore. Moore did not want to have to meet with him alone which would be necessary if he were her representative. 

Moore certainly could have been more discreet but she didn't do anything wrong. All three men did do something wrong. It seems most men here think that all three men are innocent and didn't behave inappropriately, or shouldn't pay for it. 

Maybe Weir is correct and most men either intimidate women sexually or want to so consider that behavior perfectly  acceptable in the case of the two Liberal men.

Moore was not at all involved in the situation that led to Weir being expelled from caucus. Weir had been told he was being readmitted to caucus. 

The comments Weir made AFTER being reinstated to caucus is what got him expelled, not Moore. 

quizzical

Unionist wrote:

Singh should have turfed Moore for: 1) covering up knowledge of harassment allegations, until it served her petty purposes to come forward; 2) making accusations against a fellow caucus member outside the formal harassment complaint process. Instead, Singh acted on the usual poor advice of the secret inner circle, gave a speech ranting on and on about "survivors" (no one had yet filed a complaint at that point - Singh had to go fishing for them), and ended up getting rid of the victim instead of the perp. I hope Singh has matured politically and developed some sense of principle since then - but I've yet to see any evidence of that.

wonder how much of a role Jordan Reid and Ryan Sudds played in this crap. 

from what i've heard they've played some pretty nasty games. course it could be  be hearsay but a former candidate dropped their lifelong membership over their actions.

NorthReport

Just more nonsense from the usual suspects.

Pages