NDP MPs who made harassment allegations won’t file complaints "want to go on with their lives"

204 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Why did Trudeau go public with the issue? 

It has been suggested that he did so because he feared a NDP trap. 

If Trudeau did nothing, and the NDP revealed that Trudeau did nothing, after he had been informed of the allegations, then Trudeau would come across as not being supportive of women.

Therefore Trudeau became the judge and handed down the sentence,

Oh, by-the-way, Trudeau will somehow have a trial later on. 

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Not quite. The Liberals didn't out the women.  The liberals didn't specify gender or type of misconduct nevermind any details. The women's confidentiality was completely guarded. The Liberals didn't even tell the men what they were being accused of.

They said they were MPs. This is one detail. True, Trudeau didn't specify what kind of misconduct, but it was pretty clear he was talking about sexual harassment. The term harrasment came out after a few hours when one of the former Liberals, denied "harassment".

There was no need for any of that. A simple statement that they were being released for misconduct would have been fine. No question. Thank you!

 

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:

This is such a stupid partisan pissing contest. 

Trudeau is playing politics and Mulcair did the right thing.

No, it's Mulcair's that playing politics and Trudeau did the right thing.

 

The only useful statement made in recent days in this thread. [ETA: Except for pookie's posts.]

And this pathetic thread is simply a revival of [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberals-investigation-allegat... other pathetic one[/url], which was closed for being a "partisan pissing contest".

How shameful that some people obviously care more about the Trudeau vs. Mulcair boxing match than about unresolved and unpublicized harassment of women in the highest governmental body in the land.

 

 

Lord Palmerston

Unionist wrote:
And this pathetic thread is simply a revival of [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberals-investigation-allegat... other pathetic one[/url], which was closed for being a "partisan pissing contest".

The thread also had a spinoff in Non-Partisan: A Liberal Party Frame.

 

 

 

Rokossovsky

The wise usually ignore the foolish, because its not worth their time. Perhaps, not so wise?

chris.

Here is what I find truly offensive about both the NDP and the Liberals regarding this entire matter. They both have prejudged the unsupported allegations. Their pandering to what they beleive to be the average voter has revealed their total lack of ethics and sense of justice.

AND NO,I am not a Conservative Party supporter. I've never voted for them and never will for the very same reasons I will now no longer consider the NDP or Libs. The three main parties have no credibility, which is why I have decided in recent days to vote Green in the next federal election.

Finally, what I find even more striking is the complete lack of elementary morality surrounding this issue among MOST of the press and the public who choose to comment here and elsewhere.

All in all, a very sad reality for this country.

addictedtomyipod

Dp

addictedtomyipod

chris. wrote:

Here is what I find truly offensive about both the NDP and the Liberals regarding this entire matter. They both have prejudged the unsupported allegations. Their pandering to what they beleive to be the average voter has revealed their total lack of ethics and sense of justice.

AND NO,I am not a Conservative Party supporter. I've never voted for them and never will for the very same reasons I will now no longer consider the NDP or Libs. The three main parties have no credibility, which is why I have decided in recent days to vote Green in the next federal election.

Finally, what I find even more striking is the complete lack of elementary morality surrounding this issue among MOST of the press and the public who choose to comment here and elsewhere.

All in all, a very sad reality for this country.

Did you miss Lizzie's total and complete support of Justin on this matter?

autoworker autoworker's picture

What would be done if similar allegations were made against Trudeau?

Pondering

autoworker wrote:
What would be done if similar allegations were made against Trudeau?

I responded to that here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-campaign-2015?p...

post 393.

I would support the same outcome, suspension.

I don't believe there are hoards of women willing to make false allegations against men and I think it's pretty easy to undermine them as accounts do have to be plausible.

As to pissing contests, I am certainly biased and partisan and that almost certainly impacts the fervency of my response but facts are facts and what the participants have done can be evaluated indepedent of each other.

There is a difference between politicization and political ramifications from how politicians handle events. Just as it is justified to evaluate politicians response to the soldiers shooting and ISIS so it is justified to evaluate their response to sexual harassment and apparently assault on the Hill between elected lawmakers.

Trudeau is being condemned for having released the information that 2 mps from another party were involved and the accusations involved misconduct. He should have kept his request to the Speaker for a process secret and suspended the mps for misconduct without saying the mps were from another party.

This has been called a breach of confidentiality. That is a ridiculous exageration. Whatever people might have guessed from that information there was no way they could know who the two women involved were without a great deal more information. The men were not even told the allegations against them. Police release more information than that even when the victim is anonymous.

In response the NDP immediately attacked the Liberals through sharing a full range of the private emotions of the two victims including their support for the men and the latest that one of women is in therapy. The NDP has been driving the news cycle on this and has made it far more difficult for the women to step forward. The first question would be "Why don't you think sexual assault justifies ruining a man's career?"

That comment is a great defence for the men. "I'm innocent, I don't even know what I am being accused of" is much more believable now that we know the women don't want the men's careers harmed and one of them is in therapy.

As per the women and the NDP, Trudeau over-reacted and should not have suspended either of the MPs. The most suitable response would have been a private chat, or nothing as that wasn't requested either.

This gives the men great ammunition for self-defence, provided directly by the NDP.

Everything political parties do is political. Beauty is as beauty does. The NDP response to this has been anything but progressive. The NDP threw their own two MPs under the bus to try to make political points against the Liberals.

You can all ignore that and pretend it's not true but you know that it is true and it is more evidence that the NDP has lost its heart.

I thought it was only at the top, the executive + Mulcair, the power brokers of the NDP. That notion is undermined by the reality that I am the only babbler that is outraged at the very personal information released about the victims to the public by the NDP.

Elizabeth May was right. Mulcair should have reconsidered his response.

chris.

@addictedtomyipod

I heard what May said on the matter.  I do not agree with everything she says.  For eg, I do not identify as a feminist, and I am not fooled by the inegalitarian feminists.  Many people seem to not realize that feminism is optional.  To a degree, my support for the Greens in the next election will be a protest vote.  I could behave like many posters here and simple not vote at all, but IMHO note voting is counter productive.

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/19/craig-scott-ndp-harassment-liber...

Quote:

Scott's full statement:

I attended a meeting with the Liberal Whip at the request of, and in order to help and support, a friend and colleague.

My good faith contribution to this meeting was confidential. This good faith has been breached, and confidentiality deliberately broken in a way that further disrespects and puts pressure on the victim. At the same time, these actions continue to completely ignore the rights of former Liberal MPs.

I got involved to help a colleague, with one cardinal rule: respect the wishes of the victim. For those who still do not understand: one must respect victims rights, whether the issue is civil, criminal or disciplinary. Unlike others, I do not believe there is any virtue, let alone an ethical duty, to act contrary to victims' wishes.

For Liberal backroom operators to claim that somehow I am responsible for Justin Trudeau's decision is simply laughable.

I will therefore not dignify this spin with any further comments.

The man is a pompous idiot. It's laughable to think that Trudeau would make his decision based on a NDP MP's opinion. The Liberal party has it's own lawyers and determining sexual assault isn't rocket science.

Common sense dictates that this was debated amongst Trudeau's top advisors. It's completely unbelievable that they would decide to suspend both Liberal MPs based on Scott saying one case constituted sexual assault.

The NDP doesn't seem to understand that if you don't want something to get out you don't confirm rumours. You say "No comment".  Confirming that confidentiality was breached is confirming that one of the cases was sexual assault also that Scott was present.

Why is the NDP so damn worried about the rights of the former Liberal MPs? Does the NDP not believe the women or do they believe suspension is too serious an outcome for what the men did?

Is the NDP trying to pressure the Liberals into reinstating the ex-Liberal MPs?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Craig Scott wrote:

For Liberal backroom operators to claim that somehow I am responsible for Justin Trudeau's decision is simply laughable.

Pondering wrote:

It's laughable to think that Trudeau would make his decision based on a NDP MP's opinion.

Where is the disagreement?

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Craig Scott wrote:

For Liberal backroom operators to claim that somehow I am responsible for Justin Trudeau's decision is simply laughable.

Pondering wrote:

It's laughable to think that Trudeau would make his decision based on a NDP MP's opinion.

Where is the disagreement?

The fact that he is accusing Liberals of leaking information saying he was responsible, as if Liberals would ever say that.

I also question his concern for the former Liberal MPs. If the NDP thinks the suspensions were an over-reaction and wants the men re-instated it's time for Mulcair to say so.

jjuares

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Craig Scott wrote:

For Liberal backroom operators to claim that somehow I am responsible for Justin Trudeau's decision is simply laughable.

Pondering wrote:

It's laughable to think that Trudeau would make his decision based on a NDP MP's opinion.

Where is the disagreement?


If Craig Scott says it he is a "pompous idiot" but if Pondering says the same thing it is an example of her brilliant insight. Makes sense to me.

terrytowel

I predicted this would happen a few days ago when I wrote this post below

http://rabble.ca/comment/1469293#comment-1469293

the Liberals are casting about for a retired judge, preferably female, to conduct an internal disciplinary investigation into the behaviour of Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti, who stand accused of harassment by two NDP MPs.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/20/john-ivison-liberals-look...

nicky

Pondering calls Craig Scott an "idiot."

Craig was a Rhodes Scholar and an eminent law professor with one of the most impressive resumes of any MP.

One shudders to think what Pondering would call other MPs of lesser intellect and accopmlishments? Justin for example...

Unionist

Ah, just checked in to see if the Lib-Dip pissup had gone further down the gutter. To my surprise, just the opposite! We are now in the celestial realm of academic curricula vitae!! The female victims, past, present, and future, will be relieved that their so-called allies have gone to the nub of the matter and are ready to start the double-blind trials.

 

Rokossovsky

terrytowel wrote:

I predicted this would happen a few days ago when I wrote this post below

http://rabble.ca/comment/1469293#comment-1469293

the Liberals are casting about for a retired judge, preferably female, to conduct an internal disciplinary investigation into the behaviour of Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti, who stand accused of harassment by two NDP MPs.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/20/john-ivison-liberals-look...

That is a move in the right direction.

terrytowel

Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail has written

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s rushed and awkward intervention – another sign of his appalling lack of judgment – didn’t just trample his own MPs’ basic rights; it ignored the rights of the complainants, who actually didn’t want to make the matter public. (A strange twist is that, out of keeping with parliamentary protocol, one of the women complained directly to Mr. Trudeau, rather than to her own leader.)

On Parliament Hill, some thought that Mr. Trudeau had no choice but to act quickly. Otherwise, the reasoning went, the Conservatives would have heard about the allegations and accused him of covering up for his deputies. This is preposterous. All Mr. Trudeau had to do was to state that he would act on these allegations only when conditions for due process were met. This is what a strong, mature leader would have done.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/quebecs-own-abuse-revelation...

Pondering

 

terrytowel wrote:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/20/john-ivison-liberals-look...

It’s understood the Liberals are casting about for a retired judge, preferably female, to conduct an internal disciplinary investigation into the behaviour of Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti, who stand accused of harassment by two NDP MPs.

Not attributed to anyone so it is rumour not fact. I'm guessing it's a deliberate threat.

Quote:
An arm’s length investigation by a respected judge or litigator could encompass the allegations made by the two New Democrats and any fresh complaints.

Quote:
Mr. Trudeau is said to be prepared to wait until the Speaker’s process has exhausted itself but he can’t afford to wobble.

It seems to be the Speaker's process has exhausted itself. He said no investigation without formal complaints. All that is floating around now is who will create a process for harassment cases in general for people willing to make formal complaints. The women have made it pretty clear they are not interested in coming forward on any time table.

An internal Liberal investigation does not have to come up with any proof of wrong-doing or have it's conclusions made public. It's word against word and they have notes.

I think this is his response to Andrews declaring that he will run again. Trudeau is daring Andrews to request an internal investigation which will not be limited to the two women's complaints. Trudeau can interview staff going back five years or more and nothing has to be made public. On the otherhand, an investigation questioning a broad range of people is bound to have some leaks.

If you begin by believing the women, then you know there are more victims. Men their ages don't behave like that out of the blue. It won't be that hard to dig up inappropriate behavior.

As Chantal Hebert noted on at issue, The test to be a representative is not lack of criminality. Trudeau can suspend them for not reflecting Liberal values.

Trudeau is daring them. Let's see if the men demand an independent investigation by the Liberals or try to sue Trudeau.

Unless the men demand an investigation Trudeau is under no obligation to have one. I think that's the outcome the men would prefer.

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

Not according to Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

Not according to Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail

She simply declared her conclusion without any reasoning beyond it was unfair to the MPs. I'm still waiting for the suspended MPs to get indignant and demand reinstatement or to know the allegations against them.

I'd be making a huge stink after two weeks of this and no end in sight and no means to clear my name.

 

chris.

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

Not according to Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail

She simply declared her conclusion without any reasoning beyond it was unfair to the MPs. I'm still waiting for the suspended MPs to get indignant and demand reinstatement or to know the allegations against them.

I'd be making a huge stink after two weeks of this and no end in sight and no means to clear my name.

 

I'm still waiting for the NDP MP's to come forward and provide some evidence instead of hiding like cowards.  I do not believe that they are so traumatized by the whole affair THEY created.  Unless of course, they are the biggest crybaby sissies to have every sat in the House of Commons.

As for the coddling of female MP's by Trudeau and Mulcair, they have proven to be as dishournable as Harper.  These annonymous so-called victims are not victims.  That has yet to be proven.  Hell, we don't even know what they are alleging. 

Yep, if I were one of the suspended Liberal MP's, I would be pissed, but perhaps they are cowards too.  Time will tell.

In any event, this entire scandal has shown that their are NO leaders in parliament just a bunch of fools that pander to the crowd.  The big question is why does this obvious self-serving behavior gain so much validity with voters?  Or, does it?

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

Not according to Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail

She simply declared her conclusion without any reasoning beyond it was unfair to the MPs. I'm still waiting for the suspended MPs to get indignant and demand reinstatement or to know the allegations against them.

I'd be making a huge stink after two weeks of this and no end in sight and no means to clear my name.

She said more than that. She called him having an "appalling lack of judgment"

Her exact words.

chris.

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I predict this disappearing from the news as week after week the suspended MPs don't push for resolution. That will prove that Trudeau did the right thing.

Not according to Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe & Mail

She simply declared her conclusion without any reasoning beyond it was unfair to the MPs. I'm still waiting for the suspended MPs to get indignant and demand reinstatement or to know the allegations against them.

I'd be making a huge stink after two weeks of this and no end in sight and no means to clear my name.

She said more than that. She called him having an "appalling lack of judgment"

Her exact words.

 

Trudeau is not alone when it comes to an "appalling lack of judgment".  All who claim to be proponents of social justice, have demonstrated they do not stand for fundamental justice.  More concerned with being politically correct they all rushed to judgment.  This is what gynocentric feminism looks like and why I do not identify as a feminist.

Pondering

chris. wrote:
Trudeau is not alone when it comes to an "appalling lack of judgment".  All who claim to be proponents of social justice, have demonstrated they do not stand for fundamental justice.  More concerned with being politically correct they all rushed to judgment.  This is what gynocentric feminism looks like and why I do not identify as a feminist.

Court rooms are not the only place justice can be served. These types of crimes usually can't be proven as individual incidences because there are no witnesses. It comes down to word against word. 

The men have not lost their jobs. The men are free to defend themselves, to object strenuously, but have not. The women's names may not be public but they are not anonymous. Numerous people judged their credibility.

Fundamental justice is not served by the grand majority of perpetrators being able to repeatly victimize women without consequences, either legal or social.

Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another.

chris.

Pondering wrote:

chris. wrote:
Trudeau is not alone when it comes to an "appalling lack of judgment".  All who claim to be proponents of social justice, have demonstrated they do not stand for fundamental justice.  More concerned with being politically correct they all rushed to judgment.  This is what gynocentric feminism looks like and why I do not identify as a feminist.

Court rooms are not the only place justice can be served. These types of crimes usually can't be proven as individual incidences because there are no witnesses. It comes down to word against word. 

The men have not lost their jobs. The men are free to defend themselves, to object strenuously, but have not. The women's names may not be public but they are not anonymous. Numerous people judged their credibility.

Fundamental justice is not served by the grand majority of perpetrators being able to repeatly victimize women without consequences, either legal or social.

Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another.

First off, court rooms are not the only venue where evidence is required.  Surely your belief that the earth IS NOT flat is based on evidence.  In this alleged sexual harassment affair, however, you seem to require no evidence.  Belief in belief is good enough.  More to the point, your bias is palpable and likely based on personal prejudice because as we all know there is no evidence whatsoever you sare basing your belief on.

Yes, technically the men have not lost their jobs, but what should be obvious to any serious person is the fact that the primary asset an elected person relies on is his/her reputation.  I suspect if you found yourself in a situation where your career was trashed by an anonymous unsupported allegation you would not be so cavalier in your judgment.  This is precisely the reason we have tort law that addresses defamation.

" Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another."

Once again you are being extremely presumptuous and jumping to conclusions.  We do not know if a crime has been committed on either side. We have no information to speak of. 

There are far too many in "society" that are epistemically irresponsible.  I suspect this is why the so-called information from mainstream media and political parties is so dumbed down.   P.T. Barnum said it best.

sherpa-finn

That's some heavy shit, Chris.

In the midst of a reasonably civil discussion of harrassment allegations, you suddenly denounce "gynocentric feminism", summarily dismiss those you consider to be "epistemically irresponsible", and conclude after a quick look around the 'hood that "All who claim to be proponents of social justice, have demonstrated they do not stand for fundamental justice."

Thanks for the enlightenment and greatly relieved to hear that you do not self-identify as a feminist. That would have totally diminished my appreciation of both feminists and feminism. And might have prompted me to call you out as an ignorant a-hole (which BTW is street talk for "epistemically irresponsible"). 

chris.

sherpa-finn wrote:

That's some heavy shit, Chris.

In the midst of a reasonably civil discussion of harrassment allegations, you suddenly denounce "gynocentric feminism", summarily dismiss those you consider to be "epistemically irresponsible", and conclude after a quick look around the 'hood that "All who claim to be proponents of social justice, have demonstrated they do not stand for fundamental justice."

Thanks for the enlightenment and greatly relieved to hear that you do not self-identify as a feminist. That would have totally diminished my appreciation of both feminists and feminism. And might have prompted me to call you out as an ignorant a-hole (which BTW is street talk for "epistemically irresponsible"). 

Oh my, you have taken great umbrage with my distain for hypocrisy.  You do know you can be a woman without being a feminist.  One is a demographic group in society based on biology and the other is a political ideology based on double standards and scapegoating; not mention a good deal of intellectual dishonesty.

"In the midst of a reasonably civil discussion of harassment allegations" you say.  Well, I suggest you go back and read the posts.  Civil only if you are ok with thinly veiled sexism and misandry.  If I was a sissy I would have complained, annonymously of course.

Funny you should mention 'ignorance' because the idiom of the 'emperor's new clothes' has come to mind many times over the past two weeks while reading the press coverage on this scandal.  The rabble being no different.

My criticism of the faux proponents of social justice was directed mainly at the members of the Liberal and NDP parties that have spoke to this matter publicly.  If you also fit the definition, feel free to assume I was also referring to you.

It is unfortunate you did not respond with a more substantive post like perhaps explaining why some double standards are ok and others are not.  I would be most interested in the reasoning that leads one to keep two sets of books.

Pondering

chris. wrote:
More to the point, your bias is palpable and likely based on personal prejudice because as we all know there is no evidence whatsoever you sare basing your belief on.

In most cases this is a word against word issue because it happens in private. Evidence will rarely exist. That doesn't mean we can't use deductive reasoning. The Liberals, many of whom are men, deliberated for some time and interviewed those concerned.

chris. wrote:
Yes, technically the men have not lost their jobs, but what should be obvious to any serious person is the fact that the primary asset an elected person relies on is his/her reputation.  I suspect if you found yourself in a situation where your career was trashed by an anonymous unsupported allegation you would not be so cavalier in your judgment.  This is precisely the reason we have tort law that addresses defamation.

Exactly, which the men have full access to. I would not hesitate to fight, assuming I was innocent.

Pondering wrote:
Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another.

chris. wrote:
Once again you are being extremely presumptuous and jumping to conclusions.  We do not know if a crime has been committed on either side. We have no information to speak of.

I didn't word myself clearly enough. My point is that we can judge people for all kinds of reasons. A crime need not have been committed. I am not assuming whatever it is they did rises to the level of criminal behavior. Trudeau referred to it as "serious personal misconduct".

As leader of the party Trudeau suspended two men for behavior he deemed unbecoming a Liberal party representative. That's his job.

If the men are innocent they will start making demands. They will sue. Even guilty they might. For good or ill how this plays out will affect Trudeau. His credibility is on the line.

Chris, I direct you to babble policy:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

You need not be a feminist to post here but you may not attack it. Your concern for men's rights is admirable so I will direct you to this huge problem the MRAs have not addressed yet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/porn-induced-erectile-...

 

sherpa-finn

So chris considers feminism "a political ideology based on double standards and scapegoating; not to mention a good deal of intellectual dishonesty."

Thank you for your contributions, and related concerns about rampant misandry.

Mods? Don't mean to be telling you how to do your jobs, but it would appear to be time for "Heave-ho and out you go."

chris.

sherpa-finn wrote:

So chris considers feminism "a political ideology based on double standards and scapegoating; not to mention a good deal of intellectual dishonesty."

Thank you for your contributions, and related concerns about rampant misandry.

Mods? Don't mean to be telling you how to do your jobs, but it would appear to be time for "Heave-ho and out you go."

Instead of calling for me to be censored on this forum, why don't you address the obvious double standards regarding the harassment allegations?  Very telling.

When one  supports my argument there is nothing more I need to say.

chris.

Pondering wrote:

chris. wrote:
More to the point, your bias is palpable and likely based on personal prejudice because as we all know there is no evidence whatsoever you sare basing your belief on.

In most cases this is a word against word issue because it happens in private. Evidence will rarely exist. That doesn't mean we can't use deductive reasoning. The Liberals, many of whom are men, deliberated for some time and interviewed those concerned.

chris. wrote:
Yes, technically the men have not lost their jobs, but what should be obvious to any serious person is the fact that the primary asset an elected person relies on is his/her reputation.  I suspect if you found yourself in a situation where your career was trashed by an anonymous unsupported allegation you would not be so cavalier in your judgment.  This is precisely the reason we have tort law that addresses defamation.

Exactly, which the men have full access to. I would not hesitate to fight, assuming I was innocent.

Pondering wrote:
Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another.

chris. wrote:
Once again you are being extremely presumptuous and jumping to conclusions.  We do not know if a crime has been committed on either side. We have no information to speak of.

I didn't word myself clearly enough. My point is that we can judge people for all kinds of reasons. A crime need not have been committed. I am not assuming whatever it is they did rises to the level of criminal behavior. Trudeau referred to it as "serious personal misconduct".

As leader of the party Trudeau suspended two men for behavior he deemed unbecoming a Liberal party representative. That's his job.

If the men are innocent they will start making demands. They will sue. Even guilty they might. For good or ill how this plays out will affect Trudeau. His credibility is on the line.

Chris, I direct you to babble policy:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

You need not be a feminist to post here but you may not attack it. Your concern for men's rights is admirable so I will direct you to this huge problem the MRAs have not addressed yet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/porn-induced-erectile-...

 

For the record, I am not attacking feminism.  However, I am criticizing it and the dominant thought that is prevalent in today's feminism, which is the patriarchy frame work.  This thesis is too binary and blinkered.  Many egalitarian feminists have come to the same conclusion.  For example, Canadian Senator, Ann Cools, who was appointed by Justin's father as the first black senator, says the thesis is juvenile scholarship.

As for the source you cite, the Globe and Mail, I do not consider newspapers as a credible source of knowledge.  The reason for my skepticism of advertisement driven corporate media can be best understood  by retiring to the library and reading Noam Chomsky's 1988 book entitled Manufacturing Consent and Edward Barnays' [widely considered the father of the modern advertising/PR industry] 1928 book Propaganda.

If Babble mods choose to censor this professionally employed mother of both sons and daughters as you seem to want, than their claim of being progressive is a farce.

I believe all my children are entitled to basic human rights and fundamental justice.  Your comments here suggest you do not believe my sons should be afforded these fundamental rights by virtual of their gender.  Further you make it quite clear that your belief regarding the subject allegations is not based on the merit of the facts, but on the sex of the individuals involved -- guilt by association.  That my dear demonstrate a rather jaundice view of real gender equality and in a word is 'sexist'.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Oh cripes.

chris. wrote:
Many people seem to not realize that feminism is optional.

Actually, it's not optional on babble. It's mandatory. And the Gynocentric stalinista feminanzi squad has found you epistemically (sic) wanting. Send him to the pit!

Rokossovsky

chris. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

chris. wrote:
More to the point, your bias is palpable and likely based on personal prejudice because as we all know there is no evidence whatsoever you sare basing your belief on.

In most cases this is a word against word issue because it happens in private. Evidence will rarely exist. That doesn't mean we can't use deductive reasoning. The Liberals, many of whom are men, deliberated for some time and interviewed those concerned.

chris. wrote:
Yes, technically the men have not lost their jobs, but what should be obvious to any serious person is the fact that the primary asset an elected person relies on is his/her reputation.  I suspect if you found yourself in a situation where your career was trashed by an anonymous unsupported allegation you would not be so cavalier in your judgment.  This is precisely the reason we have tort law that addresses defamation.

Exactly, which the men have full access to. I would not hesitate to fight, assuming I was innocent.

Pondering wrote:
Society has never needed proof of criminal wrong-doing to believe one person over another.

chris. wrote:
Once again you are being extremely presumptuous and jumping to conclusions.  We do not know if a crime has been committed on either side. We have no information to speak of.

I didn't word myself clearly enough. My point is that we can judge people for all kinds of reasons. A crime need not have been committed. I am not assuming whatever it is they did rises to the level of criminal behavior. Trudeau referred to it as "serious personal misconduct".

As leader of the party Trudeau suspended two men for behavior he deemed unbecoming a Liberal party representative. That's his job.

If the men are innocent they will start making demands. They will sue. Even guilty they might. For good or ill how this plays out will affect Trudeau. His credibility is on the line.

Chris, I direct you to babble policy:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

You need not be a feminist to post here but you may not attack it. Your concern for men's rights is admirable so I will direct you to this huge problem the MRAs have not addressed yet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/porn-induced-erectile-...

 

For the record, I am not attacking feminism.  However, I am criticizing it and the dominant thought that is prevalent in today's feminism, which is the patriarchy frame work.

I get it. Kind of like "not attacking" Marxism, just criticizing class analysis. Marxism would be just fine without all that chatter about the ruling class.

Brachina

 Actually I think one can be a critic of how one deals with how ones defines Patraichy without denying its existance. I for one deny it universality in regard to men, for I feel that for example the homeless men I've given money to seem to have misplaced thier membership cards in the ruling Patraichy. 

 That why I prefer to use the term the 1% to denote society elites, because while men dominate it, its does have women members as well. 

 It goes to my developing theory of the hierachry of Oppression, where class trumps race, and race trumps gender.

 Example Beyouncy vs. The homeless men, while women in general are more repressed then men, abit not in everyway, and African American are aguable as a group more oppressed then whites or even Asians, the fact that she have vast resources and is a member of the 1% vs. The homeless men who are at the fiscial bottom rung of Western Society gives her far, far greater power and priveldge then they have. And yes I realize she is also a feminist, but being a memeber of the elite aka Patiachary and being a feminist is not a mutually exclusive position as it may appear.

 

 PS Chris some diplomancy on these boards would serve you well.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
It goes to my developing theory of the hierachry of Oppression, where class trumps race, and race trumps gender.

I agree that class is the main delimeter of oppression but I don't think it can all be lined up like that. Even rich girls who go to college get date-raped. Gender oppression resides within every class and race. The MPs situation is a good example of how gender oppression happens at every level.

The reactions of some men to the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and the unfolding Bill Cosby scandal is heartening but there is still a very very very long road to go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/bill-cosby-florida-show_n_62026...

As Bill Cosby's standup tour crumbled with cancellations, the embattled entertainer joked about his usual subjects of family, wives and childhood Friday to a cheering audience that greeted him with a standing ovation as he took the stage and another when he finished.

 

Rokossovsky

Brachina wrote:

 Actually I think one can be a critic of how one deals with how ones defines Patraichy without denying its existance. I for one deny it universality in regard to men, for I feel that for example the homeless men I've given money to seem to have misplaced thier membership cards in the ruling Patraichy.

I see what you are saying. But, in the community of the street, they still have that membership card.

Brachina

 A rich girl who gets date raped has more means at her disposal for restititution and theapy/support  then a poor girl who gets date raped, or even a poor man who gets raped. Either way it sucks. But still poverty is its own violation, conferring a sense of powerlessness, despair, and so on, not enbodied in a single violation, or even a series of them, but as a way of life. Not that the trama of rape can't linger, especially if one is stuck reliving the memory all the time, much like what Trudeau has inflicted upon the NDP MPs instead of allowing them to move on. Instead of ending the Nightmare he's forcing them to relive it all the time.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Can I exasperatingly request that we stop trying to grade which oppression is worse? I can conclusively say that this conversation goes nowhere good. Thanks. Back to which leader is worse, which leader is better.

Failing that, I humbly suggest BIRT Beyoncé should be leader of the NDP.

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:
Back to which leader is worse, which leader is better.

Oh come on, CF, we all know which leader is worse and which is better. Some of us admit it, others don't. That's the only difference. Right, folks?

Anyway, if anyone doesn't agree, there's only one honourable way to settle the dispute - and that's in the boxing ring.

 

Brachina

 Sorry Catchfire, my goal wasn't to turn oppression into a pissing contest, merely to acknoweldge its complexity. 

 

 

Brachina

 Now back on target I disagree that the woman are cowards for not coming forward and I don't think the Male MPs are cowards for not going on the warpath when they denied it. 

 

 These women were not looking for vengence, they were looking for a solution to a conflict with the Male MPs on issues of thier conduct towards, conduct perhaps encourage by Trudeau's own contempt towards the new MPs, especially the females, such as Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who he bashed publically. 

 They were not looking to end anyones effective careers. 

 So Trudeau Chavanism damaged four people, it as Mulcair put it revictimized the two women, and ended the effective careers of two men without due process, although we know how much contempt for fair and due process Trudeau have thanks to his support of the Board of Internal Econonies kangeroo court.

 It appears to be a case where everyone loses and no one wins. This is not a triumph for equality, how could it be when the victims were ignored in the name of Trudeau pqrania based on his projecting his own lack of values upon Mulcair which was unfair and could have been avoided if Trudeau had taken the time to study how Mulcair has approached the issue in the past in reguards to harrassment.

 

 

sherpa-finn

FWIW, I think Trudeau's 'human' instincts on this issue were basically solid: get the men out of there, create a safe space, don't put the spotlight on the women.

Its his political (executive? managerial?) instincts that are open to question. As in "how does one intend to address / resolve this issue once its in the public eye and has reached its somewhat predictable impasse?"

So, all in all, not that well handled. But I am not going to be too critical of Trudeau on this one. If nothing else, I would like to think that the widely reported, sudden and definitive fate of the two Lib MPs has been noted by men and women across the land, hopefully for the greater good (as in better behaviour, improved reporting, and strengthened workplace policies and processes). A national learning moment.  

Brachina

 His human instincts and political ones are in question, he didn't eject those Liberal to create a safe space, he ejected them because he was affraid the NDP was going to use it against him, he was paraniod and projecting his what he would have done upon Mulcair and so he panicked.

DLivings

Maybe we could use the Salem witch trials as a model.  The perpetrators have been sidelined so as to minimize any further damage they might do to the community (just in case.)  According to a babble mod, at least one of the victims has been outed here on babble, so what is a little more exposure going to hurt?  At least if she drowns (in terms of what her notoriety and how that impacts her ability to perform in her job in the future), she'll be able to hold her head high and her integrity will be intact!

In fact, the length and persistence of this babble exchange is pretty sick in terms of it's focus...  all about the political calculations.  Little consideration for the loss of due process rights for the alleged accused/suspended.  Little respect for the apparent victims and their likely interest to maintain their work and avoid the sensational notoriety and the questions that have historically emerged about women who bring forwards complaints about men.   How many years has it taken for most of the women to come forward in the Ghomeshi case?

Wise for us to return to some type of political discourse on other matters that face the nation.

DLivings

Apologies to those that have turned the discussion in more recent posts.

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:
If nothing else, I would like to think that the widely reported, sudden and definitive fate of the two Lib MPs has been noted by men and women across the land, hopefully for the greater good (as in better behaviour, improved reporting, and strengthened workplace policies and processes). A national learning moment.  

Insightful and accurate, I think.

 

Stockholm

Let's face it Pacetti and Andrews are both very weak, low profile backbench MPs, maybe Trudeau was happy to have an excuse to expel them from caucus so he could then plunk in cronies of his as the new Liberal candidates in their ridings.

Pages

Topic locked