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

204 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

DLivings wrote:
In fact, the length and persistence of this babble exchange is pretty sick in terms of it's focus...  all about the political calculations.

In war time people die, but we still discuss the political ramifications. How our politicians handle serious allegations of sexual harassment and assault speaks to their character and values.

DLivings wrote:
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.)

Due process for suspension is the preliminary investigation done by Judy Foote and the review done by Trudeau and a team of his advisors. So far the men seem satisfied with the process. Why is the NDP so upset with it?

DLivings wrote:
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.

Why did the NDP release so much personal information about the women? What was the motive of the NDP?

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

I think this is an important political issue and that it speaks to the values of the NDP and the Liberals.

I would like to know what benefit it was to the women for the NDP to release so much private information about them.

Why is the NDP defending the men. Does the NDP not believe their own MPs, or does the NDP think sexual harassment or assault don't warrant suspension?

 

sherpa-finn

Frank magazine has just published the names of two NDP MPs who they claim are the concerned women. 

Not sure if one can have much confidence in either their investigative or journalistic powers, however.

A short while later, Frank withdrew one name and inserted another. Not a shining moment for Canadian journalism.

ETA: Frank is now attributing / blaming the confusion on Blake Richards, a Conservative MP from Alberta. Who knows wtf is going on here? 

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

Frank magazine has just published the names of two NDP MPs who they claim are the concerned women.

Actually, I saw this on November 6. They have as you say since "corrected" one name.

It is to the credit of babblers that even though many of us saw this at the time, no one has to date linked to this ugly screed by yellow journalists more interested in making a couple dollars and earning some notoriety than in showing a modicum of human respect.

And it's to the credit of the MSM that almost none (perhaps none) of them referenced these Frank assholes.

What next... photos of you in your shower which they accidentally got hold of?

Please kill this conversation right here. It's a courteous request.

 

sherpa-finn

Actually, I am mildly impressed that the MSM did not run with this. The chaotic / free-wheeling nature of Twitter being what it is, - when I saw a Tweet today referring to the Frank 'exclusive', I presumed that it was 'new' news and would soon be all over (Partic if a Conservative MP was behind the "leak".) I stand corrected!

sherpa-finn

As for that shower picture, Unionist - ask and ye shall receive.

 

 

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

Actually, I am mildly impressed that the MSM did not run with this. The chaotic / free-wheeling nature of Twitter being what it is, - when I saw a Tweet today referring to the Frank 'exclusive', I presumed that it was 'new' news and would soon be all over (Partic if a Conservative MP was behind the "leak".) I stand corrected!

I'm not at all surprised that the MSM didn't run it because they are more careful about sources. The woman's name that was mentioned earlier in this thread (since removed) turned out to be false which says a lot about Frank's dubious sources.

The gossip is that the first incident was consensual ongoing flirtation (she asked for it). The woman called it off but the man continued with innuendo and teasing. As per frank the second woman didn't even call it harrassment until she was in the meeting and not wanting to be left out said that she was harrassed too.

So the claim is that this is all over a bit of innuendo and teasing. Nothing to see here folks, just a couple of inexperienced women over-reacting to a bit of overly enthusiastic flirtation. It's all just a big misunderstanding.

It's a ridiculous rumour and doesn't mesh with the stuff we already knew from more reputable sources including directly from the NDP.

NorthReport

Pondering, please stop.

--------------------------------

NDP MP Breaks Silence On Allegations Against Liberal MPs

She never told her own leader, Thomas Mulcair, or any other senior NDP staff about the incident, she said. “While I adore Tom and [whip] Nycole [Turmel] … it’s not with them that I am the closest,” she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/25/ndp-harassment-allegations-massi...

Brachina

 I'm pretty sure that no one in the history of the Canada has held out the Salem Witch Trails as a model for anything, but something to aviod.

 

 And I doubt that these men are happy about what's going on. Things are only going to get frostier between NDPers and Libs, as if it wasn't bitter cold  enough before.

Brachina

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2014/11/flash-ndp-mp-anonymously-accuses-...

 

Its already began, a blogger is accusing the NDP of using this as manvuer to attack the Liberals.

 

NorthReport

Humm....I think that has just happened

Corbella: Women MPs should tell Canadians the nature of sexual harassment complaints

Almost three weeks after Trudeau held a news conference announcing that as a result of “serious personal misconduct” by his MPs, he was giving them the political boot, little more is known about this case. Andrews’ and Pacetti’s reputations have been left to rot at the side of the road with no ability to hear the allegations made against them from their accusers or to answer said allegations in any kind of open forum. Andrews and Pacetti have denied doing anything wrong and the NDP MPs have so far not lodged formal complaints. Pacetti said he wasn’t even made aware of the specific allegations against him.

Was the harassment verbal or physical? Did it cause physical harm? We don’t know, and as a result, the worst possible scenarios are floating out there and adhering like a filthy film to these men who so far are shamefully presumed guilty until proven innocent.

What we do know is that after one of the women complained to Trudeau on Oct. 28, he had Liberal party whip Judy Foote contact NDP whip Nycole Turmel, and interviews with the two women were conducted. Both women apparently made it clear that they did not want to have the complaints go public.

Speaking to CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning earlier this month, Turmel said the women did not want to hurt the careers of the men they were complaining about. That could be an indication that neither women perceives the incidents to be very serious.

But obviously, thanks to Trudeau’s now legendary poor judgment and rash reactions, that is precisely what’s happened. What’s more, as NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has said, Trudeau’s decision to publicize the sexual harassment complaints has victimized the women a second time.

Many people have argued that Trudeau had no choice in the matter, that he was in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” predicament. But isn’t that what leadership is? Sometimes you have to stick by principle even if politically it might not be the wisest decision. Can there be a more important principle on which to stand than the fundamental Canadian right of the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accusers and to answer to those accusations? Surely, upholding such vital principles should hold much more weight than political expediency for any legislator, never mind one who wants to be prime minister.

It’s terribly sad, especially for the NDP MP who never approached Trudeau, to now be facing this dilemma. However, if she and the other MP care about fairness, they will make details of their complaint known to the public — at least in an anonymous release. It’s not fair that Trudeau has revictimized the women by not respecting their wishes with regard to this matter and has destroyed the political careers and personal reputations of two MPs. The women themselves are not entirely blameless, either. They have unfortunately behaved much like victims of domestic violence who phone the police, but then tell the judge they don’t want their spouses prosecuted. The two MPs should have either followed through completely or kept quiet.


http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-women-mps-should-te...

Brachina

 The female MPs told Trudeau how they wanted this handled, they were ignored.

bekayne

So Trudeau was told one of his MPs was a rapist? And people wanted him to sweep it under the carpet?

NorthReport

:::::::::

NorthReport

Interestin' that the MP did not go to the mainstream press which shows the lack of trust in the mainstream press

No kidding the way the mainstream press has been reporting the story
---------------
2,300

Pierre C yr

bekayne wrote:

So Trudeau was told one of his MPs was a rapist? And people wanted him to sweep it under the carpet?

 

No thats just liberal spin. The victims wanted this dealt with but in confidentiality. 

nicky
bekayne

Pierre C yr wrote:

bekayne wrote:

So Trudeau was told one of his MPs was a rapist? And people wanted him to sweep it under the carpet?

 

No thats just liberal spin. The victims wanted this dealt with but in confidentiality. 

A verbal warning. For rape.

Rokossovsky

bekayne wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

bekayne wrote:

So Trudeau was told one of his MPs was a rapist? And people wanted him to sweep it under the carpet?

 

No thats just liberal spin. The victims wanted this dealt with but in confidentiality. 

A verbal warning. For rape.

No one said that. What was said was that if it was a mere "misconduct", then a verbal warning should suffice. And at the time there was no direct evidence that it was anything other than that. Trudeau described it as such. Surely, he might have differentiated the cases, and made it clear that one was a case of "gross misconduct", or found other language to define what happened.

What the complainant actually told the Huffington Post: “It was sex without explicit consent,” she said.

The problem is that your presumption is that this is a zero sum game where Trudeau either "sweeps it under the rug", or holds a press conference complete with identifying details of the alleged victim. There may have been other ways of dealing with this that maintained a modicum of privacy.

As I suspected, the case would have circumstances surrounding it that would be perceived by many to impugn her, as well as the MP. She went to his hotel room... etc. etc. Did not say "no" explicitly, and so on.

Sure as "Assgate" killed Sara Tompson, this MPs career will be over if she is ever identified, and it is probably over just the same now. They didn't even bother polling Tompson in the TO mayor's race even though she polled up to 15% in the 2010 election, and nearly knocked out long time NDP MP Rosario Marchese in 2011 -- she was completely ignored by the MSM, despite name recognition and previous performance.

Debater

bekayne wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

bekayne wrote:

So Trudeau was told one of his MPs was a rapist? And people wanted him to sweep it under the carpet?

 

No thats just liberal spin. The victims wanted this dealt with but in confidentiality. 

A verbal warning. For rape.

You're correct.  Trudeau handled this correctly.  And Chantal Hébert basically told Andrew Coyne the same thing on 'At Issue' last week (I linked the video on another thread).  When you are a leader and you are given serious sexual assault allegations against one of your MP's, you can't just sit quietly on the allegations.  You have to take action.

If Pierre & other NDP partisans want to keep blaming Trudeau for this they can do so, but it begins to look more & more that Trudeau made the best decision he could in a difficult situation.  He took a decisive position and I think many people, including many women, support his decision.  Yesterday's Abacus survey on Quebec showed Trudeau is considered strong on standing up for women's issues.

NorthReport

Thanks terrytowel, Good for Nycole.  I am proud of her for helping to be protective of her sisters

Pondering

Since Nov 5th Everytime this story starts dying down the NDP releases more information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/25/ndp-harassment-allegations-massi...

Quote:
The NDP MP said she sat next to Trudeau and asked him if he was aware of allegations from another female NDP MP about Liberal MP Scott Andrews.

“I thought that this was unacceptable, and I asked him if he knew about it,” she told HuffPost.

So the information was already going around, it just hadn't reached his ears yet.

Quote:
This MP said Trudeau didn’t know anything about the allegations. “I said: personally, I would not like someone like that close to me.”

Then why on earth would Trudeau want Andrews in his caucus as a lawmaker representing Liberals and running as a Liberal in the next election?

We don't know the details of that situation other than it is considered the more serious of the two. Important to note that Scott Andrews is a 39 year old married man.

So on to Massimo Pacetti, a 52 year old married man.

Quote:
“We’d been playing [sports] for a year and a half. He was a friend who was on my team, he wasn’t part of my political party but we took part in a social activity… . I was a member of the team. Yes, I’m a woman, but I’m sure that if he had asked a man to come have another drink after [a game], nobody would be accusing that man of lacking judgment,” she said.

So there was no reason for him to assume she wanted to have sex with him.

Quote:
Once she was in his room, she said, it became clear that he wanted something more. She said she froze. She had been sexually assaulted as a teenager and felt paralyzed when faced with a similar situation.

The sex hurt, she said.

“Three days after the incident, I had trouble sitting down without being in pain.”

She grimaced every time she sat down, feeling pain in her abdomen.

That's rough sex, not normal first time sex. The man is 52 and married. She had given him no reason to assume she wanted to have rough sex with him. He just went for it.

I call that rape even if some people don't, but either way it is not the way a man of integrity with good judgement behaves.

Quote:
She doesn’t want her name to get out in the media. “Every time I am forced to talk about it and to think about it, I relive the emotions, and they are vivid,” she said.

She said she hopes to return to work this week or maybe next.

“I am afraid that if I wait too long, I will develop panic attacks. I’ve already had a few, but I am going to go back and we’ll see what happens.”...

“I can maybe live with this, but could I live with myself if, for example, in 10 years we discovered that there were 10 or 15 other [victims] since then?”

She placed that responsibility on Trudeau. He had a duty to act.

Quote:
“It may have caused more problems, which we could have avoided,” she said. “Now that the story is out publicly, these two individuals are probably having family problems and couple issues and the chance that they go through an intelligent process is diminished,” she said.

Finding out your husband forces himself on other women would tend to cause problems but don't their wives have a right to know?

I don't have a problem with her talking about her own experience, she has every right, but her judgement is way off if she thinks this will help him or herself. She knows her name is floating around. She thinks this article will explain why she needs therapy yet doesn't want Massimo Pacetti ruined, why she wanted to protect his career. Instead this will only throw fuel on the fire.

BusMP broke MP2s confidence in talking to Trudeau about it on the bus. Did she ask Massimo Pacetti if he wanted the details released? Did she warn the NDP that she was doing a media interview with Huff Post?

Trudeau wants Liberal MPs to be of sterling character. I think it's a good idea.

All the NDP had to say after the suspensions was "no comment".

This just in:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Montreal+Massimo+Pacetti+troub...

 

terrytowel

Some states in the US has passed the yes means yes law where accused is automatically presumed guilty if accused of sex crime.

Meanwhile Nycole Turmel has just told the press the NDP not happy where 2 Libs are sitting near Ndp in the House would rather they be across with Independent mps

bekayne

And now details about Scott Andrews

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/25/new-information-surfaces-abo...

Sources familiar with the women's complaints told The Canadian Press the separate incident involving Andrews allegedly started at a social event on Parliament Hill before the woman, Andrews and Pacetti went from there to Pacetti's office, where they drank some wine. Eventually, Pacetti left, leaving Andrews and the woman alone.

According to sources, the woman alleges that Andrews followed her home, forced his way through her door, pushed her against a wall, groped her and ground his pelvis against her. She ordered him to leave. He did.

Afterwards, sources say the woman alleges that Andrews repeatedly verbally harassed her, calling her a "c-kteaser."

Also from the same story

An NDP MP who levelled misconduct allegations against a Liberal colleague says she would be interested in participating in an independent House of Commons harassment probe, but doesn't feel it's been made clear how she should proceed.

 

Unionist

Learn to spell her name. It's simple respect.

ETA: Thanks for the corrections, terrytowel and NorthReport.

NorthReport

How sexual abusers hide in plain sight: What Rolling Stone’s blockbuster UVA rape exposé really tells us

Sure, the conversation on consent has evolved in recent years. But we still can't stop euphemizing rape

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/26/how_sexual_abusers_hide_in_plain_sight_w...

Debater

Pondering wrote:

Finding out your husband forces himself on other women would tend to cause problems but don't their wives have a right to know?

I don't have a problem with her talking about her own experience, she has every right, but her judgement is way off if she thinks this will help him or herself. She knows her name is floating around. She thinks this article will explain why she needs therapy yet doesn't want Massimo Pacetti ruined, why she wanted to protect his career. Instead this will only throw fuel on the fire.

BusMP broke MP2s confidence in talking to Trudeau about it on the bus. Did she ask Massimo Pacetti if he wanted the details released? Did she warn the NDP that she was doing a media interview with Huff Post?

Trudeau wants Liberal MPs to be of sterling character. I think it's a good idea.

The NDP leadership has some serious questions it needs to ask itself.  Mulcair seemed oblivious as to what was going on.  And what about Craig Scott - the 'law professor' who advised the Liberals that what happened was sexual assault, and yet the NDP didn't think it should be reported?

Interesting that the NDP thinks a crime shouldn't be reported but that it should just be brushed under the carpet.  How could they have expected Trudeau to keep quiet about serious allegations of sexual assault?  Pondering, you are right that Justin Trudeau showed he is a man of good judgment and has demonstrated leadership capabilities by dealing with this issue decisively, rather than dithering about it like the NDP.

Nycole Turmel should step down as NDP Whip and should not run again in 2015.  She was also a weak interim leader for the NDP, as Chantal Hébert said at the time.

Stockholm

What does it say about the Liberal party that 7% of their caucus (that we know of) are sexual abusers?

Stockholm

That's the trouble with Justin Trudeau - his approach to everything is "ready, fire, aim"...hopefully he never has his finger on any nuclear triggers.

Let's face it, Pacetti and Andrews were two of the most useless, low profile Liberal MPs, Trudeau didn't hesitate to throw them under a bus because they were of no value to him and he probably figured he could replace them with better people...I wonder what would happen if accusations of abuse were levelled against one of his pet MPs or even against Trudeau himself - would he be so quick to press the "eject" button?

Rokossovsky

Past cases of alleged sexual harrassement atainst members of the Liberal caucus have taken months even to get to an investigation.

Stockholm

There are some very high profile recent additions to the Liberal caucus who are known to be lechers - let's see how long they last on Parliament Hill.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Finding out your husband forces himself on other women would tend to cause problems but don't their wives have a right to know?

I don't have a problem with her talking about her own experience, she has every right, but her judgement is way off if she thinks this will help him or herself. She knows her name is floating around. She thinks this article will explain why she needs therapy yet doesn't want Massimo Pacetti ruined, why she wanted to protect his career. Instead this will only throw fuel on the fire.

BusMP broke MP2s confidence in talking to Trudeau about it on the bus. Did she ask Massimo Pacetti if he wanted the details released? Did she warn the NDP that she was doing a media interview with Huff Post?

Trudeau wants Liberal MPs to be of sterling character. I think it's a good idea.

The NDP leadership has some serious questions it needs to ask itself.  Mulcair seemed oblivious as to what was going on.  And what about Craig Scott - the 'law professor' who advised the Liberals that what happened was sexual assault, and yet the NDP didn't think it should be reported?

Interesting that the NDP thinks a crime shouldn't be reported but that it should just be brushed under the carpet.  How could they have expected Trudeau to keep quiet about serious allegations of sexual assault?  Pondering, you are right that Justin Trudeau showed he is a man of good judgment and has demonstrated leadership capabilities by dealing with this issue decisively, rather than dithering about it like the NDP.

Nycole Turmel should step down as NDP Whip and should not run again in 2015.  She was also a weak interim leader for the NDP, as Chantal Hébert said at the time.

1) Mulcair was "oblivious" because no one told him anything. The alleged victim, said they were not close, and that she told none of the NDP leadership.

2) No one in the NDP has ever said the "crime shouldn't be reported". What was said was that the complainants did not want the complaint to be publiclly exposed. The criticism of Trudeau was that he reported it to the media, without informing the alleged victim that he was doing so.

3) No on in the NDP has ever said that Trudeau should "do nothing" and that the matter should be "swept under the carpet". Not even close.

In fact they have never even criticized Trudeau suspending the MPs. Turmel said that she had no opinion on that because she didn't know anything about the Liberal internal investigation -- she criticized the way the suspension was handled, in a public manner, because one of the NDP MPs, found out about the public disclosure and the dismissal on Twitter.

4) Neither Mulcair, nor Turmel, or the NDP leadership had any knowledge of the alleged assault, as clearly stated by the alleged victim. They cooperated fully with the Liberal investigation of the matter, and the two NDP MPs provided their evidence, when the Liberals asked for it, and made the issue a matter of bipartisan intra-party relations on October 29th, the day Foote contacted Turmel.

Up until October 29th, the issue had nothing to do with the NDP, because the leadership of the party had never been informed. Up until that point it was an entirely private matter between the accused and the alleged victim.

It is hard to evaluate the quality of your kind words about Trudeau's upstanding moral nature because they are so deeply mired in bullshit that if you assessment of Trudeau is anywhere close to the truth, you have obscured that truth with what appear to be intentional smears, falsehoods, and distortions.

Note: When trying to smear people be careful not to get it all over yourself.

bekayne

Stockholm wrote:

There are some very high profile recent additions to the Liberal caucus who are known to be lechers - let's see how long they last on Parliament Hill.

Three men have joined the Liberal caucus since the last election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_House_members_of_the_41st_Parliamen...

nicky

You don't have to be a defence lawyer to understand this MPs reluctance to identify herself or press charges. She candiddly admits to being friendly with Pacetti, drinking, voluntarily going to his hotel room, not explicitly saying no, and even supplying the condom.

She also reports taking a three month leave of absence to recover from the emotional effects of the incident.

Sure Pacetti's conduct as reported was very grave but it is highly doubtful in these circumstances that a sexual assault charge could stick.How could lack of consent be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

The MP made a rationale choice after considering the prospects and indicated she would have accepted a lesser sanction than an outright criminal prosecution. Otherwise she would have faced public cross-examination and would have had to explain the ambiguities in her behaviour with guarded prospects of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

This choice is  entirely understandable and should have been respected. It is no different than the choices many women have made.

Brachina

 In Pacetti's case that wasn't sexual assault or even harrassment, I'll be honest, its sounds like she cognatively fused to her negative emotions and assumed because she felt bad he must had done something wrong, but the truth is not only did she not say no, but she handed him the condomn, that's pretty explicit consent. I think its directly tied to her earlier trama has not healed at all and I really want her to seek treatment for it.

 

 And I have no idea if Mulcair knew she was going to release more info, if he didn't that puts him in a very uncomfortable spot.

 In the second case it sounds more serious, possible stalking, sex assault, although not to the point of rape, and harrassment. Charges could be laid here if she so choses.

 Still the first case will be in the minds of many people and the second female MP will likely not get a fair shake because of tbe first one.

 And both MPs will be blamed by many for ruining the male MPs as will the NDP, even though Trudeau was asked not to make this public and no one asked him to eject the Liberal MPs, I already see Liberals trying to spin this as the NDP are trying to use sleazy manivuers to take advantage of the situtiation.

 Poor Mulcair, none of this is his doing, but its being dropped in his lap thanks to that asshole Trudeau, nevermind the fact that ita derailed the NDPs entire adgenda.

Pondering

nicky wrote:

You don't have to be a defence lawyer to understand this MPs reluctance to identify herself or press charges. She candiddly admits to being friendly with Pacetti, drinking, voluntarily going to his hotel room, not explicitly saying no, and even supplying the condom.

She also reports taking a three month leave of absence to recover from the emotional effects of the incident.

Sure Pacetti's conduct as reported was very grave but it is highly doubtful in these circumstances that a sexual assault charge could stick.How could lack of consent be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

The MP made a rationale choice after considering the prospects and indicated she would have accepted a lesser sanction than an outright criminal prosecution. Otherwise she would have faced public cross-examination and would have had to explain the ambiguities in her behaviour with guarded prospects of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

This choice is  entirely understandable and should have been respected. It is no different than the choices many women have made.

Her choice was respected. She is the one releasing all the information not Trudeau. If you want to keep something private you have to actually stop talking about it. BusMP can't shut-up which is fine but then don't blame other people for information getting out.

She doesn't want to talk about it, she relives the trauma every time and it takes 3 days to get over it. I can relate. But this week she has had interviews with Huff post, The Star, The Globe and Mail, and the National Post.

No one feels worse for victims than I do but that doesn't mean everything they do makes sense and they don't get to run everyone else's lives or make all the decisions on what happens to the perpetrator.

She made the complaint official when she approached the Liberal leader to tell him that two of his MPs were sexually abusive, particularly during the time the CBC was getting pilloried for not acting against Ghomeshi. She's young, she didn't think it through, which is fine, but she still has to take responsibility for her actions.  Reporting to Trudeau is the same as reporting to someone's employer at a company you don't work for, or to the principal of a school you don't attend. You have made your complaint official. It can't be taken back. Trudeau couldn't pretend he wasn't told. 

This does rest on the shoulders of the NDP. Megan Leslie went on about how some young MPs are living away from home for the first time. I have nothing against young MPs as long as they are not naive and inexperienced. Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois would be a fantastic MP.

The NDP is responsible for the people it chooses to represent them as lawmakers. It's not an intern position. It is a position of power. This young woman did nothing wrong. She's just young and confused and doesn't understand the ramifications of her actions. That reflects on the NDP's MP selection process which brings me to the second issue.

I am surprised at how difficult it is to find accomplished mature principled people who want to be representatives but I get how that can put parties in a bind. It also puts greater responsibility on the party to control their MPs and to protect them. Instead the NDP has been either confirming or releasing information about the women and about the events non-stop since Nov. 5th. How on earth did this young woman end up in extensive interviews with 4 major newspapers giving out so much detail publically? Who is advising her?

The Liberals are responsible for the MPs they choose. That is why it was Trudeau's duty to suspend them and bar them from running again.

Stockholm, if you have any factual information about lecherous MPs do share. Otherwise it's just a smear no different than the ones used by the Harperites.

Cortina

Silence on such issues is the place of ordinary people, who have no recourse and no public voice.  An MP is powerful and represents Canadians, and so must stand up and name her assailant publicly, or not at all.

nicky

Pondering claims "Her choice was respected. She is the one releasing all the information not Trudeau."

She only did this once Justin saw fit to let the dogs slip. Her choice was to have the materaddressed confidentially. She is only trying to contasin the mess Justin made.

It is true that the Liberals are responsible for the candidates they chose. It is regrettable they chose someone as immature as Justin.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 Poor Mulcair, none of this is his doing, but its being dropped in his lap thanks to that asshole Trudeau, nevermind the fact that ita derailed the NDPs entire adgenda.

Finally, at last, we have a clear identification of who the real victim is. Thanks, B.!

 

Pondering

nicky wrote:

Pondering claims "Her choice was respected. She is the one releasing all the information not Trudeau."

She only did this once Justin saw fit to let the dogs slip.

Saying two MPs are being suspended for personal misconduct towards MPs from a different party respected the victims confidentiality. He didn't even tell the MPs what they were being accused of so they could not guess who had made the complaints.

From that moment on all the NDP had to say was "no comment". Up until BusMP had her interviews all the details were still confidential. The Liberal MPs could have continued dismissing the allegations as unfounded and gone on with their lives and careers, just probably not as politicians.

nicky wrote:
Her choice was to have the materaddressed confidentially.

Which it was. The decision to suspend the MPs was Trudeau's to make not hers. NDP MPs are not in charge of who gets to represent the Liberals.

nicky wrote:
She is only trying to contasin the mess Justin made.

There was no mess to contain until the NDP started releasing information about it day after day. The NDP turned it into a public mess and they are going to own it.

There still isn't any mess for the Liberals. At most there will be a confidential investigation and nothing will change. Andrews and Pacetti will not be reinstated as Liberal MPs.

If the NDP thinks that is so unfair and that the men didn't get due process then invite them to run for the NDP.

 

Stockholm

Pondering wrote:

 Andrews and Pacetti will not be reinstated as Liberal MPs.

That's what this is really all about. They are both very low quality MPs and Trudeau figured this was an easy way to get rid of them without a messy nomination contest.

Debater

Brachina wrote:

Poor Mulcair, none of this is his doing, but its being dropped in his lap thanks to that asshole Trudeau, nevermind the fact that ita derailed the NDPs entire adgenda.

Yes, poor Mulcair.  The man who is a Saint and does nothing wrong.  He walks on water and his farts smell like perfume in your world.

You blame everything on Trudeau, even when he acts in a good manner and when Mulcair's actions are questionable.

1.  Mulcair apparently didn't know anything about one of these incidents.

2.  Mulcair apparently knew about one of the incidents but thought it should be kept quiet.

3.  Mulcair the legal expert seems to think that something which is sexual assault should not be reported, despite it being a crime.

4.  Craig Scott, the other supposed legal expert in the NDP, tells the Liberals that what happened was probably sexual assault, and yet the NDP maintains that it should have been kept quiet.

5.  The NDP claims it wants things kept quiet, meanwhile it keeps leaking to the media.

Does that all make sense?

These incidents raise questions about the leadership of Mulcair (yet again) as well as raising questions about Nycole Turmel and Craig Scott.

None of these 3 people has behaved in a consistent or logical manner.  Considering how inept the NDP leadership is, it's not surprising that one of Mulcair's MP's preferred to speak to Trudeau rather than her own leader.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Poor Mulcair, none of this is his doing, but its being dropped in his lap thanks to that asshole Trudeau, nevermind the fact that ita derailed the NDPs entire adgenda.

Yes, poor Mulcair.  The man who is a Saint and does nothing wrong.  He walks on water and his farts smell like perfume in your world.

You blame everything on Trudeau, even when he acts in a good manner and when Mulcair's actions are questionable.

1.  Mulcair apparently didn't know anything about one of these incidents.

2.  Mulcair apparently knew about one of the incidents but thought it should be kept quiet.

3.  Mulcair the legal expert seems to think that something which is sexual assault should not be reported, despite it being a crime.

4.  Craig Scott, the other supposed legal expert in the NDP, tells the Liberals that what happened was probably sexual assault, and yet the NDP maintains that it should have been kept quiet.

5.  The NDP claims it wants things kept quiet, meanwhile it keeps leaking to the media.

Does that all make sense?

These incidents raise questions about the leadership of Mulcair (yet again) as well as raising questions about Nycole Turmel and Craig Scott.

None of these 3 people has behaved in a consistent or logical manner.  Considering how inept the NDP leadership is, it's not surprising that one of Mulcair's MP's preferred to speak to Trudeau rather than her own leader.

For all your bluster about wanting to oust Harper you seem to have no interest in anything but attacking the NDP, through misrepresentation, and bald faced distortions.

That is probably why there is not a single quote from any of the people you are talking about supporting what you are saying. You just make things up.

Neither Mulcair or Turmel have ever said that the NDP wants everything to be kept quite. What they have said is that it was the desire of the alleged victims to remain anonymous, and they thing the desires of the alleged victims should be respected.

Do you know what "respect" is?

Cortina

responding to Rokossovsky:

1) Debater makes straight forward arguments about fact, but YOU responded with an ad hominem attack.

2) Clearly, it was the NDP who breached the anonymity of the two "complainants."

3) Trudeau could possibly have considered alternative wording, such as "suspended for misconduct involving people on the hill", but the it is hard to see a) how any such statement would have changed dynamics (given NDP leakiness and the dynamism of the Parliamentary Hill press staff, and b) that such phrasing would have been just to Canadians, who need to know if there is assault between parliamentarians (since that actually threatens the democratic process).

4) IF the allegations are serious enough to merit a complaint, the victims have a responsbiilty to stand up, identifying themselves in public, and make formal complaints.  No rape shield law should apply to a sitting MP.  As MPs, they are supposed to lead (even if they are feeling trauma from past sexual assaults).  If they cannot lead publicly on this issue, they should resign.

5) If the incidents can be possibly construed as being sexual assault, then the alleged perpetrators have to be suspended, regardless of the willingness of the alleged victims to go public. 

 

sherpa-finn

Debater writes: Yes, poor Mulcair.  The man who is a Saint and does nothing wrong.  He walks on water and his farts smell like perfume in your world.

Cortina then writes: Debater makes straight forward arguments about fact, but YOU [Rokossovsky] responded with an ad hominem attack.

Meh.  I am sure Debater appreciates the support, Cortina. But you're joking, right? 

Cortina

Not at all, that's crass and graphic language, but it is not an attack on Rokossovsky, who does not even deign to respond to Debater's points.

terrytowel

From Warren Kinsella

Big vans outside the Moral High Ground this morning November 26th, 2014, 8:00 am

…looks like the NDP is getting ready to move out.  I guess Tom Mulcair’s “very strong desire to keep this confidential” is no longer so “strong.”

    I could go on for another half-hour or so, but I have to work.  You get the point, anyway.

    The point being: on this mess, the NDP look awful.

    - See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/#sthash.rsWZVIKM.dpuf

    Pondering

    Cortina wrote:

    responding to Rokossovsky:

    1) Debater makes straight forward arguments about fact, but YOU responded with an ad hominem attack.

    2) Clearly, it was the NDP who breached the anonymity of the two "complainants."

    3) Trudeau could possibly have considered alternative wording, such as "suspended for misconduct involving people on the hill", but the it is hard to see a) how any such statement would have changed dynamics (given NDP leakiness and the dynamism of the Parliamentary Hill press staff, and b) that such phrasing would have been just to Canadians, who need to know if there is assault between parliamentarians (since that actually threatens the democratic process).

    4) IF the allegations are serious enough to merit a complaint, the victims have a responsbiilty to stand up, identifying themselves in public, and make formal complaints.  No rape shield law should apply to a sitting MP.  As MPs, they are supposed to lead (even if they are feeling trauma from past sexual assaults).  If they cannot lead publicly on this issue, they should resign.

    5) If the incidents can be possibly construed as being sexual assault, then the alleged perpetrators have to be suspended, regardless of the willingness of the alleged victims to go public. 

    Very well stated. I disagree somewhat with #4. Rape shield should apply to everyone male or female. No one should have to make their personal experiences public.

    At the same time I agree with you that we have a right to have an expectation that our lawmakers will be mature responsible and strong people able to make wise decisions on behalf of Canadians.

    The problem is that the MP did share her personal experiences publically when she authorized Mulcair to say she was revictimized by Trudeau and was worried, afraid, angry and didn't want to hurt the men's careers and has since then described the entire incident. She seems to think this was to his benefit somehow and will make her look better in the public's eye. All that shows immaturity and poor decision-making which does make her unqualified to be a sitting MP.

    Pondering

    terrytowel wrote:

    From Warren Kinsella

    Big vans outside the Moral High Ground this morning November 26th, 2014, 8:00 am

    …looks like the NDP is getting ready to move out.  I guess Tom Mulcair’s “very strong desire to keep this confidential” is no longer so “strong.”

      I could go on for another half-hour or so, but I have to work.  You get the point, anyway.

      The point being: on this mess, the NDP look awful.

      - See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/#sthash.rsWZVIKM.dpuf

      This is awful.

      "http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/25/ndp-mp-now-claims-former-liberal-en...

      In an telephone interview with QMI Agency, the NDP MP said the encounter with Montreal MP Massimo Pacetti occurred in Ottawa in March."

      The Star, The Globe and Mail, Huff post, the National Post, QMI, CBC, that is six outlets claiming to have had an interview with her. She should have just called a private press conference.

       

      Brachina

      Debater wrote:

      Brachina wrote:

      Poor Mulcair, none of this is his doing, but its being dropped in his lap thanks to that asshole Trudeau, nevermind the fact that ita derailed the NDPs entire adgenda.

      Yes, poor Mulcair.  The man who is a Saint and does nothing wrong.  He walks on water and his farts smell like perfume in your world.

      You blame everything on Trudeau, even when he acts in a good manner and when Mulcair's actions are questionable.

      1.  Mulcair apparently didn't know anything about one of these incidents.

      2.  Mulcair apparently knew about one of the incidents but thought it should be kept quiet.

      3.  Mulcair the legal expert seems to think that something which is sexual assault should not be reported, despite it being a crime.

      4.  Craig Scott, the other supposed legal expert in the NDP, tells the Liberals that what happened was probably sexual assault, and yet the NDP maintains that it should have been kept quiet.

      5.  The NDP claims it wants things kept quiet, meanwhile it keeps leaking to the media.

      Does that all make sense?

      These incidents raise questions about the leadership of Mulcair (yet again) as well as raising questions about Nycole Turmel and Craig Scott.

      None of these 3 people has behaved in a consistent or logical manner.  Considering how inept the NDP leadership is, it's not surprising that one of Mulcair's MP's preferred to speak to Trudeau rather than her own leader.

       

       Actually yes, he put the mental health and well being of his MPs first, instead of throwing them under the Bus at the first opportunity for political gain, unlike Trudeau. And no rapes occurred, some unfortunity events yes, but nothing that made legal action a requirement. And still no one has been charged with anything.

       The law exists to protect peoples rights, not as a weapon of vengence.

      Brachina

      http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.ca/2014/11/ghomeshis-last-stand.html?m=1

       

       I suspect that the picture of Trudeau chumming with Jian Ghomeshi maybe why Trudeau msde a snap decision, not that Justin was likely to have known anything, but one wonders if it floating around the net put him on edge.

      Pages

      Topic locked