Statement of Claim filed against NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine for harassment

255 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

 Calling someone else a hard core partesan is rich coming from you debater.

GTY

Debater wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering everything the NDP did was with the consent of the MPs and to counter the immense flurry of speculation in the media and public that Trudeau enabled. It was Trudeau who outed this issue not the NDP. Everything since has been damage control. Liberal polling fortunes have been dropping all through this event is a testament to this imo.  Average people, whether they side with the NDP MP's who made the complaints or the Liberal MPs who were suspended, know Trudeau made a gaffe here.

Pierre, you are a really hardcore NDP partisan.  You are more reasonable in expressing yourself in that you don't post your words with the same type of overboiling fury that others do, but you're just as likely to invent total fiction in order to put your own party on a pedestal and try to pretend the Liberals are in a bad way.

It is NDP "polling fortunes" that are down - way down.  And everyone knows it - including Mulcair.  As Tim Harper wrote last week, Mulcair's body language to the press the day after the Whitby-Oshawa by-election showed how badly the NDP had been hit.

The NDP is now down to a National average of 21% if you look at the 308 site.  That's probably the lowest the NDP has been since Mulcair has been leader.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

Meanwhile, yes it is true that the Liberals have levelled off by several points over the last month and have dropepd from 38% to 35%.  The NDP only dreams it could be that high right now.  But in case you forgot, that's because we had a terrorist incident on Parliament Hill last month which gave Harper a bump.  And it's by-elections that tell the real tale of how people vote -- and they are voting Liberal, not NDP.

As for this issue, while it's hard to measure the exact public reaction, I'd say most of it has been in agreement with Trudeau, contrary to your personal assertions above.  While the Power & Politics poll is not scientific, about 85% of people agreed with Trudeau's decision.  And most women I have talked to are glad that Trudeau took a strong stand on sexual harassment.  It is most likely Mulcair that made a gaffe - he came across as unsympathetic and ambiguous in comparison to the clear, strong position of Trudeau.

I think it is a bit premature to second guess how the public is reacting to the Liberal sexual misconduct scandal. We here at babble analyze things very closely whereas the general public is variable. Does CBC management look like heroes after dumping Gian Ghomeshi? Does the Harper government look like heroes after dumping Conservative Senators? Do the Trudeau Liberals look like heroes after its leader decimates the Liberal caucus over allegations of serious misconduct? The answers probably vary among the general public.

And since you bring up polling numbers. The latest CROP poll puts the Liberals 16 points ahead of the Conservatives in Quebec. So that 38% to 35% Liberal lead over Conservatives disproportionately shows up in Quebec (where the Liberals are playing second fiddle to the NDP) but the ROC will show that the Liberals are behind the Conservatives.

Aristotleded24

Debater, every one of your posts on the issue of the harassment have been about how the public perceives Trudeau's or Mulcair's handling of the issue or to justify that Trudeau handled it better than Mulcair, and I haven't seen you make one single non-partisan post about the issue of harassment on the Hill generally and what might be done about it. That is truly disgusting.

Moving on, [url=http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/]this discussion brings up 2 different ideas of consent.[/url]

The problem with saying, "no means no:"

Quote:
In many ways, the focus on “no” puts the burden – yet again – on women to rein in the libidos of men who presumably can’t control themselves… and in many ways can put them at a disadvantage. Women are often socialized to be non-direct for fear of causing offense; many women are frequently uncomfortable with being up front with saying “No, I don’t want this.” In the case of Girls, Natalia protests to Adam that she hasn’t taken a shower; she’s trying to give him the wave-off as he pulls her underwear down but he either misses her meaning or possibly ignores it deliberately.

Alcohol also has a way of making a definitive “no” hard to recognize. While booze doesn’t create emotions – a person who doesn’t like somebody isn’t going to magically going to fall in love because he or she has had one too many cocktails – it does lower one’s capacity for rational thought and decision making. A person may not want to have sex with someone, but enough booze will can make them more likely to give in to pressure or to otherwise make poor decisions.

A focus on “no” also causes many people – mostly men – to worry about misreading signals. Others will incessantly challenge the idea of rape and rape culture by trying to rules-lawyer consent1 with an endless repetition of theoretical situations and “what ifs” in order to “prove” that consent is confusing and difficult to acquire.

The enthusiastic consent model:

Quote:
The idea of enthusiastic consent is all about making sure that your partner is genuinely into having sex… that you are getting clear and unambiguous signals that he or she wants to fuck. It’s the difference between “Dear God I want to fuck you right now” and “Yeah… I guess, whatever” when they really mean “no”. Similarly, a partner who is simply not resisting but otherwise not saying anything is not giving enthusiastic consent. It’s about more than just needing to get off – because that’s easy enough to do on your own – but having an experience with your partner. It makes sex about the two (or more…) of you rather than one person using the other as a sex toy that can occasionally help move boxes and dust the window sills.

The focus on an unambiguous yes (or a “give me your cock” or “I want you to eat me out right the fuck now”… you get the idea) cuts out any murkiness around the idea of whether somebody is consenting. It’s hard to mistake a “please fuck me”, after all. It simplifies the issue rather nicely. Didn’t get a “Yes”? You don’t have sex. End of.

That “enthusiastic” part is important, too, because it comes with the understanding that consent isn’t a binary decision – it’s not all or nothing, always on or always off. It’s an understanding that consent falls on a sliding scale and can be dialed back or forward as both partners feel the need. Just because somebody said “yes” earlier doesn’t mean that they couldn’t change their mind later on… even in the middle of things, if it comes to it.

There's way more good reading at that article. I would suggest reading the article in its entirety and also some of the linked articles within, Brachina.

Brachina

 Its just paternalistic excuses for treating women as childern. No body is suggesting we treat men that way, why the contempt for women? You keep making excuses for why you think women are to weak pyscological and a emotionally, and I'm worried that women will keep reading stuff like this and internalize the whole women are weak and must be protected from themselves, instead of learning that they and be strong and responsible and empowered, but fair.

Brachina

 I will concede that euthasism is prefered for sexes, but there a big gap between what is preferable and what is rape. Rape is too serious a crime to play political games with it. I worry that also men will read stuff like what you linked to get the wrong impression that women are weak and no worthy of respect, something to be over protective of. That would be the wrong impression, because they're are many strong women out there who make themselves heard.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Its just paternalistic excuses for treating women as childern. No body is suggesting we treat men that way, why the contempt for women?

Treating women like children is actually an improvement over treating her as a sex object who is there to give you sexual pleasure. At least children are considered to be people who are worthy of being treated with respect. Funny thing is, when a woman is direct in expressing lack of interest in a man, the "nice" man suddenly turns on her. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24xSwNlthSM]Check out this little scene here,[/url] and stories by women who will tell you this are very easy to find on Google.

Brachina wrote:
I'm worried that women will keep reading stuff like this and internalize the whole women are weak and must be protected from themselves, instead of learning that they and be strong and responsible and empowered, but fair.

Strange thing is that you've already been called out here by several female members of this community (and at least 2 male members) and you're not listening to them, so I find it strange that you would pass a judgement like that.

Brachina

 Listening isn't agreeing, I heard, but I stand by my logic, because its solid.

 And there are plenty of women who can't rejection either and lash out and act mean. Its a sign of emotional immaturity based on people using the people not as sex object but as a way to build thier identity and so when others reject them its shakes and threatens thier sense of self and they act out as a result.

 

 If people put as much effort into helping her, as in rationalizing her behavior, she'd be able to reach her potential.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Brachina, treating men like they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, and are incapable of discerning that they are hurting women when they are hurting them emotionally and physically, and are not to assume any responsibility for the consequences of their actions is to treat men like they are children who are incapable of knowing any better.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Why do you expect so little of them?

Aristotleded24

Misfit wrote:
Brachina, treating men like they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, and are incapable of discerning that they are hurting women when they are hurting them emotionally and physically, and are not to assume any responsibility for the consequences of their actions is to treat men like they are children who are incapable of knowing any better.

Nearly every communication expert in the world will tell you that the words that come out of our mouths are a small fraction of the communication that people send out. Things like body language, facial expression, and tone of voice say way more. I think the Enthusiatic Consent model takes this into account more than No Means No, and I've never even come close to having sex with a woman. Even a simple phrase like "that sounds great" can mean different things depending on the tone of voice used. I'll also point out that in the video that Pondering and I posted, Laci gives a scenario where the mouth says "yes" but the body language and facial expression says "no." Communication is an active thing that happens between 2 parties, and just as women are responsible for expressing their interest of lack thereof, men are also responsible for paying attention and responding appropriately to those cues.

If your relationship with someone is solid with good communication, you will intuitively understand how your partner communicates, and you will know when you're going over the line. And if you legitimalely are that unsure about the signals your partner is sending and you have to verbally ask "is this okay, is this okay" every few seconds, you need to slow things down and work it out with your partner before you go any further.

Brachina

 So people are only into sex and that's okay, you can't make people what they should want or how he or she should feel. And the guy in your example has some issues, parania, for one, and he's cognitively fusing to his imagination, treating his wild imagination as if it was fact in a very unhealthy way. That's not exclusive to men, its exclusive to mentally disturbed delusional people who treat both fantasies and fears as reality. It actually reminds me of a Carrie Underwood song where she has a simular disfunction. 

 So some guys and some women only care about sex, whoopy do da day. Its completely inmaterial, its about consent, not telling people how to ruin thier lives.

 

 Its stuff like this that makes people equate the left with repression not liberation.

Brachina

If a man or women thinks I'm only good for sex, that's thier problem and they miss the awesomeness that is me in my entirity.

 

 The job of the left is to create opportunities and equality, not to tell people how think, feel, want, or desire.

 So if some men and women only want sex, that's totally fine, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as they don't cross the line and rape someone or sexual harrass people why would I care,its got nothing to with me or you aristo.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
So people are only into sex and that's okay, you can't make people what they should want or how he or she should feel. And the guy in your example has some issues, parania, for one, and he's cognitively fusing to his imagination, treating his wild imagination as if it was fact in a very unhealthy way. That's not exclusive to men, its exclusive to mentally disturbed delusional people who treat both fantasies and fears as reality.

That can have dangerous consequences, for example:

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/conn-high-school-student-stabbed-death-apparent...

Quote:
A Connecticut high school student was stabbed to death today by a classmate after students said she apparently refused a boy's offer to attend the prom tonight as his date.

Maren Sanchez, 16, was stabbed while in the hallway at Jonathan Law High School in Milford, Conn., this morning, Chief of Police Keith Mello said at a news conference.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/05/gunman-who-killed-3-himself-at-p...

Quote:
The gunman who opened fire on an exercise class in a suburban Pittsburgh fitness center, killing three people and himself, hated women, had been planning his attack for months and "chickened out" during an earlier attempt, he wrote in a blog.

In a rambling online journal posted under his name, George Sodini, 48, of Scott Township, Pa., wrote about his hatred of women and how he was sick of being rejected by them. He said he hadn't had sex for almost 20 years.

If it's just a question of being mentally disturbed, you should easily be able to find examples of women becoming violent with men who reject them, not just post some songs from female artists.

Brachina wrote:
So some guys and some women only care about sex, whoopy do da day. Its completely inmaterial, its about consent, not telling people how to ruin thier lives.

Except you do not have the right to impose your desires on anyone else.

Pondering

Put it this way Brachina. If we are sitting at a restarant and I reach over and eat some of your food is it okay because you didn't tell me not to?

What if I am a superior so you don't feel comfortable telling me to cut it out?

Does that mean I now have permission to eat your meal because you didn't object?

Is it not my responsibility to make sure you are okay with me trying your food in advance?  If you look uncomfortable is it not my responsibility to notice and stop?

I do get your point that permission for sex is not always explicitly verbalized but that doesn't mean the people involved can't tell if the other person is interested or not.

I don't have a link but I read a study that it is women who make the first move in successful pick-ups not the men. Women signal their willingness to be approached by meeting a man's eyes, pausing, then breaking the gaze by lowering their eyes or turning and smiling, etc.

In my own voluntary relations with men none have ever expressed confusion. If a man starts to kiss me just pulling away slightly or pushing against his chest has been enough for the guy to stop no matter how enthusiastic the session is. The slightest physical resistance or distressed expression is enough to stop normal men in their tracks.

I've read multiple accounts of johns who stopped seeing prostitutes when they realized prostitutes they genuinely thought were having a good time were faking, not forced, just not enjoying the sex and doing it out of economic necessity.

The notion that a 52 year old man can't tell unless he is told explicitly that a woman he knows doesn't want to have sex is bullshit. If he doesn't know it's because he doesn't want to know. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

And, they don't want to know because they don't care. And when they hurt women they don't care. And unless there is extreme violence involved, very few people seem to care either.

So instead of holding these men accountable, we find it is the victim who is placed on the hot seat and has to justify why she was hurt and place all responsibility for what happened on her shoulders.

When men expect so little of themselves, and when we expect so little of them that we have to lower our standards down to their level, this is what I mean about treating men like children. They are not capable of better and they don't want to be held accountable.

Aristotleded24

So Brachina, why is it that this woman's actions are fair game for discussion, and yet there is little discussion of how men often treat any encounter with a woman as an excuse to have sex with her?

Here's a couple of examples I can highlight from the 2009 hit movie [url=http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/500-Days-of-Summer.html]500 Days of Summer:[/url]

Quote:
TOM What do we know about this new girl?

MCKENZIE Who?

TOM The new girl. Summer. In Vance's office.

MCKENZIE Dude. I hear she's a bitch from hell!

TOM (DISAPPOINTED) Really?

MCKENZIE Patel tried to talk to her in the copy room. She was totally not having it.

TOM Maybe she was just in a hurry.

MCKENZIE And maybe she's some uppity, better than everyone, superskank.

TOM Damn.

MCKENZIE I know. She's pretty hot.

TOM That makes me so mad! Why is it pretty girls always think they can treat people like crap and get away with it?

Quote:
TOM It's off.

PAUL What?

TOM Me and Summer.

MCKENZIE Was it ever on?

TOM No. But it could have been. In a world where good things happen to me.

PAUL Yeah well, that's not really where we live.

TOM No.

MCKENZIE So what happened?

TOM You ready for this?

INT ELEVATOR - THE DAY BEFORE Tom is alone. The door opens. In walks Summer.

TOM (V.O.) So there we are. All alone. Nine more floors to ride. Plenty of time. I figure...this is my chance. If not now when, right? They ride in silence for a few beats.

TOM Summer...

SUMMER Yeah?

TOM (BEAT) So how was your weekend?

SUMMER It was good.

INT LOCAL DIVE BAR - AS BEFORE The friends wait for more.

TOM You believe that shit?

MCKENZIE What shit?

PAUL I think I missed something.

TOM "It was good." She didn't say "It was good." She said "It was good." Emphasis on the good. She basically said "I spent the weekend having sex with this guy I met at the gym." Fucking whore. Screw her. It's over. Everyone's silent.

MCKENZIE What the hell is wrong with you?!

PAUL Dude, you got problems.

TOM She's not interested in me. There's nothing I can do.

MCKENZIE Based on..."it was good?"

TOM And some other things.

PAUL Like what, she said "hey" instead of "hi" cause that totally means she's a lesbian.

TOM I gave her all sorts of chances.

All that because Summer's character didn't want to talk to a guy.

This kind of conversation is unfortunately quite normal for guys to have about women who aren't interested in them. And while you may be right that women also react badly to rejection (even though several women I've talked to want the guy to approach them and wouldn't even think of asking someone out) I really doubt that they hurl that amount of vitriol at men who aren't interested in them.

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater, every one of your posts on the issue of the harassment have been about how the public perceives Trudeau's or Mulcair's handling of the issue or to justify that Trudeau handled it better than Mulcair, and I haven't seen you make one single non-partisan post about the issue of harassment on the Hill generally and what might be done about it. That is truly disgusting.

That's an unfair generalization of what I've been posting, Aristotle.  You've obviously missed some of the posts where I have talked about the issue of harassment and how it should be dealt with.  I said that the issue needs to be dealt with seriously and that leaders need to take a strong stand on the subject. 

The reason I have been focusing a lot on public reaction to this issue is to counter the claims made here by NDP partisans that Trudeau did something wrong whereas Mulcair walks on water.  I've been explaining why it was necessary for Trudeau to suspend Pacetti & Andrews and that it's important to take a strong stand on this issue in the year 2014 and demonstrate that things must change on Parliament Hill.  I've said that we need to have some sort of investigatory process like Trudeau & Judy Foote have suggested.  But as we know, it's not easy to 'do something about it' when there is no process in place.  That's the reason the parties are in this dilemma, as Chantal Hébert wrote in the column I linked above. 

I also said that we should give the NDP complainants the benefit of the doubt in this initial phase of the story until given a good reason why we shouldn't.  I've also posted on the Jian Ghomeshi thread that I didn't buy his excuses & justifications (eg. lies) regarding supposedly consensual violent sex and S&M.  I'm the one that posted the story on that thread about his arrest by the Toronto police last week.  I've thought for some time that it was clear the women were telling the truth about his tendency to punch them & choke them without warning.  I was glad when they were courageous and came forward and exposed what has been going on and for how long the powers that be have been trying to keep it quiet.

MegB

Brachina, several of your posts have been flagged as offensive.  Please look carefully at the objections of other babblers here and act accordingly. Thanks.

bekayne

I don't know if this is the right thread, or deserves one of its own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/11/ndp-sexual-harassment-assault_n_...

Genevieve Ratelle was 19 years old last spring when she says she was sexually assaulted by an Ontario NDP provincial candidate for whom she was working. Wednesday, she took the issue to the police.Ratelle said she’s going public with her story to encourage other women who have had similar experiences to come forward. She also filed a complaint against the candidate with the Ontario NDP, and is concerned he will try to run in the next federal election.

Unionist

Amazing courage!

As for the perp, he should pass the vetting process as long as he doesn't mention [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/not-your-ndp-candidate]Gaza[/url].

 

Brachina

 He hasn't been approved and very likely won't be.

Aristotleded24

Reminds me of the Julian West fiasco.

Rokossovsky

bekayne wrote:

I don't know if this is the right thread, or deserves one of its own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/11/ndp-sexual-harassment-assault_n_...

Genevieve Ratelle was 19 years old last spring when she says she was sexually assaulted by an Ontario NDP provincial candidate for whom she was working. Wednesday, she took the issue to the police.Ratelle said she’s going public with her story to encourage other women who have had similar experiences to come forward. She also filed a complaint against the candidate with the Ontario NDP, and is concerned he will try to run in the next federal election.

I guess that depends on how interested you are in developing Liberal Party talking points and smearing the NDP as particularly rife with sexual abuse, or confronting the issue at hand.

Quote:
“That friend is in his 50s and we both sit on the [riding] executive together, so when he asked me that, I didn’t know what to say. I thought ‘How could he even think of that?’ … And the next thing he told me was to keep some energy for him – it was really awful.”

Ratelle said the candidate ran his fingers down her thigh and tried to kiss her. She does not want him named publicly. She said she is afraid of getting sued and she doesn’t want his wife to find out through the media.

All too believable. However I doubt anonymity will be preserved. She has released far to many details.

Unionist

bekayne wrote:

I don't know if this is the right thread, or deserves one of its own:

Just on the above question - this thread was really not about sexual abuse or sexual harassment at all. There were no such allegations against Sylvain Chicoine - rather, what was alleged was on-the-job discrimination based on gender and family status, and reprisal against the individual by firing her for complaining. But it seems to have become a catch-all because other threads have been closed for various reasons, so I personally gave up on trying to keep it on topic.

ETA: Well, I guess the above is moot, given that a [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/former-ndp-staffer-assaulted-c... thread[/url] seems to have been opened on this topic.

 

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
I guess that depends on how interested you are in developing Liberal Party talking points and smearing the NDP as particularly rife with sexual abuse, or confronting the issue at hand.

The NDP isn't particularly rife with it but neither are they immune. This type of harrassment that falls short of rape is common. Have you not noticed that throughout the accounts from women from all walks of life they felt it was their responsibility to deal with it and to some extent they accepted the behavior as the price to pay for working in the field.

How the Liberals and the NDP manage these situations is no more immune from analysis as is the CBC or any other organization. I like the way the Liberals handled the lastest allegations but that doesn't mean they haven't had hundreds of incidences swept under the rug over the decades. The Jian Ghomeshi case seems to have encouraged more women to come forward.

The question in my mind is how they are handling these things now more than how they were handled pre-Ghomeshi. That includes sexual harassment as well as abuse.

Rokossovsky

Exaactly true. No party is immune. This kind of thing is pretty normalized in society at large, and it is encouraging that people are speaking out about this.

Hopefully people will get the message to keep their feeling in check.

Debater

Chantal Hébert said on 'At Issue' tonight that Tom Mulcair's handling of the harassment issue was very poor.

This confirms what Pondering has been saying for some time -- that Mulcair & the NDP had a very ambiguous, contradictory position on the issue and failed to communicate as effectively on this matter as Justin Trudeau did.  Hébert said Mulcair's handling of the harassment issue was "foggy at best" and that it didn't make sense to accuse the Liberals of victimization.

Hébert's discussion of Mulcair begins at about the 1:15 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xuwpboMZMDk

Rokossovsky

Interesting. Her summary of recent activities name Mulcair for being "foggy" on the harassment issue, and for the confused with the "suprise" re-introduction the "gun registry" issue, but later at 8:15 identifies Justin Trudeau's handling of the ISIS "intervention" issue as the worst political flub of the year, and identifying this as the point where Liberal support "softened", because Trudeau did not "walk into the frame of the Prime Minister" on that issue.

Debater

Yes, Hébert was critical of Trudeau over the ISIS issue, but the category is called Worst Political Move of the year.  Not Flub.  You've added your own creative wording to it!  I partially agree with her on that one, but not entirely.

She was much more critical of Mulcair then you are saying.  She said that Mulcair looked totally lost on the harassment issue and lost the thread of it completely, confused his own MP's on the re-introduction of the gun registry and that he went off to Europe to warn them about the Canada-Europe agreement even though he isn't campaigning against it in Canada.  She said Mulcair has looked off his game and out of his groove and that the NDP brain trust is in serious trouble right now over which direction to go in.

Rokossovsky

It was her answer to the question "who surprised you the most", and it was in her discussion of what was apparently "out of charachter for Mulcair" taken in comparison to her agreement that he had a strong year, as defined by Mansbridge. She reserved her answer to the question about "worst political flub" for Trudeau, on the ISIS question, the only time he was really mentioned at all.

I have no idea why Hebert is going off on the European issue, because opposition to ISDS is standing NDP policy, and he can talk about that where ever he wants.

Trudeau and Harper agree that Mulcair's statement threatened the trade deal. I say good.

Debater

Rokossovsky, Mulcair had a strong year last year - not this year.  That's what they were saying.  The Senate scandal questioning largely occurred last spring & fall.

(Take note in yesterday's Nanos Index that whereas Trudeau & Harper are higher in Dec 2014 than they were in Dec 2013, Mulcair is lower in Dec 2014 than he was in Dec 2013).

And Hébert said the same thing on At Issue that she has written about all year which you can find in her columns -- that the NDP is in serious trouble right now.  Hebert said that Mulcair has been off his game & out of his groove, and that he has looked lost and without direction.  He was floundering around on the harassment issue, confused people on the gun registry issue, and seemed off topic on the European agreement.  She then said again what she wrote about last month after the latest set of bad by-elections for the NDP -- that the party has been struggling to build support and find its direction.

Rokossovsky

You can also read all about Hebert's dismissal of Trudeau performance on the ISIS issue, the only time that any of the panelists even mention him, which should be a real cause for concern, as the worst political blunder of the year.

Worst blunder, and "off his game" are two different things.

And she specifically identifies this moment as the point at which Liberal fortunes begin to slip. And that slippage is the story of the year, not Mulcair being off his game, and seeming to spin his wheels without getting upward traction. Not having upward momentum is a lot better than having downward momentum.

This is a particular problem for Trudeau, since the entire Liberal strategy is based on Trudeau being the guy who can beat Harper.

Debater

It's getting late.  I'm getting tired of responding to spin tonight.

Trudeau is the only one who can beat Harper.  That has been proven multiple times.  In multiple by-elections.  The NDP just bombed in another series of by-elections last month.  You keep glossing over that (for obvious reasons).

Perhaps you should actually read what Hébert has written about the NDP, rather than just trying to spin it.  She has said that the Liberals are in a much stronger position going into 2015 than the NDP are.

Of course Liberal fortunes slipped.  There was a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill.  Incumbent PM's get bumps from such things.  But yesterday's Nanos Index showed Liberal support may be going up again and Conservative support down.  What hasn't changed is that the NDP remain a distant 3rd, and contrary to your hilarious spin, being in 3rd place is a lot worse than being in 1st!

If you aren't working for the NDP HQ, you should be.  They need all the help they can get right now! Wink

---

Chantal Hébert:

Going from west to east, the NDP landscape outside Quebec is a picture of desolation.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/4951265-the-ndp-s-problems-are-pi...

---

Chantal Hébert

In the fight to establish which of the main opposition parties is the alternative to the Conservatives, the Liberals now have a decisive edge over the NDP. On Trudeau’s watch, every byelection has shored up that advantage.

---

With every NDP byelection debacle the notion that the party is not in the game of beating Stephen Harper gains traction in Quebec.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5147056-ndp-s-quebec-fortunes-not...

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Of course Liberal fortunes slipped.  There was a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill.  Incumbent PM's get bumps from such things.  But yesterday's Nanos Index showed Liberal support may be going up again and Conservative support down.  What hasn't changed is that the NDP remain a distant 3rd, and contrary to your hilarious spin, being in 3rd place is a lot worse than being in 1st!

So you disagree with Hebert. That is fine. What she said though was that her pick for biggest political blunder of the year was Trudeau's handling of the ISIS file, and that this was the crtitical point where his support "softened".

That isn't spin. That is what she said. You introduced the topic here. I am just quoting the relevant parts.

Moreover, no one in the clip suggested that the NDP was a "distant" third. The only comment was that all three parties were "competitive". Hebert herself, spoke of Trudeau and Mulcair in the same breath, not as if Trudeau was riding hog on some massive political surge, or particularly more significant that Mulcair.

But being able to beat Harper is all that Trudeau has got. Once that prospect appears to dim, where will they go from there? That is the million dollar question.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sylvain-chicoine-ndp-mp-countersues-ex-s... Chicoine, NDP MP, countersues ex-staffer for 'smear campaign' [/url]

Well that's interesting. The employer files a lawsuit against the fired employee, claiming she defamed him, and asking for $175,000. That will be sure to encourage other workers who want to go public with claims of gender discrimination.

 

Brachina

 In the current enviroment of presumed guilt until proven innocent someone has to stand up and push back and defend themselves, if this person in question has not left matters in the courts hands and is in fact smearing this MPs name in the public sphere and this MP is found innocent then this person deserves to be counter sued and I applaud Slyvain for standing up and refusing to be a victim.

Unionist

So, a female employee goes public and charges her boss with firing her for having complained about gender discrimination on the job. In the absence of any evidence, you applaud the male boss for "standing up and refusing to be a victim"? Why - because he's NDP? Or what? And remind me what kind of values you uphold that draw you to a discussion board of this nature?

Brachina

 I had a caveat, that if he's found innocent and she is found to have smeared him, then yes I applaud him. He's going to take alot of shit for this, he's going to be heavily attacked and viliefied by people like you and people who will be far harder on him then you, so yes I applaud his for having the courage to stand up to vigilanty justice.

Unionist

Unionist, in 2014, wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sylvain-chicoine-ndp-mp-countersues-ex-s... Chicoine, NDP MP, countersues ex-staffer for 'smear campaign' [/url]

Well that's interesting. The employer files a lawsuit against the fired employee, claiming she defamed him, and asking for $175,000. That will be sure to encourage other workers who want to go public with claims of gender discrimination.

Ah, the good old days. Whatever happened to this case? Thankfully, Mr. Chicoine didn't survive the 2015 election. But it's amazing how the NDP was able to get away with doing nothing, and letting Chicoine browbeat the whisteblower into submission. If Jagmeet Singh is swinging too much in the opposite direction, I'm frankly happy to see that.

Rev Pesky

However, as has been said elsewhere on Babble, those who are accused of harassment, but don't fight vigourously against the allegations are considered to have committed the offense.

The question arises on what one is to do then, if accused. You can't retire from the fight without being accused of having 'admitted' culpability, and apparently you can't fight the allegations either without 'browbeating' the accuser.

Doesn't leave much room to defend oneself.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

However, as has been said elsewhere on Babble, those who are accused of harassment, but don't fight vigourously against the allegations are considered to have committed the offense.

The question arises on what one is to do then, if accused. You can't retire from the fight without being accused of having 'admitted' culpability, and apparently you can't fight the allegations either without 'browbeating' the accuser.

Doesn't leave much room to defend oneself.

You can fight the allegations without suing. 

I don't believe allegations come out of the blue especially when there are multiple accusers. I would find it more plausible if they claimed their words or actions were misconstrued. Otherwise the claim is that the women involved just made up these lies when nothing at all happened. 

 

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

You can fight the allegations without suing. 

And how would you do that, pray tell? How could you possibly fight such allegations without saying they were untrue? And if they are untrue, then it is slander to make such accusations.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

How could you possibly fight such allegations without saying they were untrue?

You can say "they're untrue". And if you're being punished unjustly, you can defend yourself and seek justice.

Quote:
And if they are untrue, then it is slander to make such accusations.

It might be slander. It might be a difference of opinion. It might be a mistake.

And so the next step is to sue a fired worker for $175,000? It's nice for Chicoine to have power, and lawyers, and the ability to send a message to everyone that whether your accusation is "true" or not, you will lose your job and your reputation and maybe $175,000 on top of that. Meanwhile the NDP sits back and whistles dixie.

I don't know whether the allegations against Chicoine are "true" or not or partly "true". When he launched his SLAPP suit, that's when I decided he was a villain.

More importantly - the NDP of the time. What did they do?

Rev Pesky

From Unionist:

And so the next step is to sue a fired worker for $175,000?

Actually, the employee sued first. Fabiola Ferro sued Chicoine for $194,000 for 'showing favouritism' to another staffer.

 Sylvain Chicoine, NDP MP, countersues ex-staffer for 'smear campaign'

New Democrat MP Sylvain Chicoine is seeking $175,000 in a defamation lawsuit filed against former employee Fabiola Ferro, who in the fall filed a court claim alleging that the politician had a sexist and misogynist attitude towards her...

...In a lawsuit filed on Nov. 7. Ferro is seeking $194,000 in damages from Chicoine, who she claims failed to deal with harassment by another staffer and fired her without cause.

The former employee alleged that Chicoine ​showed favouritism towards another staffer, David Cimon, who she alleges was harassing her, threatening her, and unfairly criticizing her work.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

In any case, after all this time, Chicoine needs to do the decent thing and back off.  He just needs to let this end.  If what she was alleging wasn't true, there's no way she would have filed suit.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

You can fight the allegations without suing. 

And how would you do that, pray tell? How could you possibly fight such allegations without saying they were untrue? And if they are untrue, then it is slander to make such accusations.

He could have sued for a symbolic judgment...say, a judgment of 1$.  There was never any reason to actually try to inflict financial hardship on the woman.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

​(self-delete. dupe post).

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

​(self-delete.  dupe post).

pookie

Ken Burch wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

You can fight the allegations without suing. 

And how would you do that, pray tell? How could you possibly fight such allegations without saying they were untrue? And if they are untrue, then it is slander to make such accusations.

He could have sued for a symbolic judgment...say, a judgment of 1$.  There was never any reason to actually try to inflict financial hardship on the woman.  

She tried to inflict financial hardship on him.  So I'd say he's perfectly entitled if he believed that the accusations were untrue, that he has suffered great reputational damage and that his future earnings are compromised.

It's not the duty of people who believe they have been falsely accused, and suffered for it, to take it on the chin for the good of the movement.

Unionist

pookie wrote:

She tried to inflict financial hardship on him.  So I'd say he's perfectly entitled if he believed that the accusations were untrue, that he has suffered great reputational damage and that his future earnings are compromised.

Of course he's entitled. In more ways than one. And I wonder what would happen, today, if all the celebrities and politicians who have been publicly accused of misconduct were to spend their fortunes on lawyers and file lawsuits claiming multi-$100,000 damages against their accusers? That would be just peachy, wouldn't it? Maybe Jian Ghomeshi should go first. He's entitled - he has clearly lost a great deal.

Quote:
It's not the duty of people who believe they have been falsely accused, and suffered for it, to take it on the chin for the good of the movement.

No, it's not the duty of Chicoine to sacrifice anything on behalf of the movement, nor is it my duty to consider him as anything less than a low-life for defending himself in this manner. It's allegedly a free world, and we're all entitled to our entitlements.

But less ironically, pookie: How do you view the duty of Mulcair and the party when one of their elected members of Parliament was accused of gender discrimination and retaliation? The only reason I revived the Chicoine thread was to draw a contrast between the response of the NDP in 2014, and today. I've given my opinion on that contrast, and I'm seriously interested to know what others think.

NOTE: I have much less interest in the outcome of the rival court actions - although they raise interesting questions of their own. Chicoine's chief defence is that the accuser should have proceeded through the staff union, and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear her suit (I guess it's about Weber vs. Ontario Hydro?). Curiously, the counter-argument by her lawyers is that the staff union doesn't really exist, because employees of MPs have no right to unionize! [Clearly, an argument with which I have little, i.e. zero, sympathy.]

 

Pages