'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them' Says Publisher : Justin Trudeau Gropes Reporter in 2000: Editorial Accuses

299 posts / 0 new
Last post
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Postmodernism would mean that I do not have to believe in anything I say, as the concept of 'belief' is a reactionary concept inherited from the patriarchal Christian religion. If I were to defend my statement, I would have to use logic, which would mean I would be backsliding into postmodernist patriarchy.

If you have labelled me an 'anarchist', you are vastly wrong, as I strongly think a State is needed to control human behaviour. As you have called me a name, you have engaged in an ad hominem attack. As I have pointed out on another thread, an ad hominem rescript was not considered worthy of recording in ancient Rome, over 2,000 years ago. By any rules of debate, Sean in Ottawa, you have conceded defeat. 

You might consider addressing someone who really gives a...

NDPP

On Groping Allegations, Trudeau Ducks the Rules He Set

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/28/on-groping-al...

"...But something appears to have happened, and the way Trudeau has responded is too much 2000 and not enough 2018. This is especially troubling coming from him because he is breaking rules he set himself.

Right now we are left with a 'she said, he said,' 18 years later. She has the right to remain silent. He is the prime minister, a self-styled feminist who has acted decisively and quickly when other such allegations have been raised about caucus and cabinet ministers.

He owes the country more clarity than a statement from his office. It comes with the job. And because it is 2018."

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

On Groping Allegations, Trudeau Ducks the Rules He Set

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/28/on-groping-al...

She has the right to remain silent.

The problem is we do not have a he said she said. There is no "she said". Every single other case has a a woman making a specific complaint with details that she is prepared to confirm to reporters and/or investigators. In this case we have a 20 year old event that the woman is refusing to confirm even though she wrote an article about it. 

WWWTT

There’s no problem. No problem at all. 

The most accurate evidence here is the record of the alleged event 18 years ago. 

I don’t need this woman to come forward now because there’s probably not much more to she can add anyways. 

Also this incident shows how shallow Justin really is and or his platform or projected image 

WWWTT

He owes the country more clarity than a statement from his office. It comes with the job. And because it is 2018."

Ya actually if it was “really” 2018 (as implied for added emphasis) than Canada would have a woman PM. And when Justin ran for the liberal leadership, he should have stepped aside and Supported one of the female candidates. 

I guess Justin is one of those male feminists that feels that a man can do more for female equality than any woman

Pondering

An old article by an author who refuses to confirm her own words is not evidence of anything. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean leave off with the stupid ideological slander. WTF does anarchy have to do with this thread?

WWWTT

That’s nice Pondering, I like how you’re slowly mitigating towards discrediting the woman who came forward 18 years ago. 

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

That’s nice Pondering, I like how you’re slowly mitigating towards discrediting the woman who came forward 18 years ago. 

I am absolutely not discrediting her. She  should be believed just like any other woman who steps forward, if she steps forward. She has not stepped forward. Every single other victim has been available for questioning. They didn't just make a generalized declaration and vanish. They described the incidents in detail. They stood behind their  words, even if anonymously. This woman is free to do the same. That she chooses not to does not mean nothing happened. It means there is no active accusation against him. We cannot read her mind. 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean leave off with the stupid ideological slander. WTF does anarchy have to do with this thread?

 

People who make the claim that all rules of evidence and logic should be dispensed with themselves use the label claiming that these are parts of the patriarchy. Here is one example of a person who does.

http://steve-patterson.com/postmodernism-is-anti-mind-literally/

It is not an insult or an attack but a characteristic of the argument.

Pro 17 may not be interested in the argument so much as creating what is a parody of harassment complaints. After all he said that his justification was that this is taught these days and he was using that standard rather than any he was prepared to defend.

His position that an accusation without any detail by a person who is not even prepared to stand by her comments is enough is not defensible. When challenged he proposed to dump all logic as others -- he says -- do.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sean, you are using legal terminology which is part of the oppressive patriarchal system. Laws have been used to oppress women for 5,000 years and you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering that line of defence.

Another problem is that you have mentioned mind as some kind of real thing. There is plenty of medical evidence that there is no such thing as a mind. There is nowhere in a brain where a mind can be located. 

What do we need minds for when we have feelings anyway? Any kind of rationalism would be logical, and therefore patriarchal and very bad these days. You can't say you are going to use rationalism one time and not the other. Or you could lie and do both, which is perfectly OK too.

All that matters is that I have an emotion that Trudeau should go. I do not need logic, proof, or anything else. I do not have to presume him innocent, because we don't have to do that any more. He does not need to face his accuser, because we don't have to do that any more.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:
All that matters is that I have an emotion that Trudeau should go. I do not need logic, proof, or anything else. I do not have to presume him innocent, because we don't have to do that any more. He does not need to face his accuser, because we don't have to do that any more.

You are certainly entitled to feel that way and to hold whatever opinion you care to. That doesn't mean Trudeau has to obey you or that "we" have to agree with you. So far you haven't presented any arguments yourself. We have never had to presume anyone innocent as a matter of opinion. 

If enough people agree with you the story will not go away and Trudeau will be forced to respond. I don't think that is going to happen. 

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

Sean, you are using legal terminology which is part of the oppressive patriarchal system. Laws have been used to oppress women for 5,000 years and you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering that line of defence.

Another problem is that you have mentioned mind as some kind of real thing. There is plenty of medical evidence that there is no such thing as a mind. There is nowhere in a brain where a mind can be located. 

What do we need minds for when we have feelings anyway? Any kind of rationalism would be logical, and therefore patriarchal and very bad these days. You can't say you are going to use rationalism one time and not the other. Or you could lie and do both, which is perfectly OK too.

All that matters is that I have an emotion that Trudeau should go. I do not need logic, proof, or anything else. I do not have to presume him innocent, because we don't have to do that any more. He does not need to face his accuser, because we don't have to do that any more.

The problem with structure is that all structure is part of the system but you have to use some of it to advance against itself becuase if you claim everything as the problem then you have nothing left.

I am not ashamed to use the only structures available since I am not a nihilist. I don't think you can make progress by abandonning all liks to structure and language. I agree that these are compromised and that is important to recognize but you cannot discard and disregard all and expect to have anything left to work with.

NDPP

Our Feminist Preaching PM Has Some Serious Explaining To Do

https://t.co/nGw65caP92

"Before writing my column on these allegations, I checked first with the publisher at The Advance, who confirmed the incident had occurred and that the copy of that long-ago editorial was both accurate and credible...Maybe now someone in the parliamentary press gallery will scrum our prime minister on how he is perhaps not the pot to be calling the kettle black. So far no one has been so moved.

The heat is on..."

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

An old article by an author who refuses to confirm her own words is not evidence of anything. 

Obviously for you it will never be

So let me ask you this, what if the woman in question developed some kind of impairment? Or what would happen if she died? Does that mean Justin now gets a green light as if the crime was never committed?

Keep setting the bar higher and higher for anyone whom has any allegations aimed at the liberal pm.

WWWTT

MegB wrote:

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. 

Are you saying that the woman in question is making false allegations? Do you have proof or evidence or anything to support your position?

This is one of the better threads going on in babble right now actually, comparitivelly more focused on the subject and easy to follow. I understand where you're going with your comment, but really MegB, when did the majority of voters really give a fuck and care about the real issues? Better question would be when will the majority of voters start to smarten up?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

WWWTT wrote:

MegB wrote:

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. 

Are you saying that the woman in question is making false allegations? Do you have proof or evidence or anything to support your position?

This is one of the better threads going on in babble right now actually, comparitivelly more focused on the subject and easy to follow. I understand where you're going with your comment, but really MegB, when did the majority of voters really give a fuck and care about the real issues? Better question would be when will the majority of voters start to smarten up?

Are you saying that aliens from planet X4-T5B eat baby chickens for breakfast along with sliced pigs and hash browns? MegB said X. You responded with "Are you saying Y?", where Y had absolutely no relation to X whatsoever. 

This is fishing for an argument, and the behaviour of someone who deliberately wants to make trouble. 

Then MegB's question is denigrated with a 'do you think anyone cares about real issues?' Well, actually we do. But it is so hard to be heard because people are trying to shut us down, every time we try to break through the silence of bourgeois civility, with flippant and disrespectful comments like 'does anyone care about real issues?'

And believe me, I am not white-knighting MegB. That is the last thing I think she would want anyone to do. But that is up to her to decide. I am objecting to a clear attempt not to ridicule this issue as it so deserves.

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

Pondering wrote:

An old article by an author who refuses to confirm her own words is not evidence of anything. 

Obviously for you it will never be

So let me ask you this, what if the woman in question developed some kind of impairment? Or what would happen if she died? Does that mean Justin now gets a green light as if the crime was never committed?

Keep setting the bar higher and higher for anyone whom has any allegations aimed at the liberal pm.

It isn't setting the bar high to require a complainant willing to confirm her accusation exists. It is the norm. If people die before accusing another person of a crime the accusation dies with them. If they make an accusation on their death bed or in a suicide note it is investigated and if any evidence exists the person is put on trial. In this case the accuser is not dead. She just refuses to stand behind her words which is her right. It does not mean she lied. It does mean the accusation she refuses to stand behind is insufficient to trigger anything beyond investigation. 

Trudeau is being investigated just as any other man is or would be. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing on his part I think it will be dug up. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I can tell this thread is going to go into 1,347 posts.

WWWTT

Are you saying that aliens from planet X4-T5B eat baby chickens for breakfast along with sliced pigs and hash browns? MegB said X. You responded with "Are you saying Y?", where Y had absolutely no relation to X whatsoever. 

This is fishing for an argument, and the behaviour of someone who deliberately wants to make trouble. 

Actually everyone knows there are no chickens , pigs and hash browns on palnet X4-T5B! Beyond that I don't know what the hell you're talking about in this first part of your comment?!?!?! The X and Y makes absolutely no clarification.

As for the next part I pasted, am I really the one who's starting trouble? I'm commenting on a post made by the moderator in regards to this issue the thread is about. That's how debate forums go.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Well, understanding context helps for debate. MegB said, "Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. " This is Lemma X.
You responded with, "Are you saying that the woman in question is making false allegations? Do you have proof or evidence or anything to support your position?". This is Question Y. 
(a) MegB had no position.
(b) You asked a question which had nothing to do with what MegB said.
(c) You asked for proof concerning a statement that MegB did not make.
(d) You put words into MegB's mouth which is a sign of infinite disrespect, slander, and libel.

In debate, the idea is to at least remotely respond to what the previous speaker said. Indeed, MegB was not debating at all, but just making a comment, which you also failed to see.

So I suggest you brush up on reading comprehension and logic, which are very good things to know when you are debating.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

Our Feminist Preaching PM Has Some Serious Explaining To Do

https://t.co/nGw65caP92

"Before writing my column on these allegations, I checked first with the publisher at The Advance, who confirmed the incident had occurred and that the copy of that long-ago editorial was both accurate and credible...Maybe now someone in the parliamentary press gallery will scrum our prime minister on how he is perhaps not the pot to be calling the kettle black. So far no one has been so moved.

The heat is on..."

Mark Bonokowski.

WWWTT

So I suggest you brush up on reading comprehension and logic, which are very good things to know when you are debating.

Here's a comment that may be enough to get a poster banned. Therefore I will now ignore you for a period of time I feel appropriate.

All the best to you progressive 17

Sean in Ottawa

I have already said that there is not enough to the allegation to draw a conclusion that can result in any change. I will leave that on the table for a moment.

My other biases:

I dislike Trudeau.

I think that there are people going after him without cause or proof on some things when he gets away with unbelievable things related to policy and what I see as misrepresentation.

Therefore, my bias is to make Trudeau accountable for something that can stick. I still want fair process becuase I want that for all sides even the ones I am against.

All that said:

Here is my problem with this Trudeau scandal. It is extremely easy to believe becuase Trudeau is an entitled person of privilege. Trudeau at age 28 made himself look that part:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-prime-minister-has-to-...

I am not talking about the superficial things a person has no control over but the way that he chose to look.

When I defend Trudeau here to a right to fair process and I say that there is not enough detail to the allegation it is not becuase I believe Trudeau. In part it is becuase I do not.

I do find security in logic. In part I find it by mirroring the argument I make in one partisan direction with another; in mirroring the standard I want to apply towards what I want or believe with what I would accept against.

Do I trust a 28 year old brat from a rich home who lives literally off of entitlement and what others did? -- hell no.

We know the problem behind the #MeToo movement is male entitlement and privilege. Isn't Trudeau an example of entitlement and privilege?

We also know, as women here have pointed out that just becuase a man talks a line about being progressive, he can be just as bad as all the rest in person. I have met a woman who told me she was assualted by a man claiming to be progressive. We have seen this in a public scandal more recently. So no illusion about any trust to what people say.

Still, we are asking for fairness, process, truth, standards. How do we ask for these if these are not our own standards on the attack?

Also do we want Conservatives who have worse policies that Trudeau on important things to use an attack on him that does not meet these standards in order for them to make life worse?

So yes. He looks bad here. But what we are after is accountability I think. It is not enough to conclude that he must be exactly what he looks like.

We also want to defend the underpinning of believing women. I limited that to an account of facts rather than any interpretation becuase that makes the principle of believing women stronger. This is why I said we must believe her interpretation as sincere about his intentions and that something happened. We also must believe her if she decides to advance specifics. But without specifics we risk stretching the principle of believing women to a point where not enough people can accept it. We know what happened but do we know alwasy what the other person's intentions were? Maybe when you look at what happened we can infer that. This is why we need in this case for what happened to be detailed enough. This is no defence of Trudeau. This is a defence of the requirement to believe women who state specifically what happened.

Please. I do not want anyone to think I am either defending or defaulting to believe Trudeau.

****

I read the thread and realized that perhaps I had not been clear enough where I am coming from.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

WWWTT wrote:

So I suggest you brush up on reading comprehension and logic, which are very good things to know when you are debating.

Here's a comment that may be enough to get a poster banned. Therefore I will now ignore you for a period of time I feel appropriate.

All the best to you progressive 17

You bought it. 

quizzical

is he going to get kicked out of caucus?

be shown for the hypocrite he is?

trying to discredit # metoo?

or just what is the desired outcome here?

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

is he going to get kicked out of caucus?

be shown for the hypocrite he is?

trying to discredit # metoo?

or just what is the desired outcome here?

 

I think the first objective would be to know all the facts.

Even if the facts were what they seem to be, the only option would be political -- his defeat. An obvious problem is it could lead to the election of the Conservatives who would be expected to be worse in many ways.

I suspect that any outcome desired here is unlikely.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean leave off with the stupid ideological slander. WTF does anarchy have to do with this thread?

 

People who make the claim that all rules of evidence and logic should be dispensed with themselves use the label claiming that these are parts of the patriarchy. Here is one example of a person who does.

http://steve-patterson.com/postmodernism-is-anti-mind-literally/

It is not an insult or an attack but a characteristic of the argument.

Pro 17 may not be interested in the argument so much as creating what is a parody of harassment complaints. After all he said that his justification was that this is taught these days and he was using that standard rather than any he was prepared to defend.

His position that an accusation without any detail by a person who is not even prepared to stand by her comments is enough is not defensible. When challenged he proposed to dump all logic as others -- he says -- do.

Steve Patterson is a libertarian not an anarchist. Its like callng Hitler a socialist. Your use of the term was oddly irrelevant to the conversation. So now I know you can't tell a libertarian from an anarchist. It makes sense since you can't seem to tell a liberal from a socialist either.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am always wary of any man who self declares themselves to be a feminist. Trudeau and  Ghomeshi are the ones I've cringed at the most when I heard them talk about themsleves.

Trudeau lies so effortlessly it is hilarious however he needs to upgrade his acting skills from the high school level. Of course I believe he groped a young woman and until he ran for office I'll bet he never called himself a feminist either.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean leave off with the stupid ideological slander. WTF does anarchy have to do with this thread?

 

People who make the claim that all rules of evidence and logic should be dispensed with themselves use the label claiming that these are parts of the patriarchy. Here is one example of a person who does.

http://steve-patterson.com/postmodernism-is-anti-mind-literally/

It is not an insult or an attack but a characteristic of the argument.

Pro 17 may not be interested in the argument so much as creating what is a parody of harassment complaints. After all he said that his justification was that this is taught these days and he was using that standard rather than any he was prepared to defend.

His position that an accusation without any detail by a person who is not even prepared to stand by her comments is enough is not defensible. When challenged he proposed to dump all logic as others -- he says -- do.

Steve Patterson is a libertarian not an anarchist. Its like callng Hitler a socialist. Your use of the term was oddly irrelevant to the conversation. So now I know you can't tell a libertarian from an anarchist. It makes sense since you can't seem to tell a liberal from a socialist either.

Hey why don't you go fight with him:

 

"First of all, as an anarchist, I am sympathetic to the idea of rejecting current political structures. And as an introvert, I also think most social norms arbitrary and absurd. But as a philosopher, I see some catastrophic errors in this worldview."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You have quoted a self delusional person who you don't seem to know much about. He is an anarchist like Trudeau is a feminist or a climate change fighter. But continue on berating people for inacurracies while using poorly researched sources.

NDPP

I notice international media have now discovered the story which is breaking widely.

'I don't remember any negative interactions' - Trudeau says of 18-year-old allegation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-grope-allegation-1.4730674

"...Earlier this year, CBC News spoke by phone and emailed the woman who was the subject of the editorial. She said she was not interested in being associated with any further coverage of the story. She also asked that her name not be used and that she not be contacted about the story again. Valerie Bourne was the publisher of the Creston Valley Advocate at the time and says the reporter was 'distressed' by her contact with Trudeau."

Badriya

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean leave off with the stupid ideological slander. WTF does anarchy have to do with this thread?

 

People who make the claim that all rules of evidence and logic should be dispensed with themselves use the label claiming that these are parts of the patriarchy. Here is one example of a person who does.

http://steve-patterson.com/postmodernism-is-anti-mind-literally/

It is not an insult or an attack but a characteristic of the argument.

Pro 17 may not be interested in the argument so much as creating what is a parody of harassment complaints. After all he said that his justification was that this is taught these days and he was using that standard rather than any he was prepared to defend.

His position that an accusation without any detail by a person who is not even prepared to stand by her comments is enough is not defensible. When challenged he proposed to dump all logic as others -- he says -- do.

Steve Patterson is a libertarian not an anarchist. Its like callng Hitler a socialist. Your use of the term was oddly irrelevant to the conversation. So now I know you can't tell a libertarian from an anarchist. It makes sense since you can't seem to tell a liberal from a socialist either.

Hey why don't you go fight with him:

 

"First of all, as an anarchist, I am sympathetic to the idea of rejecting current political structures. And as an introvert, I also think most social norms arbitrary and absurd. But as a philosopher, I see some catastrophic errors in this worldview."

 

In the link you provided, Patterson provided a link (anarchist) to how he moved from being a conservative to an anarchist. In it he called himself a “market anarchist” and stated he is a follower of the Austrian School of Economics. Isn’t it ironic? In an article criticizing post-modernism he did exactly what he criticized pomos for doing, i.e. letting a word mean anything the user wants it to mean 

WWWTT

I notice international media have now discovered the story which is breaking widely.

If this allegation gets some real traction internationally, then Justin's days may very well be numbered (2019 election)

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

I notice international media have now discovered the story which is breaking widely.

If this allegation gets some real traction internationally, then Justin's days may very well be numbered (2019 election)

I don't think most Canadian voters will care if it gets covered in The Guardian or Slate. The minute CBC has a headline "Trudeau admits groping reporter in 2000", it's gonna be lights-out for his career.

And if that headline never materializes, the story will fizzle out in due course.

Pondering

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/justin-trudeau-canada-...

Valerie Bourne, former publisher of the Advance, said: "My recollections of the conversation were that she came to me because she was unsettled by it. She didn't like what had happened.

"She wasn't sure how she should proceed with it because of course we're talking somebody who was known to the Canadian community. I would not classify it or qualify it as sexual assault."

The reporter who accused Mr Trudeau of groping her told CBC she was not interested in speaking about the allegation and asked not to be identified.

Groping is sexual assault. The publisher who knows the details says it was not sexual assault. 

This story has no legs unless the reporter is willing to confirm her story or if another woman comes forward with an accusation. 

voice of the damned

Groping is sexual assault. The publisher who knows the details says it was not sexual assault. 

However, the publisher allowed an editorial to appear on the front page of the newspaper in which the actions were described as "groping". Whatever definitions the rest of us are using, she seems to regard groping and sexual assault as not always synonymous.

MegB

voice of the damned wrote:

Groping is sexual assault. The publisher who knows the details says it was not sexual assault. 

However, the publisher allowed an editorial to appear on the front page of the newspaper in which the actions were described as "groping". Whatever definitions the rest of us are using, she seems to regard groping and sexual assault as not always synonymous.

Yes, that would be her particular view and interpretation. 25 years ago I was "groped" by a male x-ray technician who was supposed to be x-raying my injured shoulder. It was most definitely a sexual assault. Of a degree. A man, uninvited putting his hand on a woman's ass is a grope, but is it sexual assault? I don't think so. But again, we simply don't know what kind of "grope" this was because the woman who raised the issue will not speak on the matter, as is her choice and is to be respected. I was not "unsettled" by what happened to me - it was traumatic. Perhaps that is where some of the difference lies. Or perhaps it is the part of the body that is groped that determines whether it was a "grope" or a sexual assault.

The legality and availability of reproductive choice for women set them on a trajectory of discovery of the autonomous and sovereign nature of their bodies where, previously, their bodies were controlled by both the State and by individuals who feared the loss of their privilege extending to women's bodies. What this means is that over a period of time women have had to learn to understand that no other individual or group has the right to their bodies without clear consent. Many of us are still trying to figure out what body sovereignty means - there is no pre-existing lexicon that I know of for language that describes entirely what this means to us. Thus "groping" and "sexual assault" can be both the same and two different things according to the individual experiencing them.

NDPP

Commentary: The Facts About What Justin Trudeau Can't Remember

https://globalnews.ca/news/4309277/justin-trudeau-reporter-grope/

"...One more fact. Justin Trudeau remembers none of this happening...Well, then. The good news is that the prime minister's words are far more definitive than those of his office, who for weeks said only the prime minister 'doesn't think' he had any 'negative interactions' in Creston. Now we finally have Trudeau's best recollection: it was a 'good day,' with no recollections 'at all' of 'groping'.

In other words, sorry Advance reporter, editor, and publisher, the prime minister says you have your facts wrong. Indeed, our feminist prime minister says you're lying, whether inadvertently or explicitly.

To dismiss the so-called 'Kokanee Grope' you must:  *  Dismiss the paper and its reporting (ie believe its fake news). * Ignore the apology attributed to Justin Trudeau (more fake news). *Ignore the contemporaneous accounts from the editor and publisher (which are detailed, sourced by multiple outlets, and on the record). *Or simply believe that whatever happened wasn't all that serious, and that Trudeau gets to be judge, jury and pardoner when he hasn't afforded that luxury to others in his party facing similar questions about their conduct.

Absent a third-party investigation, who are we meant to believe? The words of a reporter, editor and publisher with nothing to gain, or those of a prime minister with potentially everything to lose?

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

Commentary: The Facts About What Justin Trudeau Can't Remember

https://globalnews.ca/news/4309277/justin-trudeau-reporter-grope/

"...One more fact. Justin Trudeau remembers none of this happening...Well, then. The good news is that the prime minister's words are far more definitive than those of his office, who for weeks said only the prime minister 'doesn't think' he had any 'negative interactions' in Creston. Now we finally have Trudeau's best recollection: it was a 'good day,' with no recollections 'at all' of 'groping'.

In other words, sorry Advance reporter, editor, and publisher, the prime minister says you have your facts wrong. Indeed, our feminist prime minister says you're lying, whether inadvertently or explicitly.

To dismiss the so-called 'Kokanee Grope' you must:  *  Dismiss the paper and its reporting (ie believe its fake news). * Ignore the apology attributed to Justin Trudeau (more fake news). *Ignore the contemporaneous accounts from the editor and publisher (which are detailed, sourced by multiple outlets, and on the record). *Or simply believe that whatever happened wasn't all that serious, and that Trudeau gets to be judge, jury and pardoner when he hasn't afforded that luxury to others in his party facing similar questions about their conduct.

Absent a third-party investigation, who are we meant to believe? The words of a reporter, editor and publisher with nothing to gain, or those of a prime minister with potentially everything to lose?

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based consultant, columnist and commentator. He was director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

NDPP

Yes, not only did I notice that but suspected that you would be johnny on the spot to point it out. Which means we shouldn't pay any attention to the facts contained therein right? And by the way, I can't help but notice you never point out similar biographical details on stuff you right-wingers like by writers in WaPo  NYT or Louise Mensch?

pietro_bcc

Based on his lawyer drafted response, its so painfully obvious that he's guilty.

"I remember that day in Creston well, it was an Avalanche Foundation event to support avalanche safety. I had a good day that day. I don't remember any negative interactions that day at all,"

That's lawyer for "I won't admit what I did, but I also won't explicitely deny it because I don't want to be sued for defamation if there's a video or picture of this event somewhere."

I doubt anything will come of it in anycase.

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

Yes, not only did I notice that but suspected that you would be johnny on the spot to point it out. Which means we shouldn't pay any attention to the facts contained therein right? And by the way, I can't help but notice you never point out similar biographical details on stuff you right-wingers like by writers in WaPo  NYT or Louise Mensch?

No we should pay attention to the facts. 

  • 2 decades ago a reporter made a generalized groping allegation against Trudeau. 
  • At that time the reporter claimed that was what Trudeau was apologizing for when he said he would not have been as forward had he known she was a reporter. 
  • The same reporter now refuses to even confirm her interpretation of events hasn't changed which is her right. 
  • The former publisher does know the details but is also only sharing her interpretation that the event did not classify as sexual assault but that the reporter was unsettled. 
  • As Bourne recalled it, the reporter told her the alleged incident between her andTrudeau was brief, lasting no longer than the blink of an eye.
  • Since the article was  printed two decades ago, and republished by Frank, and raised again more recently around June 7th, there have been no additional accusations of inappropriate behavior on the part of Trudeau. 
  • This is true even though Trudeau is high profile and investigative reporters are searching for any indication however small that he has behaved dishonorably.

Those are the facts. 

WWWTT

voice of the damned wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

I notice international media have now discovered the story which is breaking widely.

If this allegation gets some real traction internationally, then Justin's days may very well be numbered (2019 election)

I don't think most Canadian voters will care if it gets covered in The Guardian or Slate. The minute CBC has a headline "Trudeau admits groping reporter in 2000", it's gonna be lights-out for his career.

And if that headline never materializes, the story will fizzle out in due course.

Well this thread is pushing 1 month now and is gaining steam, far cry from a fizzle.

You may be right and none of us has a crystal ball to see the future, we're somewhat engaging in speculation here, however this story is gaining momentum, people are talking. Discussing credibility motives definitions etc etc.

In order for this to go away, people have to stop talking, the reverse is happening at the moment.

pookie

Part of the problem is the meme "I believe survivors".  

Which is, frankly, a ridiculous threshold.

A person should be able to deny any allegation made against them without becoming immediately suspect.

Pondering

pookie wrote:

Part of the problem is the meme "I believe survivors".  

Which is, frankly, a ridiculous threshold.

A person should be able to deny any allegation made against them without becoming immediately suspect.

They can and do. The problem is when they start accusing whomever stepped up. In many instances there is room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. 

cco

It's interesting that the word "survivor" has been essentially unheard when it comes to this particular accusation. CBC's settled on "complainant".

Sean in Ottawa

I feel that this conversation is circling back around to what I was trying to say earlier:

The word grope has a dictionary meaning of sexual assualt -- it is touching for a sexual purpose. The problem here is that purpose can only be inferred by the specific behaviour or by admission. Without this detail it remains a conclusion -- even if it is probable.

Without knowledge of the specifics there remains a chance it was careless or accidental -- that while she was touched that it was not what she thought it was. It is very, very, very hard to believe that she would get this wrong. That is the tiny sliver Trudeau's presumption of innocence rests on. It is unfair to not acknowledge this chance without the detail being shared but it is hard to imagine Trudeau not being guilty. The quote of Trudeau is damning as well since it was not "oh I am sorry I did not mean to" but rather "if I knew who you were I would not have done that."

The fact that assualt of women is so normalized as to be commonplace is the other thing that is behind this.

The other issue here is Trudeau's quoted comment. Forget what we do not know for a moment: here he is sayinf that there was something he found acceptable to do towards a woman without press credentials that he woudl not do to one with. Think about that for a moment. That alone should give you pause.

Trudeau's response does not sound authentic: if he said what he is quoted to say it is not very easy to believe that he would not remember.

Pondering

Trudeau is known for his dry sense of humour. Even during the leadership campaign it was mentioned. Later on remember his "CF 18s comment" and something about Russia and a hockey game?

He may well have said  it was accidental and when she persisted apologized for being so forward and made a crack about her being a reporter. Obviously he didn't think something serious had happened or he wouldn't have said that for fear she would write about it. 

The publisher said she would not quantify it or classify it as sexual assault. 

She didn't pass the editorial to anyone for approval before publishing. She pretended that she was objective and writing about someone else while representing the editorial staff of the paper. That was deceptive. 

 The reporter refuses to confirm or deny her original interpretation of what happened. I've never heard of that before. She did come forward a long time ago so it's fair that her feelings about coming forward changed. 

As to whether or not he should remember, if it was a minor incident to him it's quite possible he doesn't remember it or doesn't remember it well. 

The investigation is ongoing so maybe we should wait and see if there is any evidence of Trudeau groping other women. In my experience it is a habitual behavior not a one off at the age of 28. It's possible but it's unlikely. It is much more likely that the touch was accidental, she reasonably misinterpreted, and he was inappropriately light-hearted in his response. 

If it was a one off he seems to have learned his lesson which is exactly what women want. We are not vengeful. We aren't out to make men pay for getting inappropriately fresh. If they actually respond to a complaint by reforming their behavior and never doing it again I for one would be delighted with that outcome. No punishment required. 

Critics have tried to make the Metoo movement about condemning men on flimsy evidence but that isn't what has been happening. 

Patrick Brown was not accused of less. There were 2 accusers and they were willing to stand behind their accounts. With Weir there were 4 accusers all willing to speak to an investigator.

Right now there is only one former accuser who isn't willing to stand behind her words. That cannot be  stressed enough.

 

pookie

cco wrote:
It's interesting that the word "survivor" has been essentially unheard when it comes to this particular accusation. CBC's settled on "complainant".

I think "survivor" is simply too stark for what's been reported.  

Pages