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

Do you think the MPs will sure Trudeau for defamation?

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Do you think the MPs will sure Trudeau for defamation?

 

How did he defame them?

Rokossovsky wrote:

Do you think the MPs will sure Trudeau for defamation?

If they were innocent, but in my opinion if they were innocent they would already be squawking loudly. They were suspended November 5th and there hasn't been so much as a peep demanding quick action or to know the specific allegations against them so they could defend themselves.

The future does not depend on whether or not their guilt has been proven through any kind of official process; it depends on whether or not they are actually guilty.

If they were being officially charged with something they would be forced to defend themselves guilty or innocent. Because they were just suspended, and no specific allegations have been made public, they can let it drop. Would you agree that if they are guilty they are better off dropping it?

For the sake of argument, assume the men are guilty. What should they do at this point?

On the House two Saturdays ago, Evan S interviewed both Turmel and Leslie about this subject.

Both were very guarded about what they would say, given the wishes of the two MPs allegedly harasses.

But one of them (not sure which) said something in the nature of a hypothetical. What if we could have worked out something privately with the Liberals like their MPs being assigned to different committees so that contact with the complainants could be minimized?

Ihave not seen any media outlet pick up on this but it sounded to me like it might well be true. The NDP MPs would have been content with some arrangement like this, agreed in private. If this is so then Trudeau has grossly overreacted.

 

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Do you think the MPs will sure Trudeau for defamation?

If they were innocent, but in my opinion if they were innocent they would already be squawking loudly. They were suspended November 5th and there hasn't been so much as a peep demanding quick action or to know the specific allegations against them so they could defend themselves.

The future does not depend on whether or not their guilt has been proven through any kind of official process; it depends on whether or not they are actually guilty.

If they were being officially charged with something they would be forced to defend themselves guilty or innocent. Because they were just suspended, and no specific allegations have been made public, they can let it drop. Would you agree that if they are guilty they are better off dropping it?

For the sake of argument, assume the men are guilty. What should they do at this point?

I am not sure whether or not this argument pertains to defamation, based on an alleged unproven allegation with no investigation. People sue over all kinds of things on civil matters and the issues are far more broad than simply criminal guilt or innocence.

Clearly Trudeau's actions have had consequences that greatly impact their careers, their relationship with their families, and more. They have both issued press releases stating that they are innocent, and no one other than Trudeau has come forward to publicly allege that they may have engaged in misconduct.

He probably has an out, since he didn't actually say they did the misconduct, but suggested that they would be barred pending an investigation.

Without said investigation, then it would seem he is obliged to let them back into his caucus, otherwise he has let them go for a bad reason.

I guess we will see. The Liberal party has deep pockets and many connections, there may be other ways to satisfy them.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pending an investigation, which looks unlikely to happen. Therefore they should be returned to their posts, as there is no evidence against them, no?

No. Trudeau doesn't require any evidence. He is the leader of the party. He has absolute power to suspend or expel them with or without cause. Trudeau is answerable to the party membership, he can be removed as leader, and he is answerable to voters, they can decline to support him.

Rokossovsky wrote:

If not, then Trudeau is confirming through ommission that he believes the allegations are true, even though he has no evidence to back that up.

Correct, that is what it means to give the benefit of the doubt to the women. He believes their accounts of what happened just like the public is believing the women who spoke out against Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby both of whom have cancelled all appearances.

If Trudeau is wrong, and the NDP MPs are lying the men are free to file a formal complaint with the party over their suspension if they choose to, or to accuse him of slander.

November 5th to November 18th, 13 days and counting.

terrytowel wrote:

Helena Guergis is a perfect example. Some PI came forward and told this fantasy story about her and she found herself booted from the party.

She was cleared of all wrong doing, but she wasn't allowed back in.

All the allegations were about her personal life, and nothing about her MP work.

Yeah. That is what I was thinking about. You would have been able to pay her off, but maybe she was too much of a risk.

Sounds like that's it for these 2 ex-Liberal MPs.

Political fate likely sealed for accused Liberal MPs: Hébert

Suspended Liberal MPs Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews haven’t

Almost two weeks after being suspended from the Liberal caucus over alleged misconduct against two female NDP colleagues, MPs Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews have essentially fallen off the face of the parliamentary earth.

With their careers and their reputations on the line, neither Pacetti nor Andrews has yet added a single public line to his initial denial of wrongdoing.

As of Monday afternoon, their last Facebook posts preceded their suspensions and none of their Liberal colleagues had come forward to speak in either man’s defence.

Their Montreal and Newfoundland-and-Labrador riding associations are equally mum. Since both have also been suspended as candidates in next year’s election, local Liberals will presumably have to head back to the nomination drawing board at some point.

Meanwhile the two MPs’ parliamentary profiles have been scrubbed of references to their recent Liberal affiliation

A thick cloud of uncertainty as to the way forward surrounds the extraordinary cone of silence within which Pacetti and Andrews have found refuge.

What is clearest is that all roads, in this instance, are likely to lead to a dead end for the two suspended MPs.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/17/political_fate_likely_seal...

Rokossovsky wrote:

That is fine, but that doesn't mean that Christine Innes, isn't suing because Trudeau took action based on what she calls unsubstantiated claims that defamed her and her husband, even though Trudeau as the leader, and the party as a whole have a right to determine who does and who does not run for a nomination, for no reason at all. But there was an announced "reason" for taking this action, and that is the basis of the Innes suit.

Ex-MP Tony Ianno joins wife's libel suit against Trudeau Liberals

She has nothing to lose because the Liberals stated why she was blocked. Let me know when she wins.

No details were released on the men so as long as the women are willing to keep quiet it is to to the men's benefit to say nothing. The men learned from Jian Ghomeshi's attempt to get ahead of the story.

Nothing has changed. Trudeau handled the part that is under his control. He suspended the MPs from the Liberal caucus. They haven't been fired, they are still sitting MPs so the rest is up to parliament not the Liberal party. 

Trudeau asked for a process. None has been produced as of yet. There has been no independent investigation.

From NRs link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/17/political_fate_likely_seal...

Quote:

But even if all parties agreed on a venue to air the issue, the exercise would still come down to taking the word of an MP over that of another.

In that same predicament, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau chose the allegations of the NDP complainants over the denials of his own MPs. So far, few have publicly second-guessed his call.

Quote:

 

But at the end of the day, it will still come down to a credibility contest that few among those who are harassed or abused by workplace tormentors usually have the stomach for.

When all is said and done the grim political fate that Pacetti and Andrews have incurred for their alleged sins will go a longer way to deter future parliamentary offenders than any after-the-fact remedy.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Just saying "we believe you" to women isn't enough.

In this case Trudeau and his team judged the credibility of the female MPs high enough to warrant suspension which became his responsibility to do.

The longer the men stay silent the more people will agree that the suspensions were the right thing to do.

Rokossovsky wrote:

We will see what they do. I didn't suggest that they have a strong case. I didn't suggest that they were not guilty. I just pointed out that the lack of a formal third party investigation leaves the issue up in the air, and as such probably gives them breathing room for a suit against the party, and Justin Trudeau.

These things are not unheard of, and my takeaway from the Hebert article is that they don't have much to lose.

You are a logical person. You must know that the Liberal team that worked this out ran through all the possible scenarios. The women warned the Liberals they were not willing to make a formal complaint nor to make their allegations public.  Trudeau knew that before he suspended the men.

Work it out yourself. There are a limited number of options. Either they are guilty or not. We may not know for sure but they do.

The men have nothing to lose if they are innocent, but if they are guilty they have a lot to lose.

You said this:

Rokossovsky wrote:

As Nikita Kurscheov said of Lazar Kagonovich when he worked under him in the Ukraine during the famine: "When Lazar chopped wood, chips flew."

But the men aren't being executed. They aren't even going to jail. They didn't even lose their jobs. They are still MPs. They have every opportunity to defend themselves.

Trudeau called their bluff, he put his cards on the table.

My bet is the men do not want an investigation and Trudeau bet they wouldn't push it.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2014/11/17/campbell-proctor-call-on-t...

Quote:

“It’s hard for me, as a male, to perhaps suggest this, but maybe in this day and age, when someone is feeling harassed, that perhaps they need to be more upfront about it and talk about it, especially for people who have been elected,” said former two-term NDP MP Dick Proctor, who also served as chief of staff to former NDP leader Jack Layton, in an interview with The Hill Times. 

Vancouver Liberal Senator Larry Campbell also said the NDP MPs should come forward: “I feel bad that they weren’t identified. I think everybody should be identified. Why should they [Liberal MPs] get smeared and [the NDP MPs are not even identified]? To me, it’s just totally unfair,” Sen. Campbell, a former RCMP officer, chief coroner and mayor of Vancouver told The Hill Times last week.

No, what's unfair is that men have gotten away with this crap for years just because women couldn't meet a legal burden of proof even when everyone knew they were telling the truth. That's what the backchannel is all about. Instead of shunning abusive men everyone watches out for them. I read an article by a man who said everyone kept an eye on a guy in their group because everyone knew what he was like. Well then why didn't they shun him?

Harrassment on the Hill is an open secret. Those days are not over yet but the tide is turning.

terrytowel wrote:

Two female NDP MPs who allege improper conduct by a duo of male Liberal MPs will not be formally laying a complaint to launch an investigation, says a senior New Democrat.

Nycole Turmel says “They were clear they did not want to put a complaint in. They were meeting with her (Liberal Whip Judy Foote) to give her the situation and that’s it. They said, ‘It’s up to you. We are not putting a complaint in.’”

She said the women needed time to “find a way to heal” from the alleged misconduct.

“That’s what they are facing now. And that’s why they don’t want this to go on. They just want to go on with their lives.”

“None of the women were aware that it [would] come out. They were expecting a bit of respect. And a bit of respect meant that they should have known or they should have been informed what was the next step.”

S

Turmel declined to comment on what Trudeau should now do – given that the NDP MPs will not “come forward” with their allegations.

“Mr. Trudeau has to deal with his two MPs,” she said. “It’s up to him. I won’t touch that part.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/18/mps-who-made-harassment-allegati...

 

 

So, we're now in the post-due-process era where allegations are made and elaborated on ad infinitum through social media. Characters and careers are destroyed overnight with no hope of redress - and, we seem OK with that. I don't know, and neither do you, whether any or all are guilty. And if they are guilty, what are they guilty of? They might be nasty people, but we will never know.

One of the reasons its hard to have discussions with you on this topic is that your "facts" are so speculative. For example, the idea that Mulcair outed the fact that the MPs were from the NDP. This information was released to the press but no one knows by who.

Turmel believes it was the Liberals. For all we know, someone asked Stephen Harper and he said it wasn't anyone from his party and someone in the press deduced, naturally, that the alleged victims were from the NDP.

It's hard to have a fact based discussion based on conjecture.

For example that Mulcair made no attempt to contact the Liberals after October 29th. Of course not. Nycole Turmel the whip was the contact person for Foote on the issue, and the alleged victims met with Turmel and Foote on the 30th, each seperately.

At that point, having provided the evidence, the Liberals then proceeded with their own investigation. What more was there to talk about? The Liberals then met with their two MPs, then decided on a course of action, which was basically to shut down backroom communication and announce the suspension to the press.

Mulcair was under no obligation to contact Trudeau without the express permission of the complainant regarding whatever he knew prior to the point that the Liberals made it an intraparty issue by contacting the NDP on the 29th. Prior to that it was entirely a personal matter betwee the alleged victims and the accused. It only became a "party" matter when Foote intervened to make it so.

Rokossovsky wrote:

One of the reasons its hard to have discussions with you on this topic is that your "facts" are so speculative. For example, the idea that Mulcair outed the fact that the MPs were from the NDP. This information was released to the press but no one knows by who.

Turmel believes it was the Liberals. For all we know, someone asked Stephen Harper and he said it wasn't anyone from his party and someone in the press deduced, naturally, that the alleged victims were from the NDP.

The press did deduce it and faked out Mulcair who confirmed it. There was a twitter exchange posted here by someone but I didn't bother saving it.

Quote:

http://www.surreyleader.com/national/281806861.html

Mulcair confirmed Thursday that it was complaints from two NDP MPs that prompted Trudeau to suspend Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti from the Liberal caucus pending an investigation.

Speaking in Whitby, Ont., Mulcair said he knew about the complaints but had not pursued them because the women wanted to keep the matter confidential.

Turmel's comments have been particularly disgusting.

Quote:

“I am sure that people inside their own party, they know when a person is not conducting themselves properly, but they won’t say anything.” – Nycole Turmel, NDP whip.

I suppose that is to absolve the NDP from not having said anything to the Liberals. Apparently Turmel believes in the backchannel method like the CBC.

Rokossovsky wrote:

For example that Mulcair made no attempt to contact the Liberals after October 29th. Of course not. Nycole Turmel the whip was the contact person for Foote on the issue, and the alleged victims met with Turmel and Foote on the 30th, each seperately.

At that point, having provided the evidence, the Liberals then proceeded with their own investigation. What more was there to talk about?

Exactly. So what is the NDP complaining about? If they had suggestions to make they had a week to do it. You are putting 100% of the responsibility to work together on the Liberals when the NDP knew about this far longer. Mulcair should have picked up a telephone and called Trudeau on the 30th.

Rokossovsky wrote:

The Liberals then met with their two MPs, then decided on a course of action, which was basically to shut down backroom communication and announce the suspension to the press.

What backroom communication? It was one way. The Liberals were the only ones doing any communicating on this topic even though they had only known about it for a week.

Why do you think the Liberals need the permission of the NDP to suspend Liberal MPs? Suspending the MPs didn't shut anything down. The Liberals didn't start refusing calls from the NDP.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Mulcair was under no obligation to contact Trudeau without the express permission of the complainant regarding whatever he knew prior to the point that the Liberals made it an intraparty issue by contacting the NDP on the 29th. Prior to that it was entirely a personal matter betwee the alleged victims and the accused. It only became a "party" matter when Foote intervened to make it so.

Mulcair knew that his MPs had been abused by Liberal MPs. He could have given Trudeau a heads up with out mentioning the women's names or any specifics. But fine, he didn't. Given that he didn't contact Trudeau at any time I think it's ridiculous to expect the Liberals to involve the NDP in their decision making process. The NDP were free to reach out and ask for a meeting. The NDP was happy to leave the whole mess in Trudeau's hands so he took appropriate action. That's what leaders do.

Red Andy wrote:

  So, we're now in the post-due-process era where allegations are made and elaborated on ad infinitum through social media. Characters and careers are destroyed overnight with no hope of redress - and, we seem OK with that. I don't know, and neither do you, whether any or all are guilty. And if they are guilty, what are they guilty of? They might be nasty people, but we will never know.

Not at all. Nothing about due process has changed. The men have redress to the courts if they choose to use them. The men have access to social media.

Andy, the men have gone to ground as surely as Jian Ghomeski and now Bill Cosby. If these men are innocent they are free to sue Trudeau.

This is a word against word victimization crime that happens in private and rarely leaves evidence. It doesn't lend itself to courtroom solutions. CSI has gotten people hooked on absolute scientific proof of guilt but that is not the only means of identifying the truth. Men by far get the benefit of the doubt when scientific proof is lacking. More recently common sense has begun to prevail. The credibility of the women concerned and their accusations is being taken into account. Don't forget that Trudeau knows these men. They have been MPs for 12 years and 6 years.

Quote:

During a third meeting between Liberal and NDP whips on Oct. 30, Scott — who had accompanied one of the complainants to the meeting — explicitly said that based on what he'd been told about one of the allegations, it "constituted a criminal act, namely sexual assault," said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Quote:

Scott could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Nycole Turmel, the NDP whip, said Tuesday she doesn't recall whether or not he referred to a criminal act.

That would seem to be a pretty big point at the meeting on this.

Quote:

But he also noted that "the most successful resolution of any harassment complaint relies on the willingness of all involved parties to come together to address the issues."

That doesn't work out too well for women. It's time to stop humouring men who harass women. Women don't need mediation they need men to be told to keep their hands to themselves.

Quote:

In the absence of a formal complaint, the NDP's justice critic, Francoise Boivin, said Trudeau should have delivered a verbal warning to Pacetti and Andrews and left it at that.

Quote:

Turmel told CBC Radio that the women didn't lodge formal complaints because they didn't want to hurt the careers of the two Liberal MPs.

Quote:

"They want to go on with their lives," Turmel said, adding that one of the NDP MPs is in therapy.

So maybe Turmel should stop giving out personal information about the women.

I'm very offended at the way Turmel and the NDP have managed this. They just keep digging themselves in deeper in their zeal to make the Liberals look bad.

This is right up there with marijuana legalization as a huge red warning sign that the party has lost all sense of identity. This party does not reflect it's members, or at least I hope it doesn't.

Yes, except all allegations concerning alleged "sexual assault" are entirely hearsay. What we do know is that Trudeau has called it a misconduct. We do not know what evidence was provided to the Liberal whip on the 30th of October, and if it contained an allegation like that, other than the conjectural statements of persons familliar with the case.

The words and phrases; "could be", "second-hand assessment", unamed "sources" are write large over this latest discussion piece on the issue:

Quote:

"...said to the Liberals that what he was told happened to one of his female colleagues could be defined as an alleged sexual assault, multiple sources have told The Canadian Press.

It was Scott's second-hand assessment of the alleged conduct that prompted Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's decision to suspend two members of his caucus, said the sources, who were not authorized to release details."

Let's not downplay the seriousness of this allegation specifically, but I have wondered for a while now, why, if one of the complaints was a more serious issue that "could" be construed as "sexual assault", and the other not, why were both Liberal MPs cases exposed to the public on the same docket, potentiall outing both women to the media, when one case was of a less serious nature?

Could the less serious case not be handled behind closed doors, at least?

Looks like we are never going to know the full truth, since Trudeau's actions have effectively shut the witnesses up, and the facts will never be aired, no formal complaint laid, no investigation held and two men will forever have the pall of unspecified and very speculative allegations hanging over their heads.

terrytowel wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Could the less serious case not be handled behind closed doors, at least?

If Trudeau did that, then the NDP would have said his 'closed door' actions would be covering it up and protecting his MPs.

You are saying that Trudeau threw one of his MPs under the bus for the sake of political expedience, because he was afraid of a political trap?

What is important is the appropriate handling of the case from a moral and legal standpoint, not the particular political paranoia of either of the parties. Trudeau's argument for suspending the the MPs was that it was the right thing to do. Doing the wrong thing for the case of political expedience, undermines Trudeau's remarks at the press conference.

If it was a simple case of off-colour remarks, and inappropriate behaviour he would not have been "covering up" much, would he, especially if he suspended one, but not the other.

terrytowel wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Trudeau's argument for suspending the the MPs was that it was the right thing to do. 

Which I'm saying is the right thing to do for many reasons. One of which is that he would have been accused of covering up and protecting his MPs if he didn't. Just giving a 'verbal' warning is not enought.

You are saying that Trudeau's statement at the press conference was coloured by purely political considerations, and that in fact, it is Trudeau who "politicized" the handling of the issue right from the start, even if the majority of his motives were correct. That "political" colouring still persists, and has consequences.

Remember, the issue here is the proper handling of the cases. These are two distinct cases. In one case there are rumours about a possible "sexual assault". In the other, apparently a far less substantive charge. Because Trudeau exposed both as alleged "misconduct" on the same docket, both are now smeared with the same accussation, since we will never know which one of the two is alleged to have carried out the "sexual assault".

This is far from the "right thing to do".

Rokossovsky wrote:

Looks like we are never going to know the full truth, since Trudeau's actions have effectively shut the witnesses up, and the facts will never be aired, no formal complaint laid, no investigation held....

False premise 1. What has Trudeau done to silence the witnesses? They have been silent for a year in one case and months in another.

Quote:

Mulcair clarified that he knew only partial information about one of the complaints before the matter burst into the open two weeks ago. Other members of his team were aware of other details.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/18/secretive-commons-board-meet...

It seems to me there was a whole lot of silence going on long before the Liberals took over and did something. I'm not surprised the two women didn't trust the NDP given how the NDP has betrayed their trust in releasing so many personal details about their emotions and about the case.

Rokossovsky wrote:

... and two men will forever have the pall of unspecified and very speculative allegations hanging over their heads.

The two men are free to object and demand an investigation or sue Trudeau. People can speculate all they like. The allegations are for personal misconduct.

You say that you are not saying the men are innocent, but you are saying they should have the benefit of the doubt.

Withholding judgement is still not believing the women, not accepting their word. Word is all that will ever exist in these cases. Women can't prove what happened. That is why men get away with it all the time.

How about what women are subjected to if they step up. How about the damage to their reputations. Not in all cases, but in this particular case I have no trouble giving the NDP women the benefit of the doubt. I believe them. Let the men be the ones on the defensive for a change.

I agree Pondering. What we know is that the allegations are of personal misconduct. That is my point. But some here are empahsizing "sourced" rumours of an alleged "sexual assault". I am perfectly willing to believe that, but it is a rumour.

Two women. Two individual cases.

Some here are arguing that the position argued by Francoise Boivin, that "Trudeau should have delivered a verbal warning to Pacetti and Andrews and left it at that," is not good enough in the case of "sexual assault", and that this justifies Trudeau's actions. A much stronger case for that, than if it is just an ordinary misconduct, which is what Boivin is talking about.

Two women. Two individual cases. Two Liberal MPs. Two individual cases.

If one case is that of an ordinary misconduct, and the other a more serious charge, does it make sense that both are handled in the same manner?

The fact that both men are now tarred with the same brush of "sexual assault", highlights the multiple problems of Trudeau's approach.

I suspect he is going to argue for re-admission to the party.

Right. Bovin made no distinction about the two cases. He made his point. I am making mine.

You can't have it both ways, is my point. If you are arguing that "sexual assault", clearly merits an immediate suspension, and I find it hard to argue not, then that still leaves the second case to be one that could have been handled through back channels, through a verbal reprimand.

As it stands, both men are tarred with the same brush, if we accept the annonymous rumours about sexual assault as fact.

Clearly, if the two cases are distinct in a substantive way, efforts should have at least been made to distinguish between them.