But, in fact Trudeau made no distinction at all, and certainly did not suggest that anything like either case entailed sexual assault, labelling both as cases of misconduct.
Now, if we accept Trudeau at face value (and Bovin it is very likely that Bovin knows next to nothing "official" about the allegations, since he attended none of these meetings as far as I know) other than the fact that they were deemed to be "misconduct" by Trudeau, then Bovin's view holds water.
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.
That the second case was not necessarily criminal in nature does not mean it didn't warrant immediate suspension.
Legal or otherwise harassing women disqualifies someone from being a Liberal party representative because it illustrates poor character and poor judgement.
Scott Andrews says he intends to run. It remains to be seen if anyone will be willing to fund him.
Whether or not Trudeau handled this correctly from a political perspective will be determined by how it plays out. If the men are innocent then I think he is in deep shit. If they are guilty then I don't think he has a thing to worry about.
I believe the women therefore I don't think he has a thing to worry about.
But, in fact Trudeau made no distinction at all, and certainly did not suggest that anything like either case entailed sexual assault, labelling both as cases of misconduct.
Now, if we accept Trudeau at face value (and Bovin it is very likely that Bovin knows next to nothing "official" about the allegations, since he attended none of these meetings as far as I know) other than the fact that they were deemed to be "misconduct" by Trudeau, then Bovin's view holds water.
Then let's revisit Bovin's view:
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."It seems to me that any lawyer would have advised a person that if there is no complaint, there's not much you can do," said Boivin, who is herself a lawyer.
It is your and Bovin's position that unless victims are willing to make a "formal" complaint that a verbal warning is all that can or should be done.
Trudeau found another solution. He suspended the men for personal misconduct.
All this dancing around "formal" or "official" complaints is a means of shirking responsibility for taking steps that don't require any legal action.
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.That the second case was not necessarily criminal in nature does not mean it didn't warrant immediate suspension.
The argument is being made that Bovin's point is invalid because the accussations include "sexual assault". But this is not true in both individual cases. Therefore, Bovin's point remains, in at least one case.
And we see this mistep has real consequences; because Trudeau did not distinguish between the two "misconducts" one of the former Liberal MP is being tarred with the same brush, because both were disciplined publicly in the same manner.
This is a clear consequence of Trudeau failure to distinguish between the two cases. Moreover, if we accept the fact that one is actually a case of "sexual assault", then why is Trudeau calling it "misconduct" at all, and not "gross misconduct" or something like that?
But, in fact Trudeau made no distinction at all, and certainly did not suggest that anything like either case entailed sexual assault, labelling both as cases of misconduct.
Now, if we accept Trudeau at face value (and Bovin it is very likely that Bovin knows next to nothing "official" about the allegations, since he attended none of these meetings as far as I know) other than the fact that they were deemed to be "misconduct" by Trudeau, then Bovin's view holds water.
Then let's revisit Bovin's view:
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."It seems to me that any lawyer would have advised a person that if there is no complaint, there's not much you can do," said Boivin, who is herself a lawyer.
It is your and Bovin's position that unless victims are willing to make a "formal" complaint that a verbal warning is all that can or should be done.
Trudeau found another solution. He suspended the men for personal misconduct.
All this dancing around "formal" or "official" complaints is a means of shirking responsibility for taking steps that don't require any legal action.
On the evidence, aside from rumour this is the case, and I tend to agree with Bovin. Trudeau called it misconduct.
This "formal" and "official" stuff is called "due process" and it protects both the alleged victims and the accused.
The argument is being made that Bovin's point is invalid because the accussations include "sexual assault". But this is not true in both individual cases. Therefore, Bovin's point remains, in at least one case.
That is was Bovin's point is inappropriate not just invalid. It is invalid because suspension does not require proof of illegality or formal complaints. Bovin is mistaking the remedies available to a party leader with the requirements of courtroom justice.
And we see this mistep has real consequences; because Trudeau did not distinguish between the two "misconducts" one of the former Liberal MP is being tarred with the same brush, because both were disciplined publicly in the same manner.
There has been no misstep. Trudeau has said nothing at all about why either was suspended other than personal misconduct. Concerning the rumours both men can equally claim that their's was the less serious misconduct, except both are denying having done anything at all. Perhaps the one guilty of the less serious infraction should come forward and clear his name by confessing.
This is a clear consequence of Trudeau failure to distinguish between the two cases. Moreover, if we accept the fact that one is actually a case of "sexual assault", then why is Trudeau calling it "misconduct" at all, and not "gross misconduct" or something like that?
Because it is not his call to make. All Trudeau had to decide is if each case individually merited suspension. He decided they did so he suspended both men because it was his responsibility as party leader to make that decision.
It is up to the men to decide how they want to respond.
It is up to the women to decide if they want to make formal complaints or not.
It is up to the Speaker to decide if an investigation is warranted or required.
Rokossovsky and Pondering are really playing ping pong here.
Jennifer Ditchburn ✔ @jenditchburn
NDP's Craig Scott says in statement, 4 Libs to suggest he is responsible for decisions Trudeau took on misconduct is "laughable" #cdnpoli
Retweeted by National Newswatch
--------------------------------------------------
NDP MP lashes out at Liberals over misconduct allegations
New Democrat MP Craig Scott is lashing out at the Liberals for what he calls a breach of good faith and confidentiality around the case of two female colleagues who alleged misconduct.
The Canadian Press has reported that Scott accompanied one of the two women to a private meeting with Liberal whip Judy Foote and NDP whip Nycole Turmel to go over the details of her allegation against a Liberal MP.
Multiple sources familiar with the matter say Scott, a former law professor, told the Liberals that one of the misconduct incidents — as it was described to him —amounted to an allegation of sexual assault.
In a statement, Scott — a former Osgoode Hall law professor — does not confirm or deny that characterization of the incident.
He says he went to the meeting in good faith to help a friend, but he now feels the confidentiality has been broken in a way that puts pressure on the victim.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/19/mulcair-defends-silence-of-a...
---------------------------------------------
Justin Trudeau says investigation into ‘misconduct’ allegations still possible
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says an investigation into allegations of “personal misconduct” by two MPs he suspended from caucus could go ahead without the participation of the alleged victims.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/19/no_misconduct_investigatio...
If the Cons, NDP and the speaker refuse to lift a finger to mediate this dispute, I only see three ways this gets resolved.
1) The party offers both men a cash settlement to go away quietly. Remain as independents, but not run in the next election. The settlement money given AFTER the 2015 election.
2) Take matters into their own hands and convene an independent panel to look into the matter. The members of the panel would have no ties at all to the Liberal party at all. And would hear from all those involved in this matter. The NDP members would be invited to participate, if they decline that is there right. Rent a conference room and have it completely open to everyone who wants to attend the hearings.
3) The two suspended MPs stay as independents until the writ is dropped. Allow them to run under the Liberal banner, and let the voters decide their fate.
Anyone else have any ideas on resolution?
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.
As I have posted several times, CBC reporter Jennifer Ditchburn has been crystal clear that the fact that they were NDP MP's was disclosed to her by the NDP.
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.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...
The same thing happens when sexual assaut accusations are made public before a defendant is found guilty. There is, arguably, no greater harm to a person's reputation than being accused of a crime. Do you think those accusations should be kept under seal?
Let's get real here. The most logical reason that anyone supportive of the NDP claims to give a shit about the reputation of the Liberal MPs is to further the NDP narrative that JT mishandled the matter by suspending his MPs, after he was told about the alleged conduct by one of the victims who then apparently had second thoughts, but by then had already dragged the second victim into the spotlight by telling JT about her experience too.
I know, I know - it was only on "a bus" so it didn't count.
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.
As I have posted several times, CBC reporter Jennifer Ditchburn has been crystal clear that the fact that they were NDP MP's was disclosed to her by the NDP.
Mistake by Trudeau. He shouldn't have even said they were an MP from another party.
He should of just said they are two individuals that work on the hill.
If he just said that, he would of had more leeway.
Then let's revisit Bovin's view:
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."It seems to me that any lawyer would have advised a person that if there is no complaint, there's not much you can do," said Boivin, who is herself a lawyer.
I have alot of respect for Boivin and we have previously worked together collaboratively, but this is rank bullshit. If the NDP is actually ok with telling victims that unless they are willing to come forward and make an official complaint, nothing will be done, then I would like to see them make that one of the conditions for taking action in future cases.
I can imagine the reax had JT actually told that to the MPs in this case and it had been disclosed The NDP would have been screaming to high heaven.
It is to laugh. Truly.
So we are supposed to believe journalists as if they are clean participants in politival matters. Right!
I sure believe J Ditchburn on this matter more than I believe the NPD.
DP
Not seeing much discussion about these ex-Liberal male MPs, their backgrounds, their family histories, their behaviours, etc. in the mainstream media.
How come?
Where are Canada's so-called investigate journalists, or do the Liberals actually control the mainstream press?
Not seeing much discussion about these ex-Liberal male MPs, their backgrounds, their family histories, their behaviours, etc. in the mainstream media.
How come?
I've seen a couple of reports on the various political shows, but both MPs are so boring and have a lack of scandal. There is really nothing there.
If the Cons, NDP and the speaker refuse to lift a finger to mediate this dispute, I only see three ways this gets resolved.
1) The party offers both men a cash settlement to go away quietly. Remain as independents, but not run in the next election. The settlement money given AFTER the 2015 election.
2) Take matters into their own hands and convene an independent panel to look into the matter. The members of the panel would have no ties at all to the Liberal party at all. And would hear from all those involved in this matter. The NDP members would be invited to participate, if they decline that is there right. Rent a conference room and have it completely open to everyone who wants to attend the hearings.
3) The two suspended MPs stay as independents until the writ is dropped. Allow them to run under the Liberal banner, and let the voters decide their fate.
Anyone else have any ideas on resolution?
Yes, from the perspective of the Liberals it's over. There is no need to pay the suspended MPs a dime. I think you are setting up an excuse for the men to not sue Trudeau or the Liberals.
I find it quite telling that no one has criticized the NDP for releasing so much information about the women's emotions and desires.
It seems your primary concern is for the men who abused the NDP women.
So now I know where the NDP stands. The women didn't want the men's careers harmed, Nycole Turmel was sympathetic to that and Megan Leslie thinks mediation and avoidance are good alternatives. Boivin thinks nothing can be done unless formal complaints are made to which the speaker seems to agree. So, everyone at the NDP is down with the CBC method. It's all up to the victims.
I prefer Trudeau's response. Suspend the men and put the onus on them to come forward and file a formal complaint.
I'm sure Trudeau will be willing to open an investigation if that's what the men want. As Trudeau noted:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said it could still be possible to investigate complaints against the two MPs he suspended from caucus even if the two unidentified NDP MPs who shared the allegations refuse to participate.“We have already taken extensive notes on what the individuals in question shared about the incidents,” Trudeau told reporters Wednesday.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/19/no_misconduct_investigatio...
So, if the men want to prompt futher investigation they are free to do so. Until then there is nothing for Trudeau to resolve.
It seems your primary concern is for the men who abused the NDP women.
My concern is for all four individuals. Trudeau did the right thing by turfing the two Liberal MPs. But he should have used more descretion in explaining why they were turfed. As I said he should have said both MPs will be sitting outside of caucus due to an internal party matter. And leave it at that.
I prefer Trudeau's response. Suspend the men and put the onus on them to come forward and file a formal complaint.
And if they don't come forward, then what?
Look what happened to Helena Gurgis. Her career was destroyed, as she was turfed from caucus over the word of a PI, who later retracted his statements about her.
And now she is suing almost everyone.
Mistake by Trudeau. He shouldn't have even said they were an MP from another party.He should of just said they are two individuals that work on the hill.
Not possible, there are procedures in place for all other MP misconduct. Inter-party MP to MP has no process in place.
Mistake by Trudeau. He shouldn't have even said they were an MP from another party.He should of just said they are two individuals that work on the hill.
Not possible, there are procedures in place for all other MP misconduct. Inter-party MP to MP has no process in place.
OK then he should of just said both MP will be sitting outside of caucus due to an internal party matter, and leave it at that.
Why are we not talking about the ex-Liberal male MPS?
So we are supposed to believe journalists as if they are clean participants in politival matters. Right!
I sure believe J Ditchburn on this matter more than I believe the NPD.
It seems the other issue is Scott and Mulcair believe the Liberals broke the confidentiality of the whips meeting. When you break confidentiality for partisan purposes you stepped over a serious line.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/19/mulcair-defends-silence-of-a...
It seems the other issue is Scott and Mulcair believe the Liberals broke the confidentiality of the whips meeting. When you break confidentiality for partisan purposes you stepped over a serious line. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/19/mulcair-defends-silence-of-a...It is serious so if the NDP has any indication that the Liberals breached confidentiality they should present it.
It seems to me the NDP is chock full of unsubstanciated accusations.
Trudeau countered by pointing out that the whole affair began when one of the NDP MPs complained directly to him about the conduct of the two Liberals. Both women then agreed to take part in discussions with the whips of the two parties.
"I recognize that a process was begun when the individuals in question came forward and shared the issue with the leader of another party," Trudeau said.
"I mean, we cannot get away from the fact that a complaint was lodged."
The NDP has proven they are incapable of behaving in a professional manner. The NDP response should have been "no comment" from the beginning. After accidently confirming that the MPs were from the NDP they could still have simply said "no comment out of respect for the MPs".
Instead the NDP decided to play politics and in so doing they re-victimized the women.
It seems the other issue is Scott and Mulcair believe the Liberals broke the confidentiality of the whips meeting. When you break confidentiality for partisan purposes you stepped over a serious line. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/19/mulcair-defends-silence-of-a...It is serious so if the NDP has any indication that the Liberals breached confidentiality they should present it.
It seems to me the NDP is chock full of unsubstanciated accusations.
Trudeau countered by pointing out that the whole affair began when one of the NDP MPs complained directly to him about the conduct of the two Liberals. Both women then agreed to take part in discussions with the whips of the two parties.
"I recognize that a process was begun when the individuals in question came forward and shared the issue with the leader of another party," Trudeau said.
"I mean, we cannot get away from the fact that a complaint was lodged."
The NDP has proven they are incapable of behaving in a professional manner. The NDP response should have been "no comment" from the beginning. After accidently confirming that the MPs were from the NDP they could still have simply said "no comment out of respect for the MPs".
Instead the NDP decided to play politics and in so doing they re-victimized the women.
This part of the issue is pretty straight forward. The political parties had a meeting. It was agreed that it should be kept confidential. The Liberals broke their word and the agreement.
Here is the quote from the above article in which Mulcair points out the Liberals broke confidentiality.
"There was a very concrete, hard and fast undertaking that if they accepted to speak with the Liberal whip and a couple of others, that that confidentiality would be respected in every way," Mulcair said.
It is a vile thing to break confidentiality for some personal or political gain.
My concern is for all four individuals. Trudeau did the right thing by turfing the two Liberal MPs. But he should have used more descretion in explaining why they were turfed. As I said he should have said both MPs will be sitting outside of caucus due to an internal party matter. And leave it at that.
I prefer Trudeau's response. Suspend the men and put the onus on them to come forward and file a formal complaint.
And if they don't come forward, then what?
Look what happened to Helena Gurgis. Her career was destroyed, as she was turfed from caucus over the word of a PI, who later retracted his statements about her.
And now she is suing almost everyone.
"Internal party matter" would have been lying and wouldn't have worked because the request to the speaker for a process would be public.
If they don't come forward then nothing. If the men want to sue they can. I don't see the problem.
Here is the quote from the above article in which Mulcair points out the Liberals broke confidentiality. "There was a very concrete, hard and fast undertaking that if they accepted to speak with the Liberal whip and a couple of others, that that confidentiality would be respected in every way," Mulcair said. It is a vile thing to break confidentiality for some personal or political gain.
So doesn't Mulcair have the guts to tell us which Liberal broke confidence? I understand the women being reticent but I don't see why Mulcair is.
My concern is for all four individuals. Trudeau did the right thing by turfing the two Liberal MPs. But he should have used more descretion in explaining why they were turfed. As I said he should have said both MPs will be sitting outside of caucus due to an internal party matter. And leave it at that.
I prefer Trudeau's response. Suspend the men and put the onus on them to come forward and file a formal complaint.
And if they don't come forward, then what?
Look what happened to Helena Gurgis. Her career was destroyed, as she was turfed from caucus over the word of a PI, who later retracted his statements about her.
And now she is suing almost everyone.
"Internal party matter" would have been lying and wouldn't have worked because the request to the speaker for a process would be public.
If they don't come forward then nothing. If the men want to sue they can. I don't see the problem.
Here is the quote from the above article in which Mulcair points out the Liberals broke confidentiality. "There was a very concrete, hard and fast undertaking that if they accepted to speak with the Liberal whip and a couple of others, that that confidentiality would be respected in every way," Mulcair said. It is a vile thing to break confidentiality for some personal or political gain.So doesn't Mulcair have the guts to tell us which Liberal broke confidence? I understand the women being reticent but I don't see why Mulcair is.
"Internal party matter" would have been lying and wouldn't have worked because the request to the speaker for a process would be public.
And the two turfed MP are members of what party? Remember the NDP said it is up to Trudeau on how he wants to deal with those MPs. It is all up to him. And how do you know the letter would have gone public? The letter could have been marked 'confidential'.
Pondering what about Helena Guergis?
Do you even feel bad about how she was treated?
So we are supposed to believe journalists as if they are clean participants in political matters. Right! 
What an inane statement. He knows his MP's didn't. It wasn't in their interest to do so for one thing. But who knows which Liberals did it? Maybe you could help us here. Which Liberal MP's are scummy enough to do such a thing?
And this is worse than sexual assault?
"Internal party matter" would have been lying and wouldn't have worked because the request to the speaker for a process would be public.
And the two turfed MP are members of what party? And how do you know the letter would have gone public? The letter could have been marked 'confidential'.
Pondering what about Helena Guergis?
Do you even feel bad about how she was treated?
I don't see how her case has anything to do with this case and no, I don't feel sorry for her. That's what happens when you choose to hang with Harperites.
The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are the two NDP victims.
What an inane statement. He knows his MP's didn't. It wasn't in their interest to do so for one thing. But who knows which Liberals did it? Maybe you could help us here. Which Liberal MP's are scummy enough to do such a thing?And this is worse than sexual assault?
Huh.? Who said it was worse than sexual assault? Not me.
Of course when you violate confidences you make it less likely to see justice done.
--
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.
As I have posted several times, CBC reporter Jennifer Ditchburn has been crystal clear that the fact that they were NDP MP's was disclosed to her by the NDP.
Mistake by Trudeau. He shouldn't have even said they were an MP from another party.
He should of just said they are two individuals that work on the hill.
If he just said that, he would of had more leeway.
Right. But he wanted to do damage control on the harassment issue, on "principle".
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.
As I have posted several times, CBC reporter Jennifer Ditchburn has been crystal clear that the fact that they were NDP MP's was disclosed to her by the NDP.
Right! And is the NDP Thomas Mulcair. For all we know it was a "staffer". If you are following at all you would see the discussion is about Thomas Mulcair's actions or omissions, not the NDP. I know these little details don't bother people, but they do me.
Here is what I was responding too:
Mulcair was caught with his pants down and panicked so he admitted the MPs were NDP and attacked Trudeau for taking action without letting the NDP know what was going on.
Mulcair is said to have "admitted the MPs were NDP". Dichtburn would have said that it was Mulcair who outed the NDP, you would think?
Moreover, it was a fairly obvious conclusion, given that Trudeau identified the complainants as MPs, and added enough "political" commentary to make it clear that it was some kind of sexual harassment issue, narrowing the field to about 68 people, from the thousands who work on capital hill.
Trudeau, for his part could simply have said that the MPs were being suspended for possible misconduct, and details would be released later pending an investigation by the House economy Committee, but Trudeau wanted to frame his action in the light of Jian Ghomeshi saga, obviously and pick up political points for being proactive, which is precisely why we are having this discussion in the first place.
Reporters had enough material from Trudeau's seminar on "this day and age", and his "duty to act" to quickly idenitfy the party in question simply by asking Stephen Harper if the complaints were from members of his party, to which he would say no. Then all the reporter had to do was buttonhole someone from the NDP on background, to confirm.
So this "outing" of the fact that they were from the NDP, is pretty much a non-issue.
What an inane statement. He knows his MP's didn't. It wasn't in their interest to do so for one thing. But who knows which Liberals did it? Maybe you could help us here. Which Liberal MP's are scummy enough to do such a thing?And this is worse than sexual assault?
And what about the specific case where the MP was not (allegedly, according to "sources") accused of "sexual assault".
"Internal party matter" would have been lying and wouldn't have worked because the request to the speaker for a process would be public.
And the two turfed MP are members of what party? Remember the NDP said it is up to Trudeau on how he wants to deal with those MPs. It is all up to him. And how do you know the letter would have gone public? The letter could have been marked 'confidential'.
Yes, the NDP said it was up to Trudeau on how he wants to deal with the MPs and the NDP has been complaining ever since.
It's true that I don't know, but I imagine a formal request for action to the Speaker of the House is automatically public if not by law then by virtue of Canada being a democracy.
All Trudeau said was that it was misconduct involving 2 MPs from a different party. There was no breach of confidentiality.
The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are the two NDP victims.
I feel sorry for them to as well.
What an inane statement. He knows his MP's didn't. It wasn't in their interest to do so for one thing. But who knows which Liberals did it? Maybe you could help us here. Which Liberal MP's are scummy enough to do such a thing?
From the NDP's very first statements they did not hesitate to release inappropriate information about the women in order to use it to attack the Liberals.
On another note, that people could guess that the victims were young NDP women is not the same thing as having that information confirmed.
If the NDP really respected these women's privacy they would stop making accusations and let the topic die down. Instead the NDP seems intent on sensationalizing the story as much as possible.
This is such a stupid partisan pissing contest.
Trudeau is playing politics and Mulcair did the right thing.
No, it's Mulcair's that playing politics and Trudeau did the right thing.
The question is what was the right thing to do, actually.
This is such a stupid partisan pissing contest.
Trudeau is playing politics and Mulcair did the right thing.
No, it's Mulcair's that playing politics and Trudeau did the right thing.
Thsi thread should be re-titled Ping Pong
I think BOTH of them have made mistakes in handling this situation.
I see the thorn that causes so much disagreement here for s the interpretation of confidentiality between NDPAnd Liberal. liberals think outing this week n the national media was OK, while the NDP sees this as a breach. The victims have been scared into silence, not wNting this can of worms open they would rather it all just go away. maybe if n the future they will be able to talk about it without too much emotional Neal pain.
This is such a stupid partisan pissing contest.
Trudeau is playing politics and Mulcair did the right thing.
No, it's Mulcair's that playing politics and Trudeau did the right thing.
This isn't just a pissing contest. Sexual assault and harassment of women on the Hill and indeed throughout society is rampant. Women will rarely if ever have proof. Even a man like Rob Ford gets the benefit of the doubt when accused of grabbing a woman's ass, Woody Allen, benefit of the doubt. Well not any more. This is not about the principle of innocent before proven guilty which belongs in a court room.
The actions of the Liberals and the NDP can be judged independently not just in comparison to one another. The name of the party shouldn't matter.
I see the thorn that causes so much disagreement here for s the interpretation of confidentiality between NDPAnd Liberal. liberals think outing this week n the national media was OK, while the NDP sees this as a breach. The victims have been scared into silence, not wNting this can of worms open they would rather it all just go away. maybe if n the future they will be able to talk about it without too much emotional Neal pain.
Not quite. The Liberals didn't out the women. The liberals didn't specify gender or type of misconduct nevermind any details. The women's confidentiality was completely guarded. The Liberals didn't even tell the men what they were being accused of.
The NDP are the ones who have put the women's details out to the national media. NDP spin isn't fooling anyone. We shouldn't know about the women's emotional turmoil. What on earth gave the NDP the idea that it was acceptable to broadcast such intimate details?
The question is what was the right thing to do, actually.
Very happy to agree on that.
What an inane statement. He knows his MP's didn't. It wasn't in their interest to do so for one thing. But who knows which Liberals did it? Maybe you could help us here. Which Liberal MP's are scummy enough to do such a thing?From the NDP's very first statements they did not hesitate to release inappropriate information about the women in order to use it to attack the Liberals.
On another note, that people could guess that the victims were young NDP women is not the same thing as having that information confirmed.
If the NDP really respected these women's privacy they would stop making accusations and let the topic die down. Instead the NDP seems intent on sensationalizing the story as much as possible.
The thorn that causes so much disagreement here is the interpretation of confidentiality between NDP and Liberal supporters. Liberals think outing this issue in the national media was OK, while the NDP sees this as a breach. There will never be agreement over this.
My guess is the victims have been scared into silence, not ever wanting this can of worms open to their colleagues or the public, they would rather it all just go away. Maybe in the future they will be able to talk about it without too much emotional pain.
The Liberals are between a rock and a hard place. The solution seems to be to hold their own enquiry. In a sense that will work for them because they can narrow the question as to whether these two MPs can remain in caucus and run again.
