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

sherpa-finn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering, please stop.

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

NDP MP Breaks Silence On Allegations Against Liberal MPs

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::

bekayne wrote:

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

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

Pierre C yr wrote:

bekayne wrote:

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

 

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

A verbal warning. For rape.

bekayne wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

bekayne wrote:

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

 

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

A verbal warning. For rape.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

The sex hurt, she said.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This just in:

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

And now details about Scott Andrews

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

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

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

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

Also from the same story

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Debater wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nicky wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nicky wrote:

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

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

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

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

nicky wrote:

Her choice was to have the materaddressed confidentially.

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

nicky wrote:

She is only trying to contasin the mess Justin made.

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

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

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

Brachina wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that all make sense?

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

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

responding to Rokossovsky:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cortina wrote:

responding to Rokossovsky:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that all make sense?

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

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

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

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