I think political parties should do independent investigations into such claims, and expel MPs when satisfied that the claims are credible.
But, in general, I think it a fool's errand to expect political parties to be "fair" to their members. Generally, they are not organized along considerations of fairness or equity, but political power and risk management.
She tried to inflict financial hardship on him. So I'd say he's perfectly entitled if he believed that the accusations were untrue, that he has suffered great reputational damage and that his future earnings are compromised.
Of course he's entitled. In more ways than one. And I wonder what would happen, today, if all the celebrities and politicians who have been publicly accused of misconduct were to spend their fortunes on lawyers and file lawsuits claiming multi-$100,000 damages against their accusers? That would be just peachy, wouldn't it? Maybe Jian Ghomeshi should go first. He's entitled - he has clearly lost a great deal.
It's not the duty of people who believe they have been falsely accused, and suffered for it, to take it on the chin for the good of the movement.No, it's not the duty of Chicoine to sacrifice anything on behalf of the movement, nor is it my duty to consider him as anything less than a low-life for defending himself in this manner. It's allegedly a free world, and we're all entitled to our entitlements.
But less ironically, pookie: How do you view the duty of Mulcair and the party when one of their elected members of Parliament was accused of gender discrimination and retaliation? The only reason I revived the Chicoine thread was to draw a contrast between the response of the NDP in 2014, and today. I've given my opinion on that contrast, and I'm seriously interested to know what others think.
NOTE: I have much less interest in the outcome of the rival court actions - although they raise interesting questions of their own. Chicoine's chief defence is that the accuser should have proceeded through the staff union, and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear her suit (I guess it's about Weber vs. Ontario Hydro?). Curiously, the counter-argument by her lawyers is that the staff union doesn't really exist, because employees of MPs have no right to unionize! [Clearly, an argument with which I have little, i.e. zero, sympathy.]
What if she had phrased it as "no currently RECOGNIZED right to organize"?
Here in the States, one of the weird legal conventions we have is that Congress always exempts itseslf from having to obey any of the laws it passes. Does the Canadian Parliament do the same thing? If so, that's where she'd be drawing her argument from. I don't think her lawyers are arguing that employees of MP's shouldn't have the right to organize, but arguing instead that, at this point, the don't have that right in practice.
I think political parties should do independent investigations into such claims, and expel MPs when satisfied that the claims are credible.
Exactly.
But, in general, I think it a fool's errand to expect political parties to be "fair" to their members. Generally, they are not organized along considerations of fairness or equity, but political power and risk management.
Exactly.
Agreed. Pointing out that dynamic makes things a lot clearer for these other cases as well.
