Pondering makes a good point. The quote from Trudeau is so bone-headed it's hard to believe it would have been meant sincerely. Joke seems more likely.
I would also point out that the paper and reporter have been described as anti-Lib...which might explain the reporter deciding to write it up in the way that she did.
It's interesting that the word "survivor" has been essentially unheard when it comes to this particular accusation. CBC's settled on "complainant".I think "survivor" is simply too stark for what's been reported.
Complainant was also used for Weir's accusers and others before. I think "survivor" is limited to people who are reporting sexually assault not harassment.
Some sensationalism is due to media hype but some exageration is intended to undermine the accuser and the me too movement.
Mr Trudeau's 'Negative Interaction'
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-mr-trudeaus-negative-int...
"Hands up if you suspect something happened that Mr Trudeau would prefer not to own up to today. Hands up if you think it's not likely he forgot it."
Pondering makes a good point. The quote from Trudeau is so bone-headed it's hard to believe it would have been meant sincerely. Joke seems more likely.
I would also point out that the paper and reporter have been described as anti-Lib...which might explain the reporter deciding to write it up in the way that she did.
Trudeau has a history of saying awkward things but Pondering raises a good point that this could sound like it may have been a joke that would not have been made in a context of what this is being made out to be now.
It is hard to know what to make of this with so little information.
There is good reason for Canadians to want to know the truth behind this story. It is also probable that many believe Trudeau does remember something about this.
Trudeau Answers Groping Allegations at Presser after Doug Ford Meeting (and vid)
@6:05 "...There are serious allegations against you - why not call for an independent investigation.?
https://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-suggests-ford-doesn-t-fully-understand...
Trudeau Answers Groping Allegations at Presser after Doug Ford Meeting (and vid)
@6:05 "...There are serious allegations against you - why not call for an independent investigation.?
https://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-suggests-ford-doesn-t-fully-understand...
Given that the witness seems to have no interest in coming forward, how would we get an independent investigation? Can she be legally compelled to testify?
why not call for an independent investigation.?
If an independent investigation confirms suspicions (or, dare I say, hopes) then it's an independent investigation.
If an independent investigation fails to confirm suspicions then it's a "coverup" or a "smokescreen".
I really can't remember the last time I read of anyone, anywhere, saying "well, I thought an independent investigation was warranted, and the independent investigator found nothing, so I guess it's up to me right now to shut my yap and make my peace with that".
Trudeau Answers Groping Allegations at Presser after Doug Ford Meeting (and vid)
@6:05 "...There are serious allegations against you - why not call for an independent investigation.?
https://www.cp24.com/news/trudeau-suggests-ford-doesn-t-fully-understand...
Why not a Royal Commission?
I’m always more than a bit leary when men start bragging about their feminist credentials!
I’m always more than a bit leary when men start bragging about their feminist credentials!
White Knight Syndrome is the term, I believe.
So Justin apologized to the reporter but he didn’t do anything wrong. Sure he didn’t. He just runs around the country apologizing to women all the time for the heck of it.
After 'Reflecting Very Carefully' on Groping Allegation, Trudeau Says He Doesn't Feel He Acted Inappropriately
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-responds-to-gropin...
"...Adding their voices to that criticism in the wake of Trudeau's comments Thursday was Valerie Bourne, publisher of the Advance at the time of the alleged incident, and Brian Bell, editor of the newspaper, the two supervisors to whom the woman reported the incident that summer. Bourne told the Post she thought the prime minister's explanation was unsatisfactory 'tap-dancing' around the substance of the allegation and Bell called it 'damage control'...."
"A few days ago I told the Canadian people I did not have any negative interactions at the Kokanee Summit. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
There have been more independent investigators working of this case in the past couple of months than worked on any other allegation in the past couple of years.
Bourne told the Post she thought the prime minister’s explanation was unsatisfactory, “tap-dancing” around the substance of the allegation and Bell called it “damage control.”
Okay well I guess they have zero respect or consideration for their former temp. editor as she wants to drop it. Of course that wouldn't be to their personal benefit so I guess not.
Pondering wrote:
Okay well I guess they have zero respect or consideration for their former temp. editor as she wants to drop it.
Well, is there any evidence that the editor objected to the paper publishing her original article about the encounter back in 2000? Because if not, I don't think she can suddenly claim a moral right to halt discussion of the story somewhere down the line. She is the one who put it into circulation to begin with.
After 'Reflecting Very Carefully' on Groping Allegation, Trudeau Says He Doesn't Feel He Acted Inappropriately
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-responds-to-gropin...
"...Adding their voices to that criticism in the wake of Trudeau's comments Thursday was Valerie Bourne, publisher of the Advance at the time of the alleged incident, and Brian Bell, editor of the newspaper, the two supervisors to whom the woman reported the incident that summer. Bourne told the Post she thought the prime minister's explanation was unsatisfactory 'tap-dancing' around the substance of the allegation and Bell called it 'damage control'...."
Both decline to give the specifics of the interaction out of respect for the reporter's privacy. Do they expect Trudeau to do so?
I am baffled as to how one responds to these allegations without more specifics. Where is he alleged to have "groped" her? Without that detail, how is one to judge whether the complaint is reasonable?
"A few days ago I told the Canadian people I did not have any negative interactions at the Kokanee Summit. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
That would be immediately attacked as him putting his heart before the facts. Plus, "Who cares about his intentions??"
The only thing he could do is attempt to describe what happened, as he remembers it. Which would create an immediate tornado of further media hoopla. Unless he copped to the kind of "groping" that his opponents feel would cast him in a sufficiently negative light, it would be characterized as an attempt to downplay the event.
"A few days ago I told the Canadian people I did not have any negative interactions at the Kokanee Summit. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
That would be immediately attacked as him putting his heart before the facts. Plus, "Who cares about his intentions??"
The only thing he could do is attempt to describe what happened, as he remembers it. Which would create an immediate tornado of further media hoopla. Unless he copped to the kind of "groping" that his opponents feel would cast him in a sufficiently negative light, it would be characterized as an attempt to downplay the event.
Sorry, the allusion might have been a little obscure. That was meant as a parody of Ronald Reagan's reversal on Iran-Contra. Basically, as with Reagan, it seems hard to see how the original statement and the later reversal, taken together, could both have been made with honest intent.
First, Trudeau says he has no memory of any "negative interactions" at the festival. Then, a few days later, he says that, yes, he did apologize to the woman for something.
If you had to apologize for something, it seems to me that, by definition, it was a negative interaction. The only way to square the circle on this is to posit that Trudeau had completely forgotten about the encounter when he made the first statement, but suddenly remembered it some time between then and now.
Pookie wrote:
Where is he alleged to have "groped" her?
Well, by the same token, what are the inappropriate things that Kent Hehr is alleged to have said to women in elevators?
Well, by the same token, what are the inappropriate things that Kent Hehr is alleged to have said to women in elevators?
It's not just random elevators, they were at the Alberta Legislature. Where he was an MLA, and where those women were working.
Well, by the same token, what are the inappropriate things that Kent Hehr is alleged to have said to women in elevators?
It's not just random elevators, they were at the Alberta Legislature. Where he was an MLA, and where those women were working.
Yes, but that doesn't change the paucity of details about what he did. Pookie had said that, in regards to Trudeau, he can't be expected to respond to allegations without more details being provided. So that was the issue I was addressing.
I am baffled as to how one responds to these allegations without more specifics. Where is he alleged to have "groped" her? Without that detail, how is one to judge whether the complaint is reasonable?
If there isn't sufficient detail to judge events at a beer festival, than the same amount of detail shouldn't be enough to judge a complaint about events in a government elevator. And, conversely, if there is enough detail to judge events in a government elevator, then the same amount of detail should suffice for judging events in a government elevator.
Pondering wrote:
Okay well I guess they have zero respect or consideration for their former temp. editor as she wants to drop it.
Well, is there any evidence that the editor objected to the paper publishing her original article about the encounter back in 2000? Because if not, I don't think she can suddenly claim a moral right to halt discussion of the story somewhere down the line. She is the one who put it into circulation to begin with.
Are you talking about the reporter or the editor? Are you saying the reporter has no right to privacy?
Pondering wrote:
Okay well I guess they have zero respect or consideration for their former temp. editor as she wants to drop it.
Well, is there any evidence that the editor objected to the paper publishing her original article about the encounter back in 2000? Because if not, I don't think she can suddenly claim a moral right to halt discussion of the story somewhere down the line. She is the one who put it into circulation to begin with.
Are you talking about the reporter or the editor? Are you saying the reporter has no right to privacy?
I thought the temp. editor and the reporter were the same person.
But apart from terminology, this is my understanding of the events...
The reporter went to the festival, and had the encounter with Justin Trudeau. She then went back to her newspaper, and told her bosses about the encounter. The editorial lambasting Trudeau then appeared in the paper a short time later.
I'm also of the understanding that the reporter herself wrote the editorial, but that's not really pertinent, given what is already known. So basically...
If the reporter gave her superiors permission to run the editorial about her encounter, then no, she has no moral right to claim privacy on this particular matter. She presumably put it in the paper because she WANTED to make it a public issue. That it might have remained an issue for longer than she would have liked is something she should have considered before giving the go-ahead.
Unreal!! Justin acts inappropriately at a beerfest and babble debates whether or not the woman involved has any rights or should have to now step into a public spectacle because a reporter dug up a 18 year old story.
I think I agree with this assessment from up thread no matter whether it is a self righteous Conservative making it or not.
But the real story here is not the details of an alleged ancient indiscretion at a beerfest. It’s about what happens when it appears you apply a set of standards to other people that you yourself can’t meet, after declaring that you are holier than everybody else. It’s about perceived hypocrisy. And that’s a story that’s eminently worth telling.
Justin't Truedo is a lying scum bag and always has been I can only hope this becomes his fate.
Justin should throw himself out of the Liberal caucus. He knows how to do it, he's done it before. If his memory is fuzzy, he can ask Christine Moore.
I’m always more than a bit leary when men start bragging about their feminist credentials!
White Knight Syndrome is the term, I believe.
Very clever!
If the reporter gave her superiors permission to run the editorial about her encounter, then no, she has no moral right to claim privacy on this particular matter. She presumably put it in the paper because she WANTED to make it a public issue. That it might have remained an issue for longer than she would have liked is something she should have considered before giving the go-ahead.
I cannot agree with this.
I think that she opened the door at the time -- to reasonable questions but not unlimited answers even then. She did not make a contract that she had to answer to this for ever regardless of the context 20 years later.
We know nothing about her, what her situation is. We know this is now loaded politically in a way that it was not then. The social context is also different.
I think to suggest that a woman has to for ever discuss such an event and be part of wherever the conversation may go two decades later is an unreasonable burder we would not place on anyone. To apply this standard is a signal of silencing.
She has the absolute right for any reason to not participate now. People who think otherwiseshould ask themselves really what they think she owes them.
ETA: She does not have the right to prevent the story from being discussed or the PM from responding. But she has every right to ask for her name to be kept out and to refuse further comment -- in my opinion of course.
Sean wrote:
She does not have the right to prevent the story from being discussed or the PM from responding. But she has every right to ask for her name to be kept out and to refuse further comment -- in my opinion of course.
I think we basically agree. I never said that the woman has to keep on talking about this if she doesn't want to. My reply was to Pondering, who suggested that the newspaper was doing something wrong by continuing to discuss the story.
One area where we might disagree is the importance on Trudeau's relative obscurity in 2000 vs. Now. Again, assuming that she agreed to the publication of the story, the text explicitly referenced JT's status as a the son of a former PM as a rationale for being concerned about his behaviour. Surely, that rationale only becomes stronger when he becomes Prime Minister himself, and portrays himself as guided by feminist principles.
I’m always more than a bit leary when men start bragging about their feminist credentials!
White Knight Syndrome is the term, I believe.
Very clever!
That was NOT intended as a pun. At the time of writing, I did not have a particular piece of information that I just came across about five minutes ago, when I went to the CBC site after writing my previous post.
Anyway, yes, the woman has now issued a statement, and her name has been revealed to the public.
Given that she apparently has no intention of giving any further descriptions of the incident, beyond that it "did occur, as reported", it's debatable how long this story can survive. A lot of people will just think "eh, groping could mean anything, maybe he just patted her on the shoulder", and leave it at that. If they even analyze it that far.
It's still a little slippery for Trudeau to say that he doesn't remember any negative interactions, while claiming that he does remember apologizing for something. And I had to chuckle at his subtle attempt at spreading the guilt around...
"Over the past weeks, since this news resurfaced, I've been reflecting, we've all been reflecting, on past behaviours," he said."
Did He Or Didn't He? Trudeau Needs To Start Making Sense
"An accusation, even a credible and contemporaneous one, is not sufficient for conviction. It is enough, however, to demand an explanation. A coherent one would be nice."
Trudeau Had His Chance And He Blew It
https://calgarysun.com/news/provincial/bell-trudeau-had-his-chance-and-h...
"Trudeau says he apologized 'in the moment' because Rose Knight experienced what happened 'in a different way than I acted or I experienced it.' Just two folks thinking about things differently..."
Notley Calls Trudeau's Acknowledgement of Groping Allegations a 'Good Start'
"I think that in all cases where people, usually women, raise these issues, they have to be taken very, very seriously, said Notley..."
The reporter claimed in her statement that she has had no further interaction with Trudeau either before or after he became PM.
This is a well crafted statement that leads me to ask if she has ever had any interaction with Trudeau representatives regarding this incident. The distinction is clear but she did not address it.
A further question is what makes an obviously feminist aspiring reporter turn into a privacy-seeking individual after her own editorial is published?
There is a weasel in the woodpile here and the truth will come out, no matter Trudeau's evasions or the reporter's hestitancy.
A further question is what makes an obviously feminist aspiring reporter turn into a privacy-seeking individual after her own editorial is published?
18 years of life.
So to recap, basically Trudeau lied
Trudeau is damaged goods now
Do Canadians want him to continue as PM?
Yes indeed that was slimy to say the least.
Anyway, yes, the woman has now issued a statement, and her name has been revealed to the public.
Given that she apparently has no intention of giving any further descriptions of the incident, beyond that it "did occur, as reported", it's debatable how long this story can survive. A lot of people will just think "eh, groping could mean anything, maybe he just patted her on the shoulder", and leave it at that. If they even analyze it that far.
It's still a little slippery for Trudeau to say that he doesn't remember any negative interactions, while claiming that he does remember apologizing for something. And I had to chuckle at his subtle attempt at spreading the guilt around...
"Over the past weeks, since this news resurfaced, I've been reflecting, we've all been reflecting, on past behaviours," he said."
So to recap, basically Trudeau lied
Trudeau is damaged goods now
Do Canadians want him to continue as PM?
Probably, because, as I say, "groping", even when confirmed to have taken place, isn't gonna "click on the lights" for most people, without further details about what exactly happened. If you're someone who is inclined to vote Liberal again, the current opacity of the allegations just allows you an excuse to give JT the benefit of the doubt.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, however, if he is once again called upon to reprimand a Liberal MP accused of sexual harassment.
How about this scenario?
justin knows damn well what he did. Justin Trudeau wanted to become PM of Canada just like his daddy was. He knew that in order to run for office he had to deal with all the skeletons in his closet.
He knew about the incident with the newspaper reporter from 2000 and he gave her hush money to cover his past and that would have been done years ago before he ran for public life but intended to do so.
i have no proof but I do think that he paid her off to keep quiet about the incident.
^ That's about on par with the Liberal-apologist idea that the whole issue was ressurrected by Trump's agents in order to discredit Justin's heroic fight in defense of Canada. It could be true, just like anything else could be true, but in the absence of any proof, not really worth pursuing as a theory.
No, but it does help to explain why she doesn't want to discuss the issue any further.
No, but it does help to explain why she doesn't want to discuss the issue any further.
It's one possible explanation, along with a desire for family privacy or any number of other things. But, since at this time we have absolutely no evidence to suggest any one explanation over the other, what's the point of speculating?
No, but it does help to explain why she doesn't want to discuss the issue any further.
It's one possible explanation, along with a desire for family privacy or any number of other things. But, since at this time we have absolutely no evidence to suggest any one explanation over the other, what's the point of speculating?
After 4 pages of speculating. The interest in this issue isn't 'beer soaked lout caught playing with female bits at music festival' rather it is 'sanctimonious virtue signaller hoist by his own petard'. Like smarmy televangelists busted by hookers, it isn't the act, it is the betrayal of those who believed the scoundrel in the first place.
Martin wrote:
After 4 pages of speculating.
I personally am not speculating about the reporter's reasons for remaining silent, which is what Misfit was talking about.
After 4 pages of speculating. The interest in this issue isn't 'beer soaked lout caught playing with female bits at music festival' rather it is 'sanctimonious virtue signaller hoist by his own petard'. Like smarmy televangelists busted by hookers, it isn't the act, it is the betrayal of those who believed the scoundrel in the first place.
Like smarmy televangelists busted by hookers they saw before they joined the church.
To me this looks like absolute crap.
These stories have more to them when they go public like this if there is substance. The fact that this is a second hand story without an accuser tells you what you need to know. The statements are only about something said out of context and nothing specific about what happened. Looks like a smear attempt and not a well performed one. Amateur.
This is comment #4. And here’s my comment #5
Ya actually Justin is on record for physicallly grabbing an MP by the arm against their will, using his elbow to inflict on a female MP and swearing in parliament.
He has proven he is capable of using inflicting physical violence on others.
I give the report a strong possibility!
Shame on you fellow poster! Shame!
You gave this woman no credibility and completely dismissed Justin’s well documented use of physical force upon people!
Ya actually Justin is on record for physicallly grabbing an MP by the arm against their will, using his elbow to inflict on a female MP and swearing in parliament.
Wait.. what? What swear word did he use??
He didn't use the "f" word, did he?? That's, like, the right bower of cusses!
Unsurprisingly, none of this is about a (purported) victim. It's just partisan vs. partisan. Those who disliked him long before this are understandably outraged that he would basically rape a woman publicly, then forget it, then deny it. And those who like him are understandably outraged that someone would accuse him of such a thing without even having the decency to blog about it for twenty years.
To me this looks like absolute crap.
These stories have more to them when they go public like this if there is substance. The fact that this is a second hand story without an accuser tells you what you need to know. The statements are only about something said out of context and nothing specific about what happened. Looks like a smear attempt and not a well performed one. Amateur.
This is comment #4. And here’s my comment #5
Ya actually Justin is on record for physicallly grabbing an MP by the arm against their will, using his elbow to inflict on a female MP and swearing in parliament.
He has proven he is capable of using inflicting physical violence on others.
I give the report a strong possibility!
Shame on you fellow poster! Shame!
You gave this woman no credibility and completely dismissed Justin’s well documented use of physical force upon people!
You're a parody account, right?
Woman Who Accused Trudeau of Groping Breaks Her Silence (and vids)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/woman-accused-trudeau-breaks-silence-1....
"...And as I said, I'm confident I didn't act inappropriately but I think the essence of this is people can experience interactions differently and part of the lesson we need to learn in this moment of collective awakening...people in many cases, women, experience interactions in professional contexts and other contexts differently than men. I apologized in the moment because I had obviously perceived that she had experienced it in a different way than I acted or I experienced it..."
I find the weasel to be obviously full of shit and completely unbelievable.
There have been more independent investigators working of this case in the past couple of months than worked on any other allegation in the past couple of years.
Bourne told the Post she thought the prime minister’s explanation was unsatisfactory, “tap-dancing” around the substance of the allegation and Bell called it “damage control.”
Okay well I guess they have zero respect or consideration for their former temp. editor as she wants to drop it. Of course that wouldn't be to their personal benefit so I guess not.
There was some disagreement with my comment. Let me explain.
When the temp editor wrote the story she pretended she wasn't writing about herself to appear to be objective. Isn't that a no-no?
Bourne knows more detail than we do about what happened because the reporter confided in her. Bourne could tell us but won't. At the same time she is saying Trudeau is "tap-dancing". Bourne is tap dancing. Bell is tap dancing. The temp editor is tap dancing. Trudeau can't reveal the details of the interaction.
If Bourne wants to protect the non-complainant's privacy then she should let the story die. If it isn't a concern then Bourne should tell us what happened.
There is no complainant. An old article is not a complainant. If the temp editor wants this story to go away she may have to walkback the accusation.
Pookie wrote:
Where is he alleged to have "groped" her?
Well, by the same token, what are the inappropriate things that Kent Hehr is alleged to have said to women in elevators?
We don't need to know because his accusers were willing to speak-up. They spoke to the investigator. Hehr was confronted with the specific allegations and had an opportunity to respond privately after which an agreement was reached.
All we have against Trudeau is a 2 decade old accusation that the woman is unwilling to stand behind. She also spoke to Bourne but Bourne is also unwilling to share. Trudeau can't share without betraying the woman involved.
Whatever happened did so in the blink of an eye. No one else has come forward. In 100% of other cases the woman or women spoke to an investigator telling the investigator the details of their allegations. The other men all had an opportunity to respond to or reject the specific allegations. Trudeau does not deserve any special treatment either way.
In every other case if the women were not willing to speak nothing happened. The same should be true for Trudeau. If there is no complainant that's the end of it.
