'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them' Says Publisher : Justin Trudeau Gropes Reporter in 2000: Editorial Accuses

Misfit wrote:

Ok Pookie,

You very clearly wrote, "The police and Crown could have investigated anytime they pleased."

And that statement is very definitely IRRELEVANT to the possible issue of a speculative pay-off or hush money. There is no connection and I cannot fathom why you included that in your post. You don't like the term "irrelevant" but there is absolutely no conceivable way to link that statement with speculation to keep the woman quiet on the details of what happened. Why you included that I have no idea!?!

My second issue with your statement is that the Crown and police are very seldomly PLEASED to get involved in any groping cases even with very serious and egregious sexual assaults. 

 

I included that "detail" because it shows why an NDA agreement would have been stupid.

Her account was already part of the public record.  

I don't know why you profess such indignation at my suggestion that the authorities had all they needed for an investigation.  I mean, do you think this was sexual assault or not?  

Pookie,

It does not matter whether a police investigation took place or not. This is a story that can embarrass the Prime Minister and damage his reputation. The less the general public knows about the specific details of what actually took place the better it is for the Prime Minister to create an element of doubt and dismiss the situation as a simple misunderstanding.

Therefore it is very plausible to speculate that someone may have approached the woman for a non-disclosure agreement on this issue.

The police and Crown are totally irrelevant  to this issue.

It is also inappropriate to suggest that the police would have gotten themselves involved on their own volition for a groping incident, especially with no corroborating physical evidence when they are notorious for their dismal record of taking sexual harrassment and sexual assault seriously.

Here is a Globe and Mail article which elaborates on this problem.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/unfounded-sexual-assault-canada-main/article33891309/

Okay, we need to drop the speculation about "hush money", etc. It's getting dangerously close to libel, which would bury this publication.

Good. Because it's not open to discussion.

Badriya wrote:

i don’t wish to speak for Misfit, but in the post you cited she did make a distinction between sexual assault and sexual harassment. On Twitter much has been made of the fact Valerie Bourne said the event was not sexual assault. I agree, but it was clearly sexual harassment,

https://www.canadianwomen.org/the-facts/sexual-assault-harassment/

 

Except that that is actually not her call to make.

If what is alleged to happened, happened (and remember the woman has never specified where she groped - that was the publisher/editor and the statement has now been challenged by others), then it was clearly a sexual assault: non-consensual touching in circumstances that to an objective viewer would appear to be sexual.

Whether it would be worth prosecuting as such, of course, is a different matter.

Pookie wrote;

"BTW: you seem to be very big on what it is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to suggest or discuss."

Pardon me?

I have never done any such thing. Quit making up things that I have never said or done. 

And there is a very big difference between "irrelevant" and "appropriate" They are two totally different meanings.

i am not elaborating on any of this further, but for a lawyer, your issues that you have against me are quite disturbing.

i will discuss nothing more with you and hope that you drop this as well.

Good bye!

I do stand corrected. I just read one of my previous posts and I wrote:

"It is also inappropriate to suggest that the police would have gotten themselves involved on their own volition for a groping incident, especially with no corroborating physical evidence when they are notorious for their dismal record of taking sexual harrassment and sexual assault seriously."

I stand by what I said.

Theoretically or objectively the police could have initiated an investigation into the matter if they so pleased.

The irksome reality that I took issue with is the fact that police do not take violence against women seriously, and the chances of them having actually gotten involved are slim to none.

The Globe and Mail article I posted earlier and will repost now...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/unfounded--assault-canada-main/article33891309/

Details some of the many problems women face when dealing with the police about sexual assault.  And this isn't a new problem. The police have a longstanding reputation for being dismissive of legitimate cases of sexual assault.

So yes, in theory, the police could have investigated. However, the reality that this actually would have actually happened is very slim.

 Pondering wrote:

"She has refused to speak since then. When she said it happened "as described" it was before the butt cheek comment which did not come from her:"

Yes, that is true and I stand corrected. Thank you.

Yes, I think her refusal to get involved (and her clear reluctance to now speak at all) is a wholly understandable response in an insane world. It seems very unlikely (to me at least) that the reason she's not coming forward is that what happened was a serious assault.  It also does not at all jive with her co-workers' accounts. 

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

For many women as long as it isn't repeat behavior an apology for a single mild incident is acceptable.

 

That seems like a very odd thing to say.

Quote:

I don't see why the woman in question is so resistent to speaking up (anonymously) if it was just a butt grab as her boss states. Her outrage in the editorial and her refusal to speak now suggested something more serious to me. 

Post your real name, Facebook acccount and other social media. Give me a couple weeks to dig into your past over the last 18 years, including relationships looking for a bitter ex's  and I'd be happy to agree with you.

I said speak up anonymously. 

No one has replied to me yet on her writing this editorial as though she was not personally involved. It is akin to plagerism to not mention possible conflict of  interest. 

Borne or Bell, aside from saying it was a butt cheek contact also stated it happened in the blink of an eye. As far as we know this is a single incident. They disrespected her request that the matter be dropped. I guess it ups their paper's profile. 

Personally I think the woman just doesn't want to be  involved in the media circus around an accusation like this but if that is the case she should have stuck with "no comment". 

Even if Trudeau remembers he can't share the details without betraying the woman.

Men have been cleared, such as Paiken, or the incidents have been mild enough not to illicit alarm like for Weir, because the  women concerned were willing to share the details (anonymously) allowing an investigator to come to conclusions. It is fine if the woman doesn't want to come forward at all but she did come forward, twice. The first time in her editorial, and more recently when she said "it happened as described". 

There are attempts by editorialists to paint the Me Too movement as unfair to men. This is the type of incident that contributes to that narrative. Men do deserve an opportunity to respond to specific allegations once  an investigation is complete. 

In this instance there is no possibility for an investigation to reach a conclusion, guilty or innocent, and that is unfair. 

She put this in the public domain when she wrote that article. I can give her a break and realize over the two decades since then she may have decided she should not have come forward.  But then she shouldn't have recently confirmed that "the incident happened as described".  I'm not even convinced she deserves anonymity after abusing her position as temporary editor. 

It's an interesting point but....given that editorials are virtually always unsigned I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is just because it describes something that personally happened to a member of the editorial board.  A person can write about an event in the third person.  And, where exactly does plagiarism fit in?

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

It's an interesting point but....given that editorials are virtually always unsigned I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is just because it describes something that personally happened to a member of the editorial board.  A person can write about an event in the third person.  And, where exactly does plagiarism fit in?

Akin to plagerism. In both cases it undermines trust in the press. Editorials are often unsigned and there was no reason for her to reveal her name. There was reason for her to reveal that she was not a disinterested observer. She was directly involved. That's conflict of interest. 

I don't think anyone reading THAT editorial would mistake it as coming from a "disinterested observer". (Actually, the same could be said about most editorials.)  Do you?  

And the piece clearly identifies that the subject of the alleged assault was one of its reporters.  

If you don't think she needed to append her name, then what exactly did she need to add to the piece?  

Misfit wrote:

WWWT,

I am very happy that you shared your personal story of being groped with us. This Justin Trudeau groping incident can be quite triggering to people who have personally experienced sexual abuse in their lives. It can bring up old memories and force us to relive the feelings of anger, fear, personal violation, shame, and betrayal all over again.

It is also frustrating when we witness someone who is in a position of high power and authority not take ownership of allegedly past wrongful behaviour and seem to get away with it. This, in turn, fuels further anger, betrayal and bewilderment at a system that is designed to let assumed perpetrators off the hook for their wrongful and damaging behaviour.

I also believe that it can be further distressing when some who have not experienced sexual harassment or sexual assault seem to to talk glibly and overtly objectively about a sensitive topic like unwanted sexual touching or groping.

I understand that you feel that you need to take a week off from this thread. You do know what your needs are and what is best for you at this point. I also want you to know that I value your opinions and that I hope to see you come back if that is what you feel comfortable in doing. 

I hope to see you back soon,

 

I agree with and support all that is in this post. I won't try to put it in my own words becuase it is said very well here.

Sometimes I do think that sharing a personal story, as difficult as that may be, can result in greater understanding for others.

Thank you WWWT

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

It's an interesting point but....given that editorials are virtually always unsigned I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is just because it describes something that personally happened to a member of the editorial board.  A person can write about an event in the third person.  And, where exactly does plagiarism fit in?

Akin to plagerism. In both cases it undermines trust in the press. Editorials are often unsigned and there was no reason for her to reveal her name. There was reason for her to reveal that she was not a disinterested observer. She was directly involved. That's conflict of interest. 

I don't think anyone reading THAT editorial would mistake it as coming from a "disinterested observer". (Actually, the same could be said about most editorials.)  Do you?  

And the piece clearly identifies that the subject of the alleged assault was one of its reporters.  

If you don't think she needed to append her name, then what exactly did she need to add to the piece?  

That she personally was the victim. When you are writing about something that happened to you it changes the point of view.  

http://caj.ca/content.php?page=ethics-guidelines

We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations. We make a genuine and reasonable effort to contact them, and if they decline to comment, we say so.

...We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting.

...We disclose to our audiences any biases that could be perceived to influence our reporting. (See CONFLICT OF INTEREST, above.)

She was definitely biased and should have revealed it at the time she wrote the article. 

First of all, this was an editorial which is separate from reporting.  This was not an "article".  It is an expression of opinion.  It is ok for it to be biased.

Secondly, the basis for the bias is clearly identified in the piece - a reporter from the paper is identified as having been the subject of groping.  No one would read that editorial and think that it was purporting to be an unbiased account.  

I don't disagree that there is something unsettling about reading an editorial that purports to be a third person account that actually is written by the subject of the piece. (Although, one could read the piece and suspect that it was written by the person who got groped.)  But the only way to get around that is to have asked for the reporter to have written the column under her own name.   This was a paper with two reporters, right?  Something anonymous seems totally impractical.

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

It's an interesting point but....given that editorials are virtually always unsigned I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is just because it describes something that personally happened to a member of the editorial board.  A person can write about an event in the third person.  And, where exactly does plagiarism fit in?

Akin to plagerism. In both cases it undermines trust in the press. Editorials are often unsigned and there was no reason for her to reveal her name. There was reason for her to reveal that she was not a disinterested observer. She was directly involved. That's conflict of interest. 

I don't think anyone reading THAT editorial would mistake it as coming from a "disinterested observer". (Actually, the same could be said about most editorials.)  Do you?  

And the piece clearly identifies that the subject of the alleged assault was one of its reporters.  

If you don't think she needed to append her name, then what exactly did she need to add to the piece?  

That she personally was the victim. When you are writing about something that happened to you it changes the point of view.  

http://caj.ca/content.php?page=ethics-guidelines

We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations. We make a genuine and reasonable effort to contact them, and if they decline to comment, we say so.

...We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting.

...We disclose to our audiences any biases that could be perceived to influence our reporting. (See CONFLICT OF INTEREST, above.)

She was definitely biased and should have revealed it at the time she wrote the article. 

First of all, this was an editorial which is separate from reporting.  This was not an "article".  It is an expression of opinion.  It is ok for it to be biased.

Secondly, the basis for the bias is clearly identified in the piece - a reporter from the paper is identified as having been the subject of groping.  No one would read that editorial and think that it was purporting to be an unbiased account.  

I don't disagree that there is something unsettling about reading an editorial that purports to be a third person account that actually is written by the subject of the piece. (Although, one could read the piece and suspect that it was written by the person who got groped.)  But the only way to get around that is to have asked for the reporter to have written the column under her own name.   This was a paper with two reporters, right?  Something anonymous seems totally impractical.

She was temporary editor. I don't know how many reporters there were. Calling it an editorial doesn't change the fact she was reporting on an incident she was personally involved with not just expressing an opinion. It was dishonest to omit that information.

Another reporter should have written it. A reporter that could have gone to Trudeau for his version before publication as is the norm. Someone should have gone to Trudeau and asked "did you apologize and if so what for?" The reason that didn't happen was that this reporter was personally involved in the incident. To her there was only one version, hers. Knowing the victim and being the victim is not the same degree of bias. 

I'm not sure I agree with you, but I agree it is an unsettling aspect of this. I am going to talk to a few of my journalist friends and see what they think.   

Considering it wasn't opinion but reporting, and the fact it was a small town newspaper which probably had only one reporter it seems an absurd splitting of hairs to me.

It was editorial about an allegation of sexual assault, not an article about something which was of financial benefit to the reporter or the paper. The relevant part wasn't opinion at all. It was a direct quote and reporting of something which happened.

And it was in the third person because that is an acceptable way to write a news story, even if it concerns the person writing it. Morrow referred to himself as "this reporter", not "I".

If there was any conflict, or any way her perspective could have altered what was written (unless the implication was that she lied) what was it?

I get the argument, but like other claims of sexual assault "not standing up in court" when it doesn't even involve a charge, this is an irrelevent over-complication. If it was in any way valid I am sure the PMO would have made that argument themselves by now.

I didn't go to J-school so I don't claim to be the final word, but I was a small newspaper editor (including a small town paper) for 15 years. So I do understand that there probably was no other writer to hand that one over to, even if there was a conflict (which I don't see).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 It was editorial about an allegation of sexual assault, not an article about something which was of financial benefit to the reporter or the paper. The relevant part wasn't opinion at all. It was a direct quote and reporting of something which happened.  ​

Money is not the only conflict of interest. Writing about a family member or friend also creates bias. She didn't report what happened. She reported her conclusion of what happened. Seeing as it happened to her I would expect a lot more detail and specifics around the allegation. That is what a reporter would provide if they knew the details not an out of context quote. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  And it was in the third person because that is an acceptable way to write a news story, even if it concerns the person writing it. Morrow referred to himself as "this reporter", not "I". ​

Yes, but not to conceal that they are speaking of themselves.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  If there was any conflict, or any way her perspective could have altered what was written (unless the implication was that she lied) what was it? ​

She didn't report what happened. She reported her interpretation. The investigator for Paiken concluded that the woman who accused him had misinterpreted what happened, not lied, just misinterpreted. And yes, it is possible she is lying. That is why such accusations should result in an investigation. If the complainant refuses to cooperate and there are no other complainants that clears the accused in my book. 

Ask yourselves this. If a reporter/editor were a fly on the wall and witnessed Trudeau groping a woman would the article have been more descriptive? Would we have read of the approach? Did he come up in front of her or behind her? Did they speak? What body part? Was it a grab, a pinch or a slap? How did the woman react in the moment?  Was there anyone else present? What time was it? Did  everyone seem drunk? Was Trudeau drunk? 

She had all that information and all she could say was he groped a woman? What kind of reporter withholds all that information?

NDPP wrote:

Trudeau's Handling of Groping Allegation Has 'Terribly Set Back' Progress on Women's Issues

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/07/16/pm-trudeaus-handling-groping-allega...

"...The prime minister's changing statements in his own defence about groping allegations have also resounded around the world, 'but not in a good way', because of his international profile and 'what people thought of him' as a champion of women's concerns, Ms Finlay said. 'He just sets back things terribly,' Ms Finlay said.

'I've had an inbox full of messages from victims saying, 'What do I do now? Because I'm really worried that the tide is turning back.' Ms Finlay said the way Mr Trudeau has approached this issue has diminished the trust many survivors had in him as a principled feminist leader and advocate for them.

'The public's treatment of the former reporter, who revealed her identity in a statement on July 6, 'sent a real chill' to people who may want to come forward, she said..."

This article puts a chill on women who want to report anonynmously and allow investigators to confirm. It undermines the Metoo movement as it suggests men aren't entitled to an investigation.

This is the exact thing critics have been claiming and warning of. Until now they were wrong. Now they are right. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering, you were asking about if people "seemed" drunk. Unless someone had a breathalyzer writing something like that would have been speculative and unsubstantiated.

Plus, like the other supposed details you mention it has no bearing on the substance of the accusation. What does it matter what direction he came from? It's not a novel.

And although you may think so, it would not make the quote from Trudeau any more believable, and not including it does not make it any less so. It stands on its own quite well. Either what she reported him saying is true, or you think she published a false report.

And her co-worker did not "undermine" her account. Both the publisher and editor said she was very distressed by it. Her publisher simply said it was brief, and that she did not consider it sexual assault. The editor said he respected her character and that he believed the incident happened.

 Trudeau backed into REB at which point his elbow hit her breast. This was described as being "physically molested" (not by her). In my opinion although his elbow contacted her breast she was not physically molested. 

In this incident  the publisher didn't say it was "brief" she said it happened in the blink of an eye. 

When making complaints women have a right to anonymity. They have a right to be believed to the extent of  seriously investigating allegations. They don't get to be judge and jury while refusing to share what actually happened. 

A butt slap can be accidental a butt squeeze not so much. So yeah, an impartial investigator does need to know which it was. 

Some people want to hang him high without the investigator part. It's a necessary component. She didn't need to reveal her name. She needed to reveal what happened because so far she hasn't told anyone other than her publisher who said it is not sexual assault and that it happened in the blink of an eye and had something to do with a cheek. 

That is not enough. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 “I’m sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I would never have been so forward.”

If that quote is accurate, it doesn't seem to align with your version that it was an accidental brushing against someone. Why would he say that he would treat a member of the national media any differently?

Because he was joking. If he really meant it he never would have said it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 I think it is worth remembering that the reporter didn't pursue the act as harrassment or assault, and in fact still doesn't want to engage with the current coverage. There is no "judge and jury", as you put it.  

She still hasn't told us what he did. She defined what he did as groping. She refuses to speak to an investigator or let anyone else decide if whatever it is he did  was groping. She decided it's groping and that is that. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 So this notion of "conflict of interest" is a bit stilted. What interest or gain? What she did was report on her interaction with Trudeau, and what he said to her.  

A reporter hearing that account would go to Trudeau and ask him for a comment before going to print. Then they would report his rebuttal or say he refused to comment. It was unprofessional not to do so. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  But this attempt to undermine her account in the paper - something which was backed up both by her publisher and editor - is really thin gruel. Not just your taking issue with her refering to herself in the third person, but also your expectation of more information because you think it will somehow flesh out the story - or discount it. 

As long as we know she is referring to herself in the 3rd person it is fine. She hid it. That's not fine. Her publisher and editor backed up that she was distressed and that she accused Trudeau of groping. The publisher specifically stated that it was not sexual assault and that it happened in the blink of an eye and it involved a cheek. The  publisher did not say the reporter was groped. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  In fact, no one involved in this story has accused her of writing a false report, or of misquoting Trudeau. 

Trudeau said he doesn't remember it that way which is the most he can do because the complainant refuses to tell an investigator what he supposedly did. 

I would never expect someone to plead guilty without knowing what they are being accused of. 

Pondering wrote:

Because he was joking. If he really meant it he never would have said it. 

She still hasn't told us what he did. She defined what he did as groping. She refuses to speak to an investigator or let anyone else decide if whatever it is he did  was groping. She decided it's groping and that is that. 

Your choosing to believe the entitled asshole groper instead of the woman is the most misogynist crap I've seen on this site ever.

Your fucking excuse for Trudeau is not just lame it is at the core of the problem. It is the boys will be boys attitude. He doesn't get a free pass even if he smiled sweetly and made a lame joke after he realized she might not want to take him for a toss in the sack after his crude pass. Many misogynists would be of the opinon that really she should have been thrilled that such a celebrity was willing to show her some attention.

The NDP will find a way to fuck it up!

Pondering wrote:

Because he was joking. If he really meant it he never would have said it.

I sorta get the feeling you'd try and paint Trudeau as the victim if you could?

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Because he was joking. If he really meant it he never would have said it.

I sorta get the feeling you'd try and paint Trudeau as the victim if you could?

Victimhood is an artform, as we know. Everyone does it!