Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's just that this is a very funny time in history to say "we must not be getting the whole story here because I know this guy would never do such a thing" and hope to not be called "part of the problem".

How about this: Erin Weir has stated publicly what he did and what the report said he did - and how he learned from that and is determined to improve his behaviour. No one has said, "that's wrong, that's not what happened".

So, here is the uncontradicted description of his impugned behaviour:

Standing too close, sitting too close, talking longer than desired by the other person, not picking up on social cues, but always stopping the instant an issue was brought to his attention.

Plus, the party hireling who tried to shut him down from speaking at his own convention, and was met with "anger and belligerence". That was the "victim" going public (anonymously of course), in violation of the parameters of the kangaroo investigation.

The complainants have every right to remain silent, and to protect their identity. We really don't need their evidence, and we really don't need to see the contents of the kangaroo "investigation", because what actually happened is more than clear.

Singh really needs to do three things: 1) Reinstate Weir fully and apologize to him. 2) Fire his flunkeys that advised him to hug Moore and hit Weir. 3) Take some time off and sign up for sensitivity training.

..wow! to those who are drawing their ndp line in the sand with the weir issue. one person even said they would vote liberal.

..no line in the sand for how the ndp treats or has treated indiginous nations. barely a mention. just wow!

Here is an article covering the controversy around the First Nations curriculum in school...

Article

epaulo13 wrote:

..wow! to those who are drawing their ndp line in the sand with the weir issue. one person even said they would vote liberal.

..no line in the sand for how the ndp treats or has treated indiginous nations. barely a mention. just wow!

I agree. But in fairness, I really believe the conversation here, over the months, has never focused on, "I'll vote based on how they treat Weir". And if one person said they'll vote Liberal (assuming they meant it), I can't for a moment believe that it hinges just on Weir. I may be wrong. But whatever, if you have an opinion on how the NDP turfs candidates and sitting members, I'd be interested in hearing it.

from researching my family's realities my perceptions now encompass the thought "it's not just this government or governors."  colonial exploitation has been a constant for hundreds of years. it's coming to an end because we are finding and regaining our stolen heritage. our own dignity.

when you fight for your own dignity you can fight for others too.

there's nothing dignified or tolerable in how Erin Weirs been treated.

Thanks for drawing our attention to that, robbie_dee. It's heartwrenching to see how this hatchet job played out. I don't know who ghost-wrote Singh's September 4 email, but he put his name to it. I couldn't believe it. He lacks the basic humanity to lead a progressive political party.

robbie_dee wrote:

Worth a read through:

Quote:

On May 3, 2018, Jagmeet Singh expelled MP Erin Weir from the federal NDP caucus. In a letter on May 7, a group of former New Democratic MPs and MLAs from Saskatchewan outlined the flaws in Singh’s investigation and called on him to reinstate Weir.

Weir completed sensitivity training with the trainer recommended by Singh’s chief of staff. At a meeting on June 21, Singh asked Weir to take several further steps. In a letter on August 27, Weir reported back to Singh that he had completed this remedial activity and asked to be reinstated.

In an email on September 4, Singh rejected this request. In a letter on September 5, former MLA Pat Atkinson asked current New Democratic MPs to review Singh’s decision.

Since various media outlets made these documents public, they have been made available through the above hyperlinks to facilitate informed discussion.

http://www.erinweir.com/

From Singh's email:

Just this week, the President of the union representing the staff working for Federal NDP caucus members made it clear in a email sent to my Chief of Staff that the union has serious concerns about ensuring a safe workplace if you are reinstated. 

Who is this person?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I believe her name is Nasha Brownridge, President, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada - Local 232.

ed'd to add:  whoops!  She's just the President of that local.  If the e-mail was from the National President, that's Paul Meinema.

Thank you. Yes, it's her. Local 232 covers the NDP caucus:

https://openparliament.ca/committees/human-resources/42-1/90/nasha-brown...

I often joke about wearing many hats. Here, I am president of UFCW - Local 232, representing approximately 250 NDP staff working for the House of Commons. I am also a young female political staffer who has volunteered and worked in MPs' offices, as well as working in multiple departments in the public service. I am also a friend, a daughter, a colleague, and a partner. In wearing these multiple hats I have come to know all too well the pervasive culture of harassment here on Parliament Hill, and have witnessed and experienced harassment. In my different capacities I have been confided in, I have consoled, and I have advised. I have also confided in and sought advice from others.

Then she added another hat:

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/30/politicos-on-the-move-comms-shops-beefin...

The NDP has a new caucus press secretary, Nasha Brownridge. She replaces Melanie Richer, who left for a communications gig at the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation.

Several quotes from her in this article:

https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/59k7e5/hill-staff-dont-trust-the-ndp...

Brownridge said the union aims to provide a “safe space” where complainants “do not fear reprisal.”

However, she believes concerns staffers raised about party loyalty is a perception, not a reality.

“The fact that the perception that party loyalty could get in the way of harassment complaints exists is concerning to me, and I will do everything in my power to change this perception where it exists,” she said.

Funny how Singh didn't mention her name, just her position, in the letter.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

good thing i'm not a feminist. high horses means a long way to fall. my mom considers herself a feminist from the Island too and she's pissed. maybe it's a SK thing though.

This reminds me of how Clinton supporters spread rumours that people who supported Bernie Sanders were sexist Bernie bros, while Hillary Clinton would go on to support Andrew Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon in the New York Democratic primary, and so many of these supporters are also silent on the candidacy of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

i have no thoughts on it. lol. 

bekayne wrote:

Brownridge said the union aims to provide a “safe space” where complainants “do not fear reprisal.”

If the NDP is wiped out in Quebec and Saskatchewan, and suffers grievous losses elsewhere under JS's leadership, there will be precious few spaces for Hill staffers, safe or otherwise. 

Quote:

So they appear to be in a chronic conflict of interest, where loyalty to the employer trumps many things. I'm not saying that's what happened in the Weir case, but it sure looks suspiciously familiar.

In what way do you feel that the Union's letter to management constitutes a "conflict of interest"?  Seems like they're standing up for members, yes?

But even if they were not, is the Union duty-bound to disagree with management on everything?  If some "Consumer News" site says that Ford vehicles are "death traps" and tells buyers "only buy a Ford if you want your children to burn to death in agony", I could certainly imagine Ford management saying "our vehicles are safe".  I could also imagine the Union representing the workers making those vehicles saying "our vehicles are safe".

Not to suck up to management, but because they ARE safe, and because if nobody buys Ford vehicles, the workers building Ford vehicles are going to be on pogey.

But when the NDP declined to reinstate Weir, that only meant FEWER jobs for UFCW workers and also fewer MPs or potential MPs for the boss.  It's not clear how this is an "own goal".

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So they appear to be in a chronic conflict of interest, where loyalty to the employer trumps many things. I'm not saying that's what happened in the Weir case, but it sure looks suspiciously familiar.

In what way do you feel that the Union's letter to management constitutes a "conflict of interest"?  Seems like they're standing up for members, yes?

I was going to ignore your post, which is mostly sophistry, but let me just say this. Where was this union when its members were being "sexually harassed" by Weir? They didn't know? Ok, where were they when gossip columnist Christine Moore told the whole caucus all about this dangerous abuser, too dangerous to be alone in the same room with, and how many (non)complainants she had heard about? Did this union step up to the plate and demand that the employer take swift action to remove Weir pending investigation? Did they ask for the negotiated harassment procedure (they must have one - they were part of Unifor, even if they can't figure it out themselves) to be followed? How about the Mulcair staffer who went public with her "charges" (without naming herself)? She must be a member of that very same union, no? Did they step up for her once they knew about the horrendous events of the 2016 SK convention?

In actual fact, the so-called union piped up only when Singh needed one more voice saying, "yes sir, aye aye sir" - and suddenly, they were mightily afraid for their members' safety. For the first time.

Increasingly, there is reason to call bullshit.

Ari,

Unionist explained why Manley was barred from running for the NDP.

Manley actively took part in a flotilla barge of emergency supplies destined for Gaza. For that humanitarian effort he has been branded an anti-Semite and is not allowed to run for the NDP ever again.

delete

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist, Misfit I simply said that Paul Manley should consider running as an MP in Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Where in my post do I say it should be specifically under the NDP banner?

You never said that. And , I never said you said that (did I?). I was trying to agree with you, but I guess I did so too clumsily. That's the peril of linear sequential discussion boards.

This entire thread is about the NDP and its behaviour. I just wanted to remind everyone of how it had treated some of its best or potentially best (Manley, Jonasson), since we're talking here about the political assassination of Erin Weir. In fact, I thought Paul Manley had gone to the Green party, but that may just be my flawed memory.

Misfit wrote:

Ari,

Unionist explained why Manley was barred from running for the NDP.

Manley actively took part in a flotilla barge of emergency supplies destined for Gaza.

You are getting your Manleys confused. It was former NDP MP Jim Manley who took part in the flotilla. Paul Manley was blacklisted for protesting his father's treatment by the Israeli authorities.

I was just remembering Bill Siksay - one of the best NDP members of Parliament ever. I hope he is doing well but people of his calibre are certainly missed.

Oh well, I have Erin Weir's take on it. Your failure to elaborate on the details of what you say actually happened leave me no discourse but to support Weir. 

Your "just trust us" and we are going to disclose nothing just doesn't cut it.

We actually have more than just Weir's take on it we also have the letter from Joy Noonan, the harassment trainer originally recommended by Jagmeet's office, which both comments on the investigator's report and on the steps Weir took, with her help, to try and address his conduct in the future. I know notalib has seen this letter because we discussed it upthread but I will repost a link to the article in which its linked here:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/he-gets-it-bolstered-by-outcome-of-train...

Parkin's argument, as exerpted above at least, is a strawperson. Weir never called for the report to be released. He never sought to identify the complainants, other than to the extent he responded to specific allegations made public by one of them. There is already enough information publicly available for people to make up their own minds about what Weir did, what others did, and whether the severe outcome Weir ultimately experienced was a fair result under the circumstances. I think it was not, and the one point I agree on with Parkin is that this incident *will* likely "undo some of the fragile gains of #MeToo," at least in the context of Canadian and social democratic politics. That's really unfortunate. But I don't think New Democrats shutting up and getting in line with Jagmeet on this will help. It just distances them further from the conclusions that most of the general public will take from this, which is basically that New Democrats have lost their collective minds.

It amazes me that so many posters on the left cite the 68 former Saskatchewan NDP MPs and MLAs support of Weir while criticizing Singh for not being left-wing enough when the Saskatchewan NDP was largely neoliberal in the Romanow and Calvert governments from the 1990s onwards, as the following article written in 2012 demonstrates.

During this time period, Saskatchewan NDP membership fell from 46,000 to 8,000. It was the Saskatchewan NDP government that closed 52 rural hospitals; allowed a child poverty rate of 19.6%, tying it for first place among provinces; ignored peoples needs while cutting taxes; ignored the needs of Aboriginal people; denounced the Kyoto protocol and failed to implement its own proposed greenhouse gas reductions. With Cam Broten as NDP leader from 2013 to 2016, it proposed middle class tax cuts and a few programs put forward by the NDP  that were all based on taking money from 'government waste', a classic conservative approach (https://www.saskndp.ca/platform_launch). The new NDP leader, Ryan Melli, who was elected in March has shifted the party to the left with a "leadership campaign that this time around included proposals for a $15 minimum wage, universal pharmacare and removing corporate and union donations from politics", but not much in terms of meaningful greenhouse gas emission reductions. (https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/03/25/new-saskatchewan-ndp-leader-ryan-...)

I suspect the former NDP Saskatchewan legislators oppose Singh on much more than the Weir issue and are particularly opposed to his opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline and his focus on shifiting to a renewable energy economy, just as they have opposed meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases in a province with the second largest fossil fuel industry and are using Weir to push back on Singh on his Trans Mountain pipeline decision and a shift towards a renewable green energy economy. Meanwhile, the 2014 global average temperature broke the all-time historical record, which in turn was broken by the 2015 global average record, which in turn was broken by the 2016 global average temperature record.

However, I guess we can all relax because 2017 was only the second worst global average temperature record and only seventeen of the top warmest eighteen years have occurred since 2000. No need to be concerned about 88,000 people had to flee Fort MacMurrray in 2016 because of wildfires even though environmental scientists and computer generated models predicted these kind of outcomes of continuing use of fossil fuels; no need for concern for about the thousands who had to leave their homes due to wildfires in Saskatchewan in 2018; no need for concern for the 65,000 who had to flee their homes in BC in 2017 record setting wildfires that burned an area more than twice the size of Prince Edward Island; and no need to be concerned about the 12,984 square kilometres and still growing in size, an area 2.3 times the size of Prince Edward Island, burnt by 2018 BC wildfires that broke the 2017 record. 

The Saskatchewan NDP needs to seriously re-evaluate the political direction it has taken since 1991. The move to the right to embrace the neoliberal model has been a failure. Thus it is a good time for a book of serious papers which examine ongoing problems and set out an alternative policy direction. The child poverty rate in Saskatchewan stands at 19.6 percent, tied with BC as the highest in Canada. James Mulvale and Kirk Englot explain how a progressive provincial government could implement a feasible strategy for poverty reduction.

Saskatchewan has a very high percentage of senior citizens with increasing health-care costs. The Aboriginal population is growing fast. Daniel Beland stresses the need for major training and support programs. The province cannot meet the needs of the people while putting its highest priority on cutting taxes. Bohdan Kordan concludes that recent provincial governments have had little interest in introducing multicultural policies to welcome new immigrants, even with the shortage of skilled workers and jobs unfilled. There are long waiting lists to get into training programs at our technical institutes.

Saskatchewan has a horrendous record when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In 1997 Roy Romanow’s NDP government introduced a resolution in the legislature denouncing the Kyoto Protocol and insisting that no compulsory controls be placed on emissions. They shut down the Energy Conservation and Development Commission, which had produced excellent studies on projects suitable for the province.

When faced with the challenge from the New Green Alliance and the few environmental organizations in the province, Lorne Calvert’s government finally came up with a set of goals for reductions, but there was no attempt to actually implement any serious program. Scott Bell and Jamesy Patrick outline a general path that could be taken. But they do not confront the reality of the situation in the province, where neither of the two major parties has ever had any commitment to doing anything which would reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/whatever-happened-to-the-sas...

With regard to Erin Weir himself, I have some sympathy for him because his self-admitted awkwardness in social situations may have led to the review of his behaviour. 

Interestingly, Stockwell Day, a person with whom I agree on almost nothing, had an insightful comment on the situation. In the MeToo era, all political parties are searching for a way to deal with harassment and all have failed. Day thought Singh's independent review with the leader making a final decision was a step forward and better than Trudeau's quick decision to ban two MPs from the party or anything that the Conservatives had come up with so far. He felt you could argue about whether his response to Weir's failure to follow Singh's guidelines for staying in the party were dealt with effectively from a PR viewpoint. 

Singh was in an awkward position when Weir provided information about the woman who initiated the complaint, in violation of his guidelines. I do not feel he was out to get Weir, but felt he had to uphold his decision. Whatever he decided, he was going to receive criticism. And as Kropotkin noted above, this is far from the first case of a ban from the party leading to controversy, even under Saint Jack, and even more so under Mulcair. 

Notalib wrote:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/on-the-case-of-erin-weir-jagmeet-singh-h...

It’s always easy to demand the release of a report when you know it never can happen. You can sound like a victimized soul who just wants the truth to come out.

But you never have to worry it will.

That advantage is being used by Saskatchewan MP Erin Weir, who was recently expelled from the federal NDP caucus following a sexual harassment investigation and report.

And it’s an advantage everyone should think very carefully about. Engaging it could undo some of the fragile gains of #MeToo.

No. What would undo some of the fragile gains of #MeToo is making it look like people will be accused over the slightest thing, or that any time someone is uncomfortable that it is harassment. The truth is, harassment happens along a spectrum. Some acts are so minor that a response from the offender of "I see that you were offended by what I did, I apologize, and I will never do that again" will suffice. Other acts are so serious, either as a one-off act or a repeated pattern of behaviour that dismissal is appropriate.

Notalib wrote:

The report is confidential. Just Weir and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh got a copy. Singh only revealed the findings—one incident of harassment and three of sexual harassment—necessarily leaving blank the details of the incidents.

That has given Weir the chance to fill in those blanks.

The NDP leader has taken pot-shots over the confidentiality of the report, with others spinning conjecture about what it says. It’s the kind of gossipy politics the pundit panels and AM radio talk shows love.

Expelling an MP from a Caucus is a big thing, and when it happens people are going to ask questions about what happened. As for confidentiality, it is possible to explain in detail why an MP had to be removed (a vague statement about "findings of harassment" simply don't cut it) while respecting the confidentiality of the involved persons. And by providing only vague statements, that has left the door open for Weir to spin the situation his way. The public perception is that he might have stood too closely to someone while talking to them. If that is the standard for harassment, nearly every man in the world is guilty of such. Certainly people on this forum would have done so in their real life interactions. Most people would look at that and wonder what the big deal is. On the other hand, most people would agree that it is inappropriate to tickle women, put their foot in your crotch, rub their shoulders, kiss them on the forehead, and send them suggestive e-mails. Note that in these cases, once that information was out, none of the men accused even tried to defend themselves, because they had no legs to stand on.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Expelling an MP from Caucus is a big thing, and when it happens people are going to ask questions about what happened. As for confidentiality, it is possible to explain in detail why an MP had to be removed (a vague statement about "findings of harassment" simply don't cut it) while respecting the confidentiality of the involved persons. And by providing only vague statements, that has left the door open for Weir to spin the situation his way. The public perception is that he might have stood too closely to someone while talking to them. If that is the standard for harassment, nearly every man in the world is guilty of such. Certainly people on this forum would have done so in their real life interactions. Most people would look at that and wonder what the big deal is. On the other hand, most people would agree that it is inappropriate to tickle women, put their foot in your crotch, rub their shoulders, kiss them on the forehead, and send them suggestive e-mails. Note that in these cases, once that information was out, none of the men accused even tried to defend themselves, because they had no legs to stand on.

To be clear, Wab Kinew says he's changed and is not the person he was. I believe that's probably true. I believe that, generally, people deserve a chance to make amends and move on even from very serious past conduct. They also should be entitled to dispute allegations that they do not believe are true, as Kinew apparently disputes the domestic violence charge that was laid, but later stayed. I’m not sure whether Jagmeet sees things the same way, though, at least not from the high horse he’s currently sitting on. But Kinew, a Singh supporter during the leadership race, certainly got much gentler treatment from Singh at that time than Weir is receiving now.