You know, one of the things I used to like about babble is that on difficult topics like these we could count on thoughtful and erudite babblers from the front lines of sexual assault and workplace harassment to comment from their expertise and experience and shed new light on an issue the mainstream media had dissolved into partisan or sensational talking points. I have seen exactly zero of that here. Instead, I see people who have never spoken so fulsomely about sexual assault before suddenly trotting out 45-page studies and asserting irrefutable authority on the matter.
Without going into too much detail, my particular "expertise and experience" that sheds "new light on an issue", is that I was a key witness for the prosecution on a case where I was the "first respondent" on rape, aggravated assault kidnapping charge that involved a serial abuser/rapist.
I was an friend of the victim, who I helped coach through the entire process of deciding to testify against the accused, including supporting the victim by attending all proceedings in the matter, including the trial.
Just to say, I actually have quite a bit of direct knowlege of how this process goes forward, technically, and emotionally. Even getting the victim in the same court room on the day of the trial, was difficult after months of encouragement and work.
To this day, I still don't know if we did the right thing, since the Crown plead the case down to 5 years.
I don't like spewing personal anecdotes in order authorize my statements, especially in the context of a discussion with women who may or may not have experienced similar events directly. I don't feel that my experience should be used as a "trump" card in such discussion.
Therefore I refrain. But you have pretty much forced me to it through your stupid and prejudiced moderating note.
What I have done by presenting "45-page studies", and other reference material on these kinds of issues is try and put forward "non-prejudicial" material that reflect what I think and believe based on my personal experiences, without referencing my personal experience, or where my "interest" comes from, or to assert personal authority, over the thoughts and views of others who may or may not have similar experiences.
Maybe you should read the 45 page study?
The views of the moderating staff here seem to have come full circle doublethink. Any agreement with the NDP is construed as "partisanship" to the point where defence of their positions can be discounted as partisan, and in this case a convenient tool for invalidating the expression of the women in the NDP caucus, and shutting down their voice, in favour of supporting the allegedly "non-partisan" actions of JT Trudeau, which according to some should be blindly supported on a "non-partisan" objective basis by the NDP.
That was the point of that thread.
I have generally tried, as I always do, to stick to issue based discussion of the facts, and not simple, what you call "partisanship". In fact, I am a member of no party, and don't reflexively vote NDP, though this would seem to be your assumption, simply because I happen to agree with the NDP on a number of issues.
This one, I agree with Turmel, Leslie and Mulcair. Not Tom Mulcair and Jack Layton suppressing Libby Davis on Palestine. Not preventing candidate running because of their statement on Palestine. Not Adam Giambrone forcing his way into an nomination against the local nominee. But, yes Tom Mulcair on the October 22nd attack in Ottawa. No to Sid Ryan and his sell-out of the public service. Yes, Andrea Horwath in voting down the Wynne privatization budget.
I know this is going to be hard to believe but I actually agree with what I have heard from Turmel, Leslie and Mulcair. That has nothing to do with what party they are in, it has everything to do with the personal experiences I outlined above.