Statement of Claim filed against NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine for harassment

The exciting voyeurism is so powerful, babblers can't even pause to realize they're in the wrong thread.

Adultery, condoms, rape, whoopee.

What a pathetic farce.

Brachina, you're absolutely wrong about this, and I cannot believe you made the last couple of posts to this thread that you did. Take some time to listen and reflect on what the women of babble are saying before you speak.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD2EooMhqRI]Watch this video and learn.[/url] So much communication is non-verbal, and very often what a person says contradicts his or her body language. "She didn't say no" is not a defense.

Pierre C yr wrote:

Its called damange control. After Trudeau's sudden outing of the incident everyone involved in the NDP has been trying to preserve the privacy of the MP while trying to prevent further outing of info without the MPs consent.

That is a partisan misleading interpretation of what happened. Trudeau did not "out" the incident. The only "damage control" needed was for the NDP to say "no comment".

Instead the NDP turned it into a media circus by accusing Trudeau of revictimizing the women. Ever since then the NDP kept adding bits of information feeding the flames.

Pierre C yr wrote:

Hence the step by step approach the MP herself has taken.

She didn't take anything step by step. The NDP saw fit to release information about her emotional state and her desire for the men's careers not to be damaged. The NDP should have known better than to do that regardless of her "consent". It was up to Turmel and Mulcair to know better.

BusMP did not see the criticism coming from that or she wouldn't have agreed to allow that information to be released. She thought saying she didn't mean for the men to be damaged by it would help salvage their reputations but Turmel should have known better.

BusMP then became upset at all the comments criticizing the disconnect between feeling revictimized and protecting the men. That is why she is trying to explain herself now. By doing so she is causing exactly what she feared.

Quote:

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5158228-don-t-expect-misconduct-a...

On the heels of a string of interviews — given on the condition that the complainant’s name not be reported but nevertheless amounting to a detailed account of the events in dispute — it is difficult to continue to insist, as the NDP has done, that this alleged victim only wants to be left alone by whoever is concerned by the situation.

It was the same MP that initially took the matter up the parliamentary ladder by apprising Trudeau of it last month. By now walking various journalists through a painfully private personal episode, she has raised it to yet a higher level.

...

As is often the case in such matters, the more information is brought to the fore the less easy it is to chart a way forward that does not lead to a dead end and/or a deadlock.

Based on the information published to date, the exercise would ultimately pit the word of an MP against that of another, with neither party able to produce evidence to corroborate his or her version of events.

Releasing so much information tainted any possible investigation which the NDP should have known. Pacetti has been handed his defence and she looks like a fool. If she was upset by the comments before imagine how she feels now. The NDP should have protected her from this. Surely she didn't arrange all those media interviews herself.

Pierre C yr wrote:

What I find confusing is media like CBC ignoring all the best commentary by experts in the field who said keep it quiet until investigation can be concluded without the taint of mob input

I have counted somewhere between 6 and 8 interviews. The NDP has done the opposite of keeping it quiet. Every time a day passed without a new article the NDP did an interview discussing how important it was to respect the privacy of the victims and reiterate how upset they were. When it first came out people were speculating that it could be run of the mill sexual harassment, nothing too serious. Every new NDP interview discussing how one was in therapy or was upset with Trudeau magnified the incidences.

Pierre C yr wrote:

  Definitions of consent have gone back a generation in understanding...

Yes they have and I have yet another reason to be really pissed off at the NDP. I won't speculate on their motives but they threw busMP under one. 

Maybe Trudeau didn't have to say it was two MPs from another party but he didn't even tell the men what they were accused of so they had no way of guessing who the complainants were. The women's confidentiality was fully respected.

All the NDP had to say was "no comment" to keep it private. Doing countless interviews on the topic tends to keep it in the news.

No, Brachina, no. You're flat wrong here. A little less talking and a little more listening and reflecting is called for. And seriously, comparing receiving a cell phone bill to having one's body violated? I don't even know where to begin here except to say that you are digging yourself into a serious hole on this issue.

How hard is the concept of you don't invite someone to your place and suddenly ask him or her for sex without any warning? How hard is the concept of noticing a contradition between words and body language and saying, "you seem uncomfortable, is everything okay?"

If you do not have consent, it's assault, and it's a crime. That's an objective fact.

[url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/campus-life/advising-counseling/personal-c... and learn, Brachina (emphasis mine):[/url]

Quote:

Myth #9: It's only rape if the victim puts up a fight and resists.

Fact: Many states do not require a victim to resist in order to charge the offender with rape or sexual assault. In addition, there are many reasons why a victim of sexual assault would not fight or resist her attacker. She/he may feel that fighting or resisting will make her/his attacker angry, resulting in more severe injury. She/he may not fight or resist as a coping mechanism for dealing with the trauma of being sexually assaulted. Many law enforcement experts say that victims should trust their instincts and intuition and do what they think is most likely to keep them alive. Not fighting or resisting an attack does not equal consent. It may mean it was the best way she/he knew how to protect herself/himself from further injury. [Greenfeld, Lawrence A. and Steven K. Smith, American Indians and Crime, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 173386 (February 1999)]

Brachina wrote:

And Arist, just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm not listening, it just means I disagree and have brought intelligent arguements to support my position, and tried to do so in sensitive way.

Who are you to disagree with how a victim of sexual assault identifies or talks about said experience?

Brachina wrote:

Look you can't just make consent whatever you want

Yes, you can actually.

Brachina wrote:

trying to make consent whatever you want is irresponsible and puts people in danger because you sow confusion

If you're confused about the signals you are receiving from your partner, you stop and ask. If you are confused about the signals your partner is sending on a regular basis, you dial back, slow down, and redouble your efforts go open honest lines of communication.

Brachina wrote:

I don't think he felt confused at all, he handed him a condom, its not unreasonable thst would view that as a clear message.

And it's been explained to you upthread that she was likely thinking about avoiding an STI or becoming pregnant. If he's going to have his way with you no matter what, you might as well do what you can to protect yourself.

Unless you've experienced something like that yourself, you have no business judging someone else.

Brachina wrote:

And I don't disagree that making sure communication is clear is important and I agree with you that open lines of comnunication is important for a healthy relationship, but it doesn't make it rape.

Any unwanted sexual advance is assault, and it is a crime. That simple. Why are you so hung up on saying, "but it wasn't rape?"

Brachina. I am familliar with a situation where a woman was in a simillar situation and was an unwilling participant in a sex act, but insisted that the man use a condom, and he complied. A condom is protection.

Let's not speculate too much on this issue, k?

That's another issue. But ignorance is no defense, as they say. That might be a mitigating circumstance in his favour, but not something that would define the act itself. What would define the act would be her willingness to participate. The fact that somone does not intend to commit a crime, or does not know that they are doing so, does not change the fact that they have committed a crime, though it might weigh in their favour as a circumstance of their defense.

Brachina wrote:

Yes I'm familiar with what condoms are designed to do, you know what else prevents STDs and pregnancies, saying no and leaving.

Think about the situation. A woman is by herself in a room with a man who in most likelihood is physically bigger and stronger than her, and in this case presumably a few decades older. The fact that he would proposition her for sex in this environment out of the blue clearly shows no sense of decency. Say she did as you suggested and tried to leave. What if he physically prevents that from happening? What if he assaults her anyways without using a condom, and she ends up sick or pregnant?

Women make these kinds of calculations and judgements all the time. [url=http://enmasse.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14228]Check out this little bit:[/url]

Quote:

I work with students, and I see students who've been sexually assaulted, and I see how RARE it is that they report it. Why would they? So often the rape has been facilitated by alcohol (to the point that those of us who work on sexual assault prevention refer to alcohol as the most common date rape drug) so her memory is hazy, sometimes she's even blacked out, and sometimes she's terrified because she doesn't really know what happened to her.

And she probably doesn't want to report, because what's the point? Chances are very high there won't be a conviction as it's her word against his, and even though we have rape shield laws a defence lawyer will ask her how much she had to drink and then yet again she gets blamed for being raped.

Then if the cops get involved they are more focussed on catching the guy than on helping the woman. I've actually had a student tell me that the sexual assault unit told her that if she couldn't give a better description of the guy who raped her (frat party, dark parking lot) he would go out and rape other women. Translation: your fault if he does. She was devastated.

Still happens.

And perhaps even more sad is when a woman who was raped blames herself. I shouldn't have let him give me those shots. I shouldn't have gone to that party. I should have stuck with my buddies. I shouldn't have, I shouldn't have ...

Well, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED YOU.

Brachina wrote:

And you jump to conclusions, I was forced when I was a younger I was bullied into a sex act, to which I said no, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I would prefer not to go into details, this isn't about me and I feel that it has no objective baring on the quality of my arguements one way or the other. 

 I've also been in sexual situations where I didn't want to continue, but did so anyways, I did not speak up and the responsiblity for the choice not to waw mine and mine alone.

And I'm very sorry that this has happened to you, but I doubt anyone of us on babble would minimize or try and redefine the same way you are doing here. Everybody reacts to and processes things differently, and some people are more sensitive than others.

Unionist wrote:

The exciting voyeurism is so powerful, babblers can't even pause to realize they're in the wrong thread.

Adultery, condoms, rape, whoopee.

What a pathetic farce.

 

The regular thread was locked up.

Brachina, I am so sorry that you have had such awful and painful experiences in your life. My thoughts go out to you right now.

I would like to add to what Aristotled had to say.  I am not a good writer and I lack confidence in my abilities to explain myself properly, and if I hurt and offend anyone, it is not my intention to do so.

I think that female politicians are in a very special vulnerable situation of their own. I believe that the reason why female MPs over the years hardly ever speak up about situations like this is because they can`t.  On the surface, every woman has the right to phone the police or scream for help if they are in a hotel room where other people could easily be within earshot of what is happening.  Unfortunately, female MPs are very public figures, and anything that happens to them which is out of the ordinary ends up on every national news channel from coast to coast to coast. They have no privacy.  They are also under close scrutiny all the time by the media because they are ultimately accountable to the voting public for their jobs. I also believe that the media holds women to a higher standard of accountability for their actions than they do male MPs simply because they are women.  If she was being attacked, she could not phone the police because it would hit the press right away and she would have no privacy about what happened, and if you have been traumatized, the last place you want to find yourself is in the centre of a media circus. Her career would be over because of negative social standards for women.  His career would likely be over too, and that would be a heavy responsibility to place on her shoulders. So while female MPs do have access to societal protection like everyone else, they really do not, and this leaves them in a more vulnerable position than many other women in similar situations who would be allotted some level of privacy if they phoned the police or screamed or ran for help.  This one factor alone gives the male perpetrator more power over her than most people are aware of, and it could also help to explain why she froze and could not speak up or run away to get help.

Another point.  All the focus right now is on her and on what she did or did not do to handle the situation to other peoples levels of satisfaction.  She was the victim, yet she is the one who is under close scrutiny and is the one being judged by the media and by the voting public.  There is a perpetrator.  Yet some allege that she is feeling traumatized by some other incident in her life and not by what happened 8 months ago.  That deflects the seriousness away from what happened 8 months ago, and it alleviates the perpetrator of responsibility.  When we spend all our time on what she woulda coulda shoulda done differently, we are focusing our attention and responsibility away from the perpetrator and what he did, and then we are placing full responsibility squarely on her shoulders.

Something happened 8 months ago.  She suffered physical trauma from the incident, and eight months later is still trying to cope with what happened to her emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically.  All we have heard from the male MP is that he claims that he did nothing wrong. Why is there such a strong desire by the media and by the general public to not hold him accountable for the harm he has caused her.

Brachina wrote:

 There is nothing he did that was violent. You are being sexist Aristo, his greater size and strength only matters if things turn violent, which they did not. Being physical bigger does not prevent someoje from saying no. Women are not weak, and you are only perputauting stereotypes that women are too weak you be accountable, like they're childern and shouldn't be treated like adults and that does not do women any favours but only reinforces the idea that they don't have asset they're automy and speak up in those situtiations, instead of encouraging them to be heard, it encourages them to remain passive and let men do what ever they want, because society will take care of it for them, even if the man didn't do anything wrong.

 I've seen men make arguements like yours before Aristo, only they're a bit more blunt when they say adult women are like childern and aren't mature enough to take responsiblity for they're actions and I didn't care for it then and I don't care for it now.

You have a limited definition of sexual assault that includes only violent rape.

If you are standing in an elevator and someone suddenly kisses you that is sexual assault even if it goes no farther.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that this event did not meet the legal definition of sexual assault.

That doesn't make his behavior acceptable. He shouldn't have laid a finger on her without asking her if she was interested in that kind of a relationship. They were not on a date.

The first time a man touchs a woman sexually he should be checking for a positive reaction. If a woman is frozen he should consider the possibility that he should stop.

I watched this entire video, did you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD2EooMhqRI

If you were alone in a room with a male friend that you have had no sexual relationship with would you just sit on his lap and start french kissing him? I doubt it. I think if you wanted more you would send signals, steer the direction of conversation, flirt. That's what men do to. They signal interest and watch for a reaction. They actively look for reciprocation. They don't just suddenly pull a woman down onto a bed and start having sex with her without noticing whether or not she is happy about the situation. She was in shock. He used her like a blow-up doll.

It is not infantilizing women to describe that behavior as wrong.

If someone steals your car it is still theft even if you left your keys in the ignition and even if you are standing right there when they do it. The person cannot assume your agreement. They have to actually ask you if you are okay with it. You don't have to yell "stop that" to turn it into theft. It is automatically theft unless you actively tell the person they can take your car.

Pierre C yr wrote:

Pondering everything the NDP did was with the consent of the MPs and to counter the immense flurry of speculation in the media and public that Trudeau enabled.

There was no "immense flurry" of speculation until after the NDP confirmed it was their two MPs and that they were young women and that they were revictimized. Even after the first day people were speculating that the incidences could be relatively mild. The focus was on process. It was the NDP having interview after interview talking about the women and their emotions that fed speculation.

That the NDP had the consent of the MPs doesn't justify what they did. I expect the NDP to know right from wrong and to not expose these women to ridicule.

Pierre C yr wrote:

Liberal polling fortunes have been dropping all through this event is a testament to this imo.

Harper is preferred PM with Liberals and NDP both down. Is the NDP down because of their daycare plan? It's difficult to attribute ups and downs to specific events because multiple things are going on at the same time. Can't tell from the pundits either because their opinions don't always reflect that of voters.

Trudeau's low for the year is 25.8, he is currently at 28.8. His high for the year is 35.8. I expect Trudeau's numbers to remain weak until he releases a platform.

Pierre C yr wrote:

Average people, whether they side with the NDP MP's who made the complaints or the Liberal MPs who were suspended, know Trudeau made a gaffe here.

Some people think so but that doesn't seem to be the predominant opinion to me. The predominent opinon seems to be that while Trudeau could have left out the information that two MPs from another party were involved, it is the NDP that has released by far the most information. Furthermore the release of information has increased sympathy for the the Liberal MPs and reflected poorly on the NDP for their confusion and contradictory statements. BusMP is being given a harder time than ever.

"No comment" is how you keep speculation to a minimum because there is nothing to say about the story. Claiming MPs have been revictimized and are distraught and angry is how you fuel speculation.

Brachina wrote:

Rape is a serious crime and you don't get to make it whatever you feel like. Its not a fashion or whim, that you can change when you feel like it.

No it isn't and it is very disrespectful that you are accusing others of treating it that way. You are saying what people were saying when women wanted to make the act of forcible sex within marriage rape. Marrying a man was consent. Our understanding of human rights, justice, and acceptable behavior towards others is not fixed.

Our understanding of what constitutes consent is evolving. Every time a debate like this happens it advances understanding.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sex-on-the-hill-theatre-of-the...

 Hell has frozen over I actually agree with Marget Wente! Its Christmas time in the Underworld!

Brachina your posts about consent, rape and sexual assault in this thread are disgusting.

Thank God the criminal law and highest court in this country have (slowly, painfully) evolved from your knuckle-dragging positions.

Brachina wrote:

Insulting me was uncalled for pookie. Instead of making intelligent points to refute my well thought out positions people are taking pot shots at me, so I just let this thread return to being an echo chamber not interested in reality.

People are shocked over the position you are taking. That you are in agreement with Wente should give you pause. I think you respect a lot of people here. Why not consider the possibility that in this particular case you may be wrong. That people do understand your perspective but disagree with it and have good reasons why.

Have you watched the video on consent?

There was no "immense flurry" of speculation until after the NDP confirmed it was their two MPs and that they were young women and that they were revictimized. Even after the first day people were speculating that the incidences could be relatively mild. The focus was on process. It was the NDP having interview after interview talking about the women and their emotions that fed speculation.

That the NDP had the consent of the MPs doesn't justify what they did. I expect the NDP to know right from wrong and to not expose these women to ridicule.

Thats just not true. The media flurry over Trudeau's initial declaration set off a massive speculation and media coverage over the issue and possible victims.

No the mp herself stated it was because Trudeau set off the media abuzz. Before any word from the NDP came out the media was all over this. It was running nationally on every major chain and commentators were wondering which mps it was and how it likely was female mps and a case of misconduct on the part of the male lib mps towards them...

Pierre C yr wrote:

No the mp herself stated it was because Trudeau set off the media abuzz. Before any word from the NDP came out the media was all over this. It was running nationally on every major chain and commentators were wondering which mps it was and how it likely was female mps and a case of misconduct on the part of the male lib mps towards them...

What the MP states doesn't change reality.

Yes, the media was all abuzz, but they didn't have any information, all they could do was speculate so it would have died down until some announcement on process was made. It still could have been handled privately and the details did not have to come out especially as the women were unwilling to make formal complaints.

The suspension of the two Liberal MPs did not reflect negatively at all on the NDP. The NDP cynically chose to use those women's experience to politically attack the Liberals. There was no need for the NDP to say anything other than "no comment".  If they had a problem with the way Trudeau handled it Mulcair could have picked up a phone and told Trudeau the women were worried and felt he had gone too far. Trudeau could have met with them and explained his decision and calmed their fears. There was no need to air their emotions to the media or accuse Trudeau of revictimizing them.

It now turns out that there is another complaint against Scott Andrews, a liberal staffer, that will also be part of the investigation. I mentioned that early on too. That the men would let it lie and not push for an investigation because an investigation could go back five years or more speaking to all the women the Liberals have a record of them working with.It would have been better for the men if the NDP had said nothing more. Then they could have let it die, gone on with their lives. With no details revealed Scott Andrews was brazening it out, saying he was innocent and had no idea what he was accused of. He can't do that anymore.

This kind of behavior from men at the ages of 39(Andrews) and 52(Pacetti) is not an anomaly. This is the way they treat women when they think they can get away with it, and they almost always do. They learn that women stay silent.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Liberals turn up multiple complaints against both. I hope more women do step up as it would help the NDP MPs. I hope it gives comfort to the woman who has been silent so far.

If the women were concerned about the men recieving due process and not besmirching their reputations they should not have released any statements at all to the press. I hold the NDP responsible for that especially Turmel but also Leslie and Mulcair. The women are adults so also responsible but they are young and confused. The NDP executive does not have that excuse.

Aristotled24, the only reason I'm vaguely following this painfully boring thread drift is because you've been calling Brachina "dude" and saying you want to talk "man to man" and I'm pretty sure Brachina's a woman.

From wiki:  "A brachina, or pleasure devil, as they are more commonly known, is an insidious devil that specializes in corrupting the servants of the gods. Brachinas are specially selected Erinyes who are lifted from their station and endowed with even greater beauty and power. Charged with corrupting the virtuous, they travel to the Material Plane to work their evil, returning to the Nine Hells only when they have succeeded in their task, The punishment for failure is severe; thus, all pleasure devils work doubly hard to corrupt their victim...."

Yup, that sounds like our Brachina.

 One interesting thing I've noticed is when someone disagrees with me they tend to assume I'm a man and when they agree they are more likely to assume I'm a woman. take from that what you will.

 Oh please Unionist, its just an employee/employer dispute. I'm sure it will be resolved.