What is wrong with MPs? More Women Level Complaints about sexual misconduct

Evidence of guilt on behalf of the MPs is no indication that Trudeau was right to ignore the complainants and proceed without warning to make it public. In fact Trudeau had the choice to have the investigation outside the public eye until there was a determination.

Debater wrote:

Well, most people say otherwise, Sean.  Obviously this is yet another point of disagreement between the Liberals & NDP.

Those who disagree with the Liberal spin on this are also people. I do agree that it is fair to say most Liberals say otherwise and I expect that is all who you listen to.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the effect this may have on victims coming forward and how there was an expectation that their views about the process would be respected. Many observers have commented about how dysfunctional this is due to a lack of process that was not helped by bringing this public over the objections of the complainants.

Even those with some sympathy to the position Trudeau was in have called for a better process and a number of these people have suggested other ways it could have been handled.

If you think that this controversy comes down to most people agreeing with your point of view I suggest it is because you have filtered out and dismissed opposing views as anti-Trudeau rather than hearing what those who are not partisan Liberals are saying. there remains a wide variety of opinion on this.

I disagree that haste should be the prime directive with complaints. More important they they be handled correctly with a view to fundamental justice and respect for both the complainants and the rights of the accused. My opinion on this is not as rare as you think.

Its easy for Trudeau to expel Pacetti and Andrews since they are both totally worthless MPs who add no value of any kind to the liberal caucus. Now that he has set this bar - what will he do when there inevitable complaints about lecherous behaviour by one his so-called star candidates?

I would like to speak to the thread title and request that it be changed.

The thread title question minimizes the problem of sexist, privileged rape culture on the Hill by placing it in one party only. We have heard stories for years.

To make this about what is wrong with one party denies the culture women are facing at the highest level in the country. Sadly this is more about what is wrong with one gender -- men -- EVEN in a place where we should have been able to expect equality and leadership in a fight against violence against women.

We should be asking what is wrong with Parliament Hill culture and how could this happen.

I won't pretend that I think any party is immune.

We can disagree on the handling by each party (and there I feel I can question the Liberal party) but this thread suggests that this is something only one party has as a problem. To me that is deeply offensive.

ajaykumar wrote:

This issue isnt just in the LPC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sylvain-chicoine-ndp-mp-countersues-ex-s...

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/12/11/ndp_silent_on_details_...

I agree with your statement but your links are to something that bears no resemblance. No MP is accused of sexual assault in these links and the claim was examined by a third party and determined to be groundless. A lawsuit for smearing is underway (which is reported in one of your links).

pookie wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

He said this, she said that.

What happens to these MPs now?

What is fundamentally wrong in the Liberal Party to have MPs that behave like this? 

Oh, I dunno.  Offhand, I say that what is "fundamentally wrong in the Liberal Party to have MPs that behave like this" is that some of its MPs are men.

Fair comment and a better start to actually getting to the real problem.

 I know this will make me rabble's most hated babbler, sorry debater for stealing you title, but any investiation should have been done by police, this is no different then the Board of Internal Economy acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The MPs are the real victims, they've had they're rights violated, they've been publicly humiliated, etc... This isn't right, we decry when the NDP gets treated this way, but its okay to treat Andrews and Pacetti this way? Its hypocracy and McCarthism, they were never given a proper chance to defend themselves, hell even Dean Del Mastro got his day in court.

 

 Don't get me wrong I believe everyone should have a safe enviroment, but I believe in basic precepts of justice, not Kangaroo courts, such as what Trudeau did to those MPs and the Board of Internal Economy did to the NDP.

What happen to innocent until proven guilty? Was that just a fad?

 

PS please stop misusing the term rape culture which actually refers to rape in men's prisions originally.

 

 crimes of all sorts are hard to prove, it'd be nice if people guilty of crimes would admit what they did, but until we get restoritive justice that's unlikely to happen, and it doesn't negate peoples legal rights.

Stockholm wrote:

Its easy for Trudeau to expel Pacetti and Andrews since they are both totally worthless MPs who add no value of any kind to the liberal caucus. Now that he has set this bar - what will he do when there inevitable complaints about lecherous behaviour by one his so-called star candidates?

This is such nonsense.

First of all, none of this has been "easy" for Trudeau or for any of the parties involved.  It's a serious, unpleasant issue and you can see from the threads on this board how much division it also causes between the 2 parties.

Second, where did you get the idea that Pacetti & Andrews are "totally worthless" and have "no value" to the Liberals?  They certainly don't anymore after what has been learned about them, but they used to both be important MP's.  Pacetti is well-known in the St. Leonard Italian community and has been an MP there since 2002, and Andrews has twice beaten Conservative Senator Fabian Manning in Avalon despite it being heavily targetted by the Cons.

Third, why are you assuming that there is going to be "inevitable complaints about lecherous behaviour" involving one of Trudeau's star candidates?!

Worth remembering that these women did not want a public lynching either.

Seems that a way has been found to be completely disrespectful of the rights of both the complainants and those accused.

That should give everyone pause because that is normally a hard thing to do. Usually you can only screw over one side of that equation at a time.

***

As for the term rape culture -- terms evolve and come to have different meanings. This term clearly has. Google it and you will see the wide range of application the term now has.

 If there. was unedited video of the accusations you might have a point, but there is none. If someone made an accusation against Larson without backing it up with evidence and he denied it, that would be different.

Brachina wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Worth remembering that these women did not want a public lynching either.

Seems that a way has been found to be completely disrespectful of the rights of both the complainants and those accused.

That should give everyone pause because that is normally a hard thing to do. Usually you can only screw over one side of that equation at a time.

***

As for the term rape culture -- terms evolve and come to have different meanings. This term clearly has. Google it and you will see the wide range of application the term now has.

I agree with your first comments, this has been a debuckle for all invovled.

But while people may have tried to stretch the meaning of rape culture, I don't agree with it, I've seen evidence of the original, but none of the new meanings. I've heard people say of male prison rape that its there own fault for doing the crime, in mainstream circles years ago, but I've never known anyway to support raping women, society finds it unacceptable and those merely accused become social outcasts, tiny, tiny amount of people commit rape, they do not represent society.

Having heard you explain it that way I see exactly where you are coming from.

I assume the use of the word in wider society is to address the fact that there are cultural contributions to why violence against women. Once proven offenders become outcasts but all-to-often they are believed over the complainants well beyond reasonable doubt. In any case while it is not comparable in the terms you have laid out there is a lot of cover for violence against women and cultural obstacles to addressing it. That is not to minimize what you are saying.

 

ETA: I did a search as I was sure I had not mentionned rape culture in this thread before you raised the use of the term. I used the word culture. And I think that is still fair and accurate -- there is a problem with the culture.

My watch just stopped and it's at this time:

Debater wrote:

The main problem that this exposed is that there is no process for dealing with these issues on Parliament Hill.  As was discovered, even though it was 2014 when this issue arose, it shows how Parliament has not had a mechanism for dealing with these type of allegations between MP's.

Up until now it was considered acceptable for these things to go unreported.  The male dominated power structure on Parliament Hill had not created any procedural remedy for dealing with this situation.

This was something that Justin Trudeau & Liberal Whip Judy Foote realized when this issue arose and thus they had to hire a respected human rights lawyer to conduct an investigation because the Speaker basically said he was powerless to do anything and the NDP MP's didn't want to bring forward an official complaint to the authorities.

Hopefully all parties will now implement some sort of mechanism that can be developed to deal with something like this the next time it arises.

Btw, Sean is correct that this thread title should be changed.  It was started by the same partisan poster that starts most of the anti-Liberal threads here and unfortunately it is not the appropriate title for a subject like this.

I have to say I see very much in this post with which I can agree.

I also have to say that while people may have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with how Trudeau handled this case, I'm disapointed that NorthReport is continuing to use this incident to flog Trudeau over the head. I've already flagged one of his posts here.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

My watch just stopped and it's at this time:

Debater wrote:

The main problem that this exposed is that there is no process for dealing with these issues on Parliament Hill.  As was discovered, even though it was 2014 when this issue arose, it shows how Parliament has not had a mechanism for dealing with these type of allegations between MP's.

Up until now it was considered acceptable for these things to go unreported.  The male dominated power structure on Parliament Hill had not created any procedural remedy for dealing with this situation.

This was something that Justin Trudeau & Liberal Whip Judy Foote realized when this issue arose and thus they had to hire a respected human rights lawyer to conduct an investigation because the Speaker basically said he was powerless to do anything and the NDP MP's didn't want to bring forward an official complaint to the authorities.

Hopefully all parties will now implement some sort of mechanism that can be developed to deal with something like this the next time it arises.

Btw, Sean is correct that this thread title should be changed.  It was started by the same partisan poster that starts most of the anti-Liberal threads here and unfortunately it is not the appropriate title for a subject like this.

I have to say I see very much in this post with which I can agree.

I also have to say that while people may have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with how Trudeau handled this case, I'm disapointed that NorthReport is continuing to use this incident to flog Trudeau over the head. I've already flagged one of his posts here.

To be fair Pondering also brings it up as an example of Trudeau's leadership. It's time this is just dropped as a partisan political issue.

Trudeau believed the women. Having done so he could not allow the men to stay in caucus where they would be a threat to other women and to the party.

Proof of wrongdoing is not necessary to suspend high level representatives. The senators were suspended without any proof of wrongdoing.

At the beginning of the meeting with the party whips the two victims were told that what they said would be used in deciding the fate of the men.

The only information Trudeau gave was that the two men were guilty of misconduct against two mps from another party. He did not say they were female or that the misconduct was of a sexual nature.

The reason there were rumours is because it was an open secret. The MP that approached Trudeau asked him if he had already heard about it. It isn't the Liberals that leaked the information. The women themselves had told multiple people. Even so Frank got one of the names wrong and neither were confirmed in mainstream media.

The NDP was notified two hours prior to the announcement.

Mulcair, Turmel and Leslie disgusted me with their behavior. I don't believe the MPs asked Mulcair to publically accuse Trudeau of revictimizing them. I'm sure they "asked" the MPs what they could say publically but that is no excuse.

The NDP tried to play both sides of the fence and in doing so made the women look like idiots for claiming to be so traumatized but then wanting to protect the men's careers.

There was no reason at all for Mulcair to say a word. The only party that kept it in the news by constantly talking about it and releasing new information week after week was the NDP. As soon as the NDP stopped talking it was out of the news.

Trudeau has the power to expel MPs from caucus without cause therefore the MPs have no legal recourse against the party.

 

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

It's time this is just dropped as a partisan political issue.

The time for that was when the incident first surfaced. But yes, better late than never.

Agreed.

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

It's time this is just dropped as a partisan political issue.

The time for that was when the incident first surfaced. But yes, better late than never.

That depends on what you mean. Women's rights are an important political issue to me. The way in which the parties handle issues of harassment matters.

I mean, countless posts here, and countless statements by politicians in the media, have depended solely on which political party some individual blindly, mindlessly, religiously cheerleads for. That's a guarantee that the rights of women to be safe from harassment and abuse will be sacrificed on the altar of power, money, and cliquishness. Tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. I need a hearty laugh.

 

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

It's time this is just dropped as a partisan political issue.

The time for that was when the incident first surfaced. But yes, better late than never.

That depends on what you mean. Women's rights are an important political issue to me. The way in which the parties handle issues of harassment matters.

I mean, countless posts here, and countless statements by politicians in the media, have depended solely on which political party some individual blindly, mindlessly, religiously cheerleads for. That's a guarantee that the rights of women to be safe from harassment and abuse will be sacrificed on the altar of power, money, and cliquishness. Tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. I need a hearty laugh.

Is the discourse on ISIS better? I can see for myself the way the two parties treated this topic. I watched it unfold day after day. I agreed with Elizabeth May and as the events unfolded her words proved to be true.