Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

josh wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From cco:

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's...

​The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, it assumes that everyone who makes an allegation is telling the truth. Otherwise what would they be surviving from?

But that is also why the word was chosen, to  emphasize that all allegations will be accepted as true.

You mean the quaint notion of withholding judgment?  Not a blanket “believe the survivors.”  Because if you do that, what’s left to prove?

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven. Between two accounts with no proof people have to choose who to believe or suspect both. People are now choosing to believe women because they have been proven right so many times and because the women coming forward are credible with no apparent reason to lie. We also usually discover that the people around the men are not at all shocked by the accusations. There is more a sense of something "coming out" rather than something being "discovered".  

"Proof" is only required when taking legal action. Other than that people are free to believe whatever they choose to believe. 

If these men were the equivalent of the supervisor at the local plant and the women were temp workers we wouldn't be hearing anything. The women would just try to protect themselves through the grapevine. 

Even now, with Weir, the complaints were apparently from employees not a woman as powerful as Christine Moore. She just heard the complaints and in the current climate felt she couldn't remain silent. It is only in politics and entertainment that things are coming out and even then not from the script "girl"

Part of Weir's defence is that there is a union and a robust reporting procedure etc. It doesn't matter. Without proof or willingness to make an "official" complaint and put their name to it nothing is done. 

From Pondering:

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven.

​Actually, the truth matters, whether in a court of law or not. 

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

It isn't a court of law. Nothing has to be proven.

​Actually, the truth matters, whether in a court of law or not. 

If it's he said she said nothing can be proven either way so it comes down to credibility and even the courts make judgements based on credibility.

In the cases we are seeing, in my view, the women have more credibility in part because it is not he said she said it's he said she said she said she said. I find it easier to believe that one man is lying than multiple women sometimes over decades are conspiring to bring a man down for no apparent reason. 

This case like all others seems to come down to credibility.

I can believe Erin Weir, that he has done absolutely nothing, and he is completely bewildered by the accusations.

I can believe Christine Moore, that two or more employees have told her they had issues with Weir's behavior to the extent that she wouldn't want to be alone with him.

It's possible the employees were lying, or that they don't exist, but I don't think it's the most plausible explanation. 

It's possible that Christine Moore has some ulterior motive. In particular that she made this story up because she wants someone else to be caucus chair, either herself or someone else. So she made up the story to give herself or this mysterious other person a better chance at the spot. That's not a particularly plausible explanation to me. She is unlikely to run for the spot because it would put her motives in a questionable light. So that leaves having done it to advance someone else. Lying publically about something this inflamatory to advance someone else's political career doesn't sound plausible to me. 

Credibility goes to Christine Moore. 

I am totally aghast at the mysogynist tone this thread has reduced itself to.

Rev Pesky, in post #58 you wrote, "actually the truth matters whether in a court of law or not". You have been concern trolling for a few posts now on accused men's honour with dishonest allegations made by women of harassment in the work place.

Well, a small minority of allegations made by women are discovered to be untrue. This means that the overwhelming majority of harassment complaints are shown to be true. YET!!! The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

So who really are the liars?

And why are so many of the men who are quick to point fingers at the integrity of women who come forward with allegations of abuse and harrassment are later found to be so conspicuously silent when the men are proven to have initially lied about their abusive behaviour?

Quote:

I know that you have an insatiable urge to trivialize the long term traumatic impact that violence has on people's lives, and your taking issue with the term "survivor" and redefining it to suit your personal needs only confirms to many on this board your shallow callousness to the social realities that too many women face with violence at home and at work every day.

The term "survivor" was defined a long time ago.

A "survivor" of a hurricane is someone who experienced a hurricane.

A "survivor" of cancer is someone who had and was treated for cancer.

I can't be a "survivor" of the Holocaust, because I was only born in 1967.

That is my point  Mr. Magoo. I "survived" a mid-term exam, yet according to some on this thread, people who have have endured work place harrassment are somehow mocked for using the term. They seem to act as if harrassment has no short or long term psychological ramifications.

Quote:

That is my point  Mr. Magoo. I "survived" a mid-term exam

Do you mean that you scored a passing grade, or do you mean that it had the potential to kill you?

Quote:

They seem to act as if harrassment has no short or long term psychological ramifications.

Or, they wonder if harrassment is somehow fatal.

But the real concern is that the term presupposes events that may or may not have happened, or may or may not have happened to the person purported to be a "survivor".

I'm sure I'll get to say this lots of times, but doesn't the term "survivor" suggest that something happened to that survivor, and they survived it?  It's not just any old adjective.  If you're a "survivor" of the sinking of the Titanic then that assumes you were a passenger on the Titanic, and when it sank you survived.  Yes?

That the Titanic sank is beyond dispute.  What of the things that others have "survived"?  I'm certainly not saying they didn't happen, but we can't just promote things to the rank of truth because we want to believe.

Pondering wrote:

Typically an official complaint must be made or nothing is done. That is what has changed. No official complaints required anymore. The onus has been put on executives to investigate when rumours surface regardless of whether or not there is an official complaint. 

The onus on the employer in human rights law in Canada is to ensure a discrimination free workplace. It is not a new thing that if any possible discrimination has occurred the employer upon getting wind of it must investigate. I am not saying they do but when taken to task for discrimination in the workplace they will be held to be willfully blind and that usually hurts their credibility.

Pondering I mock Liberal shills and sanctimonious religious zealots not women who claim they have been harrassed. I think you are a Liberal shill so I often mock you for it but it has absolutely nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your posts.

From Mr. Magoo:

But the real concern is that the term presupposes events that may or may not have happened, or may or may not have happened to the person purported to be a "survivor".

I'm sure I'll get to say this lots of times, but doesn't the term "survivor" suggest that something happened to that survivor, and they survived it?

​That was precisely my point. Calling someone a 'survivor', when it is not known whether the incident they speak of ever happened, assumes that it did happen. But if we changed the subject to brain surgery, and someone said, 'there's Rev Pesky, a survivor', that would presuppose I had in fact had brain surgery. If it turned out that I had not had brain surgery, I think one could justifiably say to me that I was a liar (or whoever said it in the first place).

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Misfit:

YET!!! The consistent statements made by these same men who are accused of harrassment is that they are innocent and that they need to clear their honour.

​I will just point out that earlier Pondering said that those men who didn't declare themeselves to be innocent were perforce to be considered guilty. So, if they don't say they are innocent, they are guilty, and if they do say they are innocent, they're liars. Doesn't leave a lot of room to defend oneself.

And as far as lying goes, you know what, everybody lies. It's almost the first thing a human learns, how to lie. 

There are, however, two basic types of lie. Lie that are known to be lies by the teller, and lies that are not known to be lies by the teller. In a certain sense one cannot be to hard on people who lie without knowing they are lying. At the same time, that doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is notto true. 

Remember the Jian Gomeshi trial? What did the judge say about the testimony of the complainants?

On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.

"Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

​Yeah, people do lie.

Rev I'm broadly sympathetic to your line of argumentation here, but I really don't think the Ghomeshi case is a great example of lies in this context - even if the women were lying about the details (consent, motivation for coming forward), it's not disputed that Ghomesi has a sadistic streak in his encounters with women. Couldn't you have used a better example to make your case, like the Rolling Stone hoax, or maybe the "mattress girl" case?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence.

I suppose that private individuals can more or less use whatever term they like, the same way that we can assume someone is guilty for any reason, including based on facts, or "he always seemed a little 'rapey' to me".

But in the recent trial of Larry Nassar, the U.S. Gymnastics doctor, the trial judge made the unconventional choice to allow "open mic night" prior to his sentencing, allowing young women who were not part of the trial to tell the court how Nassar had harmed them -- basically, a "victim impact statement".  Apparently, she also took a moment to respond to every speaker, reassuring them that they were brave, thanking them for coming forward, etc.

And that all sounds good, and maybe sounds like how we wish the system could always work, but I have to wonder whether it might also have been an early Christmas gift to Nassar's lawyers.  The vast majority of speakers were not involved in the trial, no evidence was presented on their behalf, they did not give sworn testimony, and were never cross-examined.  For the judge to vocally take every one's word for it just might be construed as bias.

And I say this having no doubt that Nassar probably did assault every single one of them.  And with no doubt that he'll die in prison regardless.   But I'm not sure that turning a routine sentencing hearing into a #MeToo celebration was necessarily appropriate or advisable.

Nassar pled guilty.  That makes this a fundamentally different ball game.   The judge applied a sentence that was statutorily available to her.  Multiple US crim appellate lawyers have said an appeal would be futile. 

Even if if he succeeded, do you really think any appeal court is going to reduce the sentence given to a multiple child molester?  At most, they will give the judge a tongue-lashing.

josh wrote:

Yes, they could very well reduce it.  Assuming the system is one governed by equal justice under the law.  It may not, but I thought the judge in this case often acted as if she were preparing a run for political office.  I was surprised that she let security stop one of the victim’s father’s from attacking the defendant.

On what basis?  Legal errors by the sentencing judge do not make a sentence demonstrably unfit. 

On what basis was Nasser denied equal justice?  Was he treated differently from other defendants convicted of similar crimes?  How do other American sentencing judges behave?  Do you know?  Other than by channeling social media outrage?

Legal errors at sentencing doesn't necessarily change quantum.  In fact, that happens all the time here.  Appeal court will recognize the error, but leave sentence as is.

Yes, I clearly see the connection between the trial and sentencing of Nassar, and the Erin Weir situation. It's so obvious once you think of it. Thanks for introducing that, Magoo!

CCO, thank you for the clarification.

Thank you Mark.

I found a podcast on CBC's the Current about the role of "due process" in the #metoo movement. A defence lawyer suggests why we need to shy away from that paradigm. You can find that podcast here...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 The onus on the employer in human rights law in Canada is to ensure a discrimination free workplace. It is not a new thing that if any possible discrimination has occurred the employer upon getting wind of it must investigate. I am not saying they do but when taken to task for discrimination in the workplace they will be held to be willfully blind and that usually hurts their credibility. 

That didn't happen at the CBC even though it was an open secret, known on the grapevine, women had spoken to the union but did not want to make official complaints. 

Didn't happen in Parliament when it was on the grapevine that 2 NDP MPs had been harassed and worse. It was only when the information got to Trudeau that an investigation was begun. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think you are a Liberal shill so I often mock you for it but it has absolutely nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your posts.  

Well you are behind the times. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of Singh to the extent that I have already been accused of being a cheerleader. 

Just because the CBC was not taken to the human rights tribunal doesn't mean they would have been exonerated if the women who were subjected to a poisonous attmosphere had gone that route. You have to choose your forum so if you choose to file a human rights case then you can't be suing over the same subject matter at the same time. The standard of proof required when it is a criminal matter is far higher and more demanding than for a labour board or a human rights tribunal or a civil suit. 

It is like what does the term "sexual harrassment" mean? The answer is it is a term of art that means precise but slightly different things in various courts and tribunals.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Just because the CBC was not taken to the human rights tribunal doesn't mean they would have been exonerated if the women who were subjected to a poisonous attmosphere had gone that route. You have to choose your forum so if you choose to file a human rights case then you can't be suing over the same subject matter at the same time. The standard of proof required when it is a criminal matter is far higher and more demanding than for a labour board or a human rights tribunal or a civil suit. 

Think of the Ghomeshi case. It was uncovered by a reporter that found out about the open secret and spent a year or more investigating and finding women who had experienced abusive behavior from him. They did not initiate the process. After the article was published police invited the women to come forward in confidence which they did after which charges were laid. I doubt they could go to the human rights tribunal now and I doubt it would have been the appropriate venue earlier either. I don't even know why you are bringing up the Human Rights Tribunal. 

 The women involved in the NDP-Liberal case didn't even want to make their complaints official. They certainly would not have gone to a human rights tribunal. It was again a case of an open secret to the extent that reporters had already heard about it. Mulcair knew about it as did other high level NDP people. The two MPs in question did not want to make an official complaint so nothing was done. 

People who don't want to make an official complaint are not going to go to the Human Rights Tribunal before or now. Executives are no longer waiting for official complaints. They are initiating investigations without official complaints. The norm has shifted. Something being "on the grapevine" has become enough to launch a private investigation. No police required. No lawyers required. I'm guessing the investigator talks to everyone possible individually promising complete anonimity. No need to take a witness stand. No need for proof. The investigator can even ask "in your opinion, did he do it".  In my opinion this is a terrific turn of events for women. Official channels haven't worked well for us in the past and to some extent that is understandable. "He said, she said" is a difficult call. What these investigations turn up is "he said, she said, she said, she said" because men who abuse their power in this fashion don't do it just once. It's a pattern of behavior that starts small and grows.

What Moore said specifically was that she had had complaints from employees serious enough for her not to want to be alone with him therefore he would not be a suitable liason. An investigation should have no trouble picking up information if he has behavioral issues. I think the Liberal investigation took 4-6 weeks? 

So you agree with me Pondering. Thats good to know.

I am indifferent to the federal NDP at this point. The Leader will not make any difference in my riding and it is one of the safest NDP ridings in the country.  What the last election taught me was a lesson I understood in my twenties but then spent forty years trying to deny. Citizens in my region of the country cannot change the oiligarchy's plans no matter how they vote. Given the demographics of our Confederation the voters of Central Canada will always take precedence over BC.  I spent fifteen years when I lived in Burnaby helping to elect first Svend and then Bill because I am a crazy old fart who believes it is better to have a few good voices to speak truth to power than it is to muzzle a caucus of progressive activists to try and form a govenment by stealth. All the people I know on this Island who are not NDP members but voted for them did so despite Mulcair because they are would never trust a Liberal from Quebec, after Trudeau, Martin and Cretien. It always leads to BC getting shafted.

I am still glad you agree with me.

Moving to somewhere that elects fewer progressive MLA's and MP's to try to gain more power seems counter productive.

I think the over/under on that should be set at 6 months.    Maybe by then we'll hear the results of TVO's investigation in to the Steve Paiken / Sarah Tomson allegations as well.