Brainwashing and banishment of NDPer Erin Weir
Was he pissed off? Angered over his expulsion?
“No,” he said. “But I do think it was an over-reaction on the party’s part.
“Still, I remain a strong NDPer. I believe in it.”
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-brainwashing-and-bani...
I am very confused. If the NDP didn't expulse Weir for sexual harassment what were the investigated charges about? And what were the conditions that he was supposed to agree to about (sounded like some kind of anger management cross gender relations training). I am 100% behind women having themselves heard for injustices against them past and present but I am not getting a clear picture of where this case stands.
From laine lowe:
...I am not getting a clear picture of where this case stands.
You and pretty much everyone else who is following it. Without putting too fine a point on it, the NDP engineered a situation where Weir had to defend himself, and then, when he did, he was expelled from caucus for doing so.
One of the good things is Singh and Weir made the front page of today's National Post. That's a first...
It is clear that Weir must have been a very bad man because someone said so. Who are we to disagree? Mr. Singh knows best, and if Weir has to go, it is because Mr. Singh says so. Why should we be allowed to ask questions?
Give Singh credit for a tough choice, but NDP case against Weir filled with unfairness
http://leaderpost.com/opinion/columnists/ndp-case-against-weir-filled-with-unfairness
From the LeaderPost article posted above:
During that 2013 provincial leadership campaign, it was actually Weir on the cutting edge of policy debate. He called for $7-a-day daycare, an $11 minimum wage, backfilling federal Old Age Security providing benefits past 65 years and less dependence on burning coal for electricity.
“Notwithstanding his awkwardness, which was fully on display during the recent NDP leadership debates, it always seemed to be Weir who was most eager to engage at these forums,” this column stated on Feb. 22, 2013.
However, that very comment brought down a deluge of criticism from Weir’s friends, family and party members who argued social awkwardness was not fair game in assessing leadership.
Now, it is appears it is the party condemning Weir for very same awkward personality quirks. It is doing so in a far more destructive way.
In any case it's all over. The party cannot back up now without looking like complete idiots who shouldn't be left in charge of a cloakroom (they look like that anyway), and Weir's political career is finished with him being branded a sexual harasser who wouldn't accept 'rehabilitation'.
Weir, convicted of being too gauche for a leftist party...
Something does not make sense. Singh said they had agreed to a resolution of the issue but before he announced the decision to the public one of the complainants talked to the CBC. What gives?
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
You should quote where Weir said that. He actually denied it.
I did quote him. Those were his words. He was speaking of himself in the 3rd person. That is when you refer to yourself as though you are someone else.
No, it really isn't. Speaking about yourself in the third person would be me saying "So, let's say a woman of colour is completely baffled by the unfair treatment of Erin Weir."
Examples of Writing in Third Person. Writing in third person is writing from the third-person point of view, or outsider looking in, and uses pronouns like he, she, it, or they. It differs from the firstperson, which uses pronouns such as I and me, and from the second person, which uses pronouns such as you and yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33943762
Why do some people refer to themselves in the third person?
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump quite often refers to himself as "Trump" - instead of using the words "I" or "me". It's an eccentric habit that delights his critics, though he's just the latest in a long line of politicians to talk this way. What does it say about him?...
How adorable that Donald Trump continues to refer to himself in the third person. Kinda like Kanye West. And Gollum," says @ChandiB, in a reference to a sinister creature in JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit....
The technical term for it is illeism from "ille", the Latin for "he", and history provides many examples, from Julius Caesar - who wrote a history of his Gallic campaigns as if he were an objective observer rather than a protagonist - to Charles de Gaulle and Richard Nixon, basketball megastar Le Bron James and Mikhail Gorbachev. In Gorbachev's case it was one of the linguistic habits that led his rival, Yegor Ligachev, to say he was behaving like an "enlightened monarch".
I, Pondering, understand what you are saying. - I am speaking in the first person even though I used my name.
Pondering understands what you are saying. - I am speaking in the third person.
Weir did not use first person, as though he were speaking of himself. He did not use second person, as if he were speaking about the person he was addressing. He used 3rd person, as if he were an objective observer reporting what other people did.
Apparently the NDP leadership is going to try to hunker down and ride this out without being more open. Shameful.
..yes shameful! assuming the accusations were true it leaves the women who came forward stranded. stranded under clouds of suspicion. stranded with grievances being unresolved. stranded without a just process.
Something does not make sense. Singh said they had agreed to a resolution of the issue but before he announced the decision to the public one of the complainants talked to the CBC. What gives?
None of the complainants started this. The investigation was started on the basis of grapevine information that Christine Moore knew about. The complainants spoke to the investigator on condition of anonymity. Weir guessed one and released identifying information. So no, he should not be given the other names. If this were a court case he would know because if he identified anyone he would go to prison. If Weir were told the other names there would be nothing stopping him from identifying them.
Whatever accusations were made they were mild enough that anti-harassment training would have been enough for Weir to remain in caucus. Given that Weir believes all the charges were trumped up out of political revenge the anti-harassment training would be pointless.
So, my understanding of Weir's defenders when Weir gave identifying information to the press about one of the complainants Singh shouldn't have expelled him from caucus.
It appears that CBC complainant stabbed both Weir and Singh in the back.
Mainstream news lying, but apparently that's okay as long as it is to diss Singh.
http://leaderpost.com/opinion/columnists/ndp-case-against-weir-filled-wi...
Bit os expulsion the correct remed for social awkwardness? If the NDP now thinks so, it would be the height of hypocrisy.
“Gave identifying information”? You think anyone other than an NDP insider could make an identification based on that information? If that. And the incident didn’t involve sexual harassment.
“Gave identifying information”? You think anyone other than an NDP insider could make an identification based on that information? If that. And the incident didn’t involve sexual harassment.
Correct. And contrary to Pondering's creative interpretations, Weir never said that the other complaints had anything to do with some political dispute or attempt to shut down debate. He was referring only to the "complainant" that tried to shut him down. And from what I know of Weir and his style - and his courage in speaking his mind as opposed to the party line - I believe his statement was correct. Identified the complainant, did he? Gee, haven't even seen her name yet. And with a charge like hers, she should have identified herself, or held her peace. There was not a hint of sexual harassment in that case.
A corny speech by J Trudeau where he talks about himself in the third person...
Just want to emphasize that self referencing in the third person is not unique to Erin Weir.
“In other words, the complaint arises not from Weir exercising authority over an employee, but from the former federal leader’s staff asserting their authority to shut down a debate they deemed contentious,” said Weir, who denied being angry or belligerent.
The way I read that is that Weir is claiming......
Weir: The complaint arises from the former federal leader’s staff asserting their authority to shut down a debate they deemed contentious.
Weir: The complaint does not arise from Weir exercising authority over an employee.
No one said he was "exercising authority over an employee"? I personally find that expression telling.
He is saying that the complaint arises from a situation in which he was prevented from speaking by Mulcair's staff. (from another report he was at the mike)
I personally believe that he was angry when a staff person prevented him from speaking. I believe that he did object strongly, and did come off as angry and belligerent and the person he was speaking to did feel physically intimidated by him because he stood close to her while expressing his anger at being prevented, by her, an employee, of speaking.
Weir stated: "But I object to the use of backroom procedural tactics – and now a trumped-up harassment complaint – to shut down democratic debate in the New Democratic Party."
He is referring to being prevented from speaking at the convention in 2016 as a "backroom procedural tactic". It is clear to me that he didn't and doesn't believe that the person who prevented him from speaking should not have been able to assert authority over him.
I have no trouble at all believing the woman, who did not start this, described his behavior on the grapevine as being angry and belligerent at the time when it occurred in 2016 and that Christine Moore heard about it and other incidences which she referred to in the email.
Had Weir not revealed the identity of the complainant he would be back in caucus.
Pondering:
1. She went to the media first with her story.
2. He did not reveal her identity. He said that she was a staffer in Mulcair's office. And I am sure that Mulcair had plenty of staffers.
After the NDP convention was dominated by the adoption of new policy and process addressing these exact issues it is very revealing to see the reaction here when it actually plays out in real life.
Clearly the culture of the NDP is what is in question and the reaction here is evident of that.
Obviously adopting policy and process at the highest levels then having leadership act on them is not enough to change the culture of a party clearly incapable of walking the walk of their own policy intention.
So little respect has been shown for the process, which by its merit, keeps details and individuals from public view in order to successfully protect everyone involved while at the same time best resolving the issue.
Weir clearly chose to disrespect the party's initiative to make these important changes and rather chose to politicize an issue of misconduct and its proper resolution.
It was his call, and choosing such a line of defense is revealing of his character. In so doing, he left little choice for leadership but to respond as they did.
He could have chosen to ensure the process was exemplary by participating in every aspect and leading the way in establishing proper means of addressing these longstanding issues. He chose not to. Every decision has consequences.
Nonsense the deal was done
The complainant went to the CBC and the CBC did their usual dirty job against the NDP. Good work CBC!
Nonsense the deal was done
After that the complainant went to the CBC and the CBC did their usual dirty work against the NDP
Good work CBC!
Exactly
So why did she go to the CBC
Pondering:
1. She went to the media first with her story.
2. He did not reveal her identity. He said that she was a staffer in Mulcair's office. And I am sure that Mulcair had plenty of staffers.
To notalib,
sexual harassment is is very serious. However there is a big difference between a pervert in the office leering down women's blouses for one example vs a person who may have a medical condition where they do not understand space boundaries or social cues that most people are able to pick up on.
he needed to set the record straigjt and clarify the nature of the complaints that were raised against him.
if you were in his situation I think you would want to clarify as well. I don't think you would want people thinking that you are some kind of sick pervert or creep in the workplace.
Correct. And contrary to Pondering's creative interpretations, Weir never said that the other complaints had anything to do with some political dispute or attempt to shut down debate. He was referring only to the "complainant" that tried to shut him down. And from what I know of Weir and his style - and his courage in speaking his mind as opposed to the party line - I believe his statement was correct. Identified the complainant, did he? Gee, haven't even seen her name yet. And with a charge like hers, she should have identified herself, or held her peace. There was not a hint of sexual harassment in that case.
No, her name hasn't been spoken. That does not negate the identifying information. It would be easy for a reporter to figure out who she is. Staff for Mulcair who had the authority to stop Weir from speaking in 2016 at the convention. Pretty small pool of people in that position.
It doesn't matter if he was innocent and she was lying. Not even a little bit. He made a commitment to the party not to speak of it or he would not have called asking if the party or him would respond.
There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness.
Now the NDP has said they plan to release more information from the report. They can only speak to the complainants through the investigator and I imagine they will want to clear what they release with them first.
The press is having a field day just like they did when the Liberals expelled two mps. You can bet they want more details. Looks like they are going to get them.
There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness.
Maybe it's the NDP that should have not responded to the CBC reports and not expelled Weir? I think Weit felt that remaining silent would have left a negative lasting impression about him with the public. Why should he remain silent after his accuser has chosen to change their position and not remain silent?
Pondering,
This statement from you is self-contradictory...
"There was no need to respond to the CBC report, certainly not so urgently. If he had kept his mouth shut he would have been reinstated and his career would be fine. Everyone would have accepted the plea of social awkwardness. "
First of all you said that he should not have responded to the CBC report. It is when he responded to the report that he admitted that he is socially awkward.
then you say that if he kept his mouth shut where he said that he was socially awkward, then people would have accepted his plea of "social awkwardness."
but you say that he should have kept his mouth shut?!?!?
Pondering:
1. She went to the media first with her story.
2. He did not reveal her identity. He said that she was a staffer in Mulcair's office. And I am sure that Mulcair had plenty of staffers.
Exactly.
After the NDP convention was dominated by the adoption of new policy and process addressing these exact issues it is very revealing to see the reaction here when it actually plays out in real life.
Clearly the culture of the NDP is what is in question and the reaction here is evident of that.
Obviously adopting policy and process at the highest levels then having leadership act on them is not enough to change the culture of a party clearly incapable of walking the walk of their own policy intention.
So little respect has been shown for the process, which by its merit, keeps details and individuals from public view in order to successfully protect everyone involved while at the same time best resolving the issue.
Weir clearly chose to disrespect the party's initiative to make these important changes and rather chose to politicize an issue of misconduct and its proper resolution.
It was his call, and choosing such a line of defense is revealing of his character. In so doing, he left little choice for leadership but to respond as they did.
He could have chosen to ensure the process was exemplary by participating in every aspect and leading the way in establishing proper means of addressing these longstanding issues. He chose not to. Every decision has consequences.
WTF? He chose to politicize it? He was simply defending himself from those who publicized and politicized it. As part of this Kafkaesque “process.”
It doesn't matter if he was innocent and she was lying. Not even a little bit.
Can't get a better endorsement of the process than that.
It doesn't matter if he was innocent and she was lying. Not even a little bit.
Can't get a better endorsement of the process than that.
Holy crap.
But the person who blabbed to the CBC broke the confidentiality agreement. And Weir tried to get advice from the NDP before he responded to the media, and the NDP ignored him. The complainant destroyed what obviously had been a challenging and delicate resolution to the matter, and now Weir, Singh and the NDP will pay the price. Weir showed goodwill here, and both Weir and Singh were sandbagged in the process. And I am also disappointed with Trudeau supporting the NDP decision without even knowing the details.
BRANDON, Man. — Manitoba's New Democratic Party has suffered for years from a "toxic culture" of sexual harassment and bullying where victims have been afraid or unable to seek help, according to a review released at the party's convention in Brandon.
"The atmosphere was overly sexualized, sexist and misogynist, and there was often a different standard for women than there were for men," Kemlin Nembhard, one of two commissioners who have been examining the issue, told some 200 delegates at the party's annual convention Saturday.
"The span of years that (people we talked to) have been or were involved with the party was really diverse, and yet the patterns in the work atmosphere, in the general culture and environment ... were pretty consistent."
The Opposition party set up the commission earlier this year, after several women came forward with allegations they had been subjected to harassment and unwanted touching by former NDP cabinet minister Stan Struthers. One of them, Shannon Van Raes, alleged Struthers put his hand under her skirt and made sexual comments while she was his press secretary.
Found here:https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/05/05/manitoba-new-democrats-hear...
Lots of work to do.....
And that has to do with Weir how?
This is the party that hasn't publicly condemned the sins of Peter Stoffer and others of the same ilk. Erin Weir - who as far as I can see, is guilty of nothing except awkward social interactions, which he has acknowledged once he was made aware of them and apologized - stands head and shoulders above these low-life creatures who are destroying the NDP. I don't blame Jagmeet Singh in the slightest for what he did - he's fumbling and trying to learn, and he's following the advice of the toxic team in charge of the party. For that I do "blame" him. I call on him to follow the policy and principles of the party, and start firing whoever he has the constitutional authority to fire (like the character who complained about Weir to the media - if she isn't already gone, hopefully, which isn't clear from the half-assed rumours published so far).
Erin Weir’s political career has been destroyed.
Very well said Unionist. I could not agree more.
I don't blame Singh alone for this for the reasons you say, Unionist. And I am also alarmed to see some of the racist responses directed at him because of this on social media here.
But he IS the leader of the party, and if indeed he is following others' advice here that is on him.
What a sad mess. I feel bad for both Weir and Singh. This was handled so poorly and the fall-out will ruin careers.
It doesn't matter if he was innocent and she was lying. Not even a little bit.
Can't get a better endorsement of the process than that.
Holy crap.
Srsly.
Still no explanation of why the complainant decided to throw mud at Weir in public.
I don’t get why people are feeling sorry for Singh. The buck stops with him. Just as it did with Christopherson
Because like Weir, Singh was blindsided by the issue going public by the CBC. And don’t forget Trudeau supports Singh’s decision, eh!
#NDP_believes_survivors
Because like Weir, Singh was blindsided by the issue going public by the CBC. And don’t forget Trudeau supports Singh’s decision, eh!
Singh approved the expulsion. It wasn’t like somebody put a gun to his head,
Because like Weir, Singh was blindsided by the issue going public by the CBC. And don’t forget Trudeau supports Singh’s decision, eh!
Was the CBC supposed to bury this story?
As I have already said the CBC did their job well and have helped to destroy a person’s career
As I have already said the CBC did their job well and have helped to destroy a person’s career
Just to be clear: the CBC did not destroy Weir's career -- that was done by Singh and the ridiculously flawed, unjust so-called "process" that the NDP used to tar & feather him. There is no evidence he did anything wrong at all, other than "misread social cues", for which he apologized. And all parties agree that even at the time of the "offending incidents" Weir was respectful and backed down/stepped away when asked to, or when he was told he was standing too close/speaking too much/etc... As some people are suggesting, it seems likely that Weir has some degree of Asperger's-like condition where he has a hard time recognizing social cues. I think it's vile that others in the NDP, including Singh, have used this as a weapon to kick him out of the party and destroy his career.
I think Unionist’s post said it best.
I don't blame Jagmeet Singh in the slightest for what he did - he's fumbling and trying to learn, and he's following the advice of the toxic team in charge of the party. For that I do "blame" him. I call on him to follow the policy and principles of the party, and start firing whoever he has the constitutional authority to fire (like the character who complained about Weir to the media - if she isn't already gone, hopefully, which isn't clear from the half-assed rumours published so far).
Unionist, as a federal party leader the buck stops with Jagmeet. He wears this decision, no matter who advised him on it. That is leadership.
What transpired, who said what and how things got this far is beside the point. The bottom line is that expelling Erin Weir was overkill. As pointed out by Chantal Hebert, other NDP MPs have blabbed to the media and didn't even receive a reprimand by Singh.
The fact is Erin Weir is expendable. While MPs like Romeo Saganash and Charlie Angus are not.
Aparently the entire caucus is behind this expulsion 100% which says to me that Erin Weir had no defenders inside caucus. And the braintrust used this as opportunity to get rid of him. Jagmeet basically destroyed his political career, and he better hope karma is not a bitch.
Weir destroyed his own career. All he had to do was stay silent. How much time did he give party brass to respond to his aggressive question. He didn't ask how it would be handled. He asked who would be responding, as if that was a given.
The woman didn't "go to the CBC" The CBC was investigating. She didn't say anything that we didn't already basically know from Christine Moore. Christine Moore said she was afraid to be alone with him. My reaction to him being described as "angry and belligerent" is "Is that all?" Nothing sexual in nature. He didn't hit anyone. "Angry and belligerent" means "loud" to me, and maybe "obnoxious".
The complainant doesn't sign any confidentiality agreement. Confidentiality is promised to complainants because without it they will not speak openly. Only the investigator knew their identity.
Yes, Mulcair had a lot of staffers. Of those staffers I doubt there were a lot of them with the authority to block Weir and were at the 2016 convention.
There is no point in someone taking anti-harassment training if they aren't admitting guilt. That is the first step. He accused the complaintant of lying which made anti-harassment training no longer appropriate. That is why I said it doesn't matter whether he is guilty or innocent. If you are claiming innocence and that the complaints were trumped up then there is no point to anti-harassment training.
Singh had no choice but to expel him.
Singh had no choice but to expel him.
Without getting his side of the story? What if he does have a medical condition that hasn't been diagnosed.
