Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Would he be a victim or a survivor?

He hasn't claimed to be either. He stated the sex was fully consentual. He did not claim to be intimidated by her therefore at this point he is neither. 

If you watched the interview he said MP Christine Moore used her position as an MP 'inappropriately'

Sexual harrassment is not about sex, it is about power. She controlled the meeting, she set the time, she brought out the liquor, she followed him to his hotel room.

By these actions she has proven that a woman in power can be just as abusive as a man.

Pondering wrote:

The man is not claiming to be a victim. He said it was consentual. 

He is claiming that it was inappropriate for her to come on to him because she is in a position of authority.

She was not in a position of authority over him.  Police officers are allowed to make passes at and have relations with women, just not women in their custody or that they have some official power over.

She had zero power over him. He is not claiming that he felt in any way intimidated by her. He is talking about what she did but not what his response was. Did he respond to her texts? 

If she used her position to find out what his phone number was or his address then that was definitely an abuse of power but if he gave her the information then it wasn't. 

He said in his interview that he came forward because of the hypocrisy because she reported on Weir. 

All Christine Moore did was report what was on the grapevine to people in authority. From that point on it was up to the authorities to decide what to do. 

But don't worry, she has been suspended and an investigation will occur. Let's see if there are any other accusers.

He said that he doesn't consider it rape, but that he does consider it an abuse of power.

He is also alleging that she gave him alcohol while he was on medication and that she said that since she was a nurse it was okay.

There are several ethical issues raised by Moore's relationship with this soldier:

1) There is a potential conflict of interest and ethical code that may be broken when a Member of Parliament pursues a romantic relationship with someone who is a witness before a Parliamentary Committee which that MP is a member of.

2) It is also questionable as to whether it is appropriate for that MP to then invite that witness back to her Parliament Hill Office and serve alcohol to that person in that office.

Well, like it or not, Christine Moore is now front-page news. Christie Blatchford and a staff writer at the National Post have stories about her, and they're not very complimentary.

In the staff story, Kirkland is quoted as saying he found it 'very ironic' that Moore initially raised the allegations against him (Weir) "because she took it upon herself to be an ethical warrior in this and I believe she has no place being there".

Blatchford also outs Moore: 

What most Canadians outside the Hill don’t know is that it was also Moore who was behind the 2014 ruination of two Liberal MPs, Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti.

The reason most don’t know her from that sorry incident is that though Moore went on a bit of a press tour to discuss it, it was as an alleged victim. Thus, she was guaranteed anonymity by most mainstream news media, was never named in legacy print and only ever appeared in the shadows on the tube.

How it happened was that at the funeral that fall for Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders reservist who was shot while standing guard over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Ottawa, Moore spotted then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau on the bus taking Parliamentarians to and from the service.

She presented him — what better time than a funeral for a slain soldier? — with what’s called a third-party complaint.

She said that one of his MPs, Scott Andrews, had allegedly behaved inappropriately with one of her colleagues.

​Note that in the beginning Moore was speaking on behalf of someone who may not have had any intention of speaking herself. It wasn't until a meeting held between the two party whips, Moore and the other complainant that Moore made her own complaint about Massimo Pacetti.

Christine Moore to have a news conference later this week.

Wonder if she wil be expelled like Erin Weir was when he spoke out to the media.

In a media scrum today (according to CTV Don Martin) Jagmeet Singh has said that Christine Moore has a right to confront her accuser in the media! As he (Glen Kirkland) is the one who brought it out in the open, so she has a right to defend herself out in the open as well!

Afterwards Jagmeet Singh changed into his tux and headed off to the Fairmont Château. As he is hosting the Politics and the Pen event, mixing and schmoozing among the Glitterati of the Ottawa elite. I'll post pictures from Jagmeet's Instagram later!

Correct Pesky. 

I was listening to him again. On the issue of medication. He said he knew she was a registered nurse so when she offered him a couple of drinks he figured it must be okay. That is not the same thing as saying hey, I'm a registered nurse and I think it is okay for you to drink. Not smart on either part, but he isn't claiming that it made him more inebriated. He drove himself to his hotel. 

He said she followed him. Like, ran down to her car and waited for him to pull out so she could follow? Or, he invited her to his hotel so she followed him in her car. 

He said there were multiple texts. Did he respond and if so how? 

How did she know he was golfing? He must have told her.

Did she get his phone number and address inappropriately through her committee work? If so that is a breach of privacy. But if he gave her the information that is a different story. 

My perception of the way he is presenting this is he didn't feel in the least bit intimidated by her. He seems to be saying that on principle, there was a power imbalance so nothing should have happened. 

Just because one person has a more powerful job than another doesn't mean there is a power imbalance. A cop or a professor can date a MacDonald's cashier.

That she was an MP and he was a private did not place her in a power position over him. 

If he said that he was inebriated enough that he shouldn't have been driving that could suggest she took advantage of him. If he said it was consentual but only because he felt somehow intimidated that would be an issue. If he said he didn't give her his personal information that would be an issue. 

There has to be more to it than she's an MP and he's a private for it to be an abuse of power or inappropriate.

There will be an investigation. I hope that both parties agree to make it public. 

He even said his motivation for coming forward was that she reported Weir, not that he was upset about what had happened to him, and he did state it was entirely consentual. 

If someone wants to talk about Christine Moore, and dudes in uniform, or whatever, why not open a thread and resume your idle speculation? This thread is about the dirty hatchet job done against Erin Weir - and thankfully more and more people are demanding a shred of justice. This really is an idle diversion and distraction.

Erin Weir must be re-admitted to caucus and Singh and his secret handlers must explain publicly what they did and how they won't do it again.

From Pondering:

That she was an MP and he was a private did not place her in a power position over him. 

​She wasn't just an MP, and he wasn't just a private. She was a member of the committee before which he was giving testimony. She chose to initiate a relationship with him while that was going on.

How professional was that?

josh wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

If someone wants to talk about Christine Moore, and dudes in uniform, or whatever, why not open a thread and resume your idle speculation? This thread is about the dirty hatchet job done against Erin Weir - and thankfully more and more people are demanding a shred of justice. This really is an idle diversion and distraction.

Erin Weir must be re-admitted to caucus and Singh and his secret handlers must explain publicly what they did and how they won't do it again.

I don't get why he should be readmitted.

I know you don’t.  That’s the problem.

I haven't heard anyone give a reason for why he should be readmitted. He didn't just reveal information about Christine Moore. He rejected all the findings of the report after accepting them. He said all 4 charges are trumped up, that it was a political witchhunt based on his position on carbon pricing. He claims he is just a little awkward but the investigator found 4 accusations substanciated.

What should happen if an investigator does find a problem but the individual rejects the findings? Do you feel he should be reinstated because he rejected the findings? Is that your position because Christine Moore stands accused?

I sincerely do not understand the logic behind reinstating him. That would be admitting that it was all a political set-up and that Angus and Mulcair are behind it and that it was also Christine Moore's motivation.

I cannot imagine the NDP leadership setting up anyone for false allegations of sexual harassment because of a difference of opinion on carbon pricing.

I am sincerely asking, what is the logic behind reinstating him. If you were leading the NDP, had the power to reinstate him, what reason would you give?

josh wrote:

The real reason or the announced reason?  The real reason is that he was railroaded and not provided due process.  As for the announced reason, they could say that they believe he warrants a second chance and that, upon reflection, the punishment was too severe.

He  had due  process. He was presented with a report summary. He could have rejected the findings. He could have said that while he was annoyed at being prevented from speaking as anyone would be but that he didn't act inappropriately. He could have said that while he does flirt with women or ask them for dates he didn't pressure anyone.

Then it would have been up to the party to reinstate him or say why they weren't.

josh wrote:

He did not.  Amazing how you'll bend over backwards to try to excuse every aspect of the allegations in the Moore matter while twisting everything in everyway possible against Weir.

We know a great deal more about the single (so far) allegation against Moore. We don't have the results of the investigation. If the investigation comes up with evidence of inappropriate behavior then she should face the same sanctions. She has been suspended just like Weir was.

From what Kirkland has said so far I don't think she coerced him in any way or that he had sex with her because he was afraid that if he didn't it would impact what she said in committee or that he felt in the least bit intimidated.

If there is a concern, it goes the other way for me. Could he influence her work on the committee?  So yes, having sex with a witness for a committee you are on doesn't seem appropriate depending on the point of the committee. That doesn't mean the witness (Kirkland) was taking advantage of.

Kirkland was very clear that he doesn't consider himself a victim or a survivor and that the sex was 100% consentual.

I find his testimony suspect because he seems to be deliberately framing events dishonestly through the way he words himself and the details he leaves out. That's just my perception.

I think his reasoning is rooted solely in her being an MP and him being a private and that alone making the "relationship" inappropriate. I think it's fine for MPs and privates to have sex as long as there is no coercion involved and neither is significantly more incapacitated than the other.

Was the goal of the committee to make recommendations or just provide a summary of witness testimony? That is how was the work split up? In other words, did Moore have the power to lessen or increase the impact of his testimony?

His testimony was very emotional. Is he saying that he felt vulnerable at the time and it influenced his decisions? He hasn't said that.

Not just in this situation but in many others I find it difficult to get direct quotes even when statements were released. We just get snippets buried in prose. I try to extract that part so I can come to my own conclusions.

“But she’s a registered nurse. I figured she would know if it was all right.’’

She didn't say, I'm a registered nurse, it's okay for you to drink. It seems she just knew he was on medication because of the hearings and she is a registered nurse so he assumed it must be okay for him to drink.

“My memory is a bit disordered. I don’t know how it happened. I think she followed me. I definitely did not invite her. But we got to my hotel at the same time.”

I assumed they drove but maybe I was wrong. If his memory is disordered and he doesn't know how it happened how does he know he didn't invite her? Wait a second. If they were walking did she walk a few steps behind? Were they being  familiar in her office? Was he an enthusiastic participant? I'm not suggesting he was. I'm just saying he hasn't said.

“I’m not claiming rape or anything,” Kirkland said.

“Christine Moore used her position inappropriately, to get what she wanted from me.”

If he was a fully willing and enthusiastic participant then she didn't take advantage of him. That is, unless there is a rule against it, she didn't automatically do something wrong purely because of their relative positions. If he felt intimidated by her position so his participation was reluctant that's a problem. But he hasn't said that. What does he mean by "she used her position"?

“Constant communication. I didn’t want to be outright rude.’’

So there was back and forth communication and he didn't want to be rude. Sounds to me as though he saw it as a one night stand and didn't want to take it any farther. Did he think it could negatively impact her committee work or did he just not want to be rude?

How did she obtain his phone number and address? Did he feel coerced based on her position as an MP, or did he feel coerced because he just had sex with her and didn't want to seem like a jerk?

I'm just saying that so far he hasn't actually said that he felt coerced or unwilling at any point based on his. He seems to be saying it is automatically wrong based on their relative positions regardless of his willingness.

In his own words it was consentual. I find his framing suspect. He hasn't spoken at all about how he felt other than he kept texting her because he didn't want to be rude.

From Pondering:

If Kirkland was texting her back she did nothing wrong by continuing to text him.

If Kirkland told Moore where and when he was golfing it isn't stalking.

Showing up at someone's place unannounced is not stalking. I personally find it rude, but it isn't stalking if it is someone who had consensual sex with you and that you have been texting back and forth with.

​Let's compare these items with the accusations against Erin Weir. He talked too much, and stood too close, but shut up and moved when he was told. For those offenses he was required to have rehabilitation.

Moore seduces a witness before her committee with alcohol, refuses to leave the complainant alone when told he didn't want to see her, travels out to Sasketchewan to confront him on a golf course, and again travels to his home in Manitoba to confront him, again, after being told there was no 'affair'.

 By the way, IF frogs had wings, there arses wouldn't flop when they jumped.

When you get some real evidence, Pondering, post it.

Who needs actual, like, investigations? Pondering has worked out all the facts of both cases - using, I don't know, educated speculative guesswork?

And just listen to this:

Pondering wrote:

I haven't heard anyone give a reason for why he should be readmitted. He didn't just reveal information about Christine Moore. He rejected all the findings of the report after accepting them. He said all 4 charges are trumped up, that it was a political witchhunt based on his position on carbon pricing. He claims he is just a little awkward but the investigator found 4 accusations substanciated.

What? Information about Christine Moore?? What information did Weir reveal about Christine Moore? Hopefully that's just a typing slip? Or do I have to make some more popcorn?

And Weir said all 4 charges are trumped up? He did provide context about the staffer who went public, explaining that she was trying to shut him down because of his position on carbon pricing. I must have missed where he said that the other 3 charges were trumped up because of carbon pricing. On the contrary, he said that as he read the report, he came to realize what he had been doing wrong (standing/sitting too close, talking more than was welcome, etc.) and accepted those findings. When and where exactly did he say, "oh wait a sec, no, that's all bullshit"?? I must have missed that too.

And did Singh or anyone contradict Weir's description of the other charges? Pondering figures the incidents were way way way worse than Weir describes. After all, as she has pointed out before, Weir is a liar - right?

Pondering wants to know why Weir should be reinstated. That's a simple one. He should be reinstated because he never should have been expelled.

And, the party should conduct an immediate investigation into: 1) Why Moore never came forward privately to report her second-hand information about Weir being a serial harasser; 2) Why Moore sent an email making accusations against Weir, which somehow went public; 3) What were the exact circumstances of the staffer going public to the CBC.

They need to investigate this shit before it happens again. Expulsions to follow.

From Pondering:

... He was texting her back because he didn't want to be rude. If you feel that someone is stalking you you don't tell them where you are. You don't give them your address. You don't text back and forth to avoid rudeness. You get a restraining order.

​Where is your evidence that Kirkland 'texted her back'? Where is your evidence that Kirkland gave her his address?

​Here is a direct quote from Kirkland, re Moore. "...she was inappropriate. She used her position of power and authority to get what she wanted."

There's a separate thread for the Moore drama. Can't we exercise a little self-discipline?

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

 Moore seduces a witness before her committee with alcohol,

This isn't the 18th century. He said he had two drinks and unless his hotel was within walking distance he drove. He has not said that he felt in any way compelled to cooperate. He said it was consentual. His words.

 

Pondering, you've repeatedly stated that he drove, but he's on record stating that he walked to his hotel. Please get your facts straight.

Quote:

He began walking to his hotel, and “the next thing I knew, she was beside me.”

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-i-wouldnt-have-been-...

ETA: With apologies to Unionist for continuing this thread drift.

I'd say you need to get your facts straight.  I said " Unless his hotel was in walking distance he drove." I also noted how difficult it was to find actual quotes rather than editorialists putting words in his mouth.

From another thread:

josh wrote:

Didn't the NDP say they were going to release portions of the "Weir report"? 

I thought they said that as well. I'll search back and find that reference. People should demand that the NDP disclose enough facts (without identifying complainants) to justify what appears to be a draconian and vindictive action against Erin Weir.

Mobo2000 wrote:

I don't think they have a plan at all.   Anyone looking for a job?   NDP is hiring:

http://www.ndp.ca/job/director-communications-ndp-research-office-perman...

I'm looking for an emoji that expresses hilarity, sadness, and anger simultaneously...

Come on farmer, soldier, labourer,
From the mine and factory,
And side by side we’ll swell the tide,  C.C.F. to victory.

Moved here from the wrong thread:

Mobo2000 wrote:

He did not accept the findings.   He accepted that a summary of the allegations shown to him indicated that he needed to be more aware of social ques.   He did not agree that the findings consituted sexual harrassment and he also said he thought most Canadians would not accept that his actioons constituted sexual harrassment.   I imagine he initially expressed contrition because the complaints did prompt some self reflection, and also a path was presented to him -- accept the training, say your mea culpas and be welcomed back to the fold.   Then the complaintant spoke to the CBC and made it clear that the finding of sexual harrassment was substantiated in the report and Weir felt obligated to respond.    By the way, at this point we still don't know if Weir has actually seen the final report.  

It feels like a step backwards for equality in the workplace for progressives to be urging people to expect anonymity when making complaints, or to expect the accused to sue privately when responding to confidential, anonymous complaints.   I don't think lawyers need our help drumming up business.

Fully agree, except for one small point: I do believe Weir was shown the final report. He was never told who the complainants were, which I find unbelievably egregious. It's inconceivable in a workplace harassment complaint (which I've seen and managed many times) that a complaint could be filed anonymously. Why? Afraid of reprisal by a lunatic harasser? Then what if he mistakenly retaliates against one of his other victims, who didn't complain? It's a shocking and sickening precedent.

And it's pretty clear by now that nothing that happened qualifies as "sexual harassment", unless we rewrite the dictionary. Of course, when everything is secret, everyone can conclude whatever they want. So who the hell knows.

The only thing I know for sure is that Erin Weir should be welcomed back to caucus, with appropriate apologies to him, and systemic measures implemented to ensure that such a flagrant injustice is never repeated.

Unionist wrote:

Fully agree, except for one small point: I do believe Weir was shown the final report. He was never told who the complainants were, which I find unbelievably egregious.

My understanding, at least from the media reports, is that he has not seen the full report only a "summary" of its findings. Obviously that "summary" would not have identified any of the complainants. If he wants to see the full report, or identify the people who actually complained, he would presumably have to sue the NDP - a course of action I understand Pondering has endorsed but which I think he is understandably reluctant to pursue.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The Moose Jaw Independent article I posted upthread also seems to point in that direction.

Ok, Smith - I'll never get back the 5 minutes I spent searching "upthread" looking for that article. Please take me by the hand and show me!