That's unfair Unionist. They did have a relationship. It became clear very early on that soldier-boy was trying to leave the impression that she took advantage of him without actually saying so. Every time someone tried to nail him down he avoided giving straight answers.
I actually don't care who screwed whom, or whether anyone had an orgasm. It's rather telling, though, that the so-called secret "investigation" didn't actually benefit from the testimony of the alleged survivor - pretty soldier boy. Some investigation. What a pathetic farce.
Fortunately she had hard evidence on her side.I have no doubt it was hard, but what difference does it make that she had it on her side?
If Moore is guilty of "sitting on information" so is everyone on the grapevine because that is where she got the information that led to her saying she wouldn't be comfortable alone with him.Oh well, if there were a whole bunch of cowardly abettors of sexual harassment like her, that makes it all better. Yes indeed, Moore is a saint, because everyone was crooked. Great argument.
She definitely could have handled it better but she was telling the truth.She was telling the truth. Amazing conclusion. Based on nothing.
Weir is the author of his own misfortune.He did nothing wrong. He said he stood or sat too close to people, and talked longer than they wanted to hear. No one - no one - has come forward to refute that statement. That's why the NDP is terrified of making their so-called McCarthyite investigation public. Because Singh and his inner circle are chock full of shit.
That isn't why he was ejected. All he had to do was take the training to be reinstated. There is no need to see the report because it has nothing to do with his leaving caucus. Both you and he seem to have a mental block on that.
Christine Moore said she would feel uncomfortable being alone with him based on what she had heard on the grapevine. What part of that do you think was a lie?
I don't think you know what the grapevine means or how it works. The grapevine works on rumours. It's gossip. Until recently it was meaningless. Nobody reports what is on the grapevine because it is 3rd hand information. The private caucus email was discussion amongst equals. I don't believe Moore intended her email to become public. Have you heard of any other caucus emails becoming public?
Calling it nothing more than standing too close and talking to long is dismissive of what the women experienced. It was deemed sexual harassment, on the milder side. What he was saying while he was standing too close and talking too long matters. Multiple women used the grapevine because that is what we do when men get out of line with us. It is the best way for us to handle it. We tell each other which uncle/executive/friend to avoid. "Me too" is an apt name because that is how it grows. One woman recounts an experience to a friend. That friend puts it out anonymously. Someone pipes up and says "me too". Within days there is third "me too".
What Ghomeshi did is far worse than anything Weir did and that wasn't officially reported even when the union was aware because no woman wanted to launch an official complaint. Your condemnation of Moore for not reporting rumours up the chain internally is misplaced. It is not the norm.
The NDP MPs didn't want to make their complaints "official" either. They did not want Mulcair to speak to Trudeau about it. Women are still shamed for sexual promiscuity or imagined sexual promiscuity. They are deemed naive for not realizing they might get raped if they go to a man's hotel room alone, that the only reason to do that is if you want to have sex.
Soldier boy is an apt name for him. He probably thought he was a hotshot bedding an MP. He lied about her by implication but if you listen to his words it was clear. He defined it as sexual harassment purely on their supposed power relationship. He made it sound like he went straight from the hearing to her office, was plyed with alcohol, then followed back to his hotel room. He said Moore texted him and stalked him showing up on his doorstep. (he picked her up at the airport.) When Moore provided hard evidence that contradicted his story he hemmed and hawed with reporters then disappeared. My bet is this did not impact his business (real estate) the way he intended.
I suppose you think it is some sort of poetic justice because you blame her for Weir's downfall. Her mistake was putting grapevine information in writing. She did not act maliciously. She just blurted out the truth. She had heard rumours that would make her uncomfortable to be alone with him. It was in an internal caucus email. Who leaked it to the press? I would question that person's political or personal motivations.
Caucus was and is united behind Singh on Weir. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Singh didn't centralize power in the leadership or executive. No leader is going to be a magic bullet that instantly reverses the culture of the NDP.
I can see how angry you are about the way in which the NDP is run but that isn't Singh's or Moore's fault. It is the fault of the executive and to a lessor extent caucus (including leader) followed by the membership as a whole.