Liberals investigation: Allegations of harassment of MPs on Parliament Hill

223 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No.  You have no clue.  You only care whether this helps or hinders your preferred team.  What is says about polls.  What it says about seats.  Nothing about the women, their lives, their livelihoods, the rest of their lives.  Clap clap clap like a seal is all you can fathom.

I do not like speaking ill of messageboard moderators because it is a mindnumbing, thankless and poorly or unpaid job but the fact you have yet to be banned is a stain on this site.

Oh, please.  I have been harassed, insulted and targeted on this site for years, just because I am a Liberal.  The same thing happens to Pondering and any other poster here who identifies as a Liberal.

You NDP partisans accuse us of things you do yourself.  It is people like you and other NDP partisans who attack people personally because of their political affilatiion who should be banned.

And I already said above that I am not just interested in polls and who it helps, but that the reality is that everyone looks at this from a political point of view, including Tom Mulcair, who was more interested in playing politics this week than in taking a strong stand against harassment like Justin Trudeau did.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

-

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Anyone know how Tom Mulcair is seeing some fallout tonight on his handling of this? I've checked twitter and see nothing. Anyone got some links?

You 'checked twitter'?  Did you enter key words and see all the supportive Tweets Justin Trudeau is getting and all the criticism Mulcair is getting?

Or read any of the opinion pieces & articles?

Debater

Tough calls, cheap shots: Trudeau, Mulcair and harassment

Nov 7, 2014

Yesterday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair fired a rocket at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He claimed that by suspending two Liberal members of his caucus — and publicizing the complaints of two unnamed NDP caucus members about those MPs’ alleged ‘inappropriate behaviour’ — Mr. Trudeau re-victimized the NDP MPs by making their concerns public.

We all get it: We’re in the pre-election period, when no opportunity to kneecap a rival can be passed up. In this case, however, Mr. Mulcair is wrong — dead wrong.

Let’s start with the predicament Mr. Trudeau faced. He was approached personally and directly by one of the NDP MP complainants. At that point the die was cast for Trudeau — because he had only two options.

First, he could have done what he did — ask his chief whip, Judy Foote, to investigate the complaints, receive her recommendations, then suspend the MPs involved.

As far as further actions were concerned, here Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Foote made the right call as well. They sent the issue to the all-party Board of Internal Economy — the most senior decision-making body in the House of Commons, the body that traditionally deals with this kind of issue.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/07/tough-calls-cheap-shots-trudeau-mulca...

 

Ciabatta2

Debater wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No.  You have no clue.  You only care whether this helps or hinders your preferred team.  What is says about polls.  What it says about seats.  Nothing about the women, their lives, their livelihoods, the rest of their lives.  Clap clap clap like a seal is all you can fathom.

I do not like speaking ill of messageboard moderators because it is a mindnumbing, thankless and poorly or unpaid job but the fact you have yet to be banned is a stain on this site.

Oh, please.  I have been harassed, insulted and targeted on this site for years, just because I am a Liberal.  The same thing happens to Pondering and any other poster here who identifies as a Liberal.

You NDP partisans accuse us of things you do yourself.  It is people like you and other NDP partisans who attack people personally because of their political affilatiion who should be banned.

And I already said above that I am not just interested in polls and who it helps, but that the reality is that everyone looks at this from a political point of view, including Tom Mulcair, who was more interested in playing politics this week than in taking a strong stand against harassment like Justin Trudeau did.

Are you seriosly comparing workplace harassment to your participation on an internet messageboard?  Workplace harassment to criticism of your political preference?

And I vote fucking Liberal!

I can't believe this!

WTF!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY PEOPLE DO NOT COME FORWARD.  PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP THE CYCLE OF ABUSE GOING.

Debater

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Are you seriosly comparing workplace harassment to your participation on an internet messageboard?  Workplace harassment to criticism of your political preference?

And I vote fucking Liberal!

I can't believe this!

WTF!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY PEOPLE DO NOT COME FORWARD.  PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP THE CYCLE OF ABUSE GOING.

Can you participate in a discussion calmly without swearing & lashing out?

I didn't compare being bullied on a message board to workplace harassment.  I was responding to your claim that I should be banned by saying that I am the one who is harassed on this board, along with other Liberals here.  I was not comparing it to the harassment scandal on Parliament Hill.

And how dare you claim that I'm responsible for the cycle of abuse and people not coming forward.  You owe me an aplogy after your accusations tonight.

I just posted links to several columns explaining why Justin Trudeau's actions are getting positive praise and how it helps victims to come forward!

Debater

Despite NDP complaints, Trudeau had no alternative but to go public on abuse

November 7, 2014

It was a welcome relief that two female MPs felt able to complain about as-yet unspecified treatment by two male Liberal MPs, and—one might have thought—that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau took swift action.

But here’s where things suddenly got complicated. By taking the action he did— sidelining the two MPs pending an investigation — Trudeau is now being accused of “re-victimizing” the women—a truly shameful display of partisan politics by the NDP.

Suppose Trudeau had simply sat on the information. When this became common knowledge, as such things almost inevitably do, you can imagine the public drubbing he would have received. Instead, in marked contrast to, say, CBC management, he acted quickly and decisively. But in the narrow, stupid, debased politics on the Hill, this was an opportunity to smear him instead of lauding him for getting it right.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/07/john-baglow-despite-ndp-c...

bekayne

Stop digging, everyone.

Rokossovsky

bekayne wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Harassment is often dealt with in all kinds of working environments without suspension of the offending party.

What about "sexual violence"?

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberals-investigation-allegat...

Absolutely! In case where there is violence it is prudent to separate the parties, and this could very mean suspension of the accused or other means to ensure there is no retaliation. But this is new information, and apparently new to the Liberals as well since they originally charged "misconduct", not "assault".

I am glad you seem now to agree that all cases of misconduct and harassment need not be dealt with by immediate suspension. There are good processes to be followed, and these are both good common sense, and accepted process when dealing with sexual harassment and violence.

However Trudeau's story simply doesn't wash, under these circumstance either, and that makes it appear as his actions are heavily influenced by his desire to granstand on a wedge issuea, as far as I can tell.

1) There is no reasonable way that talking to Trudeau in a chance meeting on a bus amounts to a formal approach by the alleged victim(s) that indicated a desire for immediate remedy.

2) Now we are expected to believe that the plaintiff not only made a formal approach to Trudeau while riding on a bus while surounded by MP colleagues but also detailed a case of "sexual violence" on that same bus, and that Trudeau made his decision to suspend based on the "sexual violence" charge. That didn't happen.

3) Surely Trudeau could manage asking the alleged victim, what they wanted done, or to ask for a meeting to lay out the case for more proper consultation were details might be safely revealed? Why no contact after the initial discussion?

4) It is very simple nothing approaching a real preliminary investigation of the allegations from the point of view of the alleged victim took place on a bus coming back from a funeral.

5) Most problematic in terms of this argument you are making is that both offending Liberal MPs were suspended, even though we only appear to have one accussation of "sexual violence", and both cases were deemed merely to be "misconduct" when the suspensions were haned down.

Why? Trudeau never really approached the issues raised in a serious manner, or attempted to find the facts, and doesn't seem to have been particularly concerned about keeping it "under wraps" for the safety of the victims.

There is no process. No respect for the victims. No cohesive way these facts hold together.

Trudeau is making a public "demonstration" on basic moral principles of propriety, just as he did when suddenly exiled the Liberal Senate from the Liberal Caucus in the wake of repeated "partisan" scandals; a nice idea but essentially meaningless.

The difference here is that in pursuing this demonstration he has essentially thrown the alleged victims under the bus, in search of a wedge issue he can exploit.

Rokossovsky

No one would have known there was something to be dug up, if it were not for Trudeau's desire to make an example of these two MPs without consulting with the alleged victims.

As I have pointed out before:

At this point in time its not clear why these women didn't want to "report", or be exposed, and in reality we should all be blissfully ignorant of these charges, and free of speculative gossip, because its not our fucking business.

Trudeau decided to make it our business.

pookie

This thread is hilarious.

And pitiful.

Rokossovsky

pookie wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

And pitiful.

Agreed. It shouldn't even exist.

Quote:
How a particular complaint is addressed is critical to its effective resolution. Initially, the complaint should be heard carefully suspending judgment and taking complete notes. The process should be explained to the complainant without making promises as to the outcome. The appropriate party should be notified so that the investigation can begin immediately. A third party (usually from human resources) should investigate. It is often appropriate to have both a man and a woman investigate.

Precautions should be taken to protect the privacy of all parties involved. The accused party should be interviewed as well as any individuals that he/she believes would have pertinent information to the case. Complete notes should be taken.

Once all relevant facts have been compiled, the investigators should determine if the complaint is credible and determine the action to be taken. If it is not possible to determine who is truthful, a warning should be issued and the situation followed up at a later time. If harassment occurred, the appropriate action as prescribed in the company policy should be considered. Disciplinary action should be based on the seriousness of the offense and whether or not it was a first offense. The complainant should be notified of the outcome. The entire investigation should be carefully documented. Longitudinally, the complainant and the perpetrator should be followed up to be sure that additional sexual harassment does not occur and that there is no retaliation against the complainant.

PDF copy of "Best Practices in Sexual Harassment Policy and Assessment"

Rokossovsky

I missed the part in that document about premetively making a decision based on a conversation in a bus, and giving the plaintiff a couple of hours notice before publicly suspending the accused, and holding a press conference about it in order to maximize public exposure through the media.

That's just a given, I guess.

Glenl

The HoC is not a workplace like every other. Everything gets coloured by politics. If Mr Trudeau hadn't gone public as he did, what would be the "leaked" headline next September in the midst of a campaign: " Trudeau sweeps harassment under the rug". I wonder what comments people would be posting in that thread.

Rokossovsky

Glenl wrote:
The HoC is not a workplace like every other. Everything gets coloured by politics. If Mr Trudeau hadn't gone public as he did, what would be the "leaked" headline next September in the midst of a campaign: " Trudeau sweeps harassment under the rug". I wonder what comments people would be posting in that thread.

Not if he had instigated an negotiated investigative process, and come to a conclusion. In fact, such a process is under way, but there was no reason to announce it by essentially firing the accused, and holding a press conference, before the investigation was complete.

Unions have internal processes all the time. Ghomeshi was investigated thoroughly internally in the CBC. This is normal.

Glenl

I agree that should have been the process but it is politics. They are called politicians not humanitarians for a reason.

Rokossovsky

Yes. It's politics. Your point is well made. So, the reality is that Trudeau is not just getting behind a "principle" as he suggesting, but that he is manouevring to get ahead of future scandal in order to frame the issue the way that looks best for him, and as a consequence he did precisely the opposite of what he is pretending to do, because he is actually throwing the alledged victims under the bus, before allowing the an investigation to unfold.

Glenl

Yes. Doing it the other way would take to long to explain when it was leaked next September. This fits into a 15 second answer. Good politics, bad process. Mr Mulcair should have reacted to it the way he did I'm my opinion, bad politics albeit a correct message.

Winston

Rokossovsky wrote:

I missed the part in that document about premetively making a decision based on a conversation in a bus, and giving the plaintiff a couple of hours notice before publicly suspending the accused, and holding a press conference about it in order to maximize public exposure through the media.

I hope you'll forgive me for copyright infringement if I share this quote around.

Unionist

Evan Solomon has asked Nycole Turmel - twice now - if she supports the suspension of the two Liberal MPs. She won't say "yes". She says she won't comment, because she doesn't know what internal process the Liberal caucus has used.

Amazing.

In a real workplace, when a worker faces serious accusations that require investigation and which, if true, could cause a safety or similar risk to fellow workers, suspension pending investigation is absolutely universal. In relatively "minor" cases, immediate steps are taken to separate the alleged victim from the alleged abuser - and if that can't happen without penalizing the victim, then the abuser is sent home. The only debate, generally speaking, is whether the suspension is with or without pay - and that usually depends on the outcome of the investigation and/or the specific provisions of the collective agreement.

MPs, of course, are special little princelings, so these two Liberals get suspended from caucus - but why are they even allowed in the House before they are cleared?

Or are they? Does anyone know what the exact nature of this "suspension" is?

NorthReport

NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie says Liberals could have kept it quiet

The Liberals could have found a quieter way to handle allegations of personal misconduct against two of their MPs, says NDP Deputy Leader Megan Leslie.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/07/ndp_deputy_leader_megan_le...

MegB

The reason there are so few women posting in here is because, as is the case in any Canadian Politics thread you might browse, the discussion always turns into a partisan pissing contest. Most of us women aren't interested in participating in that level of debate (at least that's what I'm told) on a regular basis.

Even if this thread were in the feminist forum we'd still see a majority of male voices chiming in. That's how babble is, or has become. Women tend not to participate when they're drowned out by a chorus of entitled men.

As for the tone of this thread, the personal attacks are beyond the pale. I'm closing this thread. If you feel you can have a good discussion of the issues, knock yourselves out, but it ain't happening here.

Pages

Topic locked