2 more liberal MP's gone.

Argus · November 17, 2014

Not exactly true, unless you're alarmed over a change from 34% reported incidents to 31% reported incidents from 2004 to 2009; however, bringing it back to the OP, by far the least reported crime is sexual assaults at only 12% reported (source).

Yes, but there are a lot of reasons for that lack of reporting. In this case we know that those who reported it did not want a big official investigation and did not want these men punished. It sounds like they wanted it handled unofficially, with a word from the boss telling them to smarten up, say.

In terms of sexual assault (and remember that term covers everything from a grabbed butt on the subway to outright rape) a lot of women wouldn't be bothered for the more minor variations, and a lot would be too embarrassed for the more serious infractions. Added on top of that is the general "I don't want to go through all that crap" thought which so many victims of crime feel and the low number is not really surprising.

It would be interesting if sexual assaults were separated out as to severity. Ie how many rapes were unreported.

hitops · November 17, 2014

There are many reasons for women not to report these issues. For instance, the perpetrator is a drinking buddy with her manager, or he plays golf with her manager or he is a married man with children and she knows his wife from company parties.

It is difficult for women to get hired in the high-tech industry to begin with, so they don't want to rock the boat. They feel they need to suck it up and take it like a man. When they do get hired, they are likely earning an above average salary and they could perhaps be a single parent so they don't want to jeopardize their way of life. Perpetrators pick their victims very well!

I'm sure it's difficult. That's not unique to perceptions of sexual harassment. It's true for everyone, in any job, anywhere. In any circumstance, it's difficult and it's a rick to complain. This could apply to perceived sexual harassment, bullying, aggressive boss, jerks at work, etc. So it's up to each individual wot weight the consequences and decided whether it makes sense to complain. At the same time, we all know people in exactly the same job, where one person sees a predator or conspiracy to get them, or some problem in their life, or some other type of persecution around every corner, and the other just happily goes on with things. Perception is a big part of it.

'Sometimes difficult things are difficult', is not really a ground-breaking or even helpful revelation. Welcome to life. If the offense is THAT egregious, then complain. If you don't, that's your choice. If it's not worth the friendship with the boss's wife, or it's not worth the effort to find a new job, or it's not worth risk to your own reputation etc, then I guess it's not. That's not me saying it, that's the alledged victim, according to you. If that's the calculation they've made, it's free country and they can make that conclusion for themselves. But if that's the decision they make, then the 'offense' probably wasn't REALLY that bad.

If somebody murders your loved one, you don't hold back on a police report because if might make the next work party awkward with the boss's wife. Or if somebody defrauded you, or stole your car etc. So it's not like there's this stranglehold boss's have on employees life where the employee would never complain no matter what. ANY reasonable person would complain in those circumstances. So what it comes down to is degree - and if the women does not complain, that tells me where she ranks it on that scale.

Edited November 17, 2014 by hitops

PIK · November 17, 2014

Alot of men have been screwed by someone screaming rape as a way to get back at him.

guyser · November 17, 2014

Speaking of the CBC where are the women groups that that just love the CBC so much, and their outrage at what happened, and how they knew but he was a money maker. And are heads going to roll. I doubt it.

Since they didnt know......i guess irrelevance is a common thread w you?

hitops · November 17, 2014

Males are rarely victims because in general we have the physical advantage. In my various professional roles and as coach I am around many teens and children. I also avoid being alone with them for safety and reasons of pragmatism; however, there is no fear on my part.

That's just smart. But you might me missing out on something you do have to fear - the chance that a disgruntled student (you benched them, gave bad mark etc) deciding to accuse you of something to get back at you, knowing the accusation alone can do you in. You are acting wisely in your actions here to avoid that.

I can and have had dinner and drinks with female clients and colleagues at conferences without fear for my own safety. I have been propositioned by tipsy women in these situations and when I politely say no, I don't have to worry that I may be taken by force. That's not the case for most women is it? That's a problem we have to fix.

If you're out for drinks, it's pretty easy to decline to visit the hotel room afterwards. In the setting you described - it would be nearly impossible for a man to physically overpower a women right in the restaurant/bar (in public) and drag her off without her protesting without somebody/security doing something about it. If you DO visit the hotel room after being propositioned, it would be pretty tough to convince a jury you were not consenting. I have a very hard time believing a woman who is propositioned as you put in, and then agrees to visit the room is expecting anything but a sexual encounter.

You are also forgetting that you might turn a woman down, and she might accuse you of something out of wounded pride. Humans are VERY emotional when it comes to rejection and can behave rashly. This is why the steps you take, similar to those I described, are prudent.

I can work late at the office and not even think about what other staff members are in the building. I can enter a secluded parking garage by myself without worry. I can be friendly with women in a social situation and know that I will not be sexually assaulted. Women cannot do this. They have to live with a certain amount of fear. That has to change. The fact that you place the onus on the vulnerable is a problem that also has to change.

Are you sure? A technie professional with gadgets in his pocket in the parking garage? Sounds like a textbook mugging story to me. And it happens frequently.

I do agree that it would nice if this changed, but this discussion (and the wider discussing nationally) does nothing about that circumstance you described. That is a simple calculation of a physically weaker victim and an opportunistic criminal. We're talking about public awareness here. Do you think criminals care about that? No. A national conversation does absolutely nothing to dissuade the perp lurking in the parking garage.

I will answer your 'women should just avoid questionable situations' comment with this great response from Jacee...

She has you here sir!

That doesn't make a lot sense, since what you are responding to here is precisely an example of a woman who went and out and worked and took care of things without fear of being victimized.

You equate this to the violence women face?! Wow. You are a piece of work.

No, that's the whole point - that's it's NOT the same. The seriousness of a physically sexual assault is obviously much greater than a neglect contractor, so the threshold for prompt reporting and action would logically be much lower than a lack of a fence.

Do you face the threat of physical violence, sexual assault, uncomfortable power situations, or rape from this contractor? When seeking justice from this contractor will you have to discuss your entire sexual history, the fact that you had on online dating profile or frequently buy contraception? NO? Then it's not the EFFN same is it?

Who knows what he could do. Might slash my tires, vandalize something (he knows my house, obviously). Your assumptions about what might happen to this woman who reports, are just your opinion.

You are wrong about court - there are sections in the criminal code that prevent past sexual history or sexual reputation from being admissible, the 'rape shield' laws. The judge can use discretion here. Your buying habits are also not admissible, unless they directly related to the offense. Just like the police can pull your phone records to prove you were calling a drug dealer, but they can't show your netflix history to prove a bad taste in movies just to discredit you.

Women face sexual aggression from workplace superiors all the time. When a woman is assaulted by a coworker she has to balance the shame and possibility of losing her job by coming forward with the chance of obtaining justice. The aggressors rarely attack in situations where witnesses are present, so it's very hard to come forward with clear evidence. So if a woman takes 3 months or 3 years to change jobs so they are no longer financially vulnerable when they accuse an assaulter, are their claims any less valid? Stop blaming the victims you low life!!! False accusations are a tiny fraction of the fear and problems women face.

That's not all at true (regarding the aggressor). The accused faces just as much reputation and professional damage as the accuser, and all the more so if they are a higher-ranking person known to more people. Today, your whole career can be gone with only an accusation, even if you are completely vindicated in court. As docs we are reminded of this all the time, and if there's any work relationship with a power differential, it's doc-patient. Politicians entire campaigns go up in smoke when a few women come forward, and there are many examples. Jian Gomheshi is the perfect example - its look really compelling that he is guilty. But let's say for the sake of argument that he's not, and it turns out there is a vast conspiracy against him. Let's then say he is no indicted as a result. Doesn't matter at all - he's still done. Many teachers can tell you the exact same story.

It would be great is a magical fairy roamed about with perfect knowledge of everyone's actions and intentions, and we always know who was a predator and who was a false accuser. But since we don't, we have the court system. The point of the debate should be - can something be changed to improved the situation? Improving, by law, the rights of one person will always reduce the rights of somebody else, also innocent. That's life, so we need to be balanced.

Also you referred to me multiple times with personal insults, which shows exactly the strength of your argument.

Edited November 17, 2014 by hitops

cybercoma · November 17, 2014

It would be interesting if sexual assaults were separated out as to severity. Ie how many rapes were unreported.

We also have to consider measurement error. Some people may be too ashamed or embarrassed to admit it even in a confidential survey. Some may be in denial. Some may want to protect their attackers if it's a family members. There's all kinds of problems with gathering these statistics. That doesn't mean they're way off the mark, but we need to be aware of what demographic characteristics those who would not report crime share. For example, many in the aboriginal community in Canada, like African Americans in the US, are afraid to report crimes to the police because some minorities don't trust them due to a history of discrimination and abuse. When it comes to sexual assault, we have a history of people not taking claims seriously or outright verbally attacking people who come forward. Male victims have it even worse as next to nothing is done about male victims of sexual abuse and many are afraid to speak out about it as it undermines socially constructed notions of hegemonic masculinity. In a word, male victims of sexual abuse may feel emasculated and believe others would think of them the same, so they are afraid to report it too.

Edited November 17, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · November 17, 2014

Alot of men have been screwed by someone screaming rape as a way to get back at him.

How many? How many victims of rape have been screwed by a system that doesn't respond appropriately? The reports posted in this thread show that 88% of sexual assaults go unreported. Do you think 88% of rape accusations are false?

Edited November 17, 2014 by cybercoma

PIK · November 17, 2014

People have known about him for a while. Just some people are still in denial. And how many men reported it.

hitops · November 17, 2014

How many? How many victims of rape have been screwed by a system that doesn't respond appropriately? The reports posted in this thread show that 88% of sexual assaults go unreported. Do you think 88% of rape accusations are false?

There's no way to know how many rape accusation are false, since there are no means by which to find out, nor any efforts employed to collect that information. Basically you would need to read minds. The only hard data we can look at are rates of conviction and acquittal.

It also depends what you're talking about. When you say the word 'rape', do you visualize forced kissing in an elevator then nothing else? Probably not, yet that's exactly what Sheila Copps reported, calling it rape. And the media story uses the same term. When we're talking about sexual assault, we have to know what we're talking about. The greater the crime, the greater the risk, which is why more severe violent crimes happen far less often than petty crime. Just as there will be many-fold more auto thefts than carjackings, there are many-fold more pats on the bum than violent penetrating rapes. The range of offense, obviously, has a vastly different level of physical and emotional trauma depending where on that spectrum it falls.

Edited November 17, 2014 by hitops

cybercoma · November 17, 2014

People have known about him for a while. Just some people are still in denial. And how many men reported it.

That has nothing to do with your claim that women just scream rape to get back at people. How many? Where are you getting this info? How does it compare to the number of people who get away with sexual assault or rape and not get reported?

cybercoma · November 17, 2014

There's no way to know how many rape accusation are false, since there are no means by which to find out, nor any efforts employed to collect that information. Basically you would need to read minds. The only hard data we can look at are rates of conviction and acquittal.

It also depends what you're talking about. When you say the word 'rape', do you visualize forced kissing in an elevator then nothing else? Probably not, yet that's exactly what Sheila Copps reported, calling it rape. And the media story uses the same term. When we're talking about sexual assault, we have to know what we're talking about. The greater the crime, the greater the risk, which is why more severe violent crimes happen far less often than petty crime. Just as there will be many-fold more auto thefts than carjackings, there are many-fold more pats on the bum than violent penetrating rapes. The range of offense, obviously, has a vastly different level of physical and emotional trauma depending where on that spectrum it falls.

If a gay man pinned you against the wall in an elevator and kissed you, would it be rape? What if he wrestled you to the ground and put his hands down your pants and fondled you? What if he came onto you, grabbed your ass, then insulted you for not enjoying his advances?

Edited November 17, 2014 by cybercoma

jacee · November 17, 2014

On the topic of outing a perp without yet charging, and multiple victims coming forward ...

/bill-cosby-hunkers-down-as-rape-scandal-rages

bush_cheney2004 · November 18, 2014

On the topic of outing a perp without yet charging, and multiple victims coming forward ...

/bill-cosby-hunkers-down-as-rape-scandal-rages

Let's not forget the most famous alleged perp of them all...with multiple allegations...against President Bill Clinton. Canadians still adore him !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton#Paula_Jones

PIK · November 18, 2014

So JT has a big decision to make. The 2 NDP ladies are not pressing on (as they wanted in the 1st place) and now there will be no investigation, and now does he bring them back or what. Or did he just destroy these 2 men's reputation over nothing?

Argus · November 18, 2014

So JT has a big decision to make. The 2 NDP ladies are not pressing on (as they wanted in the 1st place) and now there will be no investigation, and now does he bring them back or what. Or did he just destroy these 2 men's reputation over nothing?

And we still have no idea what they are alleged to have done. Other than it wasn't all that much, apparently.

hitops · November 18, 2014

If a gay man pinned you against the wall in an elevator and kissed you, would it be rape? What if he wrestled you to the ground and put his hands down your pants and fondled you? What if he came onto you, grabbed your ass, then insulted you for not enjoying his advances?

I guess that makes the entire point doesn't it? There are varying degrees of assaults, and when somebody says they were assaulted you really have no idea what they are talking about.

I once visited a hospital in pretty much the worst place on earth where the most frequent presenting complaint was fistula formation between the urethra and rectum due to gang-rape using weapons and other objects. That's not the same as somebody giving an unwanted squeeze. Much as neither is acceptable, it would be ludicrous to suggest both parties were victims to the same crime, or would fittingly benefit from similar types of support.

So when we hear that all kinds of people undergo sexual assault in the workplace, that tells us effectively nothing about the scope nor severity of what is actually going on, and thus gives us zero context on which to base any changes geared towards improving things.

Edited November 18, 2014 by hitops

Big Guy · November 18, 2014

In 2011, three members of the Concordia football team met with a young lady and another woman at a bar and went back to the player's apartment. A sexual "incident" occurred. The young lady complained and in April 2012 police charged the men with sexually assaulting and confining a female Concordia University student inside an apartment.

The prosecution has just announced that a new witness had come forward last weekend and due to her statements all charges have been dropped. "They have been cleared of all charges and have not been convicted of an offense".

Lawyers for the defence claim the new witness swore that the sex was consensual.

For the last 3 years, the names of these three have been published continuously as the investigation progressed. The young ladies name was not public.

"The alleged victim in the case left the Montreal courthouse in tears."

Defence lawyers suggested a civil lawsuit remains a "possibility".

So we had a (3 male and 1 female) he said and one she said.

I guess one's opinion of this case will depend a lot on one's trust in the judicial system.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Big Guy

hitops · November 18, 2014

Again, how can we improve things ?

That is exactly the crux of the matter. There is no reasonable way this could be improved, in the absence of imposing some kind of immediate punishment for merely an accusation. French revolution guillotine-style.

When I say improved, I mean improved through the legislative process. Obviously there are far simpler, far easier and totally free methods of improving things that involve individuals taking responsibility for themselves and acting with 3 seconds of forethought in their daily lives. Can't mention that though, since today we believe that if government can't solve a problem, it's unsolvable.

Edited November 18, 2014 by hitops

Michael Hardner · November 18, 2014

Obviously there are far simpler, far easier and totally free methods of improving things ...

Yes exactly, and one of them is for women to talk openly, point fingers about men who have assaulted them. That's taking responsibility for yourself on a certain level, especially if government can't/won't deal with it.

False accusations will be dealt with by denials and the rest of us will make up our minds on our own.

Big Guy · November 19, 2014

As of to-day, the folks on the hill are running around wringing their hands and complaining that they do not know what to do next.

As of to-day, the accused are sitting as independents claiming they do not know what they are charged with and innocent of any harassment.

The accused will not lodge a formal complaint, will not disclose their identities and will not explain what happened.

No formal complaint, no identifiable accuser, no information of the alleged transgression, no charge - therefore nothing happened.

The Liberal MP's should be immediately re-instated, evaluate what damage has been done to them and their careers, establish a financial value of that damage and then sue the accusers for that amount. Make sure that Mulcair and Trudeau are forced to testify at the trial as to who, what, where, when and how.

Perhaps then justice will be served.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Big Guy

WestCoastRunner · November 19, 2014

On the topic of outing a perp without yet charging, and multiple victims coming forward ...

/bill-cosby-hunkers-down-as-rape-scandal-rages

And unbelievably we still have people that refuse to believe well over a dozen women who have come out with these accusations. Are they all conspiring against him? What do they have to gain?

Edited November 19, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

On Guard for Thee · November 19, 2014

As of to-day, the folks on the hill are running around wringing their hands and complaining that they do not know what to do next.

As of to-day, the accused are sitting as independents claiming they do not know what they are charged with and innocent of any harassment.

The accused will not lodge a formal complaint, will not disclose their identities and will not explain what happened.

No formal complaint, no identifiable accuser, no information of the alleged transgression, no charge - therefore nothing happened.

The Liberal MP's should be immediately re-instated, evaluate what damage has been done to them and their careers, establish a financial value of that damage and then sue the accusers for that amount. Make sure that Mulcair and Trudeau are forced to testify at the trial as to who, what, where, when and how.

Perhaps then justice will be served.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any of that to happen.

PIK · November 19, 2014

It almost looks like a NDP set up and JT fell for it ,hook ,line and sinker.

cybercoma · November 19, 2014

As of to-day, the folks on the hill are running around wringing their hands and complaining that they do not know what to do next.

As of to-day, the accused are sitting as independents claiming they do not know what they are charged with and innocent of any harassment.

The accused will not lodge a formal complaint, will not disclose their identities and will not explain what happened.

No formal complaint, no identifiable accuser, no information of the alleged transgression, no charge - therefore nothing happened.

The Liberal MP's should be immediately re-instated, evaluate what damage has been done to them and their careers, establish a financial value of that damage and then sue the accusers for that amount. Make sure that Mulcair and Trudeau are forced to testify at the trial as to who, what, where, when and how.

Perhaps then justice will be served.

Re-instated to what? They're sitting MPs. They haven't lost their jobs.

Argus · November 19, 2014

Re-instated to what? They're sitting MPs. They haven't lost their jobs.

They have been denied permission to run again as Liberals. And anyway, your statement is silly and you know it. Given the current system, it's virtually impossible for an independent to be re-elected, and especially so if they're under some huge dark mysterious cloud. After next year, they're unemployed.

Kelly McParland summed it up fairy clearly.

That leaves the targets of their allegations, two Liberal MPs, in this position: they have been publicly accused of harassment, but not told the identity of their accusers, not given details of the claims and will have no public forum in which to defend themselves. They have already been suspended from their jobs, and can presumably only win them back by disproving charges that don’t exist in a court that doesn’t sit.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/18/kelly-mcparland-sexual-politics-in-ottawa-and-montreal-shift-from-troubling-to-frightening/

Edited November 19, 2014 by Argus