2 more liberal MP's gone.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

I think this is a very good argument for people to be represented by fifty percent women and men. We are opposite genders of the same species and should be represented as such. This kind of crap is bound to happen when you have women trying to infiltrate an "old boys club". This is a no brainer.

Yes the sexual abuse card will still be pulled but at least it will be on a much more level playing field.

I think the best way to do it would be cut the number of ridings in half and have each represented by a woman and a man, every election we vote for one of each.

Let Canada lead the way to true equality...

[Smallc]

Yes of course. It certainly is motivating parliament to get a process in place.

But I also think it's fair to assume that JT had a good talk with the offenders, and that it's their responses (denial & dismissal perhaps?) that got them booted from the party.

.

We don't actually no if they did anything though. You're making assumptions just like JT, and that's the problem.

[jacee]

We don't actually no if they did anything though. You're making assumptions just like JT, and that's the problem.

I beg your pardon? That's ridiculous.

You are actually suggesting that two women reported sexual harassment that never happened?

I am suggesting that sexual harassers are often oblivious to the fact that their behaviour IS harassment, so they often don't deny the behaviour itself but they denigrate and dismiss their victims.

I think faced with two harassers in denial, JT booted them from caucus.

.

[cybercoma]

If a crime isn't reported, generally, it wasn't much a crime at all.

This is purely nonsense. It's a pedantic argument that is akin to saying "if there were no laws there would be no crimes." That's true, but completely meaningless.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

About as many as Justin. The difference is that he assumed them guilty.

The difference is that he spoke to the women and heard the accusations first hand. You did not, but you're clearly ready to say he's in the wrong and strongly insinuate that they're liars or at the very least embellishing or that the incident is not as serious as Trudeau made it out to be.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I didn't say that the complaints had no merit. I said that given the apparent context, this whole thing was a severe over reaction, something not uncommon in a situation like this.

What were the complaints? What were the accusations? How are you assuming that the Trudeau overreacted? He actually heard the accusations. You did not. You're clearly demonstrating the problem women have coming forward. People like you give them absolutely no credit. Your first reaction is to actually discredit them and call them dishonest or say that they're "overreacting" to the situation. Because you know, women are just over-emotional and hysterical about everything. They're not as rational and reasonable as men like you and me.

[cybercoma]

We don't actually no if they did anything though. You're making assumptions just like JT, and that's the problem.

You don't actually need to know anything either. The women wanted it handled privately and Trudeau unprofessionally made a big public show of it.

[cybercoma]

So what physical proof did he have? is it not possible for thee "women" to just lie about the incident?

I guess if you're so gauche as to assume these women would lie about such a thing. Physical proof....seriously? So unless they're battered and raped, it's all fair game?

Edited November 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I think that we should have to see some proof before taking such drastic action.

You don't need proof. It's not your action to take. Trudeau is the one that received the complaint and made a decision about how to handle it. Frankly, it's not a public matter. If those women wanted it handled in confidence, Trudeau should have never made it public.

[cybercoma]

they denigrate and dismiss their victims.

Kind of like the posters are doing here.

[cybercoma]

It's easy for women to lie about thigs like this, it happens all the time. False accusations to ruin a mans life. It's sad that the woman is believed at face value but if a man was to complain about something it wouldn't be. Women lie. They're very good liars at that.

I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response, but if you're going to say something like "happens all the time," then you better be prepared to back up your ludicrous assertions with some verifiable empirical research. Otherwise, this is just a misogynistic rant with no support whatsoever.

[cybercoma]

So you're willing to believe that a woman has never, ever lied about being sexually harassed or assaulted in the history of the world. Wow, that's amazing. So it wasn't really George Washington who could never tell a lie at all was it?

What's amazing is that you think your bullshit strawman is actually what I said.

[jacee]

So no proof needed? People are guilty just because some woman says so? That isn't at all fair. What's to stop a woman from reporting someone she simply does not like?

If you actually read what I've said before spouting off, you would know that I've identified the complete lack of any process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints as a serious problem that has caused this mess.

JT doesn't have training in dealing with sexual harassment, but he was sufficiently disturbed by the two MP's responses that he didn't want them in the party anymore.

But obviously there needs to be a better process put in place.

.

Edited November 20, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

This is not true at all. They were privately accused. The head of their party chose to make it public.

I know. My complaint is with him not the women who tried to resolve whatever their issue was with these MPs quietly.

[Argus]

First of all, sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual attention.

First of all, let's remember that the statement said 'harassment' not 'sexual harassment'. A lot of people seem to be leaping to the conclusion it was sexual despite the fact the statements from those involved clearly did not use that word.

Second, no, that is not the definition of sexual harassment. If it were then any person who ever asked another person out on a date would have committed sexual harassment if their interest was not reciprocated.

Generally, in order to qualify as harassment, the attention, unless it's really crude, has to have some degree of persistence to it.

[overthere]

If you actually read what I've said before spouting off, you would know that I've identified the complete lack of any process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints as a serious problem that has caused this mess.

JT doesn't have training in dealing with sexual harassment, but he was sufficiently disturbed by the two MP's responses that he didn't want them in the party anymore.

But obviously there needs to be a better process put in place.

Obviously there is a process in place, and Trudeau exercised it by suspending two members of his caucus. Apparently there was no due process involved for the two men, but that is an issue for the Liberal Party, not Parliament. These two men have access to the courts if they think that the LPC acted unfairly. If Trudeau feels there is criminal action involved, he'd have to turn it over to the police. His call. His responsibility.

[Argus]

There's also such a thing as harassment that goes unreported to the tune of 88% according to the most recent Juristat numbers in 2009. I don't see you giving a shit about that,

You're assuming all these 'harassment' incidents are serious. Most are not. Would you go to the cops because some guy made lewd comments to you on the subway? Would you go to police because some guy in a crowd brushed his hand across your butt in passing? And again, there seems to be a vast uncertainty about what is and isn't harassment. A woman at work went ballistic because someone left a note on her desk telling her he thought she was beautiful, for example. Another very busty girl complained that men 'look' at her chest (to which a young female college replied "It's kind of hard not to notice them. Even I notice them.". Another complained that there was sometimes sexual talk in a boardroom where the group broke for lunch every day. Most such talk was from the women there, btw. By far the majority in that room at any given time. The same woman complained about a male college who she witnessed leaning over a female colleague's shoulder to discuss something on her screen because his hand was on her shoulder (the actual girl who was touched thought nothing of it as they were friends).

Edited November 20, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't buy that. Serious crimes are always reported. If a crime isn't reported, generally, it wasn't much a crime at all.

Guy who used to deliver my groceries got kicked in the face in a parking lot one day, and robbed. He didn't bother reporting it. Do you think that was serious?

[Argus]

What exactly is your version of the "apparent context"?

The fact the NDP stated the women did not want to make any sort of official complaint or want the male MPs identified for fear of damaging their (the male MPs) career, for one.

[Argus]

I beg your pardon? That's ridiculous.

You are actually suggesting that two women reported sexual harassment that never happened?

They did not report sexual harassment.

[Smallc]

Guy who used to deliver my groceries got kicked in the face in a parking lot one day, and robbed. He didn't bother reporting it. Do you think that was serious?

Obviously not to him.

[overthere]

They did not report sexual harassment.

One of the NDP women MPs reported it directly to Trudeau.

That's what got the whole dirtball rolling.

It makes me wonder, as noted by somebody above, if this is based in a NDP stunt.

[Argus]

One of the NDP women MPs reported it directly to Trudeau.

That's what got the whole dirtball rolling.

It makes me wonder, as noted by somebody above, if this is based in a NDP stunt.

She happened to be there at the same time as he was so came forward to complain about harassment. No one in officialdom that I have seen, ie, either party, has declared it was 'sexual' harassment.

[Argus]

Obviously not to him.

He had a bruised face and lost a few hundred bucks. He just didn't think the cops would do anything of value which outweighed all the hassle he'd go through if he reported it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why ask questions in which the answer is obvious?

So I see in your vocabulary "apparent" is equal to "obvious". Not in mine. For one thing, that could be deadly in my job. If you are referring to what Argus alluded to i.e. that the NDP accusers didn't want the names of the accusees revealed, then you have to shift the blame from them to JT. Anyway I am wary of assumptions so you need to be clear.