2 more liberal MP's gone.

[overthere]

You're actually suggesting an NDP mp went to JT and lied about what happened to her and a colleague for political reasons? I can't imagine a less likely possibility. Remember the old adage "paranoia will destroy ya"?

It is certainly an option, unless you are blinded by partisan hatred. I invite you to set down the white cane and sunglasses and consider.

But no, lets destroy two lives on an anonymous and unprovable claim instead.

Did she tell a friend, her family, her boss, her colleagues- and then go to the police with their support and her story?

Something just does not add up here..

[cybercoma]

I can see you are only willing to consider one option. It's not surprising.

You've done a thorough analysis of all the facts available and reached a conclusion based on the evidence.

You're judge, jury and executioner of all men, as noted by your use of such inclusive terms as 'women' and 'any man'.

I'll stick to what has been stated so far, though of course it is impossible to assess anything done anonymously. Why would anybody who has been violently raped wait months, then take that information to a stranger who is not in law enforcement?

Why are you embellishing the story to try to make your point?

[cybercoma]

It looks like you creating the straw man with this article. You want to see a dude get into a fight over his girlfriend - go to pretty much any night club in Canada on a saturday night.

I can explain the connection to you, but I can't understand it for you. You have to meet me at least that far.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

The latest twist in this story is the statement by the accuser that she did not give "explicit consent" for having sex.

This is a new term for me. I have no opinion at this time but how do two people give "explicit consent" where having sex together is concerned?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Big Guy

[overthere]

Why are you embellishing the story to try to make your point?

Embellishing? I'm simply following your lead in hyperbole. I thought you'd be flattered.

Right. Women just lie about being sexually assaulted because they're lying and conniving. It's not like any man would ever pressure a woman into having sex with him when she didn't want to. That's inconceivable. She must be a liar.

Is it on the extreme edge of a faraway outer realm of possibility that there is the teensiest chance that the NDP might wish to manouver Trudeau into an impossible position?

You have to meet me at least that far.

[Keepitsimple]

The latest twist in this story is the statement by the accuser that she did not give "explicit consent" for having sex.

This is a new term for me. I have no opinion at this time but how do two people give "explicit consent" where having sex together is concerned?

It really is a strange term. I would have expected something like "I said no - get away from me.....but he sexually assaulted me anyway". Now I don't know what to believe. As far as sex (not harrassment - but claimed assault) is concerned - no means no, period. Anything less, I'm afraid....is seriously open to criticism.

[PIK]

Did I hear she had the condom?

[cybercoma]

Embellishing? I'm simply following your lead in hyperbole. I thought you'd be flattered.

Is it on the extreme edge of a faraway outer realm of possibility that there is the teensiest chance that the NDP might wish to manouver Trudeau into an impossible position?

You have to meet me at least that far.

I won't even meet you there because you're suggesting that the NDP would use false accusations of sexual harassment as a political tool. In fact, the very notion borders on libel and the MP who spoke with Trudeau said Mulcair and Turmel knew nothing about it before she spoke to Trudeau.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

It would be interesting to get a reaction from Christine Moore and Alexandrine Latendresse. As young MP's and female members of the NDP caucus they may have an insight into this confusing situation.

[overthere]

I won't even meet you there because you're suggesting that the NDP would use false accusations of sexual harassment as a political tool. In fact, the very notion borders on libel and the MP who spoke with Trudeau said Mulcair and Turmel knew nothing about it before she spoke to Trudeau.

I did not say there was no harassment. I don't know if there was or not. It may well be that the man accused is innocent. It may well be that the woman is innocent. Either may be guilty I am operating on an assumption of inocence until facts come up that demonstrate that is incorrect. Isn't that the rule of law in Canada.

You, on the other hand, have decided the allegation must be true and there is absolutely no other possibility. Well, there are other possibilities and they need to be considered no matter how unsavory that may be.

It does seem odd that somebody would take their concerns to the leader of a different party, a stranger -well after the event- rather than to friends, confidants, colleagues , the police or her own leader. Well, it seems odd to me.

You spend your days sniffing Harpers farts in an unrelenting attempt to find conspiracy and fault.

You could at least acknowledge that the way this persons uncorroborated story has surfaced is odd, but that would require a level of intellectual honesty that rarely surfaces here.

[cybercoma]

You, on the other hand, have decided the allegation must be true and there is absolutely no other possibility.

Don't ever speak for me again. What I said is that we should believe victims when they say they were assaulted because 1) we are not a court, and 2) far more perpetrators of these crimes get away than victims who wrongfully accuse innocent people.

What I said, literally word-for-word, is that we should believe the victims until there's a good reason not to. We're not the courts and since there are for more unprosecuted crimes than wrongful accusals, we should by the law of probabilities be on the side of the victims.

[cybercoma]

It's pretty damn hypocritical when conservatives are constantly preaching about victim's rights, unless those victims happen to be women or black or some other sort of social minority. Suddenly we need benefit of the doubt and to examine all the evidence and not to rush to any rash conclusions.

[Big Guy]

If you believe the accuser then you believe that the accused is a liar.

Joe goes to the hospital because he has a gunshot wound. He says Mary shot him. Mary says she did not. By your theory we believe Joe and assume that Mary is a liar?

Or do you suggest that the gender of the person involved in a "he aid, she said" scenario should dictate who we believe?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Big Guy

[Argus]

It's pretty damn hypocritical when conservatives are constantly preaching about victim's rights, unless those victims happen to be women or black or some other sort of social minority. Suddenly we need benefit of the doubt and to examine all the evidence and not to rush to any rash conclusions.

I don't rush to conclusions. I haven't made any firm conclusions about this. I base my conclusions on evidence and information and there's very little of it available here. What there is sounds like they had sex and she either didn't want to, but acquiesced anyway, or had second thoughts later. This based on her statement.

You are the one introducing prejudice into this case with broad, sweeping strokes. You tend to think only you care about the innocent being victimized, when in actuality almost everyone does.

[Smallc]

Don't ever speak for me again. What I said is that we should believe victims when they say they were assaulted because 1) we are not a court, and 2) far more perpetrators of these crimes get away than victims who wrongfully accuse innocent people.

That's a rediculous position. We should believe people if and when we have reason to. An accusation is not reason enough.

[Topaz]

Perhaps the best way to end this is BOTH, sides stop talking about and the media get on with other things. The MP that has come out about this, BY what SHE has said, she went to HIS room, SHE offered HIM protection, she doesn't have a case.

[Smallc]

Perhaps the best way to end this is BOTH, sides stop talking about and the media get on with other things. The MP that has come out about this, BY what SHE has said, she went to HIS room, SHE offered HIM protection, she doesn't have a case.

For once, I completely agree with you. These types of complaints make legitimate complaints less likely to be believed.

[cybercoma]

If you believe the accuser then you believe that the accused is a liar.

I believe that it's far more likely that the accused is lying. Yes. Prison is filled with people who didn't do it. Haven't you heard?

[cybercoma]

Perhaps the best way to end this is BOTH, sides stop talking about and the media get on with other things. The MP that has come out about this, BY what SHE has said, she went to HIS room, SHE offered HIM protection, she doesn't have a case.

Yes. Perhaps if we just stop talking about sexual assault it will just go away, says the person who is far less likely to be sexual assaulted in their lifetime.

[Bonam]

Don't ever speak for me again. What I said is that we should believe victims when they say they were assaulted because 1) we are not a court, and 2) far more perpetrators of these crimes get away than victims who wrongfully accuse innocent people.

What I said, literally word-for-word, is that we should believe the victims until there's a good reason not to. We're not the courts and since there are for more unprosecuted crimes than wrongful accusals, we should by the law of probabilities be on the side of the victims.

See this post here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24051-2-more-liberal-mps-gone/page-35#entry1012637

Your position makes no sense.

[Smallc]

Yes. Perhaps if we just stop talking about sexual assault it will just go away, says the person who is far less likely to be sexual assaulted in their lifetime.

Isn't Topaz female?

[Bonam]

It's pretty damn hypocritical when conservatives are constantly preaching about victim's rights, unless those victims happen to be women or black or some other sort of social minority. Suddenly we need benefit of the doubt and to examine all the evidence and not to rush to any rash conclusions.

Please point to where "conservatives are constantly preaching about victim's rights".

Edited November 27, 2014 by Bonam

[Smallc]

I believe that it's far more likely that the accused is lying. Yes. Prison is filled with people who didn't do it. Haven't you heard?

Then you can't agree with the entire premise of innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, your position makes no sense.

[On Guard for Thee]

I've been waiting for the Cons. to come to the party on this business, but I suspected Harper would have got everyone in an office and zipped their mouths shut and fed them their talking point pablum so he could enjoy the Libs. and NDP having a go at each other. Oh boy did Peter Goldring ever upset that applecart today.

[cybercoma]

Peter Goldring seriously needs professional help. I worry about that man's well being.