cybercoma Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 English-Canadians don't care which NDP MP tried to sleep with which Liberal MPP. Two women have accused a couple Liberal MPs of professional misconduct, most likely sexual harassment, and you ignorantly claim that these women tried to sleep with the Liberal MPs. Shame on you. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 While the Toronto media elite - from Andrew Coyne to Chantal Hebert - write about these "scandals", no one else cares. For most people, there are more important questions. Your political radar is broken. Just look at this thread - TWO pages since 11 pm last night ? People care about harassment, and they want it to stop. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 It's all incorrect. JT didn't say that but regardless, it's a point of law that just simply exists. It's a point of law which has been adopted into our culture. And what he said was that complainants must be given the benefit of doubt, not the accused. He can and did suspend them from his caucus. They were elected by their respective constituents and those are the ones that will or won't take them out of their jobs next election. jT can't stop them from running. He can and already has forbidden them from running as Liberals, and with this hanging over their heads their chances of retaining their jobs drops from slim to none. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 First of all, they're not "losing their livelihood" as they will still be sitting as MPs. And yes, I think they should be reprimanded for saying those things because it's utterly disrespectful and inappropriate to make those kinds of comments to a democratically elected representative of a constituency. It's inappropriate to make those comments in just about any professional environment. Here's a novel idea...don't make uninvited comments about your colleagues bodies when you're at work. It's pretty simple. But not real human. For most people, their lives are divided into three parts. Sleep takes up about a third. Home, either alone or with a partner and kids, takes up a third, and work takes up a third. For a lot of them, the only people they really know, aside from relatives and a friend they'll occasionally see, are the people at work. They get to know these people at work, in some cases better than their relatives. The occasional joke, flirtation or ribald comment is par for the course. Many couples originally met at their workplace. Many people meet lifelong friends at workplaces. Humans are a social animal. Where this become an issue is when people step over the line with people they don't know as well as they think they do. But that happens in real life too. Sometimes someone gives inadvertent offense. One of the first things policy called for where I used to work was for the accused and accuser to meet with someone to mediate in hopes their personal issues can be resolved with open communication. After all, most of these situations are a result of miscommunication or poor social skills (a problem getting worse as people spend more time with computers, video games and tv and less with other people). That should have been the first thing proposed here but again, it looks like there was a rush to judgement on the part of hte boy Trudeau. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Oops. I must have hit a nerve. You don't listen to anything brought to your attention that obviates your fairly narrow minded approach. The other two you mention have tried as well. Anyway, move on shall we. This is fairly typical of what you bring to this forum. Instead of discussing the topic at hand you seem to prefer to discuss the people who are discussing the topic. Edited November 7, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 But not real human. For most people, their lives are divided into three parts. Sleep takes up about a third. Home, either alone or with a partner and kids, takes up a third, and work takes up a third. For a lot of them, the only people they really know, aside from relatives and a friend they'll occasionally see, are the people at work. They get to know these people at work, in some cases better than their relatives. The occasional joke, flirtation or ribald comment is par for the course. Many couples originally met at their workplace. Many people meet lifelong friends at workplaces. Humans are a social animal. Where this become an issue is when people step over the line with people they don't know as well as they think they do. But that happens in real life too. Sometimes someone gives inadvertent offense. One of the first things policy called for where I used to work was for the accused and accuser to meet with someone to mediate in hopes their personal issues can be resolved with open communication. After all, most of these situations are a result of miscommunication or poor social skills (a problem getting worse as people spend more time with computers, video games and tv and less with other people). That should have been the first thing proposed here but again, it looks like there was a rush to judgement on the part of hte boy Trudeau. This doesn't take into account that a professional work environment is different from other facets of your life. The way you present yourself at a business meeting is entirely different than the way you present yourself to your family which is entirely different from the way you would present yourself out on a date. You may think that there is some persistent element to who you are, but that's simply not the case. Life is about managing and negotiating social interactions and context matters. You are expected to have a level of professionalism when you are at work. In this case, we're talking about Members of Parliament, whose very role demands dignity and respect from their colleagues. I expect a higher standard from MPs conducting their business in Parliament and I expect that MPs will respect each others' democratic credibility and roles as representatives of the Canadian public. But it doesn't stop at parliament. Work is not the appropriate place to be "picking up" or coming onto colleagues, regardless of how many hours you spend there and how well you know the people. It's especially not the place to perpetuate the misogynistic culture that objectifies women's bodies as something to be consumed, as something to satiate heterosexual men's desires. You're not starving and they're not your dinner. Have some self respect, dignity, and self control to know when it is and is not appropriate to engage in flirting and other sorts of sexual discourse with your peers. That's not to say colleagues can't date or have relationships outside of work. Had these MPs been on a date at a bar or had a relationship outside of parliament mere "flirting" would be a non-issue. Do you think anyone would take seriously someone who said "he invited me out for drinks at the bar and had the audacity to flirt with me!" That's why Jian Ghomeshi's original accuser, Ciccone, was completely disregarded (too bad she wasn't merely disregarded, but verbally abused for her column). She was creeped out that he invited her on a date and was trying to put his arm around her and flirt with her. Why? Because she thought he was gay. Her accusations were ridiculous and didn't speak to any specific offence that could be even remotely construed as harassment or assault. The point is that there is a time and a place for developing your romantic and sexual interests. People have to work to provide for themselves, unless they're inherently wealthy. They should not have to worry about navigating the romantic interests of their peers while they are in the workplace because that is not why they choose to be there. It is male privilege that we think we can just catcall and flirt with any woman at any time. "I have desires and they must be heard" goes the thinking. "They should be grateful that I'm giving them sexual attention! It's a compliment," the culture continues. Now for a moment consider what it would be like to be subjected to vulgar flirtations from homosexual men every day while you're at work or walking down the street or at the grocery store or just doing things that aren't even remotely related to pursuing your own romantic interests. It's inappropriate and has no place in civilized society because if we were truly civilized we would see all people as being in control of their own destinies.There wouldn't be this expectation that women ought to be grateful that a man is giving them sexual attention, even in the workplace of all locations. This is not appropriate conduct in the workplace and the argument that you can't uncontrollable suggests that men are nothing more than beasts of desire incapable of reason and self control. This is exactly the reasoning that leads those people who disgust you so much to cover their women from head to toe. Any man with dignity, self-respect, and class would be in control of his desires and know the proper time and place to act on them. He would also recognize that others may not be interested in being the means to his sexual ends. It is wholly unethical to look at others as means to fulfilling your needs. Engaging in sexual discourse with unwilling participants and expecting them to be grateful or at the very least open to your advances is exactly does exactly that. It casts the other as a means to satisfying your wants. It's time we stopped excusing this as an unavoidable part of our culture and start expecting people to be better than rutting animals. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 In any case, as a manager, Trudeau handled the situation like an idiot. They expected confidentiality and he went to the media with it. What piss poor managerial skills from someone who expects to lead this country. It shows an utter lack of judgment and poor class to boot. Quote
guyser Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 Women...always the victims and men always the perpetrator....just the way you like it! And don't even try to disagree! Ever heard of a woman falsely accusing a guy? I bet you haven't! LOL Ya done stepped in it now ! Quote
Big Guy Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) If/what happened in the interactions between the Liberal MP's and the NDP MP's was appropriate or not can be evaluated once/if it is disclosed. Anything before that is speculation and has no merit. Was what JT did appropriate? When you report something that bothers you to someone in position of authority then that person is obliged to act. That is why they are in a position of authority. If you want anonymity then do not report to someone in authority. If you want to get something off your chest and maintain anonymity then talk to a priest or psychiatrist. The first thing a person in authority has to do is make sure that the problem does not continue. If it is the workplace then people are shifted around or suspended so the accuser and accused are not forced into having to deal with each other UNTIL THE FACTS COME OUT and appropriate action taken. If it is a school situation then the students are placed into different classes. In parliament, the only way you can make sure they do not have to deal with each other or serve on the same commit or ... is to suspend one of the two. JT cannot suspend somebody from another party so he has to suspend the folks from his party. My question is why Mulcair sat on these allegations for almost a year. It appears that the wishes of anonymity on the part of his two MP's was more important the reputation of the MP's of the other party. I would go after Mulcair for trying to bury this issue - or hold on to it until the campaign. When I was in a position of responsibility and authority, If/when someone came to me with accusations of any wrongdoing of anybody under my responsibility and I "sat on it" or "kept it confidential" then I would have been out on my ear and rear in hours. Just what do these critics suggest that JT had done under those conditions? And what would have been the result of that action/non action? Edited November 7, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 LOL Ya done stepped in it now ! Up to the armpits I'd say! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 It's a point of law which has been adopted into our culture. And what he said was that complainants must be given the benefit of doubt, not the accused. He can and already has forbidden them from running as Liberals, and with this hanging over their heads their chances of retaining their jobs drops from slim to none. I have yet to see where it says JT has forbidden them from running again as Liberals. They are suspended from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation, which makes sense. Quote
msj Posted November 7, 2014 Report Posted November 7, 2014 In any case, as a manager, Trudeau handled the situation like an idiot. They expected confidentiality and he went to the media with it. What piss poor managerial skills from someone who expects to lead this country. It shows an utter lack of judgment and poor class to boot. Sure, and if he "kept it confidential" then it would "leak" before the election next year and he would be accused of trying to cover it up. He can't win either way so best to go public without naming the alleged victims names. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Argus Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 This doesn't take into account that a professional work environment is different from other facets of your life. I guess that was unspoken but assumed. Yes, it's quite different. You do have to be much more careful in a work environment than in any kind of social environment. But that still doesn't preclude people forming close relationships. But it doesn't stop at parliament. Work is not the appropriate place to be "picking up" or coming onto colleagues, I onlly partially agree. As I said humans are a social animal and sometimes there's mutual chemistry. I've seen plenty of flirting at the office, and more than a few romances. But we don't even know that the case involved an attempt to pick someone up. The only impression I get from what Mulcair said was that it must have been fairy mild, whatever it was, or the coplainants wouldn't have wanted it handled quietly an informaly so as to not damage the mens' careers. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Hal 9000 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 If/what happened in the interactions between the Liberal MP's and the NDP MP's was appropriate or not can be evaluated once/if it is disclosed. Anything before that is speculation and has no merit. Was what JT did appropriate? When you report something that bothers you to someone in position of authority then that person is obliged to act. That is why they are in a position of authority. If you want anonymity then do not report to someone in authority. If you want to get something off your chest and maintain anonymity then talk to a priest or psychiatrist. The first thing a person in authority has to do is make sure that the problem does not continue. If it is the workplace then people are shifted around or suspended so the accuser and accused are not forced into having to deal with each other UNTIL THE FACTS COME OUT and appropriate action taken. If it is a school situation then the students are placed into different classes. In parliament, the only way you can make sure they do not have to deal with each other or serve on the same commit or ... is to suspend one of the two. JT cannot suspend somebody from another party so he has to suspend the folks from his party. My question is why Mulcair sat on these allegations for almost a year. It appears that the wishes of anonymity on the part of his two MP's was more important the reputation of the MP's of the other party. I would go after Mulcair for trying to bury this issue - or hold on to it until the campaign. When I was in a position of responsibility and authority, If/when someone came to me with accusations of any wrongdoing of anybody under my responsibility and I "sat on it" or "kept it confidential" then I would have been out on my ear and rear in hours. Just what do these critics suggest that JT had done under those conditions? And what would have been the result of that action/non action? Exactly, Trudeau had to do what he did, otherwise he'd be setting himself up for a...well, a setup. I also agree that we need to know why Mulcair seemed to dust the issue away, and why his people had to speak to the leader of another party - that just seems wrong! Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Hal 9000 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 This doesn't take into account that a professional work environment is different from other facets of your life. The way you present yourself at a business meeting is entirely different than the way you present yourself to your family which is entirely different from the way you would present yourself out on a date. You may think that there is some persistent element to who you are, but that's simply not the case. Life is about managing and negotiating social interactions and context matters. You are expected to have a level of professionalism when you are at work. In this case, we're talking about Members of Parliament, whose very role demands dignity and respect from their colleagues. I expect a higher standard from MPs conducting their business in Parliament and I expect that MPs will respect each others' democratic credibility and roles as representatives of the Canadian public. But it doesn't stop at parliament. Work is not the appropriate place to be "picking up" or coming onto colleagues, regardless of how many hours you spend there and how well you know the people. It's especially not the place to perpetuate the misogynistic culture that objectifies women's bodies as something to be consumed, as something to satiate heterosexual men's desires. You're not starving and they're not your dinner. Have some self respect, dignity, and self control to know when it is and is not appropriate to engage in flirting and other sorts of sexual discourse with your peers. That's not to say colleagues can't date or have relationships outside of work. Had these MPs been on a date at a bar or had a relationship outside of parliament mere "flirting" would be a non-issue. Do you think anyone would take seriously someone who said "he invited me out for drinks at the bar and had the audacity to flirt with me!" That's why Jian Ghomeshi's original accuser, Ciccone, was completely disregarded (too bad she wasn't merely disregarded, but verbally abused for her column). She was creeped out that he invited her on a date and was trying to put his arm around her and flirt with her. Why? Because she thought he was gay. Her accusations were ridiculous and didn't speak to any specific offence that could be even remotely construed as harassment or assault. The point is that there is a time and a place for developing your romantic and sexual interests. People have to work to provide for themselves, unless they're inherently wealthy. They should not have to worry about navigating the romantic interests of their peers while they are in the workplace because that is not why they choose to be there. It is male privilege that we think we can just catcall and flirt with any woman at any time. "I have desires and they must be heard" goes the thinking. "They should be grateful that I'm giving them sexual attention! It's a compliment," the culture continues. Now for a moment consider what it would be like to be subjected to vulgar flirtations from homosexual men every day while you're at work or walking down the street or at the grocery store or just doing things that aren't even remotely related to pursuing your own romantic interests. It's inappropriate and has no place in civilized society because if we were truly civilized we would see all people as being in control of their own destinies.There wouldn't be this expectation that women ought to be grateful that a man is giving them sexual attention, even in the workplace of all locations. This is not appropriate conduct in the workplace and the argument that you can't uncontrollable suggests that men are nothing more than beasts of desire incapable of reason and self control. This is exactly the reasoning that leads those people who disgust you so much to cover their women from head to toe. Any man with dignity, self-respect, and class would be in control of his desires and know the proper time and place to act on them. He would also recognize that others may not be interested in being the means to his sexual ends. It is wholly unethical to look at others as means to fulfilling your needs. Engaging in sexual discourse with unwilling participants and expecting them to be grateful or at the very least open to your advances is exactly does exactly that. It casts the other as a means to satisfying your wants. It's time we stopped excusing this as an unavoidable part of our culture and start expecting people to be better than rutting animals. Sexual harassment isn't always about some creep leeching over a woman. He could've called her a fat ass, he could've told her to go get the men some coffee, or let the men do their job. I get what your saying, but sexual harassment is treating someone different or as less than...based on sex/gender. It may have nothing to do with being a perv. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Argus Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 I have yet to see where it says JT has forbidden them from running again as Liberals. They are suspended from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation, which makes sense. While Andrews and Pacetti deny the allegations, Trudeau also confirmed that their nominations as candidate for the next election are suspended. Both MPs have been removed from the Liberal party website. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/05/two-liberal-mps-ejected-from-caucus-over-misconduct-allegations-yamina-2/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 Exactly, Trudeau had to do what he did, otherwise he'd be setting himself up for a...well, a setup. Nonsense. He could have punished them in some way which could have been kept confidential unless it was raised by the NDP. He could also have referred the matter, quietly, to the same confidential committee he's already referred it to. That would be absolute proof he'd taken action if anyone ever accused him of ignoring the complaints. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Hal 9000 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 Nonsense. He could have punished them in some way which could have been kept confidential unless it was raised by the NDP. He could also have referred the matter, quietly, to the same confidential committee he's already referred it to. That would be absolute proof he'd taken action if anyone ever accused him of ignoring the complaints. I'm not questioning that he's using this to his advantage - it's political gold for him. But, as Big Guy said, he had his hand forced by the very people who were making the accusations and looking for results. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Argus Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 I'm not questioning that he's using this to his advantage - it's political gold for him. But, as Big Guy said, he had his hand forced by the very people who were making the accusations and looking for results. And as I said, he did not. He had other options to protect himself from the accusation he hadn't taken proper action. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 While Andrews and Pacetti deny the allegations, Trudeau also confirmed that their nominations as candidate for the next election are suspended. Both MPs have been removed from the Liberal party website. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/05/two-liberal-mps-ejected-from-caucus-over-misconduct-allegations-yamina-2/ You need to understand the significance of the word "suspended" Quote
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 Nonsense. He could have punished them in some way which could have been kept confidential unless it was raised by the NDP. He could also have referred the matter, quietly, to the same confidential committee he's already referred it to. That would be absolute proof he'd taken action if anyone ever accused him of ignoring the complaints. I also don't think the NDP would play politics with such a matter. It would be perceived as incredibly gauche. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 I also don't think the NDP would play politics with such a matter. It would be perceived as incredibly gauche. Or...maybe that's exactly what they're doing and we haven't figured out the spin yet. Maybe they wanted Trudeau to jump the gun and look insensitive toward these women. Hmmm... Personally, I don't care one way or another if the Liberals and NDP have a little spat going. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 Or...maybe that's exactly what they're doing Only if you're saying yet again that the women are liars. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 Only if you're saying yet again that the women are liars. I haven't said that yet....ever, and I'm not saying it now. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Big Guy Posted November 8, 2014 Report Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) I think this issue is going to escalate and nobody is going to come out looking good. Personally I blame the deteriorating toxic atmosphere in Ottawa. One possible way of having a resolution would have been that Trudeau, Mulcair and Harper sit down, in camera, and discuss possible resolutions with the intent of establishing a process acceptable to all. These days, that could never happen. In this time of "Gotcha" politics, distrust and dislike between members of different parties, no one would trust the other to NOT politicize this human resources issue with the focus on just the resolution to the problem. Now we have a situation where at least two political careers are ruined (the two Liberal MP's) perhaps the careers of two NDP MP's (if the accusations prove to be unfounded or non existent) and an even greater distrust of politicians of each other. Where Canadians end up suffering for this is that the job of ALL our representatives is supposed to be working (in partnership) for the betterment of ALL Canadians. Edited November 8, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.