2 more liberal MP's gone.

[Keepitsimple]

You seem to be unsure of whether this is a case of harassment or assault.

You were the one who raised the issue of assault. Unless you can show me something to the contrary - I'm only aware that there are two harassment allegations - one of which appears to be sexual in nature.

Your words:

That's an excuse and a pretty damn flimsy one. I myself spent a number of years were I was away from home and out of the country slightly more over 50% of the time and it never crossed my mind to force myself on anyone sexually or any other way for that matter.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[jacee]

Sorry you're wrong there.....cheating on their wives by harassing a co-worker is not their "private business".

Yes that was my point:

Politicians who sexually harass or assault women ... that's everybody's business.

.

[PIK]

IMO Trudeau has screwed the pooch this time. A walking attack ad for the conservatives. And polls have harper only 3 pts behind.

[peoples advocate]

They probably had independent views on issues Justin doesn't agree with. And you can't disagree with Dear Leader.

Well no matter what no leader allows free thinkers after they sit in the house.

[August1991]

What a thread. They're federal MPs.

Do you think any normal person in the real world considers a federal MP a "victim"? Is Sheila Copps a "victim"? Olvia Chow?

For Chow or Copps to play the victim card, then the Left truly has to redefine its meaning of "protecting the weak against oppression".

[Michael Hardner]

What a thread. They're federal MPs.

Do you think any normal person in the real world considers a federal MP a "victim"? Is Sheila Copps a "victim"? Olvia Chow?

Strange take on it. You feel that if somebody assaulted an MP, everyone should just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, they get a great pension anyway"...

[Mighty AC]

Do you think any normal person in the real world considers a federal MP a "victim"? Is Sheila Copps a "victim"? Olvia Chow?

By coming forward, famous and powerful women not only draw attention to a very serious problem but they make it easier for the average Jane to do so as well.

[Big Guy]

Sheila Copps has made allegations about a sexual harassment, gave the approx. time lines, named the meetings she was attending with her alleged harasser but did not name him. She also referenced some Speakers of the House without naming them.

Now the media us starting to dig and a lot of people are under suspicion.

If you have an accusation then name the accused! Don't paint a whole group with the same brush. If you are not prepared to name your accused then keep your mouth shut!

This is starting to look like Sheila's way to try to climb out of irrelevance and obscurity.

[PIK]

Shiela is just trying to get attention, what she did is so wrong, if it really happened.

[guyser]

If you have an accusation then name the accused! Don't paint a whole group with the same brush. If you are not prepared to name your accused then keep your mouth shut!

Maybe she wants to bring to the fore the plight of women and sexual harassment? Maybe her perp is dead or otherwise incapacitated.

Maybe she is strong enough to have been able to deal with it. She is the product of her dad who was a strong person.

Your statement is uncalled for and flat out wrong to tell her that.

[On Guard for Thee]

Shiela is just trying to get attention, what she did is so wrong, if it really happened.

Wait a minute, did you say what SHE did was wrong?

[jacee]

Sheila Copps has made allegations about a sexual harassment, gave the approx. time lines, named the meetings she was attending with her alleged harasser but did not name him. She also referenced some Speakers of the House without naming them.

GO SHEILA!!

Now the media us starting to dig and a lot of people are under suspicion.

If you have an accusation then name the accused! Don't paint a whole group with the same brush. If you are not prepared to name your accused then keep your mouth shut!

Nope. People have every right to share their own experiences without exposing the perp. That's for formal complaints.

But there's two guys shaking in their boots tonight!!

This is starting to look like Sheila's way to try to climb out of irrelevance and obscurity.

Sheila Copps will never be obscure.

.

Edited November 12, 2014 by jacee

[Big Guy]

To jaycee - There are also now former Speakers of the House and other MP's who were on that trip and in the same hotel as Sheila who have been tarred for no reason at all.

I believe that to not name names is a cowards way out. That way you do not have to face your accuser or provide proof of your allegation. I have seen too many people having been accused of horrendous previous activity during child custody cases and/or divorce cases that were proven to have no merit after investigation.

If you have been abused then report it and prove it. If you cannot, then keep your allegations to yourself.

I am really surprised at Sheila. I had followed her career and was a fan right through the "rat pack" era and doubt that she was ever afraid to speak out. These recent allegations and her "outing" of unnamed aggressors is not like the Shelia I remember.

[On Guard for Thee]

To jaycee - There are also now former Speakers of the House and other MP's who were on that trip and in the same hotel as Sheila who have been tarred for no reason at all.

I believe that to not name names is a cowards way out. That way you do not have to face your accuser or provide proof of your allegation. I have seen too many people having been accused of horrendous previous activity during child custody cases and/or divorce cases that were proven to have no merit after investigation.

If you have been abused then report it and prove it. If you cannot, then keep your allegations to yourself.

I am really surprised at Sheila. I had followed her career and was a fan right through the "rat pack" era and doubt that she was ever afraid to speak out. These recent allegations and her "outing" of unnamed aggressors is not like the Shelia I remember.

Let me just correct your language, and perhaps your knowledge just a bit. Shiella is the "accuser" and if she names the "accusee" she will have to provide proof and he will not have to face her. A lot of years have gone by since the alleged incident and it's probably a can of worms she doesn't want to open up. However as has been pointed out numerous time here, it may give strength to others who have previously been afraid to speak out. And your comment stating "if it wasn't reported then it didn't happen" is a tad weird. Are you sure you don't want to modify that at least a tad?

[Hal 9000]

I don't think she should have to name anyone if she isn't making an accusation. She should leave out possible "hints" though.

[jacee]

To jaycee - There are also now former Speakers of the House and other MP's who were on that trip and in the same hotel as Sheila who have been tarred for no reason at all.

How so?

I believe that to not name names is a cowards way out. That way you do not have to face your accuser or provide proof of your allegation. I have seen too many people having been accused of horrendous previous activity during child custody cases and/or divorce cases that were proven to have no merit after investigation.

Then it's best not to name names except for an investigation.

If you have been abused then report it and prove it. If you cannot, then keep your allegations to yourself.

People have every right to speak of their own experiences.

I am really surprised at Sheila. I had followed her career and was a fan right through the "rat pack" era and doubt that she was ever afraid to speak out. These recent allegations and her "outing" of unnamed aggressors is not like the Shelia I remember.

"Outing ... unnamed" is nonsensical.

GO SHEILA!!

.

[Bonam]

It also depends somewhat on who the "offender" is. For example, if you looked like Brad Pitt and made a comment or innuendo, I'm pretty sure most woman would gush with flattery as opposed to if you looked like Nick Nolte's mug shot.

Correct. See this video on how to avoid being sued for sexual harassment:

[Michael Hardner]

If you have been abused then report it and prove it. If you cannot, then keep your allegations to yourself.

If you can't "prove it" then say nothing... otherwise some men who were nearby may be embarrassed ?

That's an untenable position. Women can and should speak about their experiences, or the system will never change.

[jacee]

Correct. See this video on how to avoid being sued for sexual harassment:

http://vimeo.com/30042289

Sexual harassment is "unwelcome" sexual comments.

The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome.

In fact a single event of asking a woman out and getting a "no", as in the video, wouldn't be seen as harassment However, repeated approaches after a "no" would be, and any form of pressure or negative consequences or threat of same (eg witholding a raise, interfering with work, etc) would be.

It's been my observation that men who throw up videos like that and claim to be victims may be lacking in some social and workplace graces and may tend to commit such acts.

They can often benefit from the sensitivity training offered to such offenders. They might also benefit from info about dating etiquette, especially in how to pick up signals on whether behaviour is welcome or not.

It's a scary world of rejection for those who haven't a clue how to approach women, but there is help for that!

.

[Big Guy]

To Michael - When you make allegations about one person about a specific incident where other "potential suspects" were present then they are all painted with the same brush. By not naming the individual you have made every person there a suspect. It is not a matter of an embarrassment but one of character assassination.

It is one thing to say that "I was sexually assaulted by another MP in my early years" and saying "I was sexually assaulted on my trip to .... with ..... and staying at .... and was assaulted by another MP staying there". Now every male who was at that event and staying at that hotel is a suspect - and cannot defend themselves.

And to jaycee - I am a Judge Judy fan. Any time someone makes an allegation and has "lost the paperwork" or "forgotten to bring that evidence" or "No. I do not have the proof" then the Judge rules that "If you do not have the proof then it did not happen".

I still believe that accusations of individuals without proof should be ignored lest innuendo become the basis of our legal system.

[Mighty AC]

Shiela is just trying to get attention, what she did is so wrong, if it really happened.

What a disgusting remark. You are the problem. You are why women suffer in silence and why it is so hard for them to seek justice. Strong and famous women need to keep coming forward with their stories so that you and your ilk can be made extinct.

[Michael Hardner]

To Michael - When you make allegations about one person about a specific incident where other "potential suspects" were present then they are all painted with the same brush. By not naming the individual you have made every person there a suspect. It is not a matter of an embarrassment but one of character assassination.

How many people could fairly be implicated ?

[Big Guy]

I am sure that the members of the media are looking into who attended that conference and who stayed in that hotel. I believe we shall soon know.

My point is that you have an obligation once you start to go into detail. If you are sexually harassed or sexually assaulted then of course you should do something about it if you feel strongly about it. The reason I say "if you feel strongly about it" is that I know of people who were mugged and/or robbed and chose not to bother with reporting it for various reasons.

I was involved in investigating an alleged sexual assault incident where a female claimed that she was assaulted by a member of the staff of a large high school, 23 years after the alleged assault took place. She would not divulge the name of the individual. After hundreds of hours of work and numerous "uncomfortable" interviews it was found that there was no evidence to substantiate any of her allegations. She would not cooperate so the investigation was dropped.

Meanwhile, hundreds of hours of time were wasted, innocent individuals were forced to sit through interrogations and a lot of money was spent for nothing.

If you are not prepared to name the perpetrator and/or have no proof that it happened then it did not happen.

[PIK]

She should have made a scene about it wyen it happened, don't come out now and and ruin someone sl;ife when they get mistaken for the guy she is talking about. Maybe shiela was giving off signals that the guy took wrong . But to just come out like this is wrong.

[The_Squid]

She should have made a scene about it wyen it happened, don't come out now and and ruin someone sl;ife when they get mistaken for the guy she is talking about. Maybe shiela was giving off signals that the guy took wrong . But to just come out like this is wrong.

I didn't know women gave off signals to be sexually assaulted....