Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

If I just came to this board I would assume it was strongly anti-NDP. 

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I don't even begin to understand this. How can the accused not be told who the complainants are? Just for starters.

Because that information is available solely to the investigator to ensure confidentiality to everyone including witnesses so they don't fear coming forward. Not even Singh knows who they are.

Singh doesn't need to know who they are. Weir needs to be told exactly who they are. Otherwise the investigation would go something like:

"Mr. Weir: Person X, whom I can't name, alleges that you stood too close to him/her on an occasion - can't say when or where because that might tend to reveal X's identity - what do you have to say in response to that?"

I hope you don't seriously believe that any kind of investigation of wrongdoing whatsoever could take such a form.

Pondering wrote:

The investigator was University of Ottawa law professor Michelle Flaherty. She teaches labour law, administrative law and human rights.

I'm sure she did a stand-up job. But I feel sorry for her if she was told to ask questions like the one I made up above. There is no such thing as an investigation of harassment allegations where the accused is not told who the accuser(s) is/are. 

Pondering wrote:

He left Singh no choice but to expel him and he should certainly be refused the nomination for the seat in the next election. 

That's a scary statement.

Even if Erin Weir knows the identity of his accusers, he can't reasonably defend or explain himself publically so long as the report is secret and any description made by him of what was specifically was alleged may identify his accusers.  

Not that I would want him to do this, but as this investigation was privately commissioned and is not criminal, would there be any legal penalty for him, or someone in his postion in future, to reveal his accuser's identities?

There have already been calls in the National Post and other conservative outlets for accusers to be identified in sexual harrassment cases, and if  this story gets picked up in a big way by the media, I expect this case will be discussed and debated.

It’s over. Even Trudeau supports Singh. Suck it up!

Dp

My guess is that the media discussion of this, and the public backlash about due process for people accused of sexual harrassment, is far from over.

I am pro-NDP.   Josh said it best:

"Being pro-due process doesn't make you anti-NDP.  At least it didn't."

Pondering wrote:

Only if you commit crimes and he does know who is main accuser is. He said it is the person who prevented him from speaking at the convention. I suspect that is also the moment when she felt intimitated by him.

You're just wildly speculating based on nothing. And the only accusation made more or less public was that he had spoken angrily and arrogantly to someone, who felt physically intimidated.

Quote:

He wasn't being accused of anything more than being intimidating and too forward in his advances. 

So you didn't read that the secret report substantiated three counts of sexual harassment? How about reading a bit, then get back to me as to how I can be found to have committed sexual harassment three times, without being told whom I allegedly harassed. On what planet is this possible?

"He said it is the person who prevented him from speaking at the convention. I suspect that is also the moment when she felt intimitated by him. "

I suspect he gave the details he did to indicate that her feeling of being physically intimidated was not reasonable, as they were on a convention floor surrounded by other people.   

But we could be spared from having to suspect anything if the facts were out.

I have in the past been involved with workplace harrassment investigations between union members, between members and employers, both on the side of the accused and the accuser.   One of the first questions asked was "Did you tell the person to stop the unwanted/harrassing behaviour?"     I guess this is not a thing now.  

Pondering:   I understand the rationale for not publically identifying people making accusations of sexual harrassment.   I don't entirely agree with it, but I do mostly,.   That's not the point I was making.     I am saying the Weir story will be an effective example for conservative press to use to make their case that they should not be anonymous.

Pondering often makes a good logical well-researched argument. This ain't one of those times.

As for NorthReport - if questioning the expulsion of Erin Weir under these circumstances really made someone "anti-NDP", then that would just be a sad comment on the NDP. In reality, it's just a sad comment on NorthReport's style of discussion.

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Only if you commit crimes and he does know who is main accuser is. He said it is the person who prevented him from speaking at the convention. I suspect that is also the moment when she felt intimitated by him.

You're just wildly speculating based on nothing. And the only accusation made more or less public was that he had spoken angrily and arrogantly to someone, who felt physically intimidated.

Quote:

He wasn't being accused of anything more than being intimidating and too forward in his advances. 

So you didn't read that the secret report substantiated three counts of sexual harassment? How about reading a bit, then get back to me as to how I can be found to have committed sexual harassment three times, without being told whom I allegedly harassed. On what planet is this possible?

I guess on the same planet on which the only penalty for sexual harassment is taking "anti-harassment training" instead of losing your job.

What are you suggesting? Are you saying during the investigation everyone should have been told Weir would be informed of everything they say? 

I hope that given how minor the accusations are that they will come forward publically. If they do Weir is going to be very sorry because what he will be accused of is boorish behavior. There was no need for him to throw shade. That is the part that got him expelled. He said:

“It is clear that the complainant is a former staff member in the (former) NDP leader’s office who intercepted Weir on the way to a microphone to prevent him from speaking on a resolution at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention,” he wrote of himself, using the third person.......

Weir said he wanted to debate a proposal calling for Canada to extend its carbon tax to imports from countries that do not have such levies and provide a rebate to Canadian-made exports, but that then-NDP caucus chair Charlie Angus and Mulcair “wished to suppress this discussion.

“In other words, the complaint arises not from Weir exercising authority over an employee, but from the former federal leader’s staff asserting their authority to shut down a debate they deemed contentious,” said Weir, who denied being angry or belligerent.

So Mulcair, Angus, and the complaintant conspired to start a rumor against Weir, which Moore then revealed when she referred to it in the email. Oh wait, before that they had to get two more con-conspirators to also start rumors against him.  He also said:

Weir went on to allege that Mulcair and Angus banned him from question period for several months “as punishment for having tried to raise the issue,” and accused both of having opposed his efforts to seek the NDP nomination in Regina-Lewvan in 2014.

So, in your opinion, Weir should still be in the NDP caucus, after all that. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Funny, because I see it in exactly the opposite way, especially since this is twice in a row the party has opted for the heaviest possible punishment - removal from posts, and expulsion.

He wasn't expelled. He was told he had to take anti-harassment training.

After agreeing to that he made a public statement that made it absolutely clear he did not accept responsibility for his behavior.  He then accused the complainants of involvement in a vengeful political conspiracy.

Unionist wrote:

Pondering. There's a third party investigation into harassment allegations against Erin Weir. Did the oh-so-prestigious professor interview Weir? Did she confront him with the allegations and give him an opportunity to respond? Did she tell him the names of the accusers?

:) I'm still being logical. 

I doubt she did those things. The names were confidential. This was not a legal investigation. It was an investigation into workplace behavior of a person in power. He would only deny it. The strength of the investigation lies in gathering an honest opinion of his style from many people. 3 of the allegations were considered serious enough to ask him to take anti-harassment training. Anti-harassment training, not prison, not even expulsion from caucus. He was welcome to stay in caucus.

That seems pretty mild to me. 

dp

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Funny, because I see it in exactly the opposite way, especially since this is twice in a row the party has opted for the heaviest possible punishment - removal from posts, and expulsion.

He wasn't expelled. He was told he had to take anti-harassment training.

After agreeing to that he made a public statement that made it absolutely clear he did not accept responsibility for his behavior.  He then accused the complainants of involvement in a vengeful political conspiracy.

Actually he said on CTV that he sent a letter to Jagmeet Singh (dated April 21) where he apologized and said he would accept any findings that come from the third party investigator.

Well he certainly went back on that. 

@ pookie

Exactly. And why is Weir being expelled for responding to that?

Really, if his story about political motivation is true (which is not saying the harrassment is not) it is no surprise that it has ended with him out of caucus.

And if it is true, how does this bode for anyone in the party who wants to talk about carbon policy? And what does that mean for members in the prairies and elsewhere who have to balance the same constituency interests as he has? Seems to me it is a big problem if someone can't even talk in public about it.

(edit)

Pondering, CBC told Weir about the complainant going public.From the article posted already in this thread:

One complainant told CBC News that Weir spoke to her in an angry and belligerent way and that she felt physically intimidated. 

That is what Weir was responding to.

From Pondering:

This was not a legal investigation. It was an investigation into workplace behavior of a person in power. He would only deny it.

​Aren't you the same Pondering that in another thread commented that someone was guilty because they didn't deny it?

Doesn't leave a lot of room for being not guilty.

It’s unfortunate that the agreement blew up but the onus was on Weir to respect it which he did not do. Does that show good will?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/video-jagmeet-singh-on-why-he-expelled-mp-erin-weir-from-ndp-caucus/

NorthReport wrote:

There was an agreement made and he was going to remain in caucus Don’t forget there were 4  people who made complaints They were not going to kick him out of caucus. Then Weir broke the agreement

Again these are 4 people the NDP SOUGHT OUT. It is like they were looking for "proof" where none might not have existed.

Outcome of the last election, Regina Lewvan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina%E2%80%94Lewvan 

Weir definitely wants back in regardless.

https://www.google.ca/amp/leaderpost.com/news/politics/weir-calls-ndp-expulsion-overreaction-as-provincial-wing-reacts/amp

Perhaps witch hunt is a wrong choice for words here

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/don-martin-blog/don-martin-erin-weir-investigation-worthy-of-being-seen-as-a-witch-hunt-1.3914155

Mighty Middle wrote:

Erin Wier will be a thorn in Jagmeet Singh side for the next 18 months.

Watching the media coverage on both CBC & CTV there hasn't been a single political pundit who disagrees with Jagmeet Singh decision to throw Erin Weir under the bus. All have been unanimous that Singh did the right thing.