Perhaps witch hunt is a wrong choice for words here
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.
When I think of sexual harassment, my mind jumps to:
- pats on the bum
- other forms of groping
- solicitations of a sexual nature
-pressure to go on dates
-inappropriate sexual language
etc.
i think the public needs to know the general nature of their grievances because there is a very big difference between a socially awkward person standing or sitting too closely to someone or arguing with someone about a topic in public vs what many assume sexual harassment grievances tend to entail.
the very idea that a sexual harassment case was brought against him leads people to wonder what kinds of despicable acts he was accused of doing.
this kind of case can be defamatory and Erin Weir has every right to clarify the nature of the complaints that were lodged against him.
i am very happy that he did clarify. I think he had no recourse but to explain what happened.
I'm watching "At Issue" on CBC and Rosemary Barton (the host) throws out the suggestion that the NDP was looking for a reason/excuse to get rid of him. One of the panelists (Althia Raj) said Erin Weir personality gives off the vibe of someone that is "awkward".
So perhaps that is why the NDP caucus is so behind Jagmeet Singh, that Weir wasn't with the "in" crowd, and it was good riddance from the caucus.
Althia is probably the most anti-NDP commentator going.
What did the CBC say about Trudeau supporting the NDP position?
So it is settled then.
Whatever Trudeau agrees with is right ;)
Althia is probably the most anti-NDP commentator going.
What did the CBC say about Trudeau supporting the NDP position?
Trudeau name never came up. CBC just uploaded tonight's Nationals. To go to At Issue segment go 22:00 into video below
Well at least Trudeau now realizes BC NDP Premier John Horgan was correct when he asked Trudeau to join the Kinder Morgan pipeline Court reference case few weeks ago and Trudeau refused. Trudeau has now seen the light and has joined the NDP in asking for the Courts to decide.
Erin Weir has RUSHED to Macleans Magazine to give his side of the story (yet again) saying "hopes Singh will ‘come to his senses"
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-mp-erin-weir-on-jagmeet-singh-...
From Macleans:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-mp-erin-weir-on-jagmeet-singh-...
Q: When you responded to that CBC story this week, did you know that what you were saying would get you kicked out of the NDP caucus?
A: The way it unfolded is that a complainant decided to make her complaint public through CBC. When CBC contacted me, I declined to comment. I notified Mr. Singh’s office and I asked whether he or I would be responding. I didn’t hear back. CBC put the story out. Then I was in the position where the complaint was out on the public record and I needed to respond to it.
How on earth is this fair or appropriate?
But that is a one-sided presentation of the issue. If there had not already been 4 complaints against Weir you might have a point, although the person who went to the media did not do the NDP any favours as it seemed the issue was going to be resolved
So do you all agree that Angus should have been expelled instead given the extremely serious allegations against him?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-harassing-behaviour-against-mp-erin-weir/article37817719/
On Tuesday, Ms. Moore sent an e-mail to the 43 members of caucus in response to a message from Mr. Weir, who was running for the role of NDP caucus chair and looking for support from his colleagues."Too many women (mostly employees) complaint to me that you were harassing to them, and as a woman I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone," Ms. Moore, the NDP MP for Abitibi–Témiscamingue, said in her e-mail. "Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble."
Mr. Singh on Thursday said he will launch an investigation based on an e-mail sent to caucus from an NDP MP, although he didn't name Ms. Moore. In the meantime, he said Mr. Weir will be suspended from his role in caucus.
I have spoken with caucus and we will be appointing an independent investigator to conduct a fair and full examination of the facts available," Mr. Singh told reporters in Ottawa. "While that process is ongoing, Mr. Weir's duties as NDP MP will be temporarily suspended. Once the work of the investigator has completed, the MP's role in caucus will be evaluated."
Mr. Singh said nothing that he's read suggests the allegations are sexual in nature. He said there is no specific complainant named in the allegations.
Mr. Weir currently serves as the party's public services and procurement critic. He will not appear at committees or speak in Question Period, an NDP spokeswoman said, and although he remains in caucus he has chosen not to attend meetings while he's being investigated.
The report comes in, Weir agrees to take anti-harassment training and remains in caucus.
some time after that:
Quoting Weir speaking of himself in the 3rd person:
“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,”
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.
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.
After Weir made his accusations:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4184251/erin-weir-expelled-from-ndp-caucus-af...
Speaking to reporters during a press conference, Singh confirmed Thursday that a third-party investigation into allegations made against Weir in recent months supported one claim of harassment and three claims of sexual harassment.
Weir has accused Angus of conspiring against him by pursuading a woman, Mulcair's employee, to claim he had harassed her.
I cannot be accused of being an Angus fan nor a Mulcair fan but I do not believe by the wildest stretch of the imagination that either Mulcair or Angus would have conspired to set up Weir by getting an employee to start false rumors about harassment, which then only surfaced year or more later.
Either Angus or Weir had to go.
I don't see that there is any reason why anyone has to go. That is yet another thing that is so fucked up about this approach. If they want to ever form government, or even official opposition again, this is a pretty funny way to go about it.
It is kind of odd too, that this alleged encounter happened at a Saskatchewan Provincial NDP Convention, yet representatives from the leader of the federal NDP stopped a Saskatchewan MP from speaking to a policy issue affecting Saskatchewan industry.
I don't see that there is any reason why anyone has to go.
Weir is accusing Angus of being part of a conspiracy to have him falsely accused of harassment in retaliation for his wanting to debate carbon pricing.
If Angus asked a woman to falsely accuse Weir of harassment you don't see that as a reason to expel him?
That's a very serious allegation.
From Pondering:
That's a very serious allegation.
Is there any reason the party should not respond to the allegation made by Erin Weir in the same way they responded to the allegation made against him?
A independent third party who speaks only to Erin Weir, does not speak to Charie Angus, asks around to see if anyone else may feel the same way Weir does, and then submits a report based on that evidence gathering.
That would seem to be the way the NDP chooses to handle such things.
If everything was on track to being resolved why did that person blab to the CBC? That’s what I don’t understand.
@ Pondering
Or indeed, why aren't Angus or Romeo Saganash gone for criticising their leader's judgment just last month? There are lots of hanging offenses, if that is what you are looking for.
In the first place, you are embroidering quite a few things on to what Weir actually said, probably to frame it as your "one of them's gotta go" narrative (even though this involves a number of other people).
In the second place, I think this party might do better to consider what their actual goals are and how they intend to reach them. Better strategy than pistols at dawn, I think.
This is three members already this year who have been purged, demoted, or forced to recant, presumably for not falling in line with dogma. And it has all happened in a really messy, unprofessional and indecisive way.
Might be just a bad luck streak. On the other hand, with two provincial NDP governments at each others' throats it might be time for the federal caucus to try an approach that is a bit more suited to political reality - the one where they don't get to dictate what everyone says and does.
Or they can just keep picking off members and blowing off ridings until it doesn't matter anymore.
https://www.orilliamatters.com/national-news/mp-erin-weir-vows-to-keep-f...
Weir "I didn't realize I'd done anything unwelcome. But when I had the chance to read the summary of allegations, it became apparent that sometimes I was slow to pick up on social cues," he told The Canadian Press in an interview Thursday....
Weir said he agreed on April 19, after he and Singh had a chance to review Flaherty's report, to participate in conciliation with any of the complainants who wanted it, and to undergo training to address the issue raised during the investigation.
But the NDP leader's office kept delaying the announcement, Weir said, until the CBC published a story this past Tuesday in which an unidentified complainant accused him of having spoken to her in an angry and belligerent way.
"When the CBC contacted me about it, I declined to comment," he said.
"I notified Mr. Singh's office and I asked whether he or I should respond. I didn't hear back. The CBC ran the story and once the complaint was out there in the public domain, I did feel compelled to respond to it."
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/investigation-into-harassment-allega...
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.
http://bestfifaworldcup2018.com/erin-weir-expelled-from-ndp-caucus-after...
“It’s definitely the case that for those who solicit complaints from a whole bunch of workers individuals, you’ll get some complaints. Significantly in a political context the place there are disagreements, there are rivalries, there are axes to grind,” Weir stated.
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee. The employee was asserting her authority to shut down the debate. It is believeable to me that Weir would be angry and belligerent if he thought he was exercising his authority over an employee but that employee prevented him from starting the debate. She asserted her authority to shut down the debate. He does not strike me as the kind of guy who would go away quietly and apparently she did have the authority to shut him down or she wouldn't have been able to.
He is accusing this woman of wanting revenge over what?
Weir claims this woman, working with Mulcair and Angus, made up a lie about his behavior in 2016 because they were mad at him. They wanted political payback, which I don't understand seeing as they "won".
Weir claims the other complaints were solicited so of course there would be some for anyone.
Speaking in an angry and belligerent way is hardly a career damaging accusation. It is easily put down to political passion or alpha male agression that doesn't "mean anything". He should have quit while he was ahead. It seems now some parts of that report will be published.
But there is no explanation why the complainant spoke to the CBC if the remedy for the problem had been agreed to, as it was this attack on Weir that blew everything up.
And why did the NDP not return Weir’s phone call before he responded to the media attack?
Outcome of the last election, Regina Lewvan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina%E2%80%94Lewvan
What's interesting about the 2015 results from this riding is that the Liberals placed a strong 3rd.
There was a close race between the NDP and the Conservatives, with the NDP's Weir winning with just over 100 votes.
But the Liberal vote was stronger than usual in Saskatchewan, probably because they won a Majority at the National level.
The Liberal vote will probably not be as high in Saskatchewan next time, so it will be interesting to see where some of those votes go. Will they go to the NDP or the Conservatives?
I'm watching "At Issue" on CBC and Rosemary Barton (the host) throws out the suggestion that the NDP was looking for a reason/excuse to get rid of him. One of the panelists (Althia Raj) said Erin Weir personality gives off the vibe of someone that is "awkward".
So perhaps that is why the NDP caucus is so behind Jagmeet Singh, that Weir wasn't with the "in" crowd, and it was good riddance from the caucus.
I think it’s more than a suggestion. Looks like the reason. They were looking to get rid of him, either for policy reasons or because they just didn’t like him, and trumped up these “don’t stand too close to me” charges. And then penalized him when he tried to defend himself.
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
You should quote where Weir said that. He actually denied it.
There are days when I question why I retain my NDP membership. Maybe Singh expelling Weire from caucus was the correct decision. That said, if Weir was not provided with the details of the accusations (Date, time, individual etc.) then the process was very, very flawed.
ETA: I listened to Weir on AIH last night. If I was a betting person, I might have considered him to have a diagnosis that can be found in the DSM 5.
There are days when I question why I retain my NDP membership. Maybe Singh expelling Weire from caucus was the correct decision. That said, if Weir was not provided with the details of the accusations (Date, time, individual etc.) then the process was very, very flawed.
ETA: I listened to Weir on AIH last night. If I was a betting person, I might have considered him to have a diagnosis that can be found in the DSM 5.
That's real speculation. But, if so, the NDP could be guilty of discrimination and could be subject to a lawsuit.
Yes, it's speculation. I am not happy with how the party has handled this situation. Both Weir and his accusers are entitled to a fair process and if at the end of such a process it is deemed that he committed egregious acts then action should be taken by the party.
Yeah, I found the phrase "not picking up social cues" to be particularly loaded. It's a common description of folks on the Autism spectrum. I have no insight as to whether this applies to Mr. Weir, but if this phrase describes a standard in HR complaints a lawsuit is on the horizon somewhere.
From Caissa:
If I was a betting person, I might have considered him to have a diagnosis that can be found in the DSM 5.
Given what he has been through, I wouldn't read too much into his behaviour now. His political career is finished, he'll be out of a job after the next election, he has been treated extremely unfairly, and he has no recourse.
That would drive most people around the bend. What he says and does now is more likely a symptom of the unbelievable stress he has been living under.
ETA: I listened to Weir on AIH last night. If I was a betting person, I might have considered him to have a diagnosis that can be found in the DSM 5.
Yeah that thought crossed my mind as well. Maybe he is socially awkward or has some from Aspergers. That should have crossed the minds of the NDP caucus when they debated whether Weir should be kicked out or not.
In terms of the process, if he has no idea who the accusers are, or the circumstances how can he defend himself? If he had no recourse to defend himself to the third party investigator, how can it be a fair process.
Erin Weir had to clarify publicly the specific allegations that were lodged against him.
sexual harassment brings to people's minds issues like groping, inappropriate language, sexually coercive behaviour, etc.
the NDP ruined his reputation on a national scale. And now they expect him to remain silent and leave Canadians to wonder what he was accused of doing. I guess the federal NDP feels it is ok for Canadians to assume that he is some kind of mysogynist, pervert or worse.
i am happy that Erin Weir talked to the media and clarified to us the nature of the charges that were laid against him.
i am deeply ashamed of the NDP right now.
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
You should quote where Weir said that. He actually denied it.
I did quote him. Those were his words. He was speaking of himself in the 3rd person. That is when you refer to yourself as though you are someone else.
Singh was going to keep him in caucus. He was not ejected on the basis of the report. If they were trying to get rid of him they would have ejected him when they got the report.
They offered him a deal which he accepted then he identified his accuser in public and accused Angus and Mulcair of having conspired with the woman to set him up.
Then, for her own reasons Moore, years later, brought it up in the email and lied about other women having spoken to her. Or, other women came to her lying about him.
Now you are suggesting, those women, or other women, lied to the investigator on behalf of the party because the NDP wanted to get rid of him? |
ETA: I listened to Weir on AIH last night. If I was a betting person, I might have considered him to have a diagnosis that can be found in the DSM 5.
Yeah that thought crossed my mind as well. Maybe he is socially awkward or has some from Aspergers. That should have crossed the minds of the NDP caucus when they debated whether Weir should be kicked out or not.
In terms of the process, if he has no idea who the accusers are, or the circumstances how can he defend himself? If he had no recourse to defend himself to the third party investigator, how can it be a fair process.
They were not kicking him out. He was told he was being readmitted to caucus.
. . . and then he was kicked out.
. . . and then he was kicked out.
Yes, he was kicked out for identifying his accuser and claiming Mulcair, Angus and this woman conspired against him out of revenge.
Who did he identify as his accuser? Angus badmouthed leadership when he was temporarily removed from his post, but was reinstated.
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
You should quote where Weir said that. He actually denied it.
I did quote him. Those were his words. He was speaking of himself in the 3rd person. That is when you refer to yourself as though you are someone else.
No, it really isn't. Speaking about yourself in the third person would be me saying "So, let's say a woman of colour is completely baffled by the unfair treatment of Erin Weir."
It doesn't refer to the CBC's rendering of Weir's account of what happened to him. Hint: if they don't specifically quote him, there's a reason.
I think this entire situation has been outrageously unjust to Erin Weir. Glad to see so many other posters here who see it this way as well (apart from Pondering and NorthReport, and their support for Dear Leader screams volumes). Yet another example of why I cannot and will not support Singh and this current version of the NDP.
Let’s at least try and stick to the facts.
Weir was not removed from the caucus for sexual harassment.
Pookie - here is what Pondering is referring to (it's in several media stories, in the same exact words):
[emphasis added]“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.
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.
It's quite possible that these are exact quotes from Weir, as the articles allege. But they don't back up, in the slightest, what Pondering alleges. She repeats and doubles down on one of her more egregious concoctions:
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
I asked, "WHERE DOES HE SAY THAT?" Of course, he didn't. But when you're starving, any scrap will apparently do.
This character assassination of Weir, based on absolutely nothing, is extremely disturbing.
Let’s at least try and stick to the facts.
Weir was not removed from the caucus for sexual harassment.
yes but other NDP MP have spoken out against sone of Singh decisions and didn't get kicked to the curb
Stick to the issue and the facts
If there's more to MP Erin Weir's expulsion than the public knows, the NDP should say so: Robyn Urback
"Without further details, this case is sure to become Exhibit A of the #MeToo movement going too far"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/erin-weir-investigation-1.4647535
Nonsense as he was not removed from caucus for sexual harassment
As I said we all need to stick to the issue and to the facts here
Yes. I think NorthReport raised some important questions I would like to know the answers to (but I'm not expected I ever will):
"If everything was on track to being resolved why did that person blab to the CBC? That’s what I don’t understand."
"and why did the NDP not return Weir’s phone call before he responded to the media attack?"
Don’t forget that everything collapsed based on a CBC story, so what role did the CBC have in this as it is already known that the CBC is no friend of the NDP. And why did this person choose the CBC to speak with?
Things are often not what they appear to be on the surface
I don't know which I find more uncomfortable and disappointing - trying to pawn this off as reporting harrassment going too far, or blaming it all on the media.
Neither is surprising though, as a means of trying to deflect from what seems to be the real source.
Weir is saying that he was exercising authority over an employee.
You should quote where Weir said that. He actually denied it.
I did quote him. Those were his words. He was speaking of himself in the 3rd person. That is when you refer to yourself as though you are someone else.
No, it really isn't. Speaking about yourself in the third person would be me saying "So, let's say a woman of colour is completely baffled by the unfair treatment of Erin Weir."
It doesn't refer to the CBC's rendering of Weir's account of what happened to him. Hint: if they don't specifically quote him, there's a reason.
They did specifically quote him. Those were his exact words.
The curious case of Erin Weir
Jagmeet Singh’s decision to kick the Saskatchewan MP out of the NDP caucus raises more questions than answers
One of those questions is whether Singh would have treated a more popular, more influential MP in the way he has treated Weir. Recent events suggest that not necessarily is the answer.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/04/the-curious-c...
Get with the program of the smart and snappy dressing leader perfectly chosen to rival JT. A 'cool' NDP is where it's at!
Let’s at least try and stick to the facts.
Weir was not removed from the caucus for sexual harassment.
As has been said, in today's climate, an accusation of sexual harassment is, in the public's mind, up there with rape and child molestation. Singh did not remove Weir for sexual harassment. He was removed for defending himself. And then adding he is a sexual harasser (rapist). Not content with kicking Weir out, Singh decided he should also wreck the man's life. I though I saw a hint of Jack Layton in Singh when he became leader. Was I ever wrong. He's no Jack Layton.
What is not understandable is why did that complainant go to the CBC if an agreement had already been made?
And also why did the NDP not return Weir's phone call?
