It seems to be ok to sell him down the river without due process. This reveals the chilling totalitarian nature of those who are still NDP supporters.
What due process?
Maybe you mean the investigation shouldn't have been done?
Or do you mean the investigation should not have promised confidentiality to the employees that were questioned?
I don't hear him calling for the report to be released publically.
Not sure why Pondering is on this bounty hunt.
Erin Weir accepted the report and its recommendations. He said that as he read it, he came to understand his actions and the effects they could have had. He accepted everything - even though the report said (and this was public) that there were three "substantiated" complains of "sexual harassment". Making that public, without any context or explanation, is character assassination at its finest.
Despite Erin Weir's cooperation - and penitence - he was expelled from caucus. Why?
Singh told reporters on Parliament Hill this morning that he had tried to work out a deal under which Weir would be allowed to stay in caucus if he took responsibility for the investigator’s conclusions, and agreed to other “rehabilitative” steps. But he said Weir “made it clear he did not accept responsibility for what the inquiry found to be a fact.”
An NDP official explained that Singh was referring specifically to the way Weir was quoted in a CBC story earlier this week, after one of the women who had complained about him went to the broadcaster with details of the NDP’s internal investigation. “He criticized the process and refuted the claim,” said the party official, “when he had said he was going to respect the process.”
Thanks for making that "clear", Jagmeet, and anonymous party official.
I'm surprised they didn't turn him over to the RCMP.
Not sure why Pondering is on this bounty hunt.
Erin Weir accepted the report and its recommendations. He said that as he read it, he came to understand his actions and the effects they could have had. He accepted everything - even though the report said (and this was public) that there were three "substantiated" complains of "sexual harassment". Making that public, without any context or explanation, is character assassination at its finest.
Despite Erin Weir's cooperation - and penitence - he was expelled from caucus. Why?
Singh told reporters on Parliament Hill this morning that he had tried to work out a deal under which Weir would be allowed to stay in caucus if he took responsibility for the investigator’s conclusions, and agreed to other “rehabilitative” steps. But he said Weir “made it clear he did not accept responsibility for what the inquiry found to be a fact.”An NDP official explained that Singh was referring specifically to the way Weir was quoted in a CBC story earlier this week, after one of the women who had complained about him went to the broadcaster with details of the NDP’s internal investigation. “He criticized the process and refuted the claim,” said the party official, “when he had said he was going to respect the process.”
Thanks for making that "clear", Jagmeet, and anonymous party official.
I'm surprised they didn't turn him over to the RCMP.
Did you even read the quote? He was being accepted back in caucus based on his acceptance of the report and agreeing to anti-harassment training.
Weir then changed his mind and refuted the claim the woman had made that the report found factually correct.
Weir broke the agreement.
Weir would still be in caucus if he had not changed his mind and refuted the report which he had originally agreed with.
What isn't clear?
Employee states - Weir was angry and belligerent.
Weir states - yes I was angry and belligerent. I am willing to take anti-harassment training.
NDP states - Okay, you can come back to caucus.
Employee is questioned by CBC and states "he was angry and belligerent"
Weir releases statement saying, I was not angry and belligerent etc."
NDP states. Agreement rescinded. If he doesn't accept he was inappropriate then there is no point in anti-harassment training.
Weir was either lying when he said he accepted the findings of the report, or he was lying when he rejected the claim that he was angry and belligerent.
As to confidenciality. People here should be sophisticated enough to understand how those work. For example, Stormy Daniels signed a confidenciality agreement. Trump probably did not.
The investigation promised full confidenciality to anyone who came forward. Not even the NDP was permitted to know the names.
The report was presented. Weir could have rejected the fact-finding report at that time. He could have stated the allegations were not true and he wanted to confront his accusers. Then if the NDP refused to reinstate him he could have gone to the media and stated that the report was full of trumped up charges because they wanted to get rid of him.
It seems Weir was lying when he claimed he accepted the findings of the report. The agreement was not made in good faith on the part of Weir.
He was responding to a public attack on him. And tried to contact the NDP before he responded. Smacks of a setup.
What's absolutely clear to me is that Weir was railroaded. He was put into a position where he couldn't defend himself while others were allowed to make accusations against him.
Good show! NDP. Just another nail in the coffin.
He was responding to a public attack on him. And tried to contact the NDP before he responded. Smacks of a setup.
How long did he wait for a response? A day maybe? And then he decided not getting a response on his timetable meant he could accuse the woman of lying and himself being set up and still go to anti-harassment training as if he had not denied needing it?
He was not told, "sure, go ahead and issue a denial." He didn't need permission from the NDP to defend himself, but the outcome is to make anti-harassment training logically pointless.
What's absolutely clear to me is that Weir was railroaded. He was put into a position where he couldn't defend himself while others were allowed to make accusations against him.
He was not railroaded. If he believed the investigation produced false allegations he should have said so and rejected the findings.
From Pondering:
He was not railroaded.
Well, I have no idea what else you can call it. Weir goes through the whole process, anonymous accusation and all. All along he accepts the process, and at the end of it agrees to the remedial measures the party calls for. Objective stymied.
Then Weir reads accusations made against him in the paper, which, by the way the party leaders will have also read, and he asks the party whether he can respond. The party studiously ignores his request, even though they knew full well that those public accusations were a violation of the process.
Weir finally breaks, and talks to the media, whereupon he is tossed from the caucus. Objective achieved.
Singh, and his cohort of insiders should be ashamed to show themselves in public after this disgusting display.
He was responding to a public attack on him. And tried to contact the NDP before he responded. Smacks of a setup.
How long did he wait for a response? A day maybe? And then he decided not getting a response on his timetable meant he could accuse the woman of lying and himself being set up and still go to anti-harassment training as if he had not denied needing it?
He was not told, "sure, go ahead and issue a denial." He didn't need permission from the NDP to defend himself, but the outcome is to make anti-harassment training logically pointless.
So he has a choice between defending himself against a public attack or keeping silent and letting the charge stick in order to stay in the caucus? Incredible. And if the NDP,considered this such a priority they would have gotten back to him ASAP. But that would have injected some fairness into this kangaroo court.
Did you even read the quote? He was being accepted back in caucus based on his acceptance of the report and agreeing to anti-harassment training.
Weir then changed his mind and refuted the claim the woman had made that the report found factually correct.
Um, bullshit. He didn't "refute" her claim. He contextualized it, after she decided to go public.
Weir broke the agreement.Weir would still be in caucus if he had not changed his mind and refuted the report which he had originally agreed with.
What isn't clear?
Show me where he "refuted" the report. Link, quote, please.
Employee is questioned by CBC and states "he was angry and belligerent"Weir releases statement saying, I was not angry and belligerent etc."
Really. Show me where Weir denies being angry and belligerent. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just haven't seen that. All I've seen is Weir giving context, showing how this person tried to shut him down from speaking at convention and not following the party line. I don't recall him doing a 180 and saying, "Actually, my interaction with her was calm, polite, and comradely". You're claiming that the entire reason for his expulsion from caucus was that he first accepted the report's finding that he was angry and belligerent (although you and I haven't read the report, so who knows exactly what he said) - and then he said (according to you), "no I wasn't".
Show me, please, where he denied being angry and belligerent. You'll agree, given your own theory, that that's pretty important, no?
As for calling Weir a "liar" - as I said, you're on some kind of bounty hunt. Not sure what your problem is. Why not call him a "murderer" while you're at it?
ETA: I've reread some of the media reports (like this and this) just to see what I missed. Please link to your allegation, so that I can review it. Thanks.
He was responding to a public attack on him. And tried to contact the NDP before he responded. Smacks of a setup.
How long did he wait for a response? A day maybe? And then he decided not getting a response on his timetable meant he could accuse the woman of lying and himself being set up and still go to anti-harassment training as if he had not denied needing it?
He was not told, "sure, go ahead and issue a denial." He didn't need permission from the NDP to defend himself, but the outcome is to make anti-harassment training logically pointless.
So he has a choice between defending himself against a public attack or keeping silent and letting the charge stick in order to stay in the caucus? Incredible. And if the NDP,considered this such a priority they would have gotten back to him ASAP. But that would have injected some fairness into this kangaroo court.
First of all, the party did not refuse to respond. Weir didn't wait for a response. It would take time to decide what to tell Weir or what kind of statement to make. They most definitely would not have contradicted the woman.
Weir must have admitted to the party that he was angry and belligerent. That would have been part of the report. That was the primary complaint. I'm guessing because there were witnesses. Apparently she stopped him from speaking at the mike. That would be public. CBC got wind of the report coming out and started asking questions. It seems the woman said he had been angry and belligerent.
Let us assume he was not bound by any confidentiality agreement he still publically stated that it wasn't true.
The anti-harassment training is predicated on his having accepted the report summary. Now he publically rejected the findings of the report. That's fine. That is his right. It is what he should have done in the first place if that is what he believed. Then the party would have had to decide how they wanted to proceed.
That probably would have been expulsion, like the two Liberal MPs that were not given the choice of attending anti-harassment training instead of being expelled.
The NDP would then have stated he was being expelled based on the report's findings.
When a woman thwarts a powerful man, or one who imagines himself powerful, and he has no choice but to accept because she has momentary authority, is not his boss, is not a police officer, I would be surprised if he were not angry and belligerent.
What did he think anti-harassment training implied?
He may have the media gleefully tearing into the NDP but now his career with the NDP is over and his name is mud in politics unless he runs for city councillor.
If he wanted to protect his name he chose the wrong alternative. If he had just let the NDP handle it and re-entered caucus no one would be talking about him. It would have quickly been overshadowed by his more current political actions.
I admit maybe there is some prejudice on my part in the sense that I have a certain perception of men that see themselves as alpha-males and their verbal aggressiveness and body language.
http://leaderpost.com/driving-ca/regina-lewvan-ndp-mp-erin-weir-loves-hi...
Erin Weir, the member of Parliament for Regina-Lewvan, has a preference for large Ford vehicles.
He enjoys driving around town in his 2007 gold Lincoln Town Car — a stark contrast to his first car, a dark blue 1986 Ford Escort that he bought from his uncle for a couple of hundred dollars in 2004......“From 2006 to 2009, I drove a white 2003 Ford Crown Victoria that had been a police cruiser, which made other drivers quite deferential to me.
“When I needed a new car last year, I looked at Crown Victorias as well as the mechanically similar Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car. Since I am in Ottawa half the year and do not drive much in Regina, I was not particularly concerned about fuel efficiency.”...
Weir also says he wouldn’t rule out another luxury car – someday; perhaps a car that comes with the job.
“The Prime Minister’s official state vehicle is a Cadillac DTS, so that would be every member of Parliament’s dream car! It also has much in common with my beloved Lincoln Town Car.”
I can understand why some men are in love with cars like that and I'm sure they aren't all men who self-identify as alpha-males, but it is suggestive. The language Erin Weir uses. like "exerting authority" in this context, as well as the focus on it, suggests a personality type to me. Someone who is very aware of power and wants to be the one exerting it.
Without the agreement of the complainants the NDP can't release the report. They can't talk to the complainants directly as they do not know who they are (except one of course).
Ghomeshi and countless other men have gotten away with their actions for years or forever because women were and still are unwilling to make an official complaint. The new parliament rules will come to little if women are still required to make it official.
It's always the same story. A new scandal emerges and we hear it was all over the grapevine. Everyone says. How can it be all over the grapevine and so many people know but nothing was done about it? No more! Now when people hear it on the grapevine they are supposed to do something about it.
So now when organizations hear there is something on their grapevine but no one is making an official complaint the parties are hiring independent investigators. They don't want to be seen as influencing it in any way. Complaintants don't even have to identify themselves to the party, only to the investigator. For that reason they have been willing to talk.
So now the party, any party, gets the report. The investigator states that they have concluded that factually the complaints are substanciated and describes the incidents.
The NDP had to act.
Erin Weir now claims the accusations are trumped up because the party wanted to be rid of him. Then he should sue for deflamation of character, and actually act on it not just leave it sit. He should insist on a public apology.
I won't hold my breath.
So this comes down to holding Weir to account, i.e., a scapegoat, because of the actions of other men. And because he drives a big car. Guilt by stereotype.
Show us where Weir denied being "angry and belligerent", Pondering. It's kind of important, given your thesis that he's a liar and that his denial was the basis of his explusion.
From Pondering:
First of all, the party did not refuse to respond. Weir didn't wait for a response. It would take time to decide what to tell Weir or what kind of statement to make. They most definitely would not have contradicted the woman.
In fact the party had an obligation to Weir to contact him as soon as they saw the publicised account from the anonymous source.
They did not have to have an immediate response, but they did have to at least acknowledge to Weir that the publication of the allegation required a response.
All they had to do was call Weir up and tell him they saw the published account, that they did not authorize the account to be made public, and that they would provide a statement to the media which he would be allowed to read before it was published.
That would be what any fair and reasonable person or group would do.
They didn't even bother to phone him. Not only didn't call him, they didn't respond when he phoned them. That is as sad and disgusting as it gets.
Show us where Weir denied being "angry and belligerent", Pondering. It's kind of important, given your thesis that he's a liar and that his denial was the basis of his explusion.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-mp-alleges-harassme...
Earlier this week, CBC News reached out to Weir for comment on a story about details in the harassment report. One complainant told a reporter that Weir spoke to her in an angry and belligerent way and that she felt physically intimidated.
Weir told the media on Tuesday the complainant is an individual he claims blocked him from speaking on a resolution on carbon pricing at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention.
He went on to suggest the harassment complaint was payback for his decision to engage in a debate the party leadership considered "contentious." In the earlier release, he said that "Caucus Chair Charlie Angus ... and Federal Leader Tom Mulcair ... banned (him) from Question Period for several months as punishment for having tried to raise the issue."
Singh's reason for expelling him is here too:
Singh said he was willing to consider rehabilitative approaches if the Regina-Lewvan MP took full responsibility. But "yesterday in his actions, comments, [Weir] did not accept responsibility for what the inquiry found to be a fact. He attacked someone who came forward with a complaint. He also released details that could identify the individual. All of this makes it clear a rehabilitative approach is no longer possible," he told reporters on Wednesday.
Weir said the accusation was payback, he described the incident in a manner that would identify the woman. He did not accept responsibility for his actions.
In fact the party had an obligation to Weir to contact him as soon as they saw the publicised account from the anonymous source.They did not have to have an immediate response, but they did have to at least acknowledge to Weir that the publication of the allegation required a response.
Weir responded the same day as the the CBC reported the story. I don't agree that the publication of the allegation required any response other than he was taking anti-harassment training.
Here's another report which quotes the specific denial as well as the accusation against the woman.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-erin-weir-alleges-harassment-comp...
In an emailed statement to CTV News, Weir states that he was presented with an anonymous complaint but claims he knows where it came from, and expressed concern over the "misuse of a harassment complaint to retaliate for his expression of differing views on public policy."
"I object to the use of backroom procedural tactics -- and now a trumped-up harassment complaint -- to shut down democratic debate in the New Democratic Party," Weir said.
Weir alleges the individual was a former NDP staff member who “intercepted” him on his way to the microphone at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention to prevent him from speaking about concerns over the regional impact of the federal government’s price on carbon.
In an interview with Don Martin, host of CTV’s Power Play, Weir denied there was any “anger or belligerence” in the interaction, calling it a “disagreement.”
Show us where Weir denied being "angry and belligerent", Pondering. It's kind of important, given your thesis that he's a liar and that his denial was the basis of his explusion.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-mp-alleges-harassme...
Earlier this week, CBC News reached out to Weir for comment on a story about details in the harassment report. One complainant told a reporter that Weir spoke to her in an angry and belligerent way and that she felt physically intimidated.
Weir told the media on Tuesday the complainant is an individual he claims blocked him from speaking on a resolution on carbon pricing at the 2016 Saskatchewan NDP convention.
He went on to suggest the harassment complaint was payback for his decision to engage in a debate the party leadership considered "contentious." In the earlier release, he said that "Caucus Chair Charlie Angus ... and Federal Leader Tom Mulcair ... banned (him) from Question Period for several months as punishment for having tried to raise the issue."
Singh's reason for expelling him is here too:
Singh said he was willing to consider rehabilitative approaches if the Regina-Lewvan MP took full responsibility. But "yesterday in his actions, comments, [Weir] did not accept responsibility for what the inquiry found to be a fact. He attacked someone who came forward with a complaint. He also released details that could identify the individual. All of this makes it clear a rehabilitative approach is no longer possible," he told reporters on Wednesday.
Weir said the accusation was payback, he described the incident in a manner that would identify the woman. He did not accept responsibility for his actions.
You can “take responsibility” and still defend yourself from other allegations you believe to be incorrect or exaggerated. It’s clear they were looking for any excuse to get rid of him and set a trap through the CBC.
You can “take responsibility” and still defend yourself from other allegations you believe to be incorrect or exaggerated. It’s clear they were looking for any excuse to get rid of him and set a trap through the CBC.
To be set up the party would have had to know that Weir was constitutionally incapable of not speaking.
Why would they do that on the basis of an unworkable carbon plan from 2 years ago? I don't think the party had any reason to feel threatened by Weir or to want to get rid of him other than the allegations that surfaced as a result of Christine Moore's email and more emerged during the investigative process.
Just the opposite. The NDP can't afford to lose the few caucus members it elected in 2015. Weir was obviously managable. His would have been a fairly safe seat.
Saying he had been angry and belligerent was a GOOD thing because it was non-sexual and non-physical. Most people would think "is that all? Anti-harassment training is enough".
As a result of Weir's own actions Singh had to add 3 counts of sexual harassment to the list.
Weir stated himself, and I am not going looking for the quote, that he wouldn't have said anything if he had realized how Singh would react.
From Pondering:
I don't agree that the publication of the allegation required any response other than he was taking anti-harassment training.
What I suggested was the NDP had a responsibility to Weir to let him know the publication of the allegation was not authorized by them. Believe me, the party got the news the same time Weir did. He did ask them for a response, which he didn't get.
It wasn't until after the party refused to respond to him that he made his own public statement.
However, I think the reason they didn't respond to him was they knew before the allegation was made public that it would be.
The NDP wanted Weir out of the caucus, and this is the route they chose.
Disgusting!
From Pondering:
I don't agree that the publication of the allegation required any response other than he was taking anti-harassment training.
What I suggested was the NDP had a responsibility to Weir to let him know the publication of the allegation was not authorized by them. Believe me, the party got the news the same time Weir did. He did ask them for a response, which he didn't get.
It wasn't until after the party refused to respond to him that he made his own public statement.
However, I think the reason they didn't respond to him was they knew before the allegation was made public that it would be.
The NDP wanted Weir out of the caucus, and this is the route they chose.
Disgusting!
Weir did not claim that they refused to answer him. They should have been more prompt. It doesn't change the fact that after his statement they could no longer claim that anti-harassment training would be sufficient.
From Pondering:
Weir did not claim that they refused to answer him. They should have been more prompt.
So the question is, did the party respond to his request? Which is, in any case, immaterial because it should have been the party that contacted Weir. But, as I said above, I suspect they knew beforehand the allegation was going to be made public.
You can “take responsibility” and still defend yourself from other allegations you believe to be incorrect or exaggerated. It’s clear they were looking for any excuse to get rid of him and set a trap through the CBC.To be set up the party would have had to know that Weir was constitutionally incapable of not speaking.
Why would they do that on the basis of an unworkable carbon plan from 2 years ago? I don't think the party had any reason to feel threatened by Weir or to want to get rid of him other than the allegations that surfaced as a result of Christine Moore's email and more emerged during the investigative process.
Just the opposite. The NDP can't afford to lose the few caucus members it elected in 2015. Weir was obviously managable. His would have been a fairly safe seat.
Saying he had been angry and belligerent was a GOOD thing because it was non-sexual and non-physical. Most people would think "is that all? Anti-harassment training is enough".
As a result of Weir's own actions Singh had to add 3 counts of sexual harassment to the list.
Weir stated himself, and I am not going looking for the quote, that he wouldn't have said anything if he had realized how Singh would react.
Getting rid of someone for responding to an attack after he had not received a response from the party to his query regarding the attack smacks of a setup. They sandbagged him. Their failure to answer him alone made the expulsion totally disproportionate.
Well, well, well. The worm does turn.
Are the movie rights still available?
Well, well, well. The worm does turn.
Poetic justice.
I hope Christine Moore stays in the NDP federal caucus. She is a shining example of the kind of character we need in the House of Commons.
I have my popcorn at hand.
CBC again, eh. Strange dat!
The NDP now need to do the right thing and bring Erie Weir back into the Caucus no matter how much Trudeau supported Singh on this matter last week.
Buh bye, Christine Moore! Karma's gonna get you.
The above story on Christine Moore confirms that Weir does not know the identity of his accusers:
"The names of Weir's accusers have been withheld even from him, an increasingly common practice nowadays in the corporate world. "
I do think you have the right to face your accuser, however the rape shield laws prevent you from cross-examining them about their prior sexual history, and the publication of the accuser's name cannot be made public. I still think you are entitled to your day in court with them. You are allowed to question them about facts pertaining to the intent of the accused, the circumstances around the offences, and the acts constituting those offences.
The charges against Weir seem to be have made on the hearsay of Christine Moore, which I believe is not legitimate evidence, even if Christine Moore had a spotless reputation.
Now the hearsay of Christine Moore can be called into question, as it may be argued that she could have drawn attention to Weir with the intent of deflecting it from her own extremely scandalous behaviour.
A long time ago, it was alleged that someone said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The NDP seem to be a party of sinners who cast stones.
Mr. Singh's apparent ignorance of basic laws of evidence call into question his competence as a lawyer.
And Trudeau and Scheer are laughing, as it closes in on a two-party race.
The above story on Christine Moore confirms that Weir does not know the identity of his accusers:
"The names of Weir's accusers have been withheld even from him, an increasingly common practice nowadays in the corporate world. "
Knowing the names would imply that he had a right to defend himself.
NDP MP Christine Moore facing questions about an alleged sexual encounter
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-christine-moore-facing-questions-...
Now, according to past practice, the NDP has to send out fliers to all and sundry asking if anyone else has had such an experience with Christine Moore, accept their evidence as truth without providing either the names or circumstance to Moore, provide Moore with the option of 'rehabilitation' (or else), then allow one of the unnamed sources to give their story to the media while at the same time refusing Moore the right to defend herself.
The NDP is becoming a sick joke.
Overheard that the NDP doesn't even have a pulse in Ottawa these days.
NDP launch investigation into MP Moore over allegations of inappropriate conduct
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-launch-investigation-into-mp-moore-o...
In a statement, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he takes the allegations “very seriously” and while she will remain in caucus, her duties as an NDP MP such as committee participation, are being suspended pending the outcome of the third-party investigation.
The investigation comes following reporting on an alleged sexual encounter with an injured veteran following his appearance at a House committee in 2013.
I'll just add that it wasn't only a sexual encounter. According to Neil Macdonald's story at CBC:
But the night at the Lord Elgin Hotel in Ottawa wasn't the end of it. Kirkland says Moore began sending him explicit messages. A few weeks after his testimony, in July 2013, he says, Moore messaged him that she'd arranged a trip to meet him where he was playing golf with friends in Kenosee, Sask.
During that visit, he says, he told her, "This is not a thing. This is not happening."
When she turned up unannounced at his residence in Brandon a few weeks later, he said, he had to be "curt" — to go far beyond "non-verbal cues," as Singh would put it. After that, he says, communication ceased.
This is dangerously close to stalking. One thing for sure. it isn't 'socially awkward'.
It is imperative that ads be taken out or a letter sent out for anyone who has a harassment issue with Moore to come forward
I don't usually agree with Pondering, including on her enthusiasm for the current federal NDP leader, but I want to thank her for standing up to the vigilantes on this one, even if it means I have to post on a site I promised myself not to engage with anymore.
Erin Weir was claiming,as late as mid-March, that he was unaware of the claims against him and that he had not spoken to the 3rd party investigator . The NDP felt it necessary to make a statement to the news media contradicting him and making clear that he had been interviewed and was aware of the nature of the complaints, at which time he started babbling about not being able to talk about the investigation and anyway, he didn't know the identitites of the complainants. He lied about the process then. Why is anybody expecting anything else from him now?
The investigator found four complaints, three of them sexual in nature, met the standard of harrassment. He claimed to accept that finding and then demonstrated beyond doubt that he did not, effectively identifying one of the complainants to anybody who has some knowledge of the party's inner workings in the process. His description of her contained sufficient detail that pretty much everybody working on the Hill in the NDP sphere and a good few outside of it will know her identity. His justification for going after the complainant is that she went to the CBC with her beef. In fact, he has no idea who went to the CBC. It could have been any of the four whose complaints were found to meet the standard of harrassment or a complainant whose claims did not meet that bar, of which there are probably some. He may believe that only one person would say such a thing but he also claimed to have never harrassed anybody and that the investigation would clear him. His judgement is clearly not terribly good about such things.
His behaviour since the reports findings went public has been angry, uncontrolled and pretty much entirely consistent with the claim that he can be belligerent. If he is wrong about who went to the CBC, and I think that's not terribly unlikely, he is guilty of a very significant transgression.
As for the carbon tax conspiracy theorizing, does nobody on this site understand how a caucus works? What he has been painting as a vendetta sounds very much like routine enforcement of caucus discipline. If he was speaking against the caucus position on an issue or speaking without permission on a subject that was some other caucus member's critic portfolio he would have been told to stop and he would have been disciplined if he refused. That's just how it works. If a staff member was told to make sure he didn't step out of line at a convention and did so, she was just doing her job. An MP who went after a staff member for doing her job would be way, way out of line, regardless of the nature of the interaction. His behaviour at the moment is entirely consistent with being a guy who doesn't care about the rules. His comments also make it unambiguously clear that he was disciplined by the party for harrassing a staff member long before Christine Moore's email to caucus. I have to wonder what else we don't know about him in this regard.
The howling and baying on this thread is bizarre. The public silence of the NDP and complainants about a confidential process is assumed to be evidence of some sort of weird conspiracy to do Weir dirt, rather than reflecting the respect for confidentiality everybody commited to. And are nominal progressives really arguing that four findings of harassment and a breach of confidentiality to make an attack on a complainant should be ignored because somebody who brought complaints to light has allegedly also done something inappropriate? Seriously?
Aside from having my disgust with Babble reinforced the only useful thing I get from reading this appalling thread is a clearer understanding of why it is so hard to get women to report creeps. I can't imagine what the women who made complaints about him would be feeling if they ever wandered into this freak show.
Frank Magazine claims that Christine Moore was one of the two NDP MPs who lodged the complaints against the two Liberal MPs that got turfed by Trudeau in 2014.
Again this is Frank magazine, so take it with a grain of salt.
http://frankmag.ca/2014/11/frank-fact-those-ndp-mps-in-full/
I don't usually agree with Pondering, including on her enthusiasm for the current federal NDP leader, but I want to thank her for standing up to the vigilantes on this one, even if it means I have to post on a site I promised myself not to engage with anymore.
Erin Weir was claiming,as late as mid-March, that he was unaware of the claims against him and that he had not spoken to the 3rd party investigator . The NDP felt it necessary to make a statement to the news media contradicting him and making clear that he had been interviewed and was aware of the nature of the complaints, at which time he started babbling about not being able to talk about the investigation and anyway, he didn't know the identitites of the complainants. He lied about the process then. Why is anybody expecting anything else from him now?
The investigator found four complaints, three of them sexual in nature, met the standard of harrassment. He claimed to accept that finding and then demonstrated beyond doubt that he did not, effectively identifying one of the complainants to anybody who has some knowledge of the party's inner workings in the process. His description of her contained sufficient detail that pretty much everybody working on the Hill in the NDP sphere and a good few outside of it will know her identity. His justification for going after the complainant is that she went to the CBC with her beef. In fact, he has no idea who went to the CBC. It could have been any of the four whose complaints were found to meet the standard of harrassment or a complainant whose claims did not meet that bar, of which there are probably some. He may believe that only one person would say such a thing but he also claimed to have never harrassed anybody and that the investigation would clear him. His judgement is clearly not terribly good about such things.
His behaviour since the reports findings went public has been angry, uncontrolled and pretty much entirely consistent with the claim that he can be belligerent. If he is wrong about who went to the CBC, and I think that's not terribly unlikely, he is guilty of a very significant transgression.
As for the carbon tax conspiracy theorizing, does nobody on this site understand how a caucus works? What he has been painting as a vendetta sounds very much like routine enforcement of caucus discipline. If he was speaking against the caucus position on an issue or speaking without permission on a subject that was some other caucus member's critic portfolio he would have been told to stop and he would have been disciplined if he refused. That's just how it works. If a staff member was told to make sure he didn't step out of line at a convention and did so, she was just doing her job. An MP who went after a staff member for doing her job would be way, way out of line, regardless of the nature of the interaction. His behaviour at the moment is entirely consistent with being a guy who doesn't care about the rules. His comments also make it unambiguously clear that he was disciplined by the party for harrassing a staff member long before Christine Moore's email to caucus. I have to wonder what else we don't know about him in this regard.
The howling and baying on this thread is bizarre. The public silence of the NDP and complainants about a confidential process is assumed to be evidence of some sort of weird conspiracy to do Weir dirt, rather than reflecting the respect for confidentiality everybody commited to. And are nominal progressives really arguing that four findings of harassment and a breach of confidentiality to make an attack on a complainant should be ignored because somebody who brought complaints to light has allegedly also done something inappropriate? Seriously?
Aside from having my disgust with Babble reinforced the only useful thing I get from reading this appalling thread is a clearer understanding of why it is so hard to get women to report creeps. I can't imagine what the women who made complaints about him would be feeling if they ever wandered into this freak show.
To begin with, if defending fairness and due process is being a vigilante, I'm a vigilante.
As for "since the reports findings went public has been angry, uncontrolled and pretty much entirely consistent with the claim that he can be belligerent." I'd like to see the evidence. He hasn't tweeted anything about nor have I seen any angry and uncontrolled comments to the press. As for being belligerent, I didn't know that was a crime, or least a sexual assault. Maybe the NDP wants MPs so doped up they can't express emotion. Or at least the male ones.
Weir attempted to gain guidance from the NDP as how to respond to the confidential violation, but none was forthcoming. I guess he didn't realize that he not only had no right to defend himself privately by knowing the names of his accuser, he had no right to defend himself publically. In this Kafkaesque process worthy of The Crucible.
From Frozen Snowshoe:
...or speaking without permission on a subject that was some other caucus member's critic portfolio he would have been told to stop and he would have been disciplined if he refused. That's just how it works. If a staff member was told to make sure he didn't step out of line at a convention and did so, she was just doing her job.
Which pretty much explains why the NDP is going into the toilet.
Christine Moore suspended from NDP duties pending misconduct investigation
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/christine-moore-suspended-from-ndp-dutie...
As for "since the reports findings went public has been angry, uncontrolled and pretty much entirely consistent with the claim that he can be belligerent." I'd like to see the evidence. He hasn't tweeted anything about nor have I seen any angry and uncontrolled comments to the press. As for being belligerent, I didn't know that was a crime, or least a sexual assault. Maybe the NDP wants MPs so doped up they can't express emotion. Or at least the male ones.
Wasn't it some on this board in 2015 who couldn't wait & cheering for "Angry Tom" to take on Justin Trudeau?
Is there a civil war breaking out in the Party?
2013
NDP MP Christine Moore suspended from duties following veteran's allegations
Afghanistan vet says Quebec MP sent him explicit messages after he testified at a committee hearing
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-moore-allegations-1.4652994
