Christine Moore sexual harassment investigation

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-nothing-to-see-here...

This is an NDP-funded investigation, with terms established by the NDP, which just cleared an NDP MP,” he said in a phone interview from his home in Brandon, Man., where he works as a realtor.

Kirkland, for the record, says he initially declined to participate in the investigation on the advice of his lawyer. (Six days after Singh announced the investigation and suspended Moore, Kirkland, like the news agencies involved, received a purported libel notice, only his described his claims as “a tissue of lies”)

But, he told the Post, less than a week later, perhaps as soon as three days after, he called the investigator back “to participate in an interview” but was told his version of events had been “pieced together” from news accounts and no one needed to speak to him.

He told the Post he spoke to Jelly for “about three minutes” and she was “so rude to me I asked would you be speaking to me like that” if he was a woman....

He was told, he said, the investigator had what she needed from press accounts.

“I was a witness (before a legislative committee) and we slept together,” Kirkland told the Post. “You’re allowed to sleep with witnesses? That’s going to make a lot of lawyers happy.”

As I said, Kirkland thinks it is automatically wrong for Moore to have sex with him regardless of who instigated or if anyone was reluctant. It was easy to piece together what happened from his own statements to the media in comparison to Moore's hard evidence and witnesses.

Whenever he was challenged on any contradiction such as between her "showing up on his doorstep" versus being picked up at the airport by him he reverts back to whining about her position. Of course it is legal for her to have  sex with witnesses. It wasn't a trial. 

If Moore was a man it would still be legal for her to have sex with a witness. It is also legal for a boss to have sex with his secretary or a manager to have sex with a cashier. 

I don't know if it has impacted his business or not but I wouldn't use him as a realtor. 

She did not say she would be afraid to be alone with him. She said she would be uncomfortable to be alone with him based on grapevine comments. I don't see anything histronic about that. 

Why would you assume she wanted the chair for herself or someone else? Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair. 

Nothing snowballed. Moore is not responsible for the staffer who spoke to the media nor is she responsible for Weir's reaction. He is  a grown man responsible for his own words. Even if he felt he had to defend himself and couldn't hold his tongue he could have done so without the disparaging remarks about Mulcair, Angus, and all 4 complainants. 

The proof of the mildness of his transgressions was in being readmitted to caucus which he knew was coming. He is out due to his own poor judgement not only in his manner towards women but also in throwing people in the party under the bus. If he hadn't accused Mulcair, Angus and the staffer of being vindictive even though they won he would be back in caucus now. 

It seems caucus would rather work with Moore than Weir and they are closer to the situation. 

Is Weir an imbecile that can't be held to account for his actions? 

Pondering wrote:

Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair.

Because she had previously ruined the careers of two other MPs through "informal" disclosure of what, in one case, she had heard from someone else; and what, in another case, was based on her subjective characterization of a sexual encounter she charaterized as nonconsensual but which  even in her words sounded like something the other individual involved in the encounter very plausibly would have believed was consensual. She reportedly said that she did not want either of those other two MPs to lose their jobs she just wanted them to get some counselling, but the former is what happened. Consequences "snowballed" from her disclosure. Moore knew or should have known what she was doing when she went after Weir.

robbie_dee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Why can't you believe she was simply telling the truth. She had heard comments from women that made her uncomfortable to be  alone with him and felt that would interfere with the duties of a caucus chair.

Because she had previously ruined the careers of two other MPs through "informal" disclosure of what, in one case, she had heard from someone else; and what, in another case, was based on her subjective characterization of a sexual encounter she charaterized as nonconsensual but which  even in her words sounded like something the other individual involved in the encounter very plausibly would have believed was consensual. She reportedly said that she did not want either of those other two MPs to lose their jobs she just wanted them to get some counselling, but the former is what happened. Consequences "snowballed" from her disclosure. Moore knew or should have known what she was doing when she went after Weir.

Not the same woman. Unionist made it crystal clear that Moore was not the woman who told Trudeau about the two MPs. 

This was in a private caucus email that someone leaked to the press. 

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? Would be be appropriate to refer to Mrs Moore as Cutie politician girl?

Pondering wrote:

Weir chose to deal with the NDP through the media because he wasn't getting answers fast enough through inside channels. That was his decision to make but he should have known there would be consequences to doing such a thing.  Apparently he did not because he claims he would not have said anything had he realized what the reaction would be. 

Even then he might have been able to smooth things over had he apologized to the staffer and retracted his statement about her motives. Instead he doubled down. From that moment on it was not about the harassment anymore. I don't see how Angus could be expected to work with him again.

The staffer went to the media first and Angus was the one who disciplined Weir in 2016, not the other way around. Weir managed to continue to work with Angus for two years thereafter. I am sure Angus could figure out a way to move forward and continue to work with Weir and Angus ought to take responsibility for his own actions anyways. I suppose Angus could have resigned from caucus if his feelings were hurt because Weir accurately described Angus's prior actions towards him when Angus was caucus chair. But that would have been on Angus, and I think his motivations for so doing would have quickly become transparent. Jagmeet didn't have to kick anyone out of caucus. He chose to do so ostensibly in order to protect people who were not in fact in need of protection and who are not his friends in any case.

Unionist wrote:

Wow. Can you spell delusional? I never said, nor thought, any such thing. What I made crystal clear was that Moore had never alleged being a victim of Weir - which you repeated endlessly before apologizing for your error.

Can you spell unnecessarily rude and aggressive? 

So, Moore was the person who approach Trudeau, the leader of another party, on the bus. She told him about an NDP MP who had been abused by a Liberal MP. Later after hearing what was said during a meeting she realized her own experience also qualified and shared it. She followed up by shared too much information that made the situation worse not better. Are we in agreement so far?

In this case in response to Weir's request for support to become caucus chair Moore sent an internal private email to caucus members saying she would be uncomfortable to be alone with him therefore he would be unsuitable for the position. In this case she is not one of the complainants. 

I do not see why this is all so important. It seems the latest argument against her is that because of how the first incident went down she should have known better. But in this case she was speaking privately to the NDP caucus of which she is a part. 

I do think she could have handled it better but hindsight is 20/20. That she is being accused of ruining the careers of 3 men is why women hesitate to step forward. Somehow talking about or reporting sexual misconduct is worse than actual sexual misconduct. The men's misconduct isn't responsible for their downfall. No, it's the person who talked about it who is to blame. 

Christine Moore is a toxic gossip. She should be thrown far far away from any progressive gathering.

And I have no problem whatsoever, Pondering, with her having approached Trudeau to squeal on two Liberal MPs. You concocted that out of thin air, and a rather abject apology would be in order.

On the other hand, when Trudeau immediately excluded the two from caucus, the NDP complained that this could possibly maybe identify the victims. That, IMHO, was as sick a response as they come. They should have publicly thanked him for his swift action and offered to participate fully in any investigation. It would appear, however, that they don't really care that much about sexual harassment and assault. It's more about childish partisan point-scoring.

 

Paladin1 wrote:

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? 

No he doesn't. He volunteered to go kill people in Afghanistan, in an unjustifiable invasion by the U.S., Canada, and other countries. He should be grateful he survived, despite his criminal behaviour. Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report. If, however, he decided the sex was "consensual" (his word), he should really shut up and be thankful that he can get on with his life, where so many thousands of real victims of his cannot.

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Why are people refering to Glen Kirkland with names like pretty soldier boy? Does he not deserve to be named in a respectful manner here? 

No he doesn't. He volunteered to go kill people in Afghanistan, in an unjustifiable invasion by the U.S., Canada, and other countries. He should be grateful he survived, despite his criminal behaviour. Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report. If, however, he decided the sex was "consensual" (his word), he should really shut up and be thankful that he can get on with his life, where so many thousands of real victims of his cannot.

Sexualizing someones name still seems creepy and unprogressive to me, YMMV. He didn't volunteer, his unit was sent to Afghanistan and he followed. Suppose you could say he volunteered for the army. He probably thought that since the UN approved of the mission he probably wouldn't be charged with warcrimes for his unjustifiable invasion in the phoney baloney war.

Quote:

Furthermore, if he thought he was raped, he should have filed the police report.

Why should he have? Shouldn't it be a personal choice?

In all cases Christine Moore has been telling the truth. Weir's reaction to the staffer speaking to the media is not on Moore it is on Weir. We can't always choose what happens to us but we can choose how we behave in response. 

Pondering wrote:

It seems I have a higher opinion of men than you do if you think all or most would have complaints against them. Either that or your opinion of women is so low that you think they would fabricate complaints if solicited. 

while your comment appears to be addressed towards unionist, I just want to say I believe that both men and women are capable of abusing power when the opportunity presents itself. #Metoo has rightly been about confronting men who abused their power and got away with it for too long. But the process of investigation that the NDP took in Erin Weir’s case put the shoe on the other foot and handed power to unscrupulous women (Moore, FMSS) to apparently successfully take down a good man for some pretty minor stuff and that’s not right either.

robbie_dee wrote:

   ​Erin Weir, as the publicly available evidence now shows, was guilty of standing too close to some women and talking to them longer than they wished to be spoken to, hoping that they would want to date him when in fact they were not interested in doing so. ​  

 You are embellishing to minimize his actions. He is  36 not 13. It is  not sexual harassment to ask a woman out for coffee no matter how close you are standing. It was on the lower end but it was still sexual harassment. 

If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. 

robbie_dee wrote:

   Some of the women gossiped behind Weir's back. Maybe they did feel uncomfortable with him, although it is hard to tell what people really felt at the time vs. what they might have told the investigator after Moore's public intervention had framed the issue. But in any event there's no evidence he ever tried to coerce anyone to do anything and certainly no evidence he acted inappropriately towards anyone over whom he exercised professional power. ​  

 His behavior was directed at staffers and he's an MP so he did have more power than them. Sexual harassment is inappropriate behavior and the finding was that he did sexually harass them and intimidate the staffer. 

robbie_dee wrote:

     If she really was concerned about the impact of  Weir's behavior on other women, rather than simply how she could leverage her presumed knowledge of it to benefit herself, she had other, far more appropriate avenues available to raise such concerns. Her decision to try to publicly shame Weir rather than pursue such other options was, in this case, worse than anything Weir was guilty of. ​  

 She didn't publicly shame him. He wrote a private group email asking for the groups support in his bid to become chair. She replied to the private email group that she would feel uncomfortable meeting alone with him. 

She could have handled it better but challenging or reporting sexual harassment is not worse than sexual harassment. 

robbie_dee wrote:

  The fact that this is the third time she has taken someone down under circumstances like this demonstrates that she is a dangerous person to be around. ​  

 It is dangerous for men who sexually harass women or take advantage of them. Men who don't behave that way are perfectly safe. 

robbie_dee wrote:

   It's a mistake for the NDP to reinstate her to caucus. 

 She was cleared. On what grounds would they not reinstate her?

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"If Weirs social skills are lacking to the extent of a disability he would never have been this successful as a politician. "

Famous people with autism or aspergers.

https://www.aspergerstestsite.com/898/famous-people-autism/

I didn't say they couldn't be successful but that is like a pregnant man website. 

In many ways we may never truly know how many other famous people may have Asperger’s because as mentioned previously, those under the spotlight tend to prefer to control what the public does or doesn’t see in regards to themselves? That said, what are some of the traits that these people exhibit that lead to that conclusion?

The author is diagnosing these people just like posters here are diagnosing Weir with Aspergers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Social_interaction

Diagnosis is most commonly made between the ages of four and eleven.[7] A comprehensive assessment involves a multidisciplinary team[8][4][70] that observes across multiple settings,[7] and includes neurological and genetic assessment as well as tests for cognition, psychomotor function, verbal and nonverbal strengths and weaknesses, style of learning, and skills for independent living.[4] The "gold standard" in diagnosing ASDs combines clinical judgment with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), a semistructured parent interview; and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), a conversation and play-based interview with the child.[11] Delayed or mistaken diagnosis can be traumatic for individuals and families; for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior.[70][71]

http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/

“Is every man in America somewhere on it?” Nora Ephron wondered about the autism spectrum in an e-mail to a friend a few months before her death. “Is every producer on it? Is every 8-year-old boy who is obsessed with statistics on it? Sometimes, when we say someone is on the spectrum, do we just mean he’s a prick? Or a pathological narcissist? I notice that at least three times a week I am told (or I tell someone) that some man or other is on the spectrum.”...

Meanwhile, out on the Great Plains, one Dennis Stillings, writing in the Bismarck-based Dakota Beacon about Barack Obama, has adduced such telltale evidence as his “legendary clumsiness … He has actually bowled a 37,” “verbal glitches—possibly the reason for the ever-present teleprompters,” and “infamous inability to relate” to arrive at a boldly contrarian thesis: “Obama may well not be narcissistic at all, but simply manifesting a typical feature of autism.” Stillings then passes along the opinion of a friend of a friend “who actually works with autistic people” that the president of the United States “likely” has Asperger’s, and speculates that this “may or may not be of significance” to the Obama administration’s considerable funding of autism research....

Every generation has its defining psychiatric malady, confidently diagnosed from afar by armchair non-psychiatrists. In the fifties, all those gray-suited organization men were married to “frigid” women. Until a few years ago, the country of self-obsessed boomers and reality-TV fame-seekers and vain politicians and bubble-riding Ponzi schemers made narcissistic personality disorder—diagnosis code 301.81 in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition—the craziness of the moment. And who among us has not proudly copped to our own “OCD” or “ADD,” deemed a mercurial sibling “seriously bipolar,” written off an erratic ex as “obviously borderline,” or nodded as a laid-off friend pronounced his former boss a “textbook sociopath”? Lately, a new kind of head case stalks the land—staring past us, blurting gaucheries, droning on about the technical minutiae of his boring hobby. And we are ready with our DSM codes: 299.00 (autistic disorder) and 299.80 (Asperger’s disorder).

The  list includes only 2 women so this seems to be an overwhelmingly male diagnosis. 

Christine Moore blurts stuff out. Surely that is a symptom of Aspergers yet people here are ganging up on her when all she did was tell the truth (at the wrong place and time). She thought she was in a relationship with Kirkland. She didn't understand Pacetti and didn't know how to say no. 

Between Weir and Moore it seems at least equally likely that she, not he, is the one with Aspergers. 

It is a really bad sign when a person makes unsolicited psychiatric and psychological diagnoses. It is 'pop psychology' which you see on TV talk shows. It is designed to categorize and shame people.

Misfit wrote:

then you turn around and have the audacity to medically diagnose Christine Moore as having Aspergers over the flimsiest of reasons.

You certainly have a lot of gall.

Flimsy?

We have Weir: admitted to standing to close, talking too long, and not picking up on social cues. 

We have Moore: who went to Pacetti's room not realizing he wanted to have sex with her. She tried to get out of it non-verbally by going to the bathroom and trying to get to the door. She blurted out sensitive information to Trudeau on impulse on a bus. She wrote explanations released to the media thinking she was helping when she was putting both herself and Pacetti in a worse light. She thought she was in a relationship with Kirkland while he was just using  her for sex. She blurted out information in the email concerning Weir. Throughout all she has been entirely truthful. 

It seems to me she speaks the truth seemingly without any understanding of how other people will react. She is reckless in accompanying men to their hotel rooms. Wait, isn't promiscuity a sign of childhood abuse?

Even if Moore thought she was going to Pacetti's room to have a drink or continue their conversation she should have at least considered the possibility he might make a pass at her. Like duh, hotel room past midnight drunk with a man. What a shocker. Did she grow up under a rock? How could she think her sharing of the details would be helpful to either herself or Pacetti? To me that does show a deep lack of social awareness that goes well beyond anything exhibited by Weir. 

Why are Weir's symptoms pathological while Moore's symptoms signal a character flaw even though she was telling the truth? She was being honest. 

I see nothing calculating in her behavior suggesting ulterior motives. If she were a calculating person she wouldn't have shared the details in the first incident. If she had it in for Weir she would have been better off spreading the word privately so he wouldn't know than saying it in an email, even within a private group. 

So why is it poor Weir and bitch Moore? She had the audacity to tell the truth about the way men were behaving. The good ol boys  sexually charged"atmosphere"on the hill is decried unless it involves specific men. 

I still don't get what Weir did other than make people uncomfortable. I also understand that Moore was cleared of her misconduct allegations. Did Weir's accusations get the same review process as Moore? Am I missing something?

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Between Weir and Moore it seems at least equally likely that she, not he, is the one with Aspergers. 

At first you said that a high level politician like Weir could not have become a successful politician while having Asperger's but now you are saying that both successful high level politicians, Weir and Moore, could have Asperger's? 

I am saying that neither of us can diagnose Moore or Weir and they are both adults responsible for their behavior. In my opinion politicians need basic social skills to advance therefore it is not an excuse. People on the spectrum still learn coping mechanisms so they don't behave inappropriately. In any case he was not expelled from caucus for harassment. 

Pondering wrote:

I am saying that neither of us can diagnose Moore or Weir.... 

If we can't diagnose Weir why did you say earlier that he could not possibly have Asperger's? I agree that we are not in position to diagnose people. I also think that if you change your position in the middle of a discussion it is important to acknowledge it as it makes discussing things difficult when you don't. 

Unionist wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

I still don't get what Weir did other than make people uncomfortable.

Same here.

Quote:

I also understand that Moore was cleared of her misconduct allegations. Did Weir's accusations get the same review process as Moore? Am I missing something?

We're all missing something - transparency. Under the hoax of protecting "survivors". You know, like the anonymous staffer who tried to shut down Weir from speaking at his own party convention, and claims to have been met with "anger and belligerence". Poor thing! So she went public with her accusation, to CBC, without bothering to give her name, because, you know, trauma, reputation, I don't know.

This is utter bullshit and the NDP - or rather, Singh's handlers - should publicly explain and recant their anti-democratic and abusive activities.

Well said.  But if you’re waiting for that explanation, your wait may be in vain.

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"It seems to me she speaks the truth seemingly without any understanding of how other people will react. She is reckless in accompanying men to their hotel rooms. Wait, isn't promiscuity a sign of childhood abuse?"

Even if you are saying this sarcastically this is very disturbing and inappropriate.

Christine Moore claims that she was sexually assaulted and did not fully consent. She claims that he really hurt her. I do not appreciate you calling her promiscuous even in jest.

if I went into a hotel room with a man that I trust that does not mean that I am consenting to have sex with him. He may ask but if I say no then that means no. If I trust a man that I feel safe in going to his hotel room I am not being reckless.

it was wrong for you to label her promiscuous when she was sexually assaulted. Then you imply that she was sexually abused as a child.

this is all very distasteful and out of line on many levels.

There is no such claim concerning her encounter with Kirkland. It is naive or reckless for women to trust men enough to go to their hotel rooms alone day or night. Even if it is their brother's best friend. That does not mean they are to blame if they are attacked. The perpetrator is always to blame. 

What I find distasteful is that Moore is being attacked for telling the truth in an inappropriate manner. If inappropriate social behavior is evidence of some form of disability then Moore has it. Rather than pathologizing it I would just say she is naive but if you are going to pathologize Weir's behavior then she deserves the same consideration.