• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ontario isn't the only province with a PC leader going down in flames today.  Jamie Baillie thundered in earlier today as leader of the NS PCs.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/jamie-baillie-resigns-inappropriate-behaviour-1.4501742
 
ModlrMike said:
This is the only really important part of the article:

That being said, he's probably undetectable unelectable now. The accusation is as powerful as a conviction.

FTFY  ;D

:cheers:
 
10 years later, story provided directly to media and not police, sure smells like a smear campaign. Not surprising considering Wynne's 16% approval rating and double digit polling deficit.
 
https://www.ontariopc.ca/statement_from_ontario_pc_leader_patrick_brown

And he's done.

These allegations are false and have been difficult to hear. 

“However, defeating Kathleen Wynne in 2018 is more important than one individual.  

“For this reason, after consulting with caucus, friends and family I have decided to step down as Leader of the Ontario PC Party. I will remain on as a MPP while I definitively clear my name from these false allegations.  
 
#metoo strikes again.
 
Jamie Baillie in Nova Scotia done as well.

https://haligonia.ca/jamie-baillie-leader-of-the-nova-scotia-pc-party-asked-to-resign-over-allegations-of-inappropriate-behaviour-227700/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=haligonia
 
I'm of two minds over this.

I watched Brown's agonized resignation speech early this morning, and I felt genuinely sorry for him. I don't know exactly what he is alleged to have done, or the seriousness of the alleged acts,  (beyond what is in the public domain), but I didn't really feel like gloating.

Obviously, his campaign team and the Ontario Caucus were pretty convinced that something bad had taken place, because they cut the anchor lines before the media had even woken up to the story. So, attempts to blame this one particular case on #metoo or the media are, in my opinion, misdirected. That said,  I think there are grounds for serious concern over a certain feeding frenzy effect that appears to be developing in general, much beyond this one case.

On the one hand, I have a wife, a daughter and many other female relatives. They should all be able to lead their lives as best they can, free of fear from idiots who can't keep their hands  (or other parts) to themselves. They should never have to chose between a job, a promotion or anything else and having to let somebody grope them.  I don't ever want to find out that some POS has treated them in that way.

On the other hand, sexual assault is a serious crime. Sexual harassment is perhaps less serious in terms of the scale of punishment, but it is equally ruinous. As it should be, if the accused is truly guilty. And that is my point: if they are truly guilty.

Years ago, I was a member of a group of individuals in a unit who were maliciously and falsely accused of sexual harassment. The process to deal with it was lengthy and complex, and quite frightening as it was clearly tinged with a presumption of guilt. It took at least two years before it was over. Fortunately there were no NDA or CCC charges laid, but I would never want to go through that again. And, more importantly, I don't wish it on anybody.

If we generally adhere to the idea of innocence until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for other crimes, why does it seem to me that an accusation of sexual harassment  carries an immediate penalty of guilt by association?  One that you will probably never, ever shake off no matter what the real outcome is?

I see two very bad results arising from this. First, people who may not be guilty at all, or not guilty of an offence of the magnitude accused, will be ruined, with no legitimate chance to fight back or to restore their name. Justice will not be served by this. "Justice", as opposed to "vengeance" which IMHO is too often the meaning assigned to the word "justice".

Second, like all excessive public behaviours and practices, it risks provoking a backlash. This backlash, (no doubt exploited by the usual gang of suspects who want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen) will call into question all these sorts of cases and undermine those people who are truly struggling to deal with the actions of real abusers. Sort of a "cry wolf" situation, or similar to those low-lifes who fake PTSD symptoms for their own gain, thus undercutting real sufferers. Another terrible outcome.

 
pbi said:
While I understand that running a country without parties might not be practical (or at least be more difficult than it is now), I wonder when and how politicians are able to strike a balance between party advantage and dogma, and the good of the nation.

I wonder the same thing.


 
And Kent Hehr, former Veterans' Affairs Minister, has been accused of something similar ~ back when he was an Alberta MLA.

As John Ibbiton says, in the Globe and Mail, "Too often, movements of social protest force themselves on public consciousness, own the moment for a time, then fade from what used to be called the front page. Occupy. Idle No More. Even Black Lives Matter. But not #MeToo, which is transforming our society literally overnight."

Well, maybe, I'll suggest that the jury is still out in the case of #MeToo and that we may see repeats of the "fake attack on Muslim for for wearing hijab" story which may bring #MeToo into disrepute.

But, for now: Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required but the entire system is being subverted on rumour and that is a very bad thing.  We are permitting rumour to be accepted as fact and taking action as if it were fact and thus we are potentially subverting democracy on nothing more than salacious gossip.  Innocent until proven guilty is a good concept but the legal system moves too slowly to protect an individual from slander.  Even should Brown be totally innocent the damage has been done and it cannot be undone.  We have entered a stage whereby the very whisper  of potential sexual misconduct is sufficient to damn a person beyond all hope of restoration.  Regardless of the outcome of a trial Brown will always be the X leader  of the Ontario Conservatives.  How do we balance the true right of the accuser to come forward without fear of repercussion with the right of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty?  Innocent means just that.  The individuals name and reputation must remain unsoiled until proven otherwise.  Without that we have a scenario where the party that produces the best rumour against the other is the winner and that is not democracy.

 
YZT580 said:
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required but the entire system is being subverted on rumour and that is a very bad thing.  We are permitting rumour to be accepted as fact and taking action as if it were fact and thus we are potentially subverting democracy on nothing more than salacious gossip.  Innocent until proven guilty is a good concept but the legal system moves too slowly to protect an individual from slander.  Even should Brown be totally innocent the damage has been done and it cannot be undone.  We have entered a stage whereby the very whisper  of potential sexual misconduct is sufficient to damn a person beyond all hope of restoration.  Regardless of the outcome of a trial Brown will always be the X leader  of the Ontario Conservatives.  How do we balance the true right of the accuser to come forward without fear of repercussion with the right of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty?  Innocent means just that.  The individuals name and reputation must remain unsoiled until proven otherwise.  Without that we have a scenario where the party that produces the best rumour against the other is the winner and that is not democracy.
This is just the over correction happening.

For years women struggled to get justice for sexual assaults and sexual harassment in the court system,  with the conviction rates for such offenses being incredibly low.  When two people are in private and it its a he said,  she said,  its hard to convict without reasonable doubt.

Now with the #metoo women don't need to meet the burden of proof,  they can just ruin people with the accusation, and while it is a overreach and honestly mob justice, don't forget that it stems from years of women feeling that the court system will never get them justice for the abuse they have suffered.

Bill Cosby and Harvey weinstein have never been convicted of sexual assault or rape,  but who here honestly believes that they have never done it?
 
YZT580 said:
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required  . . . is being subverted on rumour . . .  . . . permitting rumour . . . nothing more than salacious gossip.  . . . best rumour  . . . .

While I understand (or at least I think I do) what you were trying to convey, I do take exception to your continued suggestion that "rumours" are at the heart of the difficulties facing these public (political) figures. Though neither are proven, there is a big difference between a rumour (gossip of third parties) and an accusation by an involved party (even when that involved party is not yet publically named).  In the case of Mr. Brown, apparently there may have been rumour before the allegations were brought forward by media.  Personally, I'm not afraid for democracy (or what passes for democracy these days).  Even without movements or causes de jours or social media (though that one does concern me WRT political process), this is nothing new for politicians, even in Canada.  They have always had to be concerned for their behaviour (good or bad, public or private) being reported.  Of course, the consequences of sexual peccadillos have not always been consistent;  the Munsinger Affair barely affected the political careers of the MPs involved while "leaving your Coates at Tiffany's" was essentially the end for the Minister.  It is just that the recent climate makes it easier for skeletons to come out of the closet.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
Personally, I'm not afraid for democracy (or what passes for democracy these days). 

You should be. I am just back from a quick shopping trip and on the radio news, was presented with Trudeau jr.'s statement to the press whereby he "fully supports" the women who came out against Mr. Brown and condemns him, but almost immediately after, waffles an "I have not had the chance to review that situation and can't comment" when a journalist just brought out the fact that exact similar accusations have now been levelled against one of his minister, the Minister for Sports Kent Herr.

In the words of Yoda, to someone claiming not to be afraid: "You will be!"  :nod:
 
My advice to political parties for the time being is to select only female candidates to hopefully protect from the likelihood of a potential scandal.
 
Brian Banks.
In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.[17][18] According to Banks, his lawyer told him that he stood no chance at trial because he would be tried by an all-white jury who would automatically assume that he was guilty because he was "a big, black teenager."[19]
Confession of false accusation

In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted in the presence of an attorney that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson's confession, but she later refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court.[18]


 
benitod said:
It has been outstanding and conclusive precedent under the law that "a ten year delay in filing a criminal complaint for assault or sexual harassment renders it null and void on the basis of acquiescence and consent." Wynne has lots of illegitimate backers in the intelligence community like people who obtain their largesse from a hostile spy agency. Just look how communistic (not only socialist) her dole outs are. Empowered by the Communist Party of Canada. I represent myself as Intelligence Chief, Communist Party of Canada in the press. Nobody among its leaders are belying this instead they regale on this representations. But of course, my loyalty goes to Canadian Forces.

I'm sorry??? Could you verify any (or even just one...) of the things you posted?  Surely as Int Chief for the Communist Party of Canada you must have some good sources?
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
You should be. I am just back from a quick shopping trip and on the radio news, was presented with Trudeau jr.'s statement to the press whereby he "fully supports" the women who came out against Mr. Brown and condemns him, but almost immediately after, waffles an "I have not had the chance to review that situation and can't comment" when a journalist just brought out the fact that exact similar accusations have now been levelled against one of his minister, the Minister for Sports Kent Herr.

In the words of Yoda, to someone claiming not to be afraid: "You will be!"  :nod:

The antics of the Prime Minister is not "democracy" but "politics".  Eventually, the population will tire of him and another idiot will take his place (frankly, I have little respect for any politician, of any stripe or party).  Time, that is the secret sauce of democracy; sooner or later, the electorate decides it's time for someone else.  In the case of Mr. Brown, it is likely that he has run his course; whether it is fair or not matters not in politics.  In the case of Mr. Hehr, that may still to be decided but it will likely be that he too is done, though playing the disability card may lessen the impact.  After all, while he is accused of crude behaviour, so far I've not seen anything similar to one of the accusations against Mr. Brown in which it is alleged that one of his accusers performed oral sex and perhaps not entirely consensually.
 
benitod said:
It has been outstanding and conclusive precedent under the law that "a ten year delay in filing a criminal complaint for assault or sexual harassment renders it null and void on the basis of acquiescence and consent." Wynne has lots of illegitimate backers in the intelligence community like people who obtain their largesse from a hostile spy agency. Just look how communistic (not only socialist) her dole outs are. Empowered by the Communist Party of Canada. I represent myself as Intelligence Chief, Communist Party of Canada in the press. Nobody among its leaders are belying this instead they regale on this representations. But of course, my loyalty goes to Canadian Forces.

Have you seen my new umbrella, comrade?
 
Altair said:
This is just the over correction happening.

For years women struggled to get justice for sexual assaults and sexual harassment in the court system,  with the conviction rates for such offenses being incredibly low.  When two people are in private and it its a he said,  she said,  its hard to convict without reasonable doubt.

Now with the #metoo women don't need to meet the burden of proof,  they can just ruin people with the accusation, and while it is a overreach and honestly mob justice, don't forget that it stems from years of women feeling that the court system will never get them justice for the abuse they have suffered.

My earlier reservations aside, there is a good bit of truth to this, as my female relatives are quick to remind me.  There was a time in this country (now thankfully gone) when men could do just about anything they wanted to their wives, daughters or female employees/subordinates and nothing would ever have been done about it. Kind of like Russian society still today. This reaction we see in #metoo, etc. is another example of backlash against excessive and bad behaviour, with all the blind damage and anger that goes along with backlashes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top