Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this movement shows no signs of stopping , now a ctv reporter who covers queens park has been caught up in it over an allegation that dates back to 2006 )


CTV journalist Paul Bliss suspended following allegations of sexual misconduct

A former CTV employee says Bliss exposed himself to her in 2006

The Canadian Press Posted: Jan 26, 2018 7:29 PM ET| Last Updated: Jan 26, 2018 9:45 PM ET

CTV Queen's Park reporter Paul Bliss has been suspended following sexual misconduct allegations made online by a former colleague.


Bell Media says it has suspended a CTV News reporter over allegations of sexual misconduct brought forward by a woman who says she was a former employee with the broadcaster.

The company's vice president of communications says Paul Bliss, who works in CTV's Queen's Park bureau, has been suspended and an investigation is underway. Scott Henderson says the allegations made by Bridget Brown are being taken very seriously.

The allegations were made in a blog post by Brown, who describes herself as a Calgary-based entrepreneur and former broadcaster.

Under a Friday post titled "MeToo in Canadian Broadcasting," Brown details an alleged sexual incident in the spring of 2006 involving an unnamed CTV reporter.

When reached by phone, Brown told The Canadian Press she had no comment on Bliss's suspension, but would be posting further details Friday night on Twitter.



Bliss did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The allegations have not been verified by The Canadian Press.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.4506816
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you really have to wonder where this movement is headed next ?


are recent college graduates going to be rejected by potential employers if they were to somehow find out about past sexual behaviour that went badly and they felt was inapproiate ?

are they going to be like yeah we can't hire you cause we found out you had an inapproiate sexual encounter 10 years ago with someone from your college ?

which when considering what campus is like these days , literally be half if not more of them .


this just seems to have no end in sign , its natural for men to pursue women , we seem to be headed down a road where anything is now considered sexual harassment , and punishment is not a minor $100 fine , its basically death , your life is over , career , everything , over something that happened decades ago


the feminists say they want this behaviour to stop and women to be treated with more respect but the people they are punishing and who they are ruining there careers and life's over are mostly over allegations that date back years if not decades

there is no evidence Paul Bliss or Patrick Brown did anything sexually harassing in nature to women since the me too movement started . but the paying the price over something that might of happened 10 years ago ?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not how it works. Have you ever heard of anyone being hired because even though they were white and male, they were had not sexually harassed anyone? That doesn't happen.

This is only used to get men out of the 'career' part of the economy. It gets some men fired -- not that many. It gets other men transferred, their careers dead-ended without them even knowing it. And it intimidates lots of men for every one actually disciplined.

That's what this is about. They make complaints and get the bureaucracy to be their pimp. It isn't about equality -- what more special rights must women get before they accept they have enough of the special powers to make up for their inferiority? ... (do I have that right, TC? It's because they're weak they need the special protection, no?)

In Europe, when Jews were highly stigmatized, part of the reason was that they got sexual with gentile women. I don't know the truth, but it was part of the stereotype. Ditto with American black men, back when lynchings were common. They were seen as a sexual threat. These aren't the only cases.

A sexual threat seems to be part of the most highly negative stereotypes that often involve violence and extreme ostracism. And that's a fact.

They are teaching in our schools that every man is a potential rapist, and ought to be treated that way. In our schools ... kids believe it.

They take the most negative features of the worst men and generalize that to every man, even teenagers. They weave this negative side of men into a psychopathic straw man that they take for real.

They take the best features of the most saintly women and generalize that to every woman, even babies. The weave this bit of magic thinking into an Angel, full of love and benevolence.

When you believe that, any contact between men and women is defiling.

These are women who read Cosmopolitan at 14 for the articles on artful cocksucking. More and more, young girls focus on using their allure to hook-up with guys with assets. At 14. Purity is an obsolete concept in the 21st century.

There are the timid and the bold, but whatever can be said of youthful female sex, purity isn't the word that pops into your mind. Those attacks are not about any of the stuff they claim they are about. They are the ideological window dressing covering for a war against masculinity in the workforce -- particularly those parts that offer full dental and three week paid vacations after five years.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on the same theme, with a different subject area ...

This is a video that is a young lawyer responding to requirements of the Law Society of Ontario but pressed on them by the Human Rights apparatus. The basically require these firms to sign on to an equity plan, and so on, and on. We all know, don't we, 'of how law firms would give their eye teeth for top female law students because as the competition rises, they realize -- these top careers eat your whole life! Suddenly they hear the clock ticking.

To get an equal outcome, a law firm would probably have to hire 2 or 3 to 1 at the early stages. It isn't as if women can't be excellent lawyers, in all fields of law. None of it relies on upper body strength. But women are less willing to throw their whole lives and identities into a job than a man with a wife, children and a mortgage. And that isn't my prejudice, that's historical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvCjxhDhsWU

But this isn't just about women. It's about the whole social justice victim list. But the thing is, all the big law firms are already eager to get such people if they are bright and ambitious, as they often are. Do you think anyone cares if your tax lawyer is _____________(fill in the blank)?

It's because it smuggles in the transgendered, which, of course, forces us to face some facts about where all these transgendered people are coming from all of a sudden? Where were they in 1995, for instance? They were there, under a lamppost at Alexanderwood and Church, a regular part of the stroll, near where TC lives. (;>/)

Yeah, in 1995 they were called homosexual prostitutes. And they had no place in a school.

What is this, then, if it isn't the new recruits into this weirdness that are getting a quota at the top law firms, school systems and the like. The idea is that this is to teach the kids that this is normal -- but it isn't normal, it's what they need to be normal for homosexual prostitutes to have a normal life. It's craziness.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t care if Patrick Brown was a randy womanizer


Nor am I “disgusted’’ by the former Ontario PC Leader’s purported “misconduct,” which is small beer as recounted in the allegations leveled at him, Rosie DiManno writes.


A Queen's Park legislative staff member takes down Patrick Brown's office name at Queen's Park in Toronto on Friday after Brown stepped down as Ontario PC leader when allegations of sexual misconduct were levelled at him.



By Rosie DiMannoStar Columnist

Fri., Jan. 26, 2018




A teenage girl walks into a bar . . .

An unwelcome pass from a much older man.

“Get lost!”

That’s how you do it, stranger-to-stranger.

It isn’t rocket science.



You don’t stagger drunk back to the guy’s house and then get all damsel-in-distress stressed over a crossed-wires sloppy seduction scene, as, way belatedly, both accusers of alleged sexual misconduct by Patrick Brown have now portrayed their encounters.

I’m not casting blame.

I’m not shaming.


I’m not speculating about motive.

I am simply following the sketchy narrative as provided by the complainants to CTV, which former Ontario PC Leader Brown denied before dropping out of sight.

For someone in a position where there is a power imbalance — and show me somebody who isn’t in such a position, having either the upper or lower hand — but more specifically in an employer-employee relationship, prudence should discourage any kind of intimacy.

Most especially because the delineating line is so vague — or ridiculously vigorous — that it’s difficult to determine where impropriety lies.

It’s most often utterly subjective.

It’s often viewed differently in retrospect and the advice is widely ignored in the work place.

Over nearly four decades with the Star, I have lost count of how many reporters and managers have hooked up, for periods short (real short, as in one-night stand) and long, formally and casually, wed-locked and procreating and divorced. Far less than in the free-wheeling old days and a couple of times with disastrous results.

The mating game — by which I mean sex, not necessarily romance — is fraught with peril, never so much as at this very moment in time, where everything from a bum-brush (Was that intended? Was that inadvertent?) to rape is tossed into the same complaint pot.

I still fail to see either the assault or the harassment in the allegations about heave-hoed former provincial Conservative leader Patrick Brown, as made by the two anonymous women who pulled the pin on this scandal in interviews with CTV broadcast Wednesday night. The shudders continue to resonate at Queen’s Park, where the party unanimously chose Vic Fedeli as interim leader on Friday, although it’s unclear if Fedeli will quarterback the Tories in June’s election. In a separate bombshell, MPP Lisa MacLeod, who simultaneously urged her colleagues to kick Brown out of caucus (in which case he could sit as an independent), claimed to have heard “similar things” about Brown, rumours about his alleged Lothario act, although those whispers seem to date to his time as a federal MP.

That was the well-regarded MacLeod on her way into the meeting, telling reporters she’d brought her concerns to the Tory war-room a few weeks before Christmas.

On her way out of the meeting, MacLeod, likely chastened inside, was starting to tip-toe it back a bit, pointing out there was never any proof, and, no, she hadn’t taken the whispers to the party’s top echelons, merely to a “friend,” because she didn’t trust PC staffers loyal to Brown. Wow, she didn’t trust the party despite flying its colours.

As, indeed, there still isn’t any proof for the most recent accusations, although the brutally expedient party has clearly bought it hook, line and sinker. Fedeli yesterday called upon the gone-to-ground Brown to take a “leave of absence,” which is code for get lost, be-gone, we’ve got an election campaign to contend and never liked you much anyway.

Nobody behind the firewall has dared defend Brown under the circumstances, beyond paying lip service to the presumption of innocence.

They no more believe in presumption of innocence and due process than I believe that the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this season. Politics is a grimy business.

Did MacLeod ever seek out the women who had recoiled from Brown’s (alleged) sloppy approaches? Would that not have been a more admirable pursuit than precautionary political ass-covering? Oh, wait, there was never any such thing, because she never dumped the gossip on the party politburo, the same denouncers now chirping according to the sexual harassment gospel.

This entire sexual sturm und drang recalls an incident way back in 1992 when a Toronto bartender took her bitch about Peter North, then Ontario tourism minister in the NDP government, off her chest and into the premier’s office. The woman revealed she’d had a . . . something . . . with the married father of two, which amounted to staying over at his apartment on several occasions, although they’d never had sexual intercourse. She stopped seeing North “because he wanted more of a sexual relationship.” Her complaint, a year later, was prompted by North allegedly offering her a job as his assistant. North resigned.

A classic NDP sex scandal: No sex involved.

It was wildly funny at the time.

Nothing is funny anymore, God forbid.

What a mosh-pit of pre-emptive condemnation and weaponized indignation we’ve been pitched into, coalescing around the #MeToo movement, a meritorious phenomenon that has jumped the shark in some of its recent manifestations.

To be blunt: I don’t care if Brown was a randy womanizer.

Nor am I “disgusted’’ — it’s a favourite word ’round the Legislature over the past 48 hours — by Brown’s purported “misconduct,” which is small beer as recounted by the deep throats.

Neither of the women has claimed to be traumatized by their in-the-bedroom encounters with Brown. One of them, the staffer, later told CBC she felt “awkward” and “anxious” in the aftermath, particularly when Brown subsequently invited her to travel with him as “assistant” on a trip to India, and she agreed.

But the main source of this complainant’s discomfort, it appears, arose from the fact Brown was almost twice her age. She was 18 when first the object of Brown’s flirtations, a year earlier. The other complainant was also 18 when she met Brown in a bar and accepted his invitation to go back to his place.

From much that I’ve heard and read over the last few days, the age discrepancy seems as much a font of revulsion as whatever Brown may have said or done in the alleged instances.

Is this what many find creepy, Brown’s purported eye for age-inappropriate leg-overs?

I think of 18-year-olds as girls rather than women. It’s a grey area age, probably more so for females than males; also a stage where many young women start to grasp and wield their own sexual power. I can attest to that from experience. Poor choices are made. We learn, we grow up. Maybe some of us never get better at the thrust and parry of sexual interactions, the nuances of gestures and touch and suggestive conversations. The whole kit and caboodle of it is, frankly, intoxicating. Relationships are not easily compartmentalized. We don’t draw up contracts in advance.

The age thing, though. Why is it — and I’m talking about Brown here, as alleged — so dirty-dancing repugnant?

Margaret Sinclair was 18 when she met a certain sexy fellow in Tahiti. She was 22 on the day she became Mrs. Pierre Eliott Trudeau.

He was 30 years older.

But hot.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/26/i-dont-care-if-patrick-brown-was-a-randy-womanizer.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
That's not how it works. Have you ever heard of anyone being hired because even though they were white and male, they were had not sexually harassed anyone? That doesn't happen.

This is only used to get men out of the 'career' part of the economy. It gets some men fired -- not that many. It gets other men transferred, their careers dead-ended without them even knowing it. And it intimidates lots of men for every one actually disciplined.

That's what this is about. They make complaints and get the bureaucracy to be their pimp. It isn't about equality -- what more special rights must women get before they accept they have enough of the special powers to make up for their inferiority? ... (do I have that right, TC? It's because they're weak they need the special protection, no?)

In Europe, when Jews were highly stigmatized, part of the reason was that they got sexual with gentile women. I don't know the truth, but it was part of the stereotype. Ditto with American black men, back when lynchings were common. They were seen as a sexual threat. These aren't the only cases.

A sexual threat seems to be part of the most highly negative stereotypes that often involve violence and extreme ostracism. And that's a fact.

They are teaching in our schools that every man is a potential rapist, and ought to be treated that way. In our schools ... kids believe it.

They take the most negative features of the worst men and generalize that to every man, even teenagers. They weave this negative side of men into a psychopathic straw man that they take for real.

They take the best features of the most saintly women and generalize that to every woman, even babies. The weave this bit of magic thinking into an Angel, full of love and benevolence.

When you believe that, any contact between men and women is defiling.

These are women who read Cosmopolitan at 14 for the articles on artful cocksucking. More and more, young girls focus on using their allure to hook-up with guys with assets. At 14. Purity is an obsolete concept in the 21st century.

There are the timid and the bold, but whatever can be said of youthful female sex, purity isn't the word that pops into your mind. Those attacks are not about any of the stuff they claim they are about. They are the ideological window dressing covering for a war against masculinity in the workforce -- particularly those parts that offer full dental and three week paid vacations after five years.



I'm not really sure what the metoo## movement is all about , if its about empowering women or if its about advancing women's careers by reducing some of the male competition ?

I also see similarities between it and the temperance movement of the early 1900's , it was a movement that focused on the evil's of alcohol and eventually lead to the short lived prohibition period .

they held protests on the streets and organized local campaigns against alcohol in various towns and cities , much like the metoo# protest and such


except this new movement is not targeting a substance but rather a man's natural desire to be with a female , or at least any sexual desire they deem inapproiate in nature or any past behaviour they now deem to have been a sin . there not targeting the alcohol being served at the bars like the 1900's movement did but rather the activity that takes place in them


eventually this movement will lose its appeal but before we reach that point we have to ask ourselves how many lives are going to be ruined ? and has it really accomplished anything ? and was there ever a widespread problem to begin with ?

employers already took sexual harassment seriously and had sexual harassment policies in place before metoo# and any women who felt she had been victimised had places to take her concerns to and they would of been taken looked into
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the problem with #metoo is that there has been so many allegations leveled at so many people , it becomes difficult to spate fact from fiction . there is no way 100% of the accusations made are 100% accurate and truthful , so how does one determine so ? if these sorts of accusations are not put before a court or judge ?

its up to our legal system to sort these things out not a court of public opinion told to believe every accusation is true even if there is no evidence , I personally suspect a high % of the #metoo accusations would be unlikely to succeed in court or land a conviction due to a lack of hard evidence , juries like to see hard evidence , forensics or video evidence , something these accusers generally don't have )



Andrew Coyne: #MeToo's moment of reckoning is good, but it has its dangers too

Maybe we are not obliged to apply legal standards of proof, but we are still obliged to be fair. Jobs, reputations, and relationships are at stake



Maybe we are not obliged, in the court of public opinion, to apply legal standards of proof, but we are still obliged to be fair, Andrew Coyne writes.Chris J. Ratcliffe/Getty Images


Andrew Coyne


January 26, 2018
9:47 PM EST



I like to think I am as defensive and obtuse as your average straight white male, with a healthy dollop of paranoid libertarianism for good measure.

So ever since the #MeToo thing arose I have been waiting for the promised descent into excess, the feminist reign of terror wherein perfectly decent chaps are hauled off for the kinds of minor indiscretions — the misconstrued remark, the harmless flirtation, the moment of madness in an otherwise blameless life — of which anyone might be guilty. I am still waiting.

With perhaps one or two exceptions, all of the cases of which I have read have been mercifully unambiguous.

The stories emerge not from the shadows of the dark web, but from meticulous reporting in mainstream news outlets. There are, almost invariably, not one but multiple accusers, unrelated to each other, who in most cases told someone about it at the time; the behaviour alleged is not debatable or borderline, but of a kind nearly everyone could agree was way over the line. And, as one has learned, where there is room for doubt, it is best to wait: the first-day story is almost never the end of it.

Such is the case, at least, with Patrick Brown. If both his caucus and his closest advisers were so quick to break with him, scant hours after the CTV broadcast that brought him down, it may be because they found the allegations, strenuously though he denies them, both credible and, shall we say, unsurprising. Certainly there were rumours, and certainly at least some of his people knew of them, though I doubt anyone knew how serious the actual allegations would prove to be.


Still, I wonder if we know exactly where we are going with all this. Are we comfortable that careers should end, names be blackened, all but instantaneously, on the basis of unproven and in some cases anonymous accusations? If the allegations that have surfaced to date have generally seemed credible, that does not mean every future allegation must necessarily be, especially where politics are involved. We are making it up as we go along here, and I’m not sure any of us have worked out what to do when the situations are not so clear-cut.

It is true, as others have said, that the presumption of innocence is a legal concept, not necessarily applicable in other walks of life. The courts are properly required to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting someone of a crime, but that does not mean the rest of us cannot form reasoned inferences from the evidence available to us. The proper course, in the face of uncertainty, is not always to suspend judgement, but to apply it.

No one is guaranteed, after all, the right to lead a political party; leaders are commonly toppled for all sorts of reasons, without the faintest hint of due process. If only as a matter of political calculation, the notion that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario could campaign for election, in 2018, under a leader accused of making unwanted sexual advances on drunken teenagers, one of them his employee, was obviously unthinkable.


And if it was unthinkable, best that he be removed as quickly as possible. The contrast between Brown’s fate and Roy Moore’s is striking, and to the relative credit of his party and our political system, though that is admittedly a low bar.

But if “beyond a reasonable doubt” need not be the standard, what should?

Maybe we are not obliged, in the court of public opinion, to apply legal standards of proof, but we are still obliged to be fair. A person’s liberty may not be at stake, but jobs, reputations, and relationships are.

Some of the more enthusiastic #MeToo activists have pronounced themselves untroubled by the thought of an innocent man being falsely accused: payback, they say, for all the women who have been victims of real crimes that went unpunished.

But human beings are not averages. They do not live their lives in the aggregate, but one at a time. To answer one injustice with another does not cancel the first but compounds it.

It cannot be, as the prime minister unhelpfully suggested, that we should “believe all allegations,” merely for having been made. Rather, we should believe credible allegations.

Indeed, we do not have to wholly subscribe to either possibility, to believe or disbelieve with 100-per-cent conviction. If we are unable to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other, that does not mean simply throwing our hands up in the air. Most judgments are a matter of probabilities. We can say that one story is more likely than another.

How to judge? As always, context is crucial. Again: is there more than one accuser? Did they tell anyone at the time? How detailed are the accusations? What reason would they have to lie, and how likely are they to be mistaken? An accusation may of course be true independent all of these, but our confidence in it will be the greater.

We are, it is said, in a moment of reckoning. That is to the good. If there have seemed to be an avalanche of such allegations of late, that is not necessarily evidence of a “witch hunt” or “lynch mob.” It may simply be because there has been a great deal of misconduct hitherto unreported: not misheard signals, or clumsy come-ons, but vile and seemingly chronic abuse of power. If those responsible are now being held to account, so be it.

But to be an accuser at this time comes with its own sort of power. And all power is open to abuse

http://nationalpost.com/opinio.....angers-too
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
I'm not really sure what the metoo## movement is all about , if its about empowering women or if its about advancing women's careers by reducing some of the male competition ?


THESE WOMEN KEPT QUIET TO ADVANCE THEIR CAREERS.

RCO wrote:
I also see similarities between it and the temperance movement of the early 1900's , it was a movement that focused on the evil's of alcohol and eventually lead to the short lived prohibition period .

they held protests on the streets and organized local campaigns against alcohol in various towns and cities , much like the metoo# protest and such


except this new movement is not targeting a substance but rather a man's natural desire to be with a female , or at least any sexual desire they deem inapproiate in nature or any past behaviour they now deem to have been a sin . there not targeting the alcohol being served at the bars like the 1900's movement did but rather the activity that takes place in them


IT'S NOT TARGETING MEN''S NATURAL DESIRE, THEY'RE PROVOKING IT AND THEN USING IT.

RCO wrote:
eventually this movement will lose its appeal but before we reach that point we have to ask ourselves how many lives are going to be ruined ? and has it really accomplished anything ? and was there ever a widespread problem to begin with ?


I CONTEND THAT IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL IT IS STOPPED. 'BUT IT HAS TO BE STOPPED, IT WILL ONLY DISCOVER MORE AND MORE REASONS TO BE IRRITATED A MEN, AND MORE AND MORE WAYS TO HAVE THEM PROSECUTED MORE EASILY. WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL RUN DOWN? THIS IS A PROGRAM BEING TAUGHT IN UNIVERSITIES, NOT A DANCE FAD. THOSE PEOPLE ARE PAID SALARIES AND GIVEN TENURE. THOSE COURSES WILL STAY ON THE CURRICULUM.

RCO wrote:
employers already took sexual harassment seriously and had sexual harassment policies in place before metoo# and any women who felt she had been victimised had places to take her concerns to and they would of been taken looked into


YES, BUT IN-COMPANY POLICIES REQUIRE SOME DEGREE OF PROOF. AND THAT A LIMITATION THAT FEMINISTS HAVE TO OVERCOME.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////////////////

We are in a world where a legally educated woman, sophisticated enough to get elected to the Canadian Parliament, went to a guy's hotel room late in the evening, sat beside him on his bed, and got the condom, -- and yet accused him of sexual assault. He had his political career ruined, and god only knows what happened to his family life and other work prospects, while she had her identity protected. Why? She says it was a sexual assault because he didn't extract "affirmative consent".

Does she really believe that she was coerced? Or that it was a sexual assault? Or did she think she was scoring one for the NDP?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

at this point I don't know what to make of the whole thing

was Patrick really a victim of the #metoo movement or was it a political assassination ? at this point I'd say more political in nature

but when I look back something about his late night press conference leads be to think he wasn't being honest , he seemed genuinely upset at his political career being ruined but hasn't spoken since and been unable to provide any evidence to clarify the situation ? such as his schedule from 10 years ago ( I'm sure it would still exist to determine if he was even in barrie on night in question , and has he even been in the bar in question ? it was never revealed )

i've been in the Hooligan's restaurant in barrie that brown is a part owner of once before , its very nice and a type family restaurant , its definitely not the place you'd go to if you were looking for a random hook up with a 19 year old

also feel there is some reason the first accuser is anonymous , has to be something either about her character that would cause people to not believe her ? maybe she is a known party girl who's slept with dozens of men ? or perhaps she is a former employee of the restaurant brown part owns and had a grudge against him ? or an employee of a rival restaurant in barrie and bitter at the success of hooligans ? its always very busy but there has to be something .

and as for the second one , maybe she liked brown ? her behaviour seems odd , why did she keep the initial 5 year old facebook message from him ? but doesn't have any from brown after the night in question ? no apology message was sent ? she never sent him an email telling him to back off I have a boyfriend ? there was no communication after the party and akward incident in the bedroom ? it just seems odd

but Eric Lindros also appears to have told Lisa Mcleod about an incident at a hockey game in barrie , I don't see any reason to not believe Lindros , he is a very credible person and no political motivations , so if he saw something we have little reason to believe he made it up

it seems Brown did have an interest in younger women but don't most men his age ? but I really doubt he wanted to date a high school aged girl ? or took one back to his place for a random sexual encounter 10 years ago

when it was revealed Jagmeet singh was engaged to a 20 something fashion designer , the political world all congratulated him , treated as wonderful news , but the possibly that brown might of tried to date a university student 5 years ago is now reason to DQ him from being premier ? there seems to be a double standard among progressives on age differences and dating
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7993
Reputation: 270.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this lawyer has some good points , myself I'm personally becoming convinced the #metoo movement will soon push for a weakening of our current laws related to sexual assault and harassment , to lower the legal standard needed for a conviction and lower the bar as to how much evidence is required , and possibly even expanding the definition of sexual assault itself )


Brown being tried in court of public opinion: Defence lawyer


'It's a complete lack of innocent until proven guilty'
954 shares
2 days ago by: Sue Sgambati

2018-01-26 Kimberly Miles Defence lawyer

Kimberly Miles is a veteran criminal defence lawyer in Barrie. Sue Sgambati/BarrieToday


Patrick Brown is being denied his constitutional right to a fair trial because allegations being levelled against him have not been reported to police, according to a veteran criminal defence lawyer in Barrie.

Kimberly Miles shared her thoughts about the events that forced the Progressive Conservative leader to resign from his post and issue an emotional denial and defence of his character.

She has never met or spoken to the MPP for Simcoe North.

"It's extremely frustrating as a defence lawyer that these people who are being accused of these things are being tried in the court of public opinion and that a lot of what's being brought forward by way of allegations isn't necessarily criminal conduct," said Miles in an interview at her office.


"What they're alleging sounds morally wrong but it's not legally wrong."

She also finds it troubling that allegations get 'instant credibility' without being tested in the judicial process.

"Regardless of whether you agree with his politics or his party's politics, from a defence lawyer perspective he's not being given what is his constitutional right to a fair trial because it's not been reported to the police. Normally, if he were being charged with an offence he would have the right to remain silent but he doesn't get that."

Miles is concerned that by going to the media and having the story garner so much attention, it detracts from victims who go through what she called the 'gruelling' judicial process.

She urged the women to go to the police.


"The police then will decide whether or not charges should be laid," Miles said and by not reporting to authorities, she added "It makes it really difficult to assess the legitimacy."

Miles explains that sexual assault is the intentional application of force without the consent of the other person for a sexual purpose.

She says that doesn't appear to be the case from what she has read about the allegations against Brown.

And it's not enough for the media to say at the end of an article that the allegations have not been proven in court, she added.

"It's really not that fair to him because it's not in a trial court. He's not facing due process and it's not in the criminal jurisdiction. It's a complete lack of innocent until proven guilty. If you're reading this long article and at the end it says 'not been proven in court' by the time you get there you've already formed your opinion."

And as for Brown, Miles believes it's highly likely his lawyer has told him not to say anything.

"How can he respond? He can't. You can't even say 'let's deal with this in court' because it's not in court. What's he supposed to do?"


https://www.barrietoday.com/local-news/brown-being-tried-in-court-of-public-opinion-defence-lawyer-823538
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no presumption of innocence. #Me Too is a kind of fad, a mania, at the moment. The way sexual assault is defined these days, virtually any woman can claim to have been assaulted. In Canada, at least, there are no clear lines. A man doesn't know when he is committing a crime, and cannot know, because it is a woman's right to criminalize men.

This is what the newly minted leader of the NDP ...

Quote:
POLITICS 01/25/2018 15:57 EST | Updated 01/25/2018 16:06 EST
Jagmeet Singh: Presumption Of Innocence Is ‘Strictly’ For Courts
The NDP leader urged Patrick Brown to step down.

By Althia Raj

OTTAWA — The presumption of innocence is "strictly" a legal construct that shouldn't stop Canadians from believing women who come forward with allegations of assault, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Thursday.

While some members of his caucus stood behind him with incredulous looks, Singh told reporters there are "different issues" at play when women step forward with accusations.

"If you are asking me when I was a lawyer in a legal lens, there is a discussion or presumption of innocence — but that is strictly about the procedures in court," he said.

"When it comes to creating a just society, we need to look at the reality that we have to believe survivors if we want to tackle violence against women, if we want to shift a culture that for too long women have been silent about the ongoing violence that they experienced in their lives."

The "sad reality" is that a majority of women have experienced some form of gender-based violence, Singh added.

The NDP leader had called on Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown to resign after a CTV News report Wednesday featured two women alleging inappropriate sexual behaviour. One was a high school student when she said Brown asked her to perform oral sex on him. Another young woman, who worked in his constituency office during her university summer breaks, said Brown kissed her and was sexually aggressive.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2....._23343799/


He's inviting the left to jump on the bandwagon to amplify the false charges -- this is he guy who just announced his engagement to a 20-year-old.

Doesn't it just make you barf?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7834
Reputation: 312.6Reputation: 312.6
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

Sort of true.

But we do know PB has confirmed some/most of this. He admits he drove her home after giving it a shot.

What we do not have are names and faces .


I would also argue that we lack context.
The interview wasn't released word for word, it was released in pieces in an article written by someone else.

We only know what was presented by a third part and we don't know how much of the entire interview, story, or whatever else was presented because we solely have what is in front of us.

If there is more beyond that, I don't know but as my recurring theme has been "I need more information" I would repeat again I would feel more comfortable with more information.

Toronto Centre wrote:
It could very well have an effect on my perception.

But we both know an accusation is easier to get out than a denial in the court of public opinion.

If, and I happen to think so, the media who investigated this did due diligence (and all accounts say yes) then there is some factual basis to go to print.
I am pleased it wasnt done gonzo style w a retraction on page 90 three weeks later.


Please understand I am not arguing if the accusations were made, nor am I even going to argue that in his late 20s Patrick Brown likely use to hit the bar scene.

I am sure the folks in media validated that to the extent they could in the context of the manner that these accusations were made.

Toronto Centre wrote:
As I may well be seen as a stickler on certain things (and providing infuriating post because) I do have to comment on being 'sentenced politically' .

He wasnt sentenced by anyone but his own party, himself and his handlers.


We will have to agree to disagree here;
Simply because I don't feel for a moment the Statements that came out the next morning would have been any different had he not resigned.

The presumption is that he was guilty;
That is the political environment we are in.

If not for the party doing what it did, what do you think we would be discussing right now? Rightly or wrongly so, they understand the climate and they want to win an election.

What caused me to weigh in on this was that we now have a new bar for the manner in which accusations can be levied.

Toronto Centre wrote:
Does one not ask "why PB dont you demand they come out? Why not ask who they are, let the facts come to life in the open. Opine loudly that there is no criminality here so lets get this out in the open."

I have come to one or two conclusions. His party wanted him out as they are so scared of going into this election with him, and/or they know more.


Come on TC,
Lets take our partisan hats off for one second here. :)

If he came out and started demanding he was innocent and his accusers to step forward so they could be scrutinized, can you imagine the frenzy of folks that would have ripped him to shreds for his attempt at victim shaming?

We both know he would have been chum for the sharks no matter how right or wrong he may be for demanding that he could publicly clear his name.

Reflecting on this for a few days;
I can't think of a tactful way that he could have approached this and had it not be the primary point of discussion in an election a few months away.

But your reply raised an interesting question which may very well end up largely finding we are not that far off here;

You stated in his potential statement there is no criminality here;
Do you agree with that?

I think the party realized what I realized much faster than I did.
There is no way to defuse this in the time you have remaining without this being issue #1 in any spring election.


Toronto Centre wrote:

PB may have acted on his own ( I doubt it) and may have acted way too early. It didnt even get a half cycle in the news. It starts at around 9PM and by 130AM he has resigned?

So if he had help, they had to know him enough to see his emotions were raw,that he was sick and upset, his voice (likely) quivered in any discussions in those 4 hours, so why would they (if there is any 'they') allow him/them to make such a rash call when all that was known was a couple drinks to an underage girl , and another where he was trying to get a game of chesterfield rugby going ? (and he lost and the winner gets a drive home)


I don't have a good answer for that question,

All I can say is that sitting in a caucus room as a 39 year old leader defending what you did in your 20s as a single guy no matter the context no matter the explanation no matter the cries of "but I drove her home after she said no" there is likely no way you are leaving that room as leader.

Maybe there is more? I really don't know.


Toronto Centre wrote:
I think they owed him a duty of commitment to findings of facts. Owed him a duty to spend some money and find out what is out there. .


In this instance;
You and I are in lockstep.

If they move forward and end up winning a majority mandate and do nothing other than leave Brown twisting in the wind that would be a bitter pill.

Toronto Centre wrote:

So to directly answer your question (what was it again? Imbeing long winded here) , yes it would have been a liability now and for the foreseeable future but I think there was enough time to change the discussion .

If the Exec's could find all the truth about this, and its only these two and no more, then dammit, give the guy his due and help him shape the narrative for the election.


I think this will be a point of disagreement;
There is no path forward that I can see in four months in change where you can flip the script. You take a massive hit initially and then have to climb back out from that before early June.

I do agree the party needs to drill down on this one way or another.

Toronto Centre wrote:

Unless.....there is more and more serious goings on. Either that or PB is hated by his own.

Is there any evidence of that?


Social Conservatives within the party have made their opinion known;
And we have seen several Harris/Tory/Hudak era MPPs, Party Leadership, and Policy Folks pitched at a record rate since Brown took over.

One of the articles cited stated that Brown taking over the party was seen as some party members as an invasion and it largely was.

If that is a factor or consideration in this is really just us speculating at best.



Toronto Centre wrote:

No way. I demand agreement !

Or not.... ;)


Hahahaha.
Well done.

Toronto Centre wrote:

All true, but mopping the decks in mere hours seems...more than strange, and it begs me to ask, "what else is there? "


You could be right,

My take is simply that you had a 39 year old leader sitting across from his caucus discussing oral sex, the bar scene, and bringing home women met in that bar scene with the likely reality that he may have had sex more than two times in his life and the party likely said F That, we can't walk into a June election discussing this on peoples doorsteps.



Toronto Centre wrote:

The gist of our discussion is you want more time to get more information to make up your mind on this.

Im saying there has to be more for the lightning fast response in the face of somewhat minor charges.


In a nutshell you have summarized about 10,000 words shared between us yes LOL

Toronto Centre wrote:

So my recap..
1- why so fast to quit?
2-is there more?If so then I understand . if not see #1.
3-why is your own party not helping you w advisers etc?
4- A person wronged fights !
5- Roll over and it will be your legacy.


I like this;
Its going to save us a ton of time

My Recap:

1) I generally don't like anonymous accusations made through the press as the benchmark for outing anyone on anything.

2) Rightly or Wrongly so, I don't think the PC Party caucus wants to be discussing oral sex on the front porches of Ontario leading up to an election a few months away

3) Is there more? Maybe, one of the charge is that Brown made a woman feel awkward and if he has been single for a while and isn't a virgin I am sure there is more awkward out there, as to should that be enough to cost you your political future? I don't know.

4) I hope the party is backing away publicly but at least making some effort in the background to assist him if there isnt anything else lurking.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The presumption is that he was guilty;
That is the political environment we are in.

If not for the party doing what it did, what do you think we would be discussing right now? Rightly or wrongly so, they understand the climate and they want to win an election.


The allegations were published, social media went nuts for two or three hours and then, probably in full panic mode, the party officials and the caucus, thinking only of how this would impact them, forced Brown to walk the plank.

They didn't know anything at the time, other than social media was going nuts.

What gave these people the right to make those decisions? Who are they? What party offices do they hold? What was the rush?

But you are right, if it weren't for what the party did, this would only be a fraction of this problem it is.

Why? Because, as far as the ordinary voter is concerned, Brown would never have resigned if he wasn't guilty. By forcing Brown out, the Black Hand (whoever they are) confirmed Brown's guilt. They made election success more rather than less problematic.

(Think of this, folks, the next time you think of the shortcomings of populism. Elite politics can be pretty stinky too.)

Something like this should have been anticipated. If you were in a strategizing session, playing the part of the Liberals, what better path to power could you chart?

If they were prepared, they should have had some preliminary plan about what to do if and whe such an attack came.

These people who can fire the leader seem to have no sense of the stakes they are playing for and not enough respect for the venom and capacity for duplicity that the Wynne crowd have.

They should have anticipated that there would be an attack of this nature on the path, even if it didn't come from the Liberals -- and I don't know that it did -- it would come from somewhere.

They would also see that some kind of attack was a distinct possibility at exactly the time some big donors are making their final decisions.

Brown has been let down, the party membership has been let down, and the general public has been let down. Its a trifecta of failure.

The other alternative. Brown would issue denials immediately and lay low if he can't stand proud. He should not explain. The party should start an immediate investigation of how these stories came about. Any connections to the Liberals should be followed up on. Then, there should be some journalistic push-back. Only after the reaction to that can it be sized up. Are more women coming forward? Are people becoming sceptical?

Depending, Brown can then decide and plausibly go out for the good of the party, and because it's so important to defeat Kathleen Wynne. He would wrap himself in the flag and leave. “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” Or he can resist if he thinks he can prevail. Either way, that's how the party minimizes the damage. Not casting the poor man to the wolves with the first finger that is pointed, and symbolically admitting that was led by a sexual harasser. He'll be stigmatized for life by that decision.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 924
Reputation: 108.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:

We only know what was presented by a third part and we don't know how much of the entire interview, story, or whatever else was presented because we solely have what is in front of us.

If there is more beyond that, I don't know but as my recurring theme has been "I need more information" I would repeat again I would feel more comfortable with more information.

Although it appeared to be enough for the brass/Patrick Brown/supporters. I too would have preferred more info. Alas, we can only go on what is known.

Quote:


If not for the party doing what it did, what do you think we would be discussing right now? Rightly or wrongly so, they understand the climate and they want to win an election.

What caused me to weigh in on this was that we now have a new bar for the manner in which accusations can be levied.

I agree and at the same time disagree.

I 'get' the party brass trying to frame things as better when PB is gone in the face of these allegations, however the new bar has been levied and set by the actions of the accused and his cohorts (PC Party)
And subsequantly (we did not know this last week) there appears to be a slew of folks who are to be named. Perhaps , that muddy water could have been filtered in comparison to some other bomb shells that are to fall. (Hindsight 20 20 here)

It all ppears to be too fast a reaction.

Quote:

Come on TC,
Lets take our partisan hats off for one second here. :)

What hat ?
Quote:

If he came out and started demanding he was innocent and his accusers to step forward so they could be scrutinized, can you imagine the frenzy of folks that would have ripped him to shreds for his attempt at victim shaming?

Heres the kicker I should have included.

He can only do that if he is absolutely sure he is not guilty of anything....no whipping out his dick to the girl , no plying of drinks to the girl (altho that can occur innocently enough)
So if he felt he was innocent of all, fight like hell. If nothing else at the end of his day he can rest easy that he tried.

And .... I know this thinking is extremely hard to pull off. One misstep with a word or two and he sinks once again.
Or...

He comes clean with his version of events. Sometimes getting out front of a story like this results in a favourable outcome. Risky I understand.
Quote:

We both know he would have been chum for the sharks no matter how right or wrong he may be for demanding that he could publicly clear his name.

Yes. Very risky but we see what he is left with and perhaps a fight would have been better for him?
Quote:
Reflecting on this for a few days;
I can't think of a tactful way that he could have approached this and had it not be the primary point of discussion in an election a few months away.

I get that, and you may well be correct. But to me, an attempt seems to be worth it.
Quote:

But your reply raised an interesting question which may very well end up largely finding we are not that far off here;

You stated in his potential statement there is no criminality here;
Do you agree with that?

From what I know and have read , no criminality.

The supply of booze to an underager is perhaps an issue , but hell we are allowed to supply our own kids w booze in the house. An 18 yr old female probably looked 'of age' , or the bouncers wanted to let her in to attract the guys.
Quote:

I think the party realized what I realized much faster than I did.
There is no way to defuse this in the time you have remaining without this being issue #1 in any spring election.

I hear you , but I have my doubts.

Quote:


All I can say is that sitting in a caucus room as a 39 year old leader defending what you did in your 20s as a single guy no matter the context no matter the explanation no matter the cries of "but I drove her home after she said no" there is likely no way you are leaving that room as leader.

I dont disagree so much as he shouldve tried that tact.

Quote:

1) I generally don't like anonymous accusations made through the press as the benchmark for outing anyone on anything.

2) Rightly or Wrongly so, I don't think the PC Party caucus wants to be discussing oral sex on the front porches of Ontario leading up to an election a few months away

3) Is there more? Maybe, one of the charge is that Brown made a woman feel awkward and if he has been single for a while and isn't a virgin I am sure there is more awkward out there, as to should that be enough to cost you your political future? I don't know.

4) I hope the party is backing away publicly but at least making some effort in the background to assist him if there isnt anything else lurking.

1) maybe not but it is rooted in stone. Always been the way, always will be. Testing the waters sort of thing I suppose.
2)Not on their life.
3) It shouldnt, if you have any fight (and innocent)
4)They better bloody well be. But I have my doubts.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5132
Reputation: 266.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear gentle reader ... please, ask yourself -- is there any point to this?

The mistake was for Brown to resign. He paid the price for the 'crime' and is verbally insisting he didn't do it. The Resignation trumps the Denial, just as actions speak louder than words. A person doesn't atone for something they didn't do. Even if the-person-you-didn't-do-it-to was a young girl.

You know what -- I believe him, and I find his resignation indefensible. Perhaps it is a little strong to say I believe him. At the very least, I see no reason to take the word of a woman making allegations from behind a curtain over that of a man running to be the next Premier of Ontario. Is that unreasonable in these circumstances?

TC is trying to get Cosmo to join the lynch mob. Cosmo doesn't mind hanging Brown, but he wants to be a little more decorous about it. That isn't what we should be talking about.

This, 130 days before an election.

The main effect of the resignation has been a disorganized and demoralized party. It hasn't disassociated the party from the stigma of Brown. (Rather, it makes the stigma stick when even his own party disowns him.)

Now they're talking about "the rot" -- what "rot"??? They haven't even been in power since 2003! How much 'rot' can there be, compared to the Liberals? What it means is (probably) more forced resignations!

It feels as if a new group is taking over the party.

"Going after the rot" is probably the worst thing the new leader could say. It tells the general public that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is full of sexually aggressive men who are after young girls. Nice move, Ex-Lax!

Either this guy is trying to destroy the party, at least so far as the next election is concerned, or he's as politically stupid as a brick. Am I wrong?

Is there a single reason to believe the people I am calling The Black Hand made a sensible, considered decision when they forced Brown to resign? Or is the Progresssive Conservative philosophy to trust authority no matter how much it messes up?

As far as I can see, there are only three choices for party supporters: either (1) the back-room leadership of the party panicked, or (2) a new faction of the party is using the event to take over the party leadership, or (3) Patrick Brown is at clear risk of committing a sexual offense.

If it's the result of panic amongst the leadership, it's just inexperience and gutlessness. These people have unleashed chaos. I think this is truly unforgivable in this circumstance.

But it could also be a kind of take-over, now that Patrick has put the party in shape financially and electorally. It could be another wing of the party. It could also be a rogue group bent upon destruction. Whatever the case, it is equally unforgivable because it is so close to the election. They are politically stupid.

The third possibility is that Brown is a present-day risk of committing some kind of sexually inappropriate behaviour with young girls. I personally feel this is he least likely option.

Is there no way the membership can call The Black Hand to account? Are they the only ones with the mailing lists?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Blatchford: What happened to Brown is fundamentally wrong

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB