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      


Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5507
Reputation: 276.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:05 am    Post subject: Blatchford: What happened to Brown is fundamentally wrong Reply with quote

Quote:
Christie Blatchford: What happened to Brown is fundamentally wrong. Every man in the world is now vulnerable
I can think of almost nothing that requires less fortitude than accusing someone else of wrongdoing when your own face, name and identity are hidden.
Christie Blatchford
January 25, 2018
6:05 PM EST

For all the other moments #MeToo has wrought, the Patrick Brown story is seminal: A political leader is cut down like a sapling in the forest in a matter of hours, and none of his colleagues, in and outside of the Ontario Conservative party, and including the Ontario premier and the prime minister of Canada, have one word to say in the defence of fair play or the presumption of innocence.

This — not the anonymous allegations of Brown’s accusers from the shadows — is what is shocking and disgraceful about this story.

Kathleen Wynne spent nearly 18 minutes in front of the TV cameras at Queen’s Park Thursday. Only one journalist even bothered to ask her about due process.

“These are allegations. He’s not had a chance to defend himself. Are you in any way concerned there is a bit of a public trial going on and is that fair?” the reporter asked.

“Again, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the situation,” Wynne replied. “I do think that it was brave for these young women to come forward. I think that it was a hard thing for them to do, but the point I’m making this morning is that — we always, there will always be due process and there should be due process and there is a legal process that has to be part of this…”

And then she went on to urge Ontarians to get out their “own little flashlights” to “shine a light” into their own lives and to work together to “create safe spaces for everyone” — you know, except for the accused.

As for the PM, from Davos, Justin Trudeau saluted the women “for their courage and their leadership.” Ahh, what a fine fellow he is: It wasn’t so long ago his heart went out to the little Toronto girl whose hijab had been cruelly slashed by a man in a hate crime. Er, wait.

Andrea Horwath, the leader of Ontario’s New Democrats, was predictably even less circumspect.

Saying she was “pretty disgusted” by the allegations, she too fielded a question about the dangers of a trial in the court of public opinion.

“I really have two words about the justice system: Jian Ghomeshi,” she said, and went on to say that the “justice system is failing women … so let’s not pretend that we have a justice system that’s actually protecting women and making sure that women see justice.”


Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horvath was at Univeristy of Toronto’s Hart House releasing her platform “Plan That Makes Sense” with supporters on Thursday May 22, 2014. Jack Boland/Toronto Sun/QMI Agency
News flash: The justice system isn’t meant to protect women, not to mention, not all of us need protecting.

And Ghomeshi was acquitted in a fair trial, with rules and order and an appeal process, and he was acquitted not because the system failed women, but because his accusers failed women: They variously lied, colluded with one another or failed to tell the truth to police and prosecutors.

Let it be perfectly clear.

The point is not what Brown allegedly did.

The point is not even Brown, though spare a minute for him, that poor, lonely castoff. No wonder he raced to hold that impromptu press conference Wednesday night; very likely, it will be the first and only opportunity he ever has to defend himself in public.


Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown speaks at a press conference at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Wednesday, January 24, 2018. Aaron Vincent Elkaim / THE CANADIAN PRESS
That his senior staff deserted him immediately is no reflection on the strength, or lack of it, of the allegations made against him. Political staff are the human equivalents of blowflies; they’re the first to recognize a corpse.

The point is that purely on the say-so of two women who claim he sexually assaulted them another prominent man has been ruined. One of his accusers alleges he asked her for oral sex (her words, according to Glen McGregor, the CTV reporter who broke the story Wednesday night), the other was a former staffer who alleges he plied her with alcohol, took her to his bedroom and kissed her, his erection against her, until she protested and demanded he drive her home, whereupon he ceased and did just that.

Whatever the merits of their accusations — and how is anyone to know? — the mere act of making them to a journalist was enough. This is all it takes now.

It means that every man in the world is vulnerable, not because he has necessarily misconducted himself, but because a woman may say he has. The truth of the alleged misconduct — did it happen? Were there mitigating circumstances? Does the accuser have motive to lie? — is incidental, if not irrelevant.

Shock, surprise in Barrie, Ont., in light of Patrick Brown’s fall from grace
Here are the contenders for the Ontario PC leadership as an election looms
‘This is not about politics’: Wynne won’t call snap election after Brown resigns amid sex assault allegations
If reporters are to be the new detectives, and media the modern court, then let there be some rules.

Perhaps journalists should be required to video their interviews with accusers, as is the gold standard for police; the entire interviews can then be posted online, so that viewer/jurors know what questions were asked, and what weren’t, and see for themselves the body language of all.

Perhaps “investigative” journalists should have to take the same courses cops do, in how to interview people without leading them or suggesting the answers they want.

Those are facetious suggestions. Here’s one that isn’t: Reputable news organizations should swear off anonymous allegations of sexual misconduct unless there is a substantial body of evidence and an overwhelming public interest imperative.

Despite the mountain of horse manure from the likes of Wynne, Horwath et al Thursday about the courage of the two women, I can think of almost nothing that requires less fortitude than accusing someone else of wrongdoing when your own face, name and identity are hidden.

That this all comes five months before the next Ontario election means only one thing, as my wise muse put it: “#MeToo is shaking the foundations of our democracy,” because fundamental to a democracy is — was — the right to face your accuser and make full answer in defence.
http://nationalpost.com/opinio.....vulnerable


When do we get our party back? Why are Conservatives so politically obtuse? Perhaps it's time for Scheer to make a big show of disassociating himself from Brown? Maybe he can offer to hold the coat of Justin the Lesser, so he can show that he too is a "me too" supporter? What is the smart Conservative move here?

Or maybe there aren't any smart conservatives. This is becoming an election issue even without Brown!
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8412
Reputation: 282.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the big different between Patrick Brown's situation and Jamie Baillie and Kent Hehr as they both got private investigations to determine there future before a final decision was made into the matter . after an investigation it was determined Baillie had in fact violated sexual harassment rules and so he left . kent hehr is out of cabinet but its not final until an investigation into the matter . and considering liberals seem to magically get cleared after ethical investigations it wouldn't be a surprise if he reappears in cabinet someday


brown got no investigation and its not clear if one is even taking place . from the ctv article this is all we know of allegation # 1



" the first incident occurred more than 10 years ago. The woman, a high school student in Barrie at the time, said she and a mutual friend met Brown at a bar.

Brown then invited them back to his home and provided them with alcohol, though the woman was under the legal drinking age at the time.

She says she was drunk when Brown invited her for a tour of his home. When the pair entered the bedroom, Brown closed the door and exposed his penis to her.

"He pulled down his pants said, and I don’t know if he said 'suck my dick' or 'put this in your mouth,' but something along those lines,” she said.

The woman alleges that he then asked her to perform oral sex, which she did for a short time before stopping.

“It was like a controlling thing… like I just remember I wanted to go, but that wasn’t happening."

She says she then left his house and went to a nearby friend’s place.

"He's an old, single, politician preying on young girls. He’s just a sad person," the now-29 year old said. "


so if were to believe its possibly true . we'd have to believe her story about being 18 and somehow in a bar in downtown barrie with friends ( maybe that's possible ) . and that somehow she meet Patrick Brown even though she seems to admit she didn't even know him at all before the event

and that somehow he was able to " pick her up " at the bar , some how he was able to do this in a busy bar full of people and no one saw the incident ? or remembers brown picking up 18 year olds ? and why would an 18 year old have even been interested in brown to begin with ? its her senior year of high school , that's all about the prom and dating other 18 year olds , what 18 year old is looking for a sexual hook up with a 30 year old politician to begin with

and then were to believe this 18 year old left the bar alone without her friends and went to the house of a 30 year old man she didn't even know for a late night tour of the place ? which would been highly risky behaviour by itself and is questionable why she would of agreed to such knowing it almost certainly would of lead to sexual activity .

she also doesn't explain how she got to brown's home without anyone else seeing them together or leaving the bar together , did they take a taxi ? did brown drive them home . how does she get to his place ? and who was brown with , he surely wouldn't of been downtown alone , he'd always be with people

then were to believe the sober Patrick brown kept a secret supply of alcohol in his home and tried to get her drunk and without any foreplay took this girl to his room and expected sex almost instantly . basically as soon as they got to his place . and then after the encounter went sour she left mysteriously into the night , never to see brown again ? and didn't report the incident to the police or anyone


there is a lot to this story that doesn't make sense and a lot of facts are missing , there is no witnesses not even her friends who were supposedly at the bar , didn't even say what bar they were at or night this occured , she provided no photo's of them together , no facebook messages from brown , no evidence she even knew him , and nothing to prove any of this happened

ctv claims they verified the story but one has to wonder how ? who would they have possibly interviewed who could have verified this event really happened as described ? an alleged encounter 10 years ago in a bar ? and they provided no information on who this girl was ? is she a credible person ? or someone who's known to not tell the truth and has possibly made false accusations before against other people in barrie ?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8412
Reputation: 282.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this story just broke after I typed other reply , it appears Lisa Mcleod was aware of allegations against brown and had if fact shared them with the party . however they were deemed to be unfounded and nothing became of them .

its still unclear if the party conducted any sort of investigation into browns past or current behaviour . its my belief he still deserves a fair and impartial investigation to get to the bottom of these allegations and to determine if he has in fact ever done anything wrong )



Tory MPP says she shared information about Brown with campaign officials in December


MacLeod says she gave info about Brown to party

The Tory MPP has told reporters that she gave information about Brown to campaign officials in December but was told that it was unfounded




Chris Fox, CP24.com
Published Friday, January 26, 2018 9:38AM EST
Last Updated Friday, January 26, 2018 10:08AM EST


A longtime Tory MPP says that she shared information about Patrick Brown with campaign officials on ‘two or three’ occasions prior to his abrupt resignation amid sexual misconduct allegations.

PC MPP Lisa MacLeod made the comment to reporters ahead of a caucus meeting to appoint a new interim leader on Friday morning.

She said that she heard “similar things” about Brown and shared that information with members of his campaign team in December. MacLeod, however, said that the officials told her that the information was “unfounded.”



“I am not a police officer, I am not a private investigator but certainly when I heard issues about women I would bring those forward,” she said. “People would tell me things so I would float it up the flag pole.”

MacLeod said that she would prefer to keep the specific nature of the information she shared with campaign officials “confidential,” though she said it was similar to information shared by two women who spoke with CTV News for a story that was aired on Wednesday night.

She said that she does not know whether other caucus members may have brought information but she said that there “were lots of things that were percolating that a lot of people heard.”

“There has been a lot of speculation and people have heard things throughout a period of time,” she said.

Brown resigned early Thursday morning amid sexual misconduct allegations. He has said that the allegations are 'categorically untrue” and has vowed to remain a MPP while he “definitively” clears his name.

More to come….

https://www.cp24.com/news/tory-mpp-says-she-shared-information-about-brown-with-campaign-officials-in-december-1.3776722
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7996
Reputation: 318.6Reputation: 318.6
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read this article yesterday and I think this is where it finally hit me.

You have had a politicians life destroyed based on anonymous allegations in a court of public opinion. Had he been charged or had the alleged victims filed a civil suit at least he would have had the opportunity to defend himself.

We can speak to the degree of the allegations all we want;
Its the fact that there is no functional means for defense here.

The accusers are able to stand behind a curtain of "former staffer" for Patrick Brown he gets to stand there and deny allegations in front of podium alone with zero due process and a situation which will likely never be resolved.

I can understand the PC Party not wanting to make the entire election about these allegations and not the simply horrific record of the current Premier especially after watching the special election in Alabama move away from issues effecting the state and becoming largely about those seeking election.

But that doesn't give them a free pass with me, allegations are allegations till prove to be true and guilt in the arena of twitter is not necessarily guilt in reality and they bolted the second it became challenging.

Every member of that party hierarchy needs to give its head a shake.

With all that said;
I will still vote PC in June because even with all of this I still consider their sins to be lesser than the current government. We are owed a dissection of the decisions, appointments, and spending that has been made by this current government and that can only happen if they are sitting across the aisle in opposition.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:


You have had a politicians life destroyed based on anonymous allegations in a court of public opinion. Had he been charged or had the alleged victims filed a civil suit at least he would have had the opportunity to defend himself.


I will respectfully disagree.

Patrick Brown had a chance to defend himself and failed misreably at it.

Anyone in this position has one chance and one chance only.

If he is innocent of these allegations then he has to stand up and demand who9 what where and when. He stands there and fights.

What did Patrick Brown do?

He said he denies everything categorically and so on.....except he was entirely unconvincing , waivering in voice , which only contradicts his message.

Someone standing at the podium needs to be angry, verbose and ready to take it all on.

He was none of those. No one has convicted Brown as much as he did himself.
Quote:

We can speak to the degree of the allegations all we want;
Its the fact that there is no functional means for defense here.

That fact is he was supplying some booze to an underage female , first at a bar and then at his home.
He was also a young females boss. A position of power . He knew it . He also owned the bar (co-owner) and has a reputation for strutting around inside it. Its small town and he deemed himself a big wheel in it.

So yes, I do believe he had a defence . No one denied him the opportunity . His own actions convicted him.

Are you able to say that watching him quiver and quake as he did were signs he was not guilty of at least boorish behaviour?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7996
Reputation: 318.6Reputation: 318.6
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

I will respectfully disagree.

Patrick Brown had a chance to defend himself and failed misreably at it.

Anyone in this position has one chance and one chance only.

If he is innocent of these allegations then he has to stand up and demand who9 what where and when. He stands there and fights.

What did Patrick Brown do?

He said he denies everything categorically and so on.....except he was entirely unconvincing , waivering in voice , which only contradicts his message.

Someone standing at the podium needs to be angry, verbose and ready to take it all on.

He was none of those. No one has convicted Brown as much as he did himself.


I appreciate the response because I believe that debate makes us better.

The question I would pose would simply be does a terrible rebut and a "feeling" of how he should have defended himself against anonymous allegations make him guilty of them?

Because if your answer is yes than we set a very dangerous precedent for guilt.

If within seven minutes we don't like the body language, tone of voice, or general demeanor of an individual who has been accused anonymously we should ultimately convey a guilty verdict?

The next question I would pose would be this;

If he passed your eye test during that press conference. If he had fire in his eyes and raged against these accusations. If he insisted he would fight this till the bitter end and would ultimately be found innocent of these accusations

Would that have been enough for him to continue to be leader?

Because if the answer is no, then I would argue again that there was no defense to these accusations given how they were made regardless of how well he performed.

Toronto Centre wrote:

That fact is he was supplying some booze to an underage female , first at a bar and then at his home.
He was also a young females boss. A position of power . He knew it . He also owned the bar (co-owner) and has a reputation for strutting around inside it. Its small town and he deemed himself a big wheel in it.

So yes, I do believe he had a defence . No one denied him the opportunity . His own actions convicted him.


Would I be an asshole of I took the above and added "allegedly" to the front?

Because at the moment we have versions of stories but I couldn't attach the word "fact" to either the accusations or the denial with what is currently presented.

If he did all of the above is he a scumbag? Sure.
If the above is true is there a discussion for criminal charge? Potentially, sure.

The problem is at the moment no one is seemingly chasing the latter and the former may be the case but it also may not. I can't speak to it with any certainty I am just speculating along with everyone else.

However maybe I am old fashioned here but I like to weigh evidence and scrutinize all avenues of that evidence, we are talking about an allegation made from over a fence.

An accuser pulled the pin from the grenade and tossed it over a fence so they would not need to face any scrutiny but would get the net result of a political lynching.

Toronto Centre wrote:
Are you able to say that watching him quiver and quake as he did were signs he was not guilty of at least boorish behavior?


My argument would be that my opinion of his defense is moot and I will even agree with you that his statement was shaky at best.

But with that said, my point is simply that my opinion of his performance shouldn't be enough to consider him guilty.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8412
Reputation: 282.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Brown is apparently being asked to take a leave of absence from caucus but not being removed from it yet )



Mike Crawley‏Verified account @CBCQueensPark · 38m38 minutes ago

BREAKING: PC interim leader Vic Fedeli says he is asking Patrick Brown “to take a leave of absence” from caucus, stopping short of kicking Brown out of caucus.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:

I appreciate the response because I believe that debate makes us better.

The question I would pose would simply be does a terrible rebut and a "feeling" of how he should have defended himself against anonymous allegations make him guilty of them?

Because if your answer is yes than we set a very dangerous precedent for guilt.

When someone is fighting for their political and personal life , all while being not guilty of anything, one does not offer up so lame a response.

Look, I get that it is easy for me (us?) to have 20/20 vision retrospectively however he is supposedly surrrounded buy the party machinations to help him out on issues such as this. If it was done and this is the result, then oh boy, best get some new staff.

If it wasn't done, then he has only himself to blame.

His own actions are the worst and most damning part .

We are not making any findings of guilt in the legal sense, we are deciding if it appears the allegations have merit .
So, we look at (A) his presser-Why at 1AM if not to avoid any fallout? (B) His own words -they damaged him far more than no words spoken (C) His conviction when stating his words - there was none.

Human nature being what it is, we in our own minds get the facts as it were (or not, it doesnt stop some from forming an opinion w/out any) and start to decide if they appear valid, if there is anything there to pay attention to .

A child goes missing and we watch the Parents presser to see if we want to believe them.
A spouse turns up dead and we have a good long look at the other spouse.

I dont think it is wrong to do this. Afterall, severe enough and one gets a trial.
Quote:

If within seven minutes we don't like the body language, tone of voice, or general demeanor of an individual who has been accused anonymously we should ultimately convey a guilty verdict?

Liken it to this.

Your kid answers a question, and if the body language, tone of voice, or general demeanor of your kid who has been accused is entirely incongruent what else can one do ?
But I have to stress this..... We didnt convict him, he convicted himself. Every muscle in his body was saying "yea I did something wrong" all the while he was saying he didnt do anything wrong.
If not...then fight dammit !
Quote:

The next question I would pose would be this;

If he passed your eye test during that press conference. If he had fire in his eyes and raged against these accusations. If he insisted he would fight this till the bitter end and would ultimately be found innocent of these accusations

Would that have been enough for him to continue to be leader?


Very good question and fankly I do not know for sure.

For sure it makes a rocky start to the home stretch of the campaign. Then we ask, is this enough to last past a month if we get out in front of it ? Can we get PB to stand up and fight thru this, and start to move the pointer to issues of the campaign? Can the muckraking (from all sides) that will occur derail his message too far into the spring?

If the answers to my Q's as posed are yes, then I would answer your Q as yes also.
Quote:

Because if the answer is no, then I would argue again that there was no defense to these accusations given how they were made regardless of how well he performed.

There is always a defense. (theres also good bad and horrible....)

But his party faithful, his inner circle pleaded with him to step down. He said no and they quit over it.

I can only surmise that they know more than we know. ON the basis of what is known, these indescretions are relatively minor . None of these together seem enough to0 cause this type of meltdown.

I have to think there is something lurking .
Quote:

But with that said, my point is simply that my opinion of his performance shouldn't be enough to consider him guilty.


Insofar as we ( all of us) decide on guilt or not everyday we are alive, I find that your point hard to take .

But it isnt just his performance that sealed in my mind his partaking in these shenanigans.
Demeanor
Presser time stamp
Quivering voice
Contradiction of words vs delivery .

One cannot stand at a podium and state " “These allegations are false, categorically untrue — every one of them. I will defend myself as hard as I can with all means at my disposal." ..... and then quit a few hours later. If they are false and categorically untrue, then fight back.

I suspect though that the PC party has a bit of a problem in that the knives are missing from the kitchen.
When they state soon after that " Deputy PC Party Leaders Sylvia Jones and Steve Clark said in a written statement they learned of the allegations Wednesday evening. They said “in the interest of the Ontario PC Party we unanimously agree that Mr. Brown cannot continue serving as the leader.”...it appears to me more that they dont want him to lead.

Browns perception has always been skewed , most of what I can only think he brought upon himself. Wherever he was there were whispers
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5507
Reputation: 276.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope Cosmo realizes TC's argument rests almost entirely on his feelings about how somebody seeing his whole life crumble (due to things entirely beyond his control) would react. It's bullshit. He is perfectly capable of arguing that, in the case of women, judges have to be re-educated that if a woman is raped, it isn't unusual for her to send appreciative emails soliciting another encounter to her rapist.

TC just babbles the talking points.

How many politicians are this pogrom picking off? And it is only gathering steam.

Quote:
Sexual misconduct an open secret on Parliament Hill, say ex-staffers
'It’s always been a matter of when — not if — these stories will break,' says former NDP staffer
By Marc-André Cossette, CBC News Posted: Jan 26, 2018 6:35 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 26, 2018 11:52 AM ET

After allegations of sexual misconduct rocked Hollywood and Canada's arts and entertainment industry, former Parliament Hill staffers say it was only a matter of time before the spotlight turned to Canadian politics.

"It's always been a matter of when — not if — these stories will break," said Lauren Dobson-Hughes, a former NDP staffer.

Dobson-Hughes alleges she too faced routine sexual misconduct in her seven years on the Hill.

"Daily references to my figure, to my sex life, whether I was married," she said.

"Being grabbed and groped, being forcibly kissed." [....]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.4503286


Is being complimented being sexually harassed? What kind of comment, I wonder, would a male in todays work-world say that would be so upsetting that it'd be a genuine security threat?

This has to be done this way because, so far as I can see, none of these women could (until the Gregory Allen Elliott case) prove that a crime took place at all. Where's the damage? Harassment is now being interpreted as anything that gives a woman some embarrassment.

This is the result of a radical change, a new receptivity to a new degree of legal supervision, all being done through the government, top-down, and maybe without the cabinet even being aware. Put it this way -- the same people who cut the deal-of-the-century with Karla Homulka now occupy senior positions at the AG's, and elsewhere, and they are leaning forward for women by tinkering with sex laws to make it clear who's the boss.

Any woman can now charge any man with a sex crime and give him something worse than a two-year migraine ... with impunity. That's the truth that TC is trying to distract your attention from. Add to that that, in this case, there are very clear political motives involved. It isn't necessary that Brown did anything wrong. There is no need for corroborating evidence whatever! No need for a crime, or a trial -- we move directly to punishment.

But men in the Arts are in the cross-hairs. Adam Schultz is being destroyed for (at worst) acting theatrical. The writer at UofBC's creative writing department is under the same kind of attacks. Why do you think it will stop there?

Probably the biggest civil rights violations in the country are these symbolic lynchings, as women drive men from the clean, safe, and well-paid part of the workforce -- government work. Men will get their half of their jobs -- the dirty, dangerous jobs that are paid so poorly.

Men of older generation think that's OK, and that it's the same for the young men as it was for them. Look at what the men who are now entering the workforce are treated.

This won't stop on its own. It has to be stopped.

When will men wake up to the fact that they are being persecuted as a sex? When it happens to them?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I truly should just say " shh.... adults are talking here"
Bugs wrote:
I hope Cosmo realizes TC's argument rests almost entirely on his feelings about how somebody seeing his whole life crumble (due to things entirely beyond his control) would react. It's bullshit. He is perfectly capable of arguing that, in the case of women, judges have to be re-educated that if a woman is raped, it isn't unusual for her to send appreciative emails soliciting another encounter to her rapist.

TC just babbles the talking points.

ON focus talking points.

Not mindless drivel such as...
Quote:


How many politicians are this pogrom picking off? And it is only gathering steam.
How about none? Pogrom? Horrible choice of word.

Quote:


Is being complimented being sexually harassed?

Nice tits...repeat as necessary. Yes.

Are you able to articulate any worthy examples or do you wish to stay in juvenile teen land ?
Quote:

What kind of comment, I wonder, would a male in todays work-world say that would be so upsetting that it'd be a genuine security threat?

No comment would be, short of threatening. Many comments could very well be.

Ahh...but in Bugs world, all percieved infractions are innocuous and its only the woman/gay agenda teachers and educators/liberals/fags fault for not having a sense of humour.
Ya know, like a bunch of male Cops sitting around the female cops and commenting on her this that and whatnot.
Its all funny and she should have a sense of humour.

Not how the world works anymore. Troglodytes no longer get away with shit, and the equal thinkers <cough cough> no longer hold the court.

So knock yourself out and shake that fist at the sky grampa .

Quote:
This has to be done this way because, so far as I can see, none of these women could (until the Gregory Allen Elliott case) prove that a crime took place at all. Where's the damage? Harassment is now being interpreted as anything that gives a woman some embarrassment.

No has said a crime was committed ( with the exception of providng a minor with alcohol.) so what is your ill founded rant about?
Quote:

This is the result of a radical change, a new receptivity to a new degree of legal supervision, all being done through the government, top-down, and maybe without the cabinet even being aware. Put it this way -- the same people who cut the deal-of-the-century with Karla Homulka now occupy senior positions at the AG's, and elsewhere, and they are leaning forward for women by tinkering with sex laws to make it clear who's the boss.

From the bizarre to downright ridiculous.....well done!
Quote:

Any woman can now charge any man with a sex crime and give him something worse than a two-year migraine ... with impunity.

Thats always been the case. If not when did it change.

A Court still has to convict . So if your pontificating that charge= conviction.... well well... lets just move on.
Quote:

That's the truth that TC is trying to distract your attention from.

Good lord you are a prickly angry old fart.

I have done nothing but address Browns reaction (for the most part) to the events .
Quote:

Add to that that, in this case, there are very clear political motives involved. It isn't necessary that Brown did anything wrong. There is no need for corroborating evidence whatever! No need for a crime, or a trial -- we move directly to punishment.


You should take note that Brown convicted himself by his own actions. He quit. He quivered when he shouldnt have (if he hadnt done anything wrong) His quiver appeared as a result of the allegations, not quivering because he is damn mad and pissed off his reputation is being impuned.

As your idol likes to say... "yuge difference" . And know this, I you know it too.

Quote:

Probably the biggest civil rights violations in the country are these symbolic lynchings, as women drive men from the clean, safe, and well-paid part of the workforce -- government work. Men will get their half of their jobs -- the dirty, dangerous jobs that are paid so poorly.

Angry old white guy postings.

Your relevance to what goes on day to day is shocking . How can one be some fucking clueless?
Climb out of the '50's , make your way to the present. And look around and learn.

Quote:

When will men wake up to the fact that they are being persecuted as a sex? When it happens to them?


Harvey Weinstein
Kevin Spacey
James Franco
Paul Haggis
Ben Vereen
Peter Martins
Morgan Spurlock
Tavis Smiley
Marshall Faulk
Ike Taylor
Heath Evans
Mario Batalli
Garrison Keillor
Matt Lauer
Louis CK
David Letterman
Bill O'rielly
Charlie Rose
Russell Simons
Jeffery Tambor
Al Franken
Roy Moore
Steven Seagal
Brett Ratner
Dustin Hoffman
Jereny Piven
Mike Halperin
Terry Richardson
Ben Affleck

....all of them innocent boys. Persecuted for being male. Ok, gotcha, thanks Gramps.

Holy out of touch Batman.

And YOU have internet?

Shh...adults talking here.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7996
Reputation: 318.6Reputation: 318.6
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

We are not making any findings of guilt in the legal sense, we are deciding if it appears the allegations have merit .
So, we look at (A) his presser-Why at 1AM if not to avoid any fallout? (B) His own words -they damaged him far more than no words spoken (C) His conviction when stating his words - there was none.


Agreed, this isn't a legal preceding but even still I am not comfortable with the information presented to even from a human nature perspective to jump to one side or the other.

I would take your sentiment a step further and say that every allegation has merit till it does not, however in this case we lack an opportunity to gauge both sides.

We are putting a lot of stock into the press conference but on the other side of the equation we have no context in which the accusations were made short of the words repeated by a reporter.

If the accusations were made at a podium with the same hesitation as the denial would that have had an effect on your opinion of the overall matter?


Toronto Centre wrote:

Human nature being what it is, we in our own minds get the facts as it were (or not, it doesnt stop some from forming an opinion w/out any) and start to decide if they appear valid, if there is anything there to pay attention to .

A child goes missing and we watch the Parents presser to see if we want to believe them.
A spouse turns up dead and we have a good long look at the other spouse.

I dont think it is wrong to do this. Afterall, severe enough and one gets a trial.


Sure,
But in those cases the accused usually gets to face their accusers at a minimum the evidence before the sentence is carried out.

The result of the entire situation is he was sentenced politically without so much as his accusers directly coming forward.

Toronto Centre wrote:

Liken it to this.

Your kid answers a question, and if the body language, tone of voice, or general demeanor of your kid who has been accused is entirely incongruent what else can one do ?
But I have to stress this..... We didnt convict him, he convicted himself. Every muscle in his body was saying "yea I did something wrong" all the while he was saying he didnt do anything wrong.
If not...then fight dammit !


Your point is understood,
But I am always reluctant to draw all my conclusions from body language,
Otherwise I would implicitly trust every smooth talking used car sales person I have come across. :)

Using your example, some kids with their hands in the cookie jar do a very convincing argument that they weren't sneaking cookies, and that goes both ways.


Toronto Centre wrote:

Very good question and frankly I do not know for sure.

For sure it makes a rocky start to the home stretch of the campaign. Then we ask, is this enough to last past a month if we get out in front of it ? Can we get PB to stand up and fight thru this, and start to move the pointer to issues of the campaign? Can the muckraking (from all sides) that will occur derail his message too far into the spring?

If the answers to my Q's as posed are yes, then I would answer your Q as yes also.


You raise a lot of good internal questions;

but I suspect the PCs asked one (and I am wildly speculating here)

"Do we want to be discussing this issue while we are campaigning?"

And again, I am being entirely speculative here
I don't think his guilt or innocence was a consideration in if the party was going to back him. It was a liability and it would have resulted in another election about anything other than the Governments record.

Toronto Centre wrote:

But his party faithful, his inner circle pleaded with him to step down. He said no and they quit over it.

I can only surmise that they know more than we know. ON the basis of what is known, these indescretions are relatively minor . None of these together seem enough to0 cause this type of meltdown.

I have to think there is something lurking .


I think this is likely the singular point where you and I will vary the most in terms of perspective.

The illusion of guilt in today's climate is enough to make an entire election about a singular issue. I think had he stayed on, its all we would have talked about till June.

The election would have been about the accusations and not the platform. Guilt, innocence, validity of accusations, or whatever was largely secondary to the fact that the party looked at the calendar and figured they had a enough time to cut bait and replace him cleanly with minimal blow back.

You are speculating that his staffers stepped down because they knew something was lurking and you may be right, you were right on the Rob Ford issue.

However, I am speculating that his staffers, caucus, and party felt that they couldn't win an election with these claims hanging in air

Toronto Centre wrote:

Insofar as we ( all of us) decide on guilt or not everyday we are alive, I find that your point hard to take.


That's fair enough;
I think this portion of the debate is nebulous.

You are entirely correct to take the press conference and all the other factors into consideration in your decision to assess not legally binding guilt LOL

However, at the same time I think I am entirely correct to be at least asking for more information before I ultimately draw the same non-legally binding conclusion.

Toronto Centre wrote:

I suspect though that the PC party has a bit of a problem in that the knives are missing from the kitchen.
When they state soon after that " Deputy PC Party Leaders Sylvia Jones and Steve Clark said in a written statement they learned of the allegations Wednesday evening. They said “in the interest of the Ontario PC Party we unanimously agree that Mr. Brown cannot continue serving as the leader.”...it appears to me more that they dont want him to lead.

Browns perception has always been skewed , most of what I can only think he brought upon himself. Wherever he was there were whispers


Its entirely possible the PC Caucus is sitting on a video of a 20 something single Patrick Brown from a decade ago enjoying the bar scene in Barrie and that makes them uncomfortable because they know another shoe is about to drop.

However using the caucus' rush to mop the decks on Brown (IMO) has more to do with polling and campaigning then anything else.

Lets set aside the who and the when for a moment and see if we can agree on one question.

Is it easier to win an election with allegation of wrong doing hanging over your leader or is it easier with five months to go to cut bait?

I think that it simply comes down to you and I drawing different conclusion about the tone and thought process of what happened in those three hours of late night and early morning.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5507
Reputation: 276.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In what bizzarro world does this make sense?

TC is putting a lot of claptrap in front of you, Cosmo, and you try to be reasonable. The bald fact is these women are taken as innocent victims because of their versions of a very complex mating procedure that human beings have been using since day one. And one of the old rules was that everybody pretended they were doing something else, but if a woman made herself vulnerable, unless she was very young and very innocent -- not a 21st century probability -- she consented to something by going along. Would Lady Mary like to stroll with me through the Rose Garden? Why yes, Mellors, a capital idea. And they duck behind the greenhouse and he checks her linen.

How does Mellors get at Lady Mary otherwise? Asking outright would probably earn him a slap in the face and unemployment.

Now, with no visible change in the law, all the rules have been changed. The definitions of what is "rape" now include a range of behaviours. Basically, unwanted sexual attention could be, at a woman's option, be criminalized. But the system balked, and for awhile, it was settled that a man could express interest, but he had to respect her rejection. The slogan became "No means No!"

And, almost by magic, in a twinkle, the standard became "affirmative consent". That means that a man risks being charged as a criminal when he expresses a sexual interest in a woman. You think I am crazy? Remember the Liberal MP who got fired by Trudeau because of an accusation -- psst -- do you know you have rapists amongst your members? She revealed names, and the next thing you know, their pictures are on the front pages of every newspaper in Canada as sex-criminals.

What happened? Something like this: some MPs went weekly for some sporting thing like badminton, and a drink or two later. They had been doing it for two years. One night, he asked her back to his hotel room. She accepted. When they got there, she sat in a chair, they chatted, and he sat on the bed. At some point, he patted the bed beside him. She got up and sat next to him. They started mush-mush, and as the latex began to pop open, she jumped up and went to her purse, and came back with a condom.

We now avert our eyes. Later, in a press conference in which her identity was protected, she answered press questions. She told the story much as I told it.
Why do you think you were raped?
she was asked. I NEVER GAVE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT she said.

This is part of what has changed. Almost anything that a woman says was sexual harassment is taken as sexual harassment by the Crowns. Worse, it doesn't even have to true. After a charge like this, the world does not go back to the way it was before.

And now it is being weaponized and used to settle vendettas and to oust men from good jobs that women envy. It may even be more organized than that. It is the "chill" the social engineers want. You know what "chill" is? If it were soviet Russia, we'd call it terror, but it's occupational terror, not actual gulags or shots in the back of the skull.

TC is trying to distract you into a silly conversation that isn't even about what the issues are. It's about finding a way of stopping the courts from being used as instruments of injustice, that simple. It's certainly not about equality.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7996
Reputation: 318.6Reputation: 318.6
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This entire situation is an oddity to me;

Never in my life did I think Rosie DiManno, Me, and Christie Blatchford would largely all be on the same side of an issue.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:


I would take your sentiment a step further and say that every allegation has merit till it does not, however in this case we lack an opportunity to gauge both sides.

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 .
Quote:


If the accusations were made at a podium with the same hesitation as the denial would that have had an effect on your opinion of the overall matter?

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.

I like how the Gomeshi trial wound up.

The women were seen to be not up to snuff as their stories fell apart under the brilliant cross examination from the shark he had, Heinin .

Those were criminal accusations, and as such we were able to view the trial. This one isnt, so we will be left with what we know now. Until that is when more comes out. (it always does eventually)

Quote:

Sure,
But in those cases the accused usually gets to face their accusers at a minimum the evidence before the sentence is carried out.

The result of the entire situation is he was sentenced politically without so much as his accusers directly coming forward.

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.

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.


Quote:

Your point is understood,
But I am always reluctant to draw all my conclusions from body language,
Otherwise I would implicitly trust every smooth talking used car sales person I have come across. :)

Using your example, some kids with their hands in the cookie jar do a very convincing argument that they weren't sneaking cookies, and that goes both ways.

Good slap!
Yes, some are better at the lying game.

And the body language is not the arbiter of all, but with other sublte and not so subtle hints, its hard to deny what ones gut tells the brain about this.

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)


Quote:


You raise a lot of good internal questions;

but I suspect the PCs asked one (and I am wildly speculating here)

"Do we want to be discussing this issue while we are campaigning?"

And again, I am being entirely speculative here
I don't think his guilt or innocence was a consideration in if the party was going to back him. It was a liability and it would have resulted in another election about anything other than the Governments record.


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.

The PC's have enjoyed a surge in support, signing up over 200,000 new members, filling the coffers and proving that there is a road to winning the election. (granted the last point hadnt been proven yet, but it was likely to happen)

So is this what they do to the guy who inproved everyones chances?
No debt
Reigning Premier of the most important province ?

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.

Folks :"PB supplying drinks to young girls"
PB : "Yeah, I was a bit of an idiot when I was 30 (big smile). Heck, I even had another girl in my room and tried to bed her , but she said no so I drove her home (another smile)"
Folks: " Oh...you tried to get laid as a single man? Sorry, never mind"

Ok simplistic but I happen to think that could very well have gone down that easily.The tricky part is if in the following days there are allegations/pronouncements that there were mare, far more and serious than these two.
Thats the gamble the Party has to weigh in on.

Quote:


However, I am speculating that his staffers, caucus, and party felt that they couldn't win an election with these claims hanging in air

See my earlier part.

They owed this to him. He made them money, signed up tons, had the wherewithall to get a good game going ( although a tad milquetoast for me)
The party brass could not take 48 f****** hours to find out some answers? If not then everyone o them (absence of more info) should step down.

A Party is a family. It has a head (mom and dad) and a body(kids). PB is the star child, but the heads call a lot of the shots.
Star child gets into a scuffle , sexual or otherwise, the family then closes circle and meets to plan what to do.
They do not open the door and toss the kid out. Baby and bathwater thing.

Yes I understand the air is a wee bit toxic when it deals with harassment these days, but sound paid advisers are not cheap and they are well paid to help the family figure shit out. They most certainly would not suggest they open the door and toss the man asunder.

Unless.....there is more and more serious goings on. Either that or PB is hated by his own.
Is there any evidence of that?

Toronto Centre wrote:



You are entirely correct to take the press conference and all the other factors into consideration in your decision to assess not legally binding guilt LOL

However, at the same time I think I am entirely correct to be at least asking for more information before I ultimately draw the same non-legally binding conclusion.

No way. I demand agreement !

Or not.... ;)

Quote:


Its entirely possible the PC Caucus is sitting on a video of a 20 something single Patrick Brown from a decade ago enjoying the bar scene in Barrie and that makes them uncomfortable because they know another shoe is about to drop.

However using the caucus' rush to mop the decks on Brown (IMO) has more to do with polling and campaigning then anything else.

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

Lets set aside the who and the when for a moment and see if we can agree on one question.

Is it easier to win an election with allegation of wrong doing hanging over your leader or is it easier with five months to go to cut bait?

Ok , lets.

My thinking:
If the allegations we know of is all there is
If the knives have been out for a while now (IOW, no solid internal support)
If the brass has a card up their sleeve....

...then I think they believe they made the right choice. I think he could have overcome all of this (again if this is all)with a determined stand.
Damn, his dance partner has limited appeal so he should be the one standing at the end. Wynne has so much baggae to draw upon that I do think he could have weathered the storm.

Maybe the brass thinks they can parachute Mulroney or Elliott in to take on Wynne. I dont know, but I can t shake the idea of why all of it went so fast without even a minor sober second of thought.
Quote:

I think that it simply comes down to you and I drawing different conclusion about the tone and thought process of what happened in those three hours of late night and early morning.

Permit me to say, I dont really think so.

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.

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.

Lots of men have been caught in compromising situations and have done penance and come back to the stage with little harm. He is a young man and an aggressive man. Does he never want back in politics? Does he want to be labled lame and a roll over? Can he not put up some moxy insofar as future employers may be favourable to a guy fighting back with the truth?

His future was in his hands, he handed it over to no one in a matter of hours.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends alert !
Bugs wrote:
In what bizzarro world does this make sense?

TC is putting a lot of claptrap in front of you, Cosmo, and you try to be reasonable.

When I come across a well respected member posting with intelligence and making sense, then I do my best to respond in kind.

Be a dear and advise what is the claptrap I have posted? Thanks.

But let me show you claptrap.

When one opines... complex mating procedure-deems these women have been made to be innocent(no one has but you) ...that muddies things to claptrap level. Well done !


Quote:


Now, with no visible change in the law, all the rules have been changed. The definitions of what is "rape" now include a range of behaviours. Basically, unwanted sexual attention could be, at a woman's option, be criminalized. But the system balked, and for awhile, it was settled that a man could express interest, but he had to respect her rejection. The slogan became "No means No!"

Ok boy, try to stay on topic and relevant.

No one, but you (big surprise) is talking about rape. No one involved in this from Patrick to the women to his caucus to the Party brass is talking rape.
No one is even hinting at it.

But you. And only you. Well done gramps. Look , theres a cloud to yell at.

Or you can go to church and in the middle of the sermon jump up and yell "Oranges are selling for 50 cents a pound."

You think I am crazy? [/quote]

Think ?

Nope.

Your recollection of legal issues is so suspect its not worth ever debating you on it. You refuse to read transcripts, of which most shred your insane ideas to hell . You have your own version of the truth which pretty much no one shares. Ok ..maybe that tin foil hat guy Alex Jones but beyond that....lonely.

And case in point? Read on.
Quote:

What happened? Something like this: some MPs went weekly for some sporting thing like badminton, and a drink or two later. They had been doing it for two years. One night, he asked her back to his hotel room. She accepted. When they got there, she sat in a chair, they chatted, and he sat on the bed. At some point, he patted the bed beside him. She got up and sat next to him. They started mush-mush, and as the latex began to pop open, she jumped up and went to her purse, and came back with a condom.

We now avert our eyes. Later, in a press conference in which her identity was protected, she answered press questions. She told the story much as I told it.
Why do you think you were raped?
she was asked. I NEVER GAVE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT she said.


Quote:

And now it is being weaponized and used to settle vendettas and to oust men from good jobs that women envy. It may even be more organized than that. It is the "chill" the social engineers want.

Holy shite Batman. Which of these women want Patrick Browns job? Was it the younger one? Is she party leader yet? NO? ...oh damn...

And do tell, how did these people engineer the story this way, collusion or mere luck and a shot in the dark? Did they have to find them and coach them?

Answers man , we want answers. Hang on for a sec, my Reynolds Wrap needs adjusting.

and ladys here is the coup de grace. Bugs version of what has happened....
Quote:

TC is trying to distract you into a silly conversation that isn't even about what the issues are. It's about finding a way of stopping the courts from being used as instruments of injustice, that simple. It's certainly not about equality.


Since no court is involved , no court has even been mentioned, no charges are pending, no equality issues have been presented anywhere....

Sorry gramps , what are you talking about?

Kids table --------------------> now go sit down.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 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