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, 5, 6, 7  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre

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

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jump right in!

The Toronto Star will have the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest angle for a defence.

Essentially it means they didnt/couldnt know what they were being fed was a lie. So that goes to the point made of there being more info witheld/discarded then it does become a problem .
I just cant see the Star being that petty for one, and stupid and careless from a liabilty part for two.

And why isnt PB suing the accusers? (apart from the lack of deep pockets there)

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5131
Reputation: 266.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Without a shred of hyperbole or mocking, I cannot discern what you are talking about in your post bugs.

I truly cannot decipher it.

My post proceeding had no wisecracks intended nor applied.

So, if I may, if you could edit that post I would be happy to respond.

In brief, I think that this law suffers at every level, from the definition to the removal of procedural protections (making sex offences almost a reverse onus situation), to the lack of consequences for false accusers, and a general stupidity in the administration of justice that assumes women never lie. It seeks convictions and has forgotten about guilt. The judiciary has been it intimiated, and has no real independence. (Google Robin Camp, judge, Canada)

This has been happening for over 30 years. The operating definitions change from "no means no" to "affirmative consent" without a Parliamentary vote. It seems to have been a purely administrative decision. It radically alters the courtroom situation.

It goes with increased female social aggression against men, I don't have the keystrokes to waste outlinng the craziness on campuses. If you don't get how courtship actually works, there's no point in explaining that students. at that age. have spent more time in schools than anywhere else. These relationships are prescribed as never before, down to dress codes and what pronouns to use. Things like "manspreading" are becoming mainstream. But the culture of the campus, like a corporate culture anywhere, is a creation -- and this one makes bullies out of women and wimps out of men.

These people go out into the corporate world and agitate for what they were taught was their right. Five to eight years after these things appear on campuses they are becoming issues in the larger society.

Christine Moore is only an example of what the women after Ghomeshi were like, as well, and so on. Ghomeshi's root sin is that he didn't have sex with them. Even though they were clearly offering themselves. They were operating out of rage and justifying it with feminist bullshit. They connived on the evidence and perjured themselves. The courts are reacting by limiting the use of email evidence.

There are more Christine Moores out there, being role models, trying to inspire the next generation. Now, ask yourself -- what new hell will they experience?

This is not good. Women are less happy than they were in the 1950ies. The children live in the wreckage of failed relationships, and men and women can't work together anymore without the male being exposed to a ruinous experience with state power.

This is what has to be stopped. Now you tell me where I am wrong, no mocking, no making it up.

This won't stop until it's stopped.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5131
Reputation: 266.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A restatement 'of the same point ...

Corbella: NDP MP Moore has thankfully painted herself into a corner
Men must now be able to read women's "non-verbal cues" while simultaneously only accepting "explicit verbal consent". It's heads I win, tails you lose for the likes of Moore.

Published on: May 11, 2018 | Last Updated: May 11, 2018 3:00 AM MDT

NDP MP Christine Moore has painted herself into an ideological corner with the rules she expects men to follow when it comes to sexuality. As a result, she has destroyed several political careers — and, at last, hopefully she has inadvertently impaled her own.

On the one hand, Moore expects men to pick up on women’s “non-verbal cues,” and on the other, to completely disregard all non-verbal cues and only pay attention to “explicit verbal consent.”

Moore is behind three sexual harassment complaints on Parliament Hill. The latest was against one of her own colleagues — Regina NDP MP Erin Weir.

Following a three-month investigation, Weir, who is 36 and single, was kicked out of the NDP caucus.

“Mr. Weir had failed to read non-verbal cues in social situations,” said NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh last week on Parliament Hill.

“The report states that when he realized that his advances were unwanted, he stopped,” continued Singh. [Bug's wonders: how could he "stop not reading social cues?" I don't see any evidence of 'advances'.]

Absurdly, despite the minor nature of these complaints — initiated by Moore — Weir has been kicked out of caucus for, essentially, disagreeing with the report findings and defending his reputation.

Thanks to National Post columnist Christie Blatchford, we now know that Moore is also the NDP MP responsible for destroying the political careers of two now former Liberal MPs in 2014.

Quebec Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti and Newfoundland and Labrador MP Scott Andrews were kicked out of the Liberal caucus after Moore complained to then third-party leader Justin Trudeau about alleged sexual misconduct.

Moore told Trudeau that she went to Pacetti’s Ottawa hotel room in March 2014 at 2 a.m. to have another drink. She admits she never said “no” to his sexual advances and never attempted to leave the room. And here’s the rub: she provided the condom for the sex they had.

So, according to Moore, the above-mentioned, close-talking Weir should have been able to pick up on “non-verbal cues”; but when she pulled a condom out of her handbag during foreplay at 2 a.m. in a man’s hotel room, that “non-verbal cue” should have been ignored.

If you’re gobsmacked by the absurdity of all of this, then welcome to the real world {emphasis added)

Following that encounter, Moore apparently chatted with Pacetti about “banal” things like the weather, but never addressed what happened, and then complained months later to Trudeau following a Remembrance Day ceremony that “it was sex without explicit verbal consent.”

Men must now be able to read women’s “non-verbal cues” while simultaneously only accepting “explicit verbal consent.” It’s heads I win, tails you lose, for the likes of Moore.

Besides these men, the other real victim of Moore’s allegations — and those like them — is how greatly diminished and discredited future serious sexual harassment complaints will be.

Ironically, we now learn that Moore herself is the true alleged sexual aggressor.

Retired corporal Glen Kirkland, 34, was contacted by the media this week after it was known for years on the hill that Moore plied the PTSD-suffering soldier, who testified at a commons committee into soldiers’ ill treatment by Veterans Affairs, with booze in her office and then followed him back to his hotel room where she had sex with him.

According to Kirkland, Moore did not honour any non-verbal cues or even explicit verbal ones: he told her he didn’t want anything more to do with her. She, however, was relentless, sending him explicit photos and texts — flying in July 2013 and renting a car to drive to Kenosee, Sask., where he was golfing with friends.

According to an interview with Blatchford, Kirkland told Moore then that they weren’t an item. Nevertheless, a few weeks later, she showed up at his house in Brandon, Man., with suitcases in hand. Sounds like stalking to me. If the genders were reversed, police would have likely been called.

Hopefully, if Moore is not permanently kicked out of the NDP caucus, then perhaps the citizens in her Quebec riding of Abitibi-Temiscamingue will send her a non-verbal cue during the next federal election, and vote for someone else.


The point is I have been right all along, and you know what -- I am not the only one. There is a conspiracy of silence around this. For men to even get together to talk about what to do in the face of this is impossible because of this conspiracy of silence. in which people like TC act as attitude police, and secondly, their own competitive/individualistic conception of their careers.

In today's media world, a man who wrote exactly this article would probably not be able to get published. You will note at how men are muzzled. There isn't a single man with a bureaucratic/governmental career in mind who will utter a peep in today/s Canada! Imagine that!

It works through "chill -- another word tor career intimidation. The younger you are, the more you live, as a man, in an atmosphere of low-level terror from these kinds of attacks. It doesn't have to be sexual, or even true. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ... or maybe to ger rid of a rival? Just saying ...

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

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Jump right in!

The Toronto Star will have the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest angle for a defence.

Essentially it means they didnt/couldnt know what they were being fed was a lie. So that goes to the point made of there being more info witheld/discarded then it does become a problem .
I just cant see the Star being that petty for one, and stupid and careless from a liabilty part for two.

And why isnt PB suing the accusers? (apart from the lack of deep pockets there)

If there was no secondary sources available to the media outlet which ran with the story and there was no "reasonable" reason to dispute the information, sure.

In the case of the Star I cannot comment;

However I believe we have seen some sources come forward regarding the original story claiming that they were interviewed and gave a version of the story which was in direct conflict with the claims which were cited.

If that is a reality they cannot hide behind the precedent that they the accusers mislead them because they had information which they didn't do their due diligence on and it makes the case a slam dunk for Brown.

The age at the time of the event of one of the accuser fell apart within a few days;
Clearly CTV was trying to get this out there first, as such the usual due diligence I would expect was clearly not followed.

Its why I am standing firmly behind my "if" statement from earlier.

As to what the other secondary news agencies had available?
Won't even begin to speculate, we can do that after its settled depending how quickly it settles.

As to why not go after the accusers?
Why bankrupt two women when you can go after a media outlet worth far far more.

Its about money and principal as a 1A and 1B.

If the media outlets settle with him, the point about the accusations is largely made and the creditably of the accusers is damned by association, rightly or wrongly so.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5131
Reputation: 266.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is getting too rich! How would you experts handicap this case of alleged defamation case? On its merits, and in comparison to Patrick Brown's?

Christine Moore denies sexual misconduct, plans defamation lawsuit
By Mylene Crete, The Canadian Press — May 13 2018

OTTAWA — New Democrat MP Christine Moore says she's taking legal action to fight a former soldier's allegations of sexual misconduct, which she describes as a "total lie" aimed at attacking her credibility.

In an exclusive interview, Moore told The Canadian Press she intends to bring a defamation lawsuit against Glen Kirkland, as well as columnists Neil Macdonald, Christie Blatchford and Rosie DiManno, who reported on the matter.

"To want to do that because I dared to denounce people who behaved inappropriately, I think it's horrible," she said, referring to her role in the recent investigation into her colleague Erin Weir, as well as Liberal MPs Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews in 2014.

All three men were expelled from their respective caucuses following the investigations.

"My private life was exposed" she said. "My sex life was exposed. It was hard for me. It was hard for my family...for everyone around me."

In the presence of her lawyer, the 34-year-old Quebec MP said she had a romantic relationship with Kirkland that lasted about four months, between June and October 2013.

"We were lovers," she said, adding they had discussed long-term plans.

"Maybe he lied to me and never loved me, but at the time I was sure we were lovers."

It's surprising, given her squeals of outrage, that she has so little empathy for the problems she caused Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti and his family? Or even Erin Weir?

If someone said she was an irresposible asshole, would that be defamation? 'Or a description?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  

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 cannot download files in this forum

It's just the start: more tales of the sexual pogrom

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB