Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

766 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

Quiz,

the letter from the mediator is in that article at the bottom. It was included there.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Is it actually possible that Weir would resign and force a by-election in his riding, and then stand as a "CCF" candidate in that byelection?

robbie_dee

quizzical wrote:

Misfit wrote:

@quiz,

the link to your article you are seeking is in posts 627, 629, and 630.

i read the articles wanted to read full report robbie refered to but ty for responding.

Quiz are you asking about the NDP’s investigation report or the letter I referenced from mediator/coach Joy Noonan to House of Commons Chief HR Officer Pierre Parent?

I don’t think we will ever see the actual investigation report. The NDP has said it can’t release it due to confidentiality concerns.

Noonan, however, has both read the report and worked with Weir afterward to try to coach him on his behavior. She comments on the report findings as well as her interactions with Weir in her letter to Parent. She is an expert in the field, and since it appears she was paid directly by the HoC (rather than by Weir or by the NDP)  she would presumably have had a relatively neutral perspective. The Noonan letter was linked in the CTV article. If you’re having trouble finding that, here is a direct link: 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4555077/Letter.pdf

ETA thanks also misfit I didn’t see your last post.

Misfit Misfit's picture

No, thank you Rob. Your post is more thorough and better.

quizzical

thank you robbie and misfit.

sounds like a whole bunch of shit was thrown at Weir in the hopes some would stick.

looks like the guy has heart to me. hope his voter base sticks by him.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

He won his constituency by 100 votes. unfortunately it doesn't look that promising.

and if he tried to run as an independent then all he would accomplish is to split the left-wing vote

Notalib

Looks like he is priming the pump for a jump to the Cons in the next election now that the NDP is confident they can take out Trudeau in Ontario and the cons will form government.

This "giving the NDP one last chance" to let him back in, leaves little other room for interpretation. Especially since nothing has changed.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/06/25/ontario/149035

robbie_dee

The Hill Times article pertains to Ontario and does not appear to have anything to do with Weir.

The Conservatives already have a candidate for Regina Lewvan, anyways, so even setting aside the obvious ideological differences your suggestion doesn’t make sense.

Notalib

I attached the Hill piece entitled " Conservatives and New Democrats claim there’s ‘not a riding in Ontario that’s beyond’ their reach federally in 2019" because it speaks to the tag team strategy of defeating the Trudeau Liberal government which clearly extends beyond Ontario, but as we know, Ontario is pivotal.

With respect to your point about the MLA receiving the nomination. It's a good point. I did not realize they had their nomination. (I don't pay close attention to poli in Saskatchewan). So this does eclipse the notion I forwarded and thanks for pointing it out.

I guess this leaves us in the same spot then. Weir's continued candidacy as an independent "CCF'r" means a vote split and insurance for the Con victory in that riding.

However, that seems a poor departure strategy for Weir and his political career.The liklihood of winning as independent is very small. Which prompted my assertion that he may wish to seek other opportunities. And there are only so many of those. Have the liberals nominated their candidate? (kidding - lol)

I guess  he was hoping the partisan dynamics of restoring his seat in caucus would give the NDP the best shot at keeping the seat, and therefor leadership would reverse their decision. But that too seems impossible. Jagmeet made it clear just today he is confident and proud of his handling of these issues, which suggests re-instatement is not an option.  A leader typically does not reverse a position he is proud of.

Quote: He added that he’s proud of how he handled the harassment allegations that hit his party over the last couple of months.

“Though it’s obviously not something that we wish happened…[it] happened. And what the response has been in the past is kind of to ignore it, or to…brush it under the carpet and not really talk about it, not address it,” Singh said.

“I’ve chosen to say ‘listen, I’m not going to ignore it.’ If something comes to my attention, I’ve got to take action.”

Found here in today's Ipolitics: https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/25/im-confident-i-can-turn-it-around-jagmee...

Now, on the upside, there is a slim chance he can say he addressed it, the procedure the party adopted while the harrassment cases were unfolding proved reasonable with the potential of minor tweeks to improve it and in the case of Weir he has moved on his own volition to address the issues and this satisfies the leader's desire to see rehabilitive fixes.

So there is a slim chance, given the political dynamic of losing the seat, he will be allowed to run for the NDP in the upcoming election.

josh

I guess  he was hoping the partisan dynamics of restoring his seat in caucus would give the NDP the best shot at keeping the seat, and therefor leadership would reverse their decision. But that too seems impossible. Jagmeet made it clear just today he is confident and proud of his handling of these issues, which suggests re-instatement is not an option.  A leader typically does not reverse a position he is proud of.

That he's "proud" of it says a lot more about him than it does about Weir. 

Still waiting, by the way, for the promised release of at least a summary of the report.

Rev Pesky

Jagmeet Singh, as quoted in article above:

“Though it’s obviously not something that we wish happened…[it] happened. And what the response has been in the past is kind of to ignore it, or to…brush it under the carpet and not really talk about it, not address it,” Singh said.

Would have been interesting to have him give a concrete example of the NDP 'brushing it under the carpet'. Not many leaders slag their own party in order to make themselves look good.

josh

Kind of ironic that he says that they would "not really talk about it" when he refuses to talk about it.

Notalib

Josh writes: Still waiting, by the way, for the promised release of at least a summary of the report.

Notalib responds: I find this an interesting point. It is all speculation of course, but I imagine due to the nature in which Weir responded, the leadership of the party has decided against releasing details at this time. There could be many reasons for this.  One that concerned me was doing so would hurt Mr Weir even more. That said it does seem that the person whom couched Weir has been privy to the details and suggests that there is nothing more to the file than the rather strange notion of "close talking" and standing. While it is true that peoples boundaries can be violated in this fashion, it seems a harsh response to end a career over it. Which always led me to believe there was more to the allegations. I am not comfortable with speculation, and sadly this file is subsumed by it, but I assume the more Weir pushes for re-instatement, the stronger likelihood of it being released. It could be in fact the tool leadership uses to re-instate Weir given the apparent rehabilitation he has been through. So it could be a win win for all, if in fact the allegations are not as serious as they could be. Which might be a proper ending to this.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote in post 624:

"The "check" is when the findings are presented to the accused. If he has to know who is accusing him of rape to deny it that tells me he is guilty."

Pondering, this statement is beyond bizarre. It is chillingly disturbing.

if someone in your workplace went through the proper channels and formally accused you of rape, you would want to know who made the allegation, especially if you are innocent.  You would want to know who the person is so that you can piece through your interactions with the accuser to try to figure out why that allegation was made in the first place. And the fact that you wanted to know who the person was who accused you does not make you guilty rape.

Of  course you would want to know but you wouldn't need to know in order to deny the accusation. At that point it is up to the accuser to drop it or make the accusation through legal channels or make it public or whatever. 

If someone accuses me of stealing 10 dollars or 100 or 1000 I will deny it. I don't need to know who the accuser is even if I very much want to know. I know I haven't been stealing from anyone so it doesn't matter who the accuser is from that perspective. 

If my employer tries to sanction me anyway based on believing my accuser I would take steps to assert my rights as an employee.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
I agree with Misfit here Pondering.  Even when someone is innocent they should be made aware of who their accuser is so they can begin to mount a defense against the accusations. Anyone who thinks "I'm innocent so it doesn't matter" has never dealt with the court system after being falsely accused of something.

Within the court system there is a need to know and the accused does have a right to know if there will be proceedings against them.

In a non-court situation they don't have that right. If steps are taken against them based on false allegations there is recourse. There are laws against libeling someone particularly if it results in concrete damage to someone's career. 

Pondering

Weir was not expelled from caucus based on the report's findings. He was offered anti-harassment training after which he would be readmitted to caucus. It's lovely that he completed that training and apparently learned from it. He still doesn't seem to understand why he was expelled.

The report validated the complaints in saying there was a disconnect between intent and the negative impact on recipients. The report claims he now understands that his large size and large voice and animated gestures are a problem particularly for women and people in a lessor power position. 

But that is not what Weir said and it isn't why he was expelled. He was expelled for claiming the accusation by the woman who spoke to CBC was baseless and politically motivated, for releasing identifying information about her through his description of the event and for claiming the other accusations would surface no matter who was investigated because they were "solicited".  

If he had a change of heart while talking with the anti-harassment trainer then he needs to retract his statements and apologize to the woman he accused of being politically motivated. He also made accusations against Mulcair and against Angus who remains an important member of caucus. 

Weir chose to make his appeal to the NDP through the media rather than directly. He is either trying to strong arm the NDP or doesn't want back in and is just trying to vindicate himself. If he is trying to strong arm the party that means he would be nothing but trouble if reinstated and has poor political instincts. If he is trying to publically vindicate himself I think he achieved it. 

Notalib

Pondering writes:

Weir was not expelled from caucus based on the report's findings. He was offered anti-harassment training after which he would be readmitted to caucus. It's lovely that he completed that training and apparently learned from it. He still doesn't seem to understand why he was expelled.

The report validated the complaints in saying there was a disconnect between intent and the negative impact on recipients. The report claims he now understands that his large size and large voice and animated gestures are a problem particularly for women and people in a lessor power position. 

But that is not what Weir said and it isn't why he was expelled. He was expelled for claiming the accusation by the woman who spoke to CBC was baseless and politically motivated, for releasing identifying information about her through his description of the event and for claiming the other accusations would surface no matter who was investigated because they were "solicited".  

If he had a change of heart while talking with the anti-harassment trainer then he needs to retract his statements and apologize to the woman he accused of being politically motivated. He also made accusations against Mulcair and against Angus who remains an important member of caucus. 

Weir chose to make his appeal to the NDP through the media rather than directly. He is either trying to strong arm the NDP or doesn't want back in and is just trying to vindicate himself. If he is trying to strong arm the party that means he would be nothing but trouble if reinstated and has poor political instincts. If he is trying to publically vindicate himself I think he achieved it.

Notalib: Well stated!

josh

More like BS.  We've gone over this a million times.  Weir was attacked publically, and responded publically after receiving no response to his internal query.  Notalib has returned to joing Pondering, who has amazing knowledge of a report which the mediator described its charges as "not serious," to once again cruxify Weir while flacking for the NDP "braintrust."

robbie_dee

Notalib wrote:

Pondering writes:

***

Weir chose to make his appeal to the NDP through the media rather than directly. He is either trying to strong arm the NDP or doesn't want back in and is just trying to vindicate himself. If he is trying to strong arm the party that means he would be nothing but trouble if reinstated and has poor political instincts. If he is trying to publically vindicate himself I think he achieved it.

Notalib: Well stated!

I'm pleased to hear that both Pondering and Notalib agree that Weir has now been "publicly vindicated".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Notalib wrote:

Looks like he is priming the pump for a jump to the Cons in the next election now that the NDP is confident they can take out Trudeau in Ontario and the cons will form government.

This "giving the NDP one last chance" to let him back in, leaves little other room for interpretation. Especially since nothing has changed.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/06/25/ontario/149035

You made it sound there like the NDP WANTS a Con victory.  They don't.  And you know it.

Pondering

josh wrote:

More like BS.  We've gone over this a million times.  Weir was attacked publically, and responded publically after receiving no response to his internal query.  Notalib has returned to joing Pondering, who has amazing knowledge of a report which the mediator described its charges as "not serious," to once again cruxify Weir while flacking for the NDP "braintrust."

What? We do have access to the letter written by the anti-harassment trainer. It more or less confirms that he did intimidate the women but that it wasn't intentional. In terms of harassment he has been vindicated. 

That is not why he was expelled from caucus. He was expelled for giving identifying information about one of the complainants and accusing her of being politicly motivated due to his position on the carbon tax. Even if he felt he had to respond he didn't have to give out that information and he didn't have to make the accusations he did. 

He hasn't walked back those accusations. He hasn't apologized for making them. That's the "it" he still doesn't get or is ignoring. One or the other. 

The accusations he made can't just be overlooked. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I love how people think their arbitrary views of events can take the place of objective facts. Weir is an evil bad man for objecting while being railroaded and Trudeau is a misunderstood feminist who just coped a feel at the wrong time. I understand what you are saying I just think it is ridiculous.

Notalib

Wow, just wow.

Excerpt: I met Erin for the first time when I was 14, at a Sask NDP leadership debate. I found him aloof and awkward, but thoughtful and very smart. I had never experienced anything directly from Erin Weir that would be termed harassment.

I still started hearing stories shortly after he was elected to Parliament. Stories that align bizarrely with the report coming out of Ottawa even though I knew they weren’t from complainants. For every woman who spoke up, and put herself through the formal process, there are several more who stayed mostly silent- instead relying on the NDP’s whisper network to keep themselves and others safe. I heard other complaints, too- those describing his office as "a frat house," and women within the party refusing to work with them.

In the summer of 2017, he hired a man, as a summer canvasser, with a history of sexually harassing young women, including me. He is still prominently featured on a YouTube video of Erin Weir going door to door defending SaskTel. In August of that year, that man was in Saskatoon, sent by Team Weir to volunteer on a by-election campaign, and one night he raped me in my apartment.

I didn’t initially blame Weir for the attack, despite pressure to do so. I blamed the party I loved for not having better oversight not to immediately turf someone who should have been well known as a sexual predator- in 2016 and after the provincial election when he began looking for more permanent work with them.

Found here: https://medium.com/@rylee8ann/the-last-ccf-member-of-parliament-a6f69bca628f

6079_Smith_W

If the climate in his office was that bad, why did the NDP investigation not catch any of it? It seems to me overseeing a toxic workplace is far more serious than just standing too close to people. So why, for all their beating of the bushes, did the NDP not catch any of this, or deal with it?

I am not saying this to dismiss Schuhmacher's account, but this doesn't clarify anything for me. It makes it a lot muddier. If true, the fact there was dead silence about this makes no sense at all, unless the motive was not to fix the problem, but to get rid of one person.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Notalib wrote:

 

Looks like he is priming the pump for a jump to the Cons in the next election now that the NDP is confident they can take out Trudeau in Ontario and the cons will form government.

What a callous and horrible thing to say or speculate on. This comment is gutter low and then some.

Erin Weir is a New Democrat. He has the values and principles of a New Democrat.  When he was kicked out of caucus, he decided to sit as a member of the CCF party, a party that was in tune with his values and ideals.

And to switch to the Conservative party???  The Conservatives are the furthest from his ideals and values.

Maybe you are a cheap and shallow opportunist, Notalib, and switching parties for opportunistic gain is an idea that you would personally entertain yourself.  From this comment of  yours, I now know that you obviously do not know Erin Weir.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 I love how people think their arbitrary views of events can take the place of objective facts. Weir is an evil bad man for objecting while being railroaded  

He wasn't railroaded. The investigation found the complaints valid. He apparently benefited from the anti-harassment training. He just make a really bad political decision when he attacked Mulcair, Angus, and the women who made complaints. Attacking and defending are not the same thing. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:
  and Trudeau is a misunderstood feminist who just coped a feel at the wrong time. I understand what you are saying I just think it is ridiculous.  

We don't know  that he copped a feel. I was in a line up for a bus. I tripped and accidently "goosed" the man in front of me. I was mortified not sexually accosting him and I apologized profusely. 

Maybe that is not what happened with Trudeau. Maybe he did "cop a feel" as you suggest but the situations are not the same. Multiple compainants and investigations make a difference. Right now we don't even have one complainant against Trudeau. The woman involved has not spoken in decades. Trudeau has not accused the woman of lying or exagerating or being politically motivated. 

Even if a man is guilty of  "copping a feel" if he did it once in college and never did it again most women would consider it a youthful mistake that he learned from. The problem is habitual mistreatment of women by men in power positions not isolated incidents between men and women who are in relatively equal power positions. 

If Weir were being railroaded he would have been expelled at the end of the investigation not offered anti-harassment training. Do you agree with Weir that Angus (and Mulcair) retaliated against him for his views on the carbon tax? Do you agree with Weir that complaints would be made against you too if they were solicited? 

The natural reaction to being attacked is to defend oneself. That can be done without accusations. Weir certainly had every right to accuse the party and the women who made complaints as being after him but having done so he can't expect the party to accept him back. Why would he even want to go back if he thinks they are so vindictive and conspiring against him? 

Conversations always seem to turn to assuming that men are at risk of being accused of sexual harassment for isolated incidences, indiscretions or misunderstandings. If that were the case nobody would date anyone at work or at school. Men would all be chaste. 

Trudeau isn't being favored or defended. Some of us are just saying there isn't enough information to conclude that Trudeau treats women inappropriately. I am certain investigative journalists are doing everything within their power to find another whiff of information concerning that incident or another. 

MeToo is specifically about men who habitually take advantage of their power to harass women. If Trudeau were guilty of that we would know about it. He has been in the public eye since he was born. Even at private gatherings everyone would remember if Trudeau did anything remarkable like puffing on a joint and no woman would forget if he came on to them in any way or did anything in the least bit questionable. It's fair to question how deep is feminism goes but there is no doubt he has been one for a very long time. 

As Meg pointed out Trudeau has committed plenty of sins. Canada is insisting on the ISDS in both TPP and CETA. We are the snake in the trade deals.

Trudeau is buying a decrepit pipeline gambling that the courts will rule in the federal government's favor. Even if someone supports the pipeline that is not a foregone conclusion. The courts do not accept frivolous cases. There is a possibility that the pipeline is not economically viable over the long term given the volatility of the market and the Saudi production cost of 10$ a barrel. 

Trudeau is ignoring Kinder Morgan's many violations of conditions and bailing out a Texas corporation. 

Trudeau is sinking billions in public/private partnerships that will cost Canadians enormous amounts of money as we commit ourselves to decades of paying private contractors to maintain hospital services. 

There is lots more to add to that list.

There is no bias favoring Trudeau here. The explanations we are giving are genuine. You are deflecting. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Voters switch from the NDP to the Conservatives all the time. What is so vile and disgusting about that? It is their right to do so, whether you like it or not. As compassionate people, how can you have a bad attitude toward anyone who might wish to have freedom to choose? If you are surely compassionate, you must know that the failure of people to support your wonderful political party is YOUR FAULT.

josh

Notalib wrote:

Wow, just wow.

Excerpt: I met Erin for the first time when I was 14, at a Sask NDP leadership debate. I found him aloof and awkward, but thoughtful and very smart. I had never experienced anything directly from Erin Weir that would be termed harassment.

I still started hearing stories shortly after he was elected to Parliament. Stories that align bizarrely with the report coming out of Ottawa even though I knew they weren’t from complainants. For every woman who spoke up, and put herself through the formal process, there are several more who stayed mostly silent- instead relying on the NDP’s whisper network to keep themselves and others safe. I heard other complaints, too- those describing his office as "a frat house," and women within the party refusing to work with them.

In the summer of 2017, he hired a man, as a summer canvasser, with a history of sexually harassing young women, including me. He is still prominently featured on a YouTube video of Erin Weir going door to door defending SaskTel. In August of that year, that man was in Saskatoon, sent by Team Weir to volunteer on a by-election campaign, and one night he raped me in my apartment.

I didn’t initially blame Weir for the attack, despite pressure to do so. I blamed the party I loved for not having better oversight not to immediately turf someone who should have been well known as a sexual predator- in 2016 and after the provincial election when he began looking for more permanent work with them.

Found here: https://medium.com/@rylee8ann/the-last-ccf-member-of-parliament-a6f69bca628f

Not sure what this has to do with it if it wasn't the subject of the charges against him.  Other than to muddy his name even further.  There's nothing offered to indicate that he knew about it or condoned it.

Pondering

josh wrote:
Not sure what this has to do with it if it wasn't the subject of the charges against him.  Other than to muddy his name even further.  There's nothing offered to indicate that he knew about it or condoned it.

Read the entire article. It is about the culture within which Weir's behavior exists not just about Weir. It is why women are exasperated with men who continue to act like these accusations are so shocking. It happens to us all the time. It isn't at all unusual. The "frat house" mentality is not hidden. 

Does it further muddy his name, yes. Should he only be flattered?

6079_Smith_W

First of all, she said she had no bad experiences with him directly.

But why are the bulk of her complaints completely absent from the NDP investigation if indeed he was running a frat house? One way or another, something does not seem right.

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Progressive17,

 Yes, there are  voters who do switch from party to party. I am talking about an NDP MP from Saskatchewan which is the birthplace of the CCF/NDP rising to power.

You obviously don't understand Saskatchewan politics. 

And if Erin Weir actually did intend to cross the floor he would have done it already. 

Anyone who thinks that Erin Weir would run for the Conservatives after resurrecting the CCF and sitting in the House of Commons as a member of the CCF party because he claims that the values of the CCF closely identifies with his own personal values is a complete gutter fool!

Misfit Misfit's picture

Notalib,

I'm sorry for suggesting that you might be a gutter fool. That was inappropriate if me.

i am very disappointed that you would speculate or suggest that Erin Weir is some sort of shallow flip-flop political opportunist. That is certainly not what he is about.

Dale Brown

There was very much a Star Chambers aspect to the whole Erin Weir matter.  There is an accusation of the commission of a wrong but the "wrong" is not detailed.  Weir says the wrong was sitting too close or talking too long to someone - presumably a woman - but this was never clarified by the NDP.   There is a secret complainant and a secret report (did Weir even have full access to the Report) .  The "accused" was essentially denied the right to defend himself - in fact it was his half hearted efforts at defending himself that was the "wrong" that supposedly resulted in his expulsion.  Personally next time around I will not vote for our local NDP MP.  I will probably park my vote with the Greens.  I am not prepared to support a political party that if it gained power would operate the criminal justice system in this manner.

robbie_dee

Welcome to babble, Dale. I've already said upthread that I won't be donating to the NDP until Erin Weir's situation gets resolved in a better fashion than it has been to date - hopefully with his reinstatement to caucus in the fall Parliamentary session. If that doesn't happen, I don't know what I will do in the next election. I live in the Toronto area and my riding is typically a close Liberal-NDP race. Our current Liberal MP beat an NDP incumbent in 2015. I really liked the former NDP MP and I would normally be strongly inclined to vote for her if she ran again in 2019. On the other hand, the New Democrat in public ofice who I've been most impressed with since 2015 has been Rachel Notley in Alberta, and she's been getting a heck of a lot more support from Justin Trudeau lately than from Jagmeet Singh. Add that to the Weir issue and it seems like a pretty tough decision right now.

quizzical

robbie_dee rachel notley is fabulous. her family is adorable. 

i get her and i get the hail mary going on.

i will not be voting ndp in the next federal election though unless the whole situation is is conducted to a better conclusion by the time the house sits this fall. it's bull shitty shit.

he needs his life and integrity back. 

Unionist

Jagmeet Singh rejects Erin Weir's bid to return to caucus

Quote:

"I am not confident that the harassing behaviour will not be repeated," Singh wrote in a letter to Weir. "I will not be reinstating you to the Federal NDP caucus and will not approve your candidacy to run for the NDP in 2019."

That decision, which was first reported by CTV News, has angered former NDP politicians from Saskatchewan, the party's birthplace.

A letter signed by a group of 68 former NDP MPs and MLAs criticized Singh's handling of the situation, accusing him of flouting proper procedure and acting on "hearsay." It said Weir had sufficiently convinced his trainer that he now "gets it" and had made efforts to apologize and make amends to those affected by his actions.

"A fair and objective examination of the details involved simply does not support either the leader's characterization of the conduct complained of or the extreme harshness of the public shaming and banishment deemed by the leader to be fair and appropriate responses," reads the letter.

I don't know where Jagmeet Singh is getting his advice, but he should fire that person's sorry ass. Or himself, as the case may be.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I agree.

I am from Saskatchewan and I heard Pat Atkinson, a former Saskatoon provincial NDP MLA speak with CBC  radio this afternoon, and she was very angry with Jagmeet Singh's decision and was very vocal about it.

I wonder if Erin Weir is very intelligent and brilliant as an economist to the extent that he can dance circles around a lot of  other MPs. It could also be that his ideas are too unpopular with the upper party brass.  I believe that that he promotes ideas which are good for Saskatchewan but run contrary to what the national party wants to promote in order to appeal to their support base. This could be especially true if his ideas make sound sense and can embarrass the party.

Therefore, it is possible that they are using this harassment controversy as a lame excuse to evict him from the party because they just don't like his ideas and him personally.

bekayne

From the article:

Singh said his office received this week an email from the president of the union representing staffers working for New Democrat MPs expressing concern about Weir's request to be reinstated to caucus.

According to Singh, the union leader said welcoming Weir back into the fold "would put staff at risk and would violate their rights under the collective agreement to a safe, healthy and harassment-free workplace."

However, in her letter to MPs, Atkinson notes the president of the staffers' union happens to be Singh's press secretary.

Anybody know if this is true? The latest information I can find is that James Smith is his press secretary.

josh

I was told it was his “disclosure” that got him booted.  Turns out not to be true.

josh

Misfit wrote:

I agree.

I am from Saskatchewan and I heard Pat Atkinson, a former Saskatoon provincial NDP MLA speak with CBC  radio this afternoon, and she was very angry with Jagmeet Singh's decision and was very vocal about it.

I wonder if Erin Weir is very intelligent and brilliant as an economist to the extent that he can dance circles around a lot of  other MPs. It could also be that his ideas are too unpopular with the upper party brass.  I believe that that he promotes ideas which are good for Saskatchewan but run contrary to what the national party wants to promote in order to appeal to their support base. This could be especially true if his ideas make sound sense and can embarrass the party.

Therefore, it is possible that they are using this harassment controversy as a lame excuse to evict him from the party because they just don't like his ideas and him personally.

I think your last point is probably correct.  I hope he runs as an independent in the riding.  And that Singh goes down to defeat in Burnaby, a defeat he richly deserves because of this.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I'm reposting Unionist's article for simplicity.

Unionist's article...

Sheila Malcomson, NDP MP from Nanaimo, commented on the issue of the letter from former Saskatchewan NDP MPs and MLAs. She said that the female feminist MPs in caucus do not want Erin Weir reinstated.

They did not appreciate him going public with his own defence to the allegations.  She said that you never go the media about in party caucus issues.

The feminist women did not approve of him claiming that the allegations were trumped up.

They did not appreciate him "throwing Charlie Angus and Tom Mulcair under the bus" with his conspiracy theories.

They also don't believe that he has sincerely acknowledged what he had done.

I guess that Erin Weir had made a lot of enemies in caucus and they don't want him back.

i wonder if Pat Atkinson ever talked to Sheri Benson who is an NDP MP from Saskatoon.

There seems to be a polarization within the NDP

Unionist

Once Christine Moore went public (via email to all caucus members) with her unsubstantiated second-hand smear campaign against Erin Weir, the NDP inner circle was stuck. They figured they needed to choose between Moore and Weir. The consequences of disciplining Moore were unthinkable for them. Weir was an easier target, for several reasons (which have been amply canvassed in earlier discussions in this thread). So Singh, now provided with an opportunity to do the right thing, doubled down. This is the same party inner circle which barred at least four candidates out of fear of the Israel lobby.

As for Moore - she's our hero (article is from July):

NDP MP Christine Moore cleared of sexual misconduct claims, will remain in caucus

6079_Smith_W

Neat how some people can claim a mantle like "progressive" or "feminist" with the implication that others who don't agree with them on a certain issue are neither.

Anyway, here's a good article that goes over some of the specific claims that Singh did not follow proper procedure. Apparently the letter was signed by every living former NDP MP in Saskatchewan.

https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/ndp-veterans-in-sask-challenge-jagm...

josh

Nice of Singh’s press secretary to “spontaneously” send that letter.  The kangaroo court continues.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I hope that Christine Moore gets booted out in next year's election.

I really like Pat Atkinson. I worked for her election campaign in 1986. She won by a landslide.

The Saskatchewan letter rehashes everything that Unionist has said right from the very beginning.

i won't vote next year. I am that angry.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I consider myself a feminist and don't see eye to eye with the so called feminist in the federal NDP caucus. Some people can make you feel uncomfortable through no fault of their own. We are not as open-hearted as we like to think of ourselves. I remember being very cold to a lab partner in university because he seemed to be too close plus he had  severe congential cataracts that freaked me out (and in retrospect, who knows how that affected his visual perception). I am ashamed of my behaviour back then because that young man did not deserve to be treated so coldly by me. I was a total self-centered tool and regret my actions.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I guess maybe the complainants in the sexual harassment investigation do have a right to privacy but if the federal NDP gave us more information about what actually had transpired then maybe we can assess the severity ourselves. I also don't think that disclosing more information would put the complainants in jeopardy or publicly disclose who they are.

he was chastised for reading portions of the report to the media  and disclosed what he was found guilty of: standing too close, sitting too close, and talking longer than they wanted him to talk.

if he hadn't disclosed this to the media, Canadians would have been left with the impression that he acted like a perverted gills monster on the loose preying on multitudes of women. Erin Weir has a reputation and this all transpired on national television. He had every right to defend himself and his reputation, and to disclose the general nature of the complaints that were made against him.

I wonder if Jagmeet Singh did not want to elaborate on the specifics because there was very little to discuss and that he would embarrass himself by disclosing any details.

i am aghast that they would want Erin Weir to be known as a pervert and not want him to clear his name in any way. That is beyond cruel. It is evil!

quizzical

good thing i'm not a feminist. high horses means a long way to fall. my mom considers herself a feminist from the Island too and she's pissed. maybe it's a SK thing though.

Laine great self reflection thanks for sharing.

am so not voting. can't bring myself to vote Green after the little expose i got.

robbie_dee

quizzical wrote:

am so not voting. can't bring myself to vote Green after the little expose i got.

I’m voting Liberal. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
if the federal NDP gave us more information about what actually had transpired then maybe we can assess the severity ourselves.

Is that what #metoo hopes we'll all do?  Get "all the information" for ourselves and decide who's the liar?

I'm not saying that because I'm convinced that Weir is evil.

It's just that this is a very funny time in history to say "we must not be getting the whole story here because I know this guy would never do such a thing" and hope to not be called "part of the problem".

Pages

Topic locked