Former NDP Staffer assaulted by candidate

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Former NDP Staffer assaulted by candidate

*

Issues Pages: 
Pondering

Ratelle has heard her alleged aggressor is seeking to become an NDP candidate in the 2015 federal election.

She said she is frustrated the federal party has not publicly vetoed the candidate’s bid to run again.

NDP spokesman George Soule told HuffPost Tuesday that the race in the riding has not been called and that no candidate had been approved.

“We have no declared candidates for the nomination,” Soule said, while acknowledging that he cannot disclose whether any potential candidates have been vetoed. “We assure our candidates that the entire vetting process is confidential.”

HuffPost also spoke with three other individuals whom Ratelle said she informed of the allegations during the campaign period. Ratelle provided text messages she said she received from the candidate during the campaign. In one message, he tells her to come get a big kiss and tells her suggestively that she’ll get a big reward if she accomplishes a task.

Ratelle said the candidate, a significantly older married father, asked her about her sexual preferences and attacked her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/11/ndp-sexual-harassment-assault_n_...

 

Debater

It appears that the Jian Ghomeshi incidents have motivated a lot of people in the political world to keep coming forward, as well.

terrytowel

This should be in the Ontario section, not here in the Canadian politics section.

Already Andrea Horwath is facing questions from the media about this.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

This should be in the Ontario section, not here in the Canadian politics section.

Already Andrea Horwath is facing questions from the media about this.

But the man intends to be a federal candidate not an Ontario one.

Stockholm

He can intend whatever he wants - his candidacy will never be allowed

Marco C

Assuming the allegation is true.

 

There's a lot going on in this article... especially when she starts accusing the party of not giving her a job over this issue I start to get suspicious about what’s going on. That said if this guy’s is what the staffer says he is then yes I would think he’s not going to get the ok the run.

 

But I would like to see an in depth investigation to get the truth.

Pondering

Stockholm wrote:

He can intend whatever he wants - his candidacy will never be allowed

Probably not now.

She said she is frustrated the federal party has not publicly vetoed the candidate’s bid to run again.

 

Rokossovsky

Is it required for the NDP to announce publicly who is or is not allowed to run?

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

He can intend whatever he wants - his candidacy will never be allowed

Don't tell me he supported the Gaza flotilla?

 

Aristotleded24

This is a very serious allegation that has come forward. I would hope that it is thoroughly investigated and that the truth would come out, and I would hope we can confine our discussion to the issue at hands without this becoming a partisan pissing match about which party is more pure than the others. None of the political parties have clean hands on the issue of harassment.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... I would hope we can confine our discussion to the issue at hands without this becoming a partisan pissing match about which party is more pure than the others.

You must be new here.

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... I would hope we can confine our discussion to the issue at hands without this becoming a partisan pissing match about which party is more pure than the others.

You must be new here.

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

He can intend whatever he wants - his candidacy will never be allowed

Don't tell me he supported the Gaza flotilla?

 

 

Marco C

Rokossovsky wrote:

Is it required for the NDP to announce publicly who is or is not allowed to run?

 

Nope, they don't. Same as any other political party.

Rokossovsky

Because the vetting process might involve releasing personal information to the jury that vets the candidate?

Rokossovsky

So in fact annoucing publicly that a candidate would not be eligible, would not only contravene NDP policy but all parties in this regard.

Marco C

I know there is a privacy reasons why they don't discloses publicly who's been disqualified, but I also think it's for common courtesy.

 

To my knowledge only the perspective candidate and the EDA exec would know of the disqualification. And only the selection committee and the candidate would know the reason for the disqualification.

 

I’m sure it would also stop an angry candidate from claiming liable or defamation

Unionist

Marco C wrote:

I know there is a privacy reasons why they don't discloses publicly who's been disqualified, but I also think it's for common courtesy.

So, when the candidate himself asks publicly why he has been disqualified - and the bureaucrats of the inner party circle refuse to comment - that's "common courtesy"? It's to protect his privacy?

It's the same sleazy totalitarian methodology used by the Liberal party to suppress dissent or embarrassment. The NDP are good students.

I'm talking about [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/not-your-ndp-candidate]Paul Manly[/url], but you can Google Dana Larsen if you like. And others.

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Marco C wrote:

I know there is a privacy reasons why they don't discloses publicly who's been disqualified, but I also think it's for common courtesy.

So, when the candidate himself asks publicly why he has been disqualified - and the bureaucrats of the inner party circle refuse to comment - that's "common courtesy"? It's to protect his privacy?

It's the same sleazy totalitarian methodology used by the Liberal party to suppress dissent or embarrassment. The NDP are good students.

I'm talking about [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/not-your-ndp-candidate]Paul Manly[/url], but you can Google Dana Larsen if you like. And others.

 

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... I would hope we can confine our discussion to the issue at hands without this becoming a partisan pissing match about which party is more pure than the others.

You must be new here.

Marco C

Paul Manly said

“I was told verbally on the phone, that the reason was in relation to “what I said and did when my father was in Israel.” There was also concern that I was running to make Israel and Palestine an election issue.”

 

He was told the reason; he just didn't like the answer, I don’t necessarily agree with the decision but it is a valid one. But calling it  totalitarian methodology, no not at all. What the liberal are doing is cleaning house of those who; aren’t approved by JT, have passed issued with him or could pose a leadership risk in the future to him.

Rokossovsky

There is absolutely no comparison between jetisoning a candidate for apparent, or alleged political differences with the party leadership, and a person who show wreckless disregard for personal propriety in situations with volunteers and staff.

The Manly case is obviously questionable. The case of Dana Larsen directly to do with his advocating the safety of driving while stoned on pot, in comparison to alchohol.

Personally, I felt both Manly and Larsen were questionable decisions, partly in the last case because Larsen was a known advocate of pot liberalization, long before he was vetted for candidacy.

This guy simply has to be jetisoned because of his indiscrete, embarassing misconduct and lack of judgement.

Anyone who is making this comparison has jumped the shark by making comparisons between these people of considerable integrity, and this bum who his harassing interns in his car.

Is "unionist" really suggesting that the NDP might have cause to allow this guy to run, as might be considered in the case of Manly and Larsen?

Some people really stretch the bounds of intellectual and moral credibility when reaching out to knock down the NDP.

This case is absolutely clear.

Rokossovsky

Unionist is slandering Manly and Larsen by making this comparison, and using them for partisan attacks, nothing more.

Unionist

Marco C wrote:

He was told the reason; he just didn't like the answer, I don’t necessarily agree with the decision but it is a valid one.

I think I didn't my point clearly. The NDP central bureaucracy refused to comment. They refused to confirm, even when Manly said what he recalled. They said it's "private". That's what I'm calling totalitarian methodology.

Justin Trudeau's methodology is quite similar.

In both cases, it has nothing to do with democracy, openness, transparency, or respect.

We can't even discuss the reasons for banning a candidate - because the reasons are secret.

People who adore either of these parties (count me out) should really question these methodologies, instead of lamely defending when their own party does it and loudly attacking when the other one does it.

That's what we call a "partisan pissing match". You urinate on your opponent, even when you and they are indistinguishable. That's the dictionary definition.

 

Rokossovsky

Meanwhile, Manly and Larsen need to be dragged through the mud of sexual harassment allegations to prove some abstract point, which can not be satisfied by sticking to the topic at hand, apparently.

The suggestion is that the NDP is somehow manipulating the complainant in this case to clear the nomination slate for some more appropriate candidate, or for political gain, as some level, is that it?

Pondering

In which cases has Trudeau kept the reasons secret?

If the person involved in this case has made it publically known that they are going for the nomination and has not withdrawn then I think it's a valid complaint. It's not necessary for the NDP to give a reason for disallowing a potential candidate.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
The suggestion is that the NDP is somehow manipulating the complainant in this case to clear the nomination slate for some more appropriate candidate, or for political gain, as some level, is that it?

No, where would you get that idea? Her accusation seems to be that despite her notifying the NDP of his behavior the man is still being permitted to run for a candidacy.

Rokossovsky

I am wondering about Unionist's sudden desire to drag previous cases of failed nominations such as those of Manly and Dana Larsen, which were barred for what appear to be political and "victimless" misconduct, respectively, and how it relates to this case.

I am not really clear on what Unionist means, since I believe in those cases he thinks that the process failed those candidates, and they should be allowed to run, and how it relates to this.

Is he suggesting that this guy should be allowed to run for the NDP because the process is flawed?

Brachina

 He hasn't been approved for anything yet, its being looked into, the NDP has a process to follow.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

This should be in the Ontario section, not here in the Canadian politics section.

Already Andrea Horwath is facing questions from the media about this.

But the man intends to be a federal candidate not an Ontario one.

But since he will probably NOT be green lit, the allegations took place during the Ontario Provincial election.

& the investigation is happening at the provinicial level.

As such that is why this thread should be in the Ontario section, as the Fed NDP will NOT touch this with a ten foot pole.

The ONTARIO NDP party is investigating this, as such it belongs in the Ontario section.

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 He hasn't been approved for anything yet, its being looked into, the NDP has a process to follow.

Which is happening with the ONTARIO provincial party, they are the ones investigating.

He can hope to win the Federal nomination, but that is not going to happen.

So why are we talking about an ONTARIO matter in the Canada Wide section?

This thread should be moved to the Ontario section, pronto!

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Which is happening with the ONTARIO provincial party, they are the ones investigating.

He can hope to win the Federal nomination, but that is not going to happen.

So why are we talking about an ONTARIO matter in the Canada Wide section?

This thread should be moved to the Ontario section, pronto!

Because the context it is being told in is federal not provincial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/11/ndp-sexual-harassment-assault_n_...

An intern on Parliament Hill and a member of a federal riding executive, she met her alleged aggressor during an evening meeting in late April. The (FEDERAL) riding executive was discussing how they could help the provincial campaign and the candidate asked her if she would be his political attaché, a volunteer position that would place her at his side for several weeks. She had never met him before.....

She also filed a complaint against the candidate with the Ontario NDP, and is concerned he will try to run in the next federal election....

Ratelle has heard her alleged aggressor is seeking to become an NDP candidate in the 2015 federal election....

 

And:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/11/andrea-horwath-sexual-harassment...

Ratelle wrote the NDP’s provincial secretary, Darlene Lawson, a letter detailing the allegations in mid-August, two months after the candidate was defeated. In the email, Ratelle requested that the candidate be barred from running for the NDP at the provincial or federal level ever again.

Lawson told Ratelle the matter would be addressed and followed-up with her by phone. She later informed Ratelle that her complaint would be shared with the federal party. She offered Ratelle the option of participating in a mediation process, which she accepted. However the accused candidate refused to take part.

Apparently the NDP has not confirmed to Ratelle that he will not be permitted to run at the federal level. It would be a simple enough thing to do even now.

terrytowel

Then why has this been tossed into Andrea's lap, and she has been told to deal with it.

Rokossovsky

Really? You mean Tom should call a midnight meeting of the executive, overide the process of the officers in charge of the local party constituency association, and boot the guy from the party because of a report in the Huffington post?

Unionist

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/12/11/ndp_silent_on_details_... silent on details of alleged sexual assault on campaign volunteer[/url]

 

Brachina

 The NDP is respecting the process and doing the right thing, so as to be fair to both accuser and accused. Both have rights that need to be respected and as thier is a police investiagation they need to be careful not to interfere.

 

 And the allegations occurred during a provincial campaign so naturally Andrea Horwath is the one to deal with it and she is more then capable of doing so.

 

Unionist

[url=http://globalnews.ca/news/1721631/horwath-wont-say-if-candidate-accused-... doesn’t say if candidate accused of sexual assault can run again[/url]

There's a 3:38 minute video. I dare you to watch it in full without the name "Paul Calandra" springing to mind.

Horwath won't say exactly when she learned of these allegations - though she says she was only "fully briefed" on them today - Dec. 11.

 

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Then why has this been tossed into Andrea's lap, and she has been told to deal with it.

I don't think she has any authority over who can and can't run federally.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

Really? You mean Tom should call a midnight meeting of the executive, overide the process of the officers in charge of the local party constituency association, and boot the guy from the party because of a report in the Huffington post?

I don't recall Mulcair's name being mentioned and I don't see the need for a midnight meeting.

Did the federal NDP recieve notification from the provincial NDP of the request that he not be permitted to run and if so did they heed it? There is no need to mention any names.

All they need to say is regardless of what the man is saying he will not be permitted to run federally.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 The NDP is respecting the process and doing the right thing, so as to be fair to both accuser and accused. Both have rights that need to be respected and as thier is a police investiagation they need to be careful not to interfere.

 And the allegations occurred during a provincial campaign so naturally Andrea Horwath is the one to deal with it and she is more then capable of doing so.

No one has a right to run for a political party. The NDP has the power to veto him for no reason at all if they choose to. It has nothing to do with any police investigation. He refused mediation.

All the NDP has to say now is that he won't be permitted to run.

Rokossovsky

Who knows? I know nothing. Mostly runours, but the accussation sounds real.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Then why has this been tossed into Andrea's lap, and she has been told to deal with it.

I don't think she has any authority over who can and can't run federally.

No but the Federal Party has tossed this back to Andrea to investigate within the Provincial Ontario NDP wing.

They have left it up to her to deal with it. Which is why this should be in the Ontario section, as the Federal Party is treating this as a provincial matter.

Once they come up with their findings, then the Fed party will decide if this person can run or not.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Then why has this been tossed into Andrea's lap, and she has been told to deal with it.

I don't think she has any authority over who can and can't run federally.

No but the Federal Party has tossed this back to Andrea to investigate within the Provincial Ontario NDP wing.

They have left it up to her to deal with it. Which is why this should be in the Ontario section, as the Federal Party is treating this as a provincial matter.

Once they come up with their findings, then the Fed party will decide if this person can run or not.

Deal with what? The Ontario election is over. There is nothing for her to investigate. The woman is asking that the man be barred from running federally and apparently the federal NDP was notified of that request. It's a yes or no answer.

Stockholm

One thing I can't quite get my head around is that the woman making the complaint says she wants the federal party to "publicly" bar the guy from running for a nomination, but she also doesn't want to reveal his name so as not to cause undo embrarrassment to him and his family...so how exactly could the party publicly bar from running a person whose identity we don't know without also outing that person?

Parties regularly reject potential candidates for nomination and its always a confidential process. Is there a suggestion that the party should hold a news conference to announce that "John Doe" will not be allowed to run for a nomination??

Pondering

Stockholm wrote:

One thing I can't quite get my head around is that the woman making the complaint says she wants the federal party to "publicly" bar the guy from running for a nomination, but she also doesn't want to reveal his name so as not to cause undo embrarrassment to him and his family...so how exactly could the party publicly bar from running a person whose identity we don't know without also outing that person?

Parties regularly reject potential candidates for nomination and its always a confidential process. Is there a suggestion that the party should hold a news conference to announce that "John Doe" will not be allowed to run for a nomination??

By public I don't think she means announced to the media although that is the normal interpretation. She wanted the man told he could not run provincially or federally. He must have put the word out publically that he is intending to seek a federal riding nominiation. So apparantly he was not told that he would not be welcome to run. So, she wants the word out publically that he will not be running for a seat with the NDP.

I find the reticience to letting the wife find out bizarre. Why don't these young women recognize the wife's right to know that their husbands are sexual predators?

P.S. They don't have to say why he isn't running, just that he isn't running. I also don't care for the tone of ridicule in your criticism of the woman who was sexually assaulted by this man.

Stockholm

I'm not criticizing her - i just want to know how you PUBLICLY bar someone who has not declared they are running for anything from hypothetically running for something while also protecting that person's privacy...

Unionist

There's no direct quote from her to that effect, so "publicly" may be the reporter's interpretation, or error. But I do understand why victims are hesitant to come forward, especially when their words get micro-analyzed. It's a shame that Horwath is unable to say more than "read our policy" and "we have a great policy" and "we followed our policy to the letter". Seems clear that their vetting and complaint process leave room for improvement.

 

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Then why has this been tossed into Andrea's lap, and she has been told to deal with it.

I don't think she has any authority over who can and can't run federally.

No but the Federal Party has tossed this back to Andrea to investigate within the Provincial Ontario NDP wing.

They have left it up to her to deal with it. Which is why this should be in the Ontario section, as the Federal Party is treating this as a provincial matter.

Once they come up with their findings, then the Fed party will decide if this person can run or not.

Deal with what? The Ontario election is over. There is nothing for her to investigate.

Good thing the cops are investigating. According to your logic, since the election is over, there is no need to investigate for alleged misconduct within the Ontario NDP Party.

Because as you said "The Ontario election is over. There is nothing for her to investigate."

OK got it.

Pondering

pondering wrote:

Deal with what? The Ontario election is over. There is nothing for her to investigate.

terrytowel wrote:

Good thing the cops are investigating. According to your logic, since the election is over, there is no need to investigate for alleged misconduct within the Ontario NDP Party.

Because as you said "The Ontario election is over. There is nothing for her to investigate."

OK got it.

All the victim wants is to know that this man will not be permitted to run federally.  If the Ontario NDP wants to do an internal investigation of their handling of the allegations I think it's a good idea. Their policy does need to change but I fear it is probably pretty much boilerplate.

My interest is in what happened to the letter informing the federal NDP of the complainant's request and whether or not they will bar this candidate from running.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I find the reticience to letting the wife find out bizarre. Why don't these young women recognize the wife's right to know that their husbands are sexual predators?

No kidding.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I find the reticience to letting the wife find out bizarre. Why don't these young women recognize the wife's right to know that their husbands are sexual predators?

No kidding.

Why don't we stop judging her? She was assaulted at the age of 19, and had the incredible courage to come forward publicly now. It's really not her job to define social norms for dealing with harassment and assault cases generally. And pardon my language, but WTF is "these young women" and WTF is "the wife's right to know"??

Give your heads a shake please.

 

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I find the reticience to letting the wife find out bizarre. Why don't these young women recognize the wife's right to know that their husbands are sexual predators?

No kidding.

Why don't we stop judging her? She was assaulted at the age of 19, and had the incredible courage to come forward publicly now. It's really not her job to define social norms for dealing with harassment and assault cases generally. And pardon my language, but WTF is "these young women" and WTF is "the wife's right to know"??

Give your heads a shake please.

 

 

 For once I agree with Unionist.

Pages