'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them' Says Publisher : Justin Trudeau Gropes Reporter in 2000: Editorial Accuses

307 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To me this looks like absolute crap.

These stories have more to them when they go public like this if there is substance. The fact that this is a second hand story without an accuser tells you what you need to know. The statements are only about something said out of context and nothing specific about what happened. Looks like a smear attempt and not a well performed one. Amateur.

This is comment #4. And here’s my comment #5

Ya actually Justin is on record for physicallly grabbing an MP by the arm against their will, using his elbow to inflict on a female MP and swearing in parliament. 

He has proven he is capable of using inflicting physical violence on others. 

I give the report a strong possibility!

Shame on you fellow poster! Shame!

You gave this woman no credibility and completely dismissed Justin’s well documented use of physical force upon people!

Shame on you for being so partisan. The woman said she is unwilling to stand behind her words. That hasn't happened in any other case. Trudeau didn't know anyone was behind him. Even if we assume he is guilty there is nothing left to be done if the woman will not stand behind her words even anonymously to a investigator. 

NorthReport

Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ!

'He's a strong member of the team': Trudeau backs Hehr as tough political battle looms

https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/hes-a-strong-member-of-the-team-...

NorthReport

Gropegate

This is getting worse and worse for Trudeau!

Trudeau groping controversy now a dumpster fire

https://torontosun.com/news/national/batra-trudeau-groping-controversy-n...

WWWTT

Shame on you for being so partisan. The woman said she is unwilling to stand behind her words.

Stop making shit up you troll!

Im going to ignore you for a period of time. If I was a moderator here I would suspend you for two weeks 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

 The woman said she is unwilling to stand behind her words.

Didn't she go on the record to say the incident happened exactly how it was reported? And the PM decided there wouldn't be an investigation? You know.....after speaking to "experts".

 

 

 

 

voice of the damned

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 The woman said she is unwilling to stand behind her words.

Didn't she go on the record to say the incident happened exactly how it was reported?

Yes. It would be more accurate to say that she refused to elaborate on her original words.

Which basically still just leaves us with not much to go on besides that Trudeau "groped" her, since that word is subject to innumerable interpretations.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(original post deleted by poster as a result of details of the incident having finally been reported).

NorthReport

This story plane and simple is about HYPROCRISY

bekayne

So what about Wab Kinew then?

Badriya

Trudeau grabbed her buttocks. The quote starts at 12:31.

C. Cullen “Do you know where he grabbed her?”

V. Bourne (former publisher of the Creston Valley Advance). “Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them”

Of course Pondering will claim it was one of her face cheeks.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4734719?__twitter_impression=true

 

NDPP

Well, OK, so Justin Trudeau groped her ass.

But in his defence, he apologized and said he wouldn't have been so forward if he knew she was reporting for a national newspaper. And 'I think the essence of this is people can experience interactions differently and part of the lessons we need to learn in this moment of collective awakening...people in many cases, women experience interactions in professional contexts and other contexts differently than men."

Especially if it's her ass.

 

Why couldn't he simply have said he was a 28 year old dickhead at the time, it was summer he was the star of the party full of himself and kokanee beer and thought he'd have a go. Instead we get these sanctimonious lectures in which the ass-grab disappears and we learn that he's been a practiced expert on these matters for 25 years. He's such a bad liar. This makes much more sense and explains the endless circumlocutions, trip-ups and mendacity. 

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To me this looks like absolute crap.

These stories have more to them when they go public like this if there is substance. The fact that this is a second hand story without an accuser tells you what you need to know. The statements are only about something said out of context and nothing specific about what happened. Looks like a smear attempt and not a well performed one. Amateur.

This is comment #4. And here’s my comment #5

Ya actually Justin is on record for physicallly grabbing an MP by the arm against their will, using his elbow to inflict on a female MP and swearing in parliament. 

He has proven he is capable of using inflicting physical violence on others. 

I give the report a strong possibility!

Shame on you fellow poster! Shame!

You gave this woman no credibility and completely dismissed Justin’s well documented use of physical force upon people!

I think you should go back to this post and edit it to put it in all caps becuase that would make it more consistent with the kind of garbage that it is.

I never said anything approximating your contention that I was giving this woman no credibility. She was at the time of posting not part of the story, not identified, and the story had no detail. Released in the way it was it was a pile of crap. Since she has come forward to say she does nto want to be part of this.

The principle of believing victims is important and I have explained my thoughts on this in this thread of some 200 posts and yet you decided to extract a post at the start of the story forgetting all that has come since, how the story was released and what was known at the time. I was clear that credibility is to the statements of fact. Extending them to decades old conclusions -- without ANY detail -- diminishes the principle rather than supports it. Allegations against politicians will always -- whether the core story is real or not -- be puffed up with political air to become weaponized in partisan debate. True or not, as the story may be, the article as it was first written smells of exactly that.

This has nothing to do with believing a person who expresses a story themselves or anything to do with the original story. It is about the resurrection of a story without the requisite parts to go anywhere.

As for the so called well documented Trudeau use of force, I never dismissed that and it has nothing to do with this. However, your portrayal of that is dishonest: you claim Trudeau was "using his elbow to inflict on a female MP." There is no evidence of the kind of intent you suggest here. Of course you might be a sloppy writer and not understand that doing one thing "to" do another implies intent.

I have never criticized anyone for swearing in parliament. That might have come to me if I had never ever used a swear word myself. As it is I am not as neck-deep in hypocrisy as you are.

I am not going to call shame on you since you regularly cover yourself in it all on your own.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Allegations against politicians will always -- whether the core story is real or not -- be puffed up with political air to become weaponized in partisan debate.

+1

WWWTT

Yes you did dismiss Justin and gave no credibility to this woman from the word go!

now you may have back tracked after this story started gaining traction, but no more has been revealed. Only thing has been Justin’s responding comments. 

You are actually doing exactly what Justin has been doing

voice of the damned

Badriya wrote:

Trudeau grabbed her buttocks. The quote starts at 12:31.

C. Cullen “Do you know where he grabbed her?”

V. Bourne (former publisher of the Creston Valley Advance). “Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them”

Of course Pondering will claim it was one of her face cheeks.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4734719?__twitter_impression=true

 

This doesn't seem to have made it to CBC's main website. Which might be understandable, given that the details provided are second-hand, but then it's kind of odd that they'd have it on their radio site.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
“Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them”

Don't we have four?  Anyway, dude could have just said "on the buttocks" if he didn't want to be coy.

It's pretty clear what's going on when the victim expresses zero interest in breathing new life into the claim, but lots of others with no skin in the game can think of little else. 

NDPP

I think, given the context, the statement by publisher Val Bourne on the location on the body of the young reporter where the Kokanee grope took place, something Trudeau has consistently omitted, is of some importance:

CBC: 'Do you know where he grabbed her?'

Val Bourne: 'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them.'

I have not seen this reported anywhere else and assume that isn't an accident. I will now change the title to reflect this.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It might not be an accident, but it's still a bit of an anatomical error.  Or am I the only one with four cheeks?

NorthReport

The CBC is just a Liberal Party front. Why do you think the Liberals win so many elections? So it comes as absolutely no surprise that the CBC would try to bury the story.

voice of the damned wrote:

Badriya wrote:

Trudeau grabbed her buttocks. The quote starts at 12:31.

C. Cullen “Do you know where he grabbed her?”

V. Bourne (former publisher of the Creston Valley Advance). “Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them”

Of course Pondering will claim it was one of her face cheeks.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4734719?__twitter_impression=true

 

This doesn't seem to have made it to CBC's main website. Which might be understandable, given that the details provided are second-hand, but then it's kind of odd that they'd have it on their radio site.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The CBC is just a Liberal Party front. Why do you think the Liberals win so many elections? So it comes as absolutely no surprise that the CBC would try to bury the story.

And yet they evidently published it.

#Liberal_support_fail

voice of the damned

Just a guess, but if I were cynical, I'd say that CBC is burying the publisher's quote(because making it a headline would be tabloid journalism), but hoping that some other outlet's reporter will see it, and ask Trudeau "Is Bourne correct that you grabbed the journalist's buttocks?"

And if Trudeau answers with anything but an unequivocal no, it's the CBC's cosmic compensation for being late to Rob Ford Smokes Crack.

bekayne

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It might not be an accident, but it's still a bit of an anatomical error.  Or am I the only one with four cheeks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbN9doxZusQ

bekayne

https://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/2018/07/hey-warren-you-even-made...

Anonymous said...

2:22 Hear, Hear. I remember when Peter Lougheed had is fair well banquet in Southern Alberta many years ago. A pip squeak just graduated lawyer thought it was fun to rub himself on my back. I moved away...there he was again rubbing himself on my back. I landed him in the small of his back with my elbow and I hit him as hard as I could. He has not forgotten it. Every time I happen to see him, he always looks at me as if to say.....I remember. Do I think he should resign his law firm...No! But every woman who has been unwelcomely touched has the right to bring it to the fore masking sure it isn't left in silence. Anyong

2:52 PM, July 08, 2018

 

Pondering

Badriya wrote:

Trudeau grabbed her buttocks. The quote starts at 12:31.

C. Cullen “Do you know where he grabbed her?”

V. Bourne (former publisher of the Creston Valley Advance). “Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them”

Of course Pondering will claim it was one of her face cheeks.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4734719?__twitter_impression=true

Don't be silly. Obviously she means a butt cheek, which the actual complainant refuses to confirm. Investigators have been on this non stop since the story broke in the mainstream press. In he said she said there is nothing to investigate if there is no "she said" willing to speak. There is no evidence of a pattern of behavior.

The Me Too movement is not about taking down a man for a single butt grab in a situation where there is no power differential. 

For many women as long as it isn't repeat behavior an apology for a single mild incident is acceptable. 

I don't see why the woman in question is so resistent to speaking up (anonymously) if it was just a butt grab as her boss states. Her outrage in the editorial and her refusal to speak now suggested something more serious to me. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

You wrote, "Obviously she means a butt cheek, which the actual complainant refuses to confirm."

In the CBC article, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/woman-accused-trudeau-breaks-silence-1.4737511

The article explains, "

The woman who alleged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau touched her inappropriately some two decades ago issued a statement Friday saying the incident happened as described — but she now wants to be left alone."

You also wrote that, "the MeToo movement is not about taking down a man for a single butt grab in a situation where there is no power differential."

1. Please do not define the parameters of what you think the #MeToo movement is about. That is not up to you to define or to decide.

2. You specified that there was no power differential involved. That was not up to you to decide. And if there was no power differential involved that does not make  it OK nor does it is diminish the negative impact that the incident may have had on the other woman involved.

It is not up to you or to anyone to rate how significant this incident is. The woman's coworkers mention that she felt "blatantly disrespected" by what happened. It is up to her to define how serious the incident is and only her.

The fact that she doesn't want to discuss it now means that we should respect her privacy.

What Justin Trudeau did is not OK. And the fact that when he apologized to her he said that he wouldn't have done it "if he knew that she was a reporter for a national newspaper that he wouldn't have been so forward.". What does that say about Justin Trudeau and his apology?

A reporter for a newspaper has the ability to write about his behaviour and embarrass him publicly.  Based on his wording of his apology we are left to wonder whether he would have  apologized if she wasn't a reporter. If this assumption is correct then he did not sincerely apologize to her for what he had done to her but was only interested in protecting his reputation.  If this is true then he did not sincerely apologize and if she wasn't a reporter he would not have made an apology for his behaviour at all. 

His apology was also not dry humour as you claim.

I personally think that Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite and a jerk!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Now that the precise nature of the act has been reported, I've deleted my post above.  

That said...is this it for Lil' Justin?  

Also...why didn't the paper just report all this in the first place?  What was the point of all the vagueness?

voice of the damned

Ken Burch wrote:

Now that the precise nature of the act has been reported, I've deleted my post above.  

That said...is this it for Lil' Justin?  

Also...why didn't the paper just report all this in the first place?  What was the point of all the vagueness?

Well, in regards to the vagueness... 

For a long time, the media just seemed to be going by the woman's 2000 editorial, which only got as detailed as "groping". Now, it seems, they(or at least the CBC) have a statement from the publisher, which talks about "cheeks". I'm not sure when they acquired the publisher's statement in relation to the original editorial.

As for this possibly being the end of JT's career, well, like I say, I think that'll depend on whether or not anyone pursues a line of questioning based on Bourne's description of what happened. So far, no one, not even CBC, seems interested in doing that.

NDPP

CBC: 'Do you know where he grabbed her?'

Val Bourne: 'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them.'

CBC: 'Her rear end?'

V Bourne: 'Yes..."

 

"I'm confident that I did not act inappropriately but I think that people can experience interactions differently." - JT

"I had a good day that day. I don't remember any negative interactions that day at all." - JT

Trudeau groped her ass, then lied about it. I predict there will be no further reporting of that.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Yes you did dismiss Justin and gave no credibility to this woman from the word go!

now you may have back tracked after this story started gaining traction, but no more has been revealed. Only thing has been Justin’s responding comments. 

You are actually doing exactly what Justin has been doing

Bullshit.

But you are here to smear not to respond what is really being said.

I spoke about the way the story came out in 2018. It has all the appearance of being run for political purpose. It did not have the necessary detail to be a story.

If the story as it ran weere to be the standard for #metoo it would hurt rather than help the cause.

This has nothing to do with the original story which could become something. But a near 20 year story with out a detail or the complainant known is a bullshit political story.

Now there is more to it but still no complainant wanting to be associated and the detail is coming from a third party not speaking directly.

Do we know if it is possible that Trudeau touched her by mistake (as he is suggesting) or is it certain that he literally grabbed her with intent. As I have said it looks like the latter but the story as it stands without detail back then, a third party comment on detail now, loaded politically, without the complainant lacks the conclusive nature needed.

You should back off here as you are WAY over the line.

 

voice of the damned

Sean wrote:

Do we know if it is possible that Trudeau touched her by mistake (as he is suggesting) or is it certain that he literally grabbed her with intent.

Where did Trudeau say he touched her by mistake? Serious question, I'm not doubting you, but from what I recall, the gist of his comment was that he didn't mean his actions(whatever they were) to be interpreted the way she interpreted them, not that those actions happened by accident.

And did he even acknowledge physically touching her?

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Now that the precise nature of the act has been reported, I've deleted my post above.  

That said...is this it for Lil' Justin?  

Also...why didn't the paper just report all this in the first place?  What was the point of all the vagueness?

We have a third party providing two decades old details in a coy way without any context or comment from someone who was there.

It seems clear that, at least, Trudeau made contact with the woman's buttocks in a suspicious way.

At the time she thought it was intentional and she was angry. She still believes this but is providing no detail or narrative including a context so she is not actually laying out a story that anyone is being asked to believe.

There is enough now to say what probably happened but the distance the woman is now taking makes it difficult for the story to go further.

There is enough that is troubling on all sides: while it is her right, it is troubling that the woman has not now, or ever in the past, provided a narrative of what happened. The details that are out are troubling, certainly looking bad for the PM and his own statements are troubling as well as his apology and contention that nothing happened are in conflict.

I am not sure that we can say the precise nature of the act is known. Enough is known to be troubling but the detail here is still lacking.

Here is the troubling part of the this as related to the #metoo movement. The #metoo movement comes from situations  where the complainant is making detailed first hand narratives and is still not believed. It is where often third parties are aware of these details and giving cover. The standard of the story advanced by these women who were silenced was the most robust possible. The detail was there -- to not act was to ignore them or call them a liar: the detail was far too clear to suggest anything else. To confirm this as a #metoo moment is in part to diminish the strength of those stories.

This is not to say that this could not be a #metoo if the woman came forward and provided a narrative of the context with what happened or a record of the detailed story from her came to light.

At issue is that the #metoo stories are not like this (lacking in detail or a person wanting to be heard). The #metoo stories are the opposite of this.

Also, there is one aspect here like the #metoo and that is that at the time the article was published 18 years ago, the woman did want to be heard. If anyone had cared to follow up at that time, they probably could have. She is no longer there and willing to speak and that complicates the story now. Back then there very well could have been a story.

I think many people may be aware of this in some way and this may feed the justified anger about stories like this.

This raises another important issue: justice delayed often is justice denied. The woman deserved to be heard and seomthing done 18 years ago. She did not deserve for this to take so long that we are where we are, in a context that she no longer wants to participate. But we cannot ignore her decision not to participate now either, given the details did not come out then. For this reason the PM will get off lightly if this was really all it looks like it was.

The story here should not be some grand political drama and conspiracy. The real story is an illustration of what happens when women are not believed, action taken and things exposed at the time that they reach out. Waiting until the woman has moved on and then giving her a chance to speak is no substitute. If we want to take something from this -- perhaps it is that.

But it is always possible that the woman behind this will decide to speak out and that would change everything.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean wrote:

Do we know if it is possible that Trudeau touched her by mistake (as he is suggesting) or is it certain that he literally grabbed her with intent.

Where did Trudeau say he touched her by mistake? Serious question, I'm not doubting you, but from what I recall, the gist of his comment was that he didn't mean his actions(whatever they were) to be interpreted the way she interpreted them, not that those actions happened by accident.

And did he even acknowledge physically touching her?

Trudeua did not say he touched her by mistake -- this story says it was about her being touched while Trudeau has said that it was not intended as she experienced it.

If she is saying that he touched her on purpose with sexual intent (the definition of grope) and he says that he did not mean them in the way they were interpreted then he is suggesting that it was accidental.

But the real central part of this story is that nobody who was there at the time has offered any detail of what happened.

My comment is that both her comments and his could have more than one interpretation in light of this detail, given how limited the detail is, the age and that it is not from a witness.

I think the woman would be believed and could bury the PM here if she wanted to. She clearly does not want to.

There has been a lot of slander in this thread given the absense of detail: the worst being that at least one person here is accusing the woman of having accepted money (without evidence) to be quiet. This is further victimization. If anyone is blaming anyone for not believing the woman, it ought to be those who are claiming that she is speaking corruptly having accepted money for keeping quiet rather than simply not wanting to be part of the story. Again, there is no evidence of this.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean in Ottawa,

Your accusation that I slandered her and ACCUSED her of taking a bribe to remain silent is false on many levels. I have a never accused anybody of anything. Your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what I actually wrote.

I have never once said that she was paid off. Nobody has any proof of that!!!  I said that it is a possibility and nothing more.  

There is a very big difference between suggesting a hypothetical speculative scenario to explain why she might want to remain quiet on this issue versus making an outright accusation.

And for the record, mentioning possibility does not "revictimize" her as you so claim. That is nothing more than speculative garbage on your part.

She did mention in the article with CBC that she has never been in contact with Justin Trudeau since that incident. That statement alone from her rules out any pay off to remain silent.

 

Martin N.

Misfit wrote:

Sean in Ottawa,

Your accusation that I slandered her and ACCUSED her of taking a bribe to remain silent is false on many levels. I have a never accused anybody of anything. Your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what I actually wrote.

I have never once said that she was paid off. Nobody has any proof of that!!!  I said that it is a possibility and nothing more.  

There is a very big difference between suggesting a hypothetical speculative scenario to explain why she might want to remain quiet on this issue versus making an outright accusation.

And for the record, mentioning possibility does not "revictimize" her as you so claim. That is nothing more than speculative garbage on your part.

She did mention in the article with CBC that she has never been in contact with Justin Trudeau since that incident. That statement alone from her rules out any pay off to remain silent.

 

I believe Sean is alluding to me, not you, misfit. In regard to the complainant's further statement, I have posted previously that if she were to state that she has had no further interaction with Trudeau or Trudeau's representatives, I will believe her but she has not made that distinction.

Given Trudeau's cunningly crafted weaselry, plus a victim statement that sheds no light, a reasonable person may conclude that a cover up is not out of the question.

For unrelated business reasons, I find myself in Creston later this week and intend to seek appointment with Creston Advance worthies to ferret out opinions. Questions from the rabble will be entertained.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

Sean in Ottawa,

Your accusation that I slandered her and ACCUSED her of taking a bribe to remain silent is false on many levels. I have a never accused anybody of anything. Your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what I actually wrote.

I have never once said that she was paid off. Nobody has any proof of that!!!  I said that it is a possibility and nothing more.  

There is a very big difference between suggesting a hypothetical speculative scenario to explain why she might want to remain quiet on this issue versus making an outright accusation.

And for the record, mentioning possibility does not "revictimize" her as you so claim. That is nothing more than speculative garbage on your part.

She did mention in the article with CBC that she has never been in contact with Justin Trudeau since that incident. That statement alone from her rules out any pay off to remain silent.

 

I was not at all thinking of you.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Sean in Ottawa,

Your accusation that I slandered her and ACCUSED her of taking a bribe to remain silent is false on many levels. I have a never accused anybody of anything. Your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what I actually wrote.

I have never once said that she was paid off. Nobody has any proof of that!!!  I said that it is a possibility and nothing more.  

There is a very big difference between suggesting a hypothetical speculative scenario to explain why she might want to remain quiet on this issue versus making an outright accusation.

And for the record, mentioning possibility does not "revictimize" her as you so claim. That is nothing more than speculative garbage on your part.

She did mention in the article with CBC that she has never been in contact with Justin Trudeau since that incident. That statement alone from her rules out any pay off to remain silent.

 

I believe Sean is alluding to me, not you, misfit. In regard to the complainant's further statement, I have posted previously that if she were to state that she has had no further interaction with Trudeau or Trudeau's representatives, I will believe her but she has not made that distinction.

Given Trudeau's cunningly crafted weaselry, plus a victim statement that sheds no light, a reasonable person may conclude that a cover up is not out of the question.

For unrelated business reasons, I find myself in Creston later this week and intend to seek appointment with Creston Advance worthies to ferret out opinions. Questions from the rabble will be entertained.

I would have to go back to the post but it was a post that said this was the case -- although I have no proof. Was that you? I remember the post more than the writer although I remember it was not Misfit.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thanks Sean.

pookie

When is this cover-up supposed to have occurred?  In 2000?  After the reporter (supposedly) wrote an editorial blasting JT, AND told her employers about it?  THEN they're supposed to have paid her off? Really? To what end, exactly?  The incident was already part of the public record.  The police and Crown could have investigated anytime they pleased.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pookie,

Even today, 18 years later, it is well documented that the police don't get involved in incidents that are far more serious and egregious than this. This is a chronic problem that has always existed, even today.

i have no idea why you would have mentioned a non-police investigation when the suggestion is totally irrelevant to the speculation that the lady may have been paid to remain quiet about the details.

the speculation is that a possible pay-off would leave people to wonder about what really happened and the story would lose steam and nothing bad would stick to Justin Trudeau. 

it is not hard to figure out so don't try to obfusticate the issue with your irrelevant nonsense.

The possibility is still there, but I believe her when she says that she has not seen or dealt with him since that incident took place.

Trudeau is the one who really needs very few details in order to leave a lot of  room for doubt about what really happened. He benefits a lot by her unwillingness to talk. That is why there is speculation about a pay-off.

 

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Yes you did dismiss Justin and gave no credibility to this woman from the word go!

now you may have back tracked after this story started gaining traction, but no more has been revealed. Only thing has been Justin’s responding comments. 

You are actually doing exactly what Justin has been doing

Bullshit.

But you are here to smear not to respond what is really being said.

I spoke about the way the story came out in 2018. It has all the appearance of being run for political purpose. It did not have the necessary detail to be a story.

If the story as it ran weere to be the standard for #metoo it would hurt rather than help the cause.

This has nothing to do with the original story which could become something. But a near 20 year story with out a detail or the complainant known is a bullshit political story.

Now there is more to it but still no complainant wanting to be associated and the detail is coming from a third party not speaking directly.

Do we know if it is possible that Trudeau touched her by mistake (as he is suggesting) or is it certain that he literally grabbed her with intent. As I have said it looks like the latter but the story as it stands without detail back then, a third party comment on detail now, loaded politically, without the complainant lacks the conclusive nature needed.

You should back off here as you are WAY over the line.

 

Ya you know what? You're all over the place with this one to try and deflect from your mistake of not giving this woman any credit at the begining.

I'm not backing down from anything here as you would conveniently like to avoid you further embarasment.

Just admit it Sean in Ottawa, you screwed up.

When someone (regardless of gender, age, color creed relegion orientation etc etc) comes forward with something like this (groping) that person can not be easily dismissed from the word go! But from your perspective, yes you can dismiss the allegations because of politics or the appearance of political influence. 

I placed your comment next to mine to show the comparison of how such an allegation should be approached. 

And I'm done with this little side debate. If you want to keep digging your hole, knock yourself out. I'm going to ignore you for some time.

Misfit Misfit's picture

WWWT,

I would like to say something in Sean's defence.

1. When the story first broke weeks ago, the story did not come from the woman herself but was a rehashing of a newspaper article discussing the incident from 18 years ago. There were few specifics revealed and the woman who experienced the groping then did not want to discuss the issue or elaborate on what happened then.

With these facts, it is very easy to dismiss this as a political smear against the Prime Minister who apologized to her for what happened the very next day.

i think that Sean made it very clear that without specific details, it is unwise to jump to conclusions and fill in the voids with mere speculation and innuendo.

i think that Sean also clarified that he believes the woman that she was touched inappropriately by Justin Trudeau and that it is very important to believe women.

i think that Sean also made it very clear that the Conservative party stands to gain the most from this scandal. The Conservative party has done a lot of irreparable damage to this country and will continue on its path of destruction if elected to government next year. While Sean does not approve of some of the things that the Liberals are doing it is fair to say that the Liberals are less damaging than the Conservatives will be if elected. The Liberals are the lesser of the two evils.

i think that Sean has said a lot of things that can give us a lot of pause for thought.

it is not easy walking the fine balance between being politically insightful and respecting the needs of the woman who was groped by Justin Trudeau and wants nothing to do with this issue today.

i actually think that Sean handled himself very well in this thread. 

pookie

Misfit wrote:

Pookie,

Even today, 18 years later, it is well documented that the police don't get involved in incidents that are far more serious and egregious than this. This is a chronic problem that has always existed, even today.

i have no idea why you would have mentioned a non-police investigation when the suggestion is totally irrelevant to the speculation that the lady may have been paid to remain quiet about the details.

the speculation is that a possible pay-off would leave people to wonder about what really happened and the story would lose steam and nothing bad would stick to Justin Trudeau. 

it is not hard to figure out so don't try to obfusticate the issue with your irrelevant nonsense.

The possibility is still there, but I believe her when she says that she has not seen or dealt with him since that incident took place.

Trudeau is the one who really needs very few details in order to leave a lot of  room for doubt about what really happened. He benefits a lot by her unwillingness to talk. That is why there is speculation about a pay-off.

 

Where exactly did I mention a "non police investigation"?

As for nonsense levels, maybe you should check yours, eh?  The very idea of a "payoff" in this sitch is completely absurd except in the fervid imagination of the most rabid partisans.

 

WWWTT

@ Misfit

you wrote:

With these facts, it is very easy to dismiss this as a political smear against the Prime Minister who apologized to her for what happened the very next day.

Again, I had the same facts as anyone else did at the time. 

However, I actually gave the victim some credibility. I took everything i knew into consideration including my experiences. 

I to have been groped, by man and woman! I was pissed off when it happened on these two occasions. And I was probably groped on a couple other occasions and wasn’t pissed off because it probably led to consenting sex and was someone I knew and already interested in.  So really no big deal, it happens. But I sure as fuck would never grope a person I hardly knew!

When someone gropes you, they care more about pleasing themselves more than any right that you have to being yourself!

You think someone like this is the lessor of two evils? That’s freekin twisted!

You know what, I’m just going to ignore this thread for a week!

Sean in Ottawa

Thank you Misfit. I really appreciate that.

I try not to go overboard in one way or another on these things becuase I do not appreciate appropriation for partisan purposes of what are critical issues. All parties do this and I dislike them for it.

I believe that not being believed is revictimization which is why I was upset with the person who falsely accused my of that. On the other hand I think using a person's experience without regard for their wishes for a political purpose is also revictimization. This is why I have taken some effort to walk a line between the two. In my view both extremes are one victimization or another. The middle is what is respectful, in my opinion, even if some cannot follow the distinctions I am drawing.

I also try to think of what are the standards to fit in a category like this so that I do not lead with a bad example. It is better for something like the Metoo movement to hold back judgment than to have everyone saying "oh here is another case" and have a bad example possibly fail. Instead we elevate it when it has enough to it.

I never ever said I did not believe the person. Instead I spoke of the way the story was coming out. It still looks like the second life of this story is partisan and not out of respect for the woman who originally spoke out.

 

 

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:

i think that Sean also made it very clear that the Conservative party stands to gain the most from this scandal. The Conservative party has done a lot of irreparable damage to this country and will continue on its path of destruction if elected to government next year. While Sean does not approve of some of the things that the Liberals are doing it is fair to say that the Liberals are less damaging than the Conservatives will be if elected. The Liberals are the lesser of the two evils.

That may all be true. However, if a verfified videotape were to emerge of a better-than-the-Cons Liberal PM groping women against their will, I would expect that PM to suffer some pretty dire consequences, quite probably including resignation, regardless of whatever beneficial effects it may have for the Conservative Party.

I know we don't have anything like a videotape in this case, but the point is, there are NO circumstances where I think we should take into account ideological differences when deciding how to deal with a possibly abusive politician.  

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

@ Misfit

you wrote:

With these facts, it is very easy to dismiss this as a political smear against the Prime Minister who apologized to her for what happened the very next day.

Again, I had the same facts as anyone else did at the time. 

However, I actually gave the victim some credibility. I took everything i knew into consideration including my experiences. 

I to have been groped, by man and woman! I was pissed off when it happened on these two occasions. And I was probably groped on a couple other occasions and wasn’t pissed off because it probably led to consenting sex and was someone I knew and already interested in.  So really no big deal, it happens. But I sure as fuck would never grope a person I hardly knew!

When someone gropes you, they care more about pleasing themselves more than any right that you have to being yourself!

You think someone like this is the lessor of two evils? That’s freekin twisted!

You know what, I’m just going to ignore this thread for a week!

I appreciate you sharing personally. However, I think it is also important to remember that our individual experiences and feelings about them are not universal. Without the person at the heart of the story saying where she wants the story to go, I think caution is a better direction. Believing women is not just about accepting a fact and then using it to fit with our own experience or showing our colours by endorsing it in our way. Instead believing women, in my view, includes stepping back and letting them direct where the process will lead and supporting that. I want to be very cautious about presuming when the original person is not giving direction.

This story coming out this year was not lead by her. Given the profile of the #metoo movement, it could have been if she wanted that and I noticed this absence. Women speaking out in the metoo movement, as far as I can tell are asking for support and not "knights" to come and take over their advocacy. There is a difference. I am trying to be respectful of that.

You should not presume that I have any other interest in this. I am not a Liberal. I am not a fan of Trudeau. I am not a person that has ever opposed believing a person who speaks out. My only bias is fairness and a desire to be respectful -- not of the story but of the woman who is behind it and what she would want now. I have not been touched like this. I have been around those who recounted experiences of revictimization and I do not want to do that.

If my caution means I get something wrong that is okay. I am not the leader of this. Nobody here is. I am choosing to follow and take direction from the woman who this story belongs to. This is the person who should be leading and she does not want the story to go further -- for now. Respect for her means respect for this decision without question-- even if it does not fit into the preferred political story.

Also, I have not meant to victimize anyone here who may have had their own experiences. That has never been my intention either.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

For many women as long as it isn't repeat behavior an apology for a single mild incident is acceptable. 

I don't see why the woman in question is so resistent to speaking up (anonymously) if it was just a butt grab as her boss states. Her outrage in the editorial and her refusal to speak now suggested something more serious to me. 

WTF is this piece of misogynist shit you are posting. If you claimed to be a male in your profile you would be pilloried for this outrageous dismissal of a womans right to her personal body space.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Ok Pookie,

You very clearly wrote, "The police and Crown could have investigated anytime they pleased."

And that statement is very definitely IRRELEVANT to the possible issue of a speculative pay-off or hush money. There is no connection and I cannot fathom why you included that in your post. You don't like the term "irrelevant" but there is absolutely no conceivable way to link that statement with speculation to keep the woman quiet on the details of what happened. Why you included that I have no idea!?!

My second issue with your statement is that the Crown and police are very seldomly PLEASED to get involved in any groping cases even with very serious and egregious sexual assaults. 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

WWWT wrote,

"When someone gropes you, they care more about pleasing themselves more than any right that you have to being yourself!"

I agree.

Misfit Misfit's picture

VOTD wrote:

"...but the point is, there are NO circumstances where I think we should take into account ideological differences when deciding how to deal with a possibly abusive politician."

I think that Sean has alluded to this before. If the woman who was allegedly abused did not initiate this story now and has made it perfectly clear that she doesn't want to discuss the matter with anyone, then perhaps we are hurting her by pursuing this further without her consent. It is her story. She owns it and she wants it dropped.

I personally believe that he groped her. I assume that he only apologized because she went public with it. I do not believe that he made a sincere apology at the time.  I do not respect the way he has handled the situation now, and I personally don't think that he learned anything from this. As I said before, I think that he is a hypocrite and a jerk, and I have lost a lot of respect for him over the way he has handled this.

I also believe that everything in life goes full circle. He may end up retaining his job and seem get off Scott free. But in the end he will get his true justice. I believe in karma, and for those of us who do not believe Justin nor appreciate the way he has handled this situation, maybe Karma is all we have to rely on.

Pages