Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

CBC News has learned that Singh was spurred into action after NDP MP Christine Moore emailed her colleagues with concerns about Weir's behaviour.

Weir had emailed his fellow NDP MPs on Tuesday to say that he would like to run for the position of caucus chair. Moore replied to Weir's note with concerns about whether he should hold such a leadership position.

"You are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position," the Quebec MP responded, to both Weir and the other MPs. 

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble."

Speaking to reporters, Singh said the allegation was not sexual in nature.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-allegation-ndp-1.4514117

Quote:

Not sexual in nature?  Then what is it.

"I'm asking you for the tenth and last time -- could you please just buy some chocolate covered almonds so my kid's hockey camp can go to hockey camp?  I'm not asking any more, I'm telling."

josh wrote:

Not sexual in nature?  Then what is it.

Emotional abuse is a possibility.  Demeaning comments about a person's competence, worth, intelligence.  Insults directed at minor personal imperfections(as the insulter sees them).  

Ken Burch wrote:

josh wrote:

Not sexual in nature?  Then what is it.

Emotional abuse is a possibility.  Demeaning comments about a person's competence, worth, intelligence.  Insults directed at minor personal imperfections(as the insulter sees them).  

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature. If you harass both genders equally then you are an asshole and likely in management. I find this e-mail to be extremely problamatic as a way to do caucus politics or business. If she had a complaint about a colleague that caused her to feel unsafe in her parliamentary workplace then it should have been made so his behaviour could be stopped it should not be used only as a gotcha to stop a political career move. In my experience most people who are non-gender biased control freaks and demeanors don't only disrespect people behind closed doors while misogynist pigs often know to hide their worst harrasing behaviours from all but the object of their interest. So if this is not a sexual harrassment complaint then what is it?

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble."    If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of?  Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly? 

Of course you mock the woman.

Uncalled for personal attack but I expect nothing less from you than to use a subject like this to further one of your personal vendettas. Thanks for proving to me that this board is no place to discuss anything if you are on it posting at the same time because you just can't stop yourself from attacking men you dislike.

I worked for a guy, luckily only for a 3-4 month stint, who was in fact supposed to be my colleague given that I was hired to replace his buddy who left for a gig in media. For whatever reason, he took it upon himself to treat me as if I was supposed to be his personal assistant. That was not the position I was hired for so I tried to politely navigate doing my business development/government relations job without stepping on his toes even though we had to work together on many projects since he was head of communications and marketing. But I really hit the wall when one day he asked to speak to me in the hallway outside our open warehouse space offices to fucking scold me like some old time school teacher for not showing him enough respect. I was angered and humiliated.

He had gotten away with treating the organization as his fifedom because the Board of Directors was acting as the Interim CEO of the organization. He was a pro at sucking up to the chair and board members. Once they hired this amazing woman as the CEO, he was fired.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

josh wrote:

Not sexual in nature?  Then what is it.

Emotional abuse is a possibility.  Demeaning comments about a person's competence, worth, intelligence.  Insults directed at minor personal imperfections(as the insulter sees them).  

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature. If you harass both genders equally then you are an asshole and likely in management. I find this e-mail to be extremely problamatic as a way to do caucus politics or business. If she had a complaint about a colleague that caused her to feel unsafe in her parliamentary workplace then it should have been made so his behaviour could be stopped it should not be used only as a gotcha to stop a political career move. In my experience most people who are non-gender biased control freaks and demeanors don't only disrespect people behind closed doors while misogynist pigs often know to hide their worst harrasing behaviours from all but the object of their interest. So if this is not a sexual harrassment complaint then what is it?

No this is wrong. If someone(male/man) treats a woman any different than a man then he is a sexist and it is sexism. Now I myself must consider myself to be a sexist because there are times when I am speaking with someone, I may or may not be selective in some certain words I use depending on the gender of the person I’m speaking with. For example I may use more swear words when talking with another man, but I may refrain from using a similar language and be more polite when talking with a woman. No actually that doesn’t sound right? How can I be a sexist for just using more polite language with women?

I forgot to add that Ken Burch is right. Sexual harassment is clearly separate from sexism 

heres a link to clarify 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-sexual-and-gender-based-harassment/2-identifying-sexual-harassment

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature.

Sorry to get technical, but I disagree. Sexual harassment has to have a "sexual" element. It's not just sex discrimination, or gender discrimination, or gender harassment, or whatever.

For example, the Canada Labour Code deals specifically with sexual harassment, over and above all the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Quote:

Everyone is entitled to protection from sexual harassment while on the job.

The Canada Labour Code defines sexual harassment as any:

• conduct
• comment
• gesture
• contact of a sexual nature

likely to cause offence or humiliation or that might, on reasonable grounds, be perceived as placing a condition of a sexual nature on employment or on any opportunity for training or promotion.

Employers are to post their sexual harassment policy prominently in the workplace.

For general information, please consult Sexual Harassment (Pamphlet 12 - Labour Standards).

For information on filing an individual complaint of sexual harassment, please consult the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Don't know how it's defined (if at all) in the various provincial codes, whether labour or human rights. Does anyone have any information on that?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-erin-weir-fears-harassment-allega...

The NDP MP who is now the subject of an investigation into an allegation of "harassing behaviour towards women" says he feels the complaint made by a colleague "might have been politically motivated."....

Weir said while he is unaware if Moore is interested in the caucus chair position, he is unhappy with the way the process has unfolded.

"It feels like it might have been politically motivated," he said in an interview with Don Martin, host of CTV’s Power Play.

He just told me he is guilty by trying to blame Christine Moore completely unecessarily. He hasn't been accused of sexual misconduct. He would have been better off saying he didn't know what the allegations were but maybe he was too blunt at times or perhaps he was misunderstood: he didn't feel he was treating women any differently from men. Trying to cast suspicion on the women is low and makes it worse. Is he suggesting that Moore is lying for political gain and that no women came to her or is he suggesting the women who went to her were lying to Moore for political gain?

The reporter picked up on that and asked him if Moore was seeking the position of  caucus chair because what political gain could there be in this for her or for the women who had spoken to Moore? If you are going to suggest that's a motive there must be some gain to the women or to Moore. 

Then he casts doubt on the process:

"I just hope that it’s a proper process and one that proceeds promptly so that we can resolve this matter," he said.

He doesn't have much faith in the NDP if he thinks the process may not be "proper" or "prompt".  He should be expressing confidence in the process if there is nothing to find. 

None of this proves his guilt of course. It sure doesn't make him look good either. There is no political gain for Moore or the "alleged" women who spoke to her so what possible motive could they have for lying? It's pretty strong words to say she wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him. In my experience women don't say that for nothing especially professionally where you want to appear strong and equal to any man and in situations where you have no proof, when it is "he said she said". The Ghomeshi trial was classic. The women were on trial. That's the way it has always been. 

Weir thinks the women are motivated by political gain, he should be prepared to describe how they stand to benefit. 

WWWTT wrote:

I forgot to add that Ken Burch is right. Sexual harassment is clearly separate from sexism 

heres a link to clarify 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-sexual-and-gender-based-harassment/2-identifying-sexual-harassment

You seemed to have missed the part where I agreed with Kropotkin's interpretation.

This guy is so socially awkward, he actually thought suntanning shirtless on Parliament Hill is OK.

Quote from someone being sort of supportive of Erin Weir. Interesting comment.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1317486

 

 

 

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Employment

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

• (a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

• (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employers have a duty to provide a discrimination free workplace. Harrassment of only women or only gay people is discrimination based on a prohibited ground under the CHRA.  Harrassment of a person because of their family is also prohibited such as making fun of a person's mixed race child and that would give rise to a dual complaint. As an MP he is an employer and his staff are covered under a voluntarily signed collective agreement. If he is making a woman who could serve as support staff for our invasion forces nervous then something is really amiss and I want to know why it has been allowed to go on for two years (that is when he got elected).  A simple no I think you are an asshole would have sufficed if that is what she means but she claims to be afraid to meet with him by himself because of the way he treats his staff. Why has no one in caucus done anything to protect his staff because certainly if she knows about behaviour that is that inappropriate then it must have been apparent to others.

[47]  The Tribunal has attempted to define harassment as any words or conduct that is unwelcome or ought to be known to be unwelcome, based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis from the standard of the reasonable person in the circumstances.  It usually denotes repetitious or persistent acts, although a single serious event can be sufficient to constitute harassment (see Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252; and, Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1999] 3 FC 653).  In the employment context, the key is to examine whether the conduct has violated the dignity of the employee such that it has created a hostile or poisoned work environment (see Day v. Canada Post Corporation, 2007 CHRT 43, at para. 184; and, Croteau v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2014 CHRT 16, at para. 43).

https://decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/chrt-tcdp/decisions/en/item/119830/ind...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Employment

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

• (a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

• (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employers have a duty to provide a discrimination free workplace. Harrassment of only women or only gay people is discrimination based on a prohibited ground under the CHRA.  Harrassment of a person because of their family is also prohibited such as making fun of a person's mixed race child and that would give rise to a dual complaint. As an MP he is an employer and his staff are covered under a voluntarily signed collective agreement. If he is making a woman who could serve as support staff for our invasion forces nervous then something is really amiss and I want to know why it has been allowed to go on for two years (that is when he got elected).  A simple no I think you are an asshole would have sufficed if that is what she means but she claims to be afraid to meet with him by himself because of the way he treats his staff. Why has no one in caucus done anything to protect his staff because certainly if she knows about behaviour that is that inappropriate then it must have been apparent to others.

[47]  The Tribunal has attempted to define harassment as any words or conduct that is unwelcome or ought to be known to be unwelcome, based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis from the standard of the reasonable person in the circumstances.  It usually denotes repetitious or persistent acts, although a single serious event can be sufficient to constitute harassment (see Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252; and, Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1999] 3 FC 653).  In the employment context, the key is to examine whether the conduct has violated the dignity of the employee such that it has created a hostile or poisoned work environment (see Day v. Canada Post Corporation, 2007 CHRT 43, at para. 184; and, Croteau v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2014 CHRT 16, at para. 43).

https://decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/chrt-tcdp/decisions/en/item/119830/ind...

So krop, sorry to get technical again, but what you've cited does not mention "sexual harassment" at all. It's about discrimination and/or harassment based on a prohibited ground - among which is sex. Sex, as in gender. Not as in sexual acts.

Sexual harassment is not about treating women (or men or non-binary people) differently from others. That's discrimination, and it could be harassment. Sexual harassment is what I cited above from the Canada Labour Code. And it happens to be the way everyone in the world uses that phrase in real life. It's not about shouting at women, or paying women less than men, or treating them like dirt. It's about harassing them... sexually.

Sorry to belabour the point, but when trying to parse Christine Moore's email (and I agree, it's not easy), it's important to keep these distinctions in mind.

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in.  Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

josh wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in.  Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

Survivors?

Singh's own words.

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's, where "We don't have any survivors in this case" doesn't initially read as "We don't have anyone willing to put her name to a complaint publicly", but rather as "Erin Weir murdered every woman he harrassed".

From cco:

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's...

​The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, it assumes that everyone who makes an allegation is telling the truth. Otherwise what would they be surviving from?

But that is also why the word was chosen, to  emphasize that all allegations will be accepted as true.