[ADRM]

I want to exercise the greatest of caution in making assertions about events and people with which I was not involved; and none of whom I know personally.

With the greatest of respect
@ADRM I am concerned you are not adhering to that standard in this instance.

The point I'm trying to convey is that it's important -- for a whole bunch of reasons -- to extend a greater degree of consideration to women who allege that they have been assaulted. This is a pretty key aspect of the broader conversation about assault that is very quickly (and in many, many cases, confusingly) unfolding.

We've got people on here saying the victims should be embarrassed for coming forward. We've got people on here belittling the women for coming forward. We've got people on here holding up today's stories as evidence that the claims are bullshit, and that's just a bridge way too far.

This conversation is difficult and nuanced and confusing and frustrating and many more things, but jumping to conclusions in that way is inherently problematic. To use your phrasing, I do think we need to exercise a much greater caution in making those types of assertions for the very reason that none of us were in any of those rooms; it cuts both ways. And I think that's an extremely dangerous standard to fall back onto for the chilling effect it has on future victims.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The point I'm trying to convey is that it's important -- for a whole bunch of reasons -- to extend a greater degree of consideration to women who allege that they have been assaulted. This is a pretty key aspect of the broader conversation about assault that is very quickly (and in many, many cases, confusingly) unfolding.

We've got people on here saying the victims should be embarrassed for coming forward. We've got people on here belittling the women for coming forward. We've got people on here holding up today's stories as evidence that the claims are bullshit, and that's just a bridge way too far.

This conversation is difficult and nuanced and confusing and frustrating and many more things, but jumping to conclusions in that way is inherently problematic. To use your phrasing, I do think we need to exercise a much greater caution in making those types of assertions for the very reason that none of us were in any of those rooms; it cuts both ways. And I think that's an extremely dangerous standard to fall back onto for the chilling effect it has on future victims.

If that was you're only point, then you could have just said we should extend a greater degree sympathy. I agre with that. When the story changes, you have consider all of the new details. If someone accuses somebody, and then demands a certain amount of money, called a bribe, to "forget", what do we call that? I don't expect an assault victim to remember every detail, I do know that if not with somebody, I would not say I was. Or take money over serious allegations.

 

[ADRM]

I wasn't talking about mikela patterson, because I don't think that's a vaild defense of what brown is alleged to have done. I was asking you specifically about the anonymous friend who accuser one said she was at brown's house with. He said he wasn't there, nor does he drink. I also want know what you think about accuser 2 demanding raise because other people were being paid the same despite less tenure. Why would that ever pop up in an assault story? You can't say you have no idea if he did anything and say you believe the victims. I'm not trying to put you on the spot as usually I would agree 100 percent with you - but this story has too many holes in it.

I don't totally follow, but I think the difference in how you and I are seeing that aspect of it might come down partly to the fact that I'm not viewing the two allegations as being particularly connected (aside from the obvious fact that they've been levied against the same person).

To your question, I said previously I don't know if Patrick Brown is guilty of a crime. None of this is clear cut, and it's of course possible that he in fact acted in a way that was unseemly and immoral and generally despicable and that those actions fall short of the legal definition of criminality; I'm honest about the fact that I'm not an expert in the ins and outs of sexual harassment and assault law.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the articles that came out today that would lead me to definitively conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that their accounts aren't true and so, for now, I am going to continue to believe the accounts of the victims.

I understand how one can read those articles and change one's opinion about the believability of the allegations from the views one held yesterday, but I can't accept the leap straight to "these women should be embarrassed" for ever having come forward -- that's setting too dangerous a precedent, to my eye.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I don't totally follow, but I think the difference in how you and I are seeing that aspect of it might come down partly to the fact that I'm not viewing the two allegations as being particularly connected (aside from the obvious fact that they've been levied against the same person).

To your question, I said previously I don't know if Patrick Brown is guilty of a crime. None of this is clear cut, and it's of course possible that he in fact acted in a way that was unseemly and immoral and generally despicable and that those actions fall short of the legal definition of criminality; I'm honest about the fact that I'm not an expert in the ins and outs of sexual harassment and assault law.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the articles that came out today that would lead me to definitively conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that their accounts aren't true and so, for now, I am going to continue to believe the accounts of the victims.

I understand how one can read those articles and change one's opinion about the believability of the allegations from the views one held yesterday, but I can't accept the leap straight to "these women should be embarrassed" for ever having come forward -- that's setting too dangerous a precedent, to my eye.

So the issue is with the language and not the substance? Perhaps I was too harsh, but I would today's news definately changes the believeability. For the record, I fully believed them until today. I just want know his staff left, because they knew of this information too.

 

[ADRM]

So the issue is with the language and not the substance? Perhaps I was too harsh, but I would today's news definately changes the believeability. For the record, I fully believed them until today. I just want know his staff left, because they knew of this information too.

Fair enough; personally, I felt your condemnation of the victim ("she should be embarrassed") was harsh enough given the seriousness and nature of the allegations that there wasn't much of a difference between language and substance.

 

[Northern Light]

I offer this for edification.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-misconduct-claims-as-one-allegation-crumbles

 

[steveintoronto]

News wire running this, not up yet on the main Toronto media sites. This has been the basis for much discussion in some politically active circles I move in. That Brown was the victim of a coup is beyond doubt for many, but who was behind it is the main question:

42 minutes ago by: Canadian Press
Updated 36 minutes ago
TORONTO — The Ontario Liberals are dismissing former Tory leader Patrick Brown's suggestion that his political adversaries may have been behind the sexual misconduct allegations that forced his resignation and threw his party into turmoil.

In an interview with Global News, Brown says he and his team had been worried about rival parties circulating rumours about him for some time, but they assumed no media outlets would take such stories seriously.
[...]

https://www.guelphtoday.com/nationa...were-behind-sex-misconduct-allegations-840420

I'm digging to find the Global story now. As a I and a number of others discussing this broadly agree, the Libs would stand to lose more than gain by doing this. the two other notable suspects are the ConCaucus, or members of, and the author(s) themselves. There's some pretty wild rumours circulating on the, err...'nature' of the relationship of one alleged 'victim' and the author. That in itself is not a problem...*if disclosed by the author* to not only the readers, but also editorial staff before filing the story.

CTV, oversight intentional or otherwise, has some 'splaining to do.

Addendum:
According to Global, who've played a much higher journalistic level on this than CTV:

The CTV reporting
Since CTV exposed the allegations, Brown has questioned the news organization’s reporting and whether the outlet failed to disclose that one of the women accusing Brown of sexual misconduct and Rachel Aiello, one of the CTV journalists who reported on the story, worked together at the Hill Times, shared at least one journalistic byline and were seen at events together.

“They were colleagues and co-workers, but I don’t know if they were or are real ‘friends,’ said Hill Times editor Kate Malloy.

In a statement, CTV said that because one of the women “had worked on Parliament Hill, CTV News took steps before publication and broadcast to ensure that there was no previous contact with any of our journalists that would influence our reporting of this story.”

The network added it is “important to note” that Glen McGregor, not Aiello, “led the interview.”

“As is standard journalistic practice, CTV News took every step to ensure there was no conflict of interest,” the news organization said in a statement.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4025367/...icle&utm_medium=EditorsPick&utm_campaign=2015

It seems CTV themselves are now involved in 'cleaning up after' the story.

The network added it is “important to note” that Glen McGregor, not Aiello, “led the interview.”

And where were the managing editors?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I see McGregor is going to walk the plank on this.

 

[steveintoronto]

I see McGregor is going to walk the plank on this.

CTV certainly seem to be obfuscating. I suspect there's piqued discussion behind closed doors on how to back out of the hole they've dug. Trying to downplay Aiello's 'influence' in reporting this is going to be awkward for them: They term her a "producer"...albeit the term is and has for generations been used loosely in TV productions.

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer
@rachaiello
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/all...rack-harassment-bill-into-committee-1.3779995

Addendum: How wide a net do these 'events' cast?

[...]
Meanwhile, disgruntled ex-Liberal insider, Warren Kinsella, created chaos when he strongly implied in a recent blog post that Justin Trudeau was about to be hit with multiple allegations from women who had signed affidavits. Kinsella may have been trolling the Twitterverse, but it seems to have worked as thousands of people have began to discuss the possibility of Canada’s most renowned male feminist being brought down by the very movement he has so adamantly endorsed.
When I asked Trudeau’s long-time friend and Chief advisor, Gerald Butts, if the PMO would be responding to Kinsella he said, “That is for others to do. His (Kinsella) decade would be made if someone in PMO, especially me, mentioned his name.” [...]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jame...endship-with-brown-accuser/10154843004460904/

lol...no 'ifs, hands, or Butts' about it...the 'J'Accuse' movement sees no ends.

Kathleen Wynne especially should be a little more careful about 'piling on' the accused until the facts can be corroborated or not.

Sound familiar?

A California lawmaker who has gained national recognition for fighting against sexual misconduct in the state Capitol is accused of groping a former legislative staffer.

The staffer, Daniel Fierro, told The Washington Post on Thursday that Democratic Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, who has become a prominent figure in the #MeToo movement, approached him alone after an assembly softball game in 2014, squeezed his buttocks and tried to touch his crotch. He said Garcia was visibly intoxicated.

Fierro, who was 25 at the time, did not report the incident because he worried about the long-term consequences that could come with accusing the powerful lawmaker, who chairs the Legislative Women’s Caucus and the Natural Resources Committee. But in January he told his former boss, Democratic Assemblyman Ian Calderon, who referred the matter to an assembly panel that is now investigating Garcia.

Politico was the first to report on Fierro’s allegations. The story also included sexual misconduct allegations against Garcia from an anonymous male lobbyist that The Post was not able to independently verify. [...]

Cristina Garcia, California lawmaker behind #MeToo push is accused

 

[Videodrome]

CityNews Toronto‏Verified account@CityNews
#BREAKING: Patrick #Brown claims he didn't resign and is still PC Party Leader: Sources #ONpoli

HAHAHAHA!!!

 

[steveintoronto]

HAHAHAHA!!!

Indeed, City is running it on the web:

Sources close to Patrick Brown say he never signed a resignation letter and is still leader of the Ontario PC Party, CityNews has learned.

The sources further claim the party leadership race is invalid and someone in the PC party crafted the resignation letter without Brown’s authorization or signature.

“(Brown) is fighting for everything; he is fighting for his political life and he is not going to give it away,” one of the sources said.

According to the sources, if the PC party goes ahead with the leadership vote on March 10, it could be met with a legal challenge.

The sources also said Brown is being encouraged to take his seat in the chair of leader of the Opposition when the legislature resumes on Feb. 20.

“It is his rightful and lawful seat,” one of the sources said. “This is an assault on our democracy. We can basically go into an election without a leader in June if the party pushes back.”

Brown’s resignation was reported on the PC party website hours after CTV’s report in late January in which two women made sexual misconduct allegations that date back to the politician’s time as a federal MP.

Brown has vehemently denied the allegations, which have not been independently verified, saying there are discrepancies in the women’s stories and has accused CTV of dishonest reporting.

On Thursday, Brown said he was suing CTV over allegations of inaccurate reporting.

With files from The Canadian Press

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/02/...t-resign-and-is-still-pc-party-leader-source/

I don't blame him actually. Is he the Walking Dead? Probably, but he can do immense damage. They all lined up to stab him in the back, save for Elliot and Mulroney. How ironic that the ladies are the calm cool ones on this. Older women see this quite differently than the i-Device generation.

Got to run out and get some popcorn, this is getting good...

 

[salsa]

HAHAHAHA!!!

This news looks like something that was pulled straight from The Beaverton.

 

[PinkLucy]

If nothing else, Brown has convinced me that he is not leadership material.

 

[steveintoronto]

If nothing else, Brown has convinced me that he is not leadership material.

He never was. At this point in time, however, it's gone long past that. The Cons installed him, then tortured and lynched him. All in the name of Political Correctness. Oh the hypocrisy...

 

[ttk77]

If nothing else, Brown has convinced me that he is not leadership material.

Not just Brown. The PC party as a whole is showing just how unfit they are to lead this province right now.