The "me-too" movement

[theman23]

Originally Posted by niwell

Based on what I've heard outside media channels I find that VERY hard to believe.

But this is basically gossip and innuendo. I think if there are multiple witnesses corroborating his version of events, there's enough there for us to acknowledge that Brown may in fact be telling the truth.

[Acajack]

In the absence of a) an actual complaint to the police, b) criminal charges and c) public statements from named accusers, we were supposed to believe the allegations simply based on the "rigour" of CTV's months-long investigation into Patrick Brown.

Now we're finding our there are some major cracks in CTV's story...

BTW, like Shreddog I am not a fan of Patrick Brown nor of the Ontario PCs, but sheesh...

[geotag277]

What's the bombshell? That the ages were 19 instead of 18 or 17? Or something like that? What kind of gotcha game is this? None of his other behaviour matters, because the ages weren't correctly reported?

For me, the problem has always been his predatory behaviour to female subordinate staffers, which to my knowledge has never really been denied.

I personally never thought any of his behaviour was technically "illegal", only highly unethical and not appropriate for an individual campaigning to represent the public interest.

People talking about "careers being destroyed" should be cognisant of the fact that the career in this case is a political career, whose partial purpose is to represent the public, and part of that is abiding by an expected moral standard that the electorate expects of such elected officials. If you, as a politician, behave in repugnant ways, while still being technically totally legal, you can still lose your job and have your "career destroyed".

[niwell]

I'm not exactly seeing "major cracks", but rather fuzziness on specific details. These are the exact things a PR firm (such as Navigator of Ghomeshi fame) tell a client to focus on to counter accusations. It's very standard and at the end of the day primarily adding the "he said" to that part of the argument.

FWIW I couldn't tell you the exact interior layout of many friends houses that I visit on a semi-regular basis, much less someone I visited years ago. Nor can I necessarily remember exactly if specific events happened in 1st year or 2nd year University. While I could probably pin down the year I couldn't tell you the specific month the incident I recalled earlier in this thread happened in.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'm not exactly seeing "major cracks", but rather fuzziness on specific details. These are the exact things a PR firm (such as Navigator of Ghomeshi fame) tell a client to focus on to counter accusations. It's very standard and at the end of the day primarily adding the "he said" to that part of the argument.

Comes across exactly like a "misdirection counter attack" type of PR move. "She was born on December 19 1997 at 11:53 PM! Not, as she claimed, December 19, 1997 at 11:59!"

Very telling the voices who are jumping all over this news as "proof" of their side, while the main pattern of being a sexual predator to female subordinates is completely glossed over (and never denied).

[Acajack]

I think it's possible to be a bit uneasy at the randomness and flimsiness of *some* of these allegations, without being an apologist or a defender for creeps and abusers. (Or even - gasp! - a closet creep or abuser ourselves!)

Hopefully the current level of discourse in our society still allows for these types of nuances when we debate serious issues.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...news-1.4535358

This could be a massive blow to both CTV News and the MeToo movement in Canada. Time will tell.

If her recollection of the timeline is off by a year or so I’d be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Saying it happened when you were 17 but it turns out you were actually 18 is entirely possible with a blocked memory (or any memory for that matter) as those two ages aren’t that different. This does nothing to invalidate her story. Memory isn’t built like a tape recorder with time stamps on it.

It’s sad it sounds like she’s been subjected to woman hating vitriol online because of it. This is why victims are afraid to come forward. You feel shaky enough in your own healing that to have doubters attack you as a liar and pick apart your every recollection is re-victimising. And Patrick Brown says she should press charges? No wonder! He just wants the opportunity for his lawyers and mouth breathing comments section trolls to personally tear her apart. I can’t emphasize enough how scary it is to come forward and press charges. For the exact reason of what is happening right now.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Maybe, just maybe, his end game is that he really is innocent? Some more revelations are out today from his girlfriend at the time who was a witness and the supposed driver (( Driver denies taking 1st accuser to Brown's house)).

Now I'm not saying his is innocent, but our legal framework is predicated on "innocent until proven guilty". In this case, his political career has been destroyed and he will always be tainted by this. That said, imagine, just imagine if he didn't actually do what they claimed??

Part of their details appear to be unraveling (the age of the victim, the details of his apartment, the denial by the supposed driver) enough to question the whole affair.

While I absolutely support the concept of enabling victims to address assaults of this nature, I do think that there needs to be a measure of care when addressing these claims. See Sarah Thomson.



BTW, my personal opinion of Brown is very low, and i wouldn't have voted for him for a number of reasons, but people shouldn't be tried solely in the court of public opinion.

While I get what you are saying I want to emphazise that memory can vary. The events of what occurred never changed in her account (him trying to force oral sex) but the details can change. There’s a reason police take as many eye witness statements as they can. People remember things differently. The tiniest details can change but what matters is the main event. Suppose 3 people testify they saw someone rob a bank and two of the three remember him driving a minivan and one thinks it was a moving van. Should the entire case be thrown out because one person couldn’t tell the difference between a moving van and a mini van?

It’s funny that all the slippery slopers are arguing about the potential for innocent men to be ruined by a false accusation while claiming most survivors should be believed, but the second one person’s account deviates or there turns out to be a bungled conviction suddenly all victim’s statements are called into question. Like there cannot be 99% true and 1% false. It’s either 100% or nothing (I mean this more broadly than just towards you shreddog).

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by geotag277

What's the bombshell? That the ages were 19 instead of 18 or 17? Or something like that? What kind of gotcha game is this? None of his other behaviour matters, because the ages weren't correctly reported?

For me, the problem has always been his predatory behaviour to female subordinate staffers, which to my knowledge has never really been denied.

I personally never thought any of his behaviour was technically "illegal", only highly unethical and not appropriate for an individual campaigning to represent the public interest.

People talking about "careers being destroyed" should be cognisant of the fact that the career in this case is a political career, whose partial purpose is to represent the public, and part of that is abiding by an expected moral standard that the electorate expects of such elected officials. If you, as a politician, behave in repugnant ways, while still being technically totally legal, you can still lose your job and have your "career destroyed".

Yes. Well put.

[MonctonRad]

I understand completely where you are coming from in this debate, and have sympathy for your past experience, I really do, but how are people like Patrick Brown to defend themselves from these allegations if they are untrue (or even if they are only partly true with some embellishment from the victim)?

Is the only option for him to resign/lose his job and completely retreat from public life, with a permanent smear on his record? Is his side of the story to be completely unheard? Is his recollection of the events completely irrelevant?

What is the alleged perpetrator to do if he can't defend himself in court?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'm not exactly seeing "major cracks", but rather fuzziness on specific details. These are the exact things a PR firm (such as Navigator of Ghomeshi fame) tell a client to focus on to counter accusations. It's very standard and at the end of the day primarily adding the "he said" to that part of the argument.

FWIW I couldn't tell you the exact interior layout of many friends houses that I visit on a semi-regular basis, much less someone I visited years ago. Nor can I necessarily remember exactly if specific events happened in 1st year or 2nd year University. While I could probably pin down the year I couldn't tell you the specific month the incident I recalled earlier in this thread happened in.

Yes exactly! The technicality police ignore the forest for the trees. I find it troubling how quickly the backlash bandwagon is growing based on nothing more than side details being called into question. There’s still a bigger picture emerging even if certain details aren’t clear.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

While I get what you are saying I want to emphazise that memory can vary. The events of what occurred never changed in her account (him trying to force oral sex) but the details can change. There’s a reason police take as many eye witness statements as they can. People remember things differently. The tiniest details can change but what matters is the main event. Suppose 3 people testify they saw someone rob a bank and two of the three remember him driving a minivan and one thinks it was a moving van. Should the entire case be thrown out because one person couldn’t tell the difference between a moving van and a mini van?

It’s funny that all the slippery slopers are arguing about the potential for innocent men to be ruined by a false accusation while claiming most survivors should be believed, but the second one person’s account deviates or there turns out to be a bungled conviction suddenly all victim’s statements are called into question. Like there cannot be 99% true and 1% false. It’s either 100% or nothing (I mean this more broadly than just towards you shreddog).

I'd argue that the "all or nothing", "100% or nothing" has a lot more weight on the "we believe all denunciators" side at the moment. I'd readily admit that that wasn't the case until very very recently, but it's certainly the zeitgeist we're living in.

If you want proof of this look no further than the fact that the leader of the PC party in our most populous province is out on his ass and look at the concrete evidence at hand that led to him being turfed.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I understand completely where you are coming from in this debate, and have sympathy for your past experience, I really do, but how are people like Patrick Brown to defend themselves from these allegations if they are untrue (or even if they are only partly true with some embellishment from the victim)?

Is the only option for him to resign/lose his job and completely retreat from public life, with a permanent smear on his record? Is his side of the story to be completely unheard? Is his recollection of the events completely irrelevant?

What is the alleged perpetrator to do if he can't defend himself in court?

I don’t know. He isn’t going to jail by the sounds of it, so that’s a positive for him. Anecdotally I had a junior high teacher who lost his job because he was accused by a student of making advances on her (not physical iirc but more verbal). He lost his job and laid low for a long time. Then he became a super succesful realtor and today he has a family. I don’t know the veracity of the claims against him and I always respected and liked him (so did many female students beyond his accuser). All I can say is that he moved on. I suspect if it wasn’t for this allegation he would be a politician today as he is very passionately political. But that’s a consequence of what happened.

Thank you btw for your acknowledgement.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd argue that the "all or nothing", "100% or nothing" has a lot more weight on the "we believe all denunciators" side at the moment. I'd readily admit that that wasn't the case until very very recently, but it's certainly the zeitgeist we're living in.

If you want proof of this look no further than the fact that the leader of the PC party in our most populous province is out on his ass and look at the concrete evidence at hand that led to him being turfed.

I will reiterate what geotag said: optics matter more in politics than anywhere else. If this was simply one accuser with a history of stirring the pot like with that news anchor then I’d be more skeptical. When there’s a pattern and multiple accusers I see more meat to the claims. He’s a public leader and there’s no place for him if he has difficulty not sexually harassing or attempting to assault his female subordinates.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I will reiterate what geotag said: optics matter more in politics than anywhere else. If this was simply one accuser with a history of stirring the pot like with that news anchor then I’d be more skeptical. When there’s a pattern and multiple accusers I see more meat to the claims. He’s a public leader and there’s no place for him if he has difficulty not sexually harassing or attempting to assault his female subordinates.

It's interesting you should raise the Steve Paikin story.

I was thinking about that in the context of this thread.

He is largely seen as being "unaffected" by the allegations, but I wonder if in his case this benign impact is not largely circumstantial.

Much has been made of the fact that he hasn't lost his job. Fair enough, that's true.

But he is an "incumbent" in his job. It just so happens that he is not looking to go anywhere or move up at the moment.

But what if he were on the short list for, say, the anchor's position on CBC's The National, with a decision imminent in the next few months? Could the allegations have had any effect on that?

What if he were seeking the Liberal or NDP nomination in the riding of Hamilton-Centre? Again - would the allegations have had any impact on that race?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

He isn’t going to jail by the sounds of it, so that’s a positive for him.

Did I miss something? Was he charged and then found guilty by a court of law?? Seriously, are you saying all is okay since he "isn't going to jail"?

Again, I am certainly no fan of him, BUT in Canada he is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

As for the cracks - the age is only an issue since the original accusation played up the fact that she was underage (with the implication that he was extra creepy for getting an underage high school girl drunk). Whether she was 18 or 19 isn't that big an issue, but if the supposed driver states that NO he didn't drive here there, are we now expected to believe that it was Bill and not Bob who drove her there (hey, she was drunk at the time) and that she was 19 and not 18 and maybe there wasn't a door to be shut afterall, and, and, and.

Again, in our society we must do everything to discourage any sort of abuse against others HOWEVER we can't just let any accusation stand. If CTV did not follow up on a couple of key points, what did they follow up on??

Originally Posted by O-tacular

If this was simply one accuser with a history of stirring the pot like with that news anchor then I’d be more skeptical. When there’s a pattern and multiple accusers I see more meat to the claims.

While I do agree with you on this (hence my smoke-fire quote) do 2 anonymous accusers make a pattern? When Thomson came public, we immediately could see that she had a history that needed to be considered. While I don't think it's a conspiracy, it is not inconceivable that these 2 accusers are connected and are part of a "plan to bring down Brown". (Again, i am NOT saying that this is the case, but without details, this is certainly a possibility)

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's interesting you should raise the Steve Paikin story.

I was thinking about that in the context of this thread.

He is largely seen as being "unaffected" by the allegations, but I wonder if in his case this benign impact is not largely circumstantial.

Much has been made of the fact that he hasn't lost his job. Fair enough, that's true.

But he is an "incumbent" in his job. It just so happens that he is not looking to go anywhere or move up at the moment.

But what if he were on the short list for, say, the anchor's position on CBC's The National, with a decision imminent in the next few months? Could the allegations have had any effect on that?

What if he were seeking the Liberal or NDP nomination in the riding of Hamilton-Centre? Again - would the allegations have had any impact on that race?

Possibly? Maybe? Who knows?

Does he need intensive years long therapy? Probably not.

Will his life be threatened by anonymous assholes on the internet like countless victims who come forward? Probably not.

Will he develop an addiction as a result (like pretty much every survivor will to cope with the pain). Probably not.

It’s funny how pretty much every consequence is less life destroying for someone who is falsely accused than it is for an actual survivor. This isn’t to diminish the hardship he may face but more to point out that your concern and sympathy would be a lot more impactful if directed towards those on the other side of the equation.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Did I miss something? Was he charged and then found guilty by a court of law?? Seriously, are you saying all is okay since he "isn't going to jail"?

Again, I am certainly no fan of him, BUT in Canada he is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

As for the cracks - the age is only an issue since the original accusation played up the fact that she was underage (with the implication that he was extra creepy for getting an underage high school girl drunk). Whether she was 18 or 19 isn't that big an issue, but if the supposed driver states that NO he didn't drive here there, are we now expected to believe that it was Bill and not Bob who drove her there (hey, she was drunk at the time) and that she was 19 and not 18 and maybe there wasn't a door to be shut afterall, and, and, and.

Yes thank you for pointing out another reason for her memory to be hazy. You’re helping the case here.

Again, in our society we must do everything to discourage any sort of abuse against others HOWEVER we can't just let any accusation stand. If CTV did not follow up on a couple of key points, what did they follow up on??

While I do agree with you on this (hence my smoke-fire quote) do 2 anonymous accusers make a pattern? When Thomson came public, we immediately could see that she had a history that needed to be considered. While I don't think it's a conspiracy, it is not inconceivable that these 2 accusers are connected and are part of a "plan to bring down Brown". (Again, i am NOT saying that this is the case, but without details, this is certainly a possibility)

I agree there should be consequences for those who maliciously lie to tear others down. Thankfully there are libel and slander laws for just such a thing.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes thank you for pointing out another reason for her memory to be hazy. You’re helping the case here.




I agree there should be consequences for those who maliciously lie to tear others down. Thankfully there are libel and slander laws for just such a thing.

And that's probably what Brown wants to pursue, but without knowing the identity of his accusers, he's not going anywhere...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Possibly? Maybe? Who knows?

Does he need intensive years long therapy? Probably not.

Will his life be threatened by anonymous assholes on the internet like countless victims who come forward? Probably not.

Will he develop an addiction as a result (like pretty much every survivor will to cope with the pain). Probably not.

It’s funny how pretty much every consequence is less life destroying for someone who is falsely accused than it is for an actual survivor. This isn’t to diminish the hardship he may face but more to point out that your concern and sympathy would be a lot more impactful if directed towards those on the other side of the equation.

Just following the discussion as it evolves on here. The idea that I don't care about victims is a bit of an ad hominem.