The "me-too" movement

[vid]

Brown's allegations are still sticking too, even if he thinks he is vindicated. The only fact that has changed is the age of the victim. I can understand some people's opinions on why it was valid she did that, but confusing ages when you were assaulted as a child, versus when you were assault as a teenager or young adult, are a bit different from each other. She doesn't remember if the assault occurred before or after her 18th birthday? I'm older than she is and I remember what was happening before and after mine, even the bad stuff. (Though I would concede that fewer things overall have happened to me than most people and I tend to be better with dates than most). There is also the fact that she's made an allegation but won't press charges. Why make the allegation if you won't hold someone responsible?

Patrick Brown was never liked by the base. They hated him. They called Tim Hudak the next premier, they called Patrick Brown a sell-out and a liberal. Never mind the fact that his was a strategy that would win; they're basic enough to demand their points of view be reflected in the leader regardless of how politically toxic they might be. The party base might not have planned this entire thing from the start but they're opportunistic people and they took advantage of it when it happened to get what they wanted.

I do think the fact that Patrick Brown behaved the way he did (accepting the resignation at first, and not bringing up technicalities until after the story was changed as if the main controversy was one of the two victim's age and not the power imbalance and lack of consent) indicates that he knows he did something wrong. He did do it, because he's behaving in a way that suggests he did it. Either that or he's just really bad at defending himself. (Which could be true, he's extremely awkward.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Brown was basically "resigned" by his own party that wants to get elected very soon and needs a suspicion-free leader.

Paikin is a permanent employee of a public TV network.

The two situations are quite different and I don't think conclusions can be drawn in this manner.

As far as drawing firm conclusions goes, I completely agree with you, it's not solid evidence enough (I thought that also while writing my previous post but didn't go as far as to say it; I just went with the format "I think that..."), because it's very true that even someone who's done nothing wrong will be under tremendous pressure to resign if publicly "tainted" like that, especially with an election coming.

However, if I had to bet, and that's just a feeling (far from drawing a definitive conclusion), I think he accepted to step down extremely readily, too readily for someone who would be entirely reproach-free, I'd think.

If I'm a party leader with a good chance at power (say, François Legault right now) and some random nut shows up with baseless allegations, I'm certainly not going to want to immediately throw years of efforts into the trash and resign. I'd try to confront the bullshitters for at least a while before throwing up the towel.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

As far as drawing firm conclusions goes, I completely agree with you, it's not solid evidence enough (I thought that also while writing my previous post but didn't go as far as to say it; I just went with the format "I think that..."), because it's very true that even someone who's done nothing wrong will be under tremendous pressure to resign if publicly "tainted" like that, especially with an election coming.

However, if I had to bet, and that's just a feeling (far from drawing a definitive conclusion), I think he accepted to step down extremely readily, too readily for someone who would be entirely reproach-free, I'd think.

If I'm a party leader with a good chance at power (say, François Legault right now) and some random nut shows up with baseless allegations, I'm certainly not going to want to immediately throw years of efforts into the trash and resign. I'd try to confront the bullshitters for at least a while before throwing up the towel.

François Legault is in a bit of a different situation: he's been married or at least in a serious relationship for many years (as opposed to Brown who's a long-time bachelor AFAIK) plus he's pretty unanimously popular within his party, which Brown was not.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by vid

Brown's allegations are still sticking too, even if he thinks he is vindicated. The only fact that has changed is the age of the victim. I can understand some people's opinions on why it was valid she did that, but confusing ages when you were assaulted as a child, versus when you were assault as a teenager or young adult, are a bit different from each other. She doesn't remember if the assault occurred before or after her 18th birthday? I'm older than she is and I remember what was happening before and after mine, even the bad stuff. (Though I would concede that fewer things overall have happened to me than most people and I tend to be better with dates than most). There is also the fact that she's made an allegation but won't press charges.

Yes I agree memory as a young child is different than when you’re a young adult. That being said, everything between the ages of 18-20 kind of blurs together for me.

Why make the allegation if you won't hold someone responsible?

Maybe she is fearful of being targetted if her identity is revealed. Look no further than Brown trying to sue her or the comments section trolls and their misogynistic vitriol.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

François Legault is in a bit of a different situation: he's been married or at least in a serious relationship for many years (as opposed to Brown who's a long-time bachelor AFAIK) plus he's pretty unanimously popular within his party, which Brown was not.

Still, the natural reaction should be similar.

If you know the allegations are frivolous, you know you can very well hope to remain as leader and successfully shrug them off regardless of your level of support within your own party; if you know the allegations are real and have the potential to sink you before too long, then you will probably cave in to the pressure to resign even if you're well-liked as it's just a matter of time before that self-made shit of yours hits the fan.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Maybe she is fearful of being targetted if her identity is revealed.

I'm 99.99% sure you can place charges while still remaining anonymous in the eyes of the general public.

In fact I'm almost certain this was the case for at least some of the Ghomeshi women, at least for a while.

Accusing someone of something on social media is totally cowardly and an absolutely disgusting thing to do. Just go to the nearest police station and file charges... unless you're not willing to repeat your story under oath within the justice system (even anonymously if that's your wish), in which case you're just a fabricating liar who should shut up, like that Toronto cut hijab girl.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm 99.99% sure you can place charges while still remaining anonymous in the eyes of the general public.

Yes, you can. The victim in the GeeGee's assault trial was anonymous, known only as "Assault Victim" or "AV" and all witnesses were simply numbered. Underage victims and accused are automatically protected, it doesn't even need to be requested. That's standard protocol in Canada in all but the worst cases (such as murder trials).

Originally Posted by lio45

If you know the allegations are frivolous, you know you can very well hope to remain as leader and successfully shrug them off regardless of your level of support within your own party; if you know the allegations are real and have the potential to sink you before too long, then you will probably cave in to the pressure to resign even if you're well-liked as it's just a matter of time before that self-made shit of yours hits the fan.

You also have to consider that both OPC staff and journalists were aware of the allegations for a couple months before they were publicized, so for most of that time they were operating under the assumption he was boozing up underage women. OPC staff and executives didn't do anything about this until after it became public. If it never became public, the story would continue to exist but likely not surface until after the election or when it was too close to the election. It's possible that someone at OPC leaked it or pressured for its release to speed up the controversy so they could get it out of the way before the election.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Still, the natural reaction should be similar.

If you know the allegations are frivolous, you know you can very well hope to remain as leader and successfully shrug them off regardless of your level of support within your own party; if you know the allegations are real and have the potential to sink you before too long, then you will probably cave in to the pressure to resign even if you're well-liked as it's just a matter of time before that self-made shit of yours hits the fan.

Here is a lio45-style hypothesis.

Let's say you lio are running for the leadership of... the Bloc Québécois.

You're the front-runner but your candidacy is still hotly contested. Lots of people like you but there is no shortage of people who don't. Even within your own party.

At some point during the campaign anonymous allegations of sexual misconduct arise in the media about you.

You don't know the women's names but from the details of the stories you have a pretty good idea who they are.

You'll recall that they were women you very briefly dated in your youth 15-20 years ago. You had sexual relations with them which were consensual, but while you were aware that they wanted the relationship to go further, you never pursued it. You didn't "call them back" after sex, and you are pretty certain they think you dumped them after you "got what you wanted". Everything was consensual in your mind, but these are still not some of your proudest dating moments.

So what do you do? Do you dig in and fight against a faceless, anonymous enemy or do you just say "fuck it" and go back to making tons of money on cooling towers?

In my mind, even if you say "fuck it" that doesn't automatically mean you're admitting to being a rapist.

[Acajack]

I also don't see the fact that Patrick Brown resigned immediately to be an automatic or implicit admission of guilt on his part.

When these allegations came to light, he was abandoned by *everyone* around him. And when I mean everyone - I mean everyone.

I believe he even sent out his media convocation to announce his resignation himself. There was nobody left in his entourage.

So I don't know how much motivation there is to dig in and fight in those circumstances.

As for the reasons why everyone left the Brown ship so quickly, there are a few possibilities.

1) He is actually guilty of serious misconduct in these cases, and perhaps in others not yet raised, and got "caught". And he and everyone around him knows it.

2) He was not a popular leader at all within the party and everyone jumped ship a the first sign of cracks in his armour.

3) Any perception of sexual impropriety these days is the kiss of death politically, like a Scarlet Letter. As soon as this came out he was damaged goods and had to be jettisoned.

[Acajack]

In terms of Patrick Brown's "suitability to govern"...

Keep in mind that I never voted for the Ontario PCs when I lived in that province and if I still did live there, wouldn't see myself voting for this current crop - with or without Patrick Brown as their leader.

That said, if I may go off on a tangent it's interesting how someone like Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular American presidents of the past 25-30 years among Canadians. (Probably just behind Obama.)

Now, I wouldn't want my baby sister to date a guy like Bill Clinton OR a guy like Patrick Brown.

But I did think Bill Clinton was a pretty good president.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by vid

There is also the fact that she's made an allegation but won't press charges. Why make the allegation if you won't hold someone responsible?

Did Brown do anything technically illegal? From my perspective he simply acted incredibly inappropriately and abused his position of authority, potentially in a pattern against multiple junior staffers on his team.

I have serious questions about the motives from all the people clamouring for charges to be filed. It really seems to me they just want a Jian Ghomeshi situation, where he is found "not guilty" and a giant subsection of the population can just assume they did nothing wrong and pat themselves on the back for "justice being done" and "the good guys winning".

We have an extraordinarily high burden of proof for assault in our criminal justice system, and it's more often than not an opportunity for abusers to walk away with a "not guilty" verdict as reasonable doubt triumphs over objective justice being done.

Again, I really don't think any of Patrick Brown's behaviour is even technically illegal - it is immoral, unethical, and entirely inappropriate. In any industry, it would be grounds for immediate termination. Which is exactly what happened.

If I were Patrick Brown I would be clamouring for the opportunity to have the victim fail to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the accusations. He still hasn't really denied the most salient damning portions of the timelines - which he really can't, as it is backed by social media records and multiple witnesses:

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/...&postcount=435

All he can deny at this point is the ages and he tracked down a driver. Very telling of the position he is coming from. He is trying to ride a "Paikin-esquse" recovery by pretending he is out of the woods, desperately trying to associate his situation with Paikin's, and even audaciously running for leadership again, yet the reality is he is still facing a mountain of damning evidence and he can't even deny the sexual predatory nature of his behaviour.

[1overcosc]

Patrick Brown didn't actually resign right away. In his first speech after the allegations were made, he denied them and said he was going to dig in, stay on as leader, and prove them false. But literally all of his campaign staff and the senior executives of the party, as well as his own caucus, abandoned him in a matter of hours and refused to accept this, so he basically had to resign.

Crash course for the non-Ontarians here: Brown wasn't particularly popular in his own party. The fact that he moved the party leftward left a bad taste in the mouth of the PC party members/candidates/executives/etc., especially because many of the tactics he used to do this were quite underhanded. In dozens of critical ridings where the PCs would have to win to form a government, he more or less rigged the candidate nomination processes to ensure centrists were selected as the party's candidates. Most of the party was willing to let it slide essentially because he was leading in the polls and his policy proposals were resonating very well with the general public, including many key blocs of voters on the centre and the centre-left that he'd have to win over to win the election.

So think about it. The party tolerated him but didn't like him very much, and then the allegations drop. So it's no wonder the party didn't back him when he decided to start that battle of clearing his name and pushed him out.

I'm not saying the allegations are false at all. They're probably true. But his decision to resign a few hours after they dropped is not necessarily a sign that he's acting in a way that demonstrates guilt.

[Acajack]

I wonder if the two women who have accused Patrick Brown anonymously are not under tremendous pressure from CTV to either go public or at least file a complaint with the police.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Patrick Brown didn't actually resign right away. In his first speech after the allegations were made, he denied them and said he was going to dig in, stay on as leader, and prove them false.

That's pretty consistent with a lot of individuals who seem to foster a hostile environment and at the same time don't think they are doing anything wrong. Al Franken, Kent Hehr, Patrick Brown - all have similar stories. Part of it is, it's not technically illegal to, for example, call a female subordinate yummy in an elevator. Police shouldn't really be involved. Perhaps as a politician, you should lose your job, however.

It's not illegal to foster and develop a hostile work environment. We don't need police, or the justice system involved. We just need people to be held accountable and perhaps terminated from their positions.

While people are falling over themselves to cry foul over individuals who have "ruined careers", there is a pretty common avenue for individuals who have "careers ruined" to seek legal redress - it's called wrongful dismissal. Unfortunately in Patrick Brown's case, it doesn't apply if you resign.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Acajack

2) He was not a popular leader at all within the party and everyone jumped ship a the first sign of cracks in his armour.

He was leading in the polls though. They were winning under him.

Originally Posted by Acajack

That said, if I may go off on a tangent it's interesting how someone like Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular American presidents of the past 25-30 years among Canadians. (Probably just behind Obama.)

The Clintons now have a degree of political toxicity to them. Many Democrats refuse to be seen with Bill Clinton because of his sexual abuse allegations (some of which tie into Trump's allegations).

He might have been a good president politically, but as a person, he's not particularly nice or all that well liked. We're seeing a resurgence in popularity of people like Bill Kristol and George W. Bush because of Trump so honestly, why wouldn't Clinton look good to us right now?

Also your argument about Clinton only slightly undermines this point:

Originally Posted by Acajack

3) Any perception of sexual impropriety these days is the kiss of death politically, like a Scarlet Letter. As soon as this came out he was damaged goods and had to be jettisoned.

Originally Posted by geotag277

Did Brown do anything technically illegal? From my perspective he simply acted incredibly inappropriately and abused his position of authority, potentially in a pattern against multiple junior staffers on his team.

When age was a factor, he had. Now it's been taken out of play (at least for one of the victims). When you're in a position of authority over someone else, in Ontario, the age of consent that applies to you is 18, not 16, and providing alcohol to anyone under the age of 19 with an intent to get them drunk is also illegal here. If those women were 19, he acted really inappropriately but didn't violate any laws.

Originally Posted by geotag277

ave serious questions about the motives from all the people clamouring for charges to be filed.

That includes Brown, though. He asked them to go to police.

I agree with your other points, cases like this rarely turn out in an assault victim's favour.

[Corndogger]

Patrick Brown’s girlfriend says it’s ‘wrong how media has treated him’

Very interesting article. But should age matter? As far as I'm concerned BFD is she's only 23 and was once his intern.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...eated-him.html

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Patrick Brown’s girlfriend says it’s ‘wrong how media has treated him’

Very interesting article. But should age matter? As far as I'm concerned BFD is she's only 23 and was once his intern.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...eated-him.html

Getting his girlfriend to defend him to the press seems desperate. It's like Hope Hicks defending Rob Porter. What a mess.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Getting his girlfriend to defend him to the press seems desperate. It's like Hope Hicks defending Rob Porter. What a mess.

I think she's doing it on her own but on the surface it does look bad.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Menendez brothers yet.

I just finished watching a Dateline special on the Menendez brothers that’s been sitting on my pvr forever. I was only about 6 or 7 when the murder occurred
and 10 at the time of the trial so I wasn’t overly aware of the details. Wow. It’s interesting one of the jurors in the first trial that ended in a hung jury claimed the split was 100% between men and women. The men claimed the women were being emotional but apparently they were the ones slamming their fists on tables and verbally abusing others. Women wanted manslaughter and men first degree murder. Interesting.

I don’t know how to feel about the sentence. On the one hand Lyle returning to finish off his mom seems cold blooded and like it merits a first degree murder charge. On the other if the allegations of abuse are to be believed she was almost worse than the father. She knew he was raping and physically abusing his children and didn’t care. Furthermore Lyle claims she also sexually abused him. I can almost believe the claims they were fearful the father would kill them if they came forward. This is such a fucked up case.

[O-tacular]

Calgary police have seen a 30% rise in reported cases of sexual assault and abuse over the last year as survivors feel empowered by the #MeToo movement to come forward:

https://www.google.ca/amp/calgaryher...ment-grows/amp

This is encouraging news. Particularly in light of this Globe and Mail report from a year ago.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle33891309/

It’s hard going through the process. Emotionally it’s really difficult.