[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

Sounds to me like it would be a boon for lawyers.

How so?  In the 100+ years the law prohibiting polygamy has been on the books there has been exactly 2 prosections and both of them have come in the last 5 years.

No. What I meant was if polygamy becomes legal (and therefore more common) there would be a lot more complicated divorce, separation, custody battles etc.

[crazy canuck]

Sounds to me like it would be a boon for lawyers.

How so?  In the 100+ years the law prohibiting polygamy has been on the books there has been exactly 2 prosections and both of them have come in the last 5 years.

No. What I meant was if polygamy becomes legal (and therefore more common) there would be a lot more complicated divorce, separation, custody battles etc.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood.  Yes, you are correct. 

[crazy canuck]

The more I learn about about Justin's decision to suspend the two MPs the more I am convinced this next election should between the NDP and Conservatives and the Liberals richly deserve another decade in the wilderness for having choosen this person as their leader.

Justin has said that people in authority have a "responsibility" to act when serious allegations are made.  True.  But how they act is what informs us as to whether they should have authority.  In this case the complainants' allegations have apparently been known by a number of MPs including the leader of the NDP for some time.  The reason no action has been formally taken is because that was the wish of the complainants.  That point cannot be stressed strongly enough.

Following from that first point, now that Justin has publicly identifed the persons against whom the allegations have been made, how will those MPs ever be able to defend themselves?  Keep in mind Parliament has no process for this sort of allegation and unless there is a formal complaint it is unlikely there will be any process put in place.  Justin expelled these two MPs without even bothering to conduct even the most cursory  investigation.  In his words he had to give the benefit of the doubt to the complainants.  Really?  Certainly the complaints must be taken seriously and investigated.  But assuming they are true from the outset is not how our legal traditions work.  Especially when there is no process in place for the accused to defend themselves. 

This has all the hallmarks of someone out of his depth and who, given the current climate created by the Ghomeshi matter, acted on political reflex rather than wisely.  He should have taken steps to ensure that his actions were consistent with both the wishes of the complainants and the rights of the accused.  At the very least he should have inquired of the complainants if they wished him to investigate the matter and if they consented to that process then he should have satisfied himself, after an investigation, that suspensions were warranted - rather than doing so after that fact.

It is important to note that there is no indication the complainants felt in any way at risk or endangered by the two accused.  There was no reason to act so quickly - unless one was thinking more about politics then the interests of the complainants and the rights of the accused.

You will have noticed I have been calling the Liberal Leader "Justin".  I think I will do that from here on out.  His father, Trudeau, brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrines the principles of due process in our law.  Justin does not deserve to be called Trudeau.

Lastly, for Josephus, I will also say that I am impressed with the way Mulcair has handled the matter.  He could have approached this issue in a partisan manner but instead his approach has been measured and, I think, reasonable.  If I was a left leaning voter this episode would have confirmed my voting decision as between Justin and Mulcair.

[Barrister]

You will have noticed I have been calling the Liberal Leader "Justin".  I think I will do that from here on out.  His father, Trudeau, brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrines the principles of due process in our law.  Justin does not deserve to be called Trudeau.

Now you're just being silly.

Besides, introducing the Charter of Rights was a negative.  We already had the due process of law enshrined in our constitution.

[crazy canuck]

You will have noticed I have been calling the Liberal Leader "Justin".  I think I will do that from here on out.  His father, Trudeau, brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrines the principles of due process in our law.  Justin does not deserve to be called Trudeau.

Now you're just being silly.

Besides, introducing the Charter of Rights was a negative.  We already had the due process of law enshrined in our constitution.

Spoken like a true prosecutor and Reformer.

[Barrister]

You will have noticed I have been calling the Liberal Leader "Justin".  I think I will do that from here on out.  His father, Trudeau, brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrines the principles of due process in our law.  Justin does not deserve to be called Trudeau.

Now you're just being silly.

Besides, introducing the Charter of Rights was a negative.  We already had the due process of law enshrined in our constitution.

Spoken like a true prosecutor and Reformer.

That's one of the nicest things you've ever said about me.

[Josephus]

Lastly, for Josephus, I will also say that I am impressed with the way Mulcair has handled the matter.  He could have approached this issue in a partisan manner but instead his approach has been measured and, I think, reasonable.  If I was a left leaning voter this episode would have confirmed my voting decision as between Justin and Mulcair.

Yeah, Mulcair's  been good. I haven't decided which way I'm leaning yet. I'll have to wait and see as we get closer to election time whether I'll stick with the NDP or lean to the Libs. Your criticism of Justin is valid, no argument here, but I'm still going to wait and see what the campaigns and the polls look like next year.

[Jacob]

It's kind of funny reading that from you guys, CC and Josephus. I was hanging out some other internet place where someone was saying they're impressed by Trudeau's deft handling of the matter.

I haven't followed it closely enough to have much of an opinion either way, but I tend to trust you guys' judgement more.

[Barrister]

It's kind of funny reading that from you guys, CC and Josephus. I was hanging out some other internet place where someone was saying they're impressed by Trudeau's deft handling of the matter.

I haven't followed it closely enough to have much of an opinion either way, but I tend to trust you guys' judgement more.

I think it's too early to say one way or another.  We don't know what Trudeau knows.

[Malthus]

I'm kinda unclear about WTF is going on with these allegations (I guess everyone else is too, which is sorta the point ...  ).

I hear the NDP leader is unhappy with Justin making the complaints public, as "re-victimizing the women" ... but allegedly he was personally informed about the allegations by one of the NDP MPs? If he was told about them, isn't it sorta imperaive on him to make them public, rather than hush them up? I don't get it. 'We are telling you two of your MPs are sexual harrassers - but please, don't go public with this'. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What if they go on to harrass others, and it later comes out that he knew about earlier complaints?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/06/john-ivison-trudeau-mulcair-distrust-deepens-amid-sexual-harassment-scandal/

That being said - to suspend the accused MPs without any mechanism for addressing the complaints is just bizzare.

[crazy canuck]

It's kind of funny reading that from you guys, CC and Josephus. I was hanging out some other internet place where someone was saying they're impressed by Trudeau's deft handling of the matter.

I haven't followed it closely enough to have much of an opinion either way, but I tend to trust you guys' judgement more.

I think it's too early to say one way or another.  We don't know what Trudeau knows.

We know what he doesnt know.

[crazy canuck]

I'm kinda unclear about WTF is going on with these allegations (I guess everyone else is too, which is sorta the point ...  ).

I hear the NDP leader is unhappy with Justin making the complaints public, as "re-victimizing the women" ... but allegedly he was personally informed about the allegations by one of the NDP MPs? If he was told about them, isn't it sorta imperaive on him to make them public, rather than hush them up? I don't get it. 'We are telling you two of your MPs are sexual harrassers - but please, don't go public with this'. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What if they go on to harrass others, and it later comes out that he knew about earlier complaints?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/06/john-ivison-trudeau-mulcair-distrust-deepens-amid-sexual-harassment-scandal/

That being said - to suspend the accused MPs without any mechanism for addressing the complaints is just bizzare.

The answer there is pretty simple.  Conduct an investigation before acting. 

[viper37]

I'm kinda unclear about WTF is going on with these allegations (I guess everyone else is too, which is sorta the point ...  ).

I hear the NDP leader is unhappy with Justin making the complaints public, as "re-victimizing the women" ... but allegedly he was personally informed about the allegations by one of the NDP MPs? If he was told about them, isn't it sorta imperaive on him to make them public, rather than hush them up? I don't get it. 'We are telling you two of your MPs are sexual harrassers - but please, don't go public with this'. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What if they go on to harrass others, and it later comes out that he knew about earlier complaints?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/06/john-ivison-trudeau-mulcair-distrust-deepens-amid-sexual-harassment-scandal/

I don't think he had a choice.  What if Mulcair comes up during the campaign and brings allegations of a cover up on sexual harassment?

And if the victimes didn't want to go public with this, why complain to their leader and to Trudeau?

That being said - to suspend the accused MPs without any mechanism for addressing the complaints is just bizzare.

It seems overkill, but did he have any other choices?  Keeping someone in the party while they are under investigation - of any kind - seems like a no-no.

[Malthus]

I'm kinda unclear about WTF is going on with these allegations (I guess everyone else is too, which is sorta the point ...  ).

I hear the NDP leader is unhappy with Justin making the complaints public, as "re-victimizing the women" ... but allegedly he was personally informed about the allegations by one of the NDP MPs? If he was told about them, isn't it sorta imperaive on him to make them public, rather than hush them up? I don't get it. 'We are telling you two of your MPs are sexual harrassers - but please, don't go public with this'. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. What if they go on to harrass others, and it later comes out that he knew about earlier complaints?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/06/john-ivison-trudeau-mulcair-distrust-deepens-amid-sexual-harassment-scandal/

That being said - to suspend the accused MPs without any mechanism for addressing the complaints is just bizzare.

The answer there is pretty simple.  Conduct an investigation before acting.

I agree that to suspend someone without an investigation is bizzare.

But the NDP MP telling him about it made him going public necessary, I think.

Otherwise, he'd be in a very bad situation - he really could not 'conduct an investigation' in a meaningful manner about an MP from another party who does not want the allegations to go public - at least, not very easily. How could he, or his investigators, find and interview witnesses etc? What if his investigation determines that there was most likely no truth to the allegations - but later it turns out they were wrong (or worse yet, not only were they wrong but the guys go on to offend against someone else)? He'd be toast - you can already see the "Cover UP! Fix was in!" headlines.

Hence, I can't agree that the NDP has the right of it altogether and Justin is totally in the wrong. He's wrong to have taken the action he has against his own MPs without an investigation, but not wrong to go public.

[viper37]

The answer there is pretty simple.  Conduct an investigation before acting. 

I was under the impression he did, and he decided to side with the victim's version of the event.  I doubt any of the MPs would say candidly "Yeah, I grabbed her butt a few times, I tought she liked it".  It would be more along the lines of "I didn't do it" or "it was an accidental contact" or "We were at a party, I was totally drunk, I may have said something I don't remember, but it was a one time event".

But it's kinda hard to investigate, and it depends what is sexual harassment.  Did he touch her inapropriately?  Did he try talking her into having a drink outside the house?  Did he made silly comments of a sexual nature?

Also, it always ends up between the version of the victim and the presumed harasser.  If both contradicts themselves, what kind of investigation can really be done that won't put any lights on these MPs and the victims?

Btw, on the political side, the media consensus in Quebec seems to be he did the right thing by sending a clear message.

Also, looking at the Gomeshi saga, it seems clear the CBC knew about it and didn't want to do anything, even when where there was a complaint.  In retrospect, did they take the right approach, one of caution, until the story could likely be made public, or should they have acted and suspended their radio host?