11.05.2014 12:43 PM

Watching him on TV right now

IMG_6163.PNG

72 Comments

  1. Pat says:

    In light of Jian Ghomeshi’s predatory revelations, Trudeau only did what anybody would do right now. There is no choice for any leader in any professional capacity to pursue anything other than a zero-tolerance policy. Turning these unseemly incidents into a promo for Trudeau is just weird. It’s not about him.

  2. SusanQ says:

    Yes, I agree, and his demeanour and leadership on this issue should bode well in the next election. He is most certainly prime ministerial material and deserves serious consideration by Canadians as a replacement for the current PM Harper.

    Have the NDP MP complainants been revealed yet? They must come forth to lend legitimacy to their accusations and soon.

  3. Tired of it All says:

    Warren, what are the legalities around this? Would he need certain evidence in order to suspend? The assumption is that he’s got information that reveals significant wrongdoing, otherwise I imagine the defamation suits will start flying… Can you opine?

    • doconnor says:

      The leader of a party has the right to suspend caucus members for any reason. Because it is under the purview of Parliament, the judicial branch has no jurisdiction.

  4. Brad says:

    Compared to how Harper handled the Duffy mess, and people say harper is smart. I never thought so.

  5. Robin says:

    Justin. A class act. He not only represents but personifies and embodies the best of Canadian values. This is why he is trusted and will be Prime Minister in 2015.

  6. SusanQ says:

    I was so proud of Justin Trudeau in his announcement today on tv when he said: “As leader I must act (on this issue)…” and he said it without dramatics, only in a calm fashion befitting a strong leader.

    He took the bull by the horns and laid down the law to impress his leadership on this issue. Kudos to Justin, our next prime minister.

  7. Joe says:

    Without trying to make light of a very serious situation: If Libby Davies accused Justin Trudeau of sexual harassment would Justin kick himself out of caucus and ban himself from running in the next election? Somewhere there needs to be some sort of due process.

    • Elisabeth Lindsay says:

      They are just suspended from caucus as far as I know.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      If that’s you NOT trying to make light of a serious situation I’d hate to see what you could accomplish if you really tried.

      • smelter rat says:

        Careful, he has several advanced degrees, so he’s quite smart.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          Advanced degrees from the world’s most renowned universities.

          • rod says:

            A 3 year 18 credit non-honours BA in Literature from McGill and a 1 year BA in Education from BC? Hardly advanced degrees in rather mundane subjects. No wonder he went back to school for a complete career change taking Engineering at Ecole Polytechnique and only lasting one+ year before he withdrew/quit/flunked out. Let the truth be known.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            Rod, you sound like a joe expert. Or a failed attempt at conservative humour

          • rod says:

            …whatza matter, Kasper…. does the truth about Justin pain you so?

            He’s an academic failure at teaching, engineering and geographer; but he found his true love — Acting on the drama and political stages. Canadian women are going gaga about their fantasy dream boy and that’s why the popularity polls are so tilted. Justin is just plain fraudulent and you know it too!

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            That whooshing sound is everything flying over you’re head Rod.

      • Joe says:

        (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee; Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, “exaggeration”) is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

        In other words if all it takes to get rid of a Liberal MP is for a person in another party to make a sexual harassment complaint then how long do you think it will take to decimate the caucus? Now if the complaint has been duly processed and it has been determined that sexual harassment did take place then the MP should be removed from caucus and I would suggest that the MP’s riding association should seek a new candidate for the next (by)election. My preference, would be a byelection because the offending MP should resign his/her seat in disgrace.

  8. Niall says:

    WK,

    What I’m wondering is when JT’s name comes up in this type of scenario?

    YT

    Niall from Winnipeg

    • Jon Adams says:

      WK,

      What I’m wondering is when Fine Young Cannibals vocalist Roland Gift’s name comes up in this type of scenario?

      OR…

      What I’m wondering is when former Alaska senator Ted Stevens’ name comes up in this type of scenario?

      OR…

      What I’m wondering is when that butthead who runs the shipping/receiving of the furniture store where I bought my last couch’s name comes up in this type of scenario?

      Perhaps we should come up with a gameplan for when Niall from Winnipeg is caught installing surveillance cameras in the local high school locker rooms. (Not saying he’s a peeper, just saying we should come up with a scenario. Y’know… just to cover all the bases.)

    • Terry Quinn says:

      Right after Harper.

  9. Kev says:

    It’ll be hard for the CPC or NDP to politicize this without risking skeletons kicking down dors of their own.

    • jeff316 says:

      The Liberals played this perfectly, Trudeau’s action is strong, his tone is perfect, and catching the complainants and the NDP by surprise keeps the narrative on the Liberal action.

  10. Shawn says:

    So Warren, all men are Jian Ghomeshi until proven innocent? Trudeau looked very Prime Ministerial you say. How did Olivia look when she threw you under the bus? or have you forgotten allready.

    • Gordon McInnes says:

      Justin’s prime ministerial gloss is losing it’s sheen. It’s simply guilt by association.

      • Kaspar Juul says:

        Uh sure. Next time I want to forecast the future I will consult the psychic powers of Gordon McInnes

        • Kenneth Wright says:

          NDP and CPC election attack ads will smear the Liberals and prang Justin over the disgraced MPs and even use the Gomeshi interview with Justin on the CBC for guilt by association. It’s just political dirty tricks.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          Well if Kenneth Wright is convinced what isn’t working will magically change then it must be true.

  11. Peter says:

    It’s great that he reacted promptly and seriously, but I trust he has some pretty compelling evidence. As there is going to be a parliamentary inquiry and as they deny any wrongdoing and as we aren’t talking about power imbalances or workplace atmosphere, I’m not sure I get the suspensions, at least not yet. These two are toast professionally and maybe personally. Also not sure about the anonymity of the complainants unless we’re talking about near-criminal behavior.

  12. G. McRae says:

    Yawn. Why all the praise for “leadership” when anybody would have done the same thing if they were leader of the LPC? It is pretty much expected. The bar is set real low for Canadian politicians these days.

    Real leadership would have been if the two MPs voluntarily removed themselves, like MPs used to do under any cloud of suspicion.

    • SherryBellamy says:

      How would the two MPs removing themselves from (so far unproven) allegations have shown “real leadership”? But please, share with us the instances of MPs removing themselves (from what, exactly?? The party?) under “clouds of suspicion”, “like they used to do”, then please explain how it demonstrated “leadership”, and by whom.

      I’m all agog.

      • G. McRae says:

        I am confused, you never heard of any MP/MLA/MPP step aside because of conflict of interest or alleged wrong doing? Why did it take Mr. Strip Tease and Mr. Ladies Night to step in make scene out of it? You don’t need to answer that – everybody knows why. Sickening.

        • SherryBellamy says:

          Still waiting for names of MPs who voluntarily removed themselves because of “suspicions”, and how it showed “leadership”. Oh, and since you brought it up, I really would like you to answer that.

          • G. McRae says:

            Off the top of my head:

            John Duncan
            Maxime Bernier

            Provincial
            Vander Zalm – breach of trust but found not guilty.
            Harcourt – Bingogate – not politically responsible in the end.
            Redford

            If you want more – Google around yourself. You would be surprised that politicians resign all the time, even if they did nothing wrong. Now they just stick around for the long haul, like Dean Del Mastro for example. It happens less frequently now. I believe MacDonald resigned under suspicion in the Pacific scandal if I recall my high school history.

  13. davie says:

    I think I risk being repetitive, but…watching the women in the Ghomeshi thing and their difficulty in coming forward, and then watching this with Members of Parliament, I also think about women, (children, men) who are poor, especially in visible minorities, perhaps in language or ethnic communities where they have little hope that they have any outlet at all for addressing wrongs done to them.

  14. smelter rat says:

    The dippers are claiming today that JT has re-victimized the women in question by not telling them he suspending the two MP’s. Sigh.

    • Warren says:

      What a load of horseshit.

      • Wes says:

        The point is that the only people who should be deciding whether the allegations are made public are the victims themselves, and Trudeau expropriated that right by his public statement that all-but-outed the victims’ identity – how many female NDP MPs are there? How long until each one is being hounded by reporters asking if they were one of the victims? Imagine this scenario – victim A accuses co-worker X of sexual assault, so X’s supervisor makes a public statement that X has been accused by a person in A’s department. What gives X’s supervisor the right to make public the allegation? This doesn’t take away from the correctness of the decision to suspend the MPs, but any public statement should only have been done with the consent of the victims.

        • Reality.Bites says:

          There are 35 female NDP MPs.

          Now if it had been CONSERVATIVE female MPs it would be a rather smaller percentage of their caucus.

      • davie says:

        As Bogart used to say, “Notsofast,” fellows:
        Suppose your guy had a choice.
        He could have left the two fellows in caucus for now until the matter was dealt with by the Speaker and the committee the Speaker chairs.
        But, no, he decided to go public and publically name his two caucus members, not name the victims, knowing full well the media would start right away trying to track down the victims. So, he made a political decision to do a photo op where he could look caring and concerned…the stuff of a Prime Minister.

        So, there are various ways of pointing a finger of blame for making this a partisan wrestling match…which, of course, takes away all focus on the harassment(if it happened). A part of the back lash (I am sure it will come)to making it harder for those who use their positions to harass others will include getting it buried in political partisanship.

        I caught the tv segment yesterday when Capstick said what he said. Something is going on with all this stuff. We have a chance to do something really decent here. It would be nice if did not fut it up.

    • Kevin T. says:

      They’re just pissed he acted decisively and swiftly, because they could’ve gotten quite a bit of mileage out of this had he not done that. The NDP are grasping a straws to regain some upper footing, and this actually compounds the problem: using it purely for political points.

      • debs says:

        Exactly. And if Trudeau had tried to work on this situation behind the scenes both the NDP and the conservatives would have come out swinging saying he was involved in a cover up. Trudeau acted decisively so the media and the other parties couldnt take advantage of this situation. Its just daft to think that folks on both sides arent going to have complaints, as with trudeau he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesnt.

    • Terry Brown says:

      Just saw this. Amazing. Mulcair admits he knew about it but didn’t do anything because he wanted to help them or something? That’s simply not the way harassment in the workplace can be handled. Terrible judgment really. I’m sort of shocked he would admit that. Perhaps that’s the same excuse CBC brass will use about why they didn’t move more quickly on problems in that workplace.

      • smelter rat says:

        Exactly. BTW, it was Mulcair who outed his female MP’s, so there’s that.

      • jeff316 says:

        Mulcair understands that it is not his allegation to make public. If he was instructed to keep this confidential or was told the victim wanted this dealt with internally, then he did the right thing by abiding by the wishes of the victim(s).

        Admitedly, this is a nuance that most people will not understand. Don’t get me wrong, Trudeau comes out looking great to the average Joe.

        But the guy who said it above said it best. He handled it like a Prime Minister. Not like a boss.

  15. Gordon McInnes says:

    Liberal CBC covering up the Gomeshi harassment…. and now the Liberal party is coping with their MPs harassing NDP female MPs! Tells you a lot about Liberals and their entitlement mentality. Trudeau is being drawn down into the political cesspool and casting doubt about all Liberals. Sad.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      Funny, outside of the suspect grammar, I think your post revealed more a vision of straws and you desperately grasping at them

    • smelter rat says:

      Give your head s shake. The CBC is run entirely by Conservatives now. Go look at their Board members.

      • Kenneth Wright says:

        Cons are killing the CBC with a thousand small cuts until there is nothing left but the weather and reruns. Most Canadians won’t notice.

  16. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Think Kay’s column makes some valid points that I can’t get past…

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/06/jonathan-kay-after-ghomeshis-downfall-signs-of-a-sexual-harassment-witch-hunt/

    Quote: “But how else does one describe the process that has been foisted on Messrs. Andrews and Pacetti? Neither man has been informed of the details of the accusations against him, and so cannot defend themselves in any way. Indeed, all the claims are being described only as “personal misconduct,” which could theoretically mean anything sexual or non-sexual under the sun.”

    Did anyone from the LPC even consult with these two MPs prior to expulsion? Did Trudeau?

    I have no tolerance for harassment of any kind, but nevertheless there are valid and important processes to be brought into play so that justice for everyone involved prevails…as opposed to shoot first and ask questions later.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      “Shoot first and as questions later”

      That’s more Professor Cranbrooks view on foreign policy.

    • Scotian says:

      Fact check Professor Cranbrook, the MPs were SUSPENDED while an investigation goes on, not EXPULSED. That you either missed this or worse chose to miss it knowingly does not affect the reality that your misuse creates a very large strawman. It is common practice for suspension during investigation following serious complaints in all sorts of professions and occupations, which is what happened here. This leaves you swinging in the wind with this factual error and straw figure to so piously preach your concern about, such a rotten thing to have done.

      Bottom line Al, you are making a strawman argument/point. Worse you did so on an obvious factual error, since there is a MASSIVE difference between suspension from caucus and expulsion from caucus. Not doing yourself any favours on the credibility front when you do this you know.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        They’ve been publicly booted from caucus, call it whatever the hell you want. Kay’s points…assuming you even read the article…remain valid.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          Let’s not have those pesky facts get in the way of Professor Cranbrook’s point.

          Plus I think he’s trying to get you to enrol in his selective reading lectures.

        • Scotian says:

          In point of fact I did not read the Kay article, as I was not addressing anything in the article, only what you yourself said and the fundamental factual error you demonstrated and the straw man argument you spun out of said factual error. Which you make again, they are not “booted out of caucus”, they are SUSPENDED, as in can return once investigation clears them if that is result, which is NOT THE SAME THING as what you said twice now. When you say “call it whatever the hell you want” you are saying the meaning of words do not matter when it suits you for them not to matter, and that facts are not important only what you and those who are agreeing with you think are saying counts. That is at the heart of what so many centrists as well as progressives find so repulsive about the modern NA conservative, you are entitled not only to your own opinions, but you feel entitled to your entitlement of your own facts as well regardless of the reality, and that makes it impossible to have civilized dialogue with you, nor for civilized political cooperation to exist.

          You can dress yourself up in intellectual finery all you want Al from Cranbrook, but when it comes down to it you reveal what you truly are time and again, as you just did again in this thread, someone whose partisanship and team loyalty is more important than honesty and facing reality as it is, as opposed to how you would prefer it to be. Suspension while under investigation is common practice in the modern workplace (when outright firing does not happen to avoid the time and effort by some employers), as is reinstatement when the results are clearing the ones under investigation, or further sanction depending on the results going the other way against them. That is not the same thing as expulsion, yet now you called it “booted from caucus”, which is clearly a weaker statement than your first mistake and a word choice with more ambiguity which means you can argue that this was true, and if you had used this to start off with you would have avoided looking like a mistaken person, but since you instead use it in a defence of your mistake you undercut this meaning instead of bolstering it which was saying they were expelled, which indicates you know you cannot get away with that strong language twice, despite not acknowledging it at all. Very slippery there Al from Cranbrook, claiming to stand behind your first statement while trying to slip in a revision.

          For someone that likes to claim they understand how things work in the real world, your remarkable lack of understanding, or worse your intentional disregard of such shows your true nature quite clearly. The fact you tried to defend your factual error and your straw man argument from it instead of doing the honest thing and noting you made a mistake and it led you down a false path is all that is needed to show that you were clearly not making an innocent mistake but a deliberate one, or worse, you don’t care about truth and factual reality when it gets in the way of your agenda. Either way what you show is that you are not a serious person making serious comments here, but a propagandist, albeit one of the better ones from the CPC bench. Granted, not exactly news for regulars here, but still…*sigh*

          BTW, coming to the blog of someone who has made a living based on the power of words, their meanings, and that precise use of same is essential and saying you don’t care about meaning just what you say means whatever you want it to or “call it whatever the hell you want” as you put it is really tacky and more than a little disrespectful IMHO.

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            I was 99.9% certain that, typically, you never read the article, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt anyway, ’cause that’s the courteous kinda guy I am. That essentially the entire substance of my post was predicated upon Kay’s column apparently was lost on you.

            Which begs the question: What are you here for? To get into political stuff? Or just dazzle us with grammar and diction?

            Secondly, spare me the superior progressive schtick. Thank you.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            Al is here to dazzle us with his Hee Haw prose. Unfortunately he won’t spare us from his cornball conbot schtick

    • Robin says:

      The Liberal Whip met with both alleged victims prior to Mr. Trudeau making his decision to suspend the two alleged perpetrators in his Caucus pending a full and impartial investigation of the allegations being made. Also, one of the alleged victims spoke to Mr. Trudeau directly which elevated the need for action. If they wanted anonymity, speaking to Mr. Trudeau directly was ill advised.

  17. Bill says:

    For all you Liberals who believe JT is finally finding his footing and sounding Prime Ministerial, take a look at the attached clip. He is still not ready for prime time and I doubt he has the ability to ever get there.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/11/20141107-080857.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*