, 01.29.2018 08:41 AM

Column: #MeToo isn’t just coming to political Canada – it’s here

The Conservative MP shook his head.  We were in a restaurant at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto, getting caught up.

He’d just told me that a little-known backbencher named Patrick Brown was going to seek the PC party leadership. I’d told him all that I had heard about Brown was that he “had a zipper problem.”

The Tory MP shook his head. “I know this guy,” he said. “I’ve worked with him. His personal life is boring. He’ll win.”

And he did.  But his personal life sure wasn’t boring.

**

Two years later. Patrick Brown has asked to meet this writer. He didn’t ask that the meeting be off the record. I was curious.

We are in his big corner office at Queen’s Park. His Chief of Staff is there, too.

Brown is smaller than I expected. He seems anxious, a bit on edge. He asks me this: “What are the biggest problems I face?”

It’s a good question.

“I don’t have any skin in this game, so I’ll give it to you straight,” I said. ‎”You have three problems. One, nobody knows who you are. Two, nobody knows what you believe in.

“Three, you have a problem with women. The data says they have a holdback about you. You need to fix that.”

Brown didn’t look concerned. ‎ “We have a plan to deal with that,” he said.

He may have had a plan, but it didn’t work, did it?

Nope.

**

It was late, late on Wednesday night. I had just posted about Brown’s emotional denial of a CTV story – one detailing serious allegations of sexual misconduct by the PC leader. While Brown spoke, his most senior advisors – guys I knew and respected and considered friends – sent me a joint sttaement. They’d all quit.

So. A regular reader – one who had asked me to speak at a #MeToo rally in Edmonton – tweeted at me. This is what she tweeted:

“My political #MeToo moment @kinsellawarren: I’ve debated this. But that’s the power of sexual harassment. My first day working at the Alberta legislature I was told to avoid being in an elevator with Kent Hehr. He would make comments. He would make you feel unsafe.”

I retweeted what she said. Within hours, hundreds of others retweeted or liked it, as well. It went viral.

Thursday morning, as revelations about Patrick Brown‎ were still landing – and revelations about the just-dumped Nova Scotia PC leader, as well – Kent Hehr abruptly cancelled a funding announcement in Toronto. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he would be speaking to Hehr.

I contacted my Alberta friend. “Hey,” I said. “Your tweet got noticed.

“Well done.”

Hours later, Hehr resigned.

**

This writer has been saying for weeks that #MeToo was going to hit Canadian politics. It has struck with a fury in Hollywood, the media, Washington and the cultural elite. It was only a matter of time before it took down the creeps and criminals slithering through the Canadian corridors of power, too.

There are other men who are about to be exposed. Count on it. The media have been on their trail for many weeks. Once it gets through the editors – once it is okayed by the lawyers – other men will be going down. It is overdue. It is needed.

One of these men is very, very powerful. The stories have been known about him for three years. They are in affidavits, plural.

His name will shock you.

It is up to the victims who swore those affidavits to step forward and tell their story. Not me or those like me. It will take courage – telling truth to the powerful always takes courage – but now, I’d say, is the time.

The country needs to hear their story, and judge.

I do not think the judgement will be in this man’s favour.

**

I was on my way to Calgary to start teaching at my alma mater, the Faculty of Law. A journalist contacted me. She asked me if there had been an increase in the number ‎of defamation cases, or warnings, aimed at women who speak up about alleged harassers and abusers.

“Impossible to know for sure,” I told her. “But it’s also impossible there aren’t many more cases out there. Women considering [telling their] #MeToo story should remember this: in law, the truth is an absolute defence.”

The journalist is unconvinced. “Yeah,” she says. “But truth ends up being the same old he-said-she-said game in court.”

“The balance tilts in favour of female complainants, these days,” I replied. “And appropriately so. Every lawyer knows that.”

She is still doubtful. She says so.

Me: “I’m telling you a cultural shift is underway. The law isn’t immune to that.”

And:

“The time for them to speak out is now. Now.

“Something is happening out there. And it is glorious and overdue and righteous. It’s time!”

**

Before I board the plane, I hear from a former Prime Minister. I tell him what an honour it was to work for him – a man who married his high school sweetheart. A man whose conduct was beyond reproach. A man who never tolerated such conduct by his staff or his caucus or his cabinet. Ever.

“It was different, many years ago,” he says. “It was difficult for women to complain.”

He paused.

“Those days are gone,” he said. “And that’s a good thing.”

 

 

81 Comments

  1. Luke says:

    Now I am wondering what this mystery name is. I could only guess wildly.

  2. the salamander horde says:

    .. despite the current environment that encourages women to come forward because of sheer numbers that will help diffuse the hate & anger.. its still going to be vicious.. just wicked vicious. When one sees what Notely has pitchforked at her in Alberta, its stunning.. Keep up the good work.. its recognized, its highly appreciated..

  3. Kevin says:

    Warren can you give us a hint who the “powerful” man is?

    • Matt says:

      If it’s the same person who I’ve been told has multiple sworn affidavits against him, you can’t get bigger in Canada. I know one of the people who’s signature is on one of the affidavits.

      This person has told me the contents of the affidavits. Explosive doesn’t even begin to describe it. I will not repeat what I was told here because haven’t personally seen them, and even if I had, I don’t want to make legal trouble for Warren.

      What I will say…… if they do get out, they will destroy this persons very carefully crafted public image and reputation.

      • Kevin says:

        Is this guy a politician? If so is he liberal or conservative?

        If not a politician in what field is he famous?

        Thanks

      • SJS says:

        “Matt”- seems all of your posts are walking pretty closely to the edge of the knife…

        • doconnor says:

          Keep in mind that Warren Kinsella decides where the edge is. We don’t know what kinds of comments have been rejected.

          • Matt says:

            Correct. I have sent specific information I’ve heard in the past through the comment space on this site. Not to be posted publicly, but more as an FYI to Warren. If he feels it crosses the line he will send a very polite email to me saying something like “I think you know I can’t post that” which of course I know.

        • Matt says:

          How so? I have not given any specifics as to the contents. The existence of the affidavits against him have been known by Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and members of the parliamentary press gallery for years.

          • LeeAnn says:

            If I think it is ONE person then their name should be out now. He is definitely destroying our country and his NME should be out there NOW!!

      • Luke says:

        Well if I read you correctly I am going to be so extremely disappointed and dumbfounded. I sure hope I’m wrong.

      • Pedant says:

        I take a dim view of gossip, affidavit or no.

        Recall that for years, the Left was spreading vicious, salacious rumours about a certain Conservative’s wife (I’m sure you know what I am referring to), which to my understanding have been shown to be 100% false.

        I have no confidence that these affidavits will ever see the light of day.

        • Fred from BC says:

          I remember those rumors, and was equally disgusted. I would hope that the Conservatives aren’t behind this particular accusation, but if there really are affidavits existing then that changes things completely.

      • bocanut says:

        I cowardly use the fake name “Bocanut” to hide who I really am – Borys Demchuk, recently let go by Johnvince Foods of North York, and I stalk women online.

  4. Miles Lunn says:

    About time too. If it ends the careers of a bunch of politicians well too bad. I obviously believe in a fair trial but not going to prison you have to prove a law was broken and beyond a reasonable doubt. Not being in politics has a much lower standard, politicians should set examples and anyone under suspicion shouldn’t be running. They need to clear their name before they run.

  5. Dan Fraser says:

    Have a look at a military court martial of a retired WO in Brandon, Mb last fall if you think it’s in favor the woman. The perp lied til confronted with video then claimed he was just protecting his wife. The judge agreed, called him credible and threw out all charges. A whole chorus of the military units WOs came forward to question the character of the claimant. The WO and Sgt Club sure protected their buddy. Imagine video of the rape but the claimant was not credible.

  6. Sam White says:

    I’ve heard about some very serious accusations against a very prominent person years ago. I won’t say who but this person’s public image/persona is the exact opposite of the accusations.

    I more or less dismissed them because as these things go, many are just rumours & political games. I also assumed that if they were even partially true, persons involved would have been paid a substantial amount of hush money complete with legal NDA’s.

    Until today I never gave it another thought.

  7. Douglas Musk says:

    I have contacts in the Conservative Party of Canada, it took me literally years to find out what was in these affidavits. I finally had a contact who claimed they knew and I’m actually so shocked by their contents it feels it must be not be true, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough if this information is correct.

  8. MF says:

    Is this going to happen soon or is this people never going to go public? Thanks

  9. The problem though, is today people can make these accusations in total anonymity. All most of us know about the two women who came forward with accusations about Brown is that they’re two women. Period. It seems that all you need to do is to go to the media, not even the Police, with your accusations against a person and that person is finished, literally. It’s just too easy.
    On the other hand though, if someone has evidence, or were personally involved in something that wasn’t their choice, with anyone powerful, they owe it to the the rest of us to let us know. This is especially important when this person can affect the lives of thousands of others.

    • doconnor says:

      Legitimate media organizations would do checks before publishing. For example the summer intern they probably checked that she really was an intern and really was at the party. They also checked with four friends who she had told the story in the past. You’ll also notice that they usually have two independent stories with similarities before publishing.

      • Fred from BC says:

        That only means that it is *possible* they could be telling the truth, and says nothing about their motives or credibility.

        Don’t forget the women being paid a LOT of money to make similar accusations in the USA. It could happen here too.

      • Mark Neil says:

        They “should”, but so many, such as this very articles writer, are so on board with the #meToo witch hunt, how are any of us to know if they have done their due diligence, or if they’ve simply listened and believed, as the current mantra goes… Just like the Jackie Story from the Rolling Stone. This #meToo movement isn’t going to end well. Not for men, and not for women ether.

    • Bbss says:

      All most of us know about about the two **girls** that came forward is that they’re two **girls**.
      No age was given.

  10. David says:

    This is so confusing. Why would there be affidavits and nothing has been heard about them? What is the context of them being issued? I’m reading speculation and hinting about who may be the target of allegations. I think people should cool it.

    • Matt says:

      Because there was an agreement between the Liberals, CPC and media to keep the affidavits quiet and something about a well known Conservative would also remain quiet.

      That deal doesn’t cover the people who swore the affidavits. If they want to go public they can.

      • Sjs says:

        Sure “Matt”, a grand conspiracy exists between the two major parties to withhold explosive information. Information which you have already said on these boards is tied directly to the current PM (you said his name, you said his position, his socks- etc). And, enough armchair experts and seemingly informed informants on these boards have themselves seen a smoking gun in the form of “affidavits”, meaning that evidence of this conspiracy would be floating around quite widely. But again, this all remains contained because of a quid pro quo between the Tories and Libs and I guess, a tight media fraternity? What about the Dippers, the Bloc, any upstart/outsider media, etc…. folks who would clearly benefit from this info getting out and who wouldn’t care for the status quo/current conspiratorial Agreement? I guess they are not as well informed as the people on these boards, who hide behind aliases as they lob accusation bombs.
        The internet- giving fools a megaphone and allowing cowards to hide and slander from the dark.

        • Matt says:

          Someone posting under “Sjs” calling out others for posting under an alias? LOL. Matt is my name. If my posts came close to slader, Warren wouldn’t allow them. As for the Libs and CPC coming to an agreemet, hey, politics and the desire for self preservation sometimes make enemies allies. Believe it or don’t believe it. I really don’t care.

        • Carolyn says:

          No media would ever agree to keep such affidavits quiet, matter who they were about. That’s nonsense.

          • D. Anthony Domet says:

            The CBC would if it meant protecting the guy with the silly socks.

          • Fred from BC says:

            My guess, if I had to make one, would be that a settlement was reached, a payment was made and a Non-Disclosure Agreement signed (is that the correct term?). It’s the only scenario I can think of that fits the available evidence.

      • Shelley says:

        If what you say is true Matt, then the global tagline ‘fake media’ is well deserved…

        • Drew Carter says:

          CBC leads the pack with “fake news”, I have caught the CBC in bald-faced lies, and contacted the Ombudsperson! The Ombudsperson says it’s an issue that CBC Producer has to answer to, and the producer says it’s the Ombudsperson’s job. Then the Ombudsman refuses any communication with Me. CBC is a joke.

  11. John W. says:

    So whether we’re dealing with Trudeau, Scheer, Singh or anybody else, the media is I’m sure trying to determine one crucial issue.
    How far back is it fair to go. What is the age cut off where we say it’s not relevant or fair? Maybe it’s High School, University, or early jobs not relevant to politics.
    Without wise media restraint, we are dealing with a kind of power, tools which could be used for actions which could resemble a form of “coup”.

    .

  12. Sean says:

    He hasn’t been saying much, these days. Even in passing someone will ask him a question- not a peep. He looks preoccupied, depressed, and unhappy.

  13. Deeyack says:

    I don’t think the mystery person is T2 – aka Justin Trudeau.i think it’s a self righteous broadcaster / educator / environmentalist who is prominent and petulant. His last name is the same as a famous music teaching method. Rumours about him have been around for years – just like a certain he ne sais quoi Gomeshi

    • CMAC says:

      As much as I hope it’s T2, I believe you when you say it’s not. Your hints point to a person with the initials DS, and that would fit with some of the proven “demands” DS has when setting up a speaking engagement. Unfortunately, he’s old and can just fade out of the public eye after the initial firestorm. The balance of his life would be minimally affected.

      • John says:

        The “3 years” distinction in the article seems to point to “you know who” rather than DS. After all, this article is about politics, not environmentalists.

        The “very, very powerful” and “the name would shock you” statements in the article are telling. Who’s currently more powerful in Canadian politics than “you know who” ? Furthermore, most current Canadian federal politicians aren’t recognizable household names to the general public. Only one name could really be considered “very, very powerful” and only one name could/would truly “shock” people.

        If you think about it, Lisa Raitt wouldn’t have tweeted an excerpt from this article if it wasn’t of this magnitude and if it didn’t allude to a top ranking political opponent.

        I don’t profess to be an expert in body language, but “you know who” didn’t exactly exude innocence when CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson asked him if he knew the identify of the person being referred to in this article the other day. His smug, arrogant, phony smile quickly gave way to a mortified “dear in the headlights” look the second this article was mentioned. It was interesting (to say the least) to watch “you know who” quickly reach for a glass of water, lick his lips and shift his eyes nervously while the MP’s behind him looked very uneasy and shifty too as he provided an unconvincing, one word “No” answer.

        • Warren says:

          You don’t know Lisa Raitt. I do. She’s afraid of no one.

          • John says:

            I hear you. What I meant was, she likely wouldn’t have tweeted an excerpt if it wasn’t such a bombshell. Also, some people were guessing political stripes of the “very, very powerful” person. Lisa Raitt likely wouldn’t have tweeted an excerpt if it was someone from the CPC. Given how politics seems to work, it stands to reason that she wouldn’t likely tweet about it unless it was someone at the very top of the LPC. Sorry for the dear/deer typo from my previous comment, by the way. Darned autocorrect.

        • John says:

          In my humble opinion, this column spells it out for us who it is, with hints like “3 years” , “very, very powerful” and “the name will shock you”. Mark Bonokoski wrote a good column about this the other day too. I don’t think anyone would bother to write about it in this context if it wasn’t such a bombshell. No wonder MP’s are running scared, as Bonokoski’s article said. It’s one thing if the person in question is “just” an MP (like Kent Hehr, for instance). The party can simply cut them loose and move forward. Sure, it’s scandalous but parties can regroup, recover and move on. How does a party do that if the person in question is the leader who also happens to be famous internationally and who touts themself as a ” feminist”? The damage would be so devastating to a party’s brand, it would ruin it. How would the party weather that? That’s why this is such a powder keg. Grab the popcorn. Tick tock…

          • John says:

            Mark Bonokoski’s article said that the speculation is that the bombshell is expected to drop today…

          • Warren says:

            Saw that. I’ll bet it won’t.

          • Des says:

            Would that be because of the memo story out of the US about potential FISA abuses will be top headlines or am I just over-thinking? Two big headlines at the same time be a little too much?

          • John says:

            Do you still think the bombshell will drop soon, Mr. Kinsella, as your column suggests it will? When do you figure the story will break, if you had to bet?

          • Warren says:

            I don’t know. But why do you think it is one story?

            There are many #MeToo stories out there.

          • John says:

            It’s tragic that there are so many of these stories. I wish it wasn’t so. One is too many. I hope all of the perpetrators are brought to justice so that the victims may hopefully find some peace.

            The story I’m referring to on here is obviously the big one that this column alludes to, which is making waves and is supposed to be exposed anytime, hopefully, for the sake of the victims and to put an end to such disgraceful conduct by someone in such a prominent position of power. Hopefully the person in question will face the music soon.

          • John says:

            Des, that’s an interesting thought. I’d read somewhere someone had reasoned that the LPC would likely prefer to have the story break on a Friday ahead of the weekend rather than having it break at the beginning or middle of a news week to be amplified and scrutinized even more than it already will.

            If the story is definitely going to break in the near future anyway, as this column has said (as has Mark Bonokoski’s article too), why not today since it’ll get somewhat buried by the Memo story in the US, which’d probably be preferable from the LPC’s standpoint? Mind you, if the LPC are unable to stop the story from breaking (despite their best efforts, I’m sure), media outlets would likely prefer it not break on Memo Day so it garners more attention rather than being buried.

          • Grant says:

            I don’t really thinks it works that way John. If there is a story of the magnitude you are referring to, then any paper would publish it the minute the editors and lawyers are done with it. Nobody wants to get scooped. Memo day certainly wouldn’t stop somebody from breaking this.

            That being said, very powerful men are powerful for a reason and will hold onto that power for dear life. I truly believe there is a story here, but will the public ever actually be privy to it? I have my doubts.

          • John says:

            I hear you, Grant. Hopefully corrupt power doesn’t run so deep that it prevents this from seeing the light of day. I hope that Mr. Kinsella can reassure us with his professional opinion as a lawyer and writer that the breaking of this story is still imminent in the very near future. The truth needs to be heard and the person in question needs to be brought to justice. The public deserves to know the truth, on behalf of and out of respect for the victims.

          • John says:

            Sounds like much more light to be shed on Monday. Myriam Denis will be expanding on the unfortunate sexual harassment that she suffered at the hands of senior Liberal staffers.

            Mr. Kinsella tweeted today that he has a #MeToo story coming Monday in the Hill Times, but cryptically suggested it’s not about Claude-Eric Gagne (Trudeau’s deputy director of operations). Who will Mr. Kinsella’s story be about on Monday? Hopefully the “very, very powerful” man who’s “name will shock” us, who “stories have been known about him for 3 years”.

          • John says:

            I neglected to mention that Claude-Eric Gagne (Trudeau’s deputy director of operations) resigned yesterday amidst allegations of sexual misconduct. It’ll be interesting to see who Mr. Kinsella’s story will be about on Monday since he said it won’t be about Mr. Gagne.

          • John says:

            Mr. Kinsella, is the “very, very powerful” man still on the verge of being named publicly? Is the story still imminent? I’m disappointed to see that Andrew Krystal deleted his “story soon” tweet about this. Perhaps the “powers that be” pressured him to delete it, or the maybe story isn’t going to break now after all (which would be a corrupt shame, to say the least)? Please enlighten us if you can. Thanks for all you do for the #MeToo cause. Keep up the great work. Ignore the haters. You’ve obviously struck a raw nerve, which is telling onto itself.

          • Warren says:

            John: It’s up to the journalists working on the story. Given the pressure they are under – I’ve been told one journalist who broke a major #MeToo story has learned a private detective is digging through his garbage – your guess is as good as mine.

        • Deeyack Sukdeep Harsheet says:

          I enjoyed your response, but “you know who” (to quote you and chief inspector Clouseau from ‘Revenge of the Pink Panther’) isn’t as powerful as we like to think. I realized, early on and after voting for him (I regret deeply), he’s a tool for the truly powerful. I often wonder who’s prime minister in fact, given ‘you know who’ is traveling all the bloody time. He’s also not smart enough to have constructed a shield around the evidence powerful enough to protect him this long. Could it be, instead, a former politician, who seemed ready to take on the conservative leadership and give ‘you know who’ a serious challenge with his coherent ideas, appeal, handsome looks and equally idyllic family life? I’m referring to some who may, or may not have retired to the Maritimes, as it were…

    • Fred from BC says:

      Ahhh, yes…good deduction.

      I agree. As much as I don’t care for T2, I still wouldn’t wish this crap to fall on him; I’m conservative, but not to the point of being a zealot and wishing harm on all Liberals.

      The other guy, though? Oh HELL YEAH! He’s been a huge asshole for years, but for some reason the Canadian public seems to love him (of course, they loved Gian Gomeshi , Bill Cosby and many others before the truths about them were revealed). If he goes down, I may just start to believe in Karma…

  14. Jim Eh says:

    I totally agree that politicians should be held fully accountable for their actions and if found guilty should be dealt with accordingly, political career in the garbage. The only problem is…if they are actually innocent, once “accused” of any possible sexual misconduct I believe that their political career is still finished. Any aspirations that they may have had of progressing up the political ladder will be stopped. Even if they prove way beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were innocent, and the alleged incident never happened, they’re still done, that cloud will always be over their head. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way I see it. As an example, Patrick Brown. I’m not saying whether he is innocent or guilty as I have no way of knowing but…if he goes to court and proves that he was falsely accused, his desire to run for the PCs to be Premier of Ontario is still over, and will probably never be accepted again. That’s politics, once accused always the cloud.

  15. 1Purpose says:

    Yes, the anonymity of the internet means women can use the tool to harass and victimize men, just like men have been doing to women since the internet was invented: revenge porn, hate-filled vitriol spewing forth whenever a woman disagrees with the male agenda. Only now, it seems to be a problem needing a fix. “Unfair” comes the predictable reply. And perhaps it is. I’ve no doubt some men will be unfairly victimized – hey guys, it happens. Trust me. But the truth is, we do not have an epidemic of women and girls making spurious claims of harassment and assault against men. We have an epidemic of men harassing and assaulting women and girls. That’s the problem we intend to fix. Now. Not at some vague future point when men feel like paying attention.

  16. Bbss says:

    I want to make a few points. First of all, it is very likely that things are swept under the table by politicians, political staff, political parties and media. We only get one side of every story and we only get what the media is allowed to publish. As Kinsella mentioned, there is a legal process that needs to be followed in order to publish an article that makes such bold accusations. And I assure you that the politician we believe it to be has the best lawyers money can buy. When I say that we only get one side of the story, we only get what is published by media (it is usually partisan) and it is usually from QP or from a politician criticizing a policy or another politician. Can we really believe that behind closed doors these politicians hate each other as much as they do according to the media? I doubt that they would even be able to work in the same building without punching each other if they did. Furthermore, this is not the only story that is going to come out. I am confident that there are people in every political party that have skeletons that are sure to come out. It is likely that partisan staff and MPs keep each others secrets in order to keep their own safe. Once this article comes out, many will be quick to follow.
    Finally, Kinsella is smart and knew what he was implying when he posted this article. I doubt he would make such bold comments, about his own party, without adequate resources.
    I understand that there is always the potential risk of accusations being true or false and that they can destroy reputations. However, we only get what is allowed to be disclosed. So yes, Brown resigned from his position as minister because of ambiguous accusations that were published in the media. But as these articles come out and politicians resign, ask yourself if this politician would resign, if the media would publish this story if it is as it seems. Is the story that is being disclosed the only story of its kind? Is it as it seems? How old is the victim?
    Keep this in mind as you read articles and as politicians begin to drop like flies. I assure you, this is only the beginning.

  17. Larry Searle says:

    Anyone who thinks these kinds of things are limted to one party do not understand the natures of some men. It certainly has nothing to do with ideology or social status it could be rich poor black white or any group at all

  18. Randy says:

    The case of Brown is absolutely absurd. These evil women should be sued, I’m sure they will be, for destroying a mans career. He did nothing wrong, nothing. Watch out men, if you wink at a woman it’s sexual misconduct. I will personally never be alone with a woman I don’t know very well, period. Never trust a woman!

  19. Doug says:

    So much for being innocent until proven guilty. Nowadays, it is “Trial by Twitter” and

    I saw a teacher in Alberta go through these “accusations”. He lost his job and his career, his personal life was destroyed due to the stress of the trial. And he was found not guilty. However, he was already judged by the media so the actual verdict didn’t matter.

  20. kathleen cerquozzi says:

    When will the truth come out.

  21. Brian says:

    I recall that Senior Trudeau dated Margaret when he was 48 and and she was 18. The age gap between Brown and his accusers was far less. Brown didn’t have any sexual dealings with either. In fact, the university student said, “No”. He stopped, as he should have, and drove her home. Seems like the right response to “no” isn’t it?

  22. Paul O says:

    I, too, am glad that the public has a chance to see some of the shadier behaviour of those they would idolize. But I fear a numbness will soon set in: as we look to sports, where Charles Barkley specifically disclaimed any role as role model and led a wild private life, so too we may find politicians claiming their skills are in areas other than dating as youth.

    More, I wonder about those against whom allegations came forward before the Me Too movement – a certain Senator comes to mind – and whether they will receive the treatment their behaviour has earned

Leave a Reply

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


*