LONG THREAD. Get a coffee. As a supporter of Trudeau, I’ve followed the Trudeau controversary moderately closely. As a former social worker who spent 10 years working with survivors of assault, I take sexual improprieties seriously.
There is minimal concern shown for the woman involved. Their main arguments are this: 1~He’s a liberal; 2~He’s a feminist; 3~Feminism is wrongheaded; 4~He removed from caucus several people who had been accused of sexual improprieties. 5~He used the term ‘zero tolerance’.
1~He’s a liberal. All conservatives are genetically predisposed to disagreeing with everything @JustinTrudeau says or does. Enough explanation
2~He’s a feminist. There is this myth that men cannot be feminists. Why would that be? Do only women care about the welfare of other women? It’s an opinion. It’s not invitations to demonstrations or bra burnings. It’s the belief that women should be given a fair shot.
3~Feminism is wrong/bad. Feminism does not mean holding a predetermined opinion. Feminism is a state of mind where one looks at every govt policy, budget, medical protocol, scientific study, employment endeavor & asks if that will impact women differently from men.
If there is a difference, what is it & how can outcomes be made more equal? Trudeau is true to that standard. And he applies it worldwide.
4~Removing others from caucus. It’s common practice to suspend someone who is a possible threat to the public from their current position. People were expelled from caucus only after investigation proved there was credence to the claims of the accuser.
In the case of the two men who were initially suspended from caucus, two women had gone to Trudeau DIRECTLY and described what had happened to them. In both cases, there were serious accusations of sexual assault. (not groping).
5~Zero tolerance. Because he set the standard at zero tolerance, he should be held to that same account. But it was an unrealistic standard to begin with. It leaves no room for context or degree. It WAS the standard when Trudeau received his training in crisis counseling.
The standard to always believe the victim is still in play. What it means in practical terms, however is to always listen to the victim & give her the respect of believing she is reporting in good faith. Reality is, this isn’t always reality.
There are too many questions left unanswered. We don’t know what happened other than ‘something’ happened & the reporter was offended. It’s reported she was in her early 20s, therefore just graduated from school. What was her perception of ‘offensive’ then? Is it the same now?
Another staffer at the paper, to whom the woman related her story, said it was a momentary touch and could not be classified as sexual assault. I believe the word ‘fleeting’ was also used.
Supposedly the reporter was interviewing JT when he offended her. Interviews are conducted face to face. Were they sitting? Standing? Where could he conceivably, realistically touch that she would find offensive? Her face? Her knee.Shoulder. Surely he didn’t pull a ‘Trump’.
I’m not disbelieving the reporter. Clearly something happened. We all must accept that as fact. But what happened? Was her professional ego offended? Did he come on to her & she found disrespectful to her fledgling career status? That’s what would best suit his apology.
I often see Patrick Brown used as an equivalent to Trudeau’s situation. It isn’t. And Trudeau had nothing to do with Patrick Brown. It was his own party that ousted him. This strikes me more as a denigration of the MeToo movement & feminism than anything else.
Conservatives are pouncing on this for no other reason than to make Trudeau look bad and themselves look righteous. It’s not concern for the victim. If so, they would stop hounding her for validation of their most serious wishes for a dire outcome.
There is far too much unknown in this case. And the fact that the woman herself has denied requests to make public comment is not insignificant. She’s done. Over it. Moved on. She was a reporter. If she wants to be heard, she knows how to do it.
So don’t expect me to support calls for Trudeau to resign or be removed from office. It’s just not a realistic response with what limited info we have at hand. Unfortunately, we can’t conduct an investigation, because the complainant is no longer interested.
Conservatives, you’re not fooling anyone with your calls for justice. You want a good old-fashioned lynching. And your favorite target is up on the stage. Your cries are disingenuous. Your premise faulty. And your arguments specious.
