You can tell it’s Canadians chatting if the cold weather leads the conversation.
Lots of interesting politics this week:
-
Ontario PC leader quits over allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct with aides.
-
Federal Liberal Cabinet member quits, ditto.
-
Sask Party about to elect a new leader and Saskatchewan Premier.
My view on this: I don’t know what he did. It’s quite possible (likely?) that Patrick Brown is in fact guilty of some form of sexual harassment. But I do find it concerning that we can force a political leader to resign, during an election year, based on accusations that the leader cannot defend against.
And in other news, the Mounties have been fined $550,000 for occupational h+s violations in relation to the NB shootings a few years ago.
Is this a case of the government suing itself?
Based on how quickly he went from defiant to, ‘I’ll go quietly.’, I’m gonna guess that some kind of substantive corroboration surfaced that he was unaware of, till now.
Just a wild assed guess.
Or, it could be that the party told him that regardless of any guilt or innocence there’s no way they could chance going into an election with these allegations hanging in the air. And upon reflection he agreed.
I think it’s clear Brown was called by every member of caucus that same evening and told to quit. In an immediate sense, that is why he quit. He was told to jump or he’d be pushed.
But that has always been the case; it’s not just sexual allegations. For instance, if an allegation comes out that a party leader is under police investigation, as happened to Glen Clark in BC in 1999, odds are the leader will resign, even if the matter hasn’t gone to trial. A political party will dump a tainted leader, and the closer the upcoming election, the quicker the dumping will happen. From the party’s perspective, whether the leader is guilty or innocent is irrelevant; it’s the mere fact of the allegation, which will pull the party down, which is significant.
Pretty much. The RCMP was prosecuted by federal Crown prosecutors, acting to enforce the Canada Labour Code occupational h+s provisions.
I assume the $550,000 will go from the Mounties’ operating budget to the fine revenue account, both of which are ultimately part of the federal books.
I also assume that a big part of the prosecution wasn’t so much the fine as to get the message through to the Mounties that they are subject to o h+s laws.
And a fellow named Scott Moe is the new leader of the Sask Party and incoming premier.
Politicians have been dumped from leadership or cabinet positions, or forced to resign entirely, over accusations of impropriety any number of times.
It’s only when the accusations are of sexual harassment or assault that the apologists come out of the woodwork and say “Hey, now, nothing’s been proven in a court of law!”
Apologists? Obviously there’s no “right” of anyone to be a politician, and they’re subject to much more scrutiny than other people. But, especially in the social media age, a lot of people have been subject to mass campaigns against them based on something they might have said or done in the past, and have had their livelihoods taken from them. And it didn’t happen only to politicians, and it happened based on other allegations than sexual harassment or assault.
But also, taking down a party’s leader just before an election campaign can be a way to cripple this party and influence the election results. I’m not saying it’s “bad”; if the allegations against the leader happened to come to light at that time, then so be it. But it can still be a way to manipulate the political process.
That’s exactly what “Opposition research” is all about - researching the other side as completely as possible, and then timing the release of the most damaging information at the worst possible time, to have maximum impact and minimum time for the other side to respond.
Manipulating the process, or disclosing the flaws of the other side? Why not both? In any event, it’s been going on since Themistocles’ day, and there’s no way to stop it.
When there is a shred of evidence these accusations were fabricated by opponents of the PC party to interfere in the election, that will be a problem. Let me know when that happens.
If it’s true but was simply released to be inconvenient, I have no sympathy for Brown or his party whatsoever, and tip my cap to whomever pulled it off. Of course they’re trying to influence the election results; that’s called a “campaign” and it’s how democracies work. If it comes to light Kathleen Wynne committed a criminal act regarding (insert scandal here, you have lots to choose from) and that information falls into the hands of the PCs or NDPs, I am confident they will maximize its campaign value and good for them.
If you’re a creepy jerk you’ve no say in when the consequences crash down on you, and it’'s the fault of Brown’s party that they named a creepy jerk as leader. They should have looked a little harder at him.
Exactly. What if, hypothetically, someone came forward anonymously with spreadsheets that suggested Wynne might have been rigging her government expense claims and pocketing the extra? Yes, turn the spreadsheets over to the police and let commercial crime unit start reviewing them. But, it’s highly unlikely the police review will be wrapped up before the election.
Think the Liberals would go forward being led by someone under police investigation for ripping off taxpayers? The Liberal party would drop her just as quickly as the PC party dropped Brown.
A party can’t go into an election with those sorts of allegations hanging over the leader.
Good story in the Toronto Sun:
A palace coup: the 48 hour struggle to win control of the Ontario PC Party.
The surprising part to me is the claim that “everyone in Ontario political and media circles saw this coming a mile away”. Then why pick him in the first place?
Well, I suppose you’re right. I guess what bothers me is the risk of unfounded accusations; even if they can be proved to have been false, by that time the damage is done. Maybe it’s teaching that’s made me sensitive to this risk. But I don’t have any information that the allegations against Brown are anything but true.
Why did people just go along with Larry Nassar as physician for the United States gymnastics team while he molested hundreds of little girls?
Why did people say nothing about the mass rapes being committed by the Roman Catholic Church’s priests for years?
Okay, those are huge examples, but this same question can be asked of every minor creep, too.
The reason is because
- This stuff never all comes out at once, and
- Women (and children) have, historically, been ignored or dismissed when saying something.
Regarding #1, the thing is that the evidence almost never hits you all together. If Brown has a reputation as a creepy guy who hits on teenagers, no one is going to go to the papers saying “Hey, I heard Patrick Brown is a creepy guy who hits on teenagers,” because that’s not something you can do. It’s something you talk about over a beer, maybe, but it’s nothing solid and you don’t know for sure if it’s true. Could be a misunderstanding. And if you hear it from ten different people, well, it’s probably not a misunderstanding, but what can you do, right? You can’t go to the Toronto Star I say “I heard this guy was creepy.” They can’t print that; they’re going to say “show me some evidence or get out.”
Of course, this sort of thing can build to the point where you look back and say “Why didn’t people do anything?” I have been flitting around the standup comedy scene for seven years now, and can tell you straight up that women comics have a running oral database of comics and promoters who they warn each other never to be alone with. “Don’t be alone with Jim, he might assault you” is something they literally have to tell each other. You can’t do anything about Jim unless YOU were the one assaulted, and the woman/women who was assaulted might choose not to go to the authorities about Jim for any number of quite valid reasons - one of which being that if they do, Jim will deny it, his friends will deny it, and people will call her a slut. Maybe that’s going to change now with the #metoo movement. Maybe not.
I’m not saying Brown is a rapist; there is no accusation against him even remotely close to that.
The thing to bear in mind here is that to be leader of a political party is a position of CONFIDENCE. It is literally what keeps a person on in that job; the confidence of his or her caucus. Being a party leader isn’t something you are in any way entitled to except as an expression of the confidence of your caucus. (I realize all parties have a constitutional method of determining who the leader is, but that’s to keep it organized.) Underneath, a party is always seething with a thousand gripes and complaints about the leader; she didn’t do this, he doesn’t listen to me about that. the leader’s job is in part to convince the caucus that despite all that, s/he should remain leader. To use, say, Stephen Harper as an example, his caucus had all kinda of complaints. The social conservatives spent nine years convinced he’d screwed up, because, of course, he HAD screwed them. His Quebec caucus didn’t like many of his positions. His Ontario MPs didn’t like this, these MPs didn’t like that, but Harper and his staff successfully convinced everyone he should remain leader. Towards the end Jean Chretien began to lose that battle, so he had to make way for Paul Martin.
Once Brown lost the confidence of his caucus, he had to go. It doesn’t matter why he did, but he did.
I can see in theory why the threat of a fake news attack might be concerning, especially as the Russians cheerily twist the U.S. political discourse seemingly at will.