I imagine most fuckheads who grope do it because they dont think its a "big deal", of course he wouldnt remember even if he did
To remember something 18 years back itd have to be "HO HO HO THIS'LL BE GOOD HURR" levels of significance
Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised at all at the woman who was groped remembering, it was likely far more memorable (and terrible).
But since this is the internet: no, I dont condone groping. Im just making a point about memory retainment and perception.
Oh man...
I really hope this isn't true. Justin's kinda what Canada needs right now given the political climate in America...
There was an opinion piece written on CBC last week that I feel kinda shows how he's painted himself into a corner on this one:
Trudeau has boxed himself in with his own zero
Basically he has a zero tolerance policy regarding any kind of misconduct, and so for him to be able to move past this would mean he's above the other members of his party that he's thrown out for similar issues.
I really don't want Trudeau gone either, as pointed out above he is what Canada needs right now. I just can't help feeling he's painted himself into a corner on this one
iirc even the original woman who made the allegation 18 years ago wants nothing to do with the story now and isn't pursuing it.
Damn. How would you even go about proving something that happened 18 years ago when after just ONE YEAR, our recollection of an event will have been modified by up to 60%?
Hopefully if it really did happen she wrote everything down.
Interesting podcast about how unreliable our memory is:
https://megaphone.link/PPY2794767962
What exactly is he being accused of doing?
We really need to remember the statute of limitations exists because without it, anyone accused of a crime, might as well be convicted of it if enough time has passed.
Solving crimes, any crime, relies on getting the evidence quickly while it still exists. Waiting 10 years, 10 months, or 10 weeks, or even 10 days can cause your case to be harder to prosecute as evidence is lost.
If you think that sucks, I agree, it does suck, but it also sucks to not have that as a standard.
He's not accused of anything, someone dug up a claim of "inappropriate behavior" (in those words) from a news article from 18 years ago basically.
It's smear politics in the day and age where we've absolutely maximized the effect of doing such things.
As a society we need to get a grip on this kind of shit.
And this is why zero tolerance never has been and never will be a good idea
I think it's healthy to give the claim a thought but once you realize it's basically impossible to prove yeah it's basically just smear politics.
The conservatives are unbelievably pathetic lol. I have a zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment of any kind, so I'm not ignoring this claim completely, but given Trudeau's extremely progressive track-record, I am very skeptical of this claim having ever been true and given the timing of its resurfacing, we should all be skeptical as Canadians as to the true intentions behind its resurfacing.
All sexual harassers/assaulters need to face justice, but given the anti-"PC" attitudes of the Conservative party and many of its voters(including in regards to sexual harassment claims), I really, really doubt they are bringing this forward out of the kindness of their heart. If they truly want to take the moral high-ground on these issues, they need to put their money where their mouth is and help bring awareness to the issues on a national level, not just when it benefits them. Trudeau has made gigantic leaps in regards to social rights, whereas these issues stagnated under Harper, with only Gay rights seeing any real progress(and the Conservatives dragged their feet then too).
I have a feeling its resurfacing might be a Russia thing. Gonna sound a bit tinfoiley here but they sound like the types who would try to delegitimize a progressive leader to destabilize Canada and put another puppet in charge.
Or it's just a lone person bringing this up again.
IIRC there is no statute of limitations in the Criminal Code. IIRC there's a dude who was being charged with "buggery," which was basically the charge for being gay, like a few years ago because he had gay sex with someone in the '70s, so they're applying the '70s version of the Criminal Code to his conduct since it was a crime at the time. We don't have a statute of limitations, and frankly for most crimes I think that's a good thing.
And yet the example you provided proves otherwise.
You might wanna review your posts in the Keenan thread before declaring any absolutes.
I've been re-reading the article but from what I can see, the claim of "groping" seems to be some kind of extrapolation by journalists.
The ACTUAL claim:
An unsigned editorial that appeared at the time in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper said he apologized for inappropriate "handling" of the woman. The editorial did not provide any details, but said Trudeau "blatantly disrespected" the reporter.
Commentary by an acquaintance of the alleged victim:
Valerie Bourne, former publisher of the Advance, told CBC News that she spoke with the reporter in 2000: "My recollections of the conversation were that she came to me because she was unsettled by it. She didn't like what had happened. She wasn't sure how she should proceed with it because of course we're talking somebody who was known to the Canadian community."
Bourne said, "I would not classify it or qualify it as sexual assault." But she said that Trudeau's alleged actions were "definitely not welcome and definitely inappropriate."
it isn't easy to get more nonspecific than this
How is it a good thing that the lack of limitations means someone gets prosecuted for being gay?
Couldn't "handling" be meant figuratively? As in, he was rude to her?
The person who made the claim 18 years ago doesn't want anything to do with this anyway, it's journalists that dug it up.
I said in most cases, not in all cases. If someone murdered a dude 40 years ago I still want them to go to jail for it.
Remember a few years back when his political opponents accused him of "molesting" one of the politicians and made a big stink about it but the video showed nothing of the sort.
Peeps are desperate to smear the guy
There isn't a statue of limitations on murder in the US anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
