XPost: can.politics, mtl.general, nf.general   
   XPost: bc.politics   
   From: Panca@nyet.ca   
      
   National Post - November 7, 2014   
      
   Andrew Coyne: If MPs are going to be kicked out for something, we should at   
   least know what that alleged something is   
      
      
   Somebody did something to someone. Or at least, somebody is alleged to have   
   done something to someone.   
      
   That’s about as much as we know, or at least as much as the public has been   
   told, about the scandal that is now consuming Parliament Hill, a scandal   
   everyone is talking about but no one can describe.   
      
   Wednesday’s dramatic statement by the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau,   
   informed   
   us only that two male Liberal MPs, whom he named, had been suspended from   
   caucus on charges of “serious personal misconduct” against two MPs from   
   another   
   party.  (Both men deny any wrongdoing.)  From other sources, we learned the   
   alleged victims, both women, are members of the New Democratic Party.   
      
   It is said, again by unnamed sources, to have involved incidents of sexual   
   harassment, at different points in the past year or so.  It is reported,   
   variously, that NDP officials were made aware of the allegations but not the   
   leader, that neither woman wanted to pursue the matter further — but that one   
   of them nevertheless approached Mr. Trudeau last week. And in the climate of   
   the times, that was enough.   
      
   Mr. Trudeau had seen the criticism rained on the CBC for not pursuing similar   
   complaints against Jian Ghomeshi. He had himself come under fire last year for   
   not acting quickly enough in the matter of Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, against   
   whom a complaint of sexual harassment had been made (of which he was later   
   cleared). He was not about to let that happen again.   
      
   So the two Liberal MPs were summarily suspended — their names made public,   
   their reputations, careers and possibly marriages ruined — in the absence of   
   any independent investigation, but it appears solely on the basis of   
   allegations made in secret. As Mr. Trudeau put it, in such cases the   
   complainants deserve “the benefit of the doubt.”   
      
   Such was Mr. Trudeau’s haste to announce the two MPs had been suspended that   
   he   
   apparently did not have time to inform the two complainants.  That brought   
   howls from the NDP that they had been “victimized a second time,” though   
   neither their names nor even their party affiliation was revealed — and   
   though   
   it was NDP sources who first told the media   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   they were from among their caucus.  (The NDP’s firm stand against   
   “revictimization” appeared to evaporate Friday when it emerged that one of   
   their own MPs had been accused of sexism and misogyny by a female former   
   staffer who claimed to have been sexually harassed by another staffer, a charge   
   the MP dismissed as “baseless.”)   
      
   There has been much discussion in recent days of the reasons why women are   
   often reluctant to pursue complaints of sexual harassment and assault: the   
   concern for privacy, the rigours of an adversarial legal system, the fear of   
   being disbelieved and so on. So it is perhaps understandable why the NDP MPs   
   might have preferred to let the matter drop; why, once the matter became   
   public, they might still have wished to remain anonymous; or why,   
   notwithstanding either concern, Mr. Trudeau proceeded as he did.   
      
   But without knowing what is alleged to have happened it is difficult to judge   
   the actions of any of the principals here. No one disputes that sexual   
   harassment is a problem on Parliament Hill, and no one is suggesting that the   
   complainants are not telling the truth. But sexual harassment covers a wide   
   range of behaviour, from lewd remarks to sexual assault, and while none of it   
   is acceptable, the appropriate response will vary with the severity of the   
   alleged offence.   
      
   The case is unusual, moreover, as sexual harassment cases go, most of which   
   involve some sort of imbalance of power, as between a manager and a   
   subordinate. The complainants here are not frightened temps or teenaged shift   
   workers. They are Members of Parliament, part of a team of hardened political   
   warriors, with privileges and prerogatives and staff to support them. They are   
   not private citizens, but public figures, with responsibilities to match.   
      
   Whether the kind of cloak of invisibility in which they are now enveloped is   
   justified, then, would seem to depend on the nature of the indignity they are   
   alleged to have suffered. If it were something truly scarring, I think everyone   
   would sympathize with their desire for privacy (though it is hard to reconcile   
   with their reported concern that going public would “destroy the careers”   
   of   
   the Liberal MPs: if it were that serious, their careers should be destroyed.)   
   If it were just a matter of an asinine comment or two, on the other hand, the   
   present spectacle would seem just a little precious.   
      
   But in the absence of any information either way we can only wonder. Indeed,   
   not only has the public not been told what the Liberal MPs are accused of   
   doing, neither have they. Both men issued statements in which they expressed   
   the hope that they would one day be informed of what exactly they are alleged   
   to have done. Imagine: “We can’t tell you what you’re accused of, or who   
   you’re   
   accused by. But you’re out of the party.”   
      
   Perhaps all will be revealed in due course, though by what process no one can   
   say, since Parliament has yet to devise a process for investigating this sort   
   of thing. But in the meantime, the public is left to speculate as to the exact   
   nature of their alleged offences. And speculation inevitably tends to the   
   lurid.   
      
   Perhaps we do not need to know who their accusers are; maybe we’re OK with   
   elected MPs being taken out on the basis of anonymous accusations by political   
   opponents. But we absolutely have a right to know what they are accused of. If   
   they are to be kicked out of caucus and denied the right to run again as   
   Liberals, if their constituents are to be deprived of the representation they   
   voted for, they, and we, at least have the right to know why.   
      
   Postmedia News   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)