Author Topic: Patrick Brown #MeToo  (Read 3914 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #330 on: February 14, 2018, 08:11:33 pm »
Who claimed a crime was committed?
What Brown likely wants is the "victims" to explicitly state that they are not accusing him of any crimes. This is a reasonable expectation and would serve to reduce the damages they would be assessed in any defamation lawsuit. If they refuse to do that they further undermine their credibility and increase the potential damages.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #331 on: February 14, 2018, 08:51:37 pm »
The simple point is Brown was in his 30s, and coming onto teenagers. We may not know all the details after this long a time, and he may have not committed a crime. The point is was his behavior appropriate for someone we look up to as a leader?

The earlier incident, the 2007 incident, occurred when Brown was 28 and the "victim" was 19.  The (updated) facts according to the "victim" are that she went to a bar, met a guy, had drinks, went home with him, and gave him a consensual hummer.

He wasn't a leader, an MP, or any of that at the time. She didn't work for him.  So why in the blue hell was the first woman's story in the news in the first place?

"Woman, 19, gets drunk and has consensual oral sex, feels regret later" isn't a news story. She shouldn't feel bad. We all probably did something stupid involving alcohol and/or sex when we were 19. But it's not a news story.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #332 on: February 14, 2018, 09:57:18 pm »
Although I have the greatest respect for your acumen generally, I was not impressed with this particular display.  It seemed to me you started with an assumption that the woman named was correct and went on from there to "prove" it. 

I started with a hypothesis-- that Frank Magazine named the correct woman-- and set out to test that hypothesis. That's a completely valid line of inquiry.

I found some circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory, and nothing that discredits it. I think Chelsea Nash being at the "Hockey Night In Barrie" event that the anonymous accuser said she organized for Brown is certainly persuasive. It's not proof, but if it's not her then it must be an awfully small world.

The media are not reporting either woman's identity (and for good reason, I believe.)   But remember that people know. Brown knows, his friends know, probably a lot of gossip and rumors are going around Barrie from people who know. Remember that the one accuser who changed her story now says she has been receiving harassment and threats about the story, so her name is out there as well.

Of course that is the question, but it seems to me CTV has more to lose by not doing their due diligence in terms of ensuring the women and their reporter were at arms length than PB and friends have by claiming they didn't.  Where CTV definitely failed was in not corrobating dates; surely they could and should have confirmed that PB lived in the house at the time the incident was said to have happened.

I think whether CTV did or didn't do any research, they have to say they did their research before going to press, because to say otherwise would be to admit liability in the inevitable lawsuit.

I disagree that getting one's age slightly wrong, and what time of year are terribly significant details after a decade; people's memories are a lot more fallible than most of us think.  It is true that still in high school is more dramatic story, but when it comes down to it, if he's 35 and in a position of power when he behaves inappropriately, does it matter if she's 18 or 19 or even 20?

A reminder that the girl who claimed to have been underage drinking was the 2007 incident, which was when Brown was 28, not 35, and not in a position of power over her or anybody else.

And I say "bullshit!" to the claim that it doesn't change the story. Look back earlier in the thread and see how many of the indignant outcries about Brown feature variations on "she was in HIGHSCHOOL!" or "she was UNDERAGE!"  "He was pouring drinks down the throat of an UNDERAGE HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!" "HE SHOWED HIS **** TO A HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!!!!"  I think it's clear and obvious that "underage" and "highschool" added a lot of fuel to the fire.

I think that every time I pointed out that nothing Brown was accused of actually rose to the level of wrongdoing, I was shouted down with some variation of "Underage!!!" "Highschool!!!" "Alcohol!" and "Weiner!"  Well, she wasn't underage, she wasn't in highschool, and if a 19 year old wants to drink alcohol and snack on weiners, she is free to do so.

It seems to me there's a willingness here to give him the benefit of the doubt that wasn't accorded these women even before PB's denials. 

And I say "bullshit!" to this as well. These women weren't given the benefit of the doubt?  Their word was taken as gospel until one of them got caught in a lie and the claim was made that the other is a friend of one of the reporters.

Brown, on the other hand, was deemed guilty from day 1.

On the other hand, if it can be shown conclusively that these women lied and that CTV was complicit, then I agree thay PB should take them to court and they should have to pay for ruining his career.   At this point, I don't think there's enough proof for that.

Obviously there's no proof of anything yet. But right now we're certainly at a point where CTV's story is facing some questions and they will be called on to address the questions about their reporting.

 -k
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 02:06:05 am by kimmy »
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #333 on: February 15, 2018, 05:32:16 am »
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/provincial/key-accusation-against-patrick-brown-false-ctv-now-admits/wcm/b0fc3b8d-f7db-4b30-a808-50ed71b6371e

CTV now says she wasn't underage.  Oops.  Somebody is going to wear this and it is starting to look like it will be CTV.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #334 on: February 15, 2018, 06:21:01 am »
And... the issue is now framed as the women saying he made "unwanted sexual advances". 

The changing morality is that THAT alone is considered inappropriate.  Perhaps they have a case if he did it repeatedly, but these stories don't seem to be direct evidence of that.  And the question in these cases (which came from the Aziz Ansari case also) is: shouldn't we expect them to say 'no' once ?

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #335 on: February 15, 2018, 08:12:19 am »
Unwanted sexual advances is such a weird term. You didn't want those advances. Great. Whatever. The term should be inappropriate sexual advances because the appropriateness of the encounter is within the accused person's control when it is not. Then it becomes a question of whether or not a reasonable person would find the context of the advances inappropriate (e.g., large age difference, social power differences). Unwanted presumes the accused person has access to another person's inner thoughts and ideas when they do not. You could elevate inappropriate to unwanted only if she makes clear that the advances are unwanted and he continues to act upon them. In that case, unwanted is still a strange term, as it's a euphemism for harassment. When someone makes it plainly obvious they're not interested and you continue to push yourself on them, it's harassment.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #336 on: February 15, 2018, 08:16:38 am »
Unwanted sexual advances is such a weird term. You didn't want those advances. Great. Whatever. The term should be inappropriate sexual advances because the appropriateness of the encounter is within the accused person's control when it is not. Then it becomes a question of whether or not a reasonable person would find the context of the advances inappropriate (e.g., large age difference, social power differences). Unwanted presumes the accused person has access to another person's inner thoughts and ideas when they do not. You could elevate inappropriate to unwanted only if she makes clear that the advances are unwanted and he continues to act upon them. In that case, unwanted is still a strange term, as it's a euphemism for harassment. When someone makes it plainly obvious they're not interested and you continue to push yourself on them, it's harassment.

Especially when you find out 10 years later that they were unwanted.

Go to any dance club anywhere on Earth and you'll see unwanted sexual advances. Are we in a world now where these advances now cost people their jobs?

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #337 on: February 15, 2018, 08:29:52 am »
Especially when you find out 10 years later that they were unwanted.

Go to any dance club anywhere on Earth and you'll see unwanted sexual advances. Are we in a world now where these advances now cost people their jobs?
When you're a politician, the public's perception of you is very important. Your public image becomes a banner for the values of the people who vote for you. It doesn't matter whether you are a sleezebag who preys on younger women, it matters whether or not the voters see you as that.

This goes for others with public images as part of their roles in their professions.

Now for someone who doesn't have a public image, if the things they do are bad enough that they're thrown into the public spotlight then their public image may include an identity as an employee of a particular place, even though it doesn't have to. The employee's public image then becomes the corporate image. See for example that fire fighter situation on Twitter a few years back. I don't remember the details. His job wasn't in the public, but when the story of his poor behaviour broke it put him in the public. His image, which until then was private, was tied to his job as a firefighter. When his image became public, that fire department was tied to his image and his poor behaviour was transitively tied to the fire department.

The media has a tremendous responsibility, as MH alluded to previously, to report responsibly. They shouldn't just be publishing everything that comes across their desks in the interest of "free speech." The fact that people's images become public through the process of reporting on their behaviours is a consequence that journalists shouldn't take lightly. The person they're reporting on can suffer fallout from it.

I wouldn't worry about Patrick Brown though. Losing his place as leader of the PC's is hardly going to affect his life opportunities. He'll transition into some other kind of job pretty easily, I imagine.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #338 on: February 15, 2018, 08:33:25 am »
I wouldn't worry about Patrick Brown though. Losing his place as leader of the PC's is hardly going to affect his life opportunities. He'll transition into some other kind of job pretty easily, I imagine.

I think being Premiere was his dream though. And it seems he's being railroaded. This case is also an interesting case study on this movement. What happens when a man fights back? What happens if he sues his accusers?

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #339 on: February 15, 2018, 08:38:53 am »
I think being Premiere was his dream though. And it seems he's being railroaded. This case is also an interesting case study on this movement. What happens when a man fights back? What happens if he sues his accusers?

I think he should.  I am not convinced these women are lying, but I do think that at the very least there needs to be more accountability when it comes to making accusations that destroy people's careers or lives.  And if it ultimately turns.out.thay these women were persuaded to make these accusations at the behest of his political rivals, those people should have to face consequences as well. 

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #340 on: February 15, 2018, 09:17:00 am »
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/provincial/key-accusation-against-patrick-brown-false-ctv-now-admits/wcm/b0fc3b8d-f7db-4b30-a808-50ed71b6371e
CTV now says she wasn't underage.  Oops.  Somebody is going to wear this and it is starting to look like it will be CTV.

Sure, could you point out where they previously claimed she was underage?

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #341 on: February 15, 2018, 09:27:28 am »
Sure, could you point out where they previously claimed she was underage?

The claim that she was drinking underage and was 18 at the time of the incident was made prominently in CTV's original story.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #342 on: February 15, 2018, 09:31:21 am »
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/01/24/pc-leader-patrick-brown-holds-late-night-press-conference-to-deny-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct.html

Quote
The alleged incident occurred over 10 years ago. At the time, Brown was a politician in Barrie. The student met him at a bar with a mutual friend. She was under Ontario’s legal drinking age at the time. Brown, a teetotaller, wasn’t drinking but invited both back to his home, the woman told CTV.

This was the narrative when the story broke. Don't change the narrative now that we find out it wasn't true.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #343 on: February 15, 2018, 09:37:57 am »
Perhaps we should pick a board to argue this  :P ;)

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #344 on: February 15, 2018, 09:53:46 am »
The claim that she was drinking underage and was 18 at the time of the incident was made prominently in CTV's original story.

My bad, I was confusing age of consent with legal drinking age.