• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Prime minister apologizes to reporter but doesn't remember why?

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,721
Points
1,160
"If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."


The Prime Minister says that he doesn't remember any negative interactions with Rose Knight 18 years ago but he does remember apologizing (for something?).



Trudeau said Friday that he respects Knight's decision but remembers the encounter with her differently.

"I'm confident that I did not act inappropriately but I think the essence of this is that people can experience interactions differently," he said after an announcement in Calgary.
[ https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/woman-says-trudeau-apologized-day-after-encounter-at-b-c-music-festival-in-2000-1.4003520 ]

If he's confident he did not act inappropriately why would he apologize for being so forward not realizing she worked for a big news paper?

The prime minister said the allegations leveled against him and those against the former minister of sport and disabilities are different.
Naturally. It's always "different" when it comes to him.


The PM needs a distraction quick.




 
CBC’s “The House” played a clip from a year or so ago where the PM was adamant that his actions over the years have been above reproach. I guess in hindsight he should have been a little more vague, it would have given him some cover. But if you live by the sword of righteousness you better be damn sure your past is lily white!
 
Not sure if a distraction will help him this time.  Even the CBC is pressing this. 

He boxed himself in good.

 
What's discouraging here is the legions of folks who were outraged by DT's words, seem to have no problem with JT's deeds.
 
ModlrMike said:
What's discouraging here is the legions of folks who were outraged by DT's words, seem to have no problem with JT's deeds.

Since you brought that individual into the discussion,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
 
ModlrMike said:
What's discouraging here is the legions of folks who were outraged by DT's words, seem to have no problem with JT's deeds.

Really? Legions? 

I haven’t seen too much either way.  This story is still developing.  Something tells me that he’s going to get permanent damage on this one. 

In one regard he does deserve the benefit of the doubt. But he set a standard and now he looks like a hypocrite for it.

Also what you just said could easily be reversed and state that it is discouraging to see folks who had no problem turning a blind eye to DT’s actions suddenly be outraged by JT’s.
 
Did the specifics of the allegations been disclosed yet?  Or is it still at the stage of “he did something wrong” without more? To different individuals, a same act may be at different parts of the righteousness spectrum...  Without specifically knowing what it is, we are just judging with a heavy political affiliation bias...
 
SupersonicMax said:
Did the specifics of the allegations been disclosed yet?  Or is it still at the stage of “he did something wrong” without more? To different individuals, a same act may be at different parts of the righteousness spectrum...  Without specifically knowing what it is, we are just judging with a heavy political affiliation bias...

Not really.  It seems to have been a swipe or a caress or something along those lines. And yes you are right. 

The woman does not wish to pursue this. At all.  That should end it.  However, Trudeau set himself up as a champion for women.  Declared that he was beyond reproach in past interactions with women and had a zero tolerance policy on anything where a woman might have a complaint against a man.  He also said this “There is no context in which someone doesn't have responsibility for things they've done in the past”

He also kicked a few caucusmembers before they could even defend themselves and with less to go on than is now presented against him.

And now he’s all about misinterpretation and perception....

This is the problem.  It goes to character.
 
Remius said:
And now he’s all about misinterpretation and perception....

This is the problem.  It goes to character.

To be fair, he's a politician, so misrepresentation, lack of character, and flexible perceptions of reality is really what they are all about.  More surprised that people are surprised.

Politicians with character and morals are generally not elected, or relegate to the backbench.
 
"women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed. "

"I remember that the encounter happened. I do not remember any inappropriate actions.”

" this lesson that we are learning—and I’ll be blunt about it—often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently. We need to respect and reflect on that.” 




So believe women when they come forward about inappropriate sexual behavior unless its the PM then it might just be a miscommunication?

Luckily the PM has decided there won't be an investigation after "consulting with experts". I wonder if the experts last name is Butts.
 
For reference to the discussion,

The statement from the woman involved in the 2000 incident,
https://twitter.com/cath_cullen/status/1015350234224963586

"I did not pursue the Incident at the time and will not be pursuing the Incident further."

"The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."





 
mariomike said:
"I did not pursue the Incident at the time and will not be pursuing the Incident further."

"The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."

So what are you saying, that because she doesn't want to pursue it shouldn't be news worthy? You cherry picked those quotes out of her statement for a reason.

Edited to fix a typo.
 
She also said the incident "did occur, as reported".



So since women must be believed why did our prime minister say he wouldn't have been so forward if he knew she worked for a big news paper?  Because a small town reporter would have kept her mouth shut? Wouldn't have been believed?  Okay to grope small town reporters but not big time ones?

That "apology", which Trudeau doesn't deny, creates more questions don't you think?



“We have, as we always do, taken these issues seriously,” Trudeau said in an exclusive interview with CP24, when asked if the allegation that circulated throughout the national press over the last few weeks should be investigated. “We’ve talked to a broad range of experts on these. I’ve been reflecting very carefully on this and I think we are moving forward in the right way.”

Classic nothing to see her folks move along.
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/woman-accused-trudeau-breaks-silence-1.4737511
Woman who accused Trudeau of groping breaks her silence

John Paul Tasker, Lisa Laventure CBC News
Posted: Jul 06, 2018 5:48 PM ET | Last Updated: July 6

'I am confident that I did not act inappropriately,' Trudeau says of groping allegation

"Over the past weeks, since this news resurfaced, I've been reflecting, we've all been reflecting, on past behaviours," he said.
Not on our own past behaviours, "we all" haven't been. On his, and his more recent ones, and his fitness for office - yes.
"And as I've said, I'm confident I didn't act inappropriately, but I think the essence of this is people can experience interactions differently
Yes, a sexual assault victim's opinion of the "interaction" always differs from that of the assaulter.
and part of the lesson we
That should have been "I", because most people already know this stuff.
need to learn in this moment of collective awakening
That should have been "personal" awakening.

Use of "we" and "collective", of course, is a weak attempt to normalize his actions and deflect his guilt.

And use of "interactions" is an attempt to trivialize a sexual assault.
... people in many cases, women, experience interactions in professional contexts and other contexts differently than men.
Especially in cases of sexual assault.
"I apologized in the moment because I had obviously perceived that she had experienced it in a different way than I acted or I experienced it."
He "apologized", if one could call it that, the following day rather than "in the moment", in which he implied that, had his victim been anybody other than a journalist reporting for a major newspaper, the assault would not have been of any consequence to him.
The prime minister addressed that apology in detail on Thursday.

"Again, I've been reflecting on the actual interaction and if I apologized later, then it would be because I sensed that she was not entirely comfortable with the interaction that we had," Trudeau said.

"Like I said, I've been working very hard to try and piece it together, and even when the original editorial came out at the time I was fairly confident, I was very confident, that I hadn't acted in a way that I felt was in any way inappropriate."

A former co-worker remembers the reporter's account of the encounter. Valerie Bourne was the publisher of the Creston Valley Advance at the time and said the reporter was "distressed" by her contact with Trudeau.

"My recollections of the conversation were that she came to me because she was unsettled by it. She didn't like what had happened," said Bourne. "She wasn't sure how she should proceed with it because, of course, we're talking somebody who was known to the Canadian community."

Trudeau is expected to attend an event Saturday with Calgary MP Kent Hehr, who lost his cabinet post after an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct with women.

The prime minister said the allegations levelled against him and those against the former minister of Sport and Disabilities are different.

"I think people understand that every situation is different and we have to reflect and take seriously every situation on a case-by-case basis," Trudeau said. "That's exactly what we're endeavouring to do."

The biggest difference between the two situations, of course, is that one involved Kent Hehr, and the other involved Justin Trudeau.

Who still has not actually denied the alleged grope.

Why not?

I would normally prefer to wait for the results of a full investigation, and give the accused the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

There have been some celebrities that I liked who were accused - Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris - and, although I hoped that they were innocent, understanding that the rich and famous can easily be the targets of false allegations, sadly adjusted as the investigations continued.

Trudeau's victim did not make any allegations, beyond the original article, and sought no settlement or investigation. It was clearly documented at the time of occurrence, however, and he has still yet to actually deny it, where most others similarly accused have protested their innocence, even the guilty ones.

What galls me the most, though, is Trudeau's continuing hypocrisy, deflection, double standards, and presumption that he is above the rules that apply to lesser people. That includes the rules that he set himself, stating that they did indeed apply to himself.
 
The Captain Obvious headline of the day:

"Hajdu supports Trudeau’s handling of groping allegation"

Note: That was the original headline I saw yesterday morning. It has now been changed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hajdu-trudeau-support-allegation-groping-1.4735327
 
Knight also reiterated the apology Trudeau proffered to her was done a day after the incident, not in the moment as he had suggested when he claimed he recognized that she “was uncomfortable”.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/batra-trudeau-groping-controversy-now-a-dumpster-fire


Liberal damage control department must be pulling in some serious overtime hours.


On the bright side at least people stopped talking about the swingset eh?






FSTO said:
The Captain Obvious headline of the day:

"Hajdu supports Trudeau’s handling of groping allegation"

Note: That was the original headline I saw yesterday morning. It has now been changed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hajdu-trudeau-support-allegation-groping-1.4735327

"I'm actually proud of a prime minister that understands that you can believe that you didn't have negative interactions with someone — I think we can think about this in all kinds of different situations — and find out later that someone perceived that interaction in a completely different way, and reflect on how our behaviour and the way that we make our way in the world impacts other people,"

I'm not very intune with this stuff but isn't this excusing inappropriate sexual behavior because someone didn't know any better?
 
In my mind, he finally did something right. For all the wrong reasons, but still.

This now allows people, whether they believe in #metoo movement or not, to judge on their own without social pressure.

Trudeau has once more added confusion to the system. By acting the feminist and removing anyone who even had an allegation against them then blatantly, refusing to follow his own rules ie: removal before investigation.

So, ironically, he's brought us back to the point of innocent until proven guilty, where the defence has an opportunity to give their side as opposed to being railroaded on a simple allegation.

I doubt he did this intentionally. He's really not that smart or fair. However, in his attempt to hide or suppress his supposed malfeasance, he's brought us back to where it's allowable again to question the accuser. The left will have to stop demanding the removal of people on a whim or false allegation. The accused will simply have to demand equal treatment as that to the PM. He's also, effectively, recused himself from making any further decisions on any further allegation brought against the grits.

It would not be contested by anyone if the only way out of this was with an early election. He might even garner a smidgen of respect from me, if he had the cojones to do it.
 
Remius said:
The woman does not wish to pursue this. At all.   

Regarding that,

QUOTE

Expert says Trudeau groping allegation shouldn't have been dug up without woman's permission
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/sexual-assault-expert-says-trudeaus-comments-of-harassment-allegations-not-far-off-the-mark
For all the political back and forth on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s alleged groping of a reporter 18 years ago, a Calgary-based expert on sexual assaults says the victim’s story should never have been dug up without her permission.

END QUOTE
 
mariomike said:
Regarding that,

QUOTE

Expert says Trudeau groping allegation shouldn't have been dug up without woman's permission
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/sexual-assault-expert-says-trudeaus-comments-of-harassment-allegations-not-far-off-the-mark
For all the political back and forth on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s alleged groping of a reporter 18 years ago, a Calgary-based expert on sexual assaults says the victim’s story should never have been dug up without her permission.

END QUOTE

I agree, to an extent.  She wrote an editorial in the public realm.  Also being anonymous make it hard to get her permission.

I agree that her anonymity should be respected. 

This should be about Trudeau's hypocrisy and double standard more than anything else.
 
mariomike said:
Regarding that,

QUOTE

Expert says Trudeau groping allegation shouldn't have been dug up without woman's permission
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/sexual-assault-expert-says-trudeaus-comments-of-harassment-allegations-not-far-off-the-mark
For all the political back and forth on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s alleged groping of a reporter 18 years ago, a Calgary-based expert on sexual assaults says the victim’s story should never have been dug up without her permission.

END QUOTE

I disagree.

This story was published 18 years ago. It was in the public domain.

As others have stated, this is not about the alleged victim. It is about Trudeau's hypocrisy and inability to tell the truth when it matters.
 
Back
Top