Talkative NDP Female MP Actually Responsible For Any Re-Victimizing Of Her Colleague, Not Justin Trudeau

When I first heard of this case I was drawn back to the time when I as a young boy was sexually abused by an older male  in his home; the guy worked as a councillor in my local community center. I thought that finally someone in a place to make change was going to stand up and fight for all of those sexually abused and show Canadians that it was safe to come forward now and that we did not have to hide afraid and ashamed any longer. It did not take long for me who has gone through sexual abuse to realise that something else was going on; something was just not right, like:

  • It was the now talkative NDP female MP that was actually responsible for  re-victimizing  her colleague and herself, by taking it upon herself to tell the story of her colleague’s tale of alleged harassment, told to her by another female NDP MP in confidence. This unproven allegation was about an alleged harassment of her colleague by Liberal MP Scott Andrews was what the talkative NDP female MP decided to tell Justin Trudeau without her colleagues consent. What I found strange about that is, she could have told Justin Trudeau her own the case in which she alleges that Liberal MP, Massimo Pacetti  sexually assaulted her, which was the more serious of the alleged charges, or as she put it, “It was sex without explicit consent.”  I was sexually abused as a youngster and to this day, I have referred to it as rape, or sexual abuse, but never have I described what happened to me as, “sex without explicit consent,”  and I am going to be 60 years old this year. This is because not to be rape, or sexual assault if you prefer, sex between people must be consensual.  For instance you cannot have sex with a person, not enjoy it, or find that it hurt and did not live up to your expectations and claim, “It was sex give without explicit consent, because the word, “Yes”  was never said by you.
  • I cannot understand the statement of the talkative NDP MP who still wants not to be named and refuses to press charges, saying that she never wanted to “destroy” the reputation of a Liberal MP, who she is alleging sexually assaulted her. Why wouldn’t she want to ruin the reputation of the person she claims violated her? It is not  reasonable to think that you can go to a person’s boss tell the boss your story of being sexually abused by one of his charges and expect that person’s reputation will not be tarnished, as the now talkative NDP female MP is claiming.   The now talkative NDP female MP claims that she just wanted the Liberal leader to know what kind of people he had in his caucus, but I want to know what is really going on here?
  • It took me almost 40 years to be able to talk about my abuse, because I knew that coming out into the open meant that the other person would deny it, but worse everyone would know about it, so I told no one; not my mother, siblings, teachers, or minister, because that is the anonymity that the sexually abused seek.  I did not run around giving press conferences while  insisting that all respect my right to anonymity as this faceless, nameless NDP female MP has decided to  do.  I did not want anyone to know what had happened to me, but here she is giving interviews; it would appear that it is okay for the members of the press to know who she is and know all the dirty details of what happened to her, while claiming it would be a re-victimization if the male defended himself and told his side of things naming her publicly as she has named him. It is starting to look like politics is driving this case rather than anything that either of the affected parties want. I think that this talkative NDP female MP has started something that she does not know how to get out of and just keeps digging the whole deeper as politicians with other agendas use this situation as a political football.
  • I cannot buy into what this now talkative female MP has said in the hour-long conversation with The Huffington Post Canada, where she seems to be suggesting that she would not have come forward with her allegations, if the  allegations against former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi were not bothering her.  I think that she wanted to get the Liberal MPs in trouble, but only if they did not know where it came from; like a germinating seed in the mind of Justin Trudeau’s head; just enough for Justin Trudeau to look at them a bit differently at first, but enough over time to stop their rising in the Liberal Party of Canada, while leaving her safe and anonymous. I believe her strategy backfired, when Justin Trudeau suspended the 2 men and now she is frantically treading water, saying and doing anything she can to save her skin, dignity and reputation, without having to publicly tell the truth.

I believe that now that the talkative NDP female MP started to give interviews to the press publicly accusing Massimo  Pacetti of sexually assaulting her that her right to anonymity went out of the window. If there is no code of conduct governing these matters, what is stopping Massimo Pacetti  from naming  her in public and putting her on trial in the press as she has done to him?  Everyone is talking of the female right to do as she pleases in this case and acting as if the accusations alone remove  all rights to fairness and  expectation of objectivity.  These 2 men have been accused, tried, found guilty and sentence by their peers, the press and 50% of Canadians and their lives will never again be the same and I believe that now there is a legal and moral responsibility for the 2 NDP female MPs to come forward publicly and prove their allegations, or face the full weight of the law for deformation of character and be removed from their positions as MPs for bearing false witness against other parliamentarians.

A more cynical person than I am might wonder what a person who has been sexually abused in her past, was doing going to a man’s motel room alone for drinks in the first place? Having gone to the motel room, when she began to feel uncomfortable that the male wanted more than she wanted to participate in, why did she not just get up and leave, instead of going into the bathroom deciding rather to finish her drink first?

Now all that this NDP female  MP says about the incident could be true, but I think that she needs to explain exactly what she means by,

  • It was “sex without explicit consent.”
  • That she never wanted to “destroy” the reputation of a Liberal MP, she just wanted the Liberal leader to know what kind of people he had in his caucus.
  • The NDP MP who spoke to HuffPost said her decision to speak to Trudeau “happened very quickly and was not thought out.”

I am of the opinion that all the evidence at hand indicates that the talkative NDP female MP does not think things through clearly, is impulsive and may by her own admission not have said no to the sex  at all and that the only person in the room that knew that she was scared, or frozen as she refers to it was her.  If think that if this is indeed the case it is really sad, but I do not think that the male can be accused of sexually assaulting her and I would suggest that perhaps she should seek the help of a therapist for her problems surrounding her past sexual assault.

I do not like what is going on here, because:

  • Nothing about this speaks to justice, or due process of law.
  • The females have been assumed to be telling the truth and the males to be guilty, for no other reason other than they are female and to do other wise would hurt their feelings.
  • It does not seem to matter anymore that the 2 females who have accused the 2 males do not want to lay formal charges.

As much as I empathise with the accusers, in the end I must side with the law and its protections. I have 2 daughters, 2 granddaughters and 3 grandsons. If someone assaulted my granddaughters or daughters, I would want those who violated them to suffer the full weight of the law. Having said that if someone accused 1 of my grandsons of sexually assaulting them, I would want them to be given every opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law, not in some back room in some politically charged environment that has found him guilty, because it is politically correct, or the chivalrous thing to do.


About archemdis

I try to say what is on my mind and not hurt others, but some things need to be said whether they hurt or not and I do just that. I try to listen as well as talk, but my opinion is just that mine. You need not take it as your own, just respect the fact that I am entitled to it, as you are yours. I do read all comments, but will only answer, or allow to be displayed those which adress me by name, refer to the post by name in the comment, or that have been sent through the proper channels. In this manner I can tell whether the comment was meant for me and that it is not just spam.
This entry was posted in abuse, abuse in the work place, abuse of women, Canada, Government, harrasment, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.