Is Ontario headed for another Wynne win?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Well if you think the concern is about his judgement and behaviour and not necessarily a sexual assault, then wheres the crime? Are moral judgements included?

Here's an interesting article, yes it's from the Star, but some interesting points. I don't agree with everything in it, but an interesting "other " perspective:

Opinion | Patrick Brown’s downfall an affront to fairness

Again: What shocks me is that a lot of people are getting fixated here simply on the issue of whether Brown committed sexual assault and are apparently unconcerned about his judgement and behaviour and how that reflects on his character and his suitability to hold positions of influence - including elected office.

There may not be a crime. As far as his fitness for office is concerned I don't care if there was a crime. He showed a willingness to use his office to try to pick up 18 year old girls, get them into bars that they weren't allowed to be in and invite them into his house for drinking parties.

These are issues of character, not crime.

You apparently don't think character counts. I think it does. I think this one incident raises enough red flags that he should not be in a position of influence. He certainly should not be the Premier of Ontario or the leader of a party.
 
Again: What shocks me is that a lot of people are getting fixated here simply on the issue of whether Brown committed sexual assault and are apparently unconcerned about his judgement and behaviour and how that reflects on his character and his suitability to hold positions of influence - including elected office.

There may not be a crime. As far as his fitness for office is concerned I don't care if there was a crime. He showed a willingness to use his office to try to pick up 18 year old girls, get them into bars that they weren't allowed to be in and invite them into his house for drinking parties.

These are issues of character, not crime.

You apparently don't think character counts. I think it does. I think this one incident raises enough red flags that he should not be in a position of influence. He certainly should not be the Premier of Ontario or the leader of a party.
If the guy's guilty then so be it, but everyone should be concerned about how this is playing out, I would think you should be concerned also. You may have a spotless reputation and impeccable lifestyle, but one false accusation and you are suddenly defending yourself for your life.
 
As far as character goes, I think there will be some who will vote conservative no matter who is running, just to get the liberals out.
 
If the guy's guilty then so be it, but everyone should be concerned about how this is playing out, I would think you should be concerned also. You may have a spotless reputation and impeccable lifestyle, but guilty"one false accusation and you are suddenly defending yourself for your life.
Once again, you're starting with whether he's "guilty" or not. I'm saying that's irrelevant. This is a question of character and not crime, and there are enough facts for me to be able to come to a decision on whether he's suitable to be Premier of Ontario. I've given you those facts. Again, facts that, in my opinion, make Patrick Brown unsuitable to hold elected office.

I am, in fact, getting very concerned about accusations being accepted as facts. I am a firm believer that one is innocent until proven guilty in court or at least until one has openly admitted to something. But I'm not discussing the criminal accusations. You keep coming back to whether he committed a crime. I don't even care about the criminal accusations. I'm saying that based on what we know to be true Brown is unsuitable.

Question: would you be OK with a single minister in his 30's sending pickup lines on Facebook to 18 year old girls he hardly knows? Inviting underage girls into bars and to drinking parties in his house and then arranging to be alone with them in his bedroom? You wouldn't raise questions? You wouldn't have concerns? You wouldn't think that maybe this guy shouldn't be a minister?

All I can say is - WOW!
 
Once again, you're starting with whether he's "guilty" or not. I'm saying that's irrelevant. This is a question of character and not crime, and there are enough facts for me to be able to come to a decision on whether he's suitable to be Premier of Ontario. I've given you those facts. Again, facts that, in my opinion, make Patrick Brown unsuitable to hold elected office.

I am, in fact, getting very concerned about accusations being accepted as facts. I am a firm believer that one is innocent until proven guilty in court or at least until one has openly admitted to something. But I'm not discussing the criminal accusations. You keep coming back to whether he committed a crime. I don't even care about the criminal accusations. I'm saying that based on what we know to be true Brown is unsuitable.

Question: would you be OK with a single minister in his 30's sending pickup lines on Facebook to 18 year old girls he hardly knows? Inviting underage girls into bars and to drinking parties in his house and then arranging to be alone with them in his bedroom? You wouldn't raise questions? You wouldn't have concerns? You wouldn't think that maybe this guy shouldn't be a minister?

All I can say is - WOW!
You're making assumptions about me and what I would say. If the accusations about a minister are proven to be true, I would not be pleased, no.
As it would have stood before these sexual allegations were made public, anyone, including yourself could have included the above reasons as to whom you would vote for or against. That is fair, but to be forced to step down on allegations is unreal.
I don't think it's unreasonable to include that sort of criteria as to who you would vote for.

Personally I think that it should not be allowed to publicize sexual harassment allegations until the courts have decided the outcome....possibly only put stipulations as to where and who the accused may frequent or contact.

eg: Former Premier David Peterson's case dismissed:

Sexual harassment lawsuit against former Ontario premier David Peterson dismissed
 
You're making assumptions about me and what I would say. If the accusations about a minister are proven to be true, I would not be pleased, no.
As it would have stood before these sexual allegations were made public, anyone, including yourself could have included the above reasons as to whom you would vote for or against. That is fair, but to be forced to step down on allegations is unreal.
I don't think it's unreasonable to include that sort of criteria as to who you would vote for.

Personally I think that it should not be allowed to publicize sexual harassment allegations until the courts have decided the outcome....possibly only put stipulations as to where and who the accused may frequent or contact.

eg: Former Premier David Peterson's case dismissed:

Sexual harassment lawsuit against former Ontario premier David Peterson dismissed

You insist on talking about the criminal accusations and you completely ignore what I'm talking about - which is not whether Brown is guilty of sexual harassment. I don't know why that is.

What I'm saying calls Patrick Brown's character into question is fact. No one - including Brown - denies it. I'd go so far as to say that at least with the 18 year old there was no criminal act. She was legally able to consent, and even she says he started making a move, she said no and he took her home. Fine. No crime there. In fact he took "no" for "no." Good for him. But ...

Why did a 30-something elected MP send a creepy pickup line by private message on Facebook to an 18 year old girl he had just met? Why did he offer to use his influence to take this underage girl into bars? Why did he invite this underage girl to a drinking party in his house? Why - after she got drunk - was he alone in his bedroom with this 18 year old girl, even if in the end he accepted her "no" as a "no"? None of that is in question. Can you please stop talking about sexual harassment and tell me whether you think this behaviour is acceptable for someone who aspires to be the Premier of Ontario. Someone who through these very acts has shown a willingness to use his elected office to try to pick up 18 year old girls, facilitate them drinking and getting drunk even though they're under the legal drinking age, and who was seeking an elected office of much more influence.

I think our society has fallen so far into sensationalism that this basic question of character is being swept away while everyone argues about whether he's guilty of sexual harassment or not.
 
All those 30-something professionals who have not gotten teenage girls drunk and taken them home, let them cast the first stone.

* picks up a rock and hefts it with a wicked smile on his face *

I don't know about others, but I was married and starting a family when I was thirtysomething. Teenaged girls were long since off my radar.
 
* picks up a rock and hefts it with a wicked smile on his face *

I don't know about others, but I was married and starting a family when I was thirtysomething. Teenaged girls were long since off my radar.
My understanding is these alleged events took place when he was still in his 20's. ......not that it should make a difference if the charges are true.

These two women walked into CTV and reported being sexually harassed by Patrick Brown on the guarantee that CTV would keep them anonymous. Shouldn't the first stop have been the police station?
 
The other thing this highlights is the sex ed protests from a couple years ago and the howling about Kathleen Wynne's "deviant lifestyle". Those words were used by some in the anti-sex-ed camp. Now, the person they threw their support behind (who has since abandoned them, granted) is accused of taking drunk teenage girls home.

And I agree about being thirtysomething. When you're a teenager, teenage girls are awesome. When you're older, they're still really attractive, but they're really annoying. And to me, it would just feel wrong. When you've had 10 years in the workforce, your perspective is totally different than a student's. But a politician? Is he insane?
 
My understanding is these alleged events took place when he was still in his 20's. ......not that it should make a difference if the charges are true.

These two women walked into CTV and reported being sexually harassed by Patrick Brown on the guarantee that CTV would keep them anonymous. Shouldn't the first stop have been the police station?
CTV leans conservative. If this was planned, they would have come out with it a month or less before the election. Not now. The PCs still have time to get a leader. It's not ideal, but if you wanted to sink the PCs, now is not the optimal moment to break this story.

You could say that CTV did them a favour by breaking it now. Seriously.
 
CTV leans conservative. If this was planned, they would have come out with it a month or less before the election. Not now. The PCs still have time to get a leader. It's not ideal, but if you wanted to sink the PCs, now is not the optimal moment to break this story.

You could say that CTV did them a favour by breaking it now. Seriously.
Do these allegations require a police report? Was there one made?
 
You insist on talking about the criminal accusations and you completely ignore what I'm talking about - which is not whether Brown is guilty of sexual harassment. I don't know why that is.

What I'm saying calls Patrick Brown's character into question is fact. No one - including Brown - denies it. I'd go so far as to say that at least with the 18 year old there was no criminal act. She was legally able to consent, and even she says he started making a move, she said no and he took her home. Fine. No crime there. In fact he took "no" for "no." Good for him. But ...

Why did a 30-something elected MP send a creepy pickup line by private message on Facebook to an 18 year old girl he had just met? Why did he offer to use his influence to take this underage girl into bars? Why did he invite this underage girl to a drinking party in his house? Why - after she got drunk - was he alone in his bedroom with this 18 year old girl, even if in the end he accepted her "no" as a "no"? None of that is in question. Can you please stop talking about sexual harassment and tell me whether you think this behaviour is acceptable for someone who aspires to be the Premier of Ontario. Someone who through these very acts has shown a willingness to use his elected office to try to pick up 18 year old girls, facilitate them drinking and getting drunk even though they're under the legal drinking age, and who was seeking an elected office of much more influence.

I think our society has fallen so far into sensationalism that this basic question of character is being swept away while everyone argues about whether he's guilty of sexual harassment or not.
They are accusing him of sexual harassment, that is a criminal offence is it not? The other is your morality vs someone elses.
 
Isn't morality a collective social issue as compared to ethics as an outstanding part of personality?

What does the Mob really know about what's out of sight?
 
Anyone remember the ages of Prince Charles and Lady Diana when they were married?

Just saying.

Agreed that this whole mess does not reflect well on the character and integrity of Patrick Brown.
 
They are accusing him of sexual harassment, that is a criminal offence is it not? The other is your morality vs someone elses.
Sexual harassment is a criminal offence, yes.

As for the other, you're refusing to answer my question about whether you consider his conduct (which no one disputes) to have been a reflection on his character and fitness to hold the office of Premier of Ontario.

Well, I guess it is only my morality. Foolish of me to think that it's wrong for a Member of Parliament in his 30's to use his position to impress an 18 year old girl he met on a plane and then Facebook stalk her a couple of hours later by sending her a creepy pickup line ("are you surprised that I remember your name?") And of course a 30-something Member of Parliament should be allowed to use his office to get that 18 year old girl into a bar she's not allowed to be in and then to get her drunk at a party at his own house and end up alone in his bedroom with her. Now that I think about - sure, that's just my personal morality. I can certainly see why most people would be unconcerned with those facts. What was I thinking? As long as he's not actually been found guilty of a criminal offence, all that's just dandy. What a great guy he is.

Come to think of it - Donald Trump's a great guy, too. Not found guilty of anything. Salt of the earth, he is.
 
Premier Kathleen Wynne is suing Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown for libel and seeking $100,000 in damages from her main political rival.

Wynne’s legal team filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Monday — less than six months before the June 7 election.

The premier is seeking $50,000 in damages for defamation and $50,000 in aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages.

She also wants a retraction and for the Tory leader to cover her legal costs.

The lawsuit was sparked by a Sept. 12 media scrum at Queen’s Park, where Brown told reporters Ontario had “a sitting premier sitting in trial” and that Wynne “stands trial” in Sudbury.

Wynne’s lawyers say that was “false and defamatory” and because the premier “was not on trial for bribery and has not been investigated by the police.”

The Tory leader’s comment came the day before the premier testified as a Crown witness in the trial of Patricia Sorbara, her former deputy chief of staff, and Sudbury Liberal activist Gerry Lougheed.

Sorbara and Lougheed were acquitted in October after Judge Howard Borenstein dismissed the Election Act case against them for lack of evidence.


It was a rare directed verdict, delivered before any defence witnesses were called.

While Brown was not available for comment, his office said it was “disappointing” Wynne alerted the media before telling the Tories about the lawsuit.

“Mr. Brown has not been served with or seen the statement of claim. This is yet another effort to distract attention from her government’s record,” said Brown’s press secretary, Nick Bergamini.

“It’s no coincidence that this baseless suit comes the same day the PCs called for an OPP investigation into ineligible expenses claimed by insider energy executives,” Bergamini said.

The action comes as the Tories are themselves under police investigation for allegations of criminal fraud and forgery at a Hamilton candidate election.

Two Star reporters and a columnist were in Brown’s Sept. 12 press scrum along with journalists from CBC, Radio-Canada, The Canadian Press, the Globe and Mail, QP Briefing, Global, CP24, CTV, TFO, Queen’s Park Today, Fairchild, CHCH, and Newstalk 1010.

Prior to the 2014 election, Wynne launched a $2-million libel action against the Tories’ then-leader, Tim Hudak, and MPP Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton) over their comments about her alleged role in former premier Dalton McGuinty’s cancellation of gas-fired power plants in Oakville and Mississauga. That matter was settled out of court in 2015.

The legal bills for both Wynne and Brown are being covered by their respective political parties.

“There is a principle in Canada that you do not make defamatory, misleading comments about another political leader,” Matthews said in October.

“In Canada, we actually expect people to be honest. There is, south of the border, a change in that culture. I do not want to see that change coming to Canada.”

Wynne herself was tightlipped about the suit Monday.

“You know what, it’s in the hands of the lawyers and as the process unfolds it will be made public but the lawyers are engaged,” she told reporters at Toronto’s Santa Maria Catholic School.

Her director of media relations Jennifer Beaudry said the ball is in Brown’s court.

“We continue to remain hopeful that this issue can be resolved with an apology from Patrick Brown for his defamatory remarks,” said Beaudry.

“It should be that simple. However, if he continues to refuse to apologize we will have the ability to continue legal action.”

This is what you people are paying for - the ability of your 'leaders' to continue legal action against any other 'leader' that gets in their way.
 
Back
Top