Showing posts with label Trudeau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trudeau. Show all posts

18 July 2019

The CBC and Trump's tweets about 4 black women

In the CBC article, ‘EU president takes shot at Trump's “unacceptable” tweets after Trudeau meeting’, the original tweets made by President Trump become entwined in news articles with stories of the chants of “Send her back” by his supporters at a Trump rally a day or so later.

At the same time as accusations were being made against Trump, Donald Tusk - President of the European Council, after meeting with Trudeau in Montreal, himself tweeted about being glad not to be met with a’ Send him back’ chant by his audience.

These are just incidents aside from the main one, the tweets sent out by Trump on July 14 which some took to be racist, and others only “unacceptable”.  

But why his tweets should be considered to be something more than unacceptable, in terms of being racist, or him being racist, is unclear. The idea of freedom of speech was mentioned by some commenters in the Comments Section of the CBC news article online. No one had a clear idea, it seems, of what the tweets actually consisted of, only that, for many commenters, they were racist.

Eventually, I posted the contents of the tweets by Donald Trump in a comment, and lo and behold, they were not put under moderation soon to be disabled.

Nowhere, however, are the actaul remarks made by these 4 black women in Donald Trump’s Congress, on the Conservative side, available. And no article I have read on this or seen on tv news programs, mentions what it was that Trump was responding to, what sorts of troubles the female “squad” was probing into, and were questioning, that led to such words from Trump.

I wanted to know what brought this on, because I have been involved in my own situation where at least some non-white doctors who must have been from foreign cultures, had caused me trouble at a local hospital, dragging me into a situation that never should have happened, whereby I was tested for something I never had, and then tested again, in a way I know foreigners coming here as refugees and immigrants are never tested, unless obviously ill. Speaking as I did against these doctors – some of them – got comments I made deleted, as though I had no credibility and could not possibly be telling the truth. And although I took my complaint  - part of it – to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the response I got from them was that I was not telling the truth (or could have been that they knew I was telling the truth but that one does not say things like that about doctors from foreign countries, even though they had been shirking their duty and allowing incorrect information to pass by them, affecting the way I would be treated at the next step.

No one commenting or responding to comments on the news article comments Section online knew or spoke of what the actual tweets were, from Trump, and yet most seemed to have already made their minds up and for the most part were against Trump. Quite a few were against me. Are we not allowed to speak truths against people from other cultures, and are we not allowed to mention their colour when relevant, as a means of identifying who they are? I have been stopped midsentence while speaking to someone at the hospital who supposedly had some knowledge of ethics, but I didn’t get a sense that he had much. Just say the person was black and one gets accused of racism, just as a black person accusing a white person of racism would get the undivided attention of people like Trudeau, and probably a lot more at the local hospital.
The CBC has been called too politically-correct by some readers, but I don’t know what it is about them, and the moderators who look after the Comments Sections of various news articles. But quite a few of my comments were getting moderated and then deleted. How could this be, when so many people say such terrible things about someone who is President of the United States? How is it they are allowed to be so disrespectful towards him, and so intolerant and not believing he may have had a reason to say the things he said. He was judged by people who didn’t have the full story. And I was being judged also, by CBC, and by the CPSO, and probably by the LHSC, to whom I have also submitted a complaint.

In 3 separate but connected tweets on July 14,  Trump wrote the following:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


No doubt that the tweets were harsh. But were they racist?

I saved copies of comments made by individuals in the Comments Section of the article about the EU Council President and PM Trudeau, which I shall refer to below without naming them but including them anonymously, and deleting any words or ideas that might betray their identity.  Although they are written for a public forum, the usual practice is for them to be deleted or stored so practically inaccessible from the page the article is on, or anywhere. Mine will have my name on them.


H
Reply to W
She is allowed to speak her mind. Called democracy.


 Sue McPherson              CONTENT DISABLED
 Reply to H:
Trump didn't say, Send her back, or Send them back. He said if they didn't like America they could always go back where they came from /Now this EU guy Tusk is saying Yup, that's what Trump said - Send her back. these distortions of truth have to stop.


Sue McPherson
Now Trump is getting known for apparently saying "Send them back" when what he said was, if the black members of his cabinet did not like America, they can always go back home. This distortion of truth is being carried on into tv and and even this news article by the CBC, as though it is truth.

Canadians aren't really such great people, and Donald Tusk doesn't know that, although it has nothing to do with suggesting that if people don't like it here they can always go back to where they and their ancestors came from. I don't know why he would even raise that issue here in Canada. He has no idea what goes on here.


L  
Reply to Sue McPherson:
he said they're from "broken, crime infested countries" and they should go back there. Was he talking about their homes in America?

(He was absolutely NOT talking about members of his own cabinet!!!)


Sue McPherson    35 minutes ago    AWAITING MODERATION
 Reply to L:
He said that if they didn't like America they could always go back to their broken crime-infested countries and fix them.

What was the racist part of what he said? Was it because he called their poverty-ridden countries broken, or crime-infested? Or was it because he suggested they could go back if they didn't like it here. that's not the same as saying Send them back! Send them bacK!

Do you think Trymp is racist, or that his remarks were? Explain your position.


H   Reply to Sue McPherson: Are you Canadian? If not, please be quiet. If so, please explain "what goes on here".


Sue McPherson   CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to H:
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital - doctors - who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people - white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet - the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs. she loves dealing with poor, oppresses, rich girls from abroad, not so much with the ebola crisis or anything that goes on here.

I am fed up with foreigners from abroad - usually wealthy - being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to "Send them back" which were not his words.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D------ and C---------- to LHSC. How they can allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, and how the respirologist I had could simply refuse (also from a different cultural background) I do not know. What I do know is no one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.

M     
Reply to Sue McPherson: You should go back and visit exactly what trump said. You are completely off-base. BTW, please explain "what goes on" here? You don't sound very patriotic of loyal.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to M
I have just finished explaining to H but well you know what. my comment is not there.

Sue McPherson
Reply to H:
My response to you was not published. I have had problems with the health care system here, see my blog sue's views on the news. They are treated me very badly, trying to silence me. Canada - London - is not a nice place.


Sue McPherson   CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to H
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. This is fact - see your public health unit for more info. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital – doctors – who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people – white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet – the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs.

I am concerned about these foreigners from abroad – usually wealthy – being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to “Send them back” which were not his words. I like foreign people, but not these.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D-----t and C---------i to LHSC. How can they allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, the respirologist too (also from a different cultural background). No one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.


G     
Reply to Sue McPherson:
Yes I remember your many complaints about the way you were treated, your escape to England, and despise for men.


Sue McPherson     CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to G
So, another one, You get to speak untruths and distortions, and my truth - my voice - is silenced, even here on CBC my posts are disabled. I was harassed then and I am now. but I know now that I was not to blame. I wrote a piece about a prof who behaved in sexualized ways in the classroom, in order to understand it. It is now published online Maybe that was part of it. He probably got used to women performing for him and doing as he pleased.

T    
Reply to Sue McPherson:
Total BS. The meaning of the words in the tweets sre clear and anyone can plainly see that Trump was enjoying the chant while at his rally.

Sue McPherson
Reply to T:
I'm glad you think what Trump said originally was clear. Please post them. I am doing all the talking here despite most of my comments not getting p[ublished. Perhaps I will place them on my blog. How would that be,.


Sue McPherson  CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to L
last comment disabled, See my blog sue's views on the news.
for now, please say, Didn't Trump say,.
If the girls don't like living in Mercia they can always leave or should leave or can leave. That's not racist. It's a bit nasty but no nastier than these moderators disabling my comments.
!!@Q!@@

H
Reply to @Sue McPherson:
One would have to have a recording, but you're right, even if one does he is not all that articulate to be positive about it. LOL

Sue McPherson
Reply to H
Saying, if you don't like it here why don't you leave is a phrase that foreign people like to promote as a sign of racism, just as they keep saying that people don't like the colour of their skin. It's not the colour that matters, but it is an indication that they may have cultural values different from ours, and as I have learned, being a white, older, woman lacking wealth, spouse and family nearby, it is an opportunity for them to try to take advantage of me. I am fighting that, but without support, it is difficult. See my blog Sue's Views on the News, I shall try to post more. 

J
Reply to @Sue McPherson:
Trump insists he tried to quiet the chants ... by remaining completely silent and basking in the hateful chorus. His tweets were even worse.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to J
Yes, a lot of people in this city have done that to me, too - keeping quiet while my life is being destroyed. In this case, Trump was picked on first, by the media, as usual, after the original tweet. It is not nice to say that to children of immigrants, but it doesn't mean he is a racist for saying that. And the question remains, why don't we get to hear what the women were saying about America?

END of comments I am not pleased to see my comments deleted, when I put effort into them. In the end, they will be deleted, whether after a month or a year, but it is not as though any of us was privileged journalists who get to write not such great articles sometimes but still get something for doing it. I have unknown persona judging my comments and deleting them at will. At the CPSO and HRTO I often have unknown administration clerks judging the worth of my complaints and deeming them admissable, or not. As for the LHSC, there are very few people there I have respect for any more.


Placing this near the end, for your convenience, readers:

Donald Trump’s tweets July 14, 2019

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


References

EU president takes shot at Trump's 'unacceptable' tweets after Trudeau meeting.
by John Paul Tasker
CBC News. July 18, 2019

Donald Trump’s tweets
@DonaldTrump
The real Donald Trump Twitter account
July 14, 2019

6 February 2018

Presumed Innocence in politics and health care

The last revision of ‘Presumed Innocence’ was on August 1, 2018, to include sections demonstrating the concepts of presumed innocence and credibility through the scandal involving Canadian politician Patrick Brown; through a look at the HRTO case of a patient (myself) versus hospital staff and doctors; through news stories on Prime Minister Trudeau’s 20-year-old scandal; and through news stories on Stormy Daniels’s encounter with Donald Trump. The common theme focused on throughout each of these is the concept of credibility. The legal term ‘presumed innocence’ and the lay person’s use of the phrase are also examined and meant to be a theme by which readers may consider the various scenarios. The List of References has been re-organized into 4 sections according to subject. Minor edits made (2) on August 2. 

Patrick Brown, Canadian politician

Lately, the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” or “presumed innocent” have been a subject of discussion following accusations of sexual assault against actors, directors, and politicians, among others.  It’s the side of the argument which in layman’s terms probably means “to have compassion for” or “wait for him to be judged in a court of law, first.”

Michael Spratt’s recent article (see The Presumption of Innocence, 2018) explains what the term ‘presumption of innocence’ means, in terms of the legal definition, and the way it is being used inappropriately about one of the most well-known subjects of attention from the public – Patrick Brown, recently resigned leader of the opposition in Ontario.  Michael Spratt is a lawyer, so he knows the law. But I don’t think he knows much about common sense, which is, as I see it, an uninformed opinion in many cases. What I thought I knew 20 years ago, or a year ago, about something that I understood as common sense, is no longer. Many of my views are not the same as other people’s. And theirs are not the same as mine. It could have something to do with diversity – of experience, country of origin, culture, education, interests, family, or career. Or it could have something to do with growing older – a kind of wisdom developing, one would hope. 

I wrote a paper about wisdom once (Narratives and Wisdom, 2004), including interviews with women, in an attempt to find out what it was and if I stood a chance of achieving that state, with no luck. I might just as well have watched ‘Lucy’ (2014) with Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman.

Michael Spratt writes, “Certain columnists wrote that what happened to Brown was wrong and that ‘every man in the world is now vulnerable’." He takes a different point of view, that it makes sense to stop and realize that these men are doing something terribly wrong. He describes the allegations as “shockingly serious: Brown is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of power over very young women, plied them with alcohol and then made inappropriate sexual advances” (The Presumption.)

The presumption of innocence,” he says, “should not be used as an excuse to disregard common sense.” But sometimes, using common sense can be as bad as relying on the common understanding of the presumption of innocence to guide one’s thoughts on a matter. One of the girls reported feeling intimidated because Patrick Brown had not been drinking but she had been. When I was growing up, it was men who had been drinking whose behaviour we needed to feel intimidated by. Now men have to be afraid of women.

Spratt continues, “The complaints were made on a confidential — not anonymous — basis to reputable journalists,” attempting to convince himself of their truthfulness, and of the ability of the journalists to understand. But there cannot only be common sense used where sex is concerned. There has to be some understanding of what the differences are between the sexes. Sexual freedoms, as they are called, are more widespread in society today both here and abroad, from what we hear in the news.  I wonder if men like Patrick Brown recognized the power they held over women, or did they see it as part of the sexual culture in our society today - the supposed freedom of young women to behave as though they were free to make those kinds of choices.  On the other hand, men are no longer permitted to treat women the way they have done in the past, when women’s voices were not being heard and acted upon.

In The Star, another story on Patrick Brown has one of the girls’ explanation:
 “Despite the fact that this happened, I didn’t want to let this impede on what I saw then as a career opportunity,” she said, adding that she’s choosing to speak out now to support women in similar situations.
“I don’t think that any woman young or old should be subjected to that and put in a situation where they have to decide between the career opportunity that’s in front of them and . . . taking themselves out of a situation that’s at best uncomfortable and at worst unsafe” (Two women accuse Patrick Brown2018).

Is she saying that she drank to feel good, or to be able to be flirty unflinchingly, or to not feel the pain of what she was having to do in order to have Patrick Brown advance her career? I cannot see how that provides support to any other young women growing up, except to inform them this is what the world is like.


If she knows that what she is doing is so that it will help her get the career she wants, at what point did she decide to stop what she was doing, ie drinking, flirting, letting Mr Brown get close to her, telling him to stop, getting driven home by him and then later claiming it was sexual assault.  Surely, the problem was that she didn’t want sex as much as he did, that she didn’t even like him. It was all about the career.  And she seemed to know that if she didn’t allow him some gratification, he wouldn’t further her career. Don’t the young women of today even like or admire the men who they do this with?  She called Brown an “old, single politician preying on young girls” (Two women accuse).

That sounds remarkably similar to what Jessica Leeds, the woman on the airplane with Donald Trump, was doing. She left her first class seat beside him to return to her own in tourist class when he went below the waist. That was her cut off point. But was it sexual misconduct, or was it a mutually beneficial interaction that simply ended?

A doctor, his staff, the HRTO, ageism and me

A year ago, I was in a situation where I was accused of being rude, in effect, (or “upset with”) to the staff of a specialist at a local hospital. It would appear that the idea of “presumption of innocence” didn’t need to be applied in that situation. I was deemed guilty by anyone who heard about it. A hastily written very negative black mark against me was put onto the report he wrote of that appointment, which was available to any doctor I wished to have as my family doctor, as well as to other doctors in the community I had appointments with.

I usually describe that part of the situation-in-its-entirety first, because it was so emotionally distressing, and it is the part that comes to mind. And besides, when I filled out the application for a Human Rights Tribunal it said to write the incidents down chronologically, as they happened. So I tried to do that.  It has been a fiasco, with backlogs, being put in a queue, clerical errors, and not having a caseworker, and being sent a ‘Notice of Intention to Dismiss’ (NOID) my application, by some unnamed person, because it might fall outside their jurisdiction.

I realized the other day how my application appears to whoever reads it, as chaotic, done in a chronological order, not even taking the most important incident first, to the extent that, the adjudicator who sent me a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) stated in the heading, McPherson v LHSC instead of McPherson v ‘The Dr et al’.  It seemed as though my case were getting pulled apart, with first one, then another administrative staff member of the HRTO looking at it, and making decisions that were not always the best ones or not explained in a way I could understand. See (Why and How I was discriminated against, 2017).

As chance would have it, in my response to the CAD/NOID, I started writing about it again, but starting with the main incident, which was not about me being accused of being rude. It was about me being shortchanged on a diagnostic test the specialist offered me, and then presumably ordered for me, one that was unlikely to be sufficient to make a firm diagnosis. I made out an application with the HRTO that I was discriminated against, by him, on the grounds of age and gender, and marital and family status.

I don’t think I was able to get the adjudicator see that in the previous response I wrote. I didn’t know what was expected of me, and I was given only clues, no direction that made sense. No wonder it appears to him that I have taken on the entire hospital, seeing my allegations that I was discriminated against by being treated differently than other patients - because they accused me of being rude to the Dr‘s staff – and “upset with.” So the adjudicator worded it McPherson v  LHSC. So who is presumed to be innocent in this case? Well, it’s certainly not me.

I don’t know if starting my latest response with the main incident, instead of the accusations by the girls, is enough to have the next adjudicator or admin staff member realize the situation I am in, that I have been ganged up on, because the Dr knows I know I was getting lesser treatment, as many older people probably are in our medical system. See (Ageism in Ontario's health care, 2017).

What is important, whether the Drs and their secretaries protecting him, or the girls like the ones who accused Patrick Brown, is getting their stories in, and the more of them the better, which makes them more powerful against him, and having the credibility that comes with who they are, now that they have careers, as well as getting their stories in first. If they can accuse him first, and be believed, or if the Dr at the local hospital can accuse me of something so chaotic that it can’t be taken in easily, and if they do it first, then they have the upper hand. They have the credibility, although it sickens me to know that they do, despite all they have done to me.

Those girls accusing Patrick Brown didn’t have to do that. They could have tried to find another way, instead of accusing him of that and destroying his career (Would-be Ontario PC leader, 2015). The girls at the hospital who colluded amongst themselves and with others including the Dr, to accuse me of something I did not do, didn’t have to do that.  Doctors don’t lose their licence to practice that easily. But the answer does not lie with Patient Experience, or Patient Relations, or with the media taking on people who pass their credibility test.  What is needed are people with the knowledge to sort out the problems, not to try to fit my experience into their framework and then dismiss it if it seems to them it doesn’t fit right, and not journalists doing a job they may not be capable of doing.

I find it appalling that the Dr and his staff have been granted credibility, in making accusations against me, that have affected my health and sense of well-being, and that my allegation against him, in regards to this specific incident in particular, has been diminished by having it included as just one of a number of allegations I made against the hospital.  The way the Application form was laid out, the name of the organization comes first in the list of respondents, followed by the list of individual respondents. But not all doctors are employees of the hospital. The specialist I saw was an independent surgeon/specialist, not just another employee who I was alleging had harassed me and discriminated against me.

There have been several mistakes made in the HRTO’s treatment of my application.  I hope that it won’t get dismissed because someone hasn’t been able to take in everything that I wrote about, or expects me to prove my allegations before I get to the hearing. As the closing sentence of Michael Spratt states, “At the end of the day, insisting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt outside the courtroom can lead to, and certainly does not protect from, injustice.”

Several weeks ago I wrote a letter to Dr Paul Woods, President of LHSC in London, sending the letter to him specifically, by Express Post, explaining the situation and attempting to get someone to resolve this without the HRTO deciding on it based on misinterpretations of my application by administration staff at the very beginning, sending me a NOID (Notice of Intent to Dismiss) based on their faulty reasoning and neglecting to sign the document, which I am assuming means it wasn’t an authorized decision. I never received acknowledgment of my letter.

I look back now, and see that the Dr’s decision to send me for a diagnostic VNG test was a good decision. The problem was that I was being offered only a fraction of the complete test, an aspect of discrimination, based on age and gender, that is probably quite common. The fact that the girls on staff turned against me when I asked questions about it, accusing of me of being rude when I hadn’t been, and the fact that the Dr put this into his report on the appointment, affected future attempts to have a family doctor, leaving me feeling disenchanted with the medical profession and the integrity of the practice of health care. Now I am waiting to see how the HRTO will deal with this matter, having told me that the HRTO does not deal with cases involving “medical decisions.”    

See additional article below in List of references.
  
July 9, 2018  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Another dilemma has occurred, not so easily resolvable because this time, PM Justin Trudeau is the one caught in the middle. See ‘Hypocrisy is at the crux of theTrudeau groping allegation,’ July 8, 2018. On the one hand, Trudeau allegedly behaved inappropriately toward a young woman 18 years ago, at a music festival. As a result, her colleagues came to her rescue and an editorial was written in the newspaper she worked for as a reporter. Her name remained anonymous, as did the precise behaviour attributed to Trudeau, then a teacher. He was named. She wasn’t. He apologized and that was the end of that. Until now.

The dilemma has occurred because Trudeau has endorsed a policy of zero tolerance towards men who commit sexualized occurrences against women. True to his feminist beliefs, Trudeau insists that women ought to be believed when they speak out against such incidents. He has managed to get himself in hot water over his quick responses to some politicians failures in their interactions with women. Now this.

Strangely, his credibility appears to be declining over this mess, while the unnamed woman still has credibility, largely, I believe due to the support of her colleagues who likely were the same people who interviewed her and passed the message along that she wanted nothing more to do with this. So having raised it, very publically 18 years ago, in a national newspaper, and offering nothing – no name, no details of the incident, nothing except that she felt disrespected – she now wants to let it go.

This seems very one-sided. Trudeau has been left holding the bag. It appears that both of them may have made mistakes. His was presumably an overzealous flirtation. Hers was to react strongly to what used to be normal behaviour between men and women (which often left one or the other uncomfortable emotionally).  And she told her colleagues who may have thought this made good news – a story about the son of former PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Some may see the woman as the innocent party, while others  - perhaps not as many – side with Trudeau. But is he a hypocrite? I don’t think so. He is a well-meaning man who is the Prime Minister, seeking a new way of forming a working government. Is he sincere? Mostly, he is, as well as practicing tolerance and acceptance with a sense of social justice.  He is not perfect, though for a while he thought he was, endorsing zero tolerance for men’s mistakes, until he was caught in the same web other men have been.

I cannot see at this time how justice (at least social justice) can be applied to this situation if the woman does not come forward and tell her side of the story. I understand she has given her name now, but that still leaves the original editorial in place, that was written about her (or by her, about how she saw it).  Without that, in this new world of the Me Too movement, Justin Trudeau is left with his loyal supporters going about their business hoping he can keep his position and regain the trust of the people so he can continue to do his good work – and do it better while he continues to learn.

What she – the woman who was a reporter – gained from all this she got 18 years ago – the story for her newspaper, an apology, and apparently her self-respect back. She may think there is nothing more to gain, but by telling her story, other women can learn from it and can gain confidence. Did she do this for herself, or for herself and other women?   Which one is the hypocrite – Trudeau or her?

To consider who has the power and which one is using it above an acceptable level is what needs to be determined. Who stands to gain – and what – and who stands to lose. Was what the woman experienced an emotional ordeal, and what did she lose besides a momentary feeling of lack of respect from someone who ought not to have mattered to her, except he was the son of a Prime Minister?

Calling Trudeau a hypocrite even though many must have recognized the errors he was making as he learned to do his job is hardly fair to him or the rest of Canada.  The main thing, now, is what he does – what he is able to do – to make this situation right.  He is on a steep learning curve.  See additional articles below in List of References, eg. What we’ve missed in the conversation about Justin, 2018. 

July 30, 2018 Stormy Daniels

Another account of what is meant by credibility comes from an article in Macleans by Laurin Liu, a millennial author, who attributes the characteristic of credibility to Stormy Daniels, paid sex worker to Donald Trump, to her narration of the sexual encounter she had with him shortly before he became President. See ‘How Stormy Daniels is closing the credibility gap’, 2018. The author refers to Miss Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, as having credibility in her manner, coming across as trustworthy, while ignoring any reference to women having credibility due to their careers, personal wealth, marital status, community status, and so on – not inherent but marital, social, financial, and employment attributes.  Liu states at one point, “For many men, Daniels is believable; for many women, she is not just believable, but relatable.”

Laurin Liu explains the idea of the gender “credibility gap” which suggests that “women are less likely to be believed when they make certain claims (against men), because they are believed to be inherently less competent or trustworthy. In other words, in an exchange of he-said-she-said, the former is likelier to win” (‘Cassandra among the creeps,’ 2014 in ‘How Stormy Daniels’, 2018) . The “certain claims” being made, however, in this situation, are specific ones whereby Stormy Daniels had, she says, unwanted sex. Thus there would be men who would see Daniels as agreeable, and probably credible. A lot of women may well have had the same kind of experience, not being coerced, exactly, but agreeing to sex for the sake of their job, or getting a leg up on their career. So both men and women could be seeing Stormy Daniels as credible, for this reason. But was this a matter of credibility or was it a change in power relations between men and women, giving women a voice, but not the complaining voice of Me, Too.

There’s a difference between credibility and a person (female, in this case) siding with another (Stormy Daniels) because she’s had a similar experience. Then it becomes a matter of sexual politics, and not that Stormy Daniels demonstrated inherent credibility, or credibility through the jobs she has done in her life.

This question has to be asked wherever women side with someone or men, but the subject here is women siding with Stormy Daniels).  Are they doing so because the woman sounds as though she is telling the truth through her demeanor, or because she has been known to be truthful all her life (inherent credibility), or because she holds a responsible position at work, or because she is married to a man with high status in the community?  And what about the women taking Ms Daniels’s side. Do they have credibility, based on their status in the community, or inherent worth, or do they do so because the person they are holding up as a credible person (male or female) is the one who enables her to receive a fat paycheck?

The ‘credibility gender gap,’ says Rebecca Solnit, used to be about men having credibility while women often had none, especially when sex was the subject of discussion (see Cassandra, 2014). It wasn’t all that long ago that men controlled women’s sexuality. With the coming of ‘the pill,’ the oral contraceptive, and feminism, women are able to take more control over their lives. Stormy Daniels apparently feels empowered by her choice of career, and by the words used to describe her, says Laurin Liu. Ms Daniels is right that prostitutes should also be treated with dignity and respect, but that doesn’t require identifying with her cause or idealizing her situation.

The issue appears to be that Ms Daniels believes she should have been paid by Trump as well as allowed to speak about the sexual encounter.  But is this story really about sexual liberation, or is it about women finally being in a position to tell men what they really thought of them, and what they really think of sex when presented to them in the coercive manner that it sometimes is?  Is it about the worthiness of women as credible narrators, or about how women in greater numbers will now choose to side publically with women who they see as having had a similar sexual experience of life as their own?

This story of the credibility of Stormy Daniels, together with the other sections on the themes of credibility and the presumption of innocence, bring the subject into focus in a way that enables them to be understood, by lay persons and others. The topic of credibility, and presumed innocence, taken as one, is not fixed but fluid in the face of changes in the power structure of society and as new knowledge comes to light about individuals themselves and topics of concern in society. Race, gender, sexuality, and increasingly aging and sexual misconduct are in the public eye more than ever. This blog piece “Presumed Innocence” has moved from one subject to another, with each area contributing to a greater understanding of the others, and of how credibility and the presumption of innocence can be understood.



List of References  - organized according to each of 4 sections

References - Patrick Brown

The presumption of innocence is for courtrooms, not politics
by Michael Spratt
CBC Opinions
Jan 30, 2018
retrieved Jan 30, 2018

Two women accuse Patrick Brown of sexual misconduct
Jan 24, 2018
By Victoria Gibson
The Star
retrieved Feb 2, 2018

Would-be Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown driven to win
Torstar News staff
Metro News
May 3, 2015
retrieved Feb 5, 2018
Added Feb 21 2018

Patrick Brown cleared to run for Ontario PC leadership
By Amara McLaughlin
CBC News
Feb 21, 2018
Added Feb 21 2018

Ontario PCs overturn nominations, bar former leader Patrick Brown from running as candidate
by Karen Howlett
Globe and Mail
March 15, 2018
added July 9, 2018

Patrick Brown to run for Brampton mayor
By Noor Javed, Staff Reporter
Robert Benzie, Queen's Park Bureau Chief
The Star
July 27, 2018

References - A doctor, his staff, the HRTO, ageism and me

Ageism in Ontario's health care and human rights (HRTO)
by Susan McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 21, 2017

Why and how I was discriminated against – explaining to HRTO’s Dr Fthenos
by Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 29, 2017

Narratives and Wisdom: the lives of women growing older
by Sue McPherson
S A McPherson web site
2004

References - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

After 'reflecting very carefully' on groping allegation, Trudeau says he doesn't feel he acted inappropriately
by Marie-Danielle Smith and Adrian Humphreys
National Post
July 5, 2018 10:51 PM EDT. Last Updated July 6, 2018 1
0:49 AM EDT

‘Hypocrisy is at the crux of the Trudeau groping allegation’
by Robin Urback
CBC News
July 8, 2018, 2:41 PM ET

‘People experience things differently,' Trudeau says of groping allegations
By Kayla Goodfield and Chris Herhalt
CTV News Toronto
July 6, 2018 7:00PM EDT Last Updated July 6, 2018 8:01PM EDT

What we’ve missed in the conversation about Justin Trudeau’s alleged grope
By Alheli Picazo
Macleans
Jul 23, 2018

References – Stormy Daniels

How Stormy Daniels is closing the credibility gap for women
By Laurin Liu
Macleans
Apr 6, 2018

Cassandra Among the Creeps
By Rebecca Solnit
Harper’s  ‘Easy Chair’
October 2014 issue

Prostitutes take their desires to the Supreme Court
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
23 January 2012 (revised Jan 25, 2012)
A couple of the links are no longer working in this article so I have added the link to another piece on prostitution written the same year, as follows:

The decriminalization of prostitution: two women talking
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News