Trial by media
May 22nd 2015, 5:37 pm
#226
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Trial by media
I might be wrong but I think the point they were trying to make is that it is who is applying (administering?) the consequences that they thought was wrong.
They haven't said it is a mans right to insult and harass - just that it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels by impartial authorities. (In fact I think Gozit even said perhaps the law should be changed to recognize the problem)
They haven't said it is a mans right to insult and harass - just that it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels by impartial authorities. (In fact I think Gozit even said perhaps the law should be changed to recognize the problem)
May 22nd 2015, 5:54 pm
#227
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: Trial by media
A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.
Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?
May 22nd 2015, 5:58 pm
#228
slanderer of the innocent
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,695
Re: Trial by media
I am once again at a loss to understand your point here.
A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.
Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?
A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.
Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?
May 22nd 2015, 5:59 pm
#229
slanderer of the innocent
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,695
Re: Trial by media
May 22nd 2015, 6:01 pm
#230
Muskoka, Ontario
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,045
Re: Trial by media
I am once again at a loss to understand your point here.
A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.
Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?
A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.
Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?
May 22nd 2015, 8:05 pm
#231
Dive Bar Drunk
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 8,649
Re: Trial by media
Yes. And I think this is why the company was right to act.
May 22nd 2015, 8:12 pm
#233
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,849
Re: Trial by media
BREAKING NEWS
Newly elected NDP MP 26 yr old Deborah Drever has been suspended from the NDP caucus for making homophobic comments on Instagram.
Note only suspended she gets to keep her job and sits as an Independent.
Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus - Calgary - CBC News
Err can we class this as a double standard? Im sure all of the female posters are just as outraged as I am.
Newly elected NDP MP 26 yr old Deborah Drever has been suspended from the NDP caucus for making homophobic comments on Instagram.
Note only suspended she gets to keep her job and sits as an Independent.
Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus - Calgary - CBC News
Err can we class this as a double standard? Im sure all of the female posters are just as outraged as I am.
May 22nd 2015, 8:15 pm
#234
Concierge
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Posts: 8,320
Re: Trial by media
The NDP "fired" her, though if I'm not mistaken, they can't make her lose her seat as she was still elected, no?
This is just my ignorance here - is NDP able to do more than expelling her from the caucus and refusing to allow her to sit as part of the NDP? Or have NDP done all they can for their part?
Or would it be up to someone else to "fire" her to the point that she actually loses her seat?
This is just my ignorance here - is NDP able to do more than expelling her from the caucus and refusing to allow her to sit as part of the NDP? Or have NDP done all they can for their part?
Or would it be up to someone else to "fire" her to the point that she actually loses her seat?
May 22nd 2015, 8:19 pm
#235
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,849
Re: Trial by media
The NDP "fired" her, though if I'm not mistaken, they can't make her lose her seat as she was still elected, no?
This is just my ignorance here - is NDP able to do more than expelling her from the caucus and refusing to allow her to sit as part of the NDP? Or have NDP done all they can for their part?
Or would it be up to someone else to "fire" her to the point that she actually loses her seat?
This is just my ignorance here - is NDP able to do more than expelling her from the caucus and refusing to allow her to sit as part of the NDP? Or have NDP done all they can for their part?
Or would it be up to someone else to "fire" her to the point that she actually loses her seat?
Bottom line is she hasn't lost her job and is now an Independent MP of the Alberta Legislature.
So basically she hasn't lost her job.
May 22nd 2015, 8:22 pm
#236
Concierge
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Posts: 8,320
Re: Trial by media
The provincial NDP leader just stated they would review her situation after 12 months and then would reconsider letting her back into the NDP caucus.
Bottom line is she hasn't lost her job and is now an Independent MP of the Alberta Legislature.
So basically she hasn't lost her job.
Bottom line is she hasn't lost her job and is now an Independent MP of the Alberta Legislature.
So basically she hasn't lost her job.
If all NDP can do is suspend her, then they've done what they can do, in my books.
It's a bit like all the Rob Ford stuff last year... the rest of City Council couldn't remove him as mayor, so instead they did the max of what they could do: stripped him of pretty much all his powers as major and just let time run out.
So in this case, how would she 'lose her job'? She's not employed by the NDP, she's employed by the people who elected her, so I assume then there would have to be some kind of recall or byelection in order for her to actually lose her job?
May 22nd 2015, 8:24 pm
#237
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: Trial by media
BREAKING NEWS
Newly elected NDP MP 26 yr old Deborah Drever has been suspended from the NDP caucus for making homophobic comments on Instagram.
Note only suspended she gets to keep her job and sits as an Independent.
Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus - Calgary - CBC News
Err can we class this as a double standard? Im sure all of the female posters are just as outraged as I am.
Newly elected NDP MP 26 yr old Deborah Drever has been suspended from the NDP caucus for making homophobic comments on Instagram.
Note only suspended she gets to keep her job and sits as an Independent.
Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus - Calgary - CBC News
Err can we class this as a double standard? Im sure all of the female posters are just as outraged as I am.
May 22nd 2015, 8:35 pm
#238
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,849
Re: Trial by media
This is pretty outrageous, and it would be a fair bet that if she were employed anywhere else this sort of thing would be a career-limiting event. But I'm not sure the NDP can do much more than expel her from caucus. Does Alberta have a mechanism to recall, or dismiss, MLAs? Of course, if she was honourable she'd resign, but the very nature of her social media comments suggests honour is not high on her list of attributes...
30 The Assembly may, after a hearing conducted in accordance with its standing orders, expel a Member for any cause that is sufficient in the opinion of the Assembly.
1983 cL-10.1 s36
Resignation
31(1) A Member may resign the Member’s seat as a Member
(a) by declaring openly in the Member’s place in the Assembly during its proceedings that the Member resigns the Member’s seat as a Member, or
(b) by delivering a resignation signed by the Member and attested to by 2 witnesses to the Clerk.
(2) When a Member resigns the Member’s seat in accordance with subsection (1), the seat immediately becomes vacant.
(3) The resignation of a Member does not affect the Member’s liability to prosecution for an offence under Part 5 or 6 of the Election Act.
May 22nd 2015, 8:40 pm
#239
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: Trial by media
Expulsion
30 The Assembly may, after a hearing conducted in accordance with its standing orders, expel a Member for any cause that is sufficient in the opinion of the Assembly.
1983 cL-10.1 s36
Resignation
31(1) A Member may resign the Member’s seat as a Member
(a) by declaring openly in the Member’s place in the Assembly during its proceedings that the Member resigns the Member’s seat as a Member, or
(b) by delivering a resignation signed by the Member and attested to by 2 witnesses to the Clerk.
(2) When a Member resigns the Member’s seat in accordance with subsection (1), the seat immediately becomes vacant.
(3) The resignation of a Member does not affect the Member’s liability to prosecution for an offence under Part 5 or 6 of the Election Act.
30 The Assembly may, after a hearing conducted in accordance with its standing orders, expel a Member for any cause that is sufficient in the opinion of the Assembly.
1983 cL-10.1 s36
Resignation
31(1) A Member may resign the Member’s seat as a Member
(a) by declaring openly in the Member’s place in the Assembly during its proceedings that the Member resigns the Member’s seat as a Member, or
(b) by delivering a resignation signed by the Member and attested to by 2 witnesses to the Clerk.
(2) When a Member resigns the Member’s seat in accordance with subsection (1), the seat immediately becomes vacant.
(3) The resignation of a Member does not affect the Member’s liability to prosecution for an offence under Part 5 or 6 of the Election Act.
May 22nd 2015, 8:43 pm
#240
Dive Bar Drunk
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 8,649
Re: Trial by media
This is pretty outrageous, and it would be a fair bet that if she were employed anywhere else this sort of thing would be a career-limiting event. But I'm not sure the NDP can do much more than expel her from caucus. Does Alberta have a mechanism to recall, or dismiss, MLAs? Of course, if she was honourable she'd resign, but the very nature of her social media comments suggests honour is not high on her list of attributes...