Oakvillian

I'm intrigued how you all know what the alleged behaviour actually was. I've seen an editorial from a local newspaper, that puts a phrase like "inapproriately 'handled'" (with the quotes around 'handled') and asks "didn't he learn [...] that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette" while very carefully not actually accusing Trudeau of groping.

Whatever transpired, it is clear that the reporter (and her editor and publisher, to whom she related the incident at the time and on the record) felt it was inappropriate. But, as the paper's editor put it (according to Global News and CBC coverage): “It was a brief touch,” according to her then-editor. “I would not classify it or qualify it as sexual assault.”

Trudeau was apparently at the pre-festival event (the festival itself started the following day) to raise awareness and encourage fundraising for avalanche safety, in honour of his brother who had died in an avalanche in the area two years previously. He was working as a teacher in BC at the time; he didn't really become a significant public figure until he delivered a eulogy at his father's funeral three months after this incident took place. Which is not to say that his behaviour can be excused because he wasn't a public figure, but it should be remembered that he had neither held nor run for public office in August 2000. He was not, however, some young ingenue: he was a 28-year-old man who had been in the public eye, if not in public office, for almost his entire life.

So, where is the line drawn? Why, if the editor at the time would not have said it's a sexual assault, did he allow the word "grope" to be used in the editorial? Absolutely, if Trudeau acted inappropriately, he should face the consequences. But I have the distinct impression this is largely a politically-driven exercise currently, rather than a fact-driven investigation of misconduct.

magnumpi

Oakvillian

Yes, that's the editorial. What's instructive is not so much Trudeau's action (which is not actually articulated at all) but the fact that he tried to make a sarcastic apology - as though if he'd known that the reporter was stringing for a national paper he'd have been more respectful. That is of rather more concern to me than the "inappropriate touch," to be honest.

magnumpi

Almost Canadian

What's instructive is the apparent double standards and what has happened to other politicians of all political stripes when allegations have been made. Particularly the comments that he made about others when such allegations came to light. I read the words, "..groping a strange women..." to be pretty self explanatory. I appreciate that others may not.

macadian

Back to the thread title..."Is Justin Trudeau a fraud?". Quite simply, yes, he is....and in the opinion of many, including myself, he always has been.
But for daddies coat tails, it would be a case of "Justin who????....

BristolUK

Quite possible. But I trust you are consistent and apply the same standard about all people who become well known, having had a well known parent before they made it and that you would also say daddy (or mummy) as opposed to father (mother)?

Or are you just taking cheap shots?

Oakvillian

Absolutely. Just within current Ontario politics we have Doug Ford (son of former Ontario MPP Douglas Ford Sr, brother of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford). Caroline Mulroney. Christine Elliott (OK, so in her case it was her husband rather than father). Presumably Maclian would say they'd all be complete nonentities if it weren't for family members who'd gone before...

dbd33

I think Trudeau was anointed. IMO he's Prime Minister because his father invented modern Canada, not because he's achieved anything. That doesn't make him a fraud anymore than, say, Prince Harry is a fraud for being a prince. One can say that Trudeau's too eager, that he looks ridiculous in the national costume of other countries, but that's not fraudulent, it's insufferable excessive sincerity. One can also say that he'd get into less trouble if he constrained his sense of humour and phrased things more carefully. "so forward", for example, is archaic phrasing and suggests arch jocularity, "personhood" was a gift to the gullible. Joking though is either careless or a refreshing display of personality in a Canadian, it's not fraudulent.

I don't think he's a fraud. I wouldn't want to be in the same room as him but I think he presents as he is; a child of privilege trying to do the things his father thought right and doing so as unctuously as possible. I don't see a better alternative.

Oakvillian

I suggested up-thread it was misdirected sarcasm, but I think you nail it here. Arch jocularity is right, he's used a deliberately out-of-date turn of phrase - moreover, one used more often in the past to describe women's behaviour - to throw focus on the insignificance of the incident rather than the actual nature of whatever it is that happened.

Sadly, that arch jocularity goes sailing straight over the heads of too many Canadians. As with the "personhood" comment, which was quite clearly meant to be some sort of self-effacing humour, calling out excessive political correctness, but rather backfired when brain-dead commentators thought he was serious. He's guilty, perhaps, of overestimating his audience, and certainly of excessive oleaginousness in front of the camera

bats

So far the accusation is second hand and not from the woman herself. She interviewed Trudeau, something happened, she then went back to her office and spoke to her editor about it. He or she then wrote an editorial. We don't know if the woman asked for this to be done or agreed to it. Now she's saying she wants nothing to do with it so us there an accusation to answer yet?

​​​​​​About a year ago we talked in here if some #metoo stuff on a senior liberal that seemed to point to it being Trudeau and it seems now is the time to unleash it all. It seems to be being led by Andrew MacGregor an ex communication director of Stephen Harper. It's not a particularly helpful time for Canada for this to be revealed which makes you wonder what the ultimate motive is? Is Harper on a come back gig? What was all this about with visiting Trump advisors?

That said it all puts Trudeau in a very awkward position and I think unless he sets up an enquiry into to then he is toaat.

Can we have Chrystia Freedland as PM please?

Ps .I read somewhere online but can't find the link again that the handling was a side boob touch, IE arm round for a hug the fibgers touch the side of the breast. I'm sure you're all familiar with this approach.

Almost Canadian

Whether or not he did it, or what he did is, in this context, not the issue. He threw others under the bus once an allegation arose and, being consistent, he should have applied those standards to himself. He hasn't done so and the comments that he has made so far, are, with the greatest of respect, virtually identical to the comments those that others have been accused have made too.

I completely get that people like him but the likeability of the offender should never be the issue. Most on here know that I believe in due process and that I believe that the names of any accused should never be released until they have been convicted.

I have to admit to being surprised that those that have commented in the past about their own experiences are prepared to blame it in politics but I guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around.

bats

The woman who was groped has spoken out identifying herself and confirming that what was said to have happened gphappened except that we don't know what happened. She's also said that she won't comment further but won't give any details of what happened. I understand that she doesn't want to be the centre of this but you can't make a very public accusation and then expect to walk away from it. in a criminal case she would have had anonymity of course.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/rose-knight/

Siouxie

Sigh.

Not once has it been reported that she was groped - not by her and not by anyone who she was working with at the time. Why perpetuate that as fact?

So I'm presuming he reached out to give the woman a hug or a brief touch on the arm and inadvertently grazed her side boob with the back or front of his hand or similar.. I've done the same damn thing myself before - totally by accident......... and of course I apologised for it - who wouldn't!

For all we know he could have gone to kiss her on the cheek and smooched her mouth by accident - or thought she was a pretty girl and asked her for a beer and did a little flirting, not realising she was working and not just another young person at a music festival! "If I'd known you were a reporter I wouldn't have been so forward" -- Means WHAT?? Nothing!!

Nobody knows but the press are having a field day of painting him in a bad light, not because he necessarily actually did something, but because they dislike him or want him out of power. Smoke and mirrors anyone?

I think it's most likely been completely blown up out of all proportion - a storm in a C cup, you could say.

As was reported at the time..

Bourne said it was a “brief touch” and “I would not classify it or qualify it as sexual assault.” Brian Bell, who was the editor of the Creston Valley Advance at the time, said he didn’t recall Knight being traumatized or distraught

If he hadn't been who he is would it ever have come to light? Most likely not!

Hardly in the same category as other incidences reported about other well known people!

bats