Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
Changing your clothes at work after a workout does not constitute sexual harassment. There's an argument that maybe changing in his office was ill-conceived but calling this harassment feels like a major stretch. If somebody walks in on you using the bathroom at work you aren't exposing yourself. It was an accident.
Ah, missed this was his office at work... I think the point still stands around expectation of privacy in your own parliamentary suite, but certainly a bit more in grey zone when it comes to judgment.
Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
Changing your clothes at work after a workout does not constitute sexual harassment. There's an argument that maybe changing in his office was ill-conceived but calling this harassment feels like a major stretch. If somebody walks in on you using the bathroom at work you aren't exposing yourself. It was an accident.
There is a whole lot of sexual harassment that gets hand waved away because of seemingly unfortunate timing or some seemingly unforseen sequence of events when those situations were quite possible staged on purpose. I will extend the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being as it does appear to be "innocent", but should new information be presented, that view can be quickly challenged.
Being naked at work should really never happen for the vast majority of people, and being naked at work when your work is at the freaking House of Commons really shouldn't ever happen.
Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
It's really not. Situation and intent play major roles in determining sexual harassment. You should actually read the definition used by the labour code before arbitrarily deciding things that suite your argument are sexual harassment.
Dude was changing in his office after going for a run. Camera was on and by all accounts this is entirely an accident. This in no real way meets the definition of sexual harassment.
However, watching someone change without their knowledge, making a public spectacle of it and making comments about their physical appearance? That is more in line with sexual harassment.
Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
It's really not. Situation and intent play major roles in determining sexual harassment. You should actually read the definition used by the labour code before arbitrarily deciding things that suite your argument are sexual harassment.
Dude was changing in his office after going for a run. Camera was on and by all accounts this is entirely an accident. This in no real way meets the definition of sexual harassment.
However, watching someone change without their knowledge, making a public spectacle of it and making comments about their physical appearance? That is more in line with sexual harassment.
So no one should have mentioned it?
What exactly are you trying to say here? The dude should not be changing while a work call is going on. If he worked anywhere but the government he would have been fired on the spot.
I've done more zoom meetings than I can remember in the last year and If in any of them my dick was flopping around I would have been let go immediately.
I would expect to be the butt(naked) of jokes for a while if I did that and if it was an honest mistake then no harm done.
It is OK to poke fun at, or comment on, things where people have made mistakes. It can become a problem if it interferes with work opportunities or harassment but that has to be judged on an individual basis.
Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
Changing your clothes at work after a workout does not constitute sexual harassment. There's an argument that maybe changing in his office was ill-conceived but calling this harassment feels like a major stretch. If somebody walks in on you using the bathroom at work you aren't exposing yourself. It was an accident.
There is a whole lot of sexual harassment that gets hand waved away because of seemingly unfortunate timing or some seemingly unforseen sequence of events when those situations were quite possible staged on purpose. I will extend the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being as it does appear to be "innocent", but should new information be presented, that view can be quickly challenged.
Being naked at work should really never happen for the vast majority of people, and being naked at work when your work is at the freaking House of Commons really shouldn't ever happen.
That is ridiculous. So people should just not choose to exercise on their lunch break or anything like that? My office has a shower - should nobody ever use that shower?
The MP had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The only mistake he made here was that EVERYBODY that frequently does virtual meetings should have some sort of webcam cover.
The only thing that's questionable about any of this is WHO leaked the image to the press because that was extraordinarily more unprofessional than what the MP did.
It was during a fucking session of Parliament. Not a random time. This was broadcasted. This is the equivalent of him entering the House of Commons and getting naked.
Are some people assuming that an MP appearing naked in the HoC would not be getting national attention if another MP had not made a joke about it? Because I promise you, it would be getting the same amount of attention. And probably much less flattering and light-hearted attention.
And, frankly, a joke is the best, because they would have been justified to actually bring a formal complaint for sexual harrassment.
I am assuming you mean against the MP who was naked? If so, how do you figure his actions meet the definition of sexual harassment?
Yes, obviously. Exposing yourself at work is sexual harrassment.
It's really not. Situation and intent play major roles in determining sexual harassment. You should actually read the definition used by the labour code before arbitrarily deciding things that suite your argument are sexual harassment.
Dude was changing in his office after going for a run. Camera was on and by all accounts this is entirely an accident. This in no real way meets the definition of sexual harassment.
However, watching someone change without their knowledge, making a public spectacle of it and making comments about their physical appearance? That is more in line with sexual harassment.
So no one should have mentioned it?
What exactly are you trying to say here? The dude should not be changing while a work call is going on. If he worked anywhere but the government he would have been fired on the spot.
I've done more zoom meetings than I can remember in the last year and If in any of them my dick was flopping around I would have been let go immediately.
Yes, no one should have mentioned it. This is an HR problem that should be handled between the MP and his direct supervisor (or whatever the equivalent is). What is gained beyond embarrassing someone else by making such a public spectacle of this?
I never argued he shouldn't face repercussions for his mistake. I am saying making such a huge public ordeal about it is grossly unprofessional, harassment and frankly dissapointing behaviour to see from an organization that is suppose to represent Canadians.
But, I seem to be in the minority on this. So I will shut the fuck up.
It was during a fucking session of Parliament. Not a random time. This was broadcasted. This is the equivalent of him entering the House of Commons and getting naked.
Only if you want to wilfully ignore any and all context. Sure.
For now on all Canadian MPs to be inducted into a society of Nevernudes.
In other news, the Conservatives have a climate plan. It's like the Liberals, except it has a lower price for carbon (making it useless), involves a new private payment system (making it more corrupt), and limits what the rebate can be used for (making it less free and more corrupt.)
In other words, it's the platonic form of Conservative policies.
The excuse for the price is "50$/tonne is enough, no need to actually increase to the point where it would be effective".
The excuse for the account is so that "[Trudeau] won't be tempted to use the carbon tax revenue to fund his big government plans," never mind that changing where the rebate is deposed has no effect there, and also that funding big government plan is good. We need to electrify and fix the rail network, and put TGVs on it, for example.
The excuse for the control is paternalism, and that it's a good way to force people to buy things from whoever gave money to the CPC.
mrondeau on
+6
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
In other news, the Conservatives have a climate plan. It's like the Liberals, except it has a lower price for carbon (making it useless), involves a new private payment system (making it more corrupt), and limits what the rebate can be used for (making it less free and more corrupt.)
In other words, it's the platonic form of Conservative policies.
The excuse for the price is "50$/tonne is enough, no need to actually increase to the point were it would be effective".
The excuse for the account is so that "[Trudeau] won't be tempted to use the carbon tax revenue to fund his big government plans," never mind that changing were the rebate is deposed has no effect there, and also that funding big government plan is good. We need to electrify and fix the rail network, and put TGVs on it, for example.
The excuse for the control is paternalism, and that it's a good way to force people to buy things from whoever gave money to the CPC.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation if fucking FUMING and I am absolutely loving it. I'm hopeful moderate voters recognize it's not an effective plan, and it causes a schism in the PC party.
Spoiler for the whiney e-mail blast I'm sure you all want to read.
Dear [REDACTED],
Media are reporting Erin O’Toole is planning his own carbon tax even though he signed a pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
O’Toole himself has confirmed it’s true. If he becomes prime minister, he’ll break his promise to repeal the carbon tax. He says he’ll lower it, but instead of sending out cash rebates, he’ll set up accounts where the carbon tax gets deposited and let Canadians use that money to buy so-called green products.
This is NOT what O’Toole said while he was running for leader. He signed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Pledge to scrap the carbon tax. Here’s what it said: “If elected prime minister of Canada, I will immediately repeal the Trudeau carbon tax and reject any future national carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme.”
Let’s be clear. O’Toole made a promise to scrap the carbon tax. His new policy would break that promise. When someone is breaking a promise, you have to hold them accountable.
Sure, he’s promising it will be a lower carbon tax, but how can you trust that when he’s about to break his first promise on carbon taxes? Plus, the O’Toole carbon tax is arguably worse than the Trudeau carbon tax, because it’s going to be expensive and bureaucratic to set up and force you to spend it on so-called green items the government dictates you can buy.
Will you join thousands of other Canadian Taxpayers Federation supporters to tell O’Toole what you think?
O’Toole’s phone lines are going to get flooded. If you don’t get through today, keep trying. We need to send a clear message that it would be wrong for O’Toole to break his pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
Hyperlinks restored for accuracy, but they're all self referential.
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
In other news, the Conservatives have a climate plan. It's like the Liberals, except it has a lower price for carbon (making it useless), involves a new private payment system (making it more corrupt), and limits what the rebate can be used for (making it less free and more corrupt.)
In other words, it's the platonic form of Conservative policies.
The excuse for the price is "50$/tonne is enough, no need to actually increase to the point were it would be effective".
The excuse for the account is so that "[Trudeau] won't be tempted to use the carbon tax revenue to fund his big government plans," never mind that changing were the rebate is deposed has no effect there, and also that funding big government plan is good. We need to electrify and fix the rail network, and put TGVs on it, for example.
The excuse for the control is paternalism, and that it's a good way to force people to buy things from whoever gave money to the CPC.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation if fucking FUMING and I am absolutely loving it. I'm hopeful moderate voters recognize it's not an effective plan, and it causes a schism in the PC party.
Spoiler for the whiney e-mail blast I'm sure you all want to read.
Dear [REDACTED],
Media are reporting Erin O’Toole is planning his own carbon tax even though he signed a pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
O’Toole himself has confirmed it’s true. If he becomes prime minister, he’ll break his promise to repeal the carbon tax. He says he’ll lower it, but instead of sending out cash rebates, he’ll set up accounts where the carbon tax gets deposited and let Canadians use that money to buy so-called green products.
This is NOT what O’Toole said while he was running for leader. He signed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Pledge to scrap the carbon tax. Here’s what it said: “If elected prime minister of Canada, I will immediately repeal the Trudeau carbon tax and reject any future national carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme.”
Let’s be clear. O’Toole made a promise to scrap the carbon tax. His new policy would break that promise. When someone is breaking a promise, you have to hold them accountable.
Sure, he’s promising it will be a lower carbon tax, but how can you trust that when he’s about to break his first promise on carbon taxes? Plus, the O’Toole carbon tax is arguably worse than the Trudeau carbon tax, because it’s going to be expensive and bureaucratic to set up and force you to spend it on so-called green items the government dictates you can buy.
Will you join thousands of other Canadian Taxpayers Federation supporters to tell O’Toole what you think?
O’Toole’s phone lines are going to get flooded. If you don’t get through today, keep trying. We need to send a clear message that it would be wrong for O’Toole to break his pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
Hyperlinks restored for accuracy, but they're all self referential.
the more I see, I could get along with O'toole. its the people that make up his party are the problem.
He'll either get kicked out, split the right, or be the catalyst to drag the base kicking and screaming to a moderate position where they *might* have a chance at federal election win.
the more I see, I could get along with O'toole. its the people that make up his party are the problem.
He'll either get kicked out, split the right, or be the catalyst to drag the base kicking and screaming to a moderate position where they *might* have a chance at federal election win.
No way in hell. The current political climate on the right is oneupsmanship about how extreme you can be. The base may grow or shrink, but it will never compromise.
Also I see no reason to believe O'Toole is doing anything but Harper style positioning because he knows he needs to look less extreme to win back enough votes to take power.
Also I see no reason to believe O'Toole is doing anything but Harper style positioning because he knows he needs to look less extreme to win back enough votes to take power.
He doesn't seem to be very good at it though. I assume that won't matter in the sense that he's not bad enough to get removed as leader - but next election night I expect he'll either have to become PM or resign immediately.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
I vote Liberal while holding my nose. If I had a reasonable alternative I would go for them in a heartbeat..... Unfortunately, it's a party run by first-year philosophy majors or the hate jamboree.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
I'm not sure anyone cared that much about the brownface personally.
I think it's still the same dynamics at work as it's always been. The Conservatives haven't found a way to be appealing outside their core base like they figured out under Harper and so people are just going with the default instead.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
I'm not sure anyone cared that much about the brownface personally.
I think it's still the same dynamics at work as it's always been. The Conservatives haven't found a way to be appealing outside their core base like they figured out under Harper and so people are just going with the default instead.
Liberals had some pretty poor choices for leaders during that period as well.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
I'm not sure anyone cared that much about the brownface personally.
I think it's still the same dynamics at work as it's always been. The Conservatives haven't found a way to be appealing outside their core base like they figured out under Harper and so people are just going with the default instead.
Liberals had some pretty poor choices for leaders during that period as well.
I'm really hoping for the best with Freeland. she has a habit of making a full house out of a bad deal. If she can pull off the finance minister position, and shrug off some of the old liberal party tendencies I think that's a big win for the country as a whole.
It was during a fucking session of Parliament. Not a random time. This was broadcasted. This is the equivalent of him entering the House of Commons and getting naked.
[Tweet from Adam van Koeverden: "Yes he did. This was before 2pm, not on the public site. It’s a well understood rule to never screen-grab or take a picture of that screen.
Whomever took the picture was wrong.
He made a mistake and apologized.
Everyone sharing it should think about what they’re doing & why."]
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Tweet in response to some rando saying:
Your pal didn’t show up for work, ready to participate, on time.
Just in case anyone was wondering what 'Yes he did' and the 2pm is about (Statements by Members starts at 14:00).
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It was during a fucking session of Parliament. Not a random time. This was broadcasted. This is the equivalent of him entering the House of Commons and getting naked.
[Tweet from Adam van Koeverden: "Yes he did. This was before 2pm, not on the public site. It’s a well understood rule to never screen-grab or take a picture of that screen.
Whomever took the picture was wrong.
He made a mistake and apologized.
Everyone sharing it should think about what they’re doing & why."]
I thought this was the case but couldn't find the source - so thanks.
So whoever made that screengrab should absolutely be facing both some kind of HR violation as well as a legal investigation.
So my opinion is that this is still just an honest mistake, but man there are some concerning signs here that would allow someone with less scruples to get away with some bad stuff for a lot longer than they should.
First off, somewhat unrelated to the actual incident, but man, must be nice to have a job where you can apparently just up and work out in the literal middle of the day and no one seems to care. For most of us, when we are at work, we are expected to, you know, actually work rather than head out for a jog. HIs privilege is showing.
Second, and probably most importantly, this guy knew there was a camera in his office and that it was on and broadcasting to someone at the very least. So, ultimately, he has absolutely no excuse to be doing what he did in his office. If he needed privacy to change, he should have gone somewhere where he knew there werent any cameras, like a bathroom. The fact that there was a camera in his office and he did that is frankly unacceptable and he needs some HR repercussions for his actions beyond just offering an apology. That is not acceptable office behaviour and actions like that are a liability to the workplace.
Also, our gold medal winning MP up there seems to want to blame the whistleblower here. That kind of mentallity is what allows bad people to keep doing their awful things to those with less power. Yeah, I can understand that it probably shouldnt have gone in the media, but that whole "unwritten rule" garbage to not take pictures of the camera feed is kind of bullshit. If you see something on there that should be reported, then you should absolutely do what you need to do and shouldnt be looked down on for doing it. Seeing a naked man in an MP's office seems like something that you should note. There is definitely a path here for someone who wants to harass someone by purposefully exposing themselves on camera to continue to do it if alot of other people are going to come down on the person gathering evidence of their harassment.
Like I said, I think the most likely explanation is still that this was a mistake and not evidence of harassment. But I can definitely see how there is a potential path to harassment should someone want to do that and it would be nice if places like our parliament would try to do things to foster a culture where that much less likely to happen. There are just a few too many warning flags here that I would be concerned about if I were in HR over there.
His privilege is showing by...going for a jog on his lunch break?
+9
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I'm not sure how you can square this being an accident with the guy knowing that the camera in his office was on and broadcasting. Plus I haven't seen it asserted that he knew that the camera was on and broadcasting.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
His privilege is showing by...going for a jog on his lunch break?
Not the main thrust of my point, but yes, it is a sign of privilege. Amazon workers feel compelled to pee in bottles at work because they dont get enough time off during the day to take care of basic human necessities. I am sure there are a ton of other workers out there who get or at least feel their bathroom breaks and lunch breaks are policed heavily, but this guy can apparently find enough time off during the workday to get changed twice (from office clothes to workout clothes and back again) and apparently then work up enough of a sweat that he needs to get fully nude to get changed, including his underwear? Why was he changing his underwear? You dont have to get fully naked to get changed! You can do it in stages so that you are at least partially clothed the entire time! Also, if you are getting that sweaty from your workout, you will probably smell at least a bit for the rest of the day. But he apparently isnt concerned about that either.
His privilege is showing by...going for a jog on his lunch break?
Not the main thrust of my point, but yes, it is a sign of privilege. Amazon workers feel compelled to pee in bottles at work because they dont get enough time off during the day to take care of basic human necessities. I am sure there are a ton of other workers out there who get or at least feel their bathroom breaks and lunch breaks are policed heavily, but this guy can apparently find enough time off during the workday to get changed twice (from office clothes to workout clothes and back again) and apparently then work up enough of a sweat that he needs to get fully nude to get changed, including his underwear? Why was he changing his underwear? You dont have to get fully naked to get changed! You can do it in stages so that you are at least partially clothed the entire time! Also, if you are getting that sweaty from your workout, you will probably smell at least a bit for the rest of the day. But he apparently isnt concerned about that either.
What you are saying is actual nonsense. Like beyond the pale strange.
The image I’ve seen has “connecting to audio” for his feed, which is (in my now extensive zoom experience) usually indicative of someone who just recently joined. He’d have been naked when he clicked to join.
If he argued that he thought he had the camera’s shutter closed, or thought he turned off the video while joining, or anything like that it would make more sense.
Hell, I make sure I have at least boxers and a shirt on for sessions I’m joining strictly as audio, just in case. Or at least face the camera/laptop towards a wall.
I’m not saying he should be tarred and feathered here, but it’s weird all the same.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The image I’ve seen has “connecting to audio” for his feed, which is (in my now extensive zoom experience) usually indicative of someone who just recently joined. He’d have been naked when he clicked to join.
If he argued that he thought he had the camera’s shutter closed, or thought he turned off the video while joining, or anything like that it would make more sense.
Hell, I make sure I have at least boxers and a shirt on for sessions I’m joining strictly as audio, just in case. Or at least face the camera/laptop towards a wall.
I’m not saying he should be tarred and feathered here, but it’s weird all the same.
Yes I've seen the "connecting to audio" screenshot too. Which is also weird... when I connect to zoom, the audio connects automatically with that message, but the video is automatically off and I need to click it on manually. If he's just logging on, how can his video be connected already before his audio?
Yeah I fully agree that the guys an idiot for letting that happen at all but the idea that he's some sort of privileged exhibitionist perv with a kind for taking off his underwear (again, wtf was that point?) after he gets sweaty on a jog is just a bit much.
To me, the bigger question here is who made that screen grab and leaked it to the press? When I think about the kind of damage these sorts of things cause teens it really raises my hackles that we have MPs conducting themselves with the same behavior.
The CPCs fundamental problem remains that everyone either think their core ideology is so loathsome, they would rather vote for Trudeau while he's wearing blackface, or they are already voting CPC.
I'm not sure anyone cared that much about the brownface personally.
I think it's still the same dynamics at work as it's always been. The Conservatives haven't found a way to be appealing outside their core base like they figured out under Harper and so people are just going with the default instead.
People did care, I think, just not as much as the greater narrative might have wanted them to. But since South Asians tend to hold Trudeau Sr. on a pedestal there is a lot of leeway given to his son.
His privilege is showing by...going for a jog on his lunch break?
What an asshole!
My job lets me get an hour of PT time in each work day. As long as my work is getting completed there is no issue. But I guess I must suffer and lose that, since other people's jobs suck.
+8
Options
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
I feel like if this was a lady MP as opposed to a male the discourse here (and in the media) would be very different.
I'm not sure it would be better, but it would be a very different vibe.
His privilege is showing by...going for a jog on his lunch break?
What an asshole!
My job lets me get an hour of PT time in each work day. As long as my work is getting completed there is no issue. But I guess I must suffer and lose that, since other people's jobs suck.
Sometimes I even take all of my clothes off to the point where I'm COMPLETELY NUDE when I get dressed too - but only if I'm feeling particularly risqué.
Other times I will fully hang dong but be sure to keep one sock on so that Jesus can't see me.
I think it's pretty common for office workers - I know I have had the option to do it - to extend their hours if they want to make time for some mid-day exercise. My old office even had a shower. And I suspect a lot of these people have work hours that spill into their personal hours so I'm hard pressed to begrudge someone for getting in a midday workout.
Posts
Changing your clothes at work after a workout does not constitute sexual harassment. There's an argument that maybe changing in his office was ill-conceived but calling this harassment feels like a major stretch. If somebody walks in on you using the bathroom at work you aren't exposing yourself. It was an accident.
There is a whole lot of sexual harassment that gets hand waved away because of seemingly unfortunate timing or some seemingly unforseen sequence of events when those situations were quite possible staged on purpose. I will extend the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being as it does appear to be "innocent", but should new information be presented, that view can be quickly challenged.
Being naked at work should really never happen for the vast majority of people, and being naked at work when your work is at the freaking House of Commons really shouldn't ever happen.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
It's really not. Situation and intent play major roles in determining sexual harassment. You should actually read the definition used by the labour code before arbitrarily deciding things that suite your argument are sexual harassment.
Dude was changing in his office after going for a run. Camera was on and by all accounts this is entirely an accident. This in no real way meets the definition of sexual harassment.
However, watching someone change without their knowledge, making a public spectacle of it and making comments about their physical appearance? That is more in line with sexual harassment.
So no one should have mentioned it?
What exactly are you trying to say here? The dude should not be changing while a work call is going on. If he worked anywhere but the government he would have been fired on the spot.
I've done more zoom meetings than I can remember in the last year and If in any of them my dick was flopping around I would have been let go immediately.
Signed,
A parent who is about to do online schooling
WoW
Dear Satan.....
It is OK to poke fun at, or comment on, things where people have made mistakes. It can become a problem if it interferes with work opportunities or harassment but that has to be judged on an individual basis.
That is ridiculous. So people should just not choose to exercise on their lunch break or anything like that? My office has a shower - should nobody ever use that shower?
The MP had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The only mistake he made here was that EVERYBODY that frequently does virtual meetings should have some sort of webcam cover.
The only thing that's questionable about any of this is WHO leaked the image to the press because that was extraordinarily more unprofessional than what the MP did.
Yes, no one should have mentioned it. This is an HR problem that should be handled between the MP and his direct supervisor (or whatever the equivalent is). What is gained beyond embarrassing someone else by making such a public spectacle of this?
I never argued he shouldn't face repercussions for his mistake. I am saying making such a huge public ordeal about it is grossly unprofessional, harassment and frankly dissapointing behaviour to see from an organization that is suppose to represent Canadians.
But, I seem to be in the minority on this. So I will shut the fuck up.
Only if you want to wilfully ignore any and all context. Sure.
For now on all Canadian MPs to be inducted into a society of Nevernudes.
In other words, it's the platonic form of Conservative policies.
The excuse for the price is "50$/tonne is enough, no need to actually increase to the point where it would be effective".
The excuse for the account is so that "[Trudeau] won't be tempted to use the carbon tax revenue to fund his big government plans," never mind that changing where the rebate is deposed has no effect there, and also that funding big government plan is good. We need to electrify and fix the rail network, and put TGVs on it, for example.
The excuse for the control is paternalism, and that it's a good way to force people to buy things from whoever gave money to the CPC.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation if fucking FUMING and I am absolutely loving it. I'm hopeful moderate voters recognize it's not an effective plan, and it causes a schism in the PC party.
Spoiler for the whiney e-mail blast I'm sure you all want to read.
Media are reporting Erin O’Toole is planning his own carbon tax even though he signed a pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
O’Toole himself has confirmed it’s true. If he becomes prime minister, he’ll break his promise to repeal the carbon tax. He says he’ll lower it, but instead of sending out cash rebates, he’ll set up accounts where the carbon tax gets deposited and let Canadians use that money to buy so-called green products.
This is NOT what O’Toole said while he was running for leader. He signed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Pledge to scrap the carbon tax. Here’s what it said: “If elected prime minister of Canada, I will immediately repeal the Trudeau carbon tax and reject any future national carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme.”
Let’s be clear. O’Toole made a promise to scrap the carbon tax. His new policy would break that promise. When someone is breaking a promise, you have to hold them accountable.
Sure, he’s promising it will be a lower carbon tax, but how can you trust that when he’s about to break his first promise on carbon taxes? Plus, the O’Toole carbon tax is arguably worse than the Trudeau carbon tax, because it’s going to be expensive and bureaucratic to set up and force you to spend it on so-called green items the government dictates you can buy.
Will you join thousands of other Canadian Taxpayers Federation supporters to tell O’Toole what you think?
Please phone Erin O’Toole’s office NOW: [Whatever]
O’Toole’s phone lines are going to get flooded. If you don’t get through today, keep trying. We need to send a clear message that it would be wrong for O’Toole to break his pledge to scrap the carbon tax.
Hyperlinks restored for accuracy, but they're all self referential.
I hope they re-form the Reform in response.
He'll either get kicked out, split the right, or be the catalyst to drag the base kicking and screaming to a moderate position where they *might* have a chance at federal election win.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
No way in hell. The current political climate on the right is oneupsmanship about how extreme you can be. The base may grow or shrink, but it will never compromise.
He doesn't seem to be very good at it though. I assume that won't matter in the sense that he's not bad enough to get removed as leader - but next election night I expect he'll either have to become PM or resign immediately.
I vote Liberal while holding my nose. If I had a reasonable alternative I would go for them in a heartbeat..... Unfortunately, it's a party run by first-year philosophy majors or the hate jamboree.
I'm not sure anyone cared that much about the brownface personally.
I think it's still the same dynamics at work as it's always been. The Conservatives haven't found a way to be appealing outside their core base like they figured out under Harper and so people are just going with the default instead.
Liberals had some pretty poor choices for leaders during that period as well.
I'm really hoping for the best with Freeland. she has a habit of making a full house out of a bad deal. If she can pull off the finance minister position, and shrug off some of the old liberal party tendencies I think that's a big win for the country as a whole.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BretonBrawler
Ehhh...
[Tweet from Adam van Koeverden: "Yes he did. This was before 2pm, not on the public site. It’s a well understood rule to never screen-grab or take a picture of that screen.
Whomever took the picture was wrong.
He made a mistake and apologized.
Everyone sharing it should think about what they’re doing & why."]
I thought this was the case but couldn't find the source - so thanks.
So whoever made that screengrab should absolutely be facing both some kind of HR violation as well as a legal investigation.
First off, somewhat unrelated to the actual incident, but man, must be nice to have a job where you can apparently just up and work out in the literal middle of the day and no one seems to care. For most of us, when we are at work, we are expected to, you know, actually work rather than head out for a jog. HIs privilege is showing.
Second, and probably most importantly, this guy knew there was a camera in his office and that it was on and broadcasting to someone at the very least. So, ultimately, he has absolutely no excuse to be doing what he did in his office. If he needed privacy to change, he should have gone somewhere where he knew there werent any cameras, like a bathroom. The fact that there was a camera in his office and he did that is frankly unacceptable and he needs some HR repercussions for his actions beyond just offering an apology. That is not acceptable office behaviour and actions like that are a liability to the workplace.
Also, our gold medal winning MP up there seems to want to blame the whistleblower here. That kind of mentallity is what allows bad people to keep doing their awful things to those with less power. Yeah, I can understand that it probably shouldnt have gone in the media, but that whole "unwritten rule" garbage to not take pictures of the camera feed is kind of bullshit. If you see something on there that should be reported, then you should absolutely do what you need to do and shouldnt be looked down on for doing it. Seeing a naked man in an MP's office seems like something that you should note. There is definitely a path here for someone who wants to harass someone by purposefully exposing themselves on camera to continue to do it if alot of other people are going to come down on the person gathering evidence of their harassment.
Like I said, I think the most likely explanation is still that this was a mistake and not evidence of harassment. But I can definitely see how there is a potential path to harassment should someone want to do that and it would be nice if places like our parliament would try to do things to foster a culture where that much less likely to happen. There are just a few too many warning flags here that I would be concerned about if I were in HR over there.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Not the main thrust of my point, but yes, it is a sign of privilege. Amazon workers feel compelled to pee in bottles at work because they dont get enough time off during the day to take care of basic human necessities. I am sure there are a ton of other workers out there who get or at least feel their bathroom breaks and lunch breaks are policed heavily, but this guy can apparently find enough time off during the workday to get changed twice (from office clothes to workout clothes and back again) and apparently then work up enough of a sweat that he needs to get fully nude to get changed, including his underwear? Why was he changing his underwear? You dont have to get fully naked to get changed! You can do it in stages so that you are at least partially clothed the entire time! Also, if you are getting that sweaty from your workout, you will probably smell at least a bit for the rest of the day. But he apparently isnt concerned about that either.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
What you are saying is actual nonsense. Like beyond the pale strange.
If he argued that he thought he had the camera’s shutter closed, or thought he turned off the video while joining, or anything like that it would make more sense.
Hell, I make sure I have at least boxers and a shirt on for sessions I’m joining strictly as audio, just in case. Or at least face the camera/laptop towards a wall.
I’m not saying he should be tarred and feathered here, but it’s weird all the same.
Yes I've seen the "connecting to audio" screenshot too. Which is also weird... when I connect to zoom, the audio connects automatically with that message, but the video is automatically off and I need to click it on manually. If he's just logging on, how can his video be connected already before his audio?
To me, the bigger question here is who made that screen grab and leaked it to the press? When I think about the kind of damage these sorts of things cause teens it really raises my hackles that we have MPs conducting themselves with the same behavior.
People did care, I think, just not as much as the greater narrative might have wanted them to. But since South Asians tend to hold Trudeau Sr. on a pedestal there is a lot of leeway given to his son.
What an asshole!
My job lets me get an hour of PT time in each work day. As long as my work is getting completed there is no issue. But I guess I must suffer and lose that, since other people's jobs suck.
I'm not sure it would be better, but it would be a very different vibe.
Sometimes I even take all of my clothes off to the point where I'm COMPLETELY NUDE when I get dressed too - but only if I'm feeling particularly risqué.
Other times I will fully hang dong but be sure to keep one sock on so that Jesus can't see me.
Forgive the guy for an honest mistake.
The idea that this is a privilege thing is peak absurd goosery.
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman