I gave a lot of disparate views a thumbs up, not because I necessarily agree with the expressed view, but because they're well thought out and substantiated...and in many cases original.
I relate to the cynicism of many in not accepting pat answers. I was adding many to quote, until realizing there's far too many worthy of comment, so I have to make this point by subtracting all points quoted save this:
Somehow I don't see how anyone can turn this into a campaign issue overtly without it backfiring badly. If you listen to what's being said so far, everyone is remarkably restrained in that regards, for obvious reasons.
A "campaign issue" per-se? No. But not one quarter has stated "even though these allegations are unsubstantiated at this time, and Patrick Brown will be guaranteed due process of law"...to the point that the omission of stating that is tantamount to accusing him themselves!
Can you imagine a marathon athletic race where one of the contestants is shot, even if he/she 'deserved it' by being a reputed criminal, and the other contestants not making a point of how he/she deserves due attention, *in spite of his peccadilloes*? Make no mistake, I found Brown to be reprehensible in many respects, but the "J'Accuse" movement has become hysterical, when in the clamour for 'justice', people are so willing to forget that the accused also has rights under our system.
And Wynne's statement was absolutely meticulous in not mentioning even the slightest appreciation of the need for the legal rights of the accused. She was far from being alone.
Even mass murderers are accorded their rights when conducted in the courts of our Western nations. The allegations may very well be proven correct, but until that time...and until *the accusers are identified within the legal dictates we now have*, we're witnesses to mass hysteria. The Law does provide anonymity and protection through certain channels and processes. The mass media doesn't. Welcome to the Star Chamber.
Addendum: Here's an example of the dangers of playing this for gain, and this will surely backfire:
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said any New Democrat facing similar allegations would not serve under her. "If he was in my caucus, he wouldn't be sitting as an MPP any longer," she said. "This is about women coming forward and calling out behaviour that they experienced and I have to say I was pretty disgusted by what I heard in terms of their story."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...exual-misconduct-allegations/article37731210/
All she had to do was include the necessary statement: "If these allegations are proven to be true" to her rant.
And it's not just Horwath, by any means. Justin made a statement, albeit more couched and carefully constructed, but still omitting the essential point that these are, as yet, "unproven allegations".
By not according the right of presumed innocence, these very same leaders are setting themselves up to be knocked down by the same device.
