WEIR’S RESPONSE DOESN’T FLY
It suggests he still doesn’t understand his actions, Writes Angella Macewen
Discussing sexual harassment makes people uncomfortable. In the #Metoo era, men sometimes say that they don’t know how to act around women anymore, and are afraid of being wrongly labelled. The conversation can’t end there. If we want to foster healthy and productive workplaces where men and women both feel comfortable, we have to address the issue head on and have uncomfortable adult conversations.
Right now, Regina MP Erin Weir is at the centre of one of those uncomfortable discussions about how to handle sexual harassment in the workplace. In May of this year, an independent investigator found merit in one claim of harassment and three claims of sexual harassment against Mr. Weir. He was offered training by the federal NDP, but Weir decided to argue his case in the media, calling the charges ‘trumped up’ and identifying one of the women who had come forward.
Weir was immediately removed from the NDP caucus.
Erin Weir has continued to argue his case in the media. Central to Weir’s case is that his behaviour was at the less severe end of the spectrum, and that the investigator found he likely didn’t intend to harass anyone. So what exactly counts as sexual harassment, and does his intent matter?
A wide variety of behaviours are considered sexual harassment, including invasion of personal space, unwanted touching, leering (my eyes are up here!), uninvited stories about sexual prowess, lewd jokes, repeated unwanted advances. And here’s the kicker, it’s the impact of your actions that matter for proving sexual harassment, not your intent.
Does that mean you could be sexually harassing someone right now and not even know it? (Cue the scary music). Not exactly, no. It just means that excuses like “I had no idea”, “it was just a joke”, or “I meant it as a compliment” do not fly. As in many other areas of our society, the test is that a reasonable person ought to have known that such behaviour would be unwanted. If someone backs away from your hand on their shoulder, a reasonable person understands that touch was unwanted, apologizes, and makes a mental note not to repeat that behaviour.
Whether you intended to intimidate someone or make them feel uncomfortable, what really matters is how you handle yourself when the situation is brought to your attention.
When the negative impact of one’s actions are pointed out, a person should accept responsibility, apologize, and try to do better in the future.
Responding with defensiveness, attempting to diminish the severity of the impact, or worse, impugning the credibility of those who have come forward, is a good indication that a person did not get the severity of the situation.
This is what resulted in Weir’s expulsion from caucus, not the original investigation. Weir reacted by claiming the accusations were trumped up in retaliation for not following the party line on carbon pricing — a claim NDP MP Charlie Angus has called “bizarre and unfounded”. Further, Weir has used his platform in the national media to downplay the severity of accusations and present a partial accounting of events. Weir does this knowing the federal NDP will not respond because they have a responsibility to protect the well-being of the women who came forward. Harassment of any kind is often about power, and Weir has continued to use his power in a way that shows he does not understand the impact of his actions.
Last week, 67 Saskatchewan NDP politicians wrote a letter defending Weir and attacking Singh’s decision to remove Weir from caucus. This is understandable; we want to defend our friends, in this case a dedicated social democrat.
Angella Macewen is a member of the New Democratic Party, a labour economist and former colleague of Erin Weir, and was raised on a farm near Eston.