centre of the universe - the dreaming: Let's just make this go away

11/04/2008: "Let's just make this go away" Nearly a year ago, the Saskatchewan government did something that makes me very, very angry. Rather than firing one of their employees who'd been found guilty of two counts of common assault (something I'm sure he can attribute to how much his lawyers were paid), they opted to pay him out the remaining two-ish years of his salary, along with a full pension. In case you're not familiar with the story, you should use your Googles to find Murdoch Carriere. But if you're not up for that, here's a brief recap:

Murdoch Carriere was working for the Provincial Government in 2002/03 when allegations were brought against him of sexual assault by several women he had worked with. NDP Minister Joanne Crofford initially fired him, or so it was reported, at which point he launched a lawsuit against the provincial government and against several media outlets. Those lawsuits were settled out-of-court. Carriere was later found guilty of two counts of common assault rather than sexual assault. Nine women who'd accused him of sexual harassment/assault were awarded $135,000 in compensation. Carriere, meanwhile, was paid out by the Government of Saskatchewan to the tune of $275,000. And they let him keep his pension. Because he'd given the government "35 years of service".

Well whoop-de-doo. 35 years of service during which time he allegedly assaulted how many women? How many women who didn't say anything because that would mean they'd lose their jobs, which would mean they couldn't feed their families? 35 years during which time he did what, exactly, for the province?

I don't care if a court case would have cost me SEVEN WHOLE DOLLARS of my taxpayer's money. I don't care if a court case would have cost me personally $500. The province of Saskatchewan has essentially condoned this man's actions. They've basically said "Look. What you're being accused of doing could look really, really bad for a political party that's not only in a tenuous relationship with the electorate, but also is attempting to attract more young people, and particularly young women, to its number. So let's just pretend that whatever it was you did or didn't do just didn't happen; we're going to let you retire early and keep your salary and your pension. We good?"

There was no "if you did what those women accused you of doing, on any level, you will be dismissed from this position. You will not be paid out to the end of your contract, and you will not receive any further pension except what you yourself paid in. We will not be matching your pension. Until your innocence or guilt is determined, you will be suspended from your job, and will be able to collect a portion of your regular wages." There was no "Oh! Common Assault is MUCH more acceptable than Sexual Assault, so here, have a quarter of a million dollars for your trouble!"

The Saskatchewan government did not stand up for women. It did not stand up for safe workplaces, and it did not stand up for the rights of the accused. It attempted to sweep this business under the carpet, and I sincerely hope I'm not the only one standing in the hallway wondering what the huge bulge is under the hand-hooked.

In fact, I can safely say I am utterly ashamed of the NDP government. I have no idea if the SaskParty would have handled it any differently, and frankly, partisan politics don't matter here. At all. What matters is that the rights of nine women who were violated were basically ignored. And they got to stand on the sidelines with $15,000 in their pockets while the man who violated them walked away with a quarter million and a full pension, for the exemplary service he gave to the people of Saskatchewan. Well. The exemplary service he gave to 999,991 people of Saskatchewan.

"A long way home" "Dust Devil"

23 Comments

brielle128 , on Tuesday, 4th November:

not a single issue have made me feel like puking more than this one.
My aunt worked under him (gawd that was bad)and he did the same thing to her. Not once, but daily. Every day. She tried to complain but was told to shut up and do her job or she wouldn't have one.
Yeah.
And folks wonder why I switched my lifelong ndp membership to not only another party in this past election, but was an active campaign manager.
Fuck. Fuckfuckfuckfuck. This man is the pus on a boil on my ass. No, on calvert's wonky tooth from kissing someone else's ass. Yeah. That sounds about right.

I don't know what we can do, but I do know that whatd done is done. All we can do from here is make damn sure it doesn't happen again. No matter what party is in power, its irrelevant. Its abuse of power and MY taxpayer money. You sure as hell know where it came from.

Ok. I'm done ranting. Can we get on with shutting down palin now? lol

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

There were errors made, which is very true.
1. You don't fire someone without a conviction. Suspension pending investigation gives the accused benefit of the doubt, firing implies guilt.
2. Being fired for sexual assault and being convicted of common assault means he was initially fired for a crime he didn't commit, even if he was convicted for something else.

Basically it was not done by the book, which while stinks pretty bad, resulting in the legal system being used and possibly facilitating a travesty of justice. I say possibly because I will not assume I know all the facts. But using the letter of the law, I think Carriere probably would have won the case.

Protections need to be there for the victims AND the accused.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

I don't care if he *would* have won the case. At least my government would have stood up for the rights of women! At least my government would have stood up for the rights of workers not to be abused or harassed at the workplace. At least they would have fought for something rather than rolled over and showed their bellies.

I don't care if it was done wrong, and I will always, *always* applaud Joanne Crofford for doing what she did in the way she did, even if she followed the wrong procedure. Carriere could have filed a wrongful dismissal suit, and got far more money from the settlement. At least the government would have fought for *something*.

I would *rather* Carriere had won a lawsuit and been awarded waaaaaay more money. Way more. Because at least then, the government could say, "We did what was right. We did it in the wrong way, but we did what was right." They don't get that right this time.

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Criminal charges were filed, not like he would be getting a new government job anytime in the future. By that point in time it was down to dollars and cents. Let him be a costly lesson in following the book and bring it up as a 'didn't we learn then' experience if someone ever does it again.

What part of worker's rights would have been exemplified by fighting a procedural call which would have wasted more taxpayer money and brought out a verdict which shows that a poor management decision was made, with nothing to do with the workers? Even more of a slap to the face than the payout.

Done properly, which this case clearly was not, everyone has some level of protection and benefit of being innocent until proven guilty, even if it does cost the taxpayers money.

A trial and costly litigation would have given us exactly what we already know. Although by applauding the person who made the rash decision based on how they felt instead of by following the rules, was anything really gained...?

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

A trial and litigation, even though costly, would have at least proved to the women who had his filthy hands all over them that even thought the government knew it wasn't going to win, it was still going to fight for them. For their rights. As it was, when, exactly, did the government step in and say, "You know what? We're going to pay each of you women, in addition to what you got in the settlement, we're going to pay each of you women *exactly what we paid him*, for our mistake"?

The part of workers' rights that would have been exemplified in a costly and losing court case would have been the part where the employer goes to bat, whatever the cost, for the employee, to show the employee how important they are. That they have the right not to be touched, belittled, hurt, or harassed WHILE EMPLOYED BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT!!!

Yes, a poor management decision was made, and hopefully won't be made again. But paying out a man whose actions have destroyed womens' lives is not the way to do it. Not without being *ordered* to do so.

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

The fight for the rights of the women happened. And it was brought down to common assault. All good and legal and proper. That would have been the main fight. And what mistake did the province make that gave him full access to assault employees? I must have missed something.

This was contract litigation, not a witch hunt. If you wanted an apology, that is up to the people who made the decisions which led to Carriere getting legal ammunition in the first place. That's where you would need to start putting blame down. Carriere was judged, sentenced and was not legally 'rewarded' for his criminal activity. He was rewarded based on a mistake in how the workplace procedure was followed. A technicality.

What should be looked at is that when people stepped forward, they were heard and action happened. Only after someone had the courage to come forward. What is sad and upsetting is so many others followed after the fact. How many people get hurt when victims stay silent? If there was a cover-up, raise hell. If victims were turned away from help and bullied into line, raise hell.

This settlement was about not following the guidelines that are in place to protect everyone, including the accused.

Accused people can have families to feed too.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

My point is that the government, who was the womens' employer as well as Carriere's, did not fight for the womens' rights. They had to take it to a separate court case, albeit a criminal court case. Their employer did not stand up for them. Nor did it stand up for its other employee (Carriere). The provincial government did the wrong thing then hoped it would go away, and that's wrong.

My point also is that it should *not* have been contract litigation. It should have been a sexual harassment suit filed by the government.

Sure, accused people have families to feed too, and Carriere's family is getting fed 18X better than the victims' families, who are being victimised over and over.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 4th November:

I'm attempting to sift through the entire length of this post and explore the reasoning and justifications that can be seen from both sides. Overall this is the result of dialectic thinking. Anyone need a quick explination? Ok here goes.

Dialectic thinking, the most common form of reasoning used to resolve almost all the situations around us, starts with the thesis, antithesis, and then a synthesis of the two that should result in the 'best' decision. The problem with this style of reasoning is that it ignores a whole lot of different prespectives that are very relevant. Let me demonstrate.

The thesis is: 'The government is in a position of power that the people allow so that the government may protect and enable it's citizens to fully take advantage of the benefits that society can allow them.'

The antithesis is: 'An individual within the government has abused his power, and in the process has destroyed the potential confidence that the electorate has in the government, and has negatively impacted on the stated goals of the thesis by disallowing a section of society to benefit from the society around them.'

Here's the fucked up synthesis: 'The correct all apsects of these two stated goals, the government will negotiate a settlement that will protect the governments image, compensate the individuals who had their freedoms taken away, and punish the wrong doer without making the government responsible for his actions so that it will not be destroyed, thus affecting more than just the small percentage of individuals directly involved.'

Listing now the missed points of view:
-Justice has been ignored. A negotiated settlement for all parties involved allows some to be punished for actions they did not create or cause and allows the individual who created the situation to still benefit from it
-The rights of all women within our society are now degraded because the rights of a few have been ignored.
-Confidence in the party in power was actuall destroyed, so much so that we actually have testimony of an individual who left a party that she originally supported to help another defeat it.
-The accused is now open to societial punishments that are beyond what our justice would call for because of the failure of society to protect parts of itself. A 'vigilante' justice may be justified now. (Cenobyte taking it upon herself to make this failure more public may affect the future prosperity of the individual who was accused.)

By valuing only the two sides visible in the thesis and antithesis, large portions of the outcome are ignored and now must be dealt with. Had a more broad sense of reasoning, one that would not attempt a systhesis, or a consumption of the antithesis by the thesis, but instead one that focused perhaps on restoritive or rehabilitative solutions might have forseen these overall consequences and created a much better outcome.

You will never change someone's beliefs, not without a very shocking occurance or a longe slow process of evidence, but you can always, ALWAYS change perspective. Which is generally something that is lacking.

Of course (Warning: Obligatory Coyote craziness) I'm still up for the bomb solution.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Oh and holy fuckin' typos Batman!

Sigh, Ceno, can you install a spell check for me? :)

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

It should be stated that I tend not to do well with dialectic thinking. In fact, I think it sucks. My thought processes tend to be more like algae blooms.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Thus my point, dialectic thinking is BAD.

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

The government does not have the luxury of taking sides until a legal verdict is reached. If the legal verdict is not guilty, should the government still have the ability to run that person into the ground?

A member in senior government took it upon themselves to be the judge and the jury, fired someone based on an accusation and ignored proper protocol that is in place to cover incidents like this. Even in extreme instances, the worst of offenses, people are still to be given the benefit of the doubt until their guilt is proven. Often in cases where the evidence is overwhelming they will still just suspend people without pay until the issue is resolved.

Carriere signed a contract with the government in which the government failed to abide by. Because of that, the terms of the contract were invoked and he received what the government promised at the time of the contract signing. If that contract was not breeched by the lack of protocol, he probably would not have gotten a penny.

The contracts do not know about harassment. They do not pick sides. They set aside certain conditions of employment that must be met in order to get paid, along with negotiating terms in which concerns and contractual obligations must be dealt with.

And saying it shouldn't have been a contractual litigation does not mean that the contract did not exist, or that the government can just nullify a contract 'just because'. Legal. Document.

Be upset, it is a bad situation which was made worse by some really emotional decision making. But my concern is making sure that all rights are considered.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Carriere signed a contract with the government which he himself didn't abide by. The women who worked for him signed contracts (one would presume) by which he did not abide. The terms of the contract were not invoked for these women. And, not having seen Carriere's contract, I don't know if he has the same clause I have, which basically states that if I do anything illegal while on work time, I forfeit my employer's contractual obligations.

Contracts *ought to* know about harassment and they ought to protect both sides. That's what they're for. It's more than just setting guidelines as to who gets paid and how they get paid and what they get paid for. It's protection both for the employer and for the employee. And in this case, Carriere violated his own contract by engaging in illegal activity while in the employ (and on the clock) of the provincial government.

Yes, the perpetrators of crimes (who I tend to call 'criminals') like Carriere have certain rights. Employees have certain rights. But while Carriere was bitching and moaning about his contractual rights, who was doing the same for the women he vicitmised? That was the government's job.

Look, the government was the employer both for Carriere and for the victims of his abuse. While they did a bang-up job of 'protecting' Carriere (by paying him out and making sure he couldn't come crying to his employer that he was let go unfairly), THEY DIDN'T PROTECT THE WOMEN HE VICITMISED. At all.

My provincial government...so in essence, me. What I told these women (and all the women who'd been abused before them, who'd been terrorised into staying quiet and staying put...)...what I told these women was "what you told me wasn't good enough. We can't stand up for you because we have to stand up for him. So here's a pittance for your troubles, and thank you for bringing this to my attention."

And that is NOT what I want to be saying to these women.

What I *want* to be saying to these women involves their abuser having a discussion with a few people I know wielding bats with nails at the end.

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

This is where 'accused' and 'convicted' come into play. You cannot be fired for being 'accused' of a crime, but you can for being convicted.

And part of contracts means that when you fire someone and give reason for it, that reason has to hold. Makes it so an employer cannot give one reason, find out it isn't any good and just give another one. "He took the company van without permission!/"That was actually Eddy, ma'am..."/"Oh... well... That stapler on his desk is mine, so he was a thief anyways."

Does Carriere have his job anymore? Did his victims not get some reparations (sadly, not from the person who actually DID the crime but the workplace... which I do find wrong in itself)?

The government did what they could. Were any of the victims fired? Does the government know exactly what happens in every office, especially when no one says anything? Last I checked, psychic ability was not a prerequisite of public service.

Reparations to the victim were not on par with what the contract gave Carriere. That is because of the contract, not as a diabolical attempt at a cover-up or to disrespect women. And reparations paid sometimes have the opposite effect... The accused can swiftly become victims themselves.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

From what I've heard, Carriere certainly hasn't become a victim.

The women may or may not have been fired. The hideous nature of assault and harassment is that you don't tend to wait around to *get* fired. Their lives were miserable, and they were violated.

I still think the government should have gone ahead with the wrongful dismissal suit. Yes, they would have lost. But at least they would have had the chance to say (and mean it): "The Government of Saskatchewan has a zero tolerance policy to harassment and assault. At the time these allegations were brought forward, and in the manner they were brought forward, we felt there was enough evidence to fire Murdoch Carriere with cause (or without cause, whichever they actually did, because that's still not clear to me)." But that's not what they did. And the result of what they did means the nine women who *did* come forward, the nine women who *were* awarded paltry sums of money...those nine women (and the dozens who were victimised who didn't come forward...this has been going on for thirty years!) are continuing to be victimised every day.

The government did the bare minimum of what they could. And they didn't do what they *should* have.

And now that you mention it, psychic ability *should* be a prerequisite of public service. I would vote for Mesmer or The Amazing Kreskin...or RAVEEN in a heartbeat.

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Wasn't Raveen a hypnotist? :)

Carriere is far from a victim. He played the system and won. But it could have been worse. The cost of the battle could have run into the millions. And he could have been paid for every bit of time he spent fighting.

The government CAN say that, without costing the taxpayers huge sums of money. But they tend not to admit mistakes, especially bureaucratic ones. Saves more funds for the important things, like the arts. ;)

It really sucks when the bad guys get away, but sometimes it is better than to let it tear you apart every day. Learn, prevent it from happening ever again. Or you could go with the Coyote thing. Boom?

It isn't easy being government. You'll never ever make everyone happy.

I have no psychic ability, although my intuition sometimes seems like precognition... Wasn't Raveen a hypnotist?

Did I ever mention how much I love discussing things with the Centre of the Universe? :)

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

Oops. Repetition. :P

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 4th November:

I knew you were going to do that.

;p

brielle128 , on Tuesday, 4th November:

"Does the government know exactly what happens in every office, especially when no one says anything? Last I checked, psychic ability was not a prerequisite of public service."

Flawed fact. They didn't need psychic abilities all they needed were two things: ears, and a moral backbone. The women did complain. At least my aunt did. She was told to shut up, sit down, and don't make a nig deal about an old man showing his affection in old man ways. In essence, they were saying that his actions were old school and accceptable. So putting his hand on her ass, pinching her nipple and kissing her neck when he came into work as a general hello, was totally ok. Old school. Just shut up, don't make waves and whatever you do, don't make him angry. He was also a very violent drunk.

She was bullied. And when she tried to come forward and complain, she was told her job was on the line and he was going away anyway so once again, shut up, sit down and you'll keep your job.

That sound like a nice government? Does that sound like justice? If it does, then please, I need a serious reality check.

So again, they didn't need psychic abilities. They needed to listen and believe those who tried to come forward. Ears and a moral backbone.

And to also abandon old boys club ways. My aunt wasn't a spring chicken. She was 58 and although beautiful, wasn't about to get a new career as a walmart greeter.
She certainly didn't get a dime. Not that she wanted money, all she wanted was to see justice. She got neither.

To say there was a victum, also means there was someone who was doing the victimizing. Please show me where she should feel good about this?

brielle128 , on Tuesday, 4th November:

I want ot tate that while I do agree with what Deon is saying, I have to believe that if justice costs us millions, then so be it. Maybe it will stop other old boys club members from protecting those who might do this in the future. I also want to say that not everyone in the ex-government was spineless, immoral, blind and deaf. Just a few. It was sad that those few chose to represent the rest.

Anyway,..its done. And in the end it is murdick and his cronies who have to look themselves in the eye. They know they have kicked the karma stone too hard and one too many times. What comes around goes around.

thanks...for letting me speak.

brielle128 , on Tuesday, 4th November:

whups. victim...my bad. gawd i hate not being able to edit...lol

Deon , on Tuesday, 4th November:

I go with how I believe a system should work and when things do not, I try my best to fix it to work. I cannot claim to know what the victims went through and with the limited amount of information released. But when the complaints were registered and avoided, there are more heads to roll in my opinion. Carriere did what he did, but those who turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to someone making a complaint about him could be held just as accountable as Carriere.

Responsibility means accountability.

I have an idea how one got away, not so sure how the others ducked out...

And it really gives a better perspective to hear your aunt's side, brielle128.

Paul , on Wednesday, 5th November:

I get the feeling this sort of thing is not an isolated event, as I've heard anecdotal stories of people in "respectable" positions getting away with sexual assault that I probably shouldn't share.

An "Old boys club" is exactly the problem, I think. Sexual assault is a terrible crime and everyone finds it utterly detestable unless you're one of the old boys in question and it's another one of the old boys committing the crime. When that happens it's time to cover things up and make it go away, but it wouldn't be socially right and proper to treat it like a crime.

distractions