Or maybe because they keep hearing the same narrative that leaves out critical details.

Like I said, apparently it's not possible to disagree about the way it was handled. One must either not understand the case or one must support sexual harassment. You keep proving my point.

You're not the first user new to Reddit or new to this subreddit that has come here and posted the same grievance that is full of conclusions and light on argument. In simpler terms: your post reads like you just came here to vent, not have a discussion. This subreddit isn't a soapbox.

I thought the details of the case would be well understood on the NDP sub-reddit. And you're accusing me of being the one who doesn't want to have a discussion? You dismissed the entirety of my post because of 1) the age of my account, 2) because this issue has been discussed before. Why don't you practice what you preach and actually make the argument that Erin Weir was treated fairly?

The reason the party gave for kicking Weir out of caucus was because he spoke to the media to defend himself and apparently he "did not accept responsibility". Apparently, if there's an animated policy debate, and you're accused of being a sexual harasser because of it, you should just accept the accusation because defending yourself only means you're very guilty of sexual harassment. Sounds very fair and not Orwellian at all!

There were four complaints and three of them were for "close-talking". Weir accepted responsibility for those cases. The fourth was during a heat argument where Erin raised his voice. Jagmeet Singh called these women "survivors". This was at the height of #MeToo and Singh chose to do what was easy instead of fair. It was bad leadership and the NDP will pay for it this election.