Past Cover-ups of Sexual Misconduct and Assault by the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC)

(Part of a series of documents related to my resigation from the Communist Party of Canada, please see links from my Resignation Letter). PDF download

Past Cover-ups of Sexual Misconduct and Assault by the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC)

Saleh Waziruddin, St. Catharines, Ontario (Eric Blair Club)

June 23, 2022 (re-edited for public release July 4, 2022)

Two videos touching on the concepts in this letter:

(from Line of Duty, BBC, Series 4, Episode 5)

(from November 2, 2015 interview of Kgalema Motlanthe, ex-President of South Africa, by BusinessLive, full clip)

Preface to Publicly Released Version

• This is a letter I sent to the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada (members of the Central, Audit, and Appeals Committees) about a long history of sexual and other misconduct by top Party leaders that was covered up, and that I and others faced retaliation for trying to address. I never received a direct response to this letter.

• I have deleted/redacted for privacy the names of survivors and the innocent, although in one case a survivor also participated in abuses. I have also deleted the name of an internal committee (an international solidarity commission) to save the Party from an embarrassment on an international issue, as my focus is sexual and other misconduct by top leaders.

• An explainer of some of the terms: The Communist Party of Canada (CPC), and the Young Communist League (YCL or YCL-LJC, an independent but allied youth organization), and the Provincial Communist Parties (e.g. Ontario), have a structure where a Central/Provincial Convention of elected delegates representing the members meets every few years and decides on general policies. They elect a Central/Provincial Committee (CC/PC) which is like a board and meets a couple of times a year. It elects from within its members a Central/Provincial Executive Committee (CEC/PEC, a committee of the CC/PC) which gives day-to-day leadership, and includes the Central/Provincial Leader (called General-Secretary in the YCL).

• I have been criticized by two survivors of abuse of being opportunist, sexist, and worse for revealing what happened to them. But it is not the details of the abuse they suffered that I am going into here, rather the cover-up of misconduct by their abusers who are or were in leadership of the Communist Party and need to be held accountable. How the survivors want the issue to be resolved is a separate issue from the membership's need to know of the misconduct by their elected leaders and need to remove them from positions of authority so they don't repeat their abuses and harm more people.

• I have added a few details about events until the 40^th Central Convention ended on July 3, 2022.

• Others have criticized me for releasing a letter which is divisive. But it's the facts the letter is describing which are divisive, and the membership needs to know these facts while it is evaluating a more recent incident of sexual misconduct by a Party leader that was not handled correctly. There is more material about that case elsewhere on the internet and is briefly described near the end of this letter.

• It's been implied that I am part of a faction (a group within the Communist Party that has higher loyalty to itself than the Communist Party and operates secretly, this is against the Constitution of the Party and a violation of a basic principal) or part of a “Colour Revolution” (a series of movements to overthrow socialist or anti-imperialist governments in the early 2000's). This is not true and I give details below demonstrating this.

Brief Background to My Communist Party History

• I first joined the Communist movement in a Communist Party in another country, and joined the Communist Party of Canada and Young Communist League (when it was being re-founded after being shut down in the 1990s) in early 2007.

• I was a delegate to the re-founding convention of the YCL in 2007 and on the YCL Central Committee and YCL Ontario Provincial Executive.

• I was on the Communist Party's Ontario Provincial Committee for several years and served one term on the Central Committee and Ontario Provincial Executive.

• I was chair of the Ontario Education Commission and of an international solidarity commission of the Central Committee.

• I was a candidate for the Communist Party federally twice and provincially (Ontario) thrice.

• I was organizer of the Eric Blair Club in St. Catharines, Niagara, Ontario since 2007.

Introduction (version sent to Central Committee starts here, with redactions for privacy)

I have been heavily affected by information I learned in 2015 about cover-ups by the CEC of sexual misconduct and assault. I had been meaning to write to the CC but kept having to postpone because of one thing after another, including issues with the Che Brigade which I oversaw for the Canadian Network on Cuba. Then I was going to wait until after the 40^th Central Convention, but because of information which has come forward about how the CEC has mishandled sexual misconduct by Central Organizer Jay Watts III I believe I should send my information now so that it can be included in how the newer information is being evaluated and considered. Better late than even later.

I am asking that this information be distributed to the CPC membership so they are also aware.

Disclaimer: I am Not Part of Any Faction or Colour Revolution, etc.

• I have not suggested to anybody to leave or not join the Party. On the contrary I encouraged people to stay, including my Club's newest member who resigned over the current crisis, and have recruited and initiated applicants.

• I have advised my Club members not to participate in “Twitter Spaces”.

• I did not even know who Q Anthony Omene (formerly Andray Domise) was until the current controversy, which is not something I am proud of as apparently he is a well-known writer.

• I have not participated in any chat groups, Twitter Spaces, etc. with party or YCL members.

• I never communicated with the survivor of Jay Watt III's harassment, Q, [name redacted], etc.

• Until recently I was even blocked from Q's tweets, for what reasons I have no idea:

Executive Summary (the tl;dr):

• The then Central Organizer and former General-Secretary of the YCL, Johan Boyden, had sexually harassed a young woman leader YCL and CPC member from BC. When Johan Boyden told her he was going to be hired as Central Organizer she reported it to the CEC, but was mocked at first by the CEC member. The CC and Party were never told of the accusation.

• The CEC met with the young woman and also a young man who as a YCL member in Toronto had also been sexually harassed by Johan Boyden. Both said the CEC was not interested in hearing anything they had to say.

• When I tried to bring this to the CC's attention the CEC fabricated complaints from two party members that I was organizing against the CEC. The CEC found out I had been relying on these two comrades as friends to help deal with some depression, but instead turned that around to say they were complaining about my contact with them. I only found out later by accident that these were fabrications. I had stopped talking to these friends which affected my mental health and I had to seek counseling.

• The CEC also distorted a Facebook messenger conversation where I had declined to talk to a YCL member about one aspect of this situation, after first approaching them, but the key last line was removed so that it looked like I was pursuing a conversation, and the date was ignored to make it look like I was doing this after meeting with the CEC in 2015 when the conversation was from 2014 before my meeting (see Appendix 2).

• In the CC meeting where this was discussed, when CC members asked key questions, e.g. is the person who complained about Johan satisfied with the resolution, the CEC members lied to the CC to knowingly mislead them from legitimate inquiries. When questions that were showing the double standard of the CEC in punishing me but not Johan came up, the CEC members started piling on lies about me at the CC meeting that I did not respond to as this would just escalate into more lies that I would not have time to answer, though I did maintain I was not organizing around the country.

• Though I was not censured I was systematically removed from my leadership positions to the detriment of the Party, e.g. the Ontario Education Commission was disbanded and the international solidarity commission I was chair of had stopped meeting regularly and giving bilingual reports as I had been replaced as chair.

• The CEC had sanctimoniously said I would have to apologize and accept criticisms for my actions, which they fabricated and gaslighted, but hypocritically Johan Boyden had to make no such apology or face criticism for his actions.

• Previously I, and separately another YCL CC member, had tried to raise concerns about Johan, but were retaliated against by the CPC CEC as well as YCL CEC members Johan and his partner [name redacted].

• When Johan Boyden had to resign over the use of violence against his partner this was covered up by the CEC and the public letter announcing his resignation “wished him well” (see Appendix 4), which you cannot do for someone who committed domestic violence.

• I later found out Johan had done a very similar act of violence with his previous partner, a trans man on the YCL executive who was much younger than Johan, and he had not reported this to the CEC because of the atmosphere of protecting Johan.

• With the current situation again it is harmful for any Party leader to engage in sexual misconduct and they must be removed from leadership positions. Any activity outside of Party structures by others concerned about this must be seen in light of the fact that going through Party structures for complaints against top leaders results only in retaliation.

• If removal from leadership positions was the consequence for me for merely trying to bring allegations of wrongdoing to the attention of the CC, the consequences for the CEC for doing far worse should be no less. Without punishment as part of accountability there is no reason for the situation to not repeat, which is exactly what is happening now.

Sexual Harassment of BC Young Woman YCL Leader and CPC Member

• A YCL woman leader and CPC member/leader was sexually harassed by then YCL General-Secretary Johan Boyden at a summer camp in BC. I don't know exactly what he did, but he thanked the young woman the next morning for not reporting him to the “sexual harassment committee”, so he clearly knew it was sexual harassment.

• Johan had later told the young woman he was going to be hired as Central Organizer. This may have been even before the CC had decided to hire him. Concerned that someone in such an important position is a sexual predator, the young woman reported this to CEC member Sam Hammond, who had first mocked her. Then he said he would report it to the CEC.

• The CC had been manipulated by the CEC into hiring Johan as Central Organizer. First the CC was presented with a central campaign to recruit across the country. Then the CC was told of then Central Leader Miguel Figueroa's health issues which were preventing him from traveling, and then finally the CC was presented with hiring Johan Boyden as Central Organizer (a new position). CEC member Kimball Cariou told the CC they cannot choose not to hire Johan because they had already voted on a central campaign which requires travel and the Central leader cannot do the task, so they have to hire someone to do that. To make a fair decision the CC should have been told of Miguel Figueroa's condition first and that choosing such a central campaign meant hiring Johan Boyden as Central Organizer, crucial information was withheld.

• The CEC convened a meeting of CPC members in YCL leadership, excluding the young woman who reported Johan, but including Johan, and pressured everyone to say in front of Johan that there was a rumor campaign against Johan rather than that there were serious allegations of sexual harassment.

• Previously Johan had sexually harassed a young man in the YCL Toronto Club (see Appendix 6) and the YCL Toronto Club had threatened to resign en masse if it wasn't dealt with. Drew Garvie then brokered an “apology” email from Johan in 2011 (see Appendix 7) which was a non-apology because it stopped short of recognizing that it was harassment and excused the misconduct as just being silly, and offered the young man a choice of having a drink with Johan (his harasser) or considering the matter closed.

• CEC members Jane Bouey and Dave McKee (as observer) met with both the young woman and young man separately, without getting the facts of the allegations which is a basic requirement of any sexual harassment investigation. Both complainants said the CEC members were not interested in hearing what they had to say.

• Dave McKee had tried to establish if the complaint by the male YCL member had been already dealt with in the YCL, but this is irrelevant as CPC members are still accountable to the CPC .

• The young woman complainant was asked if she wanted to press charges, which she declined and which is not a requirement for a sexual harassment allegation. The CEC then told the young woman that she should not mention this to others as the state could manipulate it. Actually she has the right to scream about this to everyone from the rooftops! If the CEC is concerned about state manipulation they should restrict the actions of the one who did the sexual misconduct in the first place, not the survivor.

• The CEC minutes were circulated to the CC which showed the CEC concluded Johan's unspecified actions (called a “reference”) were “thoughtless and juvenile” but nothing more and the matter is closed. This is a classic dismissal of sexual harassment, which is a sex crime. The matter should not be considered closed if the complainant is not satisfied, which she was not.

• The CEC did not raise this at the next CC meeting, later saying they forgot or did not have time, a recurring explanation.

My Attempts to Investigate and Bring to the CC's Attention

• I had read the CEC minutes as a CC member and it smelled like a classic cover-up.

• Because of my previous experiences (see below) of trying to report Johan Boyden and another CEC member for misconduct but ending up only with retaliation and no consequences for the party leader I was complaining about, I was not sure how to proceed. I had discussed similar situations before with Andrew Taylor, a CPC member in Winnipeg, and so called him for advice which he said would be confidential. I told him that what I was going to tell him could get me kicked out of the party but he assured me I could trust him. He advised me to talk with CC members before the upcoming CC meeting I was going to raise this at. I didn't follow his advice. Andrew had written to me in early 2014 saying he “valued my friendship and counsel” and wanted to be close friends (“seek our old fraternal friendship”).

• My conversation with Andrew was long because it covered many other topics. At the end I had told him about how I was feeling depressed because of a particular situation. He asked me if I was talking to anyone for support, which I assumed was out of genuine concern for me, and I listed several party members or ex-members around the country who were good friends I was talking to about my depression. The CEC would later manipulate this.

• I also tried to get more details about what happened at the fraction meeting convened of CPC members who were YCL leaders, excluding the young woman who reported Johan. On the recommendation of Andrew Taylor I contacted T.J. Petrowski, also of Winnipeg, who was present at that meeting. T.J. is likewise someone who approached me for friendship online.

• At first T.J. declined to talk with me, saying he didn't want to be “dragged into infighting between comrades” and was having some health issues. Then, when I didn't push him, he changed his tune and said he was available to talk, but this time I declined and said what I wanted to talk with him about could be a source of stress (December 14-15, 2014, see Appendix 2). Later on, in a separate conversation on January 24, 2015, I gave him some unsolicited critical feedback on an article he had written on Afghanistan (this will be relevant soon).

CEC's Foiling of My Attempt to Bring to the CC's Attention

• Andrew Taylor in Winnipeg had reported me to the CEC and they summoned me to Toronto from Niagara Falls (where I was living then) twice for a meeting. Andrew had advised me to talk to CC members before the CC meeting, but I did not follow his advice, but he reported me anyway to the CEC for doing what he himself advised me to do.

• Before the meeting I was contacted by another young woman from Toronto who was a CPC member and in the YCL leadership about concerns she had about the fraction meeting of CPC members in YCL leadership. I told her right away to contact the CEC. She wrote a letter to the CEC (Appendix 1) which was withheld from the CC, and the CEC's only reaction to it to me was to know how the author knew I was meeting with the CEC. So this comrade used the proper channels of writing to the CEC and it resulted in no action, the only thing the CEC was interested in was knowing how the author found out about our meeting.

• The CEC used extremely raw intimidation and abuse to try to make me break down and repent, as I had done earlier (see next section) years ago, but this time I did not concede. The level of intimidation was incredible. At least two CEC members were literally snarling and growling at me around the table, four CEC members connected through computers on Skype and three CEC members present with me in the room. This seems beyond belief but I would not risk my credibility to mention this if it was false. I looked into the eyes of the whites around me for some recognition that this was absurd and over-the-top but all I got was poker faces. It later got to be too much even for Miguel Figueroa who finally muted the CEC members Skyping-in.

• It was clear to me that once again the CEC would not accept any evidence against their own.

• The CEC had at first tried to cast aspersions on the BC young woman who was raising sexual harassment allegations against Johan, saying she had run against Johan for YCL leader (she had been nominated but had not been present to accept the nomination) and that there had been no talk of Johan being hired as Central Organizer then (this was before the CC voted to hire him), and so questioning her motives for raising the issue. I brought up that Johan himself had told her he was being hired as Central Organizer, which the CEC conceded in the second meeting.

• I was accused indirectly of being “chicken shit” by CEC member Kimball Cariou for consulting Andrew Taylor of Winnipeg, but this is gaslighting as the next section will show.

• I had advocated that the CEC get outside help in devising proper procedures for investigating and dealing with sexual harassment. CEC member Jane Bouey said she was “furious” at me for this as she has expertise in this area, but if she does then why didn't she get the basic facts of the allegations in her investigation? This was also later used against me by the CEC at the next CC meeting, as if it is bad to involve someone from outside the Party.

• I pointed out that the CEC's conclusion that Johan's actions were nothing more than “thoughtless and juvenile” looks like a cover-up. This was before the #MeToo movement but I pointed out that in light of the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and the UK-SWP's crisis with rape accusations the CEC's conclusion would reflect very badly on the Party, but instead this was used against me to say I was making a “vicious attack” on the Party. CEC member Sam Hammond made this accusation in the next CC meeting once the tide was starting to turn towards me. I was even asked by CEC member Kimball Cariou if I was accusing anyone of rape, which clearly I was not.

• The CEC said they were trying to stamp out a rumor campaign against Johan. Miguel Figueroa even said “this comrade is being destroyed.” But actually it was Johan whose behavior was destructive, and what the CEC called rumors was the “whisper network” that women and other vulnerable people setup to protect each other when the proper channels don't work.

• The CEC made several objectionable statements, such as that an accuser of sexual harassment should have to confront the person they are accusing face to face, and that the Party does not need a sexual harassment policy or special procedures as the Constitution already covers this, including dealing with racism etc. This was particularly offensive to me because in 2008 I had reported a CEC member for making a racist joke while a candidate in St. Catharines (see next section and Appendix 3) and nothing happened.

• I had raised the need for a sexual harassment policy in 2009 but this went nowhere. Again in 2016 six party members, some on the Central Committee, proposed developing a harassment policy and more in the 5^th discussion bulletin for the 38^th Central Convention. Now the issue is being raised in 2022, but wouldn't it have been a benefit to deal with this earlier when it was raised? Incredibly, Central Leader Liz Rowley is speaking about getting expertise in developing such a policy now as if it hasn't been advocated for and ignored so many times before over so many years.

• In my second meeting with the CEC they claimed a Party member in the Guelph Club (who lives in Kitchener and is one of the friends I was calling for support in dealing with some depression) had told their club meeting that I had contacted them about Johan's misconduct and that they didn't want to be contacted about this, and mentioned the name of the BC young woman accusing Johan. I said this was completely contrary to what I remember as as far as I knew this person was not even a Party member, they had told me they had quit the party and I stopped discussing Party issues with them. However, since they knew the name of the accuser, I assumed I must have mentioned it, as how else would they know her name?

• The CEC also claimed a Party member in Nova Scotia, who had approached me for friendship and who I talked on the phone with about non-political personal life situations, had said that he was concerned about how I talked about Party leaders and that he had told Johan “Saleh is no friend of yours” (an absurd way of talking). I denied ever having discussed Johan with this comrade and that I had only talked about personal things such as how work was going etc.

• They also read the first part of a transcript of Facebook messages between T.J. Petrowski and me. In the first meeting the CEC asked me who I had told about the sexual harassment accusation other than Andrew Taylor. I had mentioned a club member but did not mention T.J. Petrowski as I had not actually discussed the sexual harassment claim (see Appendix 2). I thought there was no reason to drag this young man into this issue but at long last the CEC had no sense of decency and dragged him into it anyway. When they read a cherry-picked selection of the transcript I asked why don't they read the next section they conveniently left off where I declined to talk with T.J?

• They also tried to make it seem as if I had approached T.J. after my first meeting with the CEC in 2015 when the date clearly showed it was in 2014 before this meeting, to make it look like I was persisting in defying the CEC. On my way to the first meeting with the CEC in 2015 I had messaged T.J. with unsolicited criticism of an article he wrote on Afghanistan, and obviously in retaliation he forwarded my earlier 2014 message to the CEC. If he had thought there was something wrong with my communication he would have forwarded it in 2014, it was only after my criticism of his article that he forwarded my message. Since then I always ask first before sending anyone criticism of their article!

• On my way home from the second meeting I wrote to the CEC that I realize a mistake I made was in not contacting the CEC first. My club member who I had told about this situation, a long-time party member who is a retired autoworker and Indigenous woman, told me I did nothing wrong. I later realized she was right. The whole history (see also next section) shows the CEC would have done nothing, and instead I would have been retaliated against.

• At the next CC meeting, instead of the issue being Johan's sexual misconduct the issue was my own misconduct.

• I had observed from an earlier disciplinary issue of a party member who was in the YCL leadership who had written anonymous contributions to the BC YCL convention discussion bulletin, and refused to meet with the CPC CEC without his club members present, that responding to the CEC's false accusations would result in even more false accusations and the ensuing massive paperwork would just discourage most people from trying to find the truth. There is no way one person can compete against 7 or 8 CEC members for equal attention.

• Consequently my position was to deny that I had been organizing against the country but to accept criticism for going around the CEC. One CC member, Domenic Bellissimo, asked a good question: is the accuser satisfied with the resolution? CEC member Kimball Cariou lied outright that she was when she wasn't, knowingly misleading a legitimate inquiry.

• CC members [name redacted] and Darrell Rankin raised the double standard of why I was being criticized but Johan was not. The CEC raised the lie that I had persisted by contacting T.J. Petrowski. When I pointed out that this conversation was before my first meeting with the CEC, CEC member Kimball Cariou tried to excuse this by saying they couldn't make a “chart” of all my activities, but actually it's quite straightforward to see that 2014 comes before 2015.

• Then to derail the direction the discussion was going in the CEC members started to pile lies upon lies about me, e.g. saying I had lost all confidence in the CEC when I had denied this and said I didn't have confidence in them dealing with this issue. I could see at least one CC member's eyes bulging with the accusations against me but I couldn't say anything back as I knew it would only escalate things beyond my ability to respond adequately.

• Johan's unspecified behavior was excused because he was drunk (he said he would drink less), but being in a drunken stupor is the Rob Ford defense. Even the capitalists hold someone responsible for what they do when they are drunk.

• Later on in the summer I got a call from the Nova Scotia comrade and I said right away if you think I am speaking ill of the leadership you should not be calling me. He asked me what I was talking about and it turned out that what the CEC had said about his complaining about me was a lie. He had been called by Miguel Figueroa but had only told him we talked about personal life, which is exactly what I had told the CEC we talked about. The comrade said he is willing to testify to this to the CC, but subsequently unfortunately he committed suicide due to unrelated reasons. I had not talked with this comrade until he called me because the CEC had told myself and the CC that he had complained about my communication with him.

• Wanting to see what else the CEC had lied about I called my Kitchener friend who denied the lies the CEC had said and pointed out he had not been to a club meeting in years. He said Liz Rowley did call him to ask if I had talked to him about Johan, but that was it. He said he had never heard the name of the young woman who had accused Johan, but of course now he had when I asked him, thanks to the CEC's lies which only produced the opposite results.

• Note the distinction between the two lies: Miguel Figueroa did not go so far as to say the Nova Scotia comrade said I was organizing against the CEC's decision on the harassment accusation against Johan, whereas Liz Rowley did in her fabrication about my Kitchener friend.

• The Central Executive Committee wasn't even claiming my Nova Scotia comrade was reporting me for discussing the sexual harassment allegation, so their false evidence doesn't show I was organizing around the country. If I was truly organizing across the country it would have been much more widely known, these two friends were hardly key influencers for me to contact.

• One of the least talked about aspects of racism is that the white people who are most vocal in offering friendship and support are often the first to betray BIPOC people. Both Andrew Taylor and T.J. Petrowski had approached me for friendship, and Andrew Taylor had promised me confidentiality. If Johan Boyden and Drew Garvie were brown and I was white, I would have been listened to and they would have been held accountable.

Previous Attempts to Report Misconduct by CEC Members, YCL General-Secretary

• Early in my time in the CPC I had been campaign manager for CEC member Sam Hammond who was the Party's candidate in St. Catharines in the 2008 federal election. To the horror of myself and a Latino YCL member helping with the campaign, Sam made a racist joke during the candidates' debate. This made the front page news locally (see Appendix 3).

• I had asked several co-workers at my call centre, who I planned to later organize into a union, to sign Sam's nomination petition saying he is a good person. I had to hear about the racist joke from them later and forwarded Sam an e-mail I got from one of them. It is the misconduct of the CEC members which discredits the Party to the working class and embarrasses the Party.

• We had been excluded by the local Chamber of Commerce in the previous year's provincial election, so being included in 2008 was the result of hard campaigning earlier, but now all that work was undone through racism. About 50% of my energy in election campaigns was spent trying to get included in debates. This outburst was also used as an excuse to exclude us from future Chamber of Commerce debates.

• I reported this to Liz Rowley, then Ontario leader, who only seemed amused and as far as I know did nothing about it. This taught me early on that CEC members and Party leaders were immune from punishment for wrong-doing.

• A young woman leading the Alberta YCL had gone through proper channels and written to the YCL CEC about bad behaviour by YCL general-secretary Johan Boyden during a trip to Alberta (no violations, just poor leadership). She was criticized both by Johan and Alberta CPC leader Naomi Rankin for writing to the YCL CEC, saying sending written criticism could be a security risk and that she should speak to Johan directly. This was yet another lesson that there would be retaliation for using proper channels and criticism of top leaders would be un-addressed.

• Early on as part of the CC of the newly re-founded YCL I realized there were major problems with Johan Boyden. I noticed some of the other YCL CC members were noticing the same problems and had tried to address them directly to Johan but with no results, so to confirm with them my observations I wrote separate messages to four YCL CC members in 2009 basically saying that Johan was a bully and a liar. I realize now I gave Johan too much credit: a liar at least recognizes the truth in order to tell a lie, whereas Johan, and later I realized the CEC, just say what is expedient at the moment without any regard to the consequences.

• YCL CEC member and Johan's former partner, a trans man much younger than Johan, identified with my message describing Johan's problems so much that he forwarded the message to Johan as proof or confirmation that his own criticisms of Johan were shared by others. Obviously this did not have his intended effect.

• I spoke with CPC CEC member Liz Rowley individually about my concerns with Johan, which she at first tried to dismiss or excuse, but then said to “leave it in my (her) hands.” I then wrote to the four YCL CC members and withdrew my message.

• But the result of all of this was that there was a special Skype meeting with CPC CEC members Miguel Figueroa (then Central leader), Liz Rowley (then Ontario leader), and YCL CEC members Johan Boyden, his partner [name redacted], and from BC [name redacted]. Johan's former partner did not participate. [name redacted – from BC], who was not one of the four YCL CC members I had originally written to, left the meeting after stating that he agreed with my message about Johan.

• I quickly realized into the meeting that no matter what I raised about Johan it would not be accepted. Liz Rowley hinted she “didn't see a future” for me in the Party if I persisted, and I got the hint and reversed course, thinking on my feet. Johan Boyden later confirmed my interpretation and said I would have been expelled from the Party if I had not reversed course.

• What followed were three nights of being psychologically broken down. I would come home from my shift at the call centre, get some time for dinner (generously offered by Liz Rowley), and then for the rest of the night be berated and abused with extreme criticism designed to make me break down and repent. I was made to take back even the smallest criticisms I had ever made of Johan, such as accusing him once of using “weasel words.” It got to the point where I said what more criticisms can be made at this point, I can only be judged by my future actions.

• As part of this 3-day criticism session I was told to “step aside” in favor of Drew Garvie, then a YCL leader in Guelph. I did not understand what this meant and offered to resign, assuming that's what the CEC wanted. I was told by Johan no, if they wanted me to resign they would have asked me. This is relevant as later Liz Rowley would tell the lie that I had been asked to resign from the YCL, on the contrary I was told not to resign. This shows that the protege chain of succession from Johan Boyden to Drew Garvie was already in the works for years (2009).

• I was to accept a motion of censure in the YCL CC. However the YCL CC members did not want to censure me! It turned out all of the YCL CC with the exception of Johan and his partner [name redacted] agreed with my criticisms. I was in the absurd position of asking the majority to censure me even though they were against it, to satisfy the criticism of the CPC CEC of myself.

• The young woman who was the Alberta YCL leader and CPC member resigned both from the YCL and CPC, saying she cannot be in any organization where someone like Johan is the leader and cannot be in any organization lead by those who would tolerate someone like Johan as a leader. This letter was withheld from the CPC CC and YCL CC. Perversely Johan and the CPC CEC tried to blame this resignation on me. During my 3-day Skype session I was told there were “resignations across the country” because of my message to the four YCL CC members, making me feel as if I was responsible instead of acknowledging that the cause of the resignation was Johan, who the CEC were protecting.

• This created a clear environment where it was obvious to all that Johan was protected by the CPC CEC. At one point I was billeted with Johan and he exposed his genitals to me, looking me in the eye with the knowledge that I could do nothing about it. This was a routine experience in the YCL at the time. It was understood that if you are in the YCL you can expect at some point to be exposed to the genitals of the General-Secretary. Nothing would happen to Johan.

• The Ombudspersons of a BC YCL Summer School camp dealt with five sexual harassment complaints against Johan Boyden (different from the case I tried to bring to the attention of the CC) and concluded that there should be a (YCL) Central Committee investigation of Johan's behavior, and that Johan is banned from future BC YCL summer camps (see Appendix 5).

• Drew Garvie's former girlfriend had applied to join the YCL in BC and asked if Johan Boyden was still involved. She explained that Drew Garvie had warned her to stay away from him. This means that Drew Garvie was well aware of Johan's sexual predation. People like Drew who didn't challenge this danger are the ones who get promoted in the Party, and people who try to challenge and call attention to these violations like myself and so many others are the ones who are excluded, retaliated against, and/or end up leaving.

• After I found out about the CEC's fabrications about me to cover-up Johan's sexual misconduct I had a conversation with Johan's former partner, the trans man YCL CEC member who was much younger than Johan. He revealed that he had experienced domestic violence with Johan and the description was very similar to what I gather [name redacted] experienced, involving furniture. I asked him why he didn't report it to Liz Rowley and his answer was word-for-word what I expected it to be, “(Liz Rowley) was not interested in hearing it.” This environment of immunity for top leaders from accountability had created a situation where there was impunity for all kinds of sexual predation and physical violence.

• After having gone through three such meetings, the best description I have found of what it is like to meet with the CEC on a disciplinary issue is from Harry Rankin's (Communist Vancouver City Council member) Rankin's Law (1975) describing his meeting with the Law Society to be admitted to the bar (pgs. 71-72):

“...what followed was like a Star Chamber tribunal. There were no charges, no set procedures, no guidelines. … This was a witch hunt and I knew it, and I had to remember that the strength of the witch hunter's position is the ability to interpret anything that's said in a way that supports their allegations. … This was simply political intimidation....”

• The consequence of the unfairness of the meetings is that members have to resort to what can appear to be factionalism, since using proper channels results only in retaliation or inaction. It's wrong to look at this in a one-sided way without also looking at the track record of unfairness it's a logical response to. The best description of this dynamic I have found is from Kgalema Motlanthe, ex-President of South Africa, in a November 2, 2015 interview:

“Members know whoever you are, wherever you are, you know that should you be made to appear before the disciplinary committees, you will receive fair treatment, fair hearing. That's what makes you have confidence in those procedures. Now if you take away that fairness, what happens is you are essentially saying to these members “should disciplinary proceedings be set in motion against you, you will never receive a fair hearing, and therefore you must resort to other ways of protecting yourself.” And that's how people end up organizing factions and so on.”

Retaliation Against Me

• At the next Ontario Provincial Convention after I had tried to bring attention to the sexual misconduct complaint against Johan, I was excluded from any role in the convention despite being a member of the Provincial Executive Committee. I had chaired difficult convention sessions with skill before, but instead of using my abilities, an inexperienced YCL and Party member who was Drew Garvie's protege was selected to chair a contentious session despite my warnings against this, and his inexperience became obvious. Instead of benefiting the Party by using my abilities the leadership preferred to put their narrow interests ahead of the Party's and promote a protege who was not up to the task.

• I had to make a self-criticism at the Provincial Convention. It had been decided in the Executive that only Ontario Party members would be allowed in the session, but Johan Boyden (from Quebec) was there to get his satisfaction. One delegate correctly asked what the self-criticism was about, but Liz Rowley said he would not be answered as the people involved were not there – but they were there, Johan Boyden was present! Again crucial information was withheld.

• At the in-convention Provincial Committee meeting to decide on the Provincial Executive Liz Rowley and Drew Garvie argued against including me on the new executive, even though the Provincial Convention had decided to support me despite the leadership review as 94% voted to elect me to the new Provincial Committee. PC member Stuart Ryan had said that I have been criticized and that is enough and that should be the end of it. PC member Cathy Holiday presciently pointed out that I can't be so bad if I am leading the Ontario Party's education commission (this will be relevant later).

• My experience as a first time Provincial Executive member was that it was impossible to be effective there. In the contest between myself and Liz Rowley (then Ontario leader) for who can best impersonate a brick wall, Liz Rowley is far superior to me. I was unable even to get typos accepted, let alone political changes to drafts. Even my correcting typos was ignored not only in the executive but even when I raised them again in provincial committee meetings.

• Even on the rare occasion when I got the PEC to vote in favor of adopting my policy proposal, it would mysteriously disappear when it came to print materials. So much for democratic centralism! This wasn't because the leadership was ideologically opposed to my proposals, just that the proposals came from me and not them. This happened for example with adding mental health care to our platform, something people had been asking us about for several elections and we didn't mention anything about it at the time. Eventually it did get added after several rounds of effort. So I had decided not to run for the executive again. However after the retaliation I was going through I changed my mind to assert myself and my leadership.

• I could have won a vote in the Provincial Committee but Drew Garvie made the decisive comment accusing me (falsely) of organizing across the country (which I again denied) and then saying what kind of message would it send if I was re-elected to the executive. Liz Rowley also alluded to someone (unnamed) in Ontario who would be upset if I was re-elected. At the time I assumed this must mean my friend in Kitchener (whose accusations against me I did not know yet were fabricated), and so I withdrew under the argument that if I can save one member for the Party by not running I won't run. This was a manipulation of the Provincial Executive selection by the CEC members and is a violation of Party democracy. And what about people who would be upset when Johan Boyden was re-elected to the CEC? This is a double standard.

• By contrast Liz Rowley supported selecting a Trotskyist to be on the PEC who barely got elected to the Provincial Committee. She ended up withdrawing from the PEC before her term was up anyway.

• Later at the first full Provincial Committee meeting the whole Ontario Education Commission was disbanded or not renewed, which was a way of getting rid of me as the chair of the Ontario Education Commission. It was absurd to get rid of the Education Commission because before its establishment provincial schools had occurred occasionally, only every few years.

• In evaluation surveys provincial school attendees had given me among the highest average ratings, above 90%, but in retaliation I was excluded from presenting at the next provincial school, showing the Party leadership puts its own narrow interests above that of the Party.

• I was offered instead a place on a newly established provincial anti-racism commission, which I rejected as it would be tokenizing me as a BIPOC member and the central anti-racism commission, which I was also on, had never met despite efforts by the majority of the commission to meet, and so served only as a showpiece.

• I subsequently resigned from the Provincial Committee over this, but when Provincial Committee members asked the executive why I resigned they were told a lie: it was because of my call centre job hours. I had worked at the call centre for years, why resign only now?

• I was also not named the chair of an international solidarity commission (a CC Commission) after the next Central Convention, which I had been earlier even before I was a CC member, and this commission was one of only two that were meeting regularly. I was the only Commission chair producing bilingual reports for the CC. I was not even told who the next chair of the Commission was despite repeatedly asking, and only after a BC comrade asked through the provincial leadership in BC were we told that Miguel Figueroa would be the new chair. Subsequently the commission did not meet except for one time in three years, as it had done previously when Miguel was chair. The CEC again put their narrow interests above the Party's interests. I was capable of chairing this international solidarity commission but they did not want me to do that to retaliate against me.

• All this retaliation was without being formally censured. By comparison Paul Bjarnason of BC had been censured and as part of his punishment had been removed from all leadership positions for two years. I was being removed from all leadership positions without even being under censure.

• In the federal election that year (2015) I was a candidate but my campaign was the only one excluded from the Leader's tour, and this was explicitly stated in the report to the CC (“St. Catharines was excluded”). My campaign was not even told in advance, we found out through the published calendar of the Leader's tour. I called the office to ask why we were excluded but instead the conversation was flipped around saying that we (St. Catharines) were only now asking for a visit from the leader, when the visits were decided centrally without input from local campaigns. If the CEC wants to punish me that is one thing, but it hurts the party to punish the whole club/campaign by excluding us from the Leader's visit just to retaliate against me.

• In the 2018 Ontario provincial election it took me 4 days of campaigning to get included by the local Chamber of Commerce in their candidates' debate, but it took me 12 days of campaigning to be included in my own party's social media channel. Four short video clips of Ivan Byard with barely audible sound were included but not my own campaign video, which Drew Garvie gave obviously false excuses for delaying and putting off. It was easier for me to get included by the local capitalists than by the Communists, by my own Party. Once again this is not just something which punishes me individually but hurts the whole campaign and club in St. Catharines, and the Party generally.

• At least two comrades from different parts of the country who don't know each other noticed some of the retaliation and told me they thought the CEC was trying to get me to quit the Party.

Double Standards and Further Cover-ups

• The CEC members had sanctimoniously told the CC that I should accept whatever punishment and criticism is coming to me, but they protected Johan from any punishment or criticism. CEC member Dave McKee only vaguely referred to putting Johan “through the ringer” without actually saying what this was. There was no motion of criticism against Johan, only against me.

• If it sends a bad message to re-elect me to the Provincial Executive, what message did it send to re-elect Johan to the Central Executive?

• At the Central Convention Johan had to make no self-criticism. Instead there was criticism of Darrel Rankin who was one of the CC members who had pointed out the double standard of criticising me but leaving Johan unpunished.

• After the Central Convention a newly elected CC member who was a young woman from Ottawa had resigned from the Party even before her first CC meeting when she found out about Johan's misconduct and also because she believed the Party was ideologically too social-democratic. However her club, Rosa Luxembourg, was told she had resigned only because Johan had edited a Wikipedia article about the CPC-ML, the party which her partner belongs to. The CEC lied to the Ottawa club and covered-up Johan's misconduct to them.

• I had put two and two together earlier on and figured that Johan had been physically violent with [name redacted]. If I could figure this out earlier why didn't the other CC members? When Johan was finally forced to resign because of this, this was covered up from the membership and the letter announcing his resignation said they (Central Committee) “wish him well” (see Appendix 4). This is dangerous, it could be used to say Johan left under good conduct and could put others in harms way. Many members are even today unaware of why Johan had to resign. At least one club was told there was “no evidence” of Johan Boyden's sexual harassment.

• Liz Rowley went on a tour of the country at least in part to explain Johan Boyden's resignation, but once again my club was excluded. From what I have heard she made vague references that “mistakes were made,” but whose and what mistakes? Again the CEC was withholding crucial information from Party members.

Further Incidents of Misconduct By Party Leader With No Real Consequences

• A Central Committee member who was also in the YCL, in a drunken stupor at a YCL event, accidentally stabbed a YCL woman leader and CPC member/leader to within an inch of her life. He was not removed from the Central Committee, only told to not drink at YCL events in terms of punishment as far as I know. The membership was not told of this gross misconduct. Many Central Committee members were under the impression for some reason that the young woman had stabbed herself, she disabused them of this false version at a Central Party school.

• During a BC election a candidate and the provincial party leader of record joked about sexual assault on his Facebook Page. I objected but nothing was done (see Appendix 8). In any capitalist party in this country he would have been immediately removed as a candidate, but apparently only among the Communists is a leader publicly joking about sexual assault during an election unpunished.

Current Cover-up of Central Organizer Misconduct

• A much older party leader sexually harassing or making sexual overtures to a much younger YCL member is simply unacceptable. This person must be removed for the safety of younger and vulnerable members and to prevent damage to recruitment. The fact that Jay Watts III was not removed in the first place is a gross mishandling of the misconduct.

• The Party membership should have been told of the Central Organizer's misconduct and punishment, otherwise any of us could have inadvertently put a younger member in harm's way.

• Being in a drunken stupor (the Rob Ford defense) is not in any way an excuse for misconduct. Regardless of the health aspects of addiction, substance abuse, etc. the perpetrator is still fully responsible for their conduct and must be held accountable.

• Restorative justice, which the Party leadership is using to justify the lenient handling of misconduct by its own, is not always appropriate, especially when a predator is involved. It is not an option if the survivor doesn't agree, even if they change their mind later.

• Likewise, the labour movement's standards are not a justification as the Party leadership has also claimed. The Communist Party should hold its leaders to higher standards than labour and mass movements, not tail behind them.

Conclusions

• The CEC must be held accountable for its actions, and accountability means both fully disclosing the misconduct and also undergoing punishment. Punishment is key because that is what can prevent repeat behavior. Otherwise CEC members might think “so what, nothing will happen to us if we do it again.” The members must be fully informed of the CEC's misconduct to prevent further repeats.

• What I am revealing is only the tip of the iceberg of what I know, and that itself is the tip of a bigger iceberg as there are no doubt a lot more incidents I don't know about. I could expose more about the Central Executive Committee's mishandling of other incidents that lead to organizational breakdowns in the Party if I wanted to embarrass them, but I have only included what I believe is necessary to show the pattern of the institutional burial of allegations and retaliation.

• What I am revealing about the CEC may seem completely at odds with the experience of those who have known the CEC members for 40+ years, but I don't think you have challenged the CEC members the way I and others have, and so a side of them has been revealed that you may not have been aware of all this time.

• The CEC deliberately misleads, lies, and withholds crucial information in a blatant disregard of their responsibilities in order to protect the top leaders of the Party. CC and Party members must not just take the CEC at their word, but must raise critical questions and keep investigating for answers until there is full satisfaction and no further loose ends.

• Regardless of the mistakes by others who have been trying to bring attention to the CEC's misconduct, the original issue is with the CEC's cover-ups of misconduct by its members and Party leaders. This must not be lost in any inquiry. The violations by those who tried the proper channels only came after they were left with no choice but to use other methods.

• The damage by the CEC is enormous because countless Party members, especially women leaders and young leaders (and young women leaders!) have left because of the misconduct of party leaders and subsequent cover-ups and retaliation. Many others have declined to join.

• The CEC is relying on a distortion of democratic centralism: whatever the CEC decides is not automatically binding because of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is a weapon of unity against capitalism, racism, and patriarchy. Instead the CEC is using it as a weapon against the membership which results in the perpetuation of patriarchy and racism. The final goal of the Communist Party must be kept in mind, without which party discipline and democratic centralism is meaningless.

• If it would send a bad message to re-elect me to the Ontario PEC, as CEC members Liz Rowley and Drew Garvie argued, then it would send an even worse message to re-elect the current CEC to the CC or any leadership position, or even to keep them in their current positions. Please consider the message you are sending by not removing the CEC members from leadership.

Appendix 1: 2015 Letter from YCL Woman Leader and CPC Member to CEC About How They Mishandled the YCL Leaders Fraction Meeting, Withheld From the CC

Hello!

As most of you know me as the organizer of the YCL Toronto Club and a member of the CPC (UofT club). I would like to raise some concerns, something that has been biting at me for a while. Because not only with the party but also with the league we have had issues of gossiping and spreading rumours, I have thought it wise to raise my concerns rather than letting it sit and dwell into resentment.

The issue I would like to bring to your attention is the meeting the YCL CC members and the CPC CEC members had via skype regarding the sexual allegations made against comrade Johan. And there are a few criticism I can't help but make. As a member of many organizations and being trained in anti-o I have to say that in my personal opinion the situation was poorly handled.

1) When we had this meeting we were told very little about the discussion/content of the meeting so i was completely un-prepared. Also I am not sure what exactly was the point. Was it a) to let members know that this situation had been 'dealt' with or b) to ask any of the members if they had any concerns or anything to add to this.

2) In both cases, I think one of the major issues I had was that Johan was present at the meeting. The reason that was an issue for me was because I did have some concerns to raise and I would have had, had he not been present. I did not feel comfortable or very secure. And when i was pushed to comment I felt that it was just a way to ensure that everyone had a chance to speak but without really having a conversation about the concerns and how serious sexual harassment is.

3) Since I did not get a chance to raise my concerns regarding Johan, I will now. Maybe it's too late but even then I thought at least for future purposes this would be a good chance to speak up. When we had the YCL convention planning meeting in person this must have been early March? I can't recall. But anyhow this was my first time meeting Johan. At the time I was staying with [name redacted] so that [name redacted] and Johan could stay at my place. We went out to get dinner [name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted], Johan and myself after the first day of the planning meeting. I recall getting a very uncomfortable vibe from him, there were some small (in my opinion at least) inappropiate incidents (such as touching my back in a rubbing manner). For someone I had just met it was very un-comforting. Any how, when we went to dinner he made a remark that he was grateful for letting him and [name redacted] stay at my place I said it was no problem that [name redacted]'s place was fine for me to stay. [name redacted] jokingly said that he'd have to think if I could sleep in the same bed or maybe i'd have to stay on the couch at this point everyone is laughing and he said in a very low voice so that it was only audible to me (*note he was sitting next to me) that "I would definitely sleep with you". From this moment on I kept my distance as much as possible.

That is pretty much the extent of it, sure it's not much. But I think it's important that one of the central organizers of the party be someone that is very respectful of boundaries etc. And that this organizer be approachable and that comrades especially female comrades feel comfortable enough to speak with (which I do not as well as others comrades). I heard other comrades say this as well back in March or whenever the meeting was. I did not engage or even inquire to the extent of the issue and I think personally because of the way the situation was handled they were not encouraged to speak up. It also felt to me that comrades wanted to diffuse the situation as quickly as possible (I can be mistaken but that is what it felt like from the outside) I think it's important to remember that women (and I speak mostly for myself) but especially when they have a history of sexual assault it is very hard to speak up about this and when the space is not created for people to come forward it is even harder.

Anyhow, my intent of this letter is of course not malicious nor to attack a fellow comrade. It is simply because I have faith in my party and would only like to see the best of it! I hope that this letter was articulate if you have any questions I would be happy to answer/clarify.

Comradely,

[name redacted]

Appendix 2: Transcript of 2014 Facebook Messenger Chat with T.J. Petrowski Distorted and Manipulated by the CEC to Accuse Me of Persisting in 2015 in Defying the CEC

12/14/2014 9:38PM

Saleh

Hi comrade - I hope your [personal information redacted] is going A-1. I would like to ask you something over the phone or over skype in complete confidence, as a Central Committee member I am concerned about something that's happened in the party that I believe you know a part of that could help me understand the situation. I hope you are OK with me not exlaining more until we speak. Is there a time and/or # that would be OK for me to phone you? If not I can also do skype, my skype name is salehwaz. Saleh

12/15/2014 7:24PM

Hi Saleh, We can Skype. I don't like telephones. Now I don't mean to be rude or to make assumptions about what you want to ask me, however [personal information redacted], I don't really want to be dragged into any infighting between comrades. [personal information redacted], so I'd like to relax and be left out of any infighting in the Party. But if it isn't about that my Skype username is [contact information redacted] T.J.

Added you to Skype

I'm sorry Saleh I didn't mean to be rude. [personal information redacted]. I'm available to Skype right now if you would like

Saleh

nothing rude about it comrade u r 100% right and straight forward. while I would never want to drag you into infighting, you are right to be apprehensive, as my concerns have to do with the subject of the meeting the CPC CEC held with CPC members of the YCL CC. I am concerned about how this has been handled in the party and I wanted to get some facts about the meeting. The topic is an unpleasant one, and I fully understand that this could be a source of stress which should be avoided. [personal information redacted].

[Note T.J. Petrowski sent this transcript to the CEC only after I had sent him unsolicited criticism on January 24, 2015, of an article he wrote on Afghanistan, in clear retaliation rather than because he thought there was something wrong with my communication at the time. - Saleh Waziruddin]

Appendix 3: Clip From 2008 Front Page Story of St. Catharines Standard on CEC Member Making Racist Joke at Candidates' Debate, Reported by Me to Then Ontario Leader Liz Rowley With No Known Consequences for the CEC Member

Text from the St. Catharines Standard front page story quoting CEC member and Communist Party candidate Sam Hammond's racist joke at the Chamber of Commerce debate:

"The candidates made few significant gaffes. However, Communist Party candidate Sam Hammond shocked the audience with a joke when asked about giving China a favoured nation status to improve tourism in Canada. 

“My thought was that we had better not allow too many of them to visit here at once, or we won’t be able to find each other,” he said."

Appendix 4: Excerpt From 2017 CC Letter Wishing Johan Boyden Well After He Was Forced to Resign For Domestic Violence

Appendix 5: Excerpts From Ombudspersons Report Regarding Sexual Harassment Complaints Against YCL General-Secretary Johan Boyden at a BC Summer School Camp (Separate From the Case I Tried to Take to the CC). Withheld From CPC CC.

Introduction:

Seven complaints of camp participants not following the “Statement of Unity and Respect” came to the attention of the camp ombudspersons during the BC Provincial Summer camp

The ombudspersons investigated all seven complaints. Five complaints were from participants who reported they witnessed or were the target of, alleged sexual harassment at the summer camp.

[snip to end of Recommendations section]

Johan Boyden

11. A committee should be established by the central committee to investigate Johan’s behavior in regards to violating the Statement of Unity and Respect and complaints alleged sexual harassment by several camp participants.

It is not the role of the camp ombudspersons to recommend discipline, or to weigh in on any question other than violations of the Statement of Unity and Respect.

                       12. Johan Boyden is not permitted to attend future BC Summer camps

Appendix 6: Excerpts From 2011 Letter From Toronto YCL to YCL Ontario Provincial Executive Regarding Johan Boyden's Sexual Harassment of a Toronto YCL Member and Personal Abuse of Myself (see Appendix 7 for Subsequent Development). Withheld From the CPC CC.

22nd July 2011

Toronto

For the attention of the YCL Ontario Provincial Executive 

Comrades,

Some important issues have been raised since our provincial school earlier this month. The members of Toronto YCL have been discussing these issues and collectively we have decided to submit this report to the provincial executive for consideration. What follows does not reflect the view of a single individual; it has been collectively reviewed and agreed upon by all the members of the Toronto club and reflects the views of individuals and their personal experiences as well as the wider group's overall position.

Cuba Session  

Those of us that were present for the school’s Cuba session were totally baffled by the intervention of our general secretary after Saleh had finished his presentation. The tone and content of this intervention, far from being a question or criticism of a constructive kind, struck us an attempt to a) completely slam the entire notion of having a presentation on the topic of Cuba's reforms; b) shut down discussion before it had even started; and c) insult and degrade Saleh personally. We know that members from Toronto were not the only ones who felt this way in the aftermath of the presentation.

The intervention was aggressive, dismissive and obviously personal. As soon as Saleh had finished speaking, Johan stepped in as the first contribution, which put a chill on the whole Q + A session. This is evidenced by the fact that no-one, apart from P[name redacted] and Drew (i.e. two long standing members), felt comfortable enough to make any contributions or ask any questions after Johan had spoken. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this ruined the Q + A, and will have inevitably alienated some of our members and especially newcomers. This is not what we want to see at our schools. It cannot happen again.

[snip]

Saturday Social

Far more serious than either of the previous issues, the incident that took place at the Saturday social gives all of us cause for serious concern. For one of our members to be harassed while using the bathroom is a bizarre and totally unacceptable event. For this harassment to have been perpetrated by the leader of our organization is even more extraordinary. We know that the person in question repeatedly asked Johan to leave the bathroom whilst it was occupied, and that these requests were ignored, until ultimately Johan was removed only after repeated insistence. It has also come into the knowledge of Toronto YCL that our general secretary is already banned from BC summer schools for inappropriate behaviour, and now it seems this pattern is being replicated in Ontario. This is intolerable.

As it happens, the person who was subject to this behaviour is male. We can guess that had the individual been female we would currently be in the middle of a firestorm - and rightly so. But it is the opinion of this club that the gender of the person in question should make no difference whatsoever and that it is no less serious an incident regardless of the sex or gender of any of the persons involved.

Club Position 

Regrettably, but perhaps not surprisingly, I have to report that the opinion of the Toronto YCL is as follows: our general secretary is no longer welcome, as far as this club is concerned, at either Ontario YCL schools or social events.

We cannot speak or make decisions for the province, but we can express our collective feelings on matters that concern us. This is what we are seeking to do now. We leave this in the hands of the provincial executive.

 

Regards,

 P[name redacted]

On behalf of YCL Toronto

Appendix 7: Non-Apology Email Brokered By Drew Garvie From Johan Boyden to YCL Toronto Victim/Survivor to Satisfy YCL Toronto Club Which Threatened to Resign En-Masse If Not Addressed

From: Johan Boyden <[email redacted]>
Date: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Apology
To: [name redacted] <[email redacted]>
Cc: Drew Garvie <[email redacted]>

Dear [name redacted],

The Ontario YCL Executive Committee raised something with me that happened at the Ontario YCL school social.  Sorry for bursting in on you while you were in the toilet at [name redacted]'s house and not leaving right away, when you asked me. I needed to pee bad as I had been drinking, and thought I was joking around but it was just silly, and I regret if I crossed your boundaries or was disrespectful.

I'm in town next week with [name redacted] and [name redacted], and if you would like to have a drink or something hit me back, I am more than willing to talk, otherwise I trust this closes the matter.

Comradely,oun

Johan

[phone number redacted]

[Note this is not actually an apology for sexual harassment as it is dismissing it as joking around or being silly. This is similar to the CEC's conclusion Johan's harassment of the young woman YCL leader from BC was only “thoughtless” and “juvenile”, whereas it is a sex crime. Note also the survivor's options are to get together for a drink with his harasser or else the matter is considered closed, which should not be up to Johan but up to the survivor of his harassment. At my first meeting with the CEC about allegations of sexual harassment Miguel Figueroa defended this email as a true apology, which is the point where I knew no amount of evidence would be accepted by the CEC as they were just going to deny, deny, deny, which they believed they could do with impunity. - Saleh Waziruddin]

Appendix 8: Facebook Page Joke About Sexual Assault During Provincial Election by BC Provincial Leader And Candidate, No Consequences