Let's recap.

• NDP MP Irene Mathyssen looked over the shoulder of Conservative MP James Moore and thought she saw an image of a woman in lingerie.
• She discussed it with her caucus, and the decision was made that the appropriate response was to accuse Moore of cruising online porn sites while he sat in parliament.
• The next day, on the floor in the House of Commons, Mathyssen levelled her accusations.
• Outside of the House, speaking to reporters, she added details to her comments.
• Both inside and outside, she drew a connection between James Moore and the murder of the 14 Montreal engineering students by Gamil Rodrigue Gharbi, aka Marc Lepine, 17 years ago.
• James Moore vehemently denied the accusation, and a Liberal MP backed him up (as told by Mike Duffy), later explaining that he had been showing pictures of his dog at the beach, and his girlfriend was in the frame clad in a bikini.
• Mathyssen recants the next day and offers an apology.

Case closed...not.

Mathyssen is recanting her recantation. Apologizing for her apology, as it were. You see, what she did wrong was not to contact Moore first.

Why?

I suppose because it would have been the right thing to do, but really, the only reason that it was wrong was because it blew up in Mathyssen's face. If Moore was in trouble, we wouldn't be hearing a word from Mathyssen about how she ought to have checked with Moore first.

In other words, an apology for flinging wild accusations is required only when those accusations bounce back at the accuser. Otherwise, fling away.

But this one did bounce back on her, and for that, she's sorry.

Nevertheless, Irene Mathyssen feels she deserves an apology from James Moore:

When the London-Fanshawe New Democrat rises in the House on Monday to apologize to James Moore, she says it will be for failing to speak to him first before raising it with the Speaker.

Her apology isn't because of Moore's explanation to her the image of a woman Mathyssen described as "scantily clad" was Moore's girlfriend.

"I recognize I should have spoken to Mr. Moore first," she said of the 30-year-old MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam in B.C.

In London yesterday, Mathyssen clarified her planned apology before attending local anniversary memorials for the 14 women slain in the 1989 Montreal massacre.

Mathyssen said she asked Moore to apologize for the "scantily dressed" image of a brown-haired woman, but he has refused.

Just so we understand. James Moore has photos of friends and family on his computer. Some of those photos include people in swimwear. He was showing those photos to someone but not to Mathyssen. Uninvited, Mathyssen looked over Moore's shoulder from many feet away. Mathyssen spots a woman's form, and more importantly, Moore looking at that image. She publicly accuses Moore of looking at porn.

Conclusion: It was Moore's fault for having a picture of his girlfriend who wears swimwear at the beach, and then actually looking at it while Mathyssen was somewhere nearby.

If I was James Moore, I would not accept that as an apology, and seriously consider some sort of legal action. But realistically, the best thing might be to accept Mathyssen's phony apology, then ask to a reassigned to another seat in the House, out of Mathyssen's line of sight.

But as for Mathyssen -- she's quite the character. If Moore's girlfriend had wearning a nice business suit while frolicking at the beach, would we be talking about this today?

Probably not.

How about slacks and a sweater?

Not sure.

Shorts and a t-shirt?

That's getting a bit too risque. Mathyssen might consider that too "scant" for her sensibilities.

But I trust Irene Mathyssen to know about these things. She is the NDP critic on the Status of Women. Presumably she knows what is disrespectful. No doubt she believes that a woman can wear whatever she wants. What she doesn't want is men looking at them.

The attention of men is a form of victimization. And Mathyssen feels victimized that she was the centre of attention. No wait, Moore wasn't looking at Mathyssen. Mathyssen feels vicitmized that she wasn't the centre of attention. No wait, that's not right either. Mathyssen feels victimized that Moore was looking at another woman. Uh....

OK, this is getting confusing. Moore could be forgiven for being uncertain just how Mathyssen was the victim, and how he needs to apologize to her.

I guess that's why we need professionals like Mathyssen to make it clear. Well, not exactly clear. Mathyssen's job is to issue demands for apologies. Our job is to trust Mathyssen to know that the apology is justified and required.

Maybe Muslims have the solution. A woman can wear anything she wants under a burqa. Had James Moore's girlfriend been dressed that way, Mathyssen wouldn't have to demand an apology from Moore for forcing Mathyssen to crane her neck to catch sight of Moore looking at his "scantily clad" girlfriend (if that's what the apology is for -- I'm still unsure).

Or more generally, the problem is that maybe Mathyssen holds that all women are victimized by all men whenever any man is looking at a particular woman. Moore, being a man, must apologize for that.

I'm not sure that's right either, but it certainly covers this situation.

His girlfriend is not a porn model.

He was not looking at pornography (featuring his girlfriend or anyone else).

But...he is a man, and there are men who look at pornography featuring women.

I guess for Mathyssen, that's guilt enough.

Maybe any MP with a Y-chromosome assigned a seat in the immediate vicinity of Irene Mathyssen's seat in the House of Commons ought to ask to be reassigned. Just in case some man somewhere offends her some day, and she decides she is owed another apology.

Check out other entries from the Irene Mathyssen category
Results will open in a new window.