CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

terrytowel wrote:

if any of the women were fearful of coming forward due to backlash, they could obtain a ban on their identity and it would be granted.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

A publication ban can't even begin to address the myriad ways this would likely affect their lives.

terrytowel wrote:

The women were asked why they didn't go to the cops, and they all said they feared backlash from the public. A publication ban would solve that issue.

You're not getting it.  You don't have to keep repeating your point, it was read the first time.

It might be good for you to brush up on the rules in the FF.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

terrytowel wrote:
As Christie Blatchford pointed out this morning...

Oh god oh god let that be the last time that woman's name is mentioned in this thread. Thank you. The end.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

if any of the women were fearful of coming forward due to backlash, they could obtain a ban on their identity and it would be granted.

A publication ban can't even begin to address the myriad ways this would likely affect their lives.

The women were asked why they didn't go to the cops, and they all said they feared backlash from the public. A publication ban would solve that issue.

You can't only think about yourself in this case. What about the other women who might come after you.

As Ghandi says "You must first become, what you seek to change"

These women cannot just sit by the sidelines and become this guy's victim.

He did this. And now he is walking around not being held accountable.

http://cuntinglinguist.com/2014/10/jian-versus-the-cbc.html

Let’s imagine this. You’re some young girl, about 25, with dreams of making it in journalism or music. You somehow run into Ghomeshi at an event. He wows you with his pretty smile. Next day, he finds you on Facebook and says how he found something you wrote, or heard a song you did, and would love to talk to you about it.

Somehow, you’re flustered and proud, and the exchange gets flirty as it progresses, you say a few things that position you as a fan of sexual escapades, favourable towards BDSM, and yes you’d love to have a crantini at 9.

But then everything goes sideways. Choking, beating, whatever it is. That happens.

In the morning, you wake abused. But you’re still a 25-year-old kid who hasn’t even gotten her career started yet. The guy you were with is a millionaire radio guy who’s the face of a national broadcasting corporation.

First you need to contend with a well-sculpted public persona. Then you need to lose credibility in the press as some nobody-nothing who’s got “everything to gain” (except a career, respect, trust, or friends) from making accusations. Then you need to deal with the cops investigating you, and finally, your mom, dad, and whole family being embarrassed that you’re not only sexually promiscuous, but you’ve explored BDSM and were apparently willing to do it with a guy you only met once......

But, hey, yeah, you, you’re tough enough to do all that. You’re big enough to take on the machine. You’d have no excuses. You’d “trust” that the authorities and the media were going to treat you fairly. YOU WOULD DO THIS.

Is that about right? You’re that big on making a stand that you could handle this — even if you were some naive fresh-outta-school girl dreaming of a new career?

When’s the last time you busted someone at work for stealing supplies? When’s the last time you called someone out for a racist comment? When’s the last time you put your reputation on the line to fight someone in a position of authority? When’s the last time you stood up to anyone about ANYTHING — not to mention in front of police, the media, and an entire country?

Oh, never? Then shut the fuck up about why these girls aren’t coming forward. They’ve more to lose than you ever will.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

That has already been posted and indeed that very passage quoted already, Pondering. A number of articles have been posted repeatedly, sometimes more than once, actually. I know it's a hot topic and things are moving quickly, but could we please have a gander at the thread before posting long-ish posts like this? Thanks!

ETA. Oh jeez. terrytowel, you are not getting it. Please drop that offiensive line of argument now or you'll be asked to stop posting in this thread thanks.

Unionist

bagkitty wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The woman who got the ball rolling

I Accidentally Went On A Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn't Gay

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

Wondering if I am the only one who is offended by the condesending heterosexist privilege demonstrated throughout that particular piece...

You were definitely not the only one. I had trouble reading past the title of the article.

 

6079_Smith_W

Debater wrote:

Someone posted the following comment on another forum I visit - I thought it was a good point, so I'll repost it here:

I don't care what fucking "context" it's in, if you need to slap, choke, beat, fake rape women to get off you've got fucking problems and should probably not be in a position in the public eye where you can easily be exposed.

Hm... and do the people who enjoy having those things done to them have fucking problems too?

There have been a few requests already to stop confusing consensual acts with assault. It's not relevant, and it is not helpful, and it is not true.

It is a slur against people who have nothing to do with this issue, and who are generally far more careful about consent and safety than most people.

 

 

 

DaveW

alan smithee wrote:

I can't believe we are debating someone's sex life.

Unless it is proven that he engaged in unconsensual conduct,it's really nobody's business.

But his lawsuit won't go anywhere. I don't see it happening.

so:

1. I can't believe we are debating someone's sex life.

2. Unless it is proven that he engaged in unconsensual conduct...

 Question: how do you somehow get from 2 back to 1 ? You have to start somewhere.

 

 

terrytowel

Catchfire wrote:

TA. Oh jeez. terrytowel, you are not getting it. Please drop that offiensive line of argument now or you'll be asked to stop posting in this thread thanks.

Then explain it to me.

Unionist

Here are my problems:

1. Women abused in this fashion can never be blamed for not wanting to come forward and expose themselves to further abuse, disbelief, reliving the experience, ruined reputation...

2. The fact that they don't provide their names - or that they don't come forward at all - in no way constitutes "evidence" that "it never happened".

3. It is impossible, as far as I know (and IANAL) to pursue criminal charges without a victim making a police report, at a minimum - unless, I guess, there were some kind of third-party witness or evidence so compelling that the Crown thinks it can proceed without victim testimony.

4. I don't know what the specific grounds of dismissal are. It's conceivable they can fire him with just cause even without proving (in a civil burden sense) that he assaulted women without consent. It may be that the dismissal is just about the allegations of workplace harassment, which be much easier to establish.

So, my conclusion so far (and everyone knows this anyway): #3 above means that the system is broken. Anyone who's accused has the right not only to know his accusers (as pointed out above, there's no doubt he knows who they are), but to face them. To question them. To test their stories, live and in colour. But how does that happen while protecting the interests of the very women victimized in the first place?

I don't know the answer to this conundrum. What I do believe is that those who declare Ghomeshi innocent or guilty, based on hearsay (on all sides), are doing a disservice to any kind of due process, which criminal or employment-related.

And yet, the "system" favours the guilty - just as surely as an accused organized crime member who finds that all the witnesses who can lock them up for life have suddenly and mysteriously gone silent.

So... what do we do?

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Debater wrote:

Someone posted the following comment on another forum I visit - I thought it was a good point, so I'll repost it here:

I don't care what fucking "context" it's in, if you need to slap, choke, beat, fake rape women to get off you've got fucking problems and should probably not be in a position in the public eye where you can easily be exposed.

[Thread Drift]

I just need to jump in to reiterate a few things.

Anyone who hasn't read the "poor persecuted pervert" article please read it. Then read it 5 more times. It's excellent. Here it is so you don't have to scroll back.

And here's some very basic information about consensual sexual power play.

1. The sub has all the power. The sub can, and will, stop everything when and if the sub wants to.

2. There are people who do get off on being dominant, and people who do get off on being submissive. The good and respectful ones do this under very tightly controlled circumstances, that the author writes a bit about at the link.

3. The story of Jian Ghomeshi is NOT about kink practices or consent. The story is about yet-to-be-proven-in-a-court-of-law criminal behaviour he has done to multiple women over a period of time. Rape culture and misogyny have allowed this. Not kink. 

4. Lovely, sweet, gentle, vanilla people who are popular at work and loved by friends, have violently sexually assaulted people, and been accused and convicted of violent sexual assault. More have never been reported, caught or charged and continue to do it to this day.

As a feminist, this is what I am outraged by.  Which is back on topic.

[/Thread Drift]

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Catchfire wrote:
That has already been posted and indeed that very passage quoted already, Pondering. A number of articles have been posted repeatedly, sometimes more than once, actually. I know it's a hot topic and things are moving quickly, but could we please have a gander at the thread before posting long-ish posts like this? Thanks!

DaveW, you just posted the same passage for the third time on this page alone. Let's keep the spam down, please.

terrytowel, it's not my job to educate you. You can start, however, by reading this very thread.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The woman who got the ball rolling

I Accidentally Went On A Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn't Gay

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

Wondering if I am the only one who is offended by the condesending heterosexist privilege demonstrated throughout that particular piece...

You were definitely not the only one. I had trouble reading past the title of the article.

 

Ditto.  Not that it excuses what happened to her.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hi Terry! Read this cartoon. Then read it 5 more times.

DaveW

don't worry, terrytowel, Catchfire's criticism of my posts is factually wrong; so be happy with "vague at best" Laughing

DaveW

thanks for that, Pondering. That post and Maysie's cartoon above capture all the ways going public can go terribly wrong for someone.

Why would they rush to do that ??

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

1. Women abused in this fashion can never be blamed for not wanting to come forward and expose themselves to further abuse, disbelief, reliving the experience, ruined reputation...

jas

Unionist wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Wondering if I am the only one who is offended by the condesending heterosexist privilege demonstrated throughout that particular piece...

You were definitely not the only one. I had trouble reading past the title of the article.

I confess I don't get it. But then a number of things seem to be flying over my head here. Her piece sounded sincere to me and actually painted a picture that helped me better visualize what story the allegations tell.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

DaveW wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I can't believe we are debating someone's sex life.

Unless it is proven that he engaged in unconsensual conduct,it's really nobody's business.

But his lawsuit won't go anywhere. I don't see it happening.

so:

1. I can't believe we are debating someone's sex life.

2. Unless it is proven that he engaged in unconsensual conduct...

 Question: how do you somehow get from 2 back to 1 ? You have to start somewhere.

 

 

If Ghomeshi is guilty of sexual harrassment,then ending his employment is not an overblown reaction. He committed a crime.

If Ghomeshi is guilty of being in a consensual BDSM relationship,ending his employment is a crime.

You'd be surprised how many people,including people in high profile positions,practice rough sex and/.or BDSM.

Sexual practices or lifestyles are between the 1,2,3,4 or more people involved and nobody else's business.

If he groped someone (sexual harrassment/assault) that's a whole different story.

Unionist

Well... committing a crime (away from the workplace or co-workers) is not enough to end someone's employment - as I've mentioned before. The employer has to prove that the nature of the offence is such that it would create undue harm to keep the person employed. And that depends on the nature of the business, the kind of position held by the perp, etc. It is certainly not automatic. In fact, in Québec, it could be positively illegal:

Quote:
If your criminal record has been suspended, or you have been found guilty of an offence that is not connected to the job, nobody can fire you, refuse to hire you or put you at a disadvantage because of your criminal record.

So aside from the allegation (which I haven't seen details of) that there was harassment in the workplace, the CBC has an uphill battle. If it were an invisible editor or camera-operator, they'd have a very hard time firing the person, even if they were found criminally liable. A high-profile position like Ghomeshi's affords them more arguments. That's even if he's charged and convicted criminally - which at this point looks unlikely to happen.

By the same token, the CBC doesn't need a guilty verdict in court to fire him either. If they can show that the notoriety surrounding the matter has made it impossible to continue to employ him in that position - even if he is totally innocent - they might have options of re-assigning or firing him.

I'm curious, very curious, to know what facts they will rely on. They haven't said, and it's just speculation at this point.

Sean in Ottawa

 

Unionist wrote:

1. Women abused in this fashion can never be blamed for not wanting to come forward and expose themselves to further abuse, disbelief, reliving the experience, ruined reputation...

Absolutely the starting point for this.

Not only should they not be blamed -- it is not their responsibility. It is their right to decide how they respond and it is not someone else's right to review that decision and say they are making a mistake.

This story sadly, is validating conclusions that it is better not to come forward. Those on the sidelines who think victims should come forward must make sure they are not part of what is making them not want to. The iea of an attachment of a responsibility of one victim to protect future victims is twisted no matter how potentially helpful their coming forward may be.

You want more women to come forward? Listen to them, believe them. Respect that the limits of their involvement in fighting back, publicizing and seeking justice are personal and not at all related to the veracity of their claims.

It is not unreasonable for a victim to make a decision based on benefit vs cost to them and conclude that the chances of a conviction are low, the abuse leveled at those who complain is high and then choose some other response.

If you don't get this then you don't get the reality of violence against women.

***

I read Carla's post about "keith"

I did react to a number of things I felt were offensive, over the top. I understand why that post was not particularly well recieved. But here is the thing. Women who put things badly, say things that can be offensive, write poorly, make a poor case for themselves can be victims. When it comes to the allegations they make judgements should not be made against them based on how sympathetically they write about it. Some people are better than others at self-advocating. It is not good enough to just choose to believe the best looking cases. Nobody deserves what she described.

***

As I said somewhere in this thread you BEGIN when you hear an allegation with two presumptions:

One: that the complainant is telling the truth

Two: the the accused is innocent until proven guitly.

Yes, you can work from both presumptions at the same time. And sometimes they will be reconciled into a single perspective with further information and sometimes you never get access to that infomration and you have to retain completely both presumptions.

In this case, at this time, any ability to presume innocence on Gomeshi's case is near impossible for me. But the first presumption that the women were telling the truth did not require the second to be dismantled.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Well... committing a crime (away from the workplace or co-workers) is not enough to end someone's employment - as I've mentioned before. The employer has to prove that the nature of the offence is such that it would create undue harm to keep the person employed. And that depends on the nature of the business, the kind of position held by the perp, etc. It is certainly not automatic. In fact, in Québec, it could be positively illegal:

Quote:
If your criminal record has been suspended, or you have been found guilty of an offence that is not connected to the job, nobody can fire you, refuse to hire you or put you at a disadvantage because of your criminal record.

So aside from the allegation (which I haven't seen details of) that there was harassment in the workplace, the CBC has an uphill battle. If it were an invisible editor or camera-operator, they'd have a very hard time firing the person, even if they were found criminally liable. A high-profile position like Ghomeshi's affords them more arguments. That's even if he's charged and convicted criminally - which at this point looks unlikely to happen.

By the same token, the CBC doesn't need a guilty verdict in court to fire him either. If they can show that the notoriety surrounding the matter has made it impossible to continue to employ him in that position - even if he is totally innocent - they might have options of re-assigning or firing him.

I'm curious, very curious, to know what facts they will rely on. They haven't said, and it's just speculation at this point.

All true -- and worth mentionning the different standards the cases would be required to meet. The criminal case would be beyond reasonable doubt, a very high standard. However, the civil dispute would be settled by a proponderence of evidence unless the parties agree that they do not want the continued publicity or risk to continue in court. Then we may never see a judgement on the facts of the case.

From what is already publicly known it is hard to see an upside in either side fighting this out in open court.

As I said before there is a real possibiity that both could be right on different facts-- It is possible, for example, that the CBC could lose on bad faith even if the court upholds grounds for the firing. The result could be a decision that both sides could fear.

onlinediscountanvils

terrytowel wrote:

But it doesn't negate my point in that if you don't take action against those responsible, you let this guy continue to victimize you.

And that is not okay.

That's not for you to decide.

Who says they haven't taken action? Taking action can happen in a variety of ways [see [url=http://nevillepark.ca/2014/10/20/womens-measures/]Women's Measures[/url]]. According to The Star, one of the woman went to her union because of Ghomeshi's behaviour. And judging by the sheer number of Toronto women for whom this news came as no surprise at all, it sounds like they have been taking action to protect each other for quite some time.

And ultimately, it's not their responsibility to see that Ghomeshi doesn't hurt any more women. That's on Ghomeshi.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for removing that lengthy quote DaveW.

Maysie Maysie's picture

bagkitty I saw the idiotic homophobia in the xojane piece when I read it a few months ago. While the details of her date's highly problematic behaviour was important for  her to share and I'm glad we know it, the childish homophobia was stupid, offensive and shallow.

Hey, Heather Mallick just wrote a piece. I appreciate the information but loathe the fucked-up racism.

Nobody's perfect but me, dontcha know. Kiss 

P.S. Years ago I became a first-date expert. I've found that anyone who is a "boundary pusher" from the first date, will only get worse. That's the nicest thing I can say about the xojane piece, minus what I know today. 

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

If Ghomeshi is guilty of being in a consensual BDSM relationship,ending his employment is a crime.

You'd be surprised how many people,including people in high profile positions,practice rough sex and/.or BDSM.

http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/poor-persecuted-pervert/

In this case, Ghomeshi made a pre-emptive strike, setting the terms of the debate: don’t demonize me for being kinky, even if you don’t like my proclivities. But so far, this doesn’t seem to be a scandal about kink at all. From Ciccone to the anonymous accusers, the women who are (or seem to be) complaining about him aren’t complaining about his kinks or calling him out for being a disgusting pervert. They’re complaining about far more mundane and familiar things: the ex-co-worker is noting unwanted ass-groping in the workplace. Ciccone mentions creepy non-consensual touching at a concert date that wasn’t supposed to even be a date, followed by stalker-y behaviour. And the anonymous women who wanted to get involved with him at first aren’t complaining about how gross his supposed perversions are. They’re making allegations of regular old non-consensual violence. And part of the reason they are saying they won’t come forward in person is because they’re afraid their pre-date conversations about kink will be used as evidence that they consented to what he did. In other words, these women may have said “sure, some kink sounds like fun” and are concerned that their own stated interest will be held up as evidence of consent to violence. If I am reading this right, these women were either themselves interested in kink to some extent, or at least weren’t put off by Ghomeshi’s interest, since they each still went on a date with him. This is a very different story than “Ew gross he wanted to use handcuffs what a total sicko!”.........

Face-punching and choking to the point of unconsciousness are absolutely some people’s kinks. But even among seasoned BDSM players, these acts are widely understood to be things you must do only with the most carefully negotiated consent, with a goodly amount of education and practice, and with the knowledge that they are highly risky. Beginner BDSM this is not. As a BDSM educator, I have been teaching how to do safe body punching for over a decade, and I don’t go near the face except symbolically (fake or very light impact for psychological effect). It’s just too easy to do major damage. I’m sure someone out there could teach you how to do it safely, but it won’t be me. As for choking, it’s a topic of massive debate among pervs, with some veteran kinksters even insisting that there is simply no safe way to do it and therefore shouldn’t be done at all. I’m not saying everyone agrees on the absolute-no approach. But I am saying that Ghomeshi’s argument that what he does is a “mild version of Fifty Shades of Grey” does not match up with his apparent practice of engaging in very high-risk activities with women he’s just beginning to date. If what they’re saying is true, that discrepancy alone is enough to make me highly suspicious of his “I’m a poor innocent kinkster” argument...........

Ghomeshi could be totally innocent. Four women could be making shit up, anonymously, because… well, I don’t know, but that itself might be an interesting question. For fun? What exactly would the motivation be for this supposed smear campaign, that four women would take part in it despite having evidence that when a previous woman made much milder accusations that don’t even explicitly name Ghomeshi, she was completely trashed on the Internet? Hmmm. This, too, doesn’t add up. Only the most hell-bent revenge-thirsty ex would take this on, knowing the likely consequences. Four women? Really?

One man's word does not carry equal weight to four women's words. Would I convict him in a court of law over what we know so far, no, of course not. But I am not in a courtroom. I don't need absolute proof to have a good idea of who is telling the truth about what happened.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Thanks Maysie... I ran into the link to Carla's piece very shortly after it was posted (if I remember correctly it was the third substantial link in this thread, first was a link to the CBC news story that Ghomeshi was being fired, then a link to his lengthy blog entry, then Carla's channeling of her inner Carrie Bradshaw). My immediate response would require me to use language that could be characterized as "ironically homophobic" and/or "ironically sexist" - so lets just leave it as I was terribly underwhelmed, and consequently not convinced that she was somehow prescient or that linking to that blog entry made any substantial contribution to understanding what was and is unfolding.

eastnoireast

Maysie wrote:

Hey, Heather Mallick just wrote a piece. I appreciate the information but loathe the fucked-up racism.

 

what fucked up racism?  i read it twice and couldn't find any.

-

 

eastnoireast

i'd also like to say that it astounds me that anyone here would argue that it is the victims responsibility to carry it forward.  we all have some responsibility to everypone else, but that's for the victim to say (if they want to) - " i felt i had a responsibility to go public so others would not be hurt", but for those of us who are not the victim, our role is understanting, support, and exercising our responsibility to ensure others are not hurt. 

after all, we are the "not victimised" (by this case).  have you helped contribute to their legal fund? thrown them a few bucks to offset the huge financial cost this would be to them personally?   no?  anything else? i thought this was important to you.  i guess only if the victim does the work, eh.

-

 

terrytowel

eastnoireast wrote:

i'd also like to say that it astounds me that anyone here would argue that it is the victims responsibility to carry it forward.  we all have some responsibility to everypone else, but that's for the victim to say (if they want to) - " i felt i had a responsibility to go public so others would not be hurt", but for those of us who are not the victim, our role is understanting, support, and exercising our responsibility to ensure others are not hurt. 

after all, we are the "not victimised" (by this case).  have you helped contribute to their legal fund? thrown them a few bucks to offset the huge financial cost this would be to them personally?   no?  anything else? i thought this was important to you.  i guess only if the victim does the work, eh.

I completely agree 100%

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi terrytowel, this is your last warning. I don't want to hear any more hints that these women should have gone to the police, to the courts, to some other patriarchal authority to have their abuse authorized and confirmed. That discussion doesn't happen in the feminism forum -- and repeatedly bringin the conversation back to this topic-- like your last post does -- is a violation of babble policy. You've been warned, so stop.

terrytowel

N/A

terrytowel

N/A

terrytowel

N/A

terrytowel

As Ghandi says "You must first become, what you seek to change"

terrytowel

N/A

DaveW

eastnoireast wrote:

Maysie wrote:

Hey, Heather Mallick just wrote a piece. I appreciate the information but loathe the fucked-up racism.

what fucked up racism?  i read it twice and couldn't find any.

You must be new here ... every Maysie post, even on the weather, throws around the R-word. Her trademark.

People end up ignoring it. Like a nervous tic.

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

It only starts in the first sentence...

And DaveW, that is completely uncalled for.

 

Sineed

Quote:
bagkitty I saw the idiotic homophobia in the xojane piece when I read it a few months ago. While the details of her date's highly problematic behaviour was important for  her to share and I'm glad we know it, the childish homophobia was stupid, offensive and shallow.

I *hated* the xojane piece. It wasn't just homophobic but generally stupid and shallow.

Pondering

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-memo-ghomeshi-dismissal...

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has sent a memo to employees saying the public broadcaster has learned of a “specific claim of impropriety” toward one its employees.

The note, sent to CBC staff by e-mail on Tuesday afternoon, makes reference to a “continuing investigation” and says it will take into account “any new information that becomes available to us, either directly or indirectly.” It says the CBC learned of the claim via a recent Toronto Star story.

This is about workplace sexual harrassment. CBC has a legal duty to protect its employees.

onlinediscountanvils

DaveW wrote:

nonsensical personal attack

 

If you're so offended by someone speaking-out against racism, perhaps you don't belong on a forum that definies itself as anti-racist.

eastnoireast

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It only starts in the first sentence...

And DaveW, that is completely uncalled for.

 

either you are on crack or i am, because this is the first sentance... does it have to be read upside-down in a mirror or something?

 

The Toronto Star’s extraordinary report on fired CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi’s alleged attacks on several women is a landmark in the history of the reporting of sexual violence. It has revealed the huge spiked metal barriers women still face — even now in times we call modern — when they speak out about the hideous things that have been done to them.

-

 

6079_Smith_W

The first sentence:

(perhaps I should have specified the subhead)

Quote:

When it comes to redress for suffering a sexual attack, Canadian women might as well be in Saudi Arabia. We whisper among friends and quietly trade stories, or we shut up for our entire careers.

Maybe the obligatory reference to "the worst culture in the world" was just reflexive, and had nothing to do with the fact the person in question comes from a family from nearby Iran. But the association is there.

That distancing certainly had nothing to do with the story, which happened right here in Canada, and it is just as ingrained in our culture. Pointing the finger elsewhere sure doesn't do anything to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Also in the same article:

Three women have told the Star, in more detail than has been yet reported, that Ghomeshi “struck them with a closed fist or open hand; bit them; choked them until they almost passed out; covered their nose and mouth so that they had difficulty breathing; and that they were verbally abused during and after sex.” More women have since come forward. It now appears that stories of Ghomeshi’s behaviour had been circulating privately for years, an open secret — and there are many of them — in a vast institutionally secretive country dotted with tiny crowded islands of power.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/28/why_women_stay_silent_about_s...

I was expecting that. At 47 he was bound to have a long list of victims.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

DaveW wrote:
You must be new here ... every Maysie post, even on the weather, throws around the R-word. Her trademark.

People end up ignoring it. Like a nervous tic.

Dave, this is completely out of bounds. What is with you in this thread anyway? Please stop picking fights and carry on with the conversation.

eastnoireast

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The first sentence:

(perhaps I should have specified the subhead)

Quote:

When it comes to redress for suffering a sexual attack, Canadian women might as well be in Saudi Arabia. We whisper among friends and quietly trade stories, or we shut up for our entire careers.

Maybe the obligatory reference to "the worst culture in the world" was just reflexive, and had nothing to do with the fact the person in question comes from a family from nearby Iran. But the association is there.

That distancing certainly had nothing to do with the story, which happened right here in Canada, and it is just as ingrained in our culture. Pointing the finger elsewhere sure doesn't do anything to deal with it.

 

that's pretty thin gruel to make racism porridge out of, imho, but at least i know what is being referred to...  thanks..  i think...

 

@ davew - boring.

-

 

lagatta

Frankly, I think it is possible to attack Saudi Arabia's treatment of women without being accused of racism; lots of feminists and progressives in Arab and/or Muslim societies do so.

I know that it is possible for a racially-mixed person such as Heather Mallick (Scottish and Indian) to be racist, even towards other people of her general hue, but I really didn't think that was racist.

I'm not saying that to diss Maysie; I think anti-racist activism is very important. So far I haven't heard anything anti-Iranian concerning Ghomeshi; after all, his persona is very far from the current theocracy there.

mark_alfred

Article about how incidents outside of work can provide just cause for dismissal in some circumstances:  http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/10/29/private_life_can_be_cause_for...

terrytowel

Catchfire wrote:

Hi terrytowel, this is your last warning. I don't want to hear any more hints that these women should have gone to the police, to the courts, to some other patriarchal authority to have their abuse authorized and confirmed. That discussion doesn't happen in the feminism forum -- and repeatedly bringin the conversation back to this topic-- like your last post does -- is a violation of babble policy. You've been warned, so stop.

OK after only posting in the wild free for all political forums here, I didn't read the guideline properly re: the Feminist forum.

I have read them and I do apologize. I'll abide by the rules.

I removed all of my comments,

My apologizes if I caused any problems in this thread.

Please forgive me CatchFire

Debater

alan smithee wrote:

If Ghomeshi is guilty of being in a consensual BDSM relationship,ending his employment is a crime.

You'd be surprised how many people,including people in high profile positions,practice rough sex and/.or BDSM.

Sexual practices or lifestyles are between the 1,2,3,4 or more people involved and nobody else's business.

I totally disagree with you on this one, Alan.

As I've said several times above, many people, even those of us that are liberals, forget that there are limits as to what people can do in their private lives, partcularly when they are public figures.  It has a spillover effect onto their career, their colleagues, their employer, their families, community, etc.

I'll come back to a couple of the examples I mentioned above.

1.  Sen. John Edwards in 2008

Senator Edwards was running for President of the United States.  He had hundreds of thousands of Democratic supporters giving their time, money & effort to his campaign across the country.  He was also running as a Family Man who loved his wife Elizabeth (and who at the time was opposed to gay marriage, btw).  And to his credit, he was running on a platform of reducing poverty, something which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were not doing and which the Democratic Party pays too little attention to.

When it was revealed that he had cheated on his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, who was fighting terminal cancer, with his videographer, Rielle Hunter, people were outraged.  And rightly so.  He had put his entire campaign, and all the work that people had done, at risk for a sexual affair, as well as further endangered his wife's health, whose terminal cancer may have been made worse by the huge scandal and terrible stress it caused her.  It also meant that people would forever question his commitment to fighting poverty and wondering whether it was just something he said to look good.

2.  Anthony Weiner in 2013

Anthony Weiner had been a liberal, progressive Democrat.  Although disliked by the right-wing and viewed as a bit of a loose canon at times by some of his Democratic colleagues, he was a strong voice for those on the left.  When he became enbroiled in a Tweeting/Sexting scandal in 2011, sending out sexual messages to young women online and photos of himself shirtless and in his underwear, he was eventually forced to resign from the House of Representatives.  His House seat, which had been Democratic for many years, including under his predecessor, Charles Schumer (now Senator), fell to the Republicans.

In 2013, although he had only been out of politics for 2 years and perhaps not long enough time away, his supporters decided to give him a second chance when he ran for Mayor of New York City.  They assumed he had learned from his previous behaviour in 2011.  It turned out not to be the case.  It was discovered that he had continued to Sext women while he was married to his wife, Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's former assisstant).  Naked photos of his penis were then published by the right-wing press, proving that he had sent out more Sexts than originally admitted to.  He humiliated his wife, Huma Abedin, and destroyed his run for Mayor of New York City.  Many progressive voters in New York City, including gay acquaintances of mine who had admired his pro-LGBT positions, were furious at the lost opportunities because of his foolish judgement.  Weiner ended up recieving less than 5% of the vote on Election Day, and gave reporters the finger as he sped away in a car that night.

--

Now, coming back to Canada.  Let's take the Jian Ghomeshi scandal up another level to illustrate what I am talking about.  Let's say that it involved Peter Mansbridge.  Mansbridge is the most important anchor at the CBC.  He's the Chief National Correspondent, who not only anchors the nightly news, but the political panels, the Election coverage and Breaking News and International assignments.  He also interviews major World figures, including Barack Obama.  What would happen to Peter Mansbridge and the CBC's credbility if he were to reveal to the public, like Ghomeshi has done, that he likes to engage in consensual, violent, BDSM sex?

And now let's take it up one more level.  What would happen, if someone who was Prime Minister, or who was running for Prime Minister, like Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau, were to do that?  What would be the effect on their careers?  Their public image?  Their credibility?  What would their parties and fellow MP's say?  I don't think they would all be saying that it was just a private, consensual matter between the spouses.  You can bet there would be some major fallout and consequences, not just within their parties, but from the press and the public.

jas

Pondering wrote:

More women have since come forward. 

Isn't it nice that women feel so comfortable telling their stories to a newspaper. Who needs centres for violence against women when you have The Toronto Star?

 

Pages