CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

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...

Unsurprisingly, the only relevant and wholly accurate comments in that piece come from the very reputable Sack Goldblatt Mitchell firm:

Quote:

The onus is on the employer to prove the employee’s personal activities harmed the business, said Howard Goldblatt, a partner in the Toronto law firm Sack Goldblatt Mitchell.

“I had a case where there was a domestic abuse issue to which the individual pleaded guilty. It had no impact on their employment. The arbitrator ordered them reinstated,” Goldblatt said.

The rest of the article is a mishmash.

Here's a pretty powerful example of what it takes to fire a unionized employee (or in Québec, any employee) based solely on criminal activities unrelated to the workplace (emphasize: Ghomeshi hasn't been charged):

[url=http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=32763]Co... scolaire de Montréal v. Alliance des professeures et professeurs de Montréal, et al.[/url]

Quote:
In 1991, the Respondent Jean-Alix Miguel was convicted of manslaughter after killing his wife during a psychotic episode. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and was paroled a few years later. In 1998, Mr. Miguel was hired by the Applicant school board to teach construction electricity to adults. In 2004, Bernard Rochon, a personnel management advisor in the Applicant’s human resources department, learned of Mr. Miguel’s past and advised the authorities at the school where Mr. Miguel was teaching to cease employing him.

[...]

The arbitrator ruled in the union’s favour on the basis, inter alia, that the only real reason for the employer’s decision was the criminal conviction. According to the arbitrator, in the circumstances, that conviction was not connected with the employment within the meaning of s. 18.2 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, which meant that the employer’s decision could not be upheld. The Superior Court dismissed the school board’s motion for judicial review, and a majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

However, had he made some racist or sexist comments to students or colleagues, maybe after one or two warnings, or slapped someone, he could have been fired quite easily.

This will be interesting.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Debater wrote:

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?

Yes, thanks again for portraying consensual acts as violent, and equating them with cheating, and with harrassment.

You might have mentioned other things that have in the past would have scandalized the public and been cause for dismissal - being gay, divorced, disabled, unmarried, or in a mixed-race relationship.

Gotta watch out for that public image, after all.

 

Debater

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Debater wrote:

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?

Yes, thanks again for portraying consensual acts as violent, and equating them with cheating, and with harrassment.

You might have mentioned other things that have in the past would have scandalized the public and been cause for dismissal - being gay, divorced, disabled, unmarried, or in a mixed-race relationship.

Gotta watch out for that public image, after all.

Nowhere did I say it was all about public image.

Nowhere did I equate all those acts as being the same.

I wrote a long, detailed examination of one general principle -- that there are limits as to what you can do in your private life, particularly when you are a public figure.  This was primarily in response to Alan Smithee and others who claim that anything that is 'private' and 'consensual' is perfectly fine.  Not so when you are a public figure.

Don't conflate & mix all these complex issues together.

As for Ghomeshi, I don't buy his self-serving statement on Facebook.  I believe the women.  I think he has sexually assaulted them.  There are too many stories out there for them all to be lies.

Just over the past couple of days I have been in several places online, from Gawker to Twitter, and they were all full of tales from Toronto women claiming they had been harassed by this man or saying they knew women that had been.

That speaks volumes to me.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of women that Ghomeshi has assaulted over the past couple decades.

Unionist

Forgot to mention:

In the case of the teacher fired when the college discovered that he had been convicted of manslaughter for killing his spouse and had been sentenced to seven years in prison - after the dismissal was overturned by an arbitrator, by Superior Court, and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Montréal School Board's appeal.

 

Debater

Let's not forget Owen Pallett's statement:

--

"Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women."

https://m.facebook.com/owenpalletteternal/posts/1491910081073780

6079_Smith_W

@ Debater

Indeed. The issue is assault.

And since we are repeating, it bears repeating that the "BDSM defense" is really an excuse Ghomeshi made public and used in defense of those assault charges; there is no evidence that it has anything to do with the accusations OR his dismissal.

As for the rest of it, sorry, but I call BS, and I agree with those who say it is no one's business.

You did write "consensual, violent BDSM", and the examples you used to justify how much the public will take concerned cheating and harrassment - something entirely different.

What are you saying with your talk about limits, if not making it all about public image, which has been enough justification to drive all kinds of innocent people out of work?

And  if, as you say, the issue is assault, why are we coming back again and again to this irrelevant, and very insulting point?

 

Debater

@Smith W

I've already explained that I was responding to those who said that everything a person does in their private life is no one's business.  I was responding to Alan Smithee and others who said it's irrelevant.  I was explaining that when you are a public figure, what you do in your private life can end up having a huge impact on your employer, your career, your family and those around you, even if it is consensual.  That's when I gave the examples of John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, etc.  That's one issue.

I then said that in the case of Jian Ghomeshi, I don't believe him that all this was consensual.  I said I believe the claims of assault and that I believe the women.  I then quoted the Owen Pallett statement above which says that Jian Ghomeshi abuses women.

So please keep the two issues separate.  One deals with the debate around 'private' life and one deals with the assault allegations.

6079_Smith_W

And just how were Weiner's and Edwards's actions consensual? Not only were your examples irrelevant; they were very insulting, as is the repeated use of "violent" in connection with BDSM.

I think that has been explained more than a couple of times in this thread, but it keeps being brought up by people who don't get it.

Again, there are plenty of things that can get you fired, jailed or killed if they become public; does that make it right?  Whose side are we on?

 

 

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And just how were Weiner's and Edwards's actions consensual? Not only were your examples irrelevant; they were very insulting, as is the repeated use of "violent" in connection with BDSM.

I think that has been explained more than a couple of times in this thread, but it keeps being brought up by people who don't get it.

Again, there are plenty of things that can get you fired, jailed or killed if they become public; does that make it right?  Whose side are we on?

 

 

 

Well, we don't normally associate "consent" with adultery.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
However, had he made some racist or sexist comments to students or colleagues, maybe after one or two warnings, or slapped someone, he could have been fired quite easily.

This will be interesting.

Which is exactly what CBC said he did in their memo which I already posted. Aside from that many articles have referred to him telling a female employee at CBC that he wanted to hate fuck her. Do you think that is the only time he has said something inappropriate to female underlings at the CBC? 

He didn't restrict his harrassment of women to his private life.

jas wrote:

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?

Is there some reason women can't speak to the Toronto Star and go to centres for violence against women?

Are you against the people who spoke to the Toronto Star about the Ford brothers, all of them or just the female ones?

What about political information that comes from "an insider".  Should that be stopped now?

Lynn B

Is Ghomeshi saying he was wrong, and never do it again or is he saying he will continue to hit woman, because he says they like it?

KenS

CBC Radio As It Happens starting approx 6:37 loacl time has a woman recounting Ghomeshi beating her 10 years ago. This is her first time going public or to authorities.

Sounds like CBC has 2 more who have come forward.

 

wage zombie
Debater

We speak to a woman -- anonymously -- who claims she was hit by Jian Ghomeshi

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

It's been an acrimonious and very public parting of ways.

Last weekend, CBC ended its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi, the popular host of 'Q'. After that announcement, Mr. Ghomeshi posted a lengthy letter to Facebook claiming he was terminated unfairly because of "The risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex-girlfriend and a freelance writer." 

He described in some detail how he engaged in rough sex, and also said that his private sexual encounters were always consensual.

Since then, the Toronto Star has published allegations from a number of women, quoted anonymously, alleging they were attacked without consent. They never made formal complaints. We spoke to a woman who claims she was also attacked by Mr. Ghomeshi. She is not one of the four women who spoke to the Star. We agreed not to use her name.

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/10/29/jian/

Sean in Ottawa

jas wrote:

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?

 

What? This is offensive.

Women don't tend to feel "comfortable" when telling their accounts of assault.

And the rest goes down from there to plumb the depths of victim blaming.

I can't continue with this post becuase what I want to say is unspeakably rude. So I'll just stop there.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:
However, had he made some racist or sexist comments to students or colleagues, maybe after one or two warnings, or slapped someone, he could have been fired quite easily.

This will be interesting.

Which is exactly what CBC said he did in their memo which I already posted.

Umm, nope. Did you read what you posted? It says CBC learned of an allegation after reading an article in the Toronto Star. But they had already fired him on Sunday. Even in our strange society, you can't fire someone for something you don't know about at the time you fire him. Got it?

See, the problem is, you have no clue why they fired him. You know why? Because they haven't said. If they fired him for a workplace offence, then they'll have a much easier time making it stick than if it's related solely to non-workplace behaviour. This is a fact.

Quote:
Aside from that many articles have referred to him telling a female employee at CBC that he wanted to hate fuck her. Do you think that is the only time he has said something inappropriate to female underlings at the CBC?

You seem to have crystal ball powers. Not me. I have no clue. And I have serious problems with people that believe everything that they hear.

Quote:
He didn't restrict his harrassment of women to his private life.

You should consider contracting your clairvoyant services to the authorities. Could definitely help crack all those cold cases.

 

Bacchus

The CBC not saying anything is not indicative of the incomptence of their case. They CANNOT say anything and would indeed be successfully sued for that alone if they did.

Sadly it means Jian can frame the narrative any way he wishes which indeed many legal experts have stated thats prob why he sued.

Debater

Well there are now multiple women making allegations of abuse.  There are the four in The Toronto Star, and apparently two more contacted the CBC today.

The woman who was interviewed this afternoon on CBC Radio is apparently not one of The Toronto Star women.  She is a woman who met Ghomeshi at a media party, he asked her out, and it went from there.

Here is the AUDIO:

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/10/29/jian/

Debater

Ghomeshi is trying to frame the narrative, yes, but some of these women are getting their story out there to counter it, which is good.

We now have the CBC Radio interview above.  The more women who are interviewed, the more shade will be cast on Ghomeshi's claims.

mark_alfred

Interesting.  When I first heard of the story, I was surprised.  Then, after reading Ghomeshi's Facebook post, I commented (on Facebook), "Very verbose."  That May, a lawyer, would jump in so quickly with the initial opinion she expressed is odd, I feel.

KenS

Maybe Ghomeshi thought that too Bachus. If so, he is mistaken.

But they are only constrained from talking about events that are now fodder for the various legal processes set in motion.

But more women are coming out, and some of them are not surprisingly coming to the CBC. They can talk about that freely.

Big surprise there. Ghomeshi claims he has been wronged by CBC, and that there is nothing to the stories. So now he reaps what he has sown.

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

The CBC not saying anything is not indicative of the incomptence of their case.

Correct. No conclusion can be drawn about the strength of their case from their silence. At the same time, we won't be able to assess the strength of their case until they state their grounds, perhaps if and when it goes to arbitration.

Quote:
They CANNOT say anything and would indeed be successfully sued for that alone if they did.

I don't follow you. Ghomeshi went public with his account of what did and didn't happen. What makes you believe that by saying why they fired him (at least in very general terms - off-duty conduct, on-duty harassment, whatever) that they would be guilty of some civil damage beyond what they've already said and done?

Quote:
Sadly it means Jian can frame the narrative any way he wishes which indeed many legal experts have stated thats prob why he sued.

Name one legal expert who has stated what you just said, please. I'm not saying they haven't. I'd just like the benefit of being able to review their analysis.

 

Bacchus

Happy to oblige

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/28/jian-ghomseshi-lawsuit-cbc/

And CBC cannot reveal anything because its a privacy issue (part of my job tho not for the CBC) and would lose if they revealed anything. Now responding to the suit, they can say what they like. If Jian invites them to respond, they can to.

 

But otherwise no

 

That article written by Howard Levitt

 

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt & Grosman LLP (levittgrosman.com), employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces and is author of The Law of Dismissal in Canada. “Employment Law Hour with Howard Levitt” airs Sundays at 4 p.m. on CFRB in Toronto.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Interesting.  When I first heard of the story, I was surprised.  Then, after reading Ghomeshi's Facebook post, I commented (on Facebook), "Very verbose."  That May, a lawyer, would jump in so quickly with the initial opinion she expressed is odd, I feel.

It reflects on Elizabeth May's judgement.  There was no need for her to jump into an issue that doesn't concern here so quickly without waiting for all of the facts.

Elizabeth May has some good qualities, and I was pleased that she beat a CPC minister in B.C. in 2011, but she tends to be somewhat naive in some of her decisions.  She should have been more skeptical about Ghomeshi, just like she should have been more skeptical about the mess Georges Laroque got into last year before appointing him as her Green candidate in Bourassa.

Debater

"It gave me permission to speak and I thought maybe someone will listen to me now.  Because I don't think if I had said anything back then that anyone would care."

As It Happens interview

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Happy to oblige

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/28/jian-ghomseshi-lawsuit-cbc/

And CBC cannot reveal anything because its a privacy issue (part of my job tho not for the CBC) and would lose if they revealed anything. Now responding to the suit, they can say what they like. If Jian invites them to respond, they can to.

But otherwise no

Ok, first of all, that's the opposite of what Levitt says. He says (and in fact encourages) that the CBC can file its response, right now, and say anything it wants, without any repercussions. You just made up the part about "if Jian invites them to respond". Why would you do that?

Second, Levitt is an idiot. He has got it wrong so many times, that independent verification is required of any of his overheated media statements.

Example from your link:

Howard Levitt wrote:
The arbitration process where his case must ultimately end up due to his unionized status, is entirely private.

Bullshit. The arbitrator's decision will be entirely public, available to anyone, naming names, and the whole nine yards. This dude must be an employer-side non-union-environment lawyer. I'll charitably call him ignorant, rather than using the L-I-A-R word.

 

Debater

A 2nd woman who contacted the CBC will speak tomorrow, 8:30 am on CBC's The Current.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I love that for some babblers, somehow 4 is the tipping point of "believing" women against one man.

But here's some nice handy facts about sexual assault in Canada, rates of reporting, and convictions. This is about a (rape) culture (Canada) grounded in counting women's voices as less than men, as some babblers here feel completely comfortable doing.

lagatta

Thanks, Maysie. I still remember, as a very young woman, being groped and then sacked when I refused to sleep with a boss who had the contract for making signage for the 1976 Olympics. I had no idea who to turn to, and there probably wasn't anything back then. Even though I was a committed feminist and socialist, I was completely lost.

NorthReport

Jesee Brown apparently is working on a big story about this.

Anyway just a suggestion to the guys: listen to the women, unfortunately, and too often, they know the drill.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Questions and some controversial. I am not trolling-- I really want to know what others think of these.

First, The CBC is providing a place for women who have been victims to give their accounts of experiences with Gomeshi. I see a great deal of merit there-- I cannot imagine it being resonable to say no to them. However, I also have this feeling that the CBC who are suing Gomeshi, have presumably felt betrayed by him, have had employees hurt by him and may benefit through the airing of these stories may have a conflict. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder what others think. Should they be airing these stories or passing them to other media outlets?

Second, I'll ask this question becuase it has bothered me all my life. It is relevant to Gomeshi and it is relevant to the shooting in Ottawa. Where exactly is the line between illness and criminality? I think about this with practically every high profile crime. I don't absolve the criminal and I don't excuse or condone the behaviour. But part of me asks this question. What child grows up saying I want to be a violent abuser of women? A homicidal criminal? Even a thief. Criminals don't tend to have happy lives for the most part. What goes wrong between innocence and behaviours that most of us cannot understand.Is having no morality in itself an illness?

Then when I consider social contexts. I am not excusing anything. But sexism -- how much of this is illness, conditionning? Of course why are some extreme like this and not everyone? I have often found myself in the camp of wanting to protect the public, protect women but wondering what makes a person want to be that way. If it is not healthy then they are not healthy.And if sexism is an illness then the whole of society is ill -- just a question of degrees becuase sexism is ingrained in every facet of life and culture, trying to avoid it is an ongoing active thing not a default automatic condition.

And when we hear these stories about Jian Gomeshi -- stories that make me think he is a sick individual. I think not just about punishment -- after all he may have been doing  this for 20 years to how many victims without being stopped. I also think -- how do you stop this? What could you do to intervene between what was once an innocent child and has become a man that finds sexual pleasure in harming women? Would Jian think this is okay when he is talking to himself? If another answer could be found how many women would not have to go through this. If a person could go 20 years abusing women at some point society must ask how to stop the next one as much as how to punish the last one.

Then I think about what Gomeshi says he did and what the women are reporting he actually did. This makes it worse becuase in his defense he is clarifying that he knows how he could have behaved. He, himself, has explained that kink does not have to be like what these women experienced with him-- it can have consent and safe words and safeguards these women never had. He seems to know better but is he compelled to act the opposite of what he preaches? Why?

I know I am saying what many others have said before and I have said myself -- what efforts to address violence against women are taken in schools before these people mature? I am getting older now. But I know there was nothing when I went to school and I always wondered why not. My kids tell me there is more sensitivity from teachers, some isolated messages, but not much more than that. Violence against women is not on the curriculum even though it is a reality and challenge that requires the participation of all people-- yet not part of schools in any formal way. (Yes I know there are posters etc. but do they ever actually talk to the kids about this as a part of a planned class learning?)

I know I am asking a lot of unrelated questions. The only connections are I would like to hear how others approach these questions as I imagine others must have them.

I wonder what makes people who do these things tick. What do they think when they do this?

terrytowel

Elizabeth May, Judy Rebick revisit Ghomeshi comments

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/28/elizabeth_may_judy_rebick_...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

That As It Happens interview is horrifying.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
First, The CBC is providing a place for women who have been victims to give their accounts of experiences with Gomeshi. I see a great deal of merit there-- I cannot imagine it being resonable to say no to them. However, I also have this feeling that the CBC who are suing Gomeshi, have presumably felt betrayed by him, have had employees hurt by him and may benefit through the airing of these stories may have a conflict. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder what others think. Should they be airing these stories or passing them to other media outlets?

I've been thinking about this too and waiting for those with more expertise in this area to comment on it. But it does seem to pose at least a question (I wonder if Jesse Brown will ask this, actually, when the next installment of his story comes out). My feeling is that each of these shows have independent producers and editors who enjoy at least an arms-length editorial distance from the people in charge of the lawsuit, and its their job to cover exactly these stories. We might ask what we would say if The Current and AIH were not covering them -- wouldn't we also wonder if there was conflict of interest there? (Former TO CBC colleagues, etc.). I suppose the alternative would be to make a statement explaining why, but still -- I can't help but feel that is dodging responsibility also.

 

Debater

Anna Maria Tremonti will be interviewing a 2nd woman on CBC's The Current tomorrow after the news at 8:30 AM.

This will make the 6th woman to have made allegations against Ghomeshi.

The Toronto Star 'four' plus the CBC 'two'.

Sean in Ottawa

Catchfire wrote:

That As It Happens interview is horrifying.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
First, The CBC is providing a place for women who have been victims to give their accounts of experiences with Gomeshi. I see a great deal of merit there-- I cannot imagine it being resonable to say no to them. However, I also have this feeling that the CBC who are suing Gomeshi, have presumably felt betrayed by him, have had employees hurt by him and may benefit through the airing of these stories may have a conflict. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder what others think. Should they be airing these stories or passing them to other media outlets?

I've been thinking about this too and waiting for those with more expertise in this area to comment on it. But it does seem to pose at least a question (I wonder if Jesse Brown will ask this, actually, when the next installment of his story comes out). My feeling is that each of these shows have independent producers and editors who enjoy at least an arms-length editorial distance from the people in charge of the lawsuit, and its their job to cover exactly these stories. We might ask what we would say if The Current and AIH were not covering them -- wouldn't we also wonder if there was conflict of interest there? (Former TO CBC colleagues, etc.). I suppose the alternative would be to make a statement explaining why, but still -- I can't help but feel that is dodging responsibility also.

 

Yes, this is exactly my reaction. Other media is less likely to do this than the CBC and so they have a responsibility to do it. I get that they are a little removed but Gomeshi was a huge icon, very well known, and has damaged the whole corporation with this.

There must be some conflict.

I do respect that they could consider the conflict and then determine that the responsibility outweighs the conflict. I just wondered if others were considering it-- glad to know some are. I am certainly not asking the CBC to stop becuase that would be so much worse. I would like to ask other broadcasters to participate more not just in this case but in addressing the systemic issues of violence against women. Very few ever do. Given the importantance of this in our society -- it remains an epidemic, almost nobody is talking about it.

Violence against women is a much greater epidemic than Ebola, more experience it, more are harmed and even more die from it -- what if it got the same level of attention as Ebola in the media?

jas

Unionist wrote:
Bullshit. The arbitrator's decision will be entirely public, available to anyone, naming names, and the whole nine yards.

Good to know. But where does this become available? Through some labour law publications, case histories?

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps not just focusing on the Gomeshi story the CBC should do a new documentary on violence against women in Canada. Has been done before but you have to keep doing this. The public value is not just in the Gomeshi story. CBC can certainly go after the social context, and more stories as well as his victims. This is not some unusual story this is a daily reality across the country affecting millions. It would be better if they approach that side as well, not just the one they are facing themselves.

 

6079_Smith_W

On the CBC covering itself question:

I'm not so worried. There is actually a measure of professionalism, if people care to observe it. It isn't a big deal, or they wouldn't have said a damned thing, which obviously wasn't going to happen.. The only important quesiton is how to do it and not compromise one's self, or get sued even moreso.

Really, I am waiting for the next installment of the Q media panel.

 

jas

Catchfire wrote:
My feeling is that each of these shows have independent producers and editors who enjoy at least an arms-length editorial distance from the people in charge of the lawsuit, and its their job to cover exactly these stories. We might ask what we would say if The Current and AIH were not covering them -- wouldn't we also wonder if there was conflict of interest there? (Former TO CBC colleagues, etc.). I suppose the alternative would be to make a statement explaining why, but still -- I can't help but feel that is dodging responsibility also.

I'm trying to think if this happens all the time without formal changes ever being laid against the subject of discussion. Looked at it from the perspective of innocent until proven guilty the entire exercise is one of character assassination and slander by allegation. Apparently this is legal. Am I forgetting a whole bunch of other instances where this occurs?

Not to mention that the CBC is broadcasting all this discussion while still not disclosing why they fired him.

Sean in Ottawa

This is a must read from a prosecutor about why women don't report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sandy-garossino/jian-ghomeshi-women-report-...

The following quote seems long but the article is much longer so I think this is fair use (emphasis mine):

 

What kind of woman doesn't report?

"So what kind of woman is reluctant to report sexual assault? Anyone who consumed drugs or alcohol before the incident, who was intoxicated; who flirted with, has a relationship with, knows, or has significantly lower status than the perpetrator.

Any woman who's had an abortion or messy divorce. Anyone who might be in a custody battle. Anyone with a sketchy social media history. Anyone who's sexted nude photos or has unorthodox sexual tastes.

Any sex worker. Anyone who initially consented to sex. Anyone with addiction issues. Anyone afraid of her assailant. Any First Nations woman. Anyone from a minority or immigrant community. Anyone who's been raped before and not been believed.

Anyone without a strong support network. Any woman who waits too long. Anyone who's seen a shrink, or been prescribed medication for mental or emotional conditions. Any woman who doesn't want her medical records or psychiatric history disclosed. Or who has family members and a community who could be hurt or shamed by disclosure or publicity. Anyone with a criminal record or who is on public assistance.

Any woman with a past. Any woman with a future she doesn't want derailed by the stress of reporting.

In short, the kind of woman who doesn't report a sexual attack is almost any normal rational woman.

...

We may never know what happened between Ghomeshi and his former lovers, but what we shouldn't do is blame them for not calling the police.

Their tragedy, and Jian's, and ours, is that this was a completely normal thing to do."

mark_alfred

CBC audio interview with a woman who went out with Ghomeshi 10 years ago:  link

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.nothinginwinnipeg.com/2014/10/do-you-know-about-jian/]do you know about Jian[/url]

Evidence. Everyone wants evidence, and this is all I can give: I knew about Jian, and everyone I ever talked to about him did too.

[...]

God, we ask so much of victims. On one side, we tell them that the price of our belief it to spend a lifetime chained publicly to an incident they usually want desperately to escape; we tell them that the price of our belief is that they make their name public, or take it to police. If they pay that price, we don’t believe them anyway. Instead, we simply charge them with trying to make hay.

jas

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is a must read from a prosecutor about why women don't report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sandy-garossino/jian-ghomeshi-women-report-...

Yes, excellent.

The woman in the As It Happens interview when asked that question replied that she thought it would be "too hard to prove" and that she "felt embarassed." Hearing her say that made instant simple sense to me. It really isn't much more than something like that.

On the other hand it was concerning to me that she talked about closed-fist punching to the head (that apparently left no marks that her nurse friend could see) and that also did not alarm her enough to seek medical attention.

Pondering

Maysie wrote:
I love that for some babblers, somehow 4 is the tipping point of "believing" women against one man.

In my view one person's word against another's is insufficient proof no matter what their sexes are or the crime is. Personally, I would believe the woman anyway but it is insufficient to take punitive action against someone. Two would be even more convincing but I have to allow that one could get another to back her up, but more than that and the man's protestations of innocence become implausible.

When there are 4 women speaking up and people are still saying we have to withhold judgement I disagree.

I am not at all surprised by Rebick or even May's kneejerk reactions. They both consider him a friend and class seems to take precedence over everything else not to mention the need to be sex-positive.

P.S. Rebick still doesn't get it.

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:

I am not at all surprised by Rebick or even May's kneejerk reactions. They both consider him a friend and class seems to take precedence over everything else not to mention the need to be sex-positive.

Politics is in there too. Most seem to have come around now, but I was shocked at how many progressives I know (including many feminists) immediately believed Ghomeshi's version of why he was fired, or else assumed that he had been dispatched at the behest of Stephen Harper.

Sean in Ottawa

jas wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is a must read from a prosecutor about why women don't report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sandy-garossino/jian-ghomeshi-women-report-...

Yes, excellent.

The woman in the As It Happens interview when asked that question replied that she thought it would be "too hard to prove" and that she "felt embarassed." Hearing her say that made instant simple sense to me. It really isn't much more than something like that.

On the other hand it was concerning to me that she talked about closed-fist punching to the head (that apparently left no marks that her nurse friend could see) and that also did not alarm her enough to seek medical attention.

Everyone probabaly has heard someone struggle with this question at some time. Violence is that common -- it is an epidemic.

One person put it to me this way -- she did not know if it would do any good for her to get the person charged, she was scared of the blowback -- and she felt if she were not strong enough to withstand the abuse she might actually make it worse for those who followed who tried to do something about their own abuse. She did not agree that it necessarily would help. If she could not make her case strong enough, even though it was true, she worried that this could actually harm others.

The person she had this experience with was also an attractive, articulate, talented and apparently harmless man -- who raped her.

I don't know how common that calculation is. But I would not be able to say to anyone -- go ahead you need to tell your story as it will help others. The way women who come forward are treated that is not always true. Most people cannot withstand what is thrown at these women who speak out and they know it. Help the ones who come forward but don't harass those in your life who tell you this in confidence and choose not to make it public.

onlinediscountanvils

[trigger warning: sexual violence]

Kevin Donovan: [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_... women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment[/url]

Unionist

jas wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Bullshit. The arbitrator's decision will be entirely public, available to anyone, naming names, and the whole nine yards.

Good to know. But where does this become available? Through some labour law publications, case histories?

On the World Wide Web:

[url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cala/]Federal labour arbitration awards[/url]

 

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

That As It Happens interview is horrifying.

Agreed. But: Why didn't Carol Off ask the woman, explicitly, straight out: "Did you have sex with Ghomeshi?" Pretty clearly, from her account of how the two encounters unfolded, the answer seems to be "no". But if she had asked her straight out and got a "NO" on the air, then Ghomeshi's entire story of "I do BDSM, 'rough sex'", would have been totally discredited for all to hear. He would now have to explain how he forgot to mention that he just likes to beat on women outside of the world of "rough sex" - just for the thrill of it, or whatever he might say.

I really wondered about that. Obviously there was agreement not to ask the victim to disclose her name. Was there agreement that any other questions were "off limits"? If so, the question of conflict of interest etc. vs. journalistic duty and integrity comes back. Anyone have a view on this?

Looking forward to The Current tomorrow.

jas

Pondering wrote:

When there are 4 women speaking up and people are still saying we have to withhold judgement I disagree.

But it wasn't four women speaking up. It was reports of four women speaking up. The task at that point was not to trust those speaking up, but to trust the journalist reporting it. There's a difference.

Pages