CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

But Unionist, it would have been an absurd, and frankly insulting question. Clearly what happened had nothing to do with that. It was an alleged attack that came out of the blue.

I don't see how putting her on the spot like that would have been in any way necessary.

 

 

jas

Unionist wrote:

On the World Wide Web:

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

Thank you.

Ghislaine

Lucy Decoutere - Lucy from the Trailor Park Boys is now speaking out, along with 7 anonymous women. The entire Star link above is horrifying. 

Tehanu

Unionist wrote:
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.

No, Unionist. No, no, please no. If Carol Off were going to ask that question it should be: "Did he rape you?" or "Did he sexually assault you?" Because when a guy is non-consensually punching a woman in the head and then a sexual encounter takes place, she is not having sex with him. And asking her about it, versus her volunteering the information? No.

Carol Off is a very sensitive interviewer, and yet I was still surprised that she asked if the woman had thought of going to the police, albeit after the woman brought it up first. But asking a woman who's been assaulted "did you have sex with him"? No. Even the thought of that makes me feel ill.

Read the Toronto Star article that just came out. Eight women now. And whether Ghomeshi likes rough sex or likes beating women without a sexual element, based on their accounts he clearly wasn't getting consent to do either. It's assault. And in some cases sexual assault as well.

One woman very courageously has even come forward openly and disclosed her name.

No, let's not ask victims "did you have sex with him." I think his story has been more than amply discredited without having to do that.

mark_alfred

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_...

As Ghislaine notes above, Lucy Decoutere (who plays Lucy from the Trailor Park Boys) is now speaking out (see link above).

Unionist

Tehanu wrote:

No, let's not ask victims "did you have sex with him." I think his story has been more than amply discredited without having to do that.

Fine, Tehanu, I get it. I really didn't intend it to sound like, "Well, what were you wearing that evening?" I honestly wondered why there was no question relating to BDSM, which is Ghomeshi's sole and entire defence to date. And I certainly, certainly, didn't mean it as, "Did you have sex after?" I'm prepared to accept that this was due to Carol Off's sensitivity, but I'd really like to understand better the CBC's dilemma in simultaneously reporting and defending its own actions.

And to repeat what I've said before: My main interest in all this is the issue of dismissal - not who's telling the truth, who's guilty of criminal offences, etc. Can an employer fire an employee based on what we've heard so far? Why did the CBC fire him, exactly? Does the CBC need to believe all or any of the victim accounts in order to dismiss a high-profile employee?

Tehanu wrote:

One woman very courageously has even come forward openly and disclosed her name.

I haven't seen that - where, when?

ETA: Ok, found it - thanks. Horrible.

 

Bacchus

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

 

Because if it is dismissed before the CBC gets a statement of defense, they get no venue to reply.

 

And he said the process was private, not the decision and he is entirely correct on that. I also believe he specializes in defending employees

Bacchus

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_...

As Ghislaine notes above, Lucy Decoutere (who plays Lucy from the Trailor Park Boys) is now speaking out (see link above).

 

Sadly, as a Captain in the RCAF, Im guessing they will find her the most credible

baba yaga

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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 haven't been active here in a long time, but visit often, and have been following this thread. Some good questions here, Sean. I saw an interview this week on BBC World News with a young woman, Yas Nacati in the UK, who is one leader in a campaign to bring the Sex & Relationships Education curriculum in her country into the 21st century. http://yassayshi.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/sex-and-relationships-education-...

Snippet from her blog:

Earlier this year, I ran a successful campaign alongside TeleWonderWoman and change.org. New guidance was written to include violence towards women, internet pornography and sexting. Of course I'm thrilled at the improvement. But I have to ask, is guidance really enough?

Most schools teach SRE badly, some don't teach it at all. It is disgusting that, under the will of our government, we offer nothing to counter information young people are getting online, in magazines and in video games. We hear about STIs and the biology of sexual intercourse in classrooms all the time, and of course that information is important. But we need to consider the R in SRE. We need to start educating about relationships.

If education fails to meet the demands of a dangerous culture, a whole new generation will enter relationships with negative and harmful ideas about sex.

In schools, teachers with no speciality in SRE and only flimsy government guidance are forced to teach groups of teenagers what it means to be in a sexual relationship. We're shown VHS videos, and most kids just take it as a joke. Because it is. But we have the power to change that.

Yas is very spirited, dedicated, with no small talent for the humorous. http://www.yasnecati.com/ This was part of the Beeb's current annual "100 Women 2014" strand. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24371433

I'm finding this issue is bringing up a lot of feelings. It's emotionally draining, but vital to take on board. I don't know if there are any grass-roots campaigns in Canada like this for putting the R into sex education, and I'm sure our schools could use a serious update in talking about relationships, not just the biology. In a very, very comprehensive way. From experts. News on the campaign at End Violence Against Women: http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/news/171/evaw-and-everyday-sex...

A quick internet search for 'sex - relationships - education - canada' brings up little: a company that sells a ton of the the posters your children mentioned to you and The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, which is a charity. I shudder to think what Harper and gang would say to a similar campaign here, but I can't lose hope. I'm getting older too and I want better for our future generations.

 

 

jas

These reports suggest an other ways disturbed individual (i.e., not just violent and misogynist). I would wonder even about a split personality, with his seeming lack of conscience, awareness, or acknowledgement that he was doing anything wrong. Then the comments about the teddy bear.

Pondering

jas wrote:

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.

Yes there is a difference. When a a journalist from the Star says it you know they investigated the women and evaluated their credibility. The journalist and the paper are putting their reputation on the line. They would not fabricate a story against a major CBC star.

There are more and I don't have to be clairevoyant to figure that out. It will be interesting to see how many come forward.

The most interesting aspects of this story to me are the CBC reporter who complained through her union and was asked by CBC what she could do to improve the situation. Doesn't seem like CBC or the union cared to protect her. The second aspect is how it was an open secret yet he was able to continue victimizing women.

 

jas

Pondering wrote:

Yes there is a difference. When a a journalist from the Star says it you know they investigated the women and evaluated their credibility. The journalist and the paper are putting their reputation on the line. They would not fabricate a story against a major CBC star.

In general principle, I don't think it will serve you that well to be that trusting of the press. Countless events in recent and modern history show us how unreliable and untruthful the press can be, oftentimes without even knowing it.

That said, the current Star article is making it harder to suspend my disbelief.

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Because if it [the lawsuit] is dismissed before the CBC gets a statement of defense, they get no venue to reply.

I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I really wanted to know where you got this "if Jian invites them to reply" thing. Levitt never said that. You can just say, "you're right on that point", you know.

Quote:

And he said the [labour arbitration] process was private, not the decision and he is entirely correct on that.

You're right about that. I said "bullshit" because he said it was "entirely private", and forgot to mention that the decision is public. And what's the deal about "private" anyway? The CBC will be there, hearing everything, with full rights to present its case. What exactly was his point? A court of law can decide to hold sensitive sessions in private, to issue publication bans, etc. He was trying to make some kind of point...

Quote:
I also believe he specializes in defending employees

You're mistaken. [url=http://www.levittgrosman.com/our-team]From his bio, as posted by his own firm:[/url]

Quote:
He is the labour and employment counsel for many of Canada's largest corporations and acts as chief spokesperson for numerous collective bargaining negotiations in a variety of industries. He conducts lobbying at the Federal and Provincial level on behalf of several clients regarding labour legislation. [...]

Mr. Levitt acts for many national employers in a variety of industries as well as having acted for many senior executives. [...]

Mr. Levitt is known for aggressively defending his clients.

And [url=http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html#search/type=decision&ccType=labor-re... are all references to Howard Levitt's appearances over the past few years before courts and labour tribunals - see if you can find a single one where he wasn't acting on behalf of the employer.

Oh, and by the way, he's wrong in his black-and-white assessment that Ghomeshi's lawsuit is dead from the start (no doubt because of the SCC's Weber v. Ontario Hydro decision). That's probably true - but it depends on what the very specific claims are. If (for example) he decides to allege that they rifled through his briefcase one day without his permission, as part of his "breach of confidence" claim, an arbitrator might rule that s/he had no jurisdiction to deal with that matter, because it was too remote from the collective agreement. That could return the matter to the jurisdiction of the court. Not a great hypothetical example, but there are definitely live exceptions to the Weber principle, always based on the particular facts of each case. Of course, he can't ask the court for damages because of his dismissal - that would belong to the sole jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

For a guy that brags unreservedly about his prowess (see his bio above), I'm not sure why he would make extravagant black-and-white statements in the media - except for the fact that he also brags about being the most quoted, most interviewed, most sought-after talking head in the business.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

baba yaga wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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 haven't been active here in a long time, but visit often, and have been following this thread. Some good questions here, Sean. I saw an interview this week on BBC World News with a young woman, Yas Nacati in the UK, who is one leader in a campaign to bring the Sex & Relationships Education curriculum in her country into the 21st century. http://yassayshi.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/sex-and-relationships-education-...

Snippet from her blog:

Earlier this year, I ran a successful campaign alongside TeleWonderWoman and change.org. New guidance was written to include violence towards women, internet pornography and sexting. Of course I'm thrilled at the improvement. But I have to ask, is guidance really enough?

Most schools teach SRE badly, some don't teach it at all. It is disgusting that, under the will of our government, we offer nothing to counter information young people are getting online, in magazines and in video games. We hear about STIs and the biology of sexual intercourse in classrooms all the time, and of course that information is important. But we need to consider the R in SRE. We need to start educating about relationships.

If education fails to meet the demands of a dangerous culture, a whole new generation will enter relationships with negative and harmful ideas about sex.

In schools, teachers with no speciality in SRE and only flimsy government guidance are forced to teach groups of teenagers what it means to be in a sexual relationship. We're shown VHS videos, and most kids just take it as a joke. Because it is. But we have the power to change that.

Yas is very spirited, dedicated, with no small talent for the humorous. http://www.yasnecati.com/ This was part of the Beeb's current annual "100 Women 2014" strand. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24371433

I'm finding this issue is bringing up a lot of feelings. It's emotionally draining, but vital to take on board. I don't know if there are any grass-roots campaigns in Canada like this for putting the R into sex education, and I'm sure our schools could use a serious update in talking about relationships, not just the biology. In a very, very comprehensive way. From experts. News on the campaign at End Violence Against Women: http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/news/171/evaw-and-everyday-sex...

A quick internet search for 'sex - relationships - education - canada' brings up little: a company that sells a ton of the the posters your children mentioned to you and The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, which is a charity. I shudder to think what Harper and gang would say to a similar campaign here, but I can't lose hope. I'm getting older too and I want better for our future generations.

Those are great links--

I agree, I too fear what the government could do -- and in our case it would be provincial governments.

Bacchus

Unionist wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Because if it [the lawsuit] is dismissed before the CBC gets a statement of defense, they get no venue to reply.

I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I really wanted to know where you got this "if Jian invites them to reply" thing. Levitt never said that. You can just say, "you're right on that point", you know.

Quote:

And he said the [labour arbitration] process was private, not the decision and he is entirely correct on that.

You're right about that. I said "bullshit" because he said it was "entirely private", and forgot to mention that the decision is public. And what's the deal about "private" anyway? The CBC will be there, hearing everything, with full rights to present its case. What exactly was his point? A court of law can decide to hold sensitive sessions in private, to issue publication bans, etc. He was trying to make some kind of point...

Quote:
I also believe he specializes in defending employees

You're mistaken. [url=http://www.levittgrosman.com/our-team]From his bio, as posted by his own firm:[/url]

Quote:
He is the labour and employment counsel for many of Canada's largest corporations and acts as chief spokesperson for numerous collective bargaining negotiations in a variety of industries. He conducts lobbying at the Federal and Provincial level on behalf of several clients regarding labour legislation. [...]

Mr. Levitt acts for many national employers in a variety of industries as well as having acted for many senior executives. [...]

Mr. Levitt is known for aggressively defending his clients.

And [url=http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html#search/type=decision&ccType=labor-re... are all references to Howard Levitt's appearances over the past few years before courts and labour tribunals - see if you can find a single one where he wasn't acting on behalf of the employer.

Oh, and by the way, he's wrong in his black-and-white assessment that Ghomeshi's lawsuit is dead from the start (no doubt because of the SCC's Weber v. Ontario Hydro decision). That's probably true - but it depends on what the very specific claims are. If (for example) he decides to allege that they rifled through his briefcase one day without his permission, as part of his "breach of confidence" claim, an arbitrator might rule that s/he had no jurisdiction to deal with that matter, because it was too remote from the collective agreement. That could return the matter to the jurisdiction of the court. Not a great hypothetical example, but there are definitely live exceptions to the Weber principle, always based on the particular facts of each case. Of course, he can't ask the court for damages because of his dismissal - that would belong to the sole jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

For a guy that brags unreservedly about his prowess (see his bio above), I'm not sure why he would make extravagant black-and-white statements in the media - except for the fact that he also brags about being the most quoted, most interviewed, most sought-after talking head in the business.

 

 

 

The if Jian invites them was me not him. Im sorry I should have been more clear on that.

 

And senior execs are not employees? And his radio program is pitched towards employees (at least the few times Ive listened, which isnt many)

Unionist

Ok, I'm done with that sideline debate. I'll let the jury decide based on the evidence.

 

Bacchus

Sealed

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Tehanu wrote:

No, Unionist. No, no, please no. If Carol Off were going to ask that question it should be: "Did he rape you?" or "Did he sexually assault you?" Because when a guy is non-consensually punching a woman in the head and then a sexual encounter takes place, she is not having sex with him. And asking her about it, versus her volunteering the information? No.

Carol Off is a very sensitive interviewer, and yet I was still surprised that she asked if the woman had thought of going to the police, albeit after the woman brought it up first. But asking a woman who's been assaulted "did you have sex with him"? No. Even the thought of that makes me feel ill.

Read the Toronto Star article that just came out. Eight women now. And whether Ghomeshi likes rough sex or likes beating women without a sexual element, based on their accounts he clearly wasn't getting consent to do either. It's assault. And in some cases sexual assault as well.

One woman very courageously has even come forward openly and disclosed her name.

No, let's not ask victims "did you have sex with him." I think his story has been more than amply discredited without having to do that.

This is all true and I am always grateful when Tehanu writes about these issues -- but it seemed pretty clear to me from the interview that she DID NOT have sex with Ghomeshi. She added (voluntarily) that they still had their clothes on and that it wasn't "to that point."

But at this point, I suppose that's all pointless now that the second shoe has dropped. What a ghastly, ghastly story.

Pondering

jas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Yes there is a difference. When a a journalist from the Star says it you know they investigated the women and evaluated their credibility. The journalist and the paper are putting their reputation on the line. They would not fabricate a story against a major CBC star.

In general principle, I don't think it will serve you that well to be that trusting of the press. Countless events in recent and modern history show us how unreliable and untruthful the press can be, oftentimes without even knowing it.

That said, the current Star article is making it harder to suspend my disbelief.

It depends on the content. Editorials are opinions even when constructed on facts. I don't put much weight on "They say" articles either that simply report claims without any attempt at evaluation.  That's different from investigative journalism. When they start saying stuff that has to be cleared by their lawyers I sit up and take notice.

Healthy skepticism is required but like anything else we musn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. When a publication does present real investigative journalism I applaud it. They were not going to break the story. Jian did that.

Some of the comments Jian made haven't been explored either. From his facebook statement:

I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision....

I’ve been fired from the CBC 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....

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications.....

http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-h...

The CBC offered to let him resign. He should have taken the offer to walk away quietly and moved to the states. Had he done so this thread probably wouldn't exist and the Star probably would not have printed the story.

He accused the writer of having fabricated a story and a major publication agreeing with him. The Star could not let that stand. Jian himself opened the door to the story being printed by raising the topic on facebook.

Jian was so arrogant he thought he was untouchable because there were never any witnesses or marks to prove coercion or violence. Women had never come forward before so he believed it would end given that the women were anonymous.

Reread his facebook post after reading the eight women's accounts of what he did to them.

Debater

There are now 8 women alleging abuse as of tonight.

I would not be surprised if there are more to come.

I think we are talking about a serial abuser who has been doing this for many, many years.

 

Pondering

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/canadian_artists_sign_petitio...

Canadian authors, artists and musicians have signed a petition in a show of support for the women who have revealed allegations of assault against former Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio host Jian Ghomeshi.

That was good to read. That makes me proud of Canadians as does the video of bystanders stepping in to protect a Muslim.

 

eastnoireast

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_...

As Ghislaine notes above, Lucy Decoutere (who plays Lucy from the Trailor Park Boys) is now speaking out (see link above).

 

go lucy go!  she is great.  he's  so frigged.  wow.

Debater

It's good that actress Lucy DeCoutere has come forward to tell her story.  By giving her name & face to the story, it gives it more weight and prevents people like Christie Blatchford & others from saying that because all the accusers are 'anonymous' we shouldn't believe them.

This represents a valuable turn in the momentum of this story.  It may encourage other women to come forward and tell their story, and it will make it harder for the Ghomeshi supporters to deny.

zerocarbs

Something that bugs me: Jian's behaviour was apparently an open secret. Maybe it wasn't clear to all what he was up to exactly. But it went on for at least ten years. And he was a media celebrity swimming in journalistic connections. NOT ONE LEAK OR HINT to the general public that something was wrong. Not in the mainstream media nor in any of the alternative media (as far as I know). Strikes me that if journalists these days are all so concerned about losing their jobs, maybe they should start doing them. Even at this point, none of them apart from Jesse Brown are coming out and saying, "Oh yeah, I knew about that, but I couldn't say anything because..."

Something that puzzles me: Jian was a smart man, working hard to build his rep and his show. How could he not realize that as a public figure, he had to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life? Other prominent flame-outs (Eliot Spitzer & Bill Clinton for example) tend to get nailed over almost one-off indiscretions, not stuff that they've been doing for decades. And nothing as creepy as beating unsuspecting women.

One stray thought: his career suicide may lead to an actual suicide.

Debater

Hey, Jian Ghomeshi, I Call B.S.!

A brief history of ridiculous things we've been asked to believe after famous men were accused of rape.

http://www.damemagazine.com/2014/10/28/hey-jian-ghomeshi-i-call-bs

terrytowel

I hope this is okay to say but I applaud Lucy DeCoutere for the courage to come forward and go public. It is very brave of her.

Pondering

zerocarbs wrote:

Something that bugs me: Jian's behaviour was apparently an open secret. Maybe it wasn't clear to all what he was up to exactly. But it went on for at least ten years. And he was a media celebrity swimming in journalistic connections. NOT ONE LEAK OR HINT to the general public that something was wrong. Not in the mainstream media nor in any of the alternative media (as far as I know). Strikes me that if journalists these days are all so concerned about losing their jobs, maybe they should start doing them. Even at this point, none of them apart from Jesse Brown are coming out and saying, "Oh yeah, I knew about that, but I couldn't say anything because..."

Something that puzzles me: Jian was a smart man, working hard to build his rep and his show. How could he not realize that as a public figure, he had to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life? Other prominent flame-outs (Eliot Spitzer & Bill Clinton for example) tend to get nailed over almost one-off indiscretions, not stuff that they've been doing for decades. And nothing as creepy as beating unsuspecting women.

One stray thought: his career suicide may lead to an actual suicide.

Interesting. My reaction was more surprise that anyone considered it a big enough deal to come forward at all. It seems none of them were raped. How could anyone expect any of these women to report it to police? I wouldn't.  I've been raped 4 times, 3 different men, once at knifepoint, once when I was seven months pregnant, and never reported. Two of the rapes were break-ins by an ex boyfriend. I don't count light molestation. All Jian did was slap and punch a few women, pulled their hair, I'm not at all surprised that he got away with it for decades and that they didn't report. My younger sister was raped twice (2 different men), we both lost our virginity to rape. I'm not sure if my older sister was raped, just molested as far as I know but I never asked her.

Girls and women being molested or raped is normal. I would guess that the vast majority don't have physical marks to prove what happened.

It was an open secret that Jian did this sort of thing.

I don't trust that people even here, are really all that outraged. I think they are secretly thinking it's no big deal. It just wouldn't be politically correct to say it.

 

Debater

Jian did more than just slap and punch a few women.  Eight women have already surfaced - that is more than a few.  And this is just Week One of this scandal.

Next time this week there may be another eight women who have surfaced to tell their tales.

And we're not just talking about a couple of slaps or light punches - we're talking about a guy who seems to be a serial puncher, choker & beater.  This seems to be a guy that has so much pent up rage & violence that within minutes of meeting these women he starts punching them & going for their throats and choking them.

It's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a sex assault scandal involving a public figure.  He sounds like a maniac or a psycho.

Debater
KenS

Pondering wrote:

I don't trust that people even here, are really all that outraged. I think they are secretly thinking it's no big deal. It just wouldn't be politically correct to say it.

I understand where you are coming from and your skepticism [especialy since most 'people' here are men]. And people should read the rest of the post upthread a couple posts.

But I'm pretty outraged at what a predator Ghomeshi is, how he used his power to prey upon women. Not all of them, but enough of the stories we have heard, he appears to go after vulnerability. So I dont really care 'how far we went' with them, or didnt go. [And that was likely strategizing on his part.]

Not to mention that a lot of the accounts include forceful groping and forced oral sex. The man clearly gets off on extreme humiliation of women he has lured.

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Jian did more than just slap and punch a few women.  Eight women have already surfaced - that is more than a few.  And this is just Week One of this scandal.

Next time this week there may be another eight women who have surfaced to tell their tales.

And we're not just talking about a couple of slaps or light punches - we're talking about a guy who seems to be a serial puncher, choker & beater.  This seems to be a guy that has so much pent up rage & violence that within minutes of meeting these women he starts punching them & going for their throats and choking them.

It's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a sex assault scandal involving a public figure.  He sounds like a maniac or a psycho.

The word was out. Women warned each other. No one, men included, seemed to think it was something that should be reported. He may sound like a maniac or psycho to you but he didn't to others. I'm not saying most men are like that, but it's like natural redheads or left handers. It's not common but it's not unusual either. It's a normal male behavior. I don't think he has any pent up rage. He isn't a psycho. He just gets off on power and intimidation. He is a product of our culture.

You're right it's more than a few women. He's 47, so he's probably been at it for at least 20 years. 4 a year is probably a low average. I'd say his numbers are probably approaching a hundred if not more, none of whom came forward.

4 voices wasn't enough. I was sure more women would step forward but doubling the number overnight is forcing more people to grudgingly accept the testimony, especially as he attacked a woman with a high enough status to come forward. That was his mistake. He got arrogant and started picking women in his melieu/class and higher status for more points. I have no proof but I also have no doubt that 8 is the tip of the iceburg. I hope more of them decide to come forward but they may decide they are unneeded so better to continue staying quiet than get associated with the story.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Pondering wrote:
 Interesting. My reaction was more surprise that anyone considered it a big enough deal to come forward at all. It seems none of them were raped.

Pondering, What The Fuck?!?! It's called assault!!!!!

The reasons why many of the women didn't come forward (at the time or right now) have been explained quite a few times already. If you choose not to get it, then you need to at least understand how vilely offensive this is.

"Politically correct"?!?!? Jebus H. Cripes.

Pondering wrote:
 The word was out. Women warned each other. No one, men included, seemed to think it was something that should be reported.

I'm a bit stunned that this was a "known secret", and that some folks, rather proudly(??) have been saying "Oh yeah I knew this about him 10 years ago" in a rather proud manner it seems to me. Having no connections to him or his entourage, I cannot imagine knowing such information, doing NOTHING, and then quasi-bragging about it now. If I had known this, and had done nothing, I would be deeply ashamed of myself and wouldn't be bragging about how much idiot "insider" info I had all these years. For Fucks Sake.

Women warned each other? So, any woman who dated him was asking for it?Knew what he did and therefore was into it? Are You Fucking Kidding Me? Like everyone this happened to already was able to warn and defer all 20 something interns at the CBC, or wherever else he looked for dates/victims?

And what men think should be reported is completely useless. And that includes women who agree with such men.

P.S. Pondering if you're in the PR business I think you can pick him up as a client since Navigator has dropped him.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

I don't trust that people even here, are really all that outraged. I think they are secretly thinking it's no big deal. It just wouldn't be politically correct to say it.

Well you are right. There is something I will leave unsaid in response to that out of deference to the space, but it isn't that I think physical assault and harrassment aren't a big deal.

I will say this though, the mention in the Current interview about keeping silent, self-doubting, and just pretending that something didn't happen because it was so bizarre and shocking certainly does ring true. I'm really glad she put that feeling into words, because it is something that people who haven't experienced it generally don't get.

 

 

 

jas

zerocarbs wrote:

Something that puzzles me: Jian was a smart man, working hard to build his rep and his show. How could he not realize that as a public figure, he had to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life? Other prominent flame-outs (Eliot Spitzer & Bill Clinton for example) tend to get nailed over almost one-off indiscretions, not stuff that they've been doing for decades. And nothing as creepy as beating unsuspecting women.

I can think of two scenarios:

1) He may have believed, being also attractive and magnetic, that his violence was a secret turn-on for women, and even that women would have heard rumours about his "sexual tastes" and therefore, by approaching him or allowing him to engage them, they took on that risk.

2) As I speculated upthread, split personality or some kind of serious psychopathic disorder could also explain his seeming lack of caution or concern for consequences.

Caissa

For the record, I heard things about Jian's relationships over 20 years but nothing like these allegations. I know women that dated him when he was in his early 20s.  What I heard was smoke; this appears to be fire.

Pondering

Maysie, don't try to read between the lines because you are just putting words in my mouth that prove you didn't understand what I was saying.

Maysie wrote:
"Politically correct"?!?!? Jebus H. Cripes.

Read the post directly above yours.

Maysie wrote:
I'm a bit stunned that this was a "known secret", and that some folks, rather proudly(??) have been saying "Oh yeah I knew this about him 10 years ago" in a rather proud manner it seems to me. Having no connections to him or his entourage, I cannot imagine knowing such information, doing NOTHING, and then quasi-bragging about it now. If I had known this, and had done nothing, I would be deeply ashamed of myself and wouldn't be bragging about how much idiot "insider" info I had all these years.

So what would you have done about it? Forced victims to come forward? You are passing judgement on a large group of women who were trying to protect one another. Women who understood that they didn't have enough to openly accuse him with so they did the next best thing, they warned each other.

One woman did complain at work to her superiors and to her union and she was asked how she could improve the situation. Now the CBC is investigating and trying to cover their ass. This could easily have remained an open secret. CBC was goingto let him walk away voluntarily. He refused to go quietly. There still haven't been any criminal charges.

I think it's very naive that you are shocked or stunned. I have no doubt that similar situations are common regardless of class or industry.

A_J

A Twitter account @bigearsteddy (under the name "Sidnie Georgina") was posting similar accusations back in April:

Apr 9

Hi there @jianghomeshi. Remember louring me to ur house under false pretences? Bruises dont lie. Signed, every female Carleton U media grad.

So I guess it's not abuse if you're paying the girl to like it. Right, @jianghomeshi? #happyhitting #hookerhero

Apr 10

BREAKING NEWS: @jianghomeshi keeps an impressive anthology of videos and photos of the young girls he chokes out... #howromantic #rapecultre

THIS JUST IN: @jianghomeshi the real life monster behind britney spears smash "Hit me baby one more time". #hideyourkids #hideyourwife

Yes, a friendly FYI @jianghomeshi to cement your great depression,snuck a viddy of you punching me – OOPS this is my confession #staytuned

CDN poll reads listeners of @CBCRadioQ want to know: is "Welcome to the Punch" @jianghomeshi favourite date night movie? YUP! #rapeculture

Apr 11

Ever wake up wishing you could live a day in @jianghomeshi shoes? All you gotta do is Eat. Sleep. Degrade women. Repeat. Yes. It's THAT easy

Basement Dweller

Pondering wrote:

4 voices wasn't enough. I was sure more women would step forward but doubling the number overnight is forcing more people to grudgingly accept the testimony, especially as he attacked a woman with a high enough status to come forward. That was his mistake. He got arrogant and started picking women in his melieu/class and higher status for more points. I have no proof but I also have no doubt that 8 is the tip of the iceburg. I hope more of them decide to come forward but they may decide they are unneeded so better to continue staying quiet than get associated with the story.

For the record, this allegedly happened to Lucy Decoutere over a decade ago (see post #282) when she wasn't nearly as well known or high status.

Pondering

jas wrote:

zerocarbs wrote:

Something that puzzles me: Jian was a smart man, working hard to build his rep and his show. How could he not realize that as a public figure, he had to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life? Other prominent flame-outs (Eliot Spitzer & Bill Clinton for example) tend to get nailed over almost one-off indiscretions, not stuff that they've been doing for decades. And nothing as creepy as beating unsuspecting women.

I can think of two scenarios:

1) He may have believed, being also attractive and magnetic, that his violence was a secret turn-on for women, and even that women would have heard rumours about his "sexual tastes" and therefore, by approaching him or allowing him to engage them, they took on that risk.

2) As I speculated upthread, split personality or some kind of serious psychopathic disorder could also explain his seeming lack of caution or concern for consequences.

Or, he escalated over time and became over-confident because he kept getting away with it. Sounds like it started with rough hair pulling. I can't imagine going to police and accusing a man of pulling my hair, or of being punched but having no bruises. If he had kept to women outside his social and work circle he would probably still be getting away with it.

He didn't care what women thought about it or if they were turned on by it. The point was it turned him on and from what the women have said he expected them to accept that as justification for his actions.

jas
bekayne
mark_alfred

A_J wrote:

A Twitter account @bigearsteddy (under the name "Sidnie Georgina") was posting similar accusations back in April:

Apr 9

Hi there @jianghomeshi. Remember louring me to ur house under false pretences? Bruises dont lie. Signed, every female Carleton U media grad.

So I guess it's not abuse if you're paying the girl to like it. Right, @jianghomeshi? #happyhitting #hookerhero

Apr 10

BREAKING NEWS: @jianghomeshi keeps an impressive anthology of videos and photos of the young girls he chokes out... #howromantic #rapecultre

THIS JUST IN: @jianghomeshi the real life monster behind britney spears smash "Hit me baby one more time". #hideyourkids #hideyourwife

Yes, a friendly FYI @jianghomeshi to cement your great depression,snuck a viddy of you punching me – OOPS this is my confession #staytuned

CDN poll reads listeners of @CBCRadioQ want to know: is "Welcome to the Punch" @jianghomeshi favourite date night movie? YUP! #rapeculture

Apr 11

Ever wake up wishing you could live a day in @jianghomeshi shoes? All you gotta do is Eat. Sleep. Degrade women. Repeat. Yes. It's THAT easy

Thanks.  Interesting.  The teddy bear thing is certainly creepy.  ETA:  also the reference to video hints at more evidence that may surface.

mark_alfred

I notice that it seems there's often a feeling that when it's he said she said that the default belief will be with the "he", unless there are numerous shes.  I recall that Sarah Thompson's first instinct after being groped by Ford was to try and get another woman to also be groped by him so that she would have have company (and too so that there would be an opportunity to have a photo or more concrete proof.) 

mark_alfred

pookie

Maysie wrote:

Pondering wrote:
 Interesting. My reaction was more surprise that anyone considered it a big enough deal to come forward at all. It seems none of them were raped.

Pondering, What The Fuck?!?! It's called assault!!!!!

The reasons why many of the women didn't come forward (at the time or right now) have been explained quite a few times already. If you choose not to get it, then you need to at least understand how vilely offensive this is.

"Politically correct"?!?!? Jebus H. Cripes.

Pondering wrote:
 The word was out. Women warned each other. No one, men included, seemed to think it was something that should be reported.

I'm a bit stunned that this was a "known secret", and that some folks, rather proudly(??) have been saying "Oh yeah I knew this about him 10 years ago" in a rather proud manner it seems to me. Having no connections to him or his entourage, I cannot imagine knowing such information, doing NOTHING, and then quasi-bragging about it now. If I had known this, and had done nothing, I would be deeply ashamed of myself and wouldn't be bragging about how much idiot "insider" info I had all these years. For Fucks Sake.

Women warned each other? So, any woman who dated him was asking for it?Knew what he did and therefore was into it? Are You Fucking Kidding Me? Like everyone this happened to already was able to warn and defer all 20 something interns at the CBC, or wherever else he looked for dates/victims?

And what men think should be reported is completely useless. And that includes women who agree with such men.

P.S. Pondering if you're in the PR business I think you can pick him up as a client since Navigator has dropped him.

FTR I think much of this was uncalled for.

NorthReport

Former liberal deputy prime minister
Is under fire for trying to defend ghomenshi

Pondering

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/30/big-ears-played-really-important-ro...

In a talk in Stratford, Ont., on July 5, Ghomeshi said he bought Big Ears after his therapist suggested it would help him through anxious times.

A replacement for a childhood toy, the teddy bear became a constant companion, even in adulthood.

“Big Ears has played a really important role in my life, because I have a general anxiety disorder,” Ghomeshi said at the time.

Ghomeshi told the Stratford audience the bear was perhaps odd, and somewhat embarrassing but ultimately an effective safety net for him.....

“The idea is taking solace in not being alone,” said Ghomeshi.

“Everyone is neurotic,” he added. “My idols are neurotic ... Successful, talented creative people, in my experience I’ve discovered, are all either neurotic or insecure or freaked out in some way or another.”

He received a standing ovation from the crowd and as artistic director Antoni Cimolino urged him out for a curtain call, Ghomeshi turned to him and said: “If only Big Ears could see this.”

(CBC damage control)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/30/jian_ghomeshi_issues_state...

The CBC says it is hiring a third-party company to conduct an investigation in the wake of allegations against former Q radio host Jian Ghomeshi.

A memo from the CBC's Heather Conway says the move follows “accounts of impropriety towards (CBC) employees.”

CBC also says it is making counsellors available to employees.

 

mark_alfred

mark_alfred

I didn't feel Copps' comments were to make a point specifically about Ghomeshi himself.  Rather, she seemed to be making a point about justice and society using the Ghomeshi situation as an example.  There was nothing she said that I took to be supportive of Ghomeshi himself, though perhaps I've not seen all her statements.

Debater

If you mean Shiela Copps, she unfortunately seems to be reluctant to believe some of the things that are being said about Ghomeshi.  Copps seems to be making some of the excuses for Ghomeshi that Elizabeth May was making earlier in the week.

I was surprised to hear this, so I sent Sheila a message last night on this topic , saying that considering her long career as a prominent activist & feminist MP that I hope she will listen to all these interviews with the women and re-consider her statements and realize that if Ghomeshi were an ordinary Joe off the streets, she probably wouldn't be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

This incident goes to show that even successful, prominent women politicians like May & Copps sometimes don't want to believe these things if they are said about a public figure they know.

It goes to show how right these women were to say that they didn't feel they would be believed or taken seriously.

Pages