this also reminds me of the rape allegation against bill clinton, i think bill clinton is guilty..but because he is so powerful and hes a president, we still let him get away with it
the whole reason we have so much discussion about sexual assault is becasue the gender power dynamic is changing as a whole..even 20 years ago, "normal" men would act in a way that we might not find acceptable now.
And Paladin, somehow I don't think you throw up your hands in the same way when it is about your concerns with the legality of firearms.
If you feel so passionate about your possessions, consider how people feel about being assaulted.
I know there are attempts from a number of sides to push this into a theoretical marshmallow goo.
Sorry, but it is about people being choked and hit in the head.
(and... to remind people of the photographic evidence, bruised arms and cracked ribs)
Smith I think you have a pre-conceived opinion of my views on this trial. I don't understand your context about throwing my hands in the air about firearms, could you please explain that to me?
In my post I simply said I've been a witness in a sexual assault trial and I observed the lawyers barely speaking about the trial (in my opinion) and seemingly in a rush to hurry through it. I also pointed out the judge fell asleep when the victim was on the freaking stand- I don't think the judge could really get anymore ignorant than that. Do you?
You're right it's about someone being choked and hit in the head. And there are those of us pointing out how part of the justice system will go out of it's way to make it about anything and everything OTHER than being choked and hit in the head.
i dont know, but it sounds like this lady lucy decoutere did kind of enjoy it or at least she found the experience interesting..
That is not the question. The question is did she give prior consent and if not then it doesn't matter whether some part of her liked it or excused it. Many women forgive their abusers and just want to move forward and maybe even have a relationship but that has nothing to do with whether they gave consent at the time of the incident.
but the fact is these women lied about having contact with him in court, so its hard to enter a conviction becasue their credibility is tainted. it is very confusing.
the whole reason we have so much discussion about sexual assault is becasue the gender power dynamic is changing as a whole..even 20 years ago, "normal" men would act in a way that we might not find acceptable now.
i would be worried of how ghomeshi might treat women living on the margins of society, if he can treat a white middle class woman actress badly, imagine what he would do to women who are not famous or well off or endearing to the public
alot of men wouldnt get away with these behaviours, but powerful and rich or famous men do often because society enables it, its an expectation thing.
Then Paladin, please frame it in a way that clarifies your intent. Because the only thing I read out of that is fuckitall.
And while I don't presume that is your intent (really, I don't) it actually contributes to the anger I am feeling around this.
This is serious business; pointing out that some people don't take it seriously is a bad distraction if you don't say what you mean.
That's exactly what I was intending to point out Smith; some people don't take it seriously. In the example I gave it was the courts themselves. It pissed me off and I wanted to throw something at the judge for being such an inconsiderate asshole. I can't begin to imagine how shitty the girl felt answering the lawyers questions and seeing the judge not even giving a fuck.
The legal concept of presumption of innocence does not mean that accusers are presumed to be lying.
True statement, but a rhetorical one. You'd be naive to think a defendant's lawyer will piously adhere to it. As a matter of fact, it's the main defense strategy in this case: try to show that they did.
Oh, I hate coming across as naive... I should have been clearer - let me rectify that. The opening sentence of my post was addressed to those making comments in this (and other) threads and had nothing to do with the goings-on at the trial itself. It was a reaction to the actual goings-on being treated as if they were the colour commentary to an athletic event "they shoot, they score".
You must come to understand what the man is explaining.
And Paladin, somehow I don't think you throw up your hands in the same way when it is about your concerns with the legality of firearms.
If you feel so passionate about your possessions, consider how people feel about being assaulted.
I know there are attempts from a number of sides to push this into a theoretical marshmallow goo.
Sorry, but it is about people being choked and hit in the head.
(and... to remind people of the photographic evidence, bruised arms and cracked ribs)
What are you talking about? I was referring to a post that was discussing the CBC's actions not the court action.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
I hope Ghomeshi is convicted but even if he is not that does not mean he is innocent, it does not mean firing him was wrong, and it does not mean that it is unfair for the public to judge him.
Here is a a heart felt article on JG and his "dating" style. IMO everything I read screams he is a misogynist pig.
Quote:
Well...were you one of them?!One of Jian's victims?
Confusion. Followed by a deep breath. Then the question started to sink in. Inhale. No. Exhale. Nononononono, absolutely not, no. I am not Jian’s victim. I am not a victim of anything. I shrugged and felt the nothingness again, and just continued to let the phone ring and texts and emails pile up. Are sure you are ok?!
I am ok. Totally fine.
Over the next few days, I felt nauseous. Then empty. Then nauseous again. Like I was constantly going to throw-up, then I'd get the wave relief just by thinking about throwing-up. Then I'd have to imaginarily throw up all over again. There was no way this could be true. And, no, I was not a victim. It would all blow over in a few days, then Jian would go back to hosting Q- he'd probably start off his new reign by bringing on a perky, female sex-expert to discuss the secret world of BDSM; how misunderstood this growing community is; Jian enthusing intelligently with that genuine, smokey air of his- He’ll be sure to mention how he was the victim of society's ignorance for the sexually-explorative, but that this experience has only made him stronger...
Yes, that is what would happen.
But then the BDSM community shamed Ghomeshi's statement, he was dropped by his pricey PR firm and more allegations were reported. I bundled up and took an early break from my office, walking in circles in the parking lot, wishing I was a smoker.
I exhaled the illusion of toxic smoke from my lungs. I jumped, peering over my shoulder, as though someone was creeping up on me. Startling myself, I pulled out my phone, turning it over and over in my hands, not thinking anymore…
I texted Jian. He texted back right away. Anything you can to do to help me would be greatly appreciated. I need you right now. Inhale.
He never texts me back right away.
Exhale. I didn’t reply. What could I do? What did I have to offer the world? What could I say? The truth? Who should I believe anyway? Jian or the media? Who to trust? Myself?!
Who I am? Me. And my options are to be:
Naive victim.
Or naive, brainwashed young woman.
Or silence.
I deleted his messages. Then I Unfollowed and Deleted and Unfriended.
Silence. Good.
Then he texted me one more time. I am going to have to go on the down-low for a while. I am getting a new number. Your support is greatly appreciated, B. All the best.
I flung the phone across the parking lot. It landed deep in a snowbank.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee.
Actually according to news reports that appear to be accurate he was indeed a unionized employee. I remember at the time laughing because he had filed a court case. It would have been thrown out immediately by any Judge as soon as they were given a copy of the collective agreement. Which is why he settled the case and paid the CBC's costs.
In the day I had various union members tell me that they were going to sue instead of going through the grievance process and that a lawyer they knew was willing to take the case. I used to tell them that if a lawyer gave them that advise they would do well to get a second opinion from a labour lawyer.
Quote:
Ghomeshi launched the lawsuit against the CBC last month after he was fired from the broadcaster. CBC sought to have it dismissed, saying it was "without merit and an abuse of the court’s process."
Former Q radio host Jian Ghomeshi was fired from the CBC in late October. He has agreed to withdraw a $55-million lawsuit against the broadcaster.
The former Q host has also filed a grievance against the CBC through his union, the Canadian Media Guild, and it is still open.
"That's the next piece," Thompson said. "That process still needs to unfold."
It was excellent. I went to a park next to a wooded lot for a picnic with my younger sister and her friend. A man was in the woods and pulled his pants down. We went home and I told my mother. She didn't call police. We never went there for picnics again. I learned early that when men are a threat it is up to me to avoid.
The man sitting next to me on the bus that slid his hand under my thigh as he pretended to steady himself as the bus turned, the one sitting next to me that I put my umbrella between us and gave him a dirty look for a similar move, when a man behind me on an escalator put his hand between my legs I ran, never told anyone of any of these incidents nor the 4 rapes.
It's like I sent out a signal, this one won't fight back.
Intellectually I know most men aren't like that. I have a nephew I trust. Every other man is suspect. Just because they appear like normal human beings doesn't mean they are. There are rapists and abusers right on this board. Lest we forget, Ghomeshi's reputation as a progressive and woman's rights defender was sterling.
I was reading an article in which a man was complaining about his pet peeves on public transport. One was that women change seats for no apparent reason. There is a reason. We are trying to avoid letting a man sit next to us or trying to sit closer to the front where we are less likely to be touched.
Pndering, did I need to use my irony quotes? None of that was directed at you.
"the man is explaining" was intended as a clear giveaway.
And Paladin, as is the case with our often silent moderators here, don't mistake lack of intervention for lack of attention. I don't see the judge's silence as negligence at all.
If he has no explicit reason to interrupt what is going on, why would he say anything?
And Paladin, as is the case with our often silent moderators here, don't mistake lack of intervention for lack of attention. I don't see the judge's silence as negligence at all.
If he has no explicit reason to interrupt what is going on, why would he say anything?
Are we talking about my example?
If so, you're saying you think it's okay for a victim of sexual assault to have her abuser sit in the court room making faces and shaking his head at her while she's being questioned by the defense? Or for the judge to sleep through portions of her testimoney?
You must come to understand what the man is explaining.
And Paladin, somehow I don't think you throw up your hands in the same way when it is about your concerns with the legality of firearms.
If you feel so passionate about your possessions, consider how people feel about being assaulted.
I know there are attempts from a number of sides to push this into a theoretical marshmallow goo.
Sorry, but it is about people being choked and hit in the head.
(and... to remind people of the photographic evidence, bruised arms and cracked ribs)
What are you talking about? I was referring to a post that was discussing the CBC's actions not the court action.
Quote:
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
Maybe you mean, the employer failed to defend the rights of female employees at the CBC? The union doesn't fire people, the employer does.
Quote:
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
The first contradicts the second.
Quote:
I hope Ghomeshi is convicted but even if he is not that does not mean he is innocent, it does not mean firing him was wrong, and it does not mean that it is unfair for the public to judge him.
Of course he isn't innocent in the eyes of the people. He did horrible things to some of the women. But that's different than how the court may see it. Nothing wrong with people of decency passing judgement on some of the horrible things he did. But there again, it seems that some of the victims are failing to condemn him for some of his actions. See previous remarks of one person on this board who is involved in BDSM activities and maybe answer the question of whether he/she is sick in the head. Myself, I'm cautious of trying to decide what is normal and what isn't.
We are talking about this trial Paladin, not yours. So if you want to make a point, especially an inflamatory one, please clarify how it ties into the case at hand.
There is no evidence that the judge is sleeping on the job here, and this case is confusing enough without this anecdotal, irrelevant stuff.
We are talking about this trial Paladin, not yours. So if you want to make a point, especially an inflamatory one, please clarify how it ties into the case at hand.
There is no evidence that the judge is sleeping on the job here, and this case is confusing enough without this anecdotal, irrelevant stuff.
Very much enjoying your remarks Paladin. I find it's enriching to the conversation and are something different than the same old singsong that's been repeated over and over again. I think that if there's any legitimate objections then they will come from the people who should object. The moderators. Others need to pull in their horns and stop trying to push people around for their opinons. They're turning out to be the biggest offenders of all.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
I agree Pondering that both the union and the employer have an obligation to protect female employees from harassment. Here is the Media Guild's take on it.
Quote:
This policy statement addresses one of the most difficult situations a union can find itself in. The Guild has a statutory obligation under the Canada Labour Code to represent members who have been disciplined by employers. The Guild also has a moral obligation to protect members who are victims of harassment. When one member complains of being harassed sexually (or in other ways) by another member the Guild has obligations to protect the legitimate interests of both parties while the complaint is being investigated and beyond.
We are talking about this trial Paladin, not yours. So if you want to make a point, especially an inflamatory one, please clarify how it ties into the case at hand.
There is no evidence that the judge is sleeping on the job here, and this case is confusing enough without this anecdotal, irrelevant stuff.
That makes more sense. I haven't read anything about this judge yet. I was talking about my example and how my experience with the courts wasn't impressive. I'm sure this judge will be more awake at the helm due to the media attention involved.
Ps every single member on this forum has used anecdotal examples including yourself during various debates here.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
I stand corrected by Kro, Ghomeshi was also unionized.
monty1 wrote:
Maybe you mean, the employer failed to defend the rights of female employees at the CBC? The union doesn't fire people, the employer does.
An employee complained about Ghomeshi to the union. She was asked if she wanted to make it official. Because she didn't the union did nothing. The moment she told the union it was official. Even though she was afraid to make a more formal complaint that did not absolve the union. They should have investigated.
Pondering wrote:
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
monty1 wrote:
The first contradicts the second.
Executives were fired after it became public that they had knowledge of Ghomeshi's inappropriate behavior and did nothing.
monty1 wrote:
Of course he isn't innocent in the eyes of the people. He did horrible things to some of the women. But that's different than how the court may see it. Nothing wrong with people of decency passing judgement on some of the horrible things he did. But there again, it seems that some of the victims are failing to condemn him for some of his actions. See previous remarks of one person on this board who is involved in BDSM activities and maybe answer the question of whether he/she is sick in the head. Myself, I'm cautious of trying to decide what is normal and what isn't.
I don't care whether he is sick in the head or not nor what the women said or did in the aftermath. He did not obtain consent before the acts. The BDSM community has been quite clear that in their world what he did was assault.
I don't care whether he is sick in the head or not nor what the women said or did in the aftermath. He did not obtain consent before the acts. The BDSM community has been quite clear that in their world what he did was assault.
That is well worth repeating. There is no such thing as sex without consent, that is sexual assault.
Sorry, thanks for the clarification, very sensitive topic for me. I hughly admire the women for coming forward.
No need to apologize.
I am trying to keep my anger over this one in check too.
Excuse me for talking as if this was just a room of bullyboys, but that has been the tenor of the conversation.
(edit)
And for the record, not meaning to come down too hard on you Paladin. I just really don't think it is helpful here. And no, without consent, it has nothing to do with BDSM either. Even if it is a kink of his, it is just some perp reaching for an excuse.
Would the court call upon the BDSM community to act as witness's or as a legal reference?
That would be for the Crown to introduce in evidence. While things like safe words are accepted as part of that world I doubt if the Judge would take judicial notice of BDSM and its standards without hearing evidence.
Are you unaware that Ghomeshi showed the CBC executives a video of himself enjoying breaking a woman's arm?
I don't recall hearing of a video of an arm being broken and searching the internet failed to turn up a news story about that. I did find reports of a video showing bruising as being behind his dismissal from the CBC.
Jim Hounslow, the e-learning specialist at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, told the Toronto Star the incident happened in the early 1990s, when they were both students at York University in Toronto and Ghomeshi was president of the student federation. He said Ghomeshi, without warning, grabbed his genitals through his jeans and fondled them after an evening student meeting at a pub.
Hounslow told the Star he grabbed Ghomeshi’s arm, pulled it behind his back and then pushed him hard against the doors of an elevator, telling him to never do that again. Hounslow told the Star Ghomeshi accused him the next day of being "macho, violent and homophobic," and said he was "playing around" the night before.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
I stand corrected by Kro, Ghomeshi was also unionized.
monty1 wrote:
Maybe you mean, the employer failed to defend the rights of female employees at the CBC? The union doesn't fire people, the employer does.
An employee complained about Ghomeshi to the union. She was asked if she wanted to make it official. Because she didn't the union did nothing. The moment she told the union it was official. Even though she was afraid to make a more formal complaint that did not absolve the union. They should have investigated.
Pondering wrote:
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
monty1 wrote:
The first contradicts the second.
Executives were fired after it became public that they had knowledge of Ghomeshi's inappropriate behavior and did nothing.
monty1 wrote:
Of course he isn't innocent in the eyes of the people. He did horrible things to some of the women. But that's different than how the court may see it. Nothing wrong with people of decency passing judgement on some of the horrible things he did. But there again, it seems that some of the victims are failing to condemn him for some of his actions. See previous remarks of one person on this board who is involved in BDSM activities and maybe answer the question of whether he/she is sick in the head. Myself, I'm cautious of trying to decide what is normal and what isn't.
I don't care whether he is sick in the head or not nor what the women said or did in the aftermath. He did not obtain consent before the acts. The BDSM community has been quite clear that in their world what he did was assault.
The only thing I would like to know from all that is why you say that the CBC failed to do anything and then you say that executives were fired? So what do you suppose the CBC should have done that they didn't do? And that's not a defence of the CBC. Disclaimer added because this place if full of trolls that are trying to demonize others every chance they get.
An interesting question arises. How many dates had any of the women had with Ghomeshi before the reported incidents? None? Or does anyone know?
Ellen Page may be a great young actress but what does her opinion of her friend LD matter at this point?
Lots of folks sprang to JG defence until they learned more.
Any one still supporting LD and trying to defend her behavior by placing her in the 'survivors of viollence' has not paid attention to the details that emerged on Friday.
Lawyer comment in the Star:
Kim Schofield
What are your thoughts on the trial?
“I’m surprised that they’re prosecuting this thing. You have a man whose life is ruined, who may have questionable sexual practices and may be a horrible character, but that’s not a criminal act.”
“The violence that’s alleged is probably true, but as for if it’s non-consensual, he certainly would think it is because these women seem to encourage it.”
“It looks to me like these acts are purely consensual, and I’m shocked that the Crown has witnesses that they call repeatedly and they have these surprise emails, what is that all about? One would expect that if the complainants were being forthright, they would tell the Crown.”
KIM SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES is a downtown Toronto law firm fearlessly defending individuals charged with all criminal offences, with a particular emphasis on drug offences, sexual assault offences and weapons offences
I suspect her perspective is coloured by the focus of her profession.
KIM SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES is a downtown Toronto law firm fearlessly defending individuals charged with all criminal offences, with a particular emphasis on drug offences, sexual assault offences and weapons offences
I suspect her perspective is coloured by the focus of her profession.
The only thing I would like to know from all that is why you say that the CBC failed to do anything and then you say that executives were fired? So what do you suppose the CBC should have done that they didn't do? And that's not a defence of the CBC. Disclaimer added because this place if full of trolls that are trying to demonize others every chance they get.
An interesting question arises. How many dates had any of the women had with Ghomeshi before the reported incidents? None? Or does anyone know?
The CBC should have acted when the allegations were made not after they found out about The Star investigation.
Those who worked with him, according to an investigative report made public, described him as moody, often mean and disrespectful, and “creepy” toward female colleagues he worked with.....
Ghomeshi’s award-winning star was burning brightly. Through it all, however, whispers about his sexual conduct with women were becoming louder.
McLaren called him incredibly thin-skinned.
“He used his insecurities as an excuse to be temperamental, petulant, even cruel,” she wrote.
The accusatory whispers ultimately culminated in a roar of accusations and outrage in October 2014, when CBC fired him, saying it had seen “graphic evidence” that he had physically injured a woman. The ensuing scandal, which garnered international headlines and sparked a nationwide conversation about consent and sexual harassment, saw more than two dozen women allege physical or sexual assault at his hands. CBC itself came under fire for failing to stop what colleagues said was his abusive behaviour.
The CBC protected Ghomeshi instead of investigating him because he was their biggest star.
Ellen Page may be a great young actress but what does her opinion of her friend LD matter at this point?
Lots of folks sprang to JG defence until they learned more.
Any one still supporting LD and trying to defend her behavior by placing her in the 'survivors of viollence' has not paid attention to the details that emerged on Friday.
Lawyer comment in the Star:
Kim Schofield
What are your thoughts on the trial?
“I’m surprised that they’re prosecuting this thing. You have a man whose life is ruined, who may have questionable sexual practices and may be a horrible character, but that’s not a criminal act.”
“The violence that’s alleged is probably true, but as for if it’s non-consensual, he certainly would think it is because these women seem to encourage it.”
“It looks to me like these acts are purely consensual, and I’m shocked that the Crown has witnesses that they call repeatedly and they have these surprise emails, what is that all about? One would expect that if the complainants were being forthright, they would tell the Crown.”
He did not obtain consent prior to what he did to them. He didn't say, hey, do you like getting punched in the head? It doesn't matter if one of the victims then fell in love with him and married him and had six children. It would still be assault.
Even, if the day after, she said, hey, I really got off on you punching me in the head last night. It would still be assault unless she consented prior to the act.
"It does a disservice to victims for DeCoutere to seek shelter in their pathology.
She was then, as now, a smart, strong, independent woman. She had no emotional history with Ghomeshi to untangle. There was neither financial dependency nor family considerations to complicate disengaging from the person who’d brutally manhandled her, as alleged. Ghomeshi, while apparently a celebrity of influence in the entertainment industry they shared, had no discernible pressure he could wield over her career and hadn’t — so far as court has heard — attempted to shut her up about the incident lest his own reputation be threatened."
We are talking about this trial Paladin, not yours. So if you want to make a point, especially an inflamatory one, please clarify how it ties into the case at hand.
There is no evidence that the judge is sleeping on the job here, and this case is confusing enough without this anecdotal, irrelevant stuff.
Very much enjoying your remarks Paladin. I find it's enriching to the conversation and are something different than the same old singsong that's been repeated over and over again. I think that if there's any legitimate objections then they will come from the people who should object. The moderators. Others need to pull in their horns and stop trying to push people around for their opinons. They're turning out to be the biggest offenders of all.
alleged victims ... who have lost credibility ... one who is now worried about facing a perjury charge.
in fact you do a huge disservice to victims of abuse when include these sad cases in the 'victim blaming' category
Unless you are one of those victims, like a number of the women here are, that isn't your call.
The women participating in this conversation don't have any trouble at all understanding the women's behavior even if it is not what we think we would have done under the same circumstances. That is because we have all experienced female conditioning and understand that it can take decades, a lifetime even, to undo what we have been taught to accept and taught to value in ourselves and in the men we are attracted to.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick
this also reminds me of the rape allegation against bill clinton, i think bill clinton is guilty..but because he is so powerful and hes a president, we still let him get away with it
the whole reason we have so much discussion about sexual assault is becasue the gender power dynamic is changing as a whole..even 20 years ago, "normal" men would act in a way that we might not find acceptable now.
Smith I think you have a pre-conceived opinion of my views on this trial. I don't understand your context about throwing my hands in the air about firearms, could you please explain that to me?
In my post I simply said I've been a witness in a sexual assault trial and I observed the lawyers barely speaking about the trial (in my opinion) and seemingly in a rush to hurry through it. I also pointed out the judge fell asleep when the victim was on the freaking stand- I don't think the judge could really get anymore ignorant than that. Do you?
You're right it's about someone being choked and hit in the head. And there are those of us pointing out how part of the justice system will go out of it's way to make it about anything and everything OTHER than being choked and hit in the head.
That is not the question. The question is did she give prior consent and if not then it doesn't matter whether some part of her liked it or excused it. Many women forgive their abusers and just want to move forward and maybe even have a relationship but that has nothing to do with whether they gave consent at the time of the incident.
Then Paladin, please frame it in a way that clarifies your intent. Because the only thing I read out of that is fuckitall.
And while I don't presume that is your intent (really, I don't) it actually contributes to the anger I am feeling around this.
This is serious business; pointing out that some people don't take it seriously is a bad distraction if you don't say what you mean.
but the fact is these women lied about having contact with him in court, so its hard to enter a conviction becasue their credibility is tainted. it is very confusing.
Funny that we forgive the men, but not the women.
i would be worried of how ghomeshi might treat women living on the margins of society, if he can treat a white middle class woman actress badly, imagine what he would do to women who are not famous or well off or endearing to the public
alot of men wouldnt get away with these behaviours, but powerful and rich or famous men do often because society enables it, its an expectation thing.
I'm not going to pull a quote. If you are interested read the whole thing:
https://janeeatonhamilton.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/the-preludes-to-assau...
That's exactly what I was intending to point out Smith; some people don't take it seriously. In the example I gave it was the courts themselves. It pissed me off and I wanted to throw something at the judge for being such an inconsiderate asshole. I can't begin to imagine how shitty the girl felt answering the lawyers questions and seeing the judge not even giving a fuck.
Oh, I hate coming across as naive... I should have been clearer - let me rectify that. The opening sentence of my post was addressed to those making comments in this (and other) threads and had nothing to do with the goings-on at the trial itself. It was a reaction to the actual goings-on being treated as if they were the colour commentary to an athletic event "they shoot, they score".
That was a very good article.
What are you talking about? I was referring to a post that was discussing the CBC's actions not the court action.
First of all, Ghomeshi was not a unionized employee. Second, even if he were, there is also an obligation to defend female employees. The union failed to defend female employees at CBC.
The CBC also failed to protect female employees. Executives were fired.
I hope Ghomeshi is convicted but even if he is not that does not mean he is innocent, it does not mean firing him was wrong, and it does not mean that it is unfair for the public to judge him.
Here is a a heart felt article on JG and his "dating" style. IMO everything I read screams he is a misogynist pig.
http://www.roadtonowhere.ca/litlabb/2016/1/30/my-experience-with-jian-gh...
Actually according to news reports that appear to be accurate he was indeed a unionized employee. I remember at the time laughing because he had filed a court case. It would have been thrown out immediately by any Judge as soon as they were given a copy of the collective agreement. Which is why he settled the case and paid the CBC's costs.
In the day I had various union members tell me that they were going to sue instead of going through the grievance process and that a lawyer they knew was willing to take the case. I used to tell them that if a lawyer gave them that advise they would do well to get a second opinion from a labour lawyer.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-s-55m-lawsuit-against-cbc-be...
It was excellent. I went to a park next to a wooded lot for a picnic with my younger sister and her friend. A man was in the woods and pulled his pants down. We went home and I told my mother. She didn't call police. We never went there for picnics again. I learned early that when men are a threat it is up to me to avoid.
The man sitting next to me on the bus that slid his hand under my thigh as he pretended to steady himself as the bus turned, the one sitting next to me that I put my umbrella between us and gave him a dirty look for a similar move, when a man behind me on an escalator put his hand between my legs I ran, never told anyone of any of these incidents nor the 4 rapes.
It's like I sent out a signal, this one won't fight back.
Intellectually I know most men aren't like that. I have a nephew I trust. Every other man is suspect. Just because they appear like normal human beings doesn't mean they are. There are rapists and abusers right on this board. Lest we forget, Ghomeshi's reputation as a progressive and woman's rights defender was sterling.
I was reading an article in which a man was complaining about his pet peeves on public transport. One was that women change seats for no apparent reason. There is a reason. We are trying to avoid letting a man sit next to us or trying to sit closer to the front where we are less likely to be touched.
Pndering, did I need to use my irony quotes? None of that was directed at you.
"the man is explaining" was intended as a clear giveaway.
And Paladin, as is the case with our often silent moderators here, don't mistake lack of intervention for lack of attention. I don't see the judge's silence as negligence at all.
If he has no explicit reason to interrupt what is going on, why would he say anything?
Are we talking about my example?
If so, you're saying you think it's okay for a victim of sexual assault to have her abuser sit in the court room making faces and shaking his head at her while she's being questioned by the defense? Or for the judge to sleep through portions of her testimoney?
We are talking about this trial Paladin, not yours. So if you want to make a point, especially an inflamatory one, please clarify how it ties into the case at hand.
There is no evidence that the judge is sleeping on the job here, and this case is confusing enough without this anecdotal, irrelevant stuff.
Very much enjoying your remarks Paladin. I find it's enriching to the conversation and are something different than the same old singsong that's been repeated over and over again. I think that if there's any legitimate objections then they will come from the people who should object. The moderators. Others need to pull in their horns and stop trying to push people around for their opinons. They're turning out to be the biggest offenders of all.
Sorry, thanks for the clarification, very sensitive topic for me. I hughly admire the women for coming forward.
I agree Pondering that both the union and the employer have an obligation to protect female employees from harassment. Here is the Media Guild's take on it.
http://www.cmg.ca/en/your-rights-and-resources/policies/member-to-member...
That makes more sense. I haven't read anything about this judge yet. I was talking about my example and how my experience with the courts wasn't impressive. I'm sure this judge will be more awake at the helm due to the media attention involved.
Ps every single member on this forum has used anecdotal examples including yourself during various debates here.
I stand corrected by Kro, Ghomeshi was also unionized.
An employee complained about Ghomeshi to the union. She was asked if she wanted to make it official. Because she didn't the union did nothing. The moment she told the union it was official. Even though she was afraid to make a more formal complaint that did not absolve the union. They should have investigated.
Executives were fired after it became public that they had knowledge of Ghomeshi's inappropriate behavior and did nothing.
I don't care whether he is sick in the head or not nor what the women said or did in the aftermath. He did not obtain consent before the acts. The BDSM community has been quite clear that in their world what he did was assault.
That is well worth repeating. There is no such thing as sex without consent, that is sexual assault.
Would the court call upon the BDSM community to act as witness's or as a legal reference?
No need to apologize.
I am trying to keep my anger over this one in check too.
Excuse me for talking as if this was just a room of bullyboys, but that has been the tenor of the conversation.
(edit)
And for the record, not meaning to come down too hard on you Paladin. I just really don't think it is helpful here. And no, without consent, it has nothing to do with BDSM either. Even if it is a kink of his, it is just some perp reaching for an excuse.
That would be for the Crown to introduce in evidence. While things like safe words are accepted as part of that world I doubt if the Judge would take judicial notice of BDSM and its standards without hearing evidence.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/J/JudicialNotice.aspx
I don't recall hearing of a video of an arm being broken and searching the internet failed to turn up a news story about that. I did find reports of a video showing bruising as being behind his dismissal from the CBC.
http://www.cp24.com/news/ghomeshi-showed-cbc-video-depicting-bruising-re...
I can't seem to find anything about him breaking any arms either.
But I did find this. Huh.
So I guess Ghomeshi is exclusively a "top".
The material the CBC saw concerned a bruised arm and a cracked rib.
Ellen Page tweets support for Lucy DeCoutere after testimony at Ghomeshi trial. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ellen-page-tweets-support-lucy...
The only thing I would like to know from all that is why you say that the CBC failed to do anything and then you say that executives were fired? So what do you suppose the CBC should have done that they didn't do? And that's not a defence of the CBC. Disclaimer added because this place if full of trolls that are trying to demonize others every chance they get.
An interesting question arises. How many dates had any of the women had with Ghomeshi before the reported incidents? None? Or does anyone know?
Ellen Page may be a great young actress but what does her opinion of her friend LD matter at this point?
Lots of folks sprang to JG defence until they learned more.
Any one still supporting LD and trying to defend her behavior by placing her in the 'survivors of viollence' has not paid attention to the details that emerged on Friday.
Lawyer comment in the Star:
Kim Schofield
What are your thoughts on the trial?
“I’m surprised that they’re prosecuting this thing. You have a man whose life is ruined, who may have questionable sexual practices and may be a horrible character, but that’s not a criminal act.”
“The violence that’s alleged is probably true, but as for if it’s non-consensual, he certainly would think it is because these women seem to encourage it.”
“It looks to me like these acts are purely consensual, and I’m shocked that the Crown has witnesses that they call repeatedly and they have these surprise emails, what is that all about? One would expect that if the complainants were being forthright, they would tell the Crown.”
the blaming of victims in this thread is fkn ugly.
Gee do you think?
I agree hold heartedly.
I suspect her perspective is coloured by the focus of her profession.
alleged victims ... who have lost credibility ... one who is now worried about facing a perjury charge.
in fact you do a huge disservice to victims of abuse when include these sad cases in the 'victim blaming' category
ya no.
and don't fkn tell me who i give a disservice to when you've not got a fkn clue.
The CBC should have acted when the allegations were made not after they found out about The Star investigation.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-ex-cbc-star-jian-ghomeshi-w...
The CBC protected Ghomeshi instead of investigating him because he was their biggest star.
He did not obtain consent prior to what he did to them. He didn't say, hey, do you like getting punched in the head? It doesn't matter if one of the victims then fell in love with him and married him and had six children. It would still be assault.
Even, if the day after, she said, hey, I really got off on you punching me in the head last night. It would still be assault unless she consented prior to the act.
required reading....
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/05/after-chokehold-story-jian-...
"It does a disservice to victims for DeCoutere to seek shelter in their pathology.
She was then, as now, a smart, strong, independent woman. She had no emotional history with Ghomeshi to untangle. There was neither financial dependency nor family considerations to complicate disengaging from the person who’d brutally manhandled her, as alleged. Ghomeshi, while apparently a celebrity of influence in the entertainment industry they shared, had no discernible pressure he could wield over her career and hadn’t — so far as court has heard — attempted to shut her up about the incident lest his own reputation be threatened."
ya no....
"victims in their pathology"?????? huh who knew....
ya don't get it.
fk it. mensplaining why abusing women is legal..
I have faith that this judge will understand gender dynamics.
You're quite the self-serving martyr.
Not sure why you're pushing this angle. These women were assaulted and there's been no denial so far. Are you hiding something?
Fucking disgusting
for real quiz, this is one of those times (i have faults, yes) I only listen to women.
I'd recommend this thread be movedt to the feminism forum. It is having triggers for me, a male with sisters. I need to avoid assault charges.
That is what the trial is about. The judge will decide .... not public opinion.
JG's lawyer has vigoursly challenged exactly that ... twice so far.
Read the article in the Star I linked to above .... written by a woman quizzical ...
Unless you are one of those victims, like a number of the women here are, that isn't your call.
The women participating in this conversation don't have any trouble at all understanding the women's behavior even if it is not what we think we would have done under the same circumstances. That is because we have all experienced female conditioning and understand that it can take decades, a lifetime even, to undo what we have been taught to accept and taught to value in ourselves and in the men we are attracted to.
Pages