So we know if he is part of the union? Some CBC hosts are not, as it is cheaper for 'talent' to be on contract instead.
Three women said they didn't go to the cops because they feared on-line bullying.
But wouldn't the rape-sheild law apply in this case? That they could have their identities protected?
as CBC broadcasters are
Not all broadcasters on CBC are employees. A number of them are on contract. But all the reports indicate Ghomeshi was.
(cross posted)
Jian Ghomeshi’s potential CBC lawsuit is hopeless — even if he’s telling the truth
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/27/jian-ghomeshis-cbc-lawsuit-...
From the linked article:
It is interesting that Ghomeshi is issuing a $50-million claim against CBC, while simultaneously declaring his historic loyalty to and love for it. The reality is, as he must also know, that suit will go nowhere. As a unionized employee, he cannot sue the CBC in court but is stuck with having to grieve through the arbitration process.
It is a common misapprehension that many unionized employees have (although it’s hard to believe of Ghomeshi). They mistakenly believe that being part of a union provides them protection. In fact, it is the reverse: Unionized employees cannot sue their employer for anything flowing from the employment relationship, whether it’s wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal or anything else. Ghomeshi surely wishes he was not part of a union.
The author is no doubt referring to the principle first established by the Supreme Court in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_v._Ontario_Hydro]Weber v. Ontario Hydro[/url]:
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour abitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement to court.
So, yes and no. It depends. Ghomeshi can't sue for wrongful dismissal in court - his union has to take that matter to arbitration. And there, if he can prove $50 million in damages flowing from the CBC's actions, the arbitrator has the same power to award such an amount as a court does.
But the key thing is, "matters under a collective agreement". I don't know what the lawsuit is about, exactly. But conceivably, he may be challenging some other type of alleged defamation by the CBC which could cause him losses, quite apart from the dismissal etc. That might not be deemed to be a collective agreement matter, in which case he could sue. It's a shade of grey.
Ghomeshi has already been punished by being sacked from his job. This sort of thing happens a lot in our society: before any trial, people are trashed in the media, fired, or imprisoned without bail while awaiting trial. It's really revolting. Outside courtroom procedure, the idea of innocent until proven guilty is obviously empty verbiage.
[url=https://ricochet.media/en/142/what-bothers-me-about-the-ghomeshi-discuss... bothers me about the Ghomeshi discussion[/url]
No one knows the entire truth, and we probably won’t know it until this goes to court, now that Ghomeshi has launched a $50 million lawsuit. But without pointing fingers and taking sides, I take issue with a few things.Just because someone is a well-loved public figure does not mean they are immune to wrongdoing and exempt from justice. We (the public) don’t know Jian any more than we know the four women who have come forward to accuse him of non-consensual sexual violence. We just think we know him because he’s been part of our lives for so long. If four women had come forward with allegations about the local school principal or the guy who runs the deli down the street, would we be more inclined to believe them? The cult of personality and hero worship are dangerous. They can erode our critical thinking and lead us to automatically assume innocence where guilt may reside. I’m not saying Ghomeshi is guilty, only that he’s not automatically innocent simply because we like the way he smoothly poses questions on air or because we liked Moxy Früvous. (Who the hell liked Moxy Früvous?)
Despite what many outraged Canadians might want to believe, from the beginning there were clear signs that this was always about more than kinky sex. Sure, our Crown Corporation (and many of its viewers) may not be “hip with the times” and into BDSM (I’m sure there are tons of confused conversations taking place in living rooms across the country right now, as viewers attempt to explain to grandma why her beloved Jian isn’t on the air today), but I have a hard time believing that the CBC would fire their golden goose over his unsavoury (to some) taste for bondage and spanking.
There's a limit to the meme that "whatever someone does in their private life is okay as long as it's consensual".
Most people are not into violent sex. Choking, punching, etc. goes beyond what most people are used to, even if it is consensual.
It's outside the mainstream, and it would destroy a politician's career if this were to be revealed about a political leader. We're not just talking about some extramarital affair here, but something that makes even those of us of a liberal persuasion when it comes to sexuailty somewhat uncomfortable.[...]
Well, it appears that reports about Mrs Grundy's demise may have been exaggerated.
As for "whatever someone does in their private life is okay as long as it's consenusal", I would suggest that is actually an axiom, not a meme. Using it axiomatically, I must observe that my level of concern regarding the "comfort level" of those of a "liberal persuasion" regarding matters of consensual sexuality is amost exactly the equivalent of my level of concern regarding the "comfort level" of those of a "conservative persuasion" - that is to say, miniscule.
The best thing I've read anywhere on this story is Anne Theriault (aka The Belle Jar) on Twitter.
The best thing I've read anywhere on this story is Anne Theriault (aka The Belle Jar) on Twitter.
Agreed.
Yes. Anne Thériault, by the way.
Anne Thériault's piece is important, and so much bigger than this case. Cuz it's eternal: "nice guys can't be sexual predators." BS.
From the Brenda Crossman piece: "The consent in advance doesn’t matter – at all. There has to be ongoing consent." Reminds me of the California [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california-adopts-yes-means-yes-bill-aimed-... Means Yes[/url] law.
Well, Ghomeshi has contracted Navigator P.R.
So, in the coming days, what we might expect are drive by smears of the women making the accusations, delivered by reporters and columnists in Jamie Watt's stable.
How the already unsavory relationship between the CBC and Navigator will play out in all this is going to be an interesting side show.
I personally think that if Jian's statements are all true he would have very good grounds to sue.
We will never know everything. But we already know that Jian has been far from forthright about the nature of allegations against him.
You may think he's lying, but perhaps present some evidence. He has come forward with his story, and oh by the way, the burden of proof is on the employer if they want to fire him.
On the question of whether he is lying- as noted, at a minimum he was very selective about how he characterised the accusations againts him.
In my books, that at the very least puts a hold on whether I believe his accounts. Let alone, this is about women accusing about sexual harassement and more. Who have reason to be afraid, etc. Pay attention to the previous posts.
And another by the way- it will be a very long time before anyone is in a position to judge whether CBC had grounds to fire him.Meanwhile...
Call me naive but if Jian Ghomeshi really felt it was wrongful dismissal, why wouldn't he let his union handle it? Why did he jump the gun and claim the it was a light version of "50 Shades of Grey" type of behaviour and the CBC brass were taking his kinky sex off air out of context? Why did he hire a high stakes PR firm like Navigator to represent him? Why the huge price tag on his wrongful dismissal suit?
There's lots about this situation that is very troubling. But one thing seems clear to me, Jian already considers himself an A Celebrity who doesn't need the protections of his union and who almost seems defiant in his innocence, not even once ackonwledging that his intentions may have been misunderstood (that being if it was really all a BDSM hook-up).
Call me naive but if Jian Ghomeshi really felt it was wrongful dismissal, why wouldn't he let his union handle it?
[url=http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/ghomeshi-lawsuit-against-cbc-alleges-breach-o...
Ghomeshi wrote in his Facebook post that he has also filed a grievance with his union. Carmel Smyth, president of the Canadian Media Guild, said she could not comment on individual members.
"Why did he hire a high stakes PR firm like Navigator to represent him?"
Because when you find yourself stuck in the septic tank of life, you call someone who doesn't mind wallowing in shit to get you out.
Link might not work at the moment due to high volume of traffic, but an excellent read if you get the chance.
[url=http://cuntinglinguist.com/2014/10/jian-versus-the-cbc.html]Jian Versus the CBC[/url]
well I am submissive in bed and I do consent to "rough sex" with my man, and he is a perfectly awesome man and is not wrong at all , there is no gray area in my eyes, and in my mind, and its none of anyone's business.
N in issues related to sex, censorship etc) has an interesting column in the Globe. The point made in the fifth paragraph, it seems to me, merits close attention...
Not that I neccessarily agree with the SCOC's reasoning, but if that's what they said, the implications seem pretty serious.
This is seriously stupid. Its basically makes every dominatrix legally a rapists, this is so stupid to the point whatever respect the SCC gain by striking down the prostitution laws has now been lost.
As Jian people on both sides are jumping to conclusions based on too little evidence based on personal politicals and fused emotions, its okay to without judgement until we have the facts. Does he end up charged, what evidence is presented, what ends up the judgement of the court, but if no charges get layed then yes he has a right to be conpensated for wrongful dismisal or get his job back.
if its found he is guilty then its justifible that he loses his job.
as for Clinton, people tend to give people they like or need a free pass compared to those they do not like. Many of the people who gave Clinton a free pass ripped George W. Bush a new one for touching a female politician in a completely none sexual way. Why, because they either liked Clinton and or they felt they needed him on some level.
There is a name for this in psychology but I forget what it is.
Great piece, oda:
Let’s imagine this. You’re some young girl, about 25, with dreams of making it in journalism or music. You somehow run into Ghomeshi at an event. He wows you with his pretty smile. Next day, he finds you on Facebook and says how he found something you wrote, or heard a song you did, and would love to talk to you about it.
Somehow, you’re flustered and proud, and the exchange gets flirty as it progresses, you say a few things that position you as a fan of sexual escapades, favourable towards BDSM, and yes you’d love to have a crantini at 9.
But then everything goes sideways. Choking, beating, whatever it is. That happens.
In the morning, you wake abused. But you’re still a 25-year-old kid who hasn’t even gotten her career started yet. The guy you were with is a millionaire radio guy who’s the face of a national broadcasting corporation.
First you need to contend with a well-sculpted public persona. Then you need to lose credibility in the press as some nobody-nothing who’s got “everything to gain” (except a career, respect, trust, or friends) from making accusations. Then you need to deal with the cops investigating you, and finally, your mom, dad, and whole family being embarrassed that you’re not only sexually promiscuous, but you’ve explored BDSM and were apparently willing to do it with a guy you only met once.
And all of this is before it ever reaches a court. This is all in WEEK ONE of a drama that could conceivably drag on for years, all with you at the forefront as the evil bitch who’s wrecking the career of everyone’s favourite cultural radio dude.
But, hey, yeah, you, you’re tough enough to do all that. You’re big enough to take on the machine. You’d have no excuses. You’d “trust” that the authorities and the media were going to treat you fairly. YOU WOULD DO THIS.
Is that about right? You’re that big on making a stand that you could handle this — even if you were some naive fresh-outta-school girl dreaming of a new career?
When’s the last time you busted someone at work for stealing supplies? When’s the last time you called someone out for a racist comment? When’s the last time you put your reputation on the line to fight someone in a position of authority? When’s the last time you stood up to anyone about ANYTHING — not to mention in front of police, the media, and an entire country?
Oh, never? Then shut the fuck up about why these girls aren’t coming forward. They’ve more to lose than you ever will.
Quite.
Great great piece!
If the law really didn't care about consent with assault, then where are the charges in Hockey games, Boxing, or Mixed Martial Arts?
Consent to assault is implied there, as it is in BDSM, and it's legal. But that's another subject.
The best thing I've read anywhere on this story is Anne Theriault (aka The Belle Jar) on Twitter.
Absolutely true.
I Spoke About Jian Before Knowing the Facts
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/elizabeth-may/elizabeth-may-jian-ghomeshi-t...
Elizabeth May Defends Jian Ghomeshi Amid Allegations Of Violence Against Women
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27/elizabeth-may-jian-ghomeshi_n_60...
Elizabeth May should not have weighed into this issue in the first place. What does it have to do with her? She should have done the same as the other leaders and stayed out of this situation and allowed each side to present its case and for all allegations to come forward before reaching any conclusions.
It is important that people remain aware that the results of the legal case ought not to reflect on the women who came forward to the Star or any others who may yet do so. I think it is important to note that their word may not ever be directly tested in law.
Gomeshi is alleging:
1) that he was fired without cause
2) that there was bad faith
The women are alleging violence against them and horrific aggressive and unwanted sexual behaviour towards them.
Gomeshi may or may not win a judgement. If he did win, that would not necessarily mean that he did not commit those acts or even that he even should not have been fired in the end after a different process.
If the CBC fired him for the wrong reasons even if the right reasons existed he may have a case (should he have proof).
If the CBC fired him without a fair process he may have a claim even if it turns out that a fair process likely would have had him fired.
Given their fears in making public their claims, these women will not see a full hearing of their claims. Very well-founded fears have often lead to women being denied justice or even believed.
It is possible that Gomeshi could have a case on bad faith if it turns out the CBC were telling him he had nothing to fear while they were investigating him if they were pretending to have a different position and interest in the manner than they actually had (at the material times). This would have to be proven of course. The CBC will likely claim that they were on his side until the last moment when they realized they could not be but if it turns out that they were talking to him with an intent to fire him when they said they were providing him legal assistance, he could have a claim for bad faith even with everything else being true.
It is even possible that we could see a claim by Gomeshi succeed on bad faith and a counter claim from the CBC succeed on damage to its reputation due to actions by Gomeshi. One does not negate the other.
The reason I say all this is simple: Should the case go badly for the CBC or appear to go well for Gomeshi, or should the CBC settle for example. It would not mean that anything these women have said is untrue. It would not mean that a crime has not been committed against them. It is important that we be sure to recognize the distinctly separate issues with potential findings of liability that could go in both directions.
These women who have spoken out are very vulnerable. They can be left hanging if the CBC and Gomeshi determine that their cases or even their public positions are flawed on both sides and would have less risk to take it to a private settlement.
It would not be the first time that victims get left behind as an employer and an alleged abuser take their differences behind closed doors for a settlement due to deficiencies in cases of both sides.
Not withstanding the far more serious issues of violence against women, there are some problematic issues raised by the allegation that an employer would share legal counsel with an employee, obtain confidential information about the case, change directions and perhaps not notify the employee of that change while the employee continuees to self incriminate. So again if the legal case turns on this, it should never be considered a reflection on the complaints that these women brought forward.
Sadly, should the CBC lose for reasons other than a test of the allegations made by these women, women who are victims of violence who are already extremely intimidated will have another public case giving reason for not coming forward. I fear that the biggest loss in this case may once again go to women who are victims of crimes while the CBC and its millionaire employer go to court, hire their PR people and take care of themselves. In fact, I am sorry to say, I think that is the most likely outcome.
[post deleted]
[post deleted]
and @ eastnoireast
I certainly wouldn't assume any conspiracy here; this is serious. Though again, the weird way it was handled by the CBC doesn't help anyone.
conspiracy and serious are not mutually exclusive.
anyway, just floating the question. cbc at the national level has signifigant spin processing going on. i've seen some stunning examples of cbc regional giving fair balanced coverage, and then later that night on the national (who would have access to the same footage) seeing a well crafted creation of fiction obviously serving the powers that be.
how to handle ongoing coverage of the shooting, and how the "jian situation" would impact that, (edit; and vice versa), would unquestionably have been part of the discussion at the top.
what values and forces were brought to bear on that discussion is the actual question, not if these things were or were not considered.
which makes me wonder if cbc was planning to ride this one out/sit on the situation and decided that they were never going to get a better window to cut their losses and make a move. how long did cbc know there was an issue?
-
in regards to the appropriatness of a powerfull someone who is into signifigantly violent sex (even if is 100% "consentual") hosting a publically funded interview show .... i can think of a lot of people who would be justifiably uncomfortable with that situation, not just the normals.
-
If the law really didn't care about consent with assault, then where are the charges in Hockey games, Boxing, or Mixed Martial Arts?
Yup, that might be the letter, but it simply is not applied that way (not even in public). just as it isn't with a number of other things that technically make criminals of everyone.
Again, they got a bit closer to it in Britain with Operation Spanner, and other incidents, but there hasn't been anything like that here.
And I agree, this might touch on the defense offered by Ghomeshi, but it's not clear that it has anything to do with the accusations made in The Star.
... that and an attempt to justify his firing, even though there is no evidence that morals or presumed legal risk had anything to do with CBC's decision.
(edit)
I did notice one quote on the thierault page that might have gone unnoticed because it is obscured by text - the banner at the top of the page. From Amanda Palmer:
jian is my guest. I don't kick guests out of my house or off my stage, because of what they are going through. ever. the end.
Link might not work at the moment due to high volume of traffic, but an excellent read if you get the chance.
[url=http://cuntinglinguist.com/2014/10/jian-versus-the-cbc.html]Jian Versus the CBC[/url]
The traffic problem got fixed.
Very good article.
https://www.facebook.com/deandelmastro/posts/10152567288463842
Interesting, though his message about women being concerned about making public accusations seems to be a foil for attacking the press (also, no evidence). Blatchford's piece attacks the Star for publishing, and says they only did so because Ghomeshi geve them the "hair of justification" with his letter.
Then she goes on to attack the accusers for not going to the police.
The woman who got the ball rolling
I Accidentally Went On A Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn't Gay
The guy also who broke the story is someone who has not had the same success with CBC and has had several projects nixed. I can imagine Ghomeshi's success did create resentment among some CBC colleagues who have worked on contract for the corp for years for little scraps of pay here and there. Maybe Ghomeshi is an asshole in his personal life, and that wouldn't help.
It is galling to some who work in the media who worked for student newspapers, gone to journalism school, done several internships and do all sorts of jobs to climb up the media ladder.
Then here somes someone without the training, with no on-the job experience and lands a pretty good gig at the CBC.
Then the whispers start about his personal life.
It would make anyone want to strike out
Why Sexual Assault Survivors Stay Quiet
This is important for people to understand. I'm noticing how much this particular issue has me divided and realizing how selective and hypocritical I can be on these issues. On the one hand, I do understand why women don't report. On the other hand, it's also claimed that the woman who first made the allegations, an ex, went to quite a bit of effort to find other women who would say something. Quite an effort went into exposing this story -- as Ghomeshi reports, he, with the CBC, has been dealing with these allegations since last spring.
The guy also who broke the story is someone who has not had the same success with CBC and has had several projects nixed. I can imagine Ghomeshi's success did create resentment among some CBC colleagues who have worked on contract for the corp for years for little scraps of pay here and there. Maybe Ghomeshi is an asshole in his personal life, and that wouldn't help.
Just saying that so far I'm still sympathizing with Ghomeshi. With what's at stake for him, I feel it's only fair he knows who his accusers are, and if I were him (and I believed I had done nothing wrong) I would want to launch a lawsuit too.
Owen Pallett:
Jian is my friend. I have appeared twice on Q. But there is no grey area here. Three women have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.
I have sat with Jian over drinks and discussed our respective anxiety disorders. We have been photographed hugging on camera.
Just ten days ago, I helped him find musicians for his father’s funeral. Three women have said that Jian beat them without their consent.
“We will never really know what happened.” Yes we do. Jian beat, at the very least, three women. Three women said so. “They were jilted exes.” Maybe so. They were beaten by Jian.
https://www.facebook.com/owenpalletteternal/posts/1491910081073780
often hard to square a showman's nice-guy exterior and his bedroom violence:
the broader public tends to believe the nice guy
I feel it's only fair he knows who his accusers are
I believe he does. Even his own account suggests that he does.
As Christie Blatchford pointed out this morning
That's never a good way to start a sentence.
if any of the women were fearful of coming forward due to backlash, they could obtain a ban on their identity and it would be granted.
A publication ban can't even begin to address the myriad ways this would likely affect their lives.
The woman who got the ball rolling
I Accidentally Went On A Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn't Gay
Wondering if I am the only one who is offended by the condesending heterosexist privilege demonstrated throughout that particular piece...
Without criminal charges, this is essentially a labour rights story. I presume there is case law speaking to the alleged circumstances of Jian's firing. How much latitude does an employer have to fire you for behaviour unrelated to your job? Maybe there needs to be a labour thread on this as well. Many want to discuss the other aspects of the situation.
IF it was one woman then I could possibly have sympathy for Jian. False reporting does occasionally occur and this would be a good situation for it (revenge against a high profile ex). Or confusion over how the bedroom works for BDSM.
BUT multiple women? No fucking way. Just imagine someone going up to a bunch of women "Hey Maysie, Meg, Sineed, Timebandit, remember what an asshole Jian was, Im going to fuck him over with false sexual assualt/rape claims, you in?"
Can you imagine 3 other women saying yeah why not? If they did, they must be utterly stupid and never realize what shit comes down on accusers, right or wrong and Im sorry I just cant see that.
Im more inclined to see it as 3 other women who said "I thought it was just me and no one would listen to me"
Sexual assault and the shame game
First off, no matter what you might believe after seeing Gone Girl, false allegations of sexual assault are no more common than false reports of any other crime. That should be obvious to anyone with common sense, given how often victims of sexual assault are stigmatized, or blamed outright, for the crimes they’ve suffered.
In fact, sexual assault is badly underreported. Fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assault victims report the crimes committed against them to police. They believe the police can’t or won’t do anything to help – and sadly, they may be right. Of the cases that are reported, only half lead to charges being laid; of those charges laid, only one in four lead to convictions.Ninety-eight per cent of those convictions are for the lowest level of sexual assault. Even vicious and violent assaults can result in conditional sentences only a few months long.
Most victims of sexual assault also fear being dismissed or blamed if they go to the police. And some victims have experienced even worse at the hands of police. Human Rights Watchreleased a report last year detailing the abuses suffered by aboriginal women and girls at the hands of police. In too many cases, victims are abused all over again by the very people who should be offering them protection.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/10/27/sexual-assault-and-the-shame-game/
Without criminal charges, this is essentially a labour rights story. I presume there is case law speaking to the alleged circumstances of Jian's firing. How much latitude does an employer have to fire you for behaviour unrelated to your job? Maybe there needs to be a labour thread on this as well. Many want to discuss the other aspects of the situation.
I think it would depend on the contract and/or the collective agreement. If there's language about the worker not engaging in conduct unbecoming to the employer and harmful of its reputation, whether on or off the worksite, then I think the employer could have a case. For instance, I believe police can be let go if they've engaged in unlawful conduct even if that conduct occurred while they were not working (though perhaps a conviction is warranted -- but certainly they do get suspended until a court case is finished). Or Ray Rice is another example (though Rice did have a conviction). Of course, Rob Ford is an example of someone engaging in conduct unbecoming that did not result in his being fired. Hmm.
From the CBC point of view-How could he interview feminists, violence survivors, women in general? Who would feel comfortable going on his show?
Wondering if I am the only one who is offended by the condesending heterosexist privilege demonstrated throughout that particular piece...
And a few other things, which I mentioned upthread.
Again, not to say I doubt the veracity of that account - I do not - but I can see why some people might have reacted badly to it, beyond doubting accusers and defending stars.
and @ terrytowel.
It is not quite as simple as Christie Blatchford makes out.
And the jealous journalist angle? Likewise, I'm not sure that would have gotten his story onto the pages of The Star.
The Star tends to cross their Ts and dot their i's since handling Rob Ford stories at a minimum
This is important for people to understand. I'm noticing how much this particular issue has me divided and realizing how selective and hypocritical I can be on these issues. On the one hand, I do understand why women don't report. On the other hand, it's also claimed that the woman who first made the allegations, an ex, went to quite a bit of effort to find other women who would say something. Quite an effort went into exposing this story -- as Ghomeshi reports, he, with the CBC, has been dealing with these allegations since last spring.
The guy also who broke the story is someone who has not had the same success with CBC and has had several projects nixed. I can imagine Ghomeshi's success did create resentment among some CBC colleagues who have worked on contract for the corp for years for little scraps of pay here and there. Maybe Ghomeshi is an asshole in his personal life, and that wouldn't help.
Just saying that so far I'm still sympathizing with Ghomeshi. With what's at stake for him, I feel it's only fair he knows who his accusers are, and if I were him I would want to launch a lawsuit too.
Innocent until proven guilty is a principle of the legal system not society in general because the legal system incarcerates someone and is an official act.
The court of public opinion has no such limitations. We are free to use common sense. We are free to choose who we believe is telling the truth. In remaining "unbiased" we are showing bias. We are saying that this man is more credible than all the women who testify what he did to them. Sexual crimes are difficult to prove because they happen in private. It is a "he said she said" situation. Only this isn't a "he said she said" situation. It's a he said and four she saids.
Four women saying something is worth no more than one man saying something is what "unbiased" means when it is a man that is liked by the left.Then we have to be "fair". If it's a maid against a diplomat then we take the side of the maid. Why would a woman even think that it would be possible to find multiple ex-girlfriends of someone to lie about having been assaulted?
"Quite a bit of effort to find other women" is called investigative journalism. How else would you suggest finding out if there are other victims? What is your opinion of women that you think it would be so easy to find multiple women to lie about a man. For what gain? I don't know any women at all who would falsely accuse ex-boyfriends of sexual assault even if they hated them. I know it happens but is it so frequent that you could easily find four women to lie about him?
Even in a court of law jurors are expected to determine the credibility of the witnesses and of the accused. They don't need absolute physical proof.
In this case we know that the CBC does not fire people lightly and that they have a legal team that would have been involved. We also know that this man was very valuable to them. They have zero motivation to believe unsubstanciated wild accusations against him. The notion that they let him go because he participates in kinky sex is ridiculous.
What about this guy's credibility. He is the one who publicized all of this not the CBC and not the women involved. If all those women were lying about him surely his lawyers would have advised him to keep his mouth shut and allowed his lawyers and the union to manage the situation.
I hope more women come forward as a result of his publicizing the sitution.
Someone posted the following comment on another forum I visit - I thought it was a good point, so I'll repost it here:
I don't care what fucking "context" it's in, if you need to slap, choke, beat, fake rape women to get off you've got fucking problems and should probably not be in a position in the public eye where you can easily be exposed.
@6079_Smith_W: thanks for that... I put on my hip waders and went through all of the comments at the original blog entry... and when one gets closer to the time when the blog was originally posted I was encouraged to see that that there was more thoughtful criticism of the entry itself. The more recent comments, though, more in line with colour commentary to the apocalypse.
