CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

terrytowel wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bagkitty wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The woman who got the ball rolling

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

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

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

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

alan smithee wrote:

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

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

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

so:

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

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

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

Here are my problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... what do we do?

Catchfire wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Why would they rush to do that ??

Unionist wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Unionist wrote:

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for removing that lengthy quote DaveW.

alan smithee wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maysie wrote:

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

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

-

eastnoireast wrote:

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

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

I completely agree 100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

It only starts in the first sentence...

And DaveW, that is completely uncalled for.

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

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

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

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It only starts in the first sentence...

And DaveW, that is completely uncalled for.

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

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

-

Also in the same article:

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

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

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The first sentence:

(perhaps I should have specified the subhead)

Quote:

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

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

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

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

@ davew - boring.

-

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

alan smithee wrote:

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

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

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

I totally disagree with you on this one, Alan.

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

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

1.  Sen. John Edwards in 2008

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

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

2.  Anthony Weiner in 2013

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

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

--

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

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