Jian Ghomeshi

[Kin]

Anyway, the concern is for the victims, what about Jian as a victim of unsubstantiated allegations? They need to have at least some compelling evidence of non-consensual abuse.

I think that if this were isolated, if it were one woman saying this, there'd be more cause to be cautious in that direction. But between the women the Star talked to and the thing about his co-worker and the blog post from a year or so back that was fairly clearly about him I think you'd have to be pretty inclined to believe in an awful lot of bad luck/coincidence/conspiracy to think it was all just nonsense.

So think about it from the CBC's point of view. They might have multiple reasons to suspect the guy's a creep and these allegations in particular will be hard to prove one way or the other. Considering the nature of the relationships described "evidence" might be pretty hard to come by.

So I think they have a pretty good reason to just wipe their hands clean of it. In the event that all of those accusations are false, yeah, that'd be unfortunate for him but that's why being a public figure is a double edged sword.

 

[Damian]

Agreed. I would be inclined to agree that f it was an isolated incident, he wouldn't have gotten the gas in such a hurried fashion. When a number of women come forward, that gets more difficult to cover up.... we can never be sure.

 

[2badknees]

I liked his interviews, but for whatever reason he always rubbed me a bit the wrong way.

*bites lip*

 

[bustaheims]

Anyway, the concern is for the victims, what about Jian as a victim of unsubstantiated allegations? They need to have at least some compelling evidence of non-consensual abuse.

Well, that's where his $50 million lawsuit comes into play. The CBC may have jumped the gun in firing him like this, but, as others have pointed out, it's not an isolated incident. It appears to be a pattern of behaviour, so, I'm not convinced Ghomeshi is a victim of anything more than CBC being hyper-vigilant about a real issue that related to him. Given the apparent lack of evidence (that we know of, at least), he could very well win a lawsuit based on wrongful dismissal and defamation of character, but, with the number of similar stories out there about him, I'm inclined to believe that, while some (or may even all) of these women consented to some form of sexual activity with him, it certainly appears as though they did not all consent to the activities that actually took place.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Anyway, the concern is for the victims, what about Jian as a victim of unsubstantiated allegations? They need to have at least some compelling evidence of non-consensual abuse.

Well, that's where his $50 million lawsuit comes into play. The CBC may have jumped the gun in firing him like this, but, as others have pointed out, it's not an isolated incident. It appears to be a pattern of behaviour, so, I'm not convinced Ghomeshi is a victim of anything more than CBC being hyper-vigilant about a real issue that related to him. Given the apparent lack of evidence (that we know of, at least), he could very well win a lawsuit based on wrongful dismissal and defamation of character, but, with the number of similar stories out there about him, I'm inclined to believe that, while some (or may even all) of these women consented to some form of sexual activity with him, it certainly appears as though they did not all consent to the activities that actually took place.

And regarding that lawsuit:

Jian Ghomeshi?s threatened $50-million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR ? but nothing to do with legal entitlement.

Quite apart from the fact that his actual damages likely do not exceed 2% of that figure, unionized bargaining-unit employees (as CBC broadcasters are) can?t sue in court for wrongful dismissal.  This suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.

...

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.

...

Arbitrators (and judges) have increasingly resisted reinstating employees who, in the public mind, represent the employer and its goodwill, including radio and television hosts. It is one thing to force a factory to rehire an assembly-line worker. But arbitrators are more loath to force a television station to put someone on the air as its representative who no longer reflects its style, approach or desired image.

So although Ghomeshi may eventually be cleared of the allegations ? which may yet be proved spurious ? he will not be back hosting.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/27/jian-ghomeshis-cbc-lawsuit-is-hopeless-even-if-hes-telling-the-truth/?__federated=1

 

[Tigger]

I'm not sure he can't sue, depends on the contract language and whether a grievance has been submitted.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm not sure he can't sue, depends on the contract language and whether a grievance has been submitted.

I don't know, I'm leaning towards going with the employment lawyer's opinion for now though.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure he can't sue, depends on the contract language and whether a grievance has been submitted.

Certainly sounds like he can't sue for wrongful dismissal. Defamation of character, however, is a completely different issue and one not likely to be covered by his union's CBA.

 

[Tigger]

It'll depend on how things like a 'termination clause' are worded ( though I imagine the CBC has decent lawyers and such ). Also, like busta says, it's sauce for the 'defamation' goose no matter.

Anywho, have to see what comes out in the dirty, dirty wash to know more.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Anyway, the concern is for the victims, what about Jian as a victim of unsubstantiated allegations? They need to have at least some compelling evidence of non-consensual abuse.

I think that if this were isolated, if it were one woman saying this, there'd be more cause to be cautious in that direction. But between the women the Star talked to and the thing about his co-worker and the blog post from a year or so back that was fairly clearly about him I think you'd have to be pretty inclined to believe in an awful lot of bad luck/coincidence/conspiracy to think it was all just nonsense.

So think about it from the CBC's point of view. They might have multiple reasons to suspect the guy's a creep and these allegations in particular will be hard to prove one way or the other. Considering the nature of the relationships described "evidence" might be pretty hard to come by.

So I think they have a pretty good reason to just wipe their hands clean of it. In the event that all of those accusations are false, yeah, that'd be unfortunate for him but that's why being a public figure is a double edged sword.

I quote you here because I generally respect your opinion on a wide variety of topics and am interested to know what you think.

Having read his facebook post I was left thinking one thing. If he's as innocent as he claims, he should prove victorious in short order (or have a settlement from the CBC), no?

He claims to have shown "evidence" to the CBC, which they agreed cleared him from wrongdoing. So he can obviously clear his name and win his case by showing this "evidence" to the court/public.

I'm surprised he was advised to make so many bold statements in his post as, at least as far as I'm concerned, they're the kind of thing you have to back up.

He holds the power to clear his name. The longer it takes for that proof to surface, the guiltier he will seem IMO.

 

[Frank E]

I'm not sure he can't sue, depends on the contract language and whether a grievance has been submitted.

Certainly sounds like he can't sue for wrongful dismissal. Defamation of character, however, is a completely different issue and one not likely to be covered by his union's CBA.

I'm not sure how CBC contributed to defaming him? 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It'll depend on how things like a 'termination clause' are worded ( though I imagine the CBC has decent lawyers and such ).

Well like that article I posted says, it claims that if he's a member of the CBC union he can't sue his employer for wrongful termination, he can only argue in front of an arbitrator.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure how CBC contributed to defaming him?

Well, while they have yet to do anything that would be considered libellous or slanderous, they have taken a very public action that strongly suggests they believe him to be guilty of these allegations, and those actions could be argued to have coloured the public's opinion on him, and it could have a negative impact on his ability to find future employment.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I'm not sure how CBC contributed to defaming him?

Well, while they have yet to do anything that would be considered libellous or slanderous, they have taken a very public action that strongly suggests they believe him to be guilty of these allegations, and those actions could be argued to have coloured the public's opinion on him.

Well obviously they don't believe that because he showed them proof of his innocence and they agreed the allegations were unfounded, according to him.

 

[bustaheims]

Well obviously they don't believe that because he showed them proof of his innocence and they agreed the allegations were unfounded, according to him.

Well, the bolded part is the most important thing. Their actions say otherwise.

 

[Frank E]

I'm not sure how CBC contributed to defaming him?

Well, while they have yet to do anything that would be considered libellous or slanderous, they have taken a very public action that strongly suggests they believe him to be guilty of these allegations, and those actions could be argued to have coloured the public's opinion on him.

You could very well be right, I just have a hard time believing that the CBC has an obligation to employ someone whose present circumstances could sully their brand.

 

[bustaheims]

You could very well be right, I just have a hard time believing that the CBC has an obligation to employ someone whose present circumstances could sully their brand.

They do and they don't. Terminating someone simply because their personal life does not match their professional image does create the risk of a number of potential lawsuits. It could easily be framed as discriminatory, prejudicial, etc. Basically, once someone is hired, you really need to have legitimate professional life related reasons to terminate them - and the CBC doesn't have any that we know of yet. Unproven allegations aren't enough.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You could very well be right, I just have a hard time believing that the CBC has an obligation to employ someone whose present circumstances could sully their brand.

They do and they don't. Terminating someone simply because their personal life does not match their professional image does create the risk of a number of potential lawsuits. It could easily be framed as discriminatory, prejudicial, etc. Basically, once someone is hired, you really need to have legitimate professional life related reasons to terminate them - and the CBC doesn't have any that we know of yet. Unproven allegations aren't enough.

Again (since I'm not well versed in this stuff) I'm going to refer to that article I posted and the comments regarding personal vs. professional life:

Arbitrators (and judges) have increasingly resisted reinstating employees who, in the public mind, represent the employer and its goodwill, including radio and television hosts. It is one thing to force a factory to rehire an assembly-line worker. But arbitrators are more loath to force a television station to put someone on the air as its representative who no longer reflects its style, approach or desired image.

So although Ghomeshi may eventually be cleared of the allegations ? which may yet be proved spurious ? he will not be back hosting.

Even if Ghomeshi can prove all the alleged sexual scandals he?s accused of were entirely consensual, he likely has no case: If the activities were viewed as being so outside the norms and tastes of CBC listeners, he will likely not be reinstated, since doing so could hurt CBC listenership.

So even if Jian?s protestations of consensuality are true (and we have no cogent information as of this point), it will not be enough. This is really an object lesson in the fact that employees have no real privacy rights and should operate on the basis that all of their actions, wherever they occur, could be discovered by employers and, worse, become embarrassing fodder for the Twittersphere and op-ed pages. It happened to Rice, Sterling and Eich; and it?s happening right now to Jian Ghomeshi.

I'm sure just because this guy writes it doesn't make it gospel, but I'll assume he's writing from experience when he says these things.  Although I'm sure each case would turn on its own facts.

 

[mc]

No one is thinking about the women. Who might be the real victims.

Um, did you read the Huffington Post column you linked to?

My primary concern isn't the public perception of CBC management, or Mr. Ghomeshi. I'm concerned about the possible victims.

My apologies, I was referring to the overwhelming support he was receiving in the comments section of his Facebook page.

 

[Bender]

No one is thinking about the women. Who might be the real victims.

Um, did you read the Huffington Post column you linked to?

My primary concern isn't the public perception of CBC management, or Mr. Ghomeshi. I'm concerned about the possible victims.

My apologies, I was referring to the overwhelming support he was receiving in the comments section of his Facebook page.

As if he can't stand up for himself, ha.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/

Pretty good article.