Jian Ghomeshi

[Tigger]

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.

I don't have all the facts, but, that could depend on whether his union chooses to represent him or not, if he is a member.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

My reading of that is that he has no case in terms of getting his job as an on-air host back - and, that's probably true. However, that doesn't mean he won't be awarded some sort of compensation.

 

[Tigger]

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.

My reading of that is that he has no case in terms of getting his job as an on-air host back - and, that's probably true. However, that doesn't mean he won't be awarded some sort of compensation.

It's not that unusual to 'win' that kind of arbitration but settle on a buyout due to the parties inability to work together going forward. In this case public opinion will have some bearing on the CBC's decisions down the road too.

 

[L K]

Personally my concern is that faceless accusers can make accusations without putting up a legal challenge OR naming themselves.  I don't like the idea of hanging someone without the right to face their accusers.

I mean if he was essentially raping women he needs to be locked up and charged for doing so.  If not I'm really not a fan of this kind of thing because the default is the consequence we saw.

I really don't have a vested interest in Ghomeshi.  I have met him a few times for certain events in Toronto and Ottawa and he seemed like an ok guy but I really don't listen to his show.  I feel bad if these allegations are malicious and destroyed his career.  I certainly don't if he is guilty of an actual crime.  Either way though the damage is done to him.

 

[Tigger]

Breach of confidence, bad faith and defamation named in the suit and apparently a grievance has been filed which would cover the wrongful dismissal aspect via union representation ( the union has said they are willing to represent him, from what I heard on the radio ).

Quite the pickle and it'll get messier before it gets clean. Jian has a pretty solid following, I wonder if another form of media would pick him up at this juncture.

 

[mc]

Someone is telling a lie. If the acts were consensual then Ghomeshi shouldn't have been fired and the CBC is in trouble. If the BDSM wasn't consensual then Jian is a lot of trouble.

But one wonders why these women who say they were hit it in the face with a fist, choked, their mouths covered and their noses covered didn't dial 911 the day after. If a man hits you should't you as an adult take precautions that it doesn't happen again and appropriate legal action is taken immediately by the authorities? 

 

[2badknees]

But one wonders why these women who say they were hit it in the face with a fist, choked, their mouths covered and their noses covered didn't dial 911 the day after. If a man hits you should't you as an adult take precautions that it doesn't happen again and appropriate legal action is taken immediately by the authorities?

From what I remember, less than 2% of sexual assaults are reported. It's not as simplistic as it sounds, and is probably even less so in this case.

 

[rdowdall]

But one wonders why these women who say they were hit it in the face with a fist, choked, their mouths covered and their noses covered didn't dial 911 the day after. If a man hits you should't you as an adult take precautions that it doesn't happen again and appropriate legal action is taken immediately by the authorities?

From what I remember, less than 2% of sexual assaults are reported. It's not as simplistic as it sounds, and is probably even less so in this case.

Forgive me if this point was already raised, but could he be using a technicality to plead innocent?  What I mean is, could the women have agreed to sexual intercourse, but what he meant by sexual intercourse was BDSM, and what they thought he meant by sexual intercourse was something that was at the opposite end of the spectrum from BDSM.  At that point who is in the wrong?

 

[mc]

Employment lawyer says Ghomeshi 'not entitled to $1'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-employment-lawyer-ghomeshi-not-entitled-to-1/article21329701/#dashboard/follows/


A unionized employee can't sue its employer.

 

[bustaheims]

Forgive me if this point was already raised, but could he be using a technicality to plead innocent?  What I mean is, could the women have agreed to sexual intercourse, but what he meant by sexual intercourse was BDSM, and what they thought he meant by sexual intercourse was something that was at the opposite end of the spectrum from BDSM.  At that point who is in the wrong?

I'm not sure that's really an applicable technicality at all. What they believe they consented to is the limit. His lawyer may try to argue that way, but, I have my doubts to it's success. You only consent to what a reasonable person would consider is being presented to them. Also, there are legal limits to what can be consented to. For instance, you cannot legally consent to bodily harm. If he actually injured any of these women, it doesn't matter if they were open to it, it's still illegal. It's probably too late for them to prove that now, though, since they didn't report the incidents.

It's all really a moot point right now, since no charges have been filed, and, due to the lack of incident reports, there's a good chance none will be.

 

[Strangelove]

Forgive me if this point was already raised, but could he be using a technicality to plead innocent?  What I mean is, could the women have agreed to sexual intercourse, but what he meant by sexual intercourse was BDSM, and what they thought he meant by sexual intercourse was something that was at the opposite end of the spectrum from BDSM.  At that point who is in the wrong?

I'm not sure that's really an applicable technicality at all. What they believe they consented to is the limit. His lawyer may try to argue that way, but, I have my doubts to it's success. You only consent to what a reasonable person would consider is being presented to them. Also, there are legal limits to what can be consented to. For instance, you cannot legally consent to bodily harm. If he actually injured any of these women, it doesn't matter if they were open to it, it's still illegal. It's probably too late for them to prove that now, though, since they didn't report the incidents.

It's all really a moot point right now, since no charges have been filed, and, due to the lack of incident reports, there's a good chance none will be.

Consent can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time. It really doesn't have anything to do with a "reasonable person" standard, nor is the worry brought up by Significantly Insignificant a real issue since consent would no longer exist as soon as the women decided they didn't want Jian to keep going.

Without knowing all the facts, I have serious doubts as to whether prospective actions for defamation, breach of the duty of good faith, or breach of confidence have any legs. He may have a wrongful dismissal case, depending on the basis of his dismissal and on what the arbitrator believes the CBC knew at the time Jian was dismissed. But he sure as hell isn't getting $50 million dollars or punitive damages.

Expect Jian to settle with the CBC for an undisclosed amount and move to a new platform.

 

[Strangelove]

Employment lawyer says Ghomeshi 'not entitled to $1'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-employment-lawyer-ghomeshi-not-entitled-to-1/article21329701/#dashboard/follows/


A unionized employee can't sue its employer.

It's not black and white. Certain kinds of disputes--predominantly those related to job tendering, hiring and dismissal--have to be settled via the grievance process set out in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, but not necessarily all claims will be accounted for there.

 

[Kin]

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?

I genuinely don't know. I don't know what such evidence could be. If the allegations are that he, while in a relationship, used to get rough with these women in a consensual way but, at times, would go too far and get rough with them in a non-consensual way I just have no idea what he could have that proved his "innocence" even if his side of the story is generally accurate.

I appreciate the idea that if he's telling the truth that proving his innocence is as simple as showing us this evidence but he is a public figure and I have a hunch that any such evidence would be exposing an awful lot of stuff about his personal life that a lot of people might find offputting so I understand why he would be reluctant to share it even if it did establish...something.

I suppose I'm inclined to fall on the side of the idea that if CBC fired him despite his success there has to be something behind this even if the specifics of these allegations aren't 100% true. Maybe he's just in general a creep. Maybe even if he's not assaulting women he's the kind of guy who treats his girlfriends badly enough that they're inclined to say he did and I think that might be enough for the CBC to just not want to deal with him.

His personal life is none of my business but, on the other hand, I don't really think his firing is either.

 

[Highlander]

He has an exciting future as Editor in Chief of S&M publications.

Its hard to believe that he was just interviewing Babs Streisand the other night and she gave him kudos for his interviewing style. He did a great job, so sad to see him go. 

 

[mr grieves]

I really don't have a vested interest in Ghomeshi.  I have met him a few times for certain events in Toronto and Ottawa and he seemed like an ok guy but I really don't listen to his show.  I feel bad if these allegations are malicious and destroyed his career.  I certainly don't if he is guilty of an actual crime.  Either way though the damage is done to him.

I haven't lived in Toronto in nearly a decade, but the allegations didn't come as much of a surprise. Lots of stories about aggressive, unwanted advances circulate the arts and culture scene, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone so boundary-less with strangers also conducted himself in a way that created a toxic work environment. Isn't that all an employer needs to dismiss an employee?

 

[Bender]

Forgive me if this point was already raised, but could he be using a technicality to plead innocent?  What I mean is, could the women have agreed to sexual intercourse, but what he meant by sexual intercourse was BDSM, and what they thought he meant by sexual intercourse was something that was at the opposite end of the spectrum from BDSM.  At that point who is in the wrong?

I'm not sure that's really an applicable technicality at all. What they believe they consented to is the limit. His lawyer may try to argue that way, but, I have my doubts to it's success. You only consent to what a reasonable person would consider is being presented to them. Also, there are legal limits to what can be consented to. For instance, you cannot legally consent to bodily harm. If he actually injured any of these women, it doesn't matter if they were open to it, it's still illegal. It's probably too late for them to prove that now, though, since they didn't report the incidents.

It's all really a moot point right now, since no charges have been filed, and, due to the lack of incident reports, there's a good chance none will be.

If this the case then, under the law, shouldn't pretty much all of BDSM that has some form of bodily harm be considered illegal?

And if these women were in active relationships with this man, at what point does whatever occurred become not ok? How is staying with someone or continually seeing them knowing they are aggressive in the bedroom yet coming back for more not considered continued consent? The only time I could see it not is if he didn't adhere to any safe words, which are almost always agreed upon beforehand in this kind of niche community.

It's absurd to me. You don't have to file a police report. You just have to not have sex with a person with a tendency for aggressive sex. Why is that considered so hard? I doubt these women were forced into many of these situations.

I saw an article comparing this to J'Laws photo leak stating we have a rape culture. I couldn't be more disgusted with comparing the two. They aren't even in the same universe.

I think the guy's a greaseball but it seems to me fewer and fewer people are taking agency for their actions and choice in partner, even if it's casual.

 

[Kin]

If this the case then, under the law, shouldn't pretty much all of BDSM that has some form of bodily harm be considered illegal?

And if these women were in active relationships with this man, at what point does whatever occurred become not ok? How is staying with someone or continually seeing them knowing they are aggressive in the bedroom yet coming back for more not considered continued consent? The only time I could see it not is if he didn't adhere to any safe words, which are almost always agreed upon beforehand in this kind of niche community.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the ins and outs of what the BDSM lifestyle is all about but assuming that Partner A and Partner B agree to some sort aggressive behaviour in the bedroom there can still be an overstepping of those boundaries and even an agreed upon way to voice displeasure or a desire to stop doesn't mean that the transgression didn't occur/wasn't welcome.

Admittedly, these are complicated dynamics to navigate but I think it's important to note that we're not dealing with the burden of proof of a courtroom here. The guy isn't charged with anything. If he has a pattern of taking things beyond his partner's agreed upon comfort zones then the difference between what they agree to and what he does might make it so they don't want to go to the police but I don't think it should preclude them from saying, you know, that he's a jerk who should be avoided.

 

[Bender]

If this the case then, under the law, shouldn't pretty much all of BDSM that has some form of bodily harm be considered illegal?

And if these women were in active relationships with this man, at what point does whatever occurred become not ok? How is staying with someone or continually seeing them knowing they are aggressive in the bedroom yet coming back for more not considered continued consent? The only time I could see it not is if he didn't adhere to any safe words, which are almost always agreed upon beforehand in this kind of niche community.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the ins and outs of what the BDSM lifestyle is all about but assuming that Partner A and Partner B agree to some sort aggressive behaviour in the bedroom there can still be an overstepping of those boundaries and even an agreed upon way to voice displeasure or a desire to stop doesn't mean that the transgression didn't occur/wasn't welcome.

Admittedly, these are complicated dynamics to navigate but I think it's important to note that we're not dealing with the burden of proof of a courtroom here. The guy isn't charged with anything. If he has a pattern of taking things beyond his partner's agreed upon comfort zones then the difference between what they agree to and what he does might make it so they don't want to go to the police but I don't think it should preclude them from saying, you know, that he's a jerk who should be avoided.

Not to play devil's advocate, but I've heard that plenty of times after women slept with men only to regret it in retrospect, BDSM or not. Does it really change because he's Jian Ghomeshi, philanderer at large?

 

[Highlander]

and man, I always thought the dude was gay. This case is going to unfold like an overipe onion and won't be pretty to watch.

 

[Kin]

Not to play devil's advocate, but I've heard that plenty of times after women slept with men only to regret it in retrospect, BDSM or not. Does it really change because he's Jian Ghomeshi, philanderer at large?

I'm unclear as to what the above "that" is referring to.