CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

"""""""""

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

Radio host Jian Ghomeshi is no longer working for CBC, the public broadcaster said in a statement on Sunday. CBC cuts ties with Jian Ghomeshi after receiving “information” about Q hostPublic broadcaster has ended its relationship with popular radio host.

 

mark_alfred

Wow.  Unexpected.  I wonder what the cause for dismissal was.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I wonder what 'information' they got about him.

Is this another case of 'morality'?

KenS

Since Gomeshi's lawyer says they will be filing a $50million dollar suit tommorow, we will at most be hearing rumours of what it is about.

But CBC must be really pissed  threatened / whatever. Because I'm sure that they are aware that this is a lose-lose proposition for them. Big time.

Webgear

Who was he? Why is this breaking news?

I haven't heard of him before?

Doesn't $50million seem a bit much?

Bacchus

I always enjoyed his show when driving to a clients in the morning

onlinediscountanvils

alan smithee wrote:

I wonder what 'information' they got about him.

Is this another case of 'morality'?

No. This has been coming for a long time. Seems like many Toronto women know/knew what's up.

Debater

The first statement yesterday said he was taking a leave of absence for personal reasons.

Now it seems there has been a falling out and he plans to sue the CBC.

Wonder what happened?

https://ca.celebrity.yahoo.com/news/canadian-press-newsalert-cbc-parts-w...

Debater

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I wonder what 'information' they got about him.

Is this another case of 'morality'?

No. This has been coming for a long time. Seems like many Toronto women know/knew what's up.

Sexual harrassment?

Sounds scandalous. Surprised

---

"Information came to our attention recently that in CBC's judgment precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi," Thompson said in a phone interview.

https://ca.celebrity.yahoo.com/news/canadian-press-newsalert-cbc-parts-w...

6079_Smith_W

Great. Now can we can all imagine our respective worst case scenarios without a shred of evidence.

Who needs a trial?

 

onlinediscountanvils

He's also been dropped as host of the gala for the Giller Prize. (And without a trial! Surprised )

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Not to assume or make judgements or run to conclusions but if it involves sexual harrassment and women,I'm confused.

I thought Ghomeshi is a gay man. Is he not?

In any case,I'll wait for the real story to play out before I pass any judgement.

Debater

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

He's also been dropped as host of the gala for the Giller Prize. (And without a trial! Surprised )

Interesting.

I didn't know that.

Was that just announced this afternoon?

onlinediscountanvils

Debater wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

He's also been dropped as host of the gala for the Giller Prize. (And without a trial! Surprised )

Interesting.

I didn't know that.

Was that just announced this afternoon?

Yes, the Giller folks announced it about two hours ago.

PrairieDemocrat15

Twitter chatter is suggesting he has been disrespectful to women in the workplace. Details are supposidly forthcoming.

Unionist

Was he behind the Parliament Hill thingy? Better close this thread for duplication.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Conspiracy hobbyists are already claiming this is Harper's doing.

Debater

Jian Ghomeshi has posted a long statement on his Facebook page.

It's quite, er, interesting.  One can't really summarize it, so it's best to read it in its entirety.

He explains in detail his unorthodox sexual practices in the bedroom, and the allegations of rough sex, etc. he is facing.

https://www.facebook.com/jianghomeshi/posts/10152357063881750

6079_Smith_W

Short of someone coming forward with an actual complaint (and while I don't want to assume, the question is, what complaint?) all I see is a smear - the kind that has always threatened anyone who isn't straight enough for some in the mainstream.

Whatever Jesse Brown presents in his article, his putting it in out there in a tweet with no substance kind of flies in the face of his claim of professionalism.

(edit)

Not exactly related, but I do remember reading that Sook Yin Lee had to go get permission from CBC before she took her role in Shortbus.

 

 

Debater
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Debater wrote:

Here's an article on Gawker about it:

http://gawker.com/cbc-drops-radio-star-jian-ghomeshi-1651014393

So this is about morality.

Just like Sook Yin Lee had to ask permission from CBC to do a movie with explicit sexuality.

How many of us can claim to be innocent,straight-laced and void of immorality?

It's a joke.What someone does behind closed doors,especially consensual,is nobody's business.

In any case,morality is an opinion and is an interpretation depending on the individual.

I now understand his lawsuit.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

alan smithee wrote:
I now understand his lawsuit.

Impressive! Especially considering the apparently very serious allegations haven't even been made public yet.

Debater

alan smithee wrote:

Debater wrote:

Here's an article on Gawker about it:

http://gawker.com/cbc-drops-radio-star-jian-ghomeshi-1651014393

So this is about morality.

Just like Sook Yin Lee had to ask permission from CBC to do a movie with explicit sexuality.

How many of us can claim to be innocent,straight-laced and void of immorality?

It's a joke.What someone does behind closed doors,especially consensual,is nobody's business.

In any case,morality is an opinion and is an interpretation depending on the individual.

I now understand his lawsuit.

But we don't know that yet.  There may be more to it.  We have to wait and see what the allegations are.

If there are women who have been sexually harassed and may be coming forward, we may learn other details that makes this case more complicated than it appears.

Ghislaine

I reading in facebook, twitter etc non-stop invective against the women making the accusations. According to Jian himself, there will be several women coming forward. Isn't the feminist position to at least hear them out? What if even one were sexually assaulted? 

Can this be moved to the feminist forum?

Debater

Ghislaine wrote:

I reading in facebook, twitter etc non-stop invective against the women making the accusations. According to Jian himself, there will be several women coming forward. Isn't the feminist position to at least hear them out? What if even one were sexually assaulted? 

Can this be moved to the feminist forum?

I agree.

That's what I just said above.  We shouldn't assume he is being persecuted by CBC for his sex life.  They may have received serious sexual harrasment allegations against him.  If that is true, we have to listen to both sides, rather than attacking the women.

CBC presumably wouldn't fire him just because he's into kinky, consensual sex.  There must be something else going on.

We'll have to wait for the Jesee Brown story and the legal submissions.

onlinediscountanvils

Babble's default is supposed to be pro-feminist, but maybe moving it to the FF is a necessary reminder.

6079_Smith_W

Except that we haven't heard one allegation yet from even one person (which again, is really handy if you want an unspecified smear to stick).

We have Ghomeshi's side of the story, and a claim from Jesse Brown that he has an article.

But so far this is an issue between him and the CBC.

@ Debater

And they wouldn't fire him for that? Just based on the backwards way this seems to be rolling out, I'm beginning to think they might be that stupid.

 

mark_alfred

Perhaps he will now have some spare time to get in touch with Billy Bob Thornton to have a pint and work out some stuff from the Q interview a few years back.

Sineed

Or Moxy Früvous could go on a reunion tour.

mark_alfred

Well, I wish him well on his grievance.  An arbitrator can decide if he was justly dismissed or not.

While we're on the topic of Q, I'm still furious w/ Ghomeshi for his treatment of Brian Eno.  He interviewed Eno, and then after the interview he plays a Bowie song instead of an Eno song.  It was just wrong. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I think it is highy unlikely, despite his claims, that Jian was fired because he enjoyed kinky sex. Especially since that is not new news. I've known it for over a decade. But this will probably be the kind of tenor we can expect the forthcoming allegations to take:

I Accidentally Went On Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn't Gay [from 2013]

onlinediscountanvils

Lots of yuks in this thread.

onlinediscountanvils

Neville Park: [url=http://nevillepark.ca/2014/10/20/womens-measures/]Women’s Measures[/url]

Debater

Left Turn wrote:

Seems to me like he was fired for being into kinky, consensual sex.

But it also sounds like there may be allegations of sexual harrassment coming out.

6079_Smith_W

Debater wrote:

But it also sounds like there may be allegations of sexual harrassment coming out.

Yes, and believe me, I will take them seriously when and if they are made. It's not like I cut Julian Assage any slack two years ago.

But what I find odd about this story is why this would happen in such a backwards fashion: CBC firing him even though (if Ghomeshi is to be believed) there were no complaints of any sort against him.

And a tweet from a journalist whose work I have respected saying a professional story is on the way. But what is keeping it? Did he have a publisher who was spooked by the prospect of a $50 million lawsuit? Why say anything and leave it hanging in the air if you aren't going to ante up with the goods?

And why wouldn't CBC wait at least for that promised story?

There may indeed be something real about this, but even so something does not smell right. It wouldn't be such a big deal if reputations weren't in the balance, and so far, it is only one person's reputation.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Shared with permission:

Can we all please be so cautious how we talk about Jian and what's going down with the CBC right now? As a survivor of sexual assault and an advocate for people who have been assaulted, I'm already shaking at how I feel this and the discourse around it are going to play out. Also, know that I am here for ALL survivors, 100% always and this digital space I occupy is considered a safe(r) space. Any violent or harmful comments will be deleted.

*Trigger warning for sexual assault and rape culture*

As with any public or private allegations of sexual assault, it's important to remember these things:

1) Statistically, false sexual assault claims are extremely rare.

2) We aren't the judge and jury and it's not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong.

3) Many survivors are disbelieved, blamed for their actions, and otherwise dissuaded bluntly or subtly into not reporting or feeling guilty. Especially in a high-profile case like this one, people don't want to believe that people they know or admire could do such a thing. Survivors could really use people being on their team and believing them. Also, when you publicly blame or disbelieve survivors, other survivors you know are probably listening. So, speak carefully. Recognize what you might be implying.

4) It's also not unusual that someone would want to retract allegations after realizing how they are likely to be treated in the media, by peers, by the law, and by strangers even. We all see how these cases go down and it's not desirable for anyone.

5) Let's look at who has the power and platform to have their story heard and believed and then watch how they use it.

6) Don't be dismissive of people's experiences or invalidate them. Behavioral patterns are real and women learn how to identify people who are dangerous to us - usually not before we silence that voice a few times.

Much love and strength and courage to everyone who is a survivor or who is triggered by and subject to rape culture's bullshit. If you or someone you know is feeling triggered or traumatized, please contact your local sexual assault crisis centre.

https://www.facebook.com/jodielayne/posts/10202579361316404

Debater

Well, if the things that women are saying online tonight about Ghomeshi are true, he apparently has trouble keeping his hands to himself and taking no for an answer.  It sounds like there are a lot of women with stories to tell.  We'll have to see if some of these turn into official complaints or lawsuits, but it's disturbing to read some of them.

Btw, I think even Liberals forget that there's a limit as to what public figures can do in their private lives.

If you are a public figure, you can't do whatever you want, even if it is consensual.

Eg. if you are running for Mayor of New York City, you can't send naked photos of your penis to people. (Anthony Weiner)  Or if you are running for President, you can't cheat on your wife who is dying of cancer. (John Edwards)

Some of these things end up having consequences on a public figure's career, family and professional associates when the collateral damage occurs.  And in cases like those, the public has the right to judge the person in question on the issues of judgment and ethics.

'The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation' means that the government can't prosecute a person for consensual adult behaviour, but it doesn't mean there won't be consequences or public fallout if you get yourself involved in a big scandal that damages your career.

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

I think it is highy unlikely, despite his claims, that Jian was fired because he enjoyed kinky sex.

That's a blatant distortion of what he claimed - I read what he said - and it displays some singular ignorance about situations where employers fire high-profile public representatives just because they think it might harm the employer's "reputation".

Here's what Ghomeshi said:

Quote:
CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they’re not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for "the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out."

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.

In any event, if you want to speculate about what is "highly unlikely", I think it's "highly unlikely" that the CBC fired Jian Ghomeshi because they have a zero tolerance policy about sexual harassment in employees' personal lives. In fact, such a policy, if it existed, would be unenforceable.

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Shared with permission:

 

Not sure what you mean. She has tagged this as a "public" post. Everyone in the world can read it.

Debater

Here's that Tweet by Jesse Brown earlier today:

What I have learned about @jianghomeshi after months of investigation will be reported responsibly as soon as possible. Patience please.

https://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/526435684832509954

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Shared with permission:

 

Not sure what you mean. She has tagged this as a "public" post. Everyone in the world can read it.

Yes, exactly. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not sharing something that was meant to be kept private. Numerous people were wondering if they could share it, and she stated that it was her intention for it to be shared. That's all. Isn't never a bad thing to be clear about consent.

Sean in Ottawa

There are a pile of issues here and much we don't know.

Sexual harassment is certainly grounds for dismissal as it must be. An allegation that is uninvestigated would not be -- nor should private consensual bedroom behaviour.

At this point there are two reputations involved: the CBC's and Jian's. And we have not enough information to know what kind of facts or process exists. We will eventually hear more on this story, no doubt from both. We do not know what facts the CBC relied on and therefore cannot judge either party.

That said, there is a complication many people are not yet taking account of: and that is the commercial branding of a name that is public. In most cases a person's name is not part of a commercial brand. In this case he is and there are additional contractual obligations when this happens (and certainly this responsibility is reflected in compensation). The line is not in the same place as it is for private citizens. Public figures often make additional money by offering their name, face, identity as a brand to the commercial enterprise. For these people their personal reputation is not entirely apart from their business identity and reputation and damage to a personal identity can cause damage to a commercial brand. In law, organizations paying for a shared brand do have legal rights and remedies that go beyond criminal law and employment law. For example if a public figure were to say something extremely offensive of a racist or sexist nature where the brand would suffer they could be fired for something that another person would only face notoriety.

The degrees, nature, expectations of privacy, nature of the alleged breech, quality of evidence etc. would all have to be determined in a legal process to establish what damages and remedies are available. I say all this to clarify that Jian does not have the same separation of personal and employment rights as a person whose name is not essentially tied to the employer's reputation.

Where the lines get drawn are delicate and have been abused by employers at times. At the same time there is some legal responsibility when selling your name as an asset that you do not damage that name. That legal responsibility is frequently codified in the contract of engagement/employment signed between the parties. It is not unreasonable for these legal responsibility to exist.

One of the most famous cases where the damage and sympathy for the company taking steps to protect the brand was obvious is the Alexander Keith's brewery that faced their product's spokesperson whose image was paid for by the company being caught for child pornography. The campaign ended with the actor in commercial breach as well as facing the same criminal charges any other person would face. He was fired well before any conviction.

If something illegal occurred there would likely be grounds to fire, but the test would be a civil rather than criminal probability.

Sexual abuse, even if not quite criminal, would still exist as grounds. Further, I would expect the CBC to be an organization that would offer the greatest respect to women in its business dealings and I would stand behind them if they were firing any personality on grounds of sexual assualt should that be proven.

Sexual private tastes where there is consent, if it were only that, would leave the CBC with extreme difficulty if those tastes were not broadcasted and attached to the commercial brand either by intent or negligence on Jian's part. However, Jian would not have the freedom to engage in public acts that could affect his reputation that those of us whose names have not been branded would have. I personally think  that if Jian's statements are all true he would have very good grounds to sue.

At this point it seems likely that the CBC are at least alleging that Jian has done something to devalue the shared brand that is so serious as for the organization to want to cut ties with it. This may be the legal grounds. If there were to be any proof of sexual assault (and there is certainly no proof of that so far but there are allegations), then a firing would likely be very justified. In fact I suspect most of us would support it. Again the test for that proof would be a preponderance of evidence not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as would exist in a criminal court. It is quite possible that the proof could lie between such that no charges could be laid or proven in a criminal court but there be sufficient evidence for a court to find him civilly liable.

So we are waiting to learn what the grounds were. I am not interested in his private consensual behaviour but if there were any assault or sexual harassement, I would find myself siding with the CBC that no matter how talented the person may be this is grounds for termination.

Fow now I withhold judgement and presumptions other than the seriousness of harassment and the right to a fair process.

Of course we wait.

NorthReport

----

onlinediscountanvils

Ghislaine wrote:

Can this be moved to the feminist forum?

I take back my ambivalent post in #27.

I agree with Ghislaine.

Debater

Here's a comment by someone on Gawker.

If these sorts of incidents are true, it doesn't sound good:

I have a friend who had an encounter with ghomeshi a few years ago. She said he sidled up behind her, reached his arm across and cupped her breast. She spun around and slapped him hard enough to make him tear up. His phone fell and broke. He started to say something but she yelled at him, causing others to notice, and he couldn't slither away fast enough.

http://gawker.com/cbc-drops-radio-star-jian-ghomeshi-1651014393

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sexual harassment is certainly grounds for dismissal as it must be.

Um, I stopped reading here (though I promise I'll read the rest - your posts deserve close attention always).

No.

Sexual harassment is certainly not grounds for dismissal - unless it is connected with the workplace and/or the legitimate business interests of the employer.

ETA: Ok, I read some more:

Quote:
If something illegal occurred there would likely be grounds to fire, but the test would be a civil rather than criminal probability.

Yes on the civil burden of proof - but NO, doing something "illegal" is not grounds to fire, unless (I'm repeating myself) it affects the workplace or the employer's legitimate business interests.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sexual harassment is certainly grounds for dismissal as it must be.

Um, I stopped reading here (though I promise I'll read the rest - your posts deserve close attention always).

No.

Sexual harassment is certainly not grounds for dismissal - unless it is connected with the workplace and/or the legitimate business interests of the employer.

ETA: Ok, I read some more:

Quote:
If something illegal occurred there would likely be grounds to fire, but the test would be a civil rather than criminal probability.

Yes on the civil burden of proof - but NO, doing something "illegal" is not grounds to fire, unless (I'm repeating myself) it affects the workplace or the employer's legitimate business interests.

 

I can agree with you on this point generally and should have made the distinction but with public people who brand and sell their public identity there can be more to it than that.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I have read a few other things about Ghomeshi and I'm guessing the CBC got a complaint about something, or they would not have reacted so suddenly. I am sure a wide diversity of consenting sexual behaviour would not be disapproved of by CBC, especially for someone as 'edgy' as Ghomeshi, whether it was gay, BDSM, or otherwise.

eastnoireast

i never liked the guy.  smarmy.  conceited.  viscerally hated his band before that.

the fact that the old "new improved" cbc brain trust teamed with such a person speaks to their judgement and motives.

so they deserve each other.   now there is only the grating voices of tim tamishero, rex murphy, julie nazralla, paulo petropaulo, stewart whatsisname, and the commercials to avoid.  oh yeah and all the newsreaders.

-

the fact that i loath mr ghomeshi and that "i am not surprised", will make me even more determined to hear out the facts before passing judgement.

-

 

jas

I wonder to what extent, if any, the CBC's reaction (or perhaps even the allegations?) were inspired by recent events in professional sports such as the NHL's suspension of Voynov and recent policy changes in the NFL.

Pages