CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
eastnoireast

kinda convenient timing; shiny object to snap canadians out of reflection on war/life/canadianism/what harper is going to do now.

while the doing continues.

we're going to be seeing his self-satisfied face for months now. 

-

onlinediscountanvils

[ETA: TRIGGER WARNING for SEXUAL VIOLENCE]

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/cbc_fires_jian_ghomeshi_ov... fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations[/url]

Bacchus

Or inspired by the nightmare/quagmire that was Jimmy Saville and the BBC

6079_Smith_W

Fortunately we didn't have to wait too long for that.

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.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Um, Unionist, I was responding to Left Turn -- not to Jian's note. You can tell because of how my post follows directly from his and uses the words he used immediately before me. 

And anyway, the penny has dropped.

CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations (TW: descriptions of rape and violence)

The three women interviewed by the Star allege that Ghomeshi physically attacked them on dates without consent. They allege he 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.

A fourth woman, who worked at CBC, said Ghomeshi told her at work: “I want to hate f--- you.”

Moving to the feminism forum

jas

Gomeshi (unlike other media or high profile personalities who have faced similar allegations) has always sounded to me like a feminist and a humanist. His manner with guests and with his audience is respectful, intelligent and exemplary. With the sparse information we have right now I find the allegations hard to believe.

Debater

I don't find them hard to believe.

Firstly, so many women  are coming forward with stories of harrasment & assault that I think it's unlikely they are all making it up.  Those allegations by those 3 or 4 women in The Toronto Star are pretty serious.

Secondly, you can't judge by appearances or by a public figure's outward profile.  As we learn every day, everyone can have a dark side that no one knows about and which is kept hidden until stories like this occur.

Look at the Stephen Collins case going on in the U.S. right now.  He played a Pastor on a beloved family show (7th Heaven) and was considered a charming man by everyone.  Now he is being accused of sexually abusing 12-year old girls and TMZ has an audio tape of him admitting to sexual contact with some of them.

onlinediscountanvils

jas wrote:

With the sparse information we have right now I find the allegations hard to believe.

Me too.

I find it extremely hard to believe his allegation that the CBC fired him as the host of the highest rated show in its timeslot in CBC history - one of their only shows that holds any appeal to a somewhat younger demographic - simply because they thought listeners would be put off if details emerged about his private sex life; and that all the women who are coming forth with claims about him are merely working in collusion with a lying jilted ex.

In fact, I don't believe it at all.

KenS

So there is a case against Ghomeshi. Whether it is true or not, or largely true or not,the accustaions against him have not presented just by a "jilted ex-." And at a minimum Jian knew that, but stated otherwise in his Facebook statement.

Why the Star chose to publish Jian Ghomeshi allegations

CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations

Ghislaine

Please, please, please can this be moved to the feminist forum? Facebook is full of disgusting victim-blaming and horrible things about these women.

No wonder they do not want to come forward!!! Would you? There are thousands of fans already hating them.

There seems to be a CBC employee involved now, who is (anonymously) making allegations.

If this won't be moved, can we at least stop with the jokes? The allegations are very serious and I imagine all the joking would be quite the trigger for anyone that has been a victim.

Ghislaine

If what these women say is true, I hope one has the courage the press charges. However, I dont know if I would have the courage.

They are stating that there are text messages agreeing to some things that they dont want to come out, in addition to how they worry Jians huge fan base will treat them.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Left Turn Unionist wrote:

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.

Ken, please be more careful in attributing quotes.

 

Unionist

By the way, let me be very clear. I do not believe Jian Ghomeshi's account. I do not believe anyone else's account. I'm just not that brilliant (as opposed to some here who seem to have forensic reading skills). All my comments on this issue to date are aimed at the issue of just cause for dismissal. As actual evidence comes in, I'll weigh whether there's more to say or not.

Slumberjack

And moving it to the feminist forum will ensure that only the correct version of the story will be allowed.  I suspect that's the reason for asking to have it moved there.  That aside, I don't buy his story either.

lagatta

Yes, the problem is that Ghomeshi has been sacked before any hard evidence has been presented in public, much less a conviction.

terrytowel

Innocent until proven guilty, CBC should have acted differently.

1 week break to let the scandal die down.

If charges are brought, suspension is warranted until this is cleared up.

If convicted in a court of law, then he should be fired.

The CBC acted wrong in this case, and it has looked bad on them.

 

6079_Smith_W

lagatta wrote:

Yes, the problem is that Ghomeshi has been sacked before any hard evidence has been presented in public, much less a conviction.

Someone I know on FB said it may have been a safety issue, or the need to secure computers or get him out of the building. I am not so sure, and I really don't like this kind of speculation (even though I am engaging in it myself here). The timing here seems really unfortunate.

One thing that doesn't make sense is his claim that they offered to let him leave quietly. Obviously that was not going to happen given that the story was going to break - unless part of the offer was that they were going to hush it all up (which would implicate The Star... makes no sense).

mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty, CBC should have acted differently.

1 week break to let the scandal die down.

If charges are brought, suspension is warranted until this is cleared up.

If convicted in a court of law, then he should be fired.

The CBC acted wrong in this case, and it has looked bad on them.

 

 

The information is primarily coming from the Star and from Ghomeshi himself.  Regarding the CBC, employers have the right to hire and fire (with just cause).  I don't think a criminal conviction is required to constitute just cause.  Anyway, Ghomeshi has the right to file a grievance that it was dismissal without just cause, at which point an arbitrator can make the final determination. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Just want to note that while there are elements to this story that intersect with feminist issues, I don't think it belongs in the feminist forum.

And like Unionist, I don't know what to believe yet. I also think we will see more shit hit the fan in the coming weeks - unnamed accounts of harassment are pretty thin for losing one of your most recognizable personalities, especially in the current straits the CBC is in.

6079_Smith_W

Frankly, that piece by Ciccone reads like a hatchet job, which is unfortunate, because it is a serious charge.

But things like her repeated references to cologne, and equating with drugging - something she was not making an accusation of - really undermine the charge.

Beyond the usual tendency to disbelieve accusations of sexual assault, and defend stars, I can see why some people reacted negatively to it. Independent of the accusation - which I do take seriously - it left a real bad taste in my mouth.

And the fact that the accusers in the Star article are refering to that incident as the reason for keeping their anonymity just makes an already confused situation even worse.

 

6079_Smith_W
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Slumberjack wrote:
And moving it to the feminist forum will ensure that only the correct version of the story will be allowed.  I suspect that's the reason for asking to have it moved there.  That aside, I don't buy his story either.

A very unhelpful comment considering the sensitivity of the case.

Moving it to the Feminism Forum (which I thought I did yesterday, but corrected just now) ensures that we remember that false allegations of rape and abuse are rare, that such allegations against rich and powerful people come at a great cost to survivors, and that abuse survivors deserve to have their allegations heard with respect and credulity -- and that courts have virtually no credibility when dealing with sexual assault.

Sean in Ottawa

It does not need to be moved to the feminist forum to accept that it should be approached anywhere on this site with at the very least the presumption that the women making the allegation are telling the truth even while suspending judgement on Gomeshi while the facts come in. A progressive perspective should not stop at the Feminist forum.

We have multiple sources of complaint from women. It is important to recognize that this is increasing the credibility of the allegations against him. In the same breath it is essential that people understand what that means. Women rarely report assaults knowing that they are usually dismissed if they are the only one to make an allegation. The barrier to reporting includes a well founded fear of not being believed. The tendency to not want to believe women who accuse a celebrity of criminal wrong-doing puts other women at risk.

I would want Gomeshi to have a fair process. But given the nature of the allegations there are women who also should have a fair hearing and they ought to be able to expect that in this community regardless of where the thread resides. Sentiment for the public personality should not cloud the need for allegations like this to be taken seriously starting with a presumption of truth.

By this I mean you have on the one hand a presumption of innocence and the other a presumption of truth. As the facts come out you reconcile these.

 

Caissa

I have known Jian for many years (about 25) and heard many stories for many years.  There is a labour relations component to this story and a feminist aspect to this story.  I never notice much which forum a thread is in since I access threads through TAT. I just hope that all elemnts of this story are discussed in a respectyful manner and in keeping with Babble's principles.

Lynn B

Ghomeshi admits to sex with groupies. Is that really consensual. is it not similar to a boss having sex with employee in the work place? Tell CBC. Save them $50,000,000.

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

As a supporter of public broadcasting, I couldn't be more disappointed with this response. Good programming, from a public broadcaster, should be about the content and not the host. The knee-jerk reaction to Ghomeshi's statement smacks of a cult of personality and not rational thought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-beach/jian-ghomeshi-fired-cbc_b_6051...

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Justin Beach wrote:

Good programming, from a public broadcaster, should be about the content and not the host.

An interesting proposal. Can this be said of past popular CBC shows? That they would be popular no matter who was hosting? We know this is likely not true in private broadcasting. CBC has been pushed more and more in the last decade to compete with private broadcasting. So to put blame on the popularity of Q for simply following that agenda is not, imo, reasonable or fair. But perhaps this digresses.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I agree that a show -- and any media organization -- is the product of everyone who works on it, not just the public face, no matter how charismatic he may or may not be.

And lookit! The CBC now agrees with me! Ventriloquized by Brent Bambury, today's guest host on Q.

Debater

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.

What do you think would happen if the leader of the Liberal Party or the leader of the NDP were to reveal he liked to choke & beat his spouse but said it was part of consensual S&M?  I don't think it would go over very well.

That's because there is a dangerous line in 'consensual' adult S&M relationships.  You may think both people have agreed to participate in rough sex with choking & punching, etc., but what if one of them is psychologically damaged and doesn't really know what they're getting into?  Or feels pressured to consent or has a different limit as to how much physical violence they want to participate in?  Ghomeshi says that he and the girlfriend he was with agreed to participate in rough sex and that they had 'Safe Words'.

I think once you get into something like this, even if it is supposedly consensual or adult, you're playing with fire.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

It is important to understand that abuse can happen "even" in BSDM relationships that are consensual. But there's far more to the BSDM-defence. From Winston's excellent link above:

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!”

 

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. A mild version of Fifty Shades would be some dirty talk (probably with poor grammar) and necktie bondage.

 

It doesn’t make sense that the CBC would fire Ghomeshi for being kinky. Remember the openly bisexual Sook-Yin Lee, who masturbated and had non-simulated sex on camera in the 2006 film Shortbus? She’s been working with the CBC for well over a decade, and while they initially considered letting her go when the controversial film was making headlines, support for her was so strong that they kept her on. Fast-forward eight years: the CBC knows that their audiences support even the very public sexual explorations of CBC stars. The CBC is of course also aware of Canada’s relatively permissive climate when it comes to sexual freedom. So why would the CBC not only fire the immensely popular Jian Ghomeshi for his supposedly mildly kinky “private sex life,” but to go so far as to bar him access to the building after doing so – and all of this already knowing he would sue?

6079_Smith_W

Debater wrote:

I think once you get into something like this, even if it is supposedly consensual or adult, you're playing with fire.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

And no different than any discriminatory, judgmental slur used against any other activity that is perceived as outside the norm to some.

It is nobody's business, and from what is being reported, it has nothing to do with the allegations.

What it is is the defense being mounted by Ghomeshi. True or not, there are quite a few people (including within the community)  angry at the use of BDSM as a foil against sexual assault allegations.

 

terrytowel

Compare this to former US Bill Clinton who sexually harrassed one woman (Monica) groped another woman in the Oval Office (Kathleen Wiley) and allegedly raped a third woman (Juanita Broderick)

And Clinton's approval with women are still very high!

 

voice of the damned

Legal scholar Brenda Cossman(who specializes 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...

 http://tinyurl.com/l6vlof4

Not that I neccessarily agree with the SCOC's reasoning, but if that's what they said, the implications seem pretty serious.

Debater

Jian Ghomeshi’s potential CBC lawsuit is hopeless — even if he’s telling the truth

October 27, 2014

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.

Whether or not the violence he is accused of was consensual, as he maintains, or criminal, as some unnamed accusers are reportedly claiming — none of the allegations being proven — this is the era of Ray Rice, Donald Sterling and Brendan Eich: No major corporation relying on public goodwill will permit itself to be saddled with household name “talent” that could destroy or even substantially impair its brand. And there aren’t many judges or arbitrators who would argue that they should be forced to.

The most interesting aspect of this case is that Ghomeshi, while protesting loudly about the purported violation of his “private life,” proceeded to write a close to 1,000-word missive delving into some pretty explicit aspects of, well, his private life.

The fact that Ghomeshi has hired the Navigator PR firm creates the impression, to this observer — possibly unfairly — of some disingenuity. One wonders why Ghomeshi, a master of media himself, felt he needed assistance.

----

More here:

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/27/jian-ghomeshis-cbc-lawsuit-...

voice of the damned

terrytowel wrote:

Compare this to former US Bill Clinton who sexually harrassed one woman (Monica) groped another woman in the Oval Office (Kathleen Wiley) and allegedly raped a third woman (Juanita Broderick)

And Clinton's approval with women are still very high!

 

As I recall, the generally accepted narrative about Clinton, among both men and women, was that he had engaged only in consensual sex. The idea that there might have been anything coercive about his actions did not gain wide currency with the public. Broderick, for example. was treated basically as an irrelevant footnote, as the whole story was fading from the public consciousness.

So, most of the women who defended him likely thought that he was guilty of nothing more than infidelity.

onlinediscountanvils

Jodie Layne: [url=http://www.ivillage.ca/entertainment/sexual-assault-the-case-of-jian-gho... Happens When People In Power Are Accused Of Sexual Assault[/url]

6079_Smith_W

@ VOTD

Re: the globe article

True, though it has not been applied in Canada the way they tried to in Britain. Technicality or not, like a lot of legal wording it bears little relation to practical applicaiton in the real world.

But lest anyone think this only applies to those outside the norm, even clearer is the ruling that one cannot give consent when one is unconscious. If you want to take that one to its logical conclusion, even straights are committing assault every time they snuggle up to someone sleeping in bed.

 

terrytowel

voice of the damned wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Compare this to former US Bill Clinton who sexually harrassed one woman (Monica) groped another woman in the Oval Office (Kathleen Wiley) and allegedly raped a third woman (Juanita Broderick)

And Clinton's approval with women are still very high!

 

As I recall, the generally accepted narrative about Clinton, among both men and women, was that he had engaged only in consensual sex. The idea that there might have been anything coercive about his actions did not gain wide currency with the public. Broderick, for example. was treated basically as an irrelevant footnote, as the whole story was fading from the public consciousness.

So, most of the women who defended him likely thought that he was guilty of nothing more than infidelity.

Kathleen Wiley was GROPED and assaulted in the Oval Office.

Hardly consensual.

And she did go public, but women didn't buy her story. They sided with Clinton

And I didn't even get into Paula Jones!

Debater

voice of the damned wrote:

Legal scholar Brenda Cossman(who specializes 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...

 http://tinyurl.com/l6vlof4

Not that I neccessarily agree with the SCOC's reasoning, but if that's what they said, the implications seem pretty serious.

voice of the damned

terrytowel wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Compare this to former US Bill Clinton who sexually harrassed one woman (Monica) groped another woman in the Oval Office (Kathleen Wiley) and allegedly raped a third woman (Juanita Broderick)

And Clinton's approval with women are still very high!

 

As I recall, the generally accepted narrative about Clinton, among both men and women, was that he had engaged only in consensual sex. The idea that there might have been anything coercive about his actions did not gain wide currency with the public. Broderick, for example. was treated basically as an irrelevant footnote, as the whole story was fading from the public consciousness.

So, most of the women who defended him likely thought that he was guilty of nothing more than infidelity.

Kathleen Wiley was GROPED and assaulted in the Oval Office.

Hardly consensual.

And she did go public, but women didn't buy her story. They sided with Clinton

And I didn't even get into Paula Jones!

Well, yeah, whether women(and men) thought that his accusers were lying, or whether they just never heard about the allegations(which I think might have been more the case with Broderick), the end result was that many people thought Clinton's actions were consensual.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

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.

Caissa

Given Jian's $50 million lawsuit I hope babble would be sensitive to postings on this topic.

jas

I don't believe anyone has posted the CBC's own news article about this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/jian-ghomeshi-host-of-q-no-longer-with-cbc-1...

jas

alan smithee wrote:

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

From Ghomeshi's point of view (that he has provided full disclosure and is innocent), I can see why he feels the need for something more than a grievance. The lack of public disclosure from the employer lends itself to far too much speculation, creating serious potential for damage to any future employment prospects he may have.

6079_Smith_W

But there is the news story.

So far CBC has said nothing other than that they could not continue their relationship with him. What is the need for public disclosure? Ghomeshi made some claims about the lack of a "formal" complaint, but we don't know. I can certainly understand that their hands might be tied on this.

mark_alfred

Here's an article with some thoughts on it:  http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/poor-persecuted-pervert/

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But there is the news story.

So far CBC has said nothing other than that they could not continue their relationship with him. What is the need for public disclosure? Ghomeshi made some claims about the lack of a "formal" complaint, but we don't know. I can certainly understand that their hands might be tied on this.

Yes, but given the nature of Ghomeshi's role there and that he has built a very public reputation, one that, if he is innocent of the allegations, he has reasonable expectation to pursue elsewhere, the lack of formal and specific explanation for his dismissal (i.e., if this really does turn out to be a morality or corporate image issue, rather than a criminal issue) leaves the public to potentially imagine the worst and could easily damage his reputation and future prospects, if it hasn't already.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Timebandit wrote:
Just want to note that while there are elements to this story that intersect with feminist issues, I don't think it belongs in the feminist forum [...]

What Timebandit said. It would not be the worst thing in the world if those who wished to discuss elements that do not clearly intersect with (core) feminist issues were to create parallel threads.

 

 

BillBC

re lawsuit...read this in the paper...don't know it it's true

--

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.
...
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.

Basement Dweller

Yeah, there should be another thread in "The Media".

Pages