CBC cuts Jian Ghomeshi loose

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

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.

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

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...

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

Who needs a trial?

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 wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

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

Interesting.

I didn't know that.

Was that just announced this afternoon?

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

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

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

Here's an article on Gawker about it:

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

alan smithee wrote:

I now understand his lawsuit.

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

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?

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

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.

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. 

Lots of yuks in this thread.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Ghislaine wrote:

Can this be moved to the feminist forum?

I take back my ambivalent post in #27.

I agree with Ghislaine.

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 [b]not[/b] 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 [b]NO[/b], 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 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.

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.