Jian Ghomeshi canned from CBC

Milo

Kristy;385346 wrote Wtf is this? Milo's allowed to call victims of rape and assault cowards, and infer that their veracity would "have more weight" if they told their stories in the way he thinks they should? Where they would have to be subject to more questioning, scrutiny, exposure...

And all for naught...since it will never make them UN-raped.
This is fucking sick.

Polled the ladies on my dart team tonight, just for the hell of it. All of them think the notion of going to the papers BEFORE the cops is shady. I suppose they are self-hating mysoginists?

And I did not call these three women "cowards". I questioned their courage, which is different, albeit by a matter of degrees. you spoke earlier of the trauma of coming forward to report this kind of incident. how is that trauma different if you are doing it with a reporter as opposed to a Cop?

As for Ghomeshi being fired, I could care less. As kwsteve has already pointed out, the CBC has the Right to protect their "brand" in any manner they see fit, including firing Ghomeshi simply for the hint of a scandal. As he is part of a Union, I doubt his lawsuit even goes to court, as the Collective Agreement usually replaces that option for members.

I would still like to see these women file charges, as it is the only way for the truth to come out. But that is entirely up to them.

Milo

Kristy;385346 wrote And all for naught...since it will never make them UN-raped.
This is fucking sick.

So, you are 100% certain they were raped, now?
Based on what evidence?
What are you fucking Kreskin?

and Mark, you are correct in one thing . . . the phraseology in the passage you mentioned is bad. But I stand by my statement that the idea of going to a reporter rather than the Cops is fishy . . .

Milo

FINAL WORDS ON THIS.

I am not "blaming" anyone, and I am certainly not taking sides.

I find the women's actions in reporting this to be suspicious and, as Hellmuth's Mole alludes, possibly motivated by evidence that if brought forward at trial would serve to weaken their case against Ghomeshi.

I find Ghomeshi's actions to suspicious in that the first thing he did was not hire a lawyer, but a PR firm. That Facebook posting smacks of Michael Bryant all over again.

So, I guess I would have to say that I find both sides in this dispute as appearing to have something to hide. And, as a result, I still maintain that a trial is the only way to get all the facts out, and render a fair decision.

Lastly, seeing as how I am not banned for my earlier posts, I will await my apology from Kristy.

I realize I'll be waiting until hell freezes over, but that's okay. I got time.

Oh, and before you go off on a rant about how I don't understand anything about what an abused or raped woman goes through, my WIFE was in an abusive relationship for over a year before we met and became friends. Sitting in her driveway listening to her tell me what was going on and giving her my thoughts was how she got the courage to tell that POS she was leaving. So I may not know what it's like myself, but I have some pretty personal experience with the results, so go fuck yourself. You don't "know" me any more than I "know" you.

Hellmuth's Mole

Milo;385359 wrotePolled the ladies on my dart team tonight, just for the hell of it. All of them think the notion of going to the papers BEFORE the cops is shady. I suppose they are self-hating mysoginists?

It is my understanding that Jesse Brown (the paper) came to them (with the alleged victim that Ghomeshi refers to as the "jilted lover") to get their help in corroborating her story. Again I wonder if they believe that their legal options are futile.

Milo;385359 wrote And I did not call these three women "cowards". I questioned their courage, which is different, albeit by a matter of degrees. you spoke earlier of the trauma of coming forward to report this kind of incident. how is that trauma different if you are doing it with a reporter as opposed to a Cop?

Really??

compuease

Ah you kids are always looking for something to fight over, if it isn't fed or darb, it's each other.. I'm turning in, likely won't have much time during the day to check, but if you all left the forum forever it wouldn't upset me..>:D

moose

Milo;385359 wrote As for Ghomeshi being fired, I could care less. As kwsteve has already pointed out, the CBC has the Right to protect their "brand" in any manner they see fit, including firing Ghomeshi simply for the hint of a scandal. As he is part of a Union, I doubt his lawsuit even goes to court, as the Collective Agreement usually replaces that option for members.

No they don't. It's wrongful dismissal if they claim he is being fired with 'cause'. And, since he is in a union he can not simply be fired without cause either.

Hence the lawsuit.

Read my link.

Hellmuth's Mole

Milo;385363 wrote I find Ghomeshi's actions to suspicious in that the first thing he did was not hire a lawyer, but a PR firm. That Facebook posting smacks of Michael Bryant all over again.

While I also questioned the timing and extent of the Facebook post, surely he had lawyers in place before the post. Probably labour lawyers as there seems to be no reason for criminal defense lawyers (yet). The PR firm because he needed their expertise on how best to out himself as what most would consider a sexual deviant. Surely he had no intention of keeping this quiet as I'm sure all lawyers would have suggested.

Milo

We'll see . . . or maybe we won't. Until then, only a few people know the truth, and ain't none of 'em here.

Good night.

[deleted]

Just a few thoughts then I'm getting the fuck out of here.

1. There are a multitude of reasons that women don't report abuses and sexual assaults. The vast vast majority of which have nothing to do with their honesty or credibility. Referring to it as shady is working backwards logically. Polling the women on your dart team, as though it possessed a shred of value is fucking moronic. Like GTA indicated with his story, the Police are notoriously and somewhat shockingly shitty at investigating crime, sex crimes especially. Where I work in Vancouver we get a news bulletin every week called the red light alert. Basically, women in the sex trade submit stories about bad dates anonymously because they feel as though they can't trust the police not to victimize them further or criminalize them, or suggest to them that maybe they were asking for it.

2. Consent is dynamic. It can be given, it can be withdrawn. Consent to one thing is not consent to anything other than that one thing.

3. JG has been convicted of nothing. It's unfair to state that he's guilty without due process in the same way it's ludicrous to suggest that the accusations are false simply because they weren't made to the police. I'm not sure why the CBC felt that they had to let him go now before more facts came to light, particularly when he was already on leave. My guess is that we'll find a lot of these things out in the near future whether we want to or not. What I know for sure is that there's a ton we don't know.

4. Milo, we went down this road a couple months back. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. I do support your right to have an opinion, but I want you to know that some of the opinions you have are dangerous. These opinions you have and express, they hurt actual people. They perpetuate and minimize the worst kinds of violence. You can dismiss that as an overreaction if you like, but it's the truth. I don't believe you're a bad person honestly, but you're dismissive of opinions which differ from your own. You could argue the same for me, but all you know about me is that I'm dismissive of opinions which are generated by you.

5.Dan Savage says most of this stuff way better than me. Just read, I think it's a pretty fair and balanced opinion piece. It also has some interesting stuff at the end about Canadian Law that I really wasn't aware of.

Prominent CBC Radio Host Claims He Was Fired for Consensual BDSM Sex | Slog

DrTyore

You know who else are shady?

R.A. Dickey and Theo Fleury.... they're just trying to sell books.

Mark

GTA Poker

dinobot;385373 wroteJust a few thoughts then I'm getting the fuck out of here.

1. There are a multitude of reasons that women don't report abuses and sexual assaults. The vast vast majority of which have nothing to do with their honesty or credibility. Referring to it as shady is working backwards logically. Polling the women on your dart team, as though it possessed a shred of value is fucking moronic. Like GTA indicated with his story, the Police are notoriously and somewhat shockingly shitty at investigating crime, sex crimes especially. Where I work in Vancouver we get a news bulletin every week called the red light alert. Basically, women in the sex trade submit stories about bad dates anonymously because they feel as though they can't trust the police not to victimize them further or criminalize them, or suggest to them that maybe they were asking for it.

2. Consent is dynamic. It can be given, it can be withdrawn. Consent to one thing is not consent to anything other than that one thing.

3. JG has been convicted of nothing. It's unfair to state that he's guilty without due process in the same way it's ludicrous to suggest that the accusations are false simply because they weren't made to the police. I'm not sure why the CBC felt that they had to let him go now before more facts came to light, particularly when he was already on leave. My guess is that we'll find a lot of these things out in the near future whether we want to or not. What I know for sure is that there's a ton we don't know.

4. Milo, we went down this road a couple months back. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. I do support your right to have an opinion, but I want you to know that some of the opinions you have are dangerous. These opinions you have and express, they hurt actual people. They perpetuate and minimize the worst kinds of violence. You can dismiss that as an overreaction if you like, but it's the truth. I don't believe you're a bad person honestly, but you're dismissive of opinions which differ from your own. You could argue the same for me, but all you know about me is that I'm dismissive of opinions which are generated by you.

5.Dan Savage says most of this stuff way better than me. Just read, I think it's a pretty fair and balanced opinion piece. It also has some interesting stuff at the end about Canadian Law that I really wasn't aware of.

Prominent CBC Radio Host Claims He Was Fired for Consensual BDSM Sex | Slog

Where did this guy come from?

Hellmuth's Mole

DrTyore;385374 wroteYou know who else are shady?

R.A. Dickey and Theo Fleury.... they're just trying to sell books.

Mark

I just wanted to note that I "liked" your post 85% and your new tagline 250%.

moose

moose;385366 wroteNo they don't. It's wrongful dismissal if they claim he is being fired with 'cause'. And, since he is in a union he can not simply be fired without cause either.

Hence the lawsuit.

Read my link.

View from another labour lawyer that contradicts the previous link.
Interesting.

Jian Ghomeshi’s CBC lawsuit is hopeless

I wonder if the lawsuit is part of his pr move or if his lawyers believe they can make a case.

DrTyore

Hellmuth's Mole;385377 wroteI just wanted to note that I "liked" your post 85% and your new tagline 250%.

Hey, I give credit where it's due...

People tend to find it's just a matter of how long they wait until agreeing with me.

Mark

Hellmuth's Mole

Well then. A couple of my queries have been answered thanks to Brenda Cossman's article in the Globe and Mail.

"But, when it comes to BDSM – or at least its more intense versions – the law doesn’t actually care about consent. The Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context. So, if a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it."

"This is pretty problematic from the perspective of the BDSM community. Carefully negotiated consent is rendered irrelevant, and effectively criminalizes all those who derive sexual pleasure from activities that involve physical pain, if it leaves a mark. But, it’s the law."

The full article can be found here..
The Ghomeshi question: The law and consent - The Globe and Mail

kwsteve

moose;385378 wrote I wonder if the lawsuit is part of his pr move or if his lawyers believe they can make a case.

I personally believe its a PR move to get people on his side. Just like Jimmy Savile. I don't think he's got a chance of winning, but we'll see.

Hellmuth's Mole

GTA Poker;385376 wroteWhere did this guy come from?

dinobot
PWNed Johnny Chan

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 676

The home of unmoved couches.

[deleted]

Hellmuth's Mole;385381 wroteWell then. A couple of my queries have been answered thanks to Brenda Cossman's article in the Globe and Mail.

"But, when it comes to BDSM – or at least its more intense versions – the law doesn’t actually care about consent. The Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context. So, if a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it."

"This is pretty problematic from the perspective of the BDSM community. Carefully negotiated consent is rendered irrelevant, and effectively criminalizes all those who derive sexual pleasure from activities that involve physical pain, if it leaves a mark. But, it’s the law."

The full article can be found here..
The Ghomeshi question: The law and consent - The Globe and Mail

I'd be curious to know if the law has ever been applied in this way to this specific issue.

Hellmuth's Mole

dinobot;385384 wroteI'd be curious to know if the law has ever been applied in this way to this specific issue.

The article seems to indicate it has.

I was also thrown a bit by the Editor's note at the end of the article.

Editor's Note: An earlier online version of this article said the Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot consent to assault. In fact, the court has said a person cannot consent to an assault that causes them bodily harm. This online version has been clarified.

So you can submit to an assault as long as it doesn't result in bodily harm? Does minor bruising constitute bodily harm? Scratches? What about the emotional scars of a rape that may not show as physical damage per se?

I'd say this is going to be going to be a landmark case, but I'd be lying if said I think it will see the light of day in court.

[deleted]

What of liberty and self ownership?

I guess where it's confusing to me is the wording. Assault by its very definition is non consensual. So if you consent, it's not assault, and vice versa. The article seemed to specifically reference the practice of erotic asphyxiation and the fact that the consenting person needs to remain conscious and able to withdraw consent at any time.

This is the exact opposite of the first aid approach where if someone refuses your assistance you can wait for them to pass out, at which point consent is implied. Which is neither here not there I suppose.

I agree that this won't likely see a court room.

« Previous Page Next Page »