babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Ghomeshi Trial Begins
February 1, 2016 - 4:43pm
Live From the Trial of Jian Ghomeshi: What You've Missed So Far
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi-watch-what-yo...
"One of CBC Radio's star hosts, Jian Ghomeshi is now facing trial for sexual assault. Stay tuned here for regular updates from the court case in Toronto, explanations of the main cast of characters and more background on the case.."
Ottawa Law Professor on How the Ghomeshi Trial Could Play Out
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-law-professor-on-how...
"We spoke with Constance Backhouse, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa...about the Jian Ghomeshi trial, which begins Monday in Toronto..."
#ghomeshi
Has anyone else noticed that since his arrest, Ghomeshi seems to have found -- and remembered how to use -- his razor?
Great topic so thanks for posting it. I was afraid to post it on this forum because it's a lot more controversial than anything I had said earlier in the first few days of being here.
So without defending or condemning Ghomeshi, I'll start the ball rolling with a comment that should be o.k?
It's been outrageous how the CBC has been able to do dirt on this guy outsie the court system and before a fair trial. He stands condemned in the minds of probably about 90% of Canadians already.
What's your point, if any? That it's still important to present with an appearance that will please the establishment and those who are probably in their sixties who will cast judgement upon him?
Or maybe that it's no longer important to present with an appearance that says "edgy" and "I make my own rules".
I'm just sayin'.
There's no "those". He only has to worry about Justice William B. Horkins, and I've no idea how Justice Horkins feels about man-whiskers. But if I'm not mistaken, Ghomeshi went for the baby-faced look BEFORE facing Horkins today, yes?
I'm in my 60's what is different about my age compared to someone like you who claims to be in their 80's? Was your generation more tolerant than the later generations?
And for the second time, I didn't claim I was in my eighties. Now run off and search all my posts to see if you can find me saying that.
Or don't bother because you won't find it. If a man walks into court with a pony tail, sadly he is hurting his chances. Unshaven, probably also true but to perhaps a lesser degree. That's because people in their sixties or seventies haven't adjusted to being more inclusive of others' preferences in dress and style. Not me, even though I fit in that age group, and apparently not you. Would you like to argue that too now? Oh, and they probably shouldn't have a face full of jewelry either, although an ear ring or two probably wouldn't hurt. I would take my chances clean shaven, well groomed with short or moderate length hair, and wearing a suit.
Back to Ghomeshi.
Although he may or may not be convicted of a crime it doesn't make his behavior acceptable. Some people in our society are rewarded with high profile jobs that win them much praise and financial compensation but that comes with responsibility too. We are not required to reward just anyone.
Ghomeshi showed a video to executives of his breaking a woman's arm in consentual rough sex. I don't care if she consented or not. I don't care if what he did was illegal or not. It's reprehensible. At least one university stopped sending female interns for his show. He took advantage of women when they were young and powerless so wouldn't be believed but they grew up and some of them earned enough respect to be believed. That isn't necessarily enough for a courtroom but it is certainly enough for me to judge whose word is more likely true.
Regardless of whether or not Ghomeshi is convicted of a crime or sees any jail time he most definitely treated many women very badly. He took advantage of the position Canadians honoured him with to abuse women. He deserved to lose that position. It is for the courts to decide if he should also lose his freedom.
What ridiculous ageist prejudice.
As for Ghomeshi, I think it is because that casual unshaven look looks friendly if the guy is smiling, and it would hardly be good form for him to do it in court or in public now.
I agree with this part of your post. JG has been an annoying poppycock ever since his (brilliant) Moxy-Fruvous stint so the news did not surprise me.
Well, the dismal witness currently on the stand is FIVE years older than JG.
If the crown's case doesn't get better, JG will walk away. And based on evidence so far, he should walk. Without excusing his behavior ... she went back for more!
I know you aren't kidding, but are you kidding with this victim-blaming?
The fact that someone returns to an abusive situation does not mean it is not abuse, nor that it might not be criminal. And someone giving a creep the benefit of the doubt isn't an invitation to be attacked again.
Victim blaming is an appropriate monniker when the victim is trapped in an abusive relationship or similar circimstances. Using it here- with this paticular accuser - will dilute it usefulness when it is used appropriately.
I am sure you have claimed to have voted for the NDP all your life except for having voted for the CCF on more than one occasion. Am I wrong about that?
Once I have identified someone as a "creep" I do not extend to them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.
But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.
What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.
The applicable part is, is this behaviour acceptable? Although it personally makes me first feel sick and then sad, the unfortunate fact is that it appears to be acceptable to a limit. I'm not sure if inflicting bodily harm that entails breaking an arm is acceptable under the law but I would like to find out from somebody that does know.
I 'do' care if it was legal. But besides that, my biggest concern would be what he may do in the future that may go beyond his behaviour which was legal. (supposing it was legal)
We must all rise above the emotional if we are to discuss this in a proper and adult way. According to our laws as they exist, it doesn't appear to be the fact that he dewerved to lose his job. This is where our political bent parts ways and I become more of a socialist. We'll see what the NDP'ers decide on that question, keeping my I hope, that this is a slippery slope. As in, what empoloyers can do under the law and what they must be restrained from doing.
Having said that, it's a tough one for me as morality comes up against legality. I won't take this off to another topic on employer/employee rights but I just ask for others to think of it in that respect.
edit: I would also invite you to consider what the court 'can' do to deal with people like Ghomeshi? Or people out there that are apprehended doing physical harm to women in consensual sec acts, before they act out in a much more violent way that is definitely seen as illegal by the law!
From today's proceedings... an email from 'victim' to JG one year after
Email: "if you want to keep in touch, this is my email!!!! (Phone number), Her name"
Some victim!
And then 18 months after the incidents she sends another email with a hot bikini photo of herself. Hmmmmmm
JG may not have (or deserve) many friends or fans left at this point but it doesn't look like he will be convicted of anything unless the crown can do better. I am surprised these charges weren't dropped like several of the others. This witness has damged their case... possibly beyond repair.
Very sad but he may still be found guilty depending on what bodily harm he inflicted on the victim. This is the question that needs to be answered and it could already be covered by our laws.
It also brings up another question and that is, should the willing victim be apprehended in the process of seeking more bodily harm before it escalates to the point of no return. That being death or something of physical harm approaching death. My personal opinion is that she/he should because it is a decent society's responsibility. Maybe the libertarian would disagree?
The law is that you can't consent to assault, monty1.
And the only claim that this had anything to do with consent is in that lame letter Ghomeshi wrote to the CBC. Maybe someone whose knowledge of this doesn't go any further than 50 shades might buy that. I don't think anyone who actually knows about consensual BDSM would.
In the first place, they would know that even with consent you don't go punching people in the the head, kidneys, or other places where you run the risk of doing serious or permanent damage, if you don't want to risk being charged with assault.
But really, this case has nothing more to do with that than any other violent sexual assault does, despite Ghomeshi's claim.
(edit)
Just read your last post.
There are countries where rape victims wind up being arrested and given the lash, if that is the sort of justice you had in mind.
Here it's more the court of public opinion.
My report to the moderators referred to the last line befor it was edited by smith. Now it's the second to last line.
Well it is what happens in places where the law goes beyond ignoring and smearing, and denying justice to victims, and actually holds them responsible for being attacked.
No need to speculate about it; it exists already.
good luck with that one
I expected something more than 'good luck'. It may be impossible in some cases, or even in a large majority of cases as people involved in this sort of activity aren't making it public. But in cases of a person, a he or she, goes to the hospital with an injury that is suspect of being inflicted in this manner, then it would be a society's responsibility to look into it in my opinion. We certainly have that sort of eye on children that are admitted to the hospital with bodily harm.
At this point in the conversation I'm mostly interested in the comments from the NDP'ers. That is going to tell me, and perhaps some others, of how they see their social responsibiities.
Social responsibilities are owned by the NDP and I say that in a bragging way because I'm still one of them.
Domestic violence charges are now laid by police and it's mandatory. It doesn't matter if the victim claims to have "consented".
The CBC would be legally entitled to fire him for picking his nose in public. He wasn't a clerk.
We are about to see what the court can do to deal with people like Ghomeshi and he is not the first.
A much less serious case is that of the Hydro One employee, an engineer making 100K+ was fired for defending a man who did the FHRITP harrassment of a reporter on air. You don't have to break the law to lose your job.
Pondering, I find your last post a little confusing. Perhaps the quotes got a little mixed up. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I want to make one point from what you said:
I have taken part in and become fairly well versed in labour law in the past and from the union side in arbitration cases. So I'm going to come at this from that POV. While the Ghomeshi case is not similar to anything I've ever dealt with in the past, it does ask the basic very common question of what rights an employer has as it pertains to an employee's rights. And I thank the dogs that I've never had to be involved in this kind of a case where the union would have a responsibility of defending a charge such as what faces Ghomeshi.
I"m telling you this because this can't be decided one way or another with an emotional reaction that influenced the decision. And so, you may be correct in saying that the CBC would have a responsiblitiy of firing Ghomeshi for picking his nose, (rhetorically speaking) but you alao could be wrong and we'll have to wait for the outcome to find out.
I was hoping for a lawyer or a more up to date expert on labour law who could give us some answers. My own experience doesn't reach the mark.
I thank you for showing the social responsibility to discuss this in a civil and reasable way. It must be hard for any woman to do that considering the horrible nature of the events as they happened. I'm awaiting the same from som of the others. Nuff said.
Pondering wrote:
Speaking in general and not pertaining to this case, you've totally ignored my comment of there being a limit to domestic violence that is acceptable. That which doesn't qualify as domestic violence could be various acts of cruelty by either party in a marriage or relationship. What could that be? I'll leave it to your imagination but I'll offer, a slap on the face by the woman on her husband. Now you are going to have to draw the line. And it won't make any difference anyway because what we decide is the line may not be what the court decides. Or in the sense of the workplace then the arbitration court which is the arbitrator him/herself.
Actually we discussed Ghomeshi's firing back when it happened, and it was pretty well covered in the news at the time. Ghomeshi filed a lawsuit against the CBC for $55 million..
What he got was a bill for court costs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-s-55m-lawsuit-against-cbc-be...
And we talked the legal question of consent and assault up and down and backwards too.
The union did not defend Ghomeshi.
Not the responsibility, the right. The CBC has the legal right to protect its public face. Morality clauses still exist in contracts. Hydro One union couldn't protect that engineer either even though there was no question that he had not broken any laws. Women are also union members and the union has a duty to protect them.
Off topic: My apologies to you. The NDP came into existence in 1961 and so that makes it impossible for me to have voted for the CCF. Just barely though. On proclaiming that I have always been an NDP supporter I threw in the CCF for dramatic effect because I was very aware of the CCF because my parents supported it. And maybe a little proud too. Perceptive of you to catch that and it indicates that you were showing a conern for my age! Please don't sue me or report me for lying to you. ;-)
Its okay Monty I have destroyed many mangers on the stand because I have an ear for inconsistencies in people's stories. Your story about being a lifelong NDP supporter who is gaga over Trudeau the Lesser I find quite hard to swallow however one of the etiquette things at babble is I have to accept things like that at face value. I was merely using your own words to determine your age because I mistakenly believed your posts about your life story. I will try not to make that mistake again.