Another Canadian Icon Sullied (2014 Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault discussion)

God I hate advertising wankspeak.

What's this all about then?

Jian Ghomeshi Fired by CBC, Gonna Sue

Jesse Brown @JesseBrown · 47m 47 minutes ago
What I have learned about @jianghomeshi after months of investigation will be reported responsibly as soon as possible. Patience please.

I've been hearing murmurs of "widespread gossip" but I have no idea what any of this is about

Is anyone going to spill the beans about what's going on? Surely the journo community must have a clue.

I remember reading this a while ago: http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

Being sleazy can't be the reason to get fired from the CBC?

Gawker's story and comment section have some dirt.

https://twitter.com/ryantologist/status/526439911998881792

yeah i'm fearing something really ugly happened.

Jian's answer to all this

Dear everyone,
I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.
This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.
Today, I was fired from the CBC.
For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.
I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I've never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.
All this has now changed.
Today I was fired from the company where I've been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I've done nothing wrong.
I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.
As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.
I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.
Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.
I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.
About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.
Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others.
After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.
It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned – through one of my friends who got in contact with this person – that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me.
Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues – all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?
The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I've had to live with.
And this leads us to today and this moment. I’ve lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for "scandal". And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a "pattern of behaviour". And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all.
I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone's business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me.
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." To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.
Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.
And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.
I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.

that was longer than i thought sorry

"campaign of vengeance" is the big bullshit red flag for me, that and the cultural namedrops.

yeah my own personal bullshit red flag is 'painted herself as the victim'.

i can imagine a tyler perry from gone girl figure going 'talk about the passing away of your father, people will like that'.

lol people have been throwing Tanner Bolt refs at this all day on Twitter, even before the statement came out

Never listened to him, hated his band, interesting story.

everything hes ever done has been complete and total garbage and hes an example of the worst, most smug aspects of the canadian cultural nomenklatura

i mean at best he liked to beat up woman while he fucked them which idk

everything hes ever done has been complete and total garbage and hes an example of the worst, most smug aspects of the canadian cultural nomenklatura

bring back sounds like canada

piya chattopadhyay is one of my least favorite cbc broadcasters. she's filled in on cross country checkup a lot recently.

We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year.

Yeah that line had me rolling my eyes out. The Star seems to be the one with the details. Several assaults against several women. Good riddance.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/cbc_fires_jian_ghomeshi_over_sex_allegations.html

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.

^ welp, three different women agreeing on this kind of clinches it, imo

super bummed at how many people i casually know seem eager to get on a 'its unfair for the nba to punish donald sterling for something he said in private' tip for a dude whos only accomplishment is having a terrible radio show. btw this and the mayoral election just feeling tired of this city

The women, all educated and employed, said Ghomeshi’s actions shocked them.

"not prostitutes"

Owen Pallett slam dunks Ghomeshi's ass:
https://www.facebook.com/speccy.oxen/posts/10154776501860075

Wow.

A very brave & honest response.

Seems like everyone in Canada has a friend at the CBC or in the Toronto music scene who's all "no surprises" about this (I have). Yet despite tons of "let's be clear what this is about..." pieces in the last couple of days, this is the first I've seen from someone who really knows the guy, whose scene & fans overlap and is part of the same cultural establishment. Think there are really people who are bummed about it and reluctant to abandon Ghomeshi because they really liked his show. But this piece can maybe put it in perspective for some of those folks.

amanda palmer, noted fucking moron, weighs in: https://twitter.com/NotAllBhas/status/526745505863581696/photo/1

this is exactly how charisma works and why it is so hard to catch sexual abusers or even just regular bullies.

the state of BDSM in Canadian law

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/?service=mobile

I've seen questions raised about that Globe piece (although I freely acknowledge that the author is an expert on the law and I am far from being one). The author does not cite the case she is referring to. Assuming she was talking about this case (R. v. J.A.), the ruling might not have stated exactly what she says it did ("when it comes to BDSM – or at least its more intense versions – the law doesn’t actually care about consent"): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7942/index.do

I'll quote a friend's summary, which seems to be supported by the text of the ruling afaict:

the defendant was convicted of assault for having inserted a dildo into the anus of his wife after erotically asphyxiating her into unconsciousness. She had consented to the asphyxiation, but not the dildo insertion. The lack of consent for the latter was the basis of the assault conviction. No where does the ruling declare that one cannot consent to assault for purpose of erotic pleasure. The SC did not, for example, charge JA of assault for the act of asphyxiation for which he had obtained consent

(Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._J.A.)

I always thought that all the evidence had to be shared with all parties in advance which makes me wonder about the defence bringing out these surprise emails and catching the witnesses in a contradiction.

In the case of the second witness her messages and letters after the abuse obscures whether or not it was consensual. ie. the day after: "“You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f— your brains out. Tonight.” and the "I love your hands" letter from 5 days after.

disclosure obligation is only on the prosecution.

I believe the women, but I do think the credibility/reliability concerns with respect to the complainants' testimony will give the judge pause before finding ghomeshi guilty on the criminal standard of proof. that's not to say the complainants are lying about the fundamental allegation that he sexually assaulted them.

there are also reasonable explanations for the problems with their testimony, but unfortunately these problems may still be enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the end. that would be a sad day for victims of sexual assault.

Well it wouldnt be the first time. This shit is why women hardly ever report let alone take to court. I did like that one of the witnesses stayed calm and said "regardless of what i did afterwards, he still assaulted me that night", which is, basically, the point.

Verdict this morning. Expect the worse.

Almost as bad: http://www.macleans.ca/news/pr-experts-say-ghomeshis-career-could-rebound-with-acquittal-but-not-easily/

"Tremendous opportunities."

Not guilty on all charges. Great job, prosecutors.

And now, as with O.J. and Franz Biberkopf, the punishment will hopefully begin. (That Maclean's link above isn't cause for optimism, though.)

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

I post on the Toronto subReddit - and they are going to have a field day with that one.

Not surprising. That said, I would be surprised to see him bounce back, at least in the public sphere.

jesus that judge quote.

[136]
Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi, after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him. In many instances, their conduct and comments were even inconsistent with the level of
animus
exhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later. In a case that is entirely dependent on the reliability of their evidence standing alone, these are factors that cause me considerable difficulty when asked to accept their evidence at full value.

[137]
Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in
-
chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the Court.
[138]
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.
[139]
The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

[140]
My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.

[141]
I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Full text of the ruling, for anyone who is interested.

Not guilty on all charges. Great job, prosecutors.

Man, I don’t know. Have you read the judgement?

Do you not think the ruling suggests that the prosecution might have been able to do this better?

when part of prosecuting is coaching the witnesses you have to assume they didn't do their job properly here.

when part of prosecuting is coaching the witnesses you have to assume they didn't do their job properly here.

Good point. However, if the prosecutors didn’t know about the e-mails or the extent of their relationship, what could they have done? (Genuine question, I don’t know anything about anything.)

Wait was the judge the finder of fact? was there a jury?

So much admiration for the women who were bold & resolved & felt supported enough to come forward and endure these legal grindwheels. I hope all of them were prepared enough for this verdict that they never wholly regret the process and its impact on their further lives.

anticipating some revolting hot-takes on this verdict so going to have to keep away from any Canadian newspapers in the next few days to preserve my sanity

Avoiding Canadian newspapers is something that we're all experts on here in Canada.

I hope this does not deter women of reporting abuses, but I just can't see how.

was there a jury?

No:

Why will it be decided by a judge, not a jury?
A judge alone is the norm in criminal cases. The Crown proceeds summarily in many sexual assault cases, which means a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice rather than the Superior Court,” one defence lawyer explains: “I don’t criticize that. It means a complainant doesn’t have to testify at a preliminary hearing and a trial. The penalties are lower but it’s worth the trade-off.”

Well it wouldnt be the first time. This shit is why women hardly ever report let alone take to court. I did like that one of the witnesses stayed calm and said "regardless of what i did afterwards, he still assaulted me that night", which is, basically, the point.

OTM and still unfortunately worth repeating

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

I don't think this is an actual quote btw. I didn't find it in the text of the ruling.

thank god

trusted source BorkowskiNews exposed as fraud

actual quote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeVSVX9WQAECZ1k.jpg

Actual quote was worse: “However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.”

xp

"The equally dangerous false assumption" equally dangerous to what? I wonder.

"If you crunch the numbers, the judge's statement that a "false assumption" that a woman is telling the truth about a sexual assault is "equally dangerous" means that the ~450,000 rapes that go unpunished are "equal" to the ~500 false accusations (both figures are for a year in canada). That means that the statement mathematically suggests that a false rape accusation is about 900 times as dangerous as a rape." - a friend from Facebook

I disagree that saying we need to be vigilant to avoid a false assumption is worse than saying we need to fight against a stereotype, even if "equally dangerous" is debatable.

i think the whole "equally dangerous" thing is a trap -- how would one even begin to tabulate the relative dangers??

other than that, out of context, that quote isn't terribly objectionable. in context, it's pretty awful.

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

Pretty sure that quote was actually the satirical headline from the Beaverton.

Peter Mansbridge interview with Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Henein.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/jian-ghomeshi-marie-henein-lawyer-interview-1.3510762

http://canadalandshow.com/article/ghomeshi-judges-son-works-marie-heneins-brother

Oh Canadaland. "I don’t actually think this affected Justice Horkins’ view of the case, his judgement, or the way he decided on the case" said the anonymous source, plus everyone else.

Tom Mulcair ‏@ThomasMulcair 5h5 hours ago
I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence and the right to a strong defence but I also believe survivors.

Generous of Mulcair to gift his opponents so much ammo to use against him.

This, from last Friday, was the first thing I read that actually suggested alternative ways of dealing with cases like this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trial-by-battle-tradition-fails-to-meet-the-needs-of-sex-assault-survivors/article29391597/

His proposal that the accusers (ie. his client) get to choose a civil trial and instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" becomes "balance of probabilities" would have made no difference here. Still would've lost. Isn't it apparent that this case is not one that merits any reforms?

Even if that's true, and it may be, I can see an argument as to why it might at least help with other sexual assault cases.

Wow, I just watched the Henein interview. She's kind of compelling.

Yeah she's really something. On the other hand, Peter Mansbridge's supposed reputation and appeal remains a mystery to me.

This author seems to agree with you and makes some fair points imo: http://www.chatelaine.com/news/mansbridge-botched-marie-henein-interview/

The question about whether men are seen as traitors to their gender seemed exceptionally dumb to me. A better comparison would be about whether members of a visible minority group could be seen as betraying their community, which could definitely happen.

The Canadian version of O.J.'s many post-acquittal projects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/jian-ghomeshis-ideation-project-marks-a-less-than-triumphant-return/article34654018/

He probably saw the pics of Casey Anthony at the Women's March and figured it was his time for a comeback too

god the title of this thread is the absolute worst

I can't tell whether it was originally about Gretzky or Keith's. Guessing the latter.

Sarah Polley speaks publicly about it:

Filmmaker Sarah Polley tells us why she's now embracing things that once kept her up at night — from why she didn't come forward in the trial of Jian Ghomeshi, to the trauma of her career as a child star.

Read more https://t.co/QC3KCIRKA5 and tune in on CBC Radio One at 9:10am

— CBC Radio: The Current (@TheCurrentCBC) February 28, 2022