Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What is the definition of bodily harm?

Is it bruising on the buttocks?

It could be, but it's unlikely the police would bother with that, any kind of asphyxiation though, apart from anything else you cannot argue consent if the partner is unable to speak. Not that consent is, in itself a defence.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by troutman

The Giller Prize @GillerPrize
We can confirm Jian Ghomeshi will not host the #GillerPrize gala on November 10th. More news will be forthcoming as it becomes available.

i wonder if there are any type of leather festivals/fetish balls he can be the emcee of now that eh has an open calendar......

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think the star article said that they didn't file reports because there are text messages between themselves and Jian that might indicate consent.

Not quite. Here's the relevant passage from the Star article:

None of the women has contacted police. When asked why by the Star, the women cited several reasons including fears that a police report would expose their names and worries that their consent or acceptance of fantasy role-play discussions in text or other messages with Ghomeshi would be used against them as evidence of consent to actual violence.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Important distinction: in Canada, the Crown chooses to press charges, not the victims of crimes. Per the Toronto Star article, the three women who were allegedly assaulted by Ghomeshi did not file police reports and wish to remain anonymous because of fear of retaliation if their identities were made public.

Another distinction: I believe in Ontario it's the police that elect to lay charges, not the Crown in the sense of Crown prosecutors. Semantics though - your point is the same.

Originally Posted by Bagor

@bigtmac19. I understand that, hence my question.

So, is there no public interest thing here? i.e. Here we have three women claiming to be violently physically assaulted and not willing to file police reports yet are willing to file media reports?

This is like a trial by media? No?

Given the high profile of this case, there's likely someone in the RCMP or local police looking at it, and possibly getting in touch with the reporter. The reporter, however, would likely say that his sources are confidential, and he can't devulge their names. The investigator is then hamstrung, and can't lay any charges against anyone due to a lack of any evidence to support them.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Sounds like they don't want to file charges, but want to have their day in the papers.
Speaks to a lack of credibility of their claims IMO. Surely if they felt physically or sexually assaulted, they'd be filing police reports.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Surely if they felt physically or sexually assaulted, they'd be filing police reports.

That is a very difficult step for many people to take.

http://www.calgaryjournal.ca/index.p...pproach-police

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/se...527-390t6.html

http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/11/83-per...-finds-348304/

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/ha...6reporting.htm

Reason One
Women often believe that no one will do anything about the problem. If women are harassed in an organization and the leadership of the organization does not speak out against that harassment, does not institute procedures for reporting harassment, or does not act quickly on reports of harassment, most victims will be discouraged from acting.

Reason Two
Women are afraid they will be blamed. "Blaming the victim" has historically been a strategy in countering rape charges. Women are told they "invited" the rape or harassment by their dress or demeanor. Because women see this happen to others they have good reason to believe it will also happen to them. In the United States, the treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate Judicial Committee was a strong lesson to women- not only that they won't be believed, but also that they will be blamed.

Reason Three
Women often do not want to hurt the harasser. This reason derives partly from the traditional saying "boys will be boys,” which is used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior by males. Girls are taught to keep silent and to overlook bad behavior by boys. Carol Gilligan's research indicates that women think about the possible negative consequences to all persons involved. The negative consequences to the harasser may not be inconsequential.

Since many women have little choice about where they work, they find it necessary to put up with a situation that they feel they cannot change. "What can't be cured must be endured" is too often the case with victims of sexual harassment.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Good point Troutman, I guess that's quite common.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by troutman

That is a very difficult step for many people to take.

This is all very true and you're right to point it out, but it does appear they were willing to discuss their claims in detail, including naming Ghomeshi as the alleged perpetrator, with The Star.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

This could be part of CBC's concern:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle21315629/

What an idiotic law if it includes BDSM. The government should have 0 say in what happens in the bedroom with 2 consenting adults. If a girls or guy wants to be spanked or whatever they might be into then the government should not be able to tell them a single thing.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

If a girl or guy wants to be spanked or whatever they might be into then the government should not be able to tell them a single thing.

Aside from how to do it better.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Aside from how to do it better.

Crack that tax whip baby, I'm into everything - BSDM, GST, PST, HST, CRA!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

What an idiotic law if it includes BDSM. The government should have 0 say in what happens in the bedroom with 2 consenting adults. If a girls or guy wants to be spanked or whatever they might be into then the government should not be able to tell them a single thing.

Honestly, I'm shocked that those comments came from a law professor. There is jurisprudence saying that you cannot consent to "bodily harm," but there is also ample case law indicating that bodily harm is a lot more than what you would get from consensual "rough sex."

The Supreme Court of Canada case she is referring to involved a complainant who was choked into unconsciousness, and then penetrated anally with a dildo while she was unconscious. The issue was not "bodily harm" it was consent in advance to things happening while you're unconscious. The court was, perhaps understandably, reluctant to let the accused rely on the defence of consent in that circumstance.

Moreover, she is apparently unaware of the rule that bodily harm must be more than "transient or trifling." It's not enough to "leave a mark"; if it were, people in bar fights would constantly be doing hard time on assault causing bodily harm charges because they gave somebody a black eye. The implications for rec hockey are even starker.

The point is this: her statement that the law "criminalizes BDSM" irrespective of consent is a vast and frankly irresponsible overstatement. The law has placed limits on what you can consent to, but they are not engaged by what Ghomeshi has described.

[Nehkara]

This is a good response to the Star article by the National Post:

Christie Blatchford: Jian Ghomeshi just another man vilified by anonymous accusers

All that changed to send the paper rushing to print — there still is no proof — was Mr. Ghomeshi’s “extraordinary statement on Facebook” and “his high public profile in Canada,” Mr. Cooke wrote.

“We now believe it is in the public interest to detail those allegations…”

As a friend says, the public interest in knowing something and what the public may be keen on knowing more about aren’t the same thing. And in this instance, I’m not even sure the public is all that interested.

Beyond all that, the tawdriness and transparently low rationale for running the story, the only issue is one of consent.

Mr. Ghomeshi says while his bedroom tastes — domination and submission, role-playing — may not be everyone’s, he was interested only in encounters with agreeable women who consented. The three interviewed by the Star say otherwise — they claim he was violent and one woman said he beat and choked her.

But none of them has ever complained to the police; none has put her name to their life-smashing accusations.

The women say they fear Internet retaliation, or that filing a police report would expose their names.

Yet that simply isn’t the case. Any publicity exposing them would not come from the police or the courts. An alleged victim of sex abuse gets a publication ban upon her name merely by asking for one.

I have in the past year alone covered two major sex assault trials in Toronto where every woman associated with the cases — alleged victims and purported witnesses both — was protected by a court ban. That is the norm. Not so the accused men, of course.

This story is so egregious: Not only are there are no criminal charges, there are not even any complainants, except to the crack team of Star reporters.

They are a crack team of journalists too, but properly trained sex assault investigators they are not. I understand that the conventional wisdom is that most victims of sex assault don’t report, but surely to God, when they do, it should not be to a newspaper.

What we have here is another sordid modern tale of bullying, another low-water mark in journalism, and another man vilified by anonymous accusers. McCarthyism, anyone?

[photon]

Yeah publication bans are always really effective. That and the reality of what happens and the psychology of what one feels are often very different (i.e. the examples of what troutman posted).

Bullying? McCarthyism?? Please.

The basic problem of any kind of assault that takes place in private is that there's rarely any evidence. You don't want an innocent person harmed and you don't want a guilty person to go free. That works both ways, if the guy is innocent and being harmed you don't want the false accusers to go free, if the girls are innocent and being (been) harmed you don't want the guy to go free.

But the nature of our justice system (burned of proof is on the accusers, innocent until proven guilty, etc) combined with the private nature and difficulty of getting that proof means the system is biased towards letting people who perpetrate the assaults go free. And I can't think of a way to balance that, since you have to have the burden of proof.

You'd think the CBC would have enough info for a basis for this, this isn't some company ignoring their lawyers advice and firing a middle manager they don't like, this is super visible.

[Nehkara]

Honestly I agree with the National Post.

I think that you shouldn't publish life-altering accusations unless the person will go on record or there is proof... because there is simply too much room for an anonymous accuser to say whatever they want about anyone.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Honestly I agree with the National Post.

I think that you shouldn't publish life-altering accusations unless the person will go on record or there is proof... because there is simply too much room for an anonymous accuser to say whatever they want about anyone.

that's why media is supposed to vet these stories too, so they have built up enough trust that the public can trust them

if there's no anonymous sources than 99% of stories talking about corruption in government, business etc. don't get reported on

I don't know how trustworthy the star is, their last big scoop they got right with the Rob Ford stuff I believe. But if it turns out to be false they lose their credibility which is all you have in news

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Honestly I agree with the National Post.

I think that you shouldn't publish life-altering accusations unless the person will go on record or there is proof... because there is simply too much room for an anonymous accuser to say whatever they want about anyone.

The difference here is that Jian tried to get ahead of the story and posted his manifesto on facebook first. Also this isn't one accuser, it's 3, plus a history of workplace sexual assault.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah publication bans are always really effective. That and the reality of what happens and the psychology of what one feels are often very different (i.e. the examples of what troutman posted).

Bullying? McCarthyism?? Please.

The basic problem of any kind of assault that takes place in private is that there's rarely any evidence. You don't want an innocent person harmed and you don't want a guilty person to go free. That works both ways, if the guy is innocent and being harmed you don't want the false accusers to go free, if the girls are innocent and being (been) harmed you don't want the guy to go free.

But the nature of our justice system (burned of proof is on the accusers, innocent until proven guilty, etc) combined with the private nature and difficulty of getting that proof means the system is biased towards letting people who perpetrate the assaults go free. And I can't think of a way to balance that, since you have to have the burden of proof.

You'd think the CBC would have enough info for a basis for this, this isn't some company ignoring their lawyers advice and firing a middle manager they don't like, this is super visible.

Basis enough for the firing, maybe; but basis enough to accuse him if sexual and physical assaults is something else.
The Star article is taking it to that next level; and in today's society that's pretty difficult to defend from the internet lynch mob who needs no burden of proof.

[Bagor]

the law doesn’t actually care about consent. The Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to assault. 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.

Stealing this question from the G&M comments section.

If the bolded is indeed true then how does MMA or boxing events get the green light in Canada where the aim is to assault the person into unconsciousness or submission?
MMA, where the aim is to knock out, choke out or tap out.
What exactly are the fighters consenting to when they step into the ring/cage?

[photon]

I'd agree with a previous poster that normally I'd agree about anonymous accusations, but if these accusations had come earlier and they'd withheld publication, publishing them now after recent events is a different situation. And it's not like The Star article is the only source of the accusations, I found out about this completely separately.

Ideally better substantiation, but I don't think they shouldn't have printed it.