Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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?

Much like fighting in hockey the law tends to turn a blind eye.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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?

The simple answer to your question is that the statement "the law doesn't care about consent" is just plain wrong. I am a bit appalled that people keep saying it--it's nonsense.

The law in Canada is that you can't consent to bodily harm--which means injury that is more than transient or trifling. Rough sex doesn't count, even if there is slapping or hitting. But you can't consent to being seriously injured, which to me is very sensible.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Much like fighting in hockey the law tends to turn a blind eye.

Not really.
The specific objectives in hockey do not include trying to assault someone.
That is not the objective of the sport. It is exactly that in MMA.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The law in Canada is that you can't consent to bodily harm--which means injury that is more than transient or trifling. Rough sex doesn't count, even if there is slapping or hitting. But you can't consent to being seriously injured, which to me is very sensible.

So, the question remains. How and why do MMA events get passed here where there is a very real risk of being seriously injured?

[GGG]

I think people are missing that there is one case that can be corroborated and that should have gotten ghomeshi fired.

He said I want to hate #### you to a subordinate who reported it to her union rep and whose producers asked her what they could do to improve the work environment. So forget the rest of it. That should be enough.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So, the question remains. How and why do MMA events get passed here where there is a very real risk of being seriously injured?

That's not a bad question. I'm not at all an expert in criminal law, but I would say that most MMA fights don't end in what the law would necessarily call "bodily harm"--those that do might not get reported or investigated.

If an MMA fighter were killed in the ring in Canada, there might be a risk of a manslaughter charge in my view, and if that happened we would likely find that consent was no defence.

EDIT: I stand corrected--see below.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So, the question remains. How and why do MMA events get passed here where there is a very real risk of being seriously injured?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mixe...vote-1.1313823

Members of Parliament have passed with overwhelming support a Senate bill that will change the Criminal Code to make mixed martial arts and other combative sports legal in a final vote of 267–9.


The changes will update the definition of a prize fight, which until now was defined as an encounter or fight with fists or hands, meaning that not only was MMA outside the law, but so were Olympic sports such as judo and taekwondo.

Changes section 83(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, and allows provinces to regulate MMA fighting and make it legal if the province deems fit.

Can read the law on this link:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-28.html

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think people are missing that there is one case that can be corroborated and that should have gotten ghomeshi fired.

He said I want to hate #### you to a subordinate who reported it to her union rep and whose producers asked her what they could do to improve the work environment. So forget the rest of it. That should be enough.

He might've.

I think what people are ACTUALLY missing is the fact that nothing is anything more substantial than an anonymous and unsubstantiated allegation at this point.

That's why none of it should be enough. Not yet.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

He might've.

I think what people are ACTUALLY missing is the fact that nothing is anything more substantial than an anonymous and unsubstantiated allegation at this point.

That's why none of it should be enough. Not yet.

This one isn't anonymous though, there would be a documentation on the complaint that exists.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GGG

This one isn't anonymous though, there would be a documentation on the complaint that exists.

There isn't though. That's the issue. It is anonymous, as there is no record of the complaint ever being filed.

[J epworth]

I have a question for those that work in union environments. Is an allegation of sexual misconduct enough to get a unionized worker fired in most cases? Does the claim have to be substantiated with a certain burden of proof, or does the union usually protect the alleged assaulter?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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.

That's a good point.

Having an undeserved reputation or unjust opinions wreck one's life isn't new and pre-dates the Internet, just like getting away with abusing others is. Internet lynch mobs though I wonder do they increase the one or the other? Falsely accused convicted in the court of public opinion, but victim blaming also goes off the charts and seems to punish people who claim abuse. So the net effect of the Internet is probably a wash, just makes it all more visible and public.

Filing what he did seems like PR rather than actually fighting the firing since from what I understand he can't be wrongfully dismissed according to the union setup or whatever. Couldn't he be suing for defamation against the false accusations?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

There isn't though. That's the issue. It is anonymous, as there is no record of the complaint ever being filed.

This is just stated by ghomeshi. Is this info even accessible to the public. I assume it would be private.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just stated by ghomeshi. Is this info even accessible to the public. I assume it would be private.

I would think so too but would think that the lady that was verbally abused and reported it to her rep would be able to obtain a copy of the report/complaint from her previous union rep.
It just seems a bit strange to me that the Star appears to make no effort to corroborate the story by getting here to or directly contacting the union or the rep involved.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just stated by ghomeshi. Is this info even accessible to the public. I assume it would be private.

It's also stated by the Star.

As I said, the key point is that this is all currently in the realm of possibilities and plausibilities, not facts. While the allegations need to be considered, they shouldn't be treated as definitive. They are still anonymous and thus-far without any form of substantiating evidence.

[jammies]

Despite these accusations being anonymous, I put considerable weight in there being 3 different women with the same story. Is it likely that three different accusers all are lying, and for no perceivable gain?

One would presume that the reporters were careful not to lead the different alleged victims along with hints as to what happened to the others involved. How, then, do their stories all contain the same behaviour, if not that they are all talking about similar and real experiences? This is far different than one person's word against another, this is three against one, plus ancillary evidence that shows a consistent pattern.

Yes, hiding behind anonymity makes it hard to refute allegations of this type. However, short of a conspiracy or utter incompetence by the Star, neither of which seem more than remotely possible, the conclusion to be drawn is that while there might not be enough evidence to obtain a criminal conviction, his guilt is far more likely than his innocence.

[jtfrogger]

I found this blog post an interesting read, since it is from someone that is into BDSM: http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2014/10...ampaign=buffer

Face-punching and choking to the point of unconsciousness are absolutely some people’s kinks. But even among seasoned BDSM players, these acts are widely understood to be things you must do only with the most carefully negotiated consent, with a goodly amount of education and practice, and with the knowledge that they are highly risky. Beginner BDSM this is not. As a BDSM educator, I have been teaching how to do safe body punching for over a decade, and I don’t go near the face except symbolically (fake or very light impact for psychological effect). It’s just too easy to do major damage. I’m sure someone out there could teach you how to do it safely, but it won’t be me. As for choking, it’s a topic of massive debate among pervs, with some veteran kinksters even insisting that there is simply no safe way to do it and therefore shouldn’t be done at all. I’m not saying everyone agrees on the absolute-no approach. But I am saying that Ghomeshi’s argument that what he does is a “mild version of Fifty Shades of Grey” does not match up with his apparent practice of engaging in very high-risk activities with women he’s just beginning to date. If what they’re saying is true, that discrepancy alone is enough to make me highly suspicious of his “I’m a poor innocent kinkster” argument. A mild version of Fifty Shades would be some dirty talk (probably with poor grammar) and necktie bondage.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

I have a question for those that work in union environments. Is an allegation of sexual misconduct enough to get a unionized worker fired in most cases? Does the claim have to be substantiated with a certain burden of proof, or does the union usually protect the alleged assaulter?

Ghomeshi would, I assume, be management, the complainant an employee, it doesn't need to be sexual misconduct, just flirting or asking out is inappropriate and would put the company at risk of a law suit.
Not fishing off the company pier has never been truer than these days.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The simple answer to your question is that the statement "the law doesn't care about consent" is just plain wrong. I am a bit appalled that people keep saying it--it's nonsense.

The law in Canada is that you can't consent to bodily harm--which means injury that is more than transient or trifling. Rough sex doesn't count, even if there is slapping or hitting. But you can't consent to being seriously injured, which to me is very sensible.

I think this is possibly related to serious situations like: 1) where we saw in Germany where the guy volunteered to be cannibalized for sexual purposes; 2) where someone can lose consciousness to be violated/harmed without any possibility of ongoing consent/refusal of consent.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

There isn't though. That's the issue. It is anonymous, as there is no record of the complaint ever being filed.

Did she complain to management though, or the union rep? A union complaint would be more formal and require documentation, but if she was afraid to do that and spoke to someone in management instead, who in turn asked her what she could do to improve the "toxic work environment" - pretty much silencing her - then no, there wouldn't be a record of the complaint.