Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[troutman]

http://business.financialpost.com/20...?__federated=1

Ghomeshi’s $50-million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR — but nothing to do with legal entitlement.

Quite apart from the fact that his actual damages likely do not exceed 2% of that figure, unionized bargaining-unit employees (as CBC broadcasters are) can’t sue in court for wrongful dismissal. This suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.

Employment lawyer says Ghomeshi 'not entitled to $1'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle21329701/

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://business.financialpost.com/20...?__federated=1


Ghomeshi’s $50-million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR — but nothing to do with legal entitlement.

Quite apart from the fact that his actual damages likely do not exceed 2% of that figure, unionized bargaining-unit employees (as CBC broadcasters are) can’t sue in court for wrongful dismissal. This suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.

I don't doubt that this guy knows what he's talking about, and I'm positive I don't, but it seems odd to me that he would be part of a union.

Would Peter Mansbridge, Don Cherry, and Sook-Yin Lee be part of the same union? Don Cherry, especially, doesn't seem like a "union man", despite his working-class hero blathering.

Anyway, obviously none of us know the whole story, but an odd reaction to what I have heard is that the women who are making these allegations (at least in the Star story) are both doing it anonymously (and therefore can't be trusted) and doing it for publicity. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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

Just found it on internet? Rigggght?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

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.

Both very good points; consent does have to have its reasonable limits.

And in fact, though our Supreme Court's jurisprudence is perhaps overly broad on the issue of "prior consent," they weren't wrong to want to place limits on what the scope of consent should be. Obviously you shouldn't be able to consent to serious harm--the policy implications wouldn't be good. But consenting to bodily harm is far different from consenting to BDSM, which unless it's pathologically weird and involves crazy mutilations is not going to amount to bodily harm in law.

As it happens, the court could have found that loss of consciousness was bodily harm, and didn't do so, holding instead that you can't consent to something you know will happen while you're unconscious. Which illustrates the proofing conceptual error in Brenda Cossman's article from The Globe and Mail, which simply stated that "the law doesn't care about consent." This is simply untrue, and a shocking overstatement coming from a law professor.

[speede5]

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?

I like how you loaded that up.

In the workplace a claim needs some substantiation but it's quite subjective. The Union ensures that the member has representation and is treated fairly, ie the punishment fits the crime. Sexual misconduct would be treated as per the companies policies and the collective disiplinary provisions. If the action is criminal, then the complaintant can and should use law enforcement, and then it's out of union and managements hands.

If it's a complaint that's outside of the criminal code, the authorities want nothing to do with it. If the company oversteps then it will end up in arbitration.

In theory all a union is is fair representation.

[Ducay]

JackFM had a pretty decent cover of "King of Spain" about it this morning.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by 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.

I definitely get what you're saying, but there is way too much filling in of facts by way of assumptions from the article to seriously consider the women's stories as allegations worthy of a response. For example: How do we know that the women didn't speak to each other in advance? How do we know the Star didn't obtain referrals to the other women? How do we know the Star didn't ask leading questions or refer to other allegations in their questioning?

More importantly, the Star's story can't stand as a proxy for a complaint or be treated as one because of the Star's own admission that they did not, and were not going to, publish the story because they could not at all determine its veracity. So the Star sat on it for months and instead they've now pulled the questionable move of publishing it because Ghomeshi opened this can of worms with his FB statement. The Star, as far as I know, still doesn't say it concluded the women's stories were true. They're just telling you what they heard. That seems to me to be, at best, cashing in on a story that's gripped the public interest, at worst, unethical.

It's not simply that anonymity makes it difficult to refute the story. It is that, in this case, there is no story to refute because there is no actual complaint (the CBC staffer complaint, which ought to be a disciplinable offence if true, notwithstanding). I see Toronto PD feels the same and they're not going to investigate.* Right now, the only story is Jian's. That may change.

As a side-note, Ghomeshi has taken quite a bit of criticism for the FB statement. That may be well-deserved. But to be fair, CBC put him in a bad spot with their press release. They could have very easily said he was fired but instead raised the spectre of serious wrongdoing as the reason for his firing. That may ultimately be justified, but it was unnecessary imo.


*http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10...?__federated=1

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://business.financialpost.com/20...?__federated=1


Ghomeshi’s $50-million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR — but nothing to do with legal entitlement.

Quite apart from the fact that his actual damages likely do not exceed 2% of that figure, unionized bargaining-unit employees (as CBC broadcasters are) can’t sue in court for wrongful dismissal. This suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.

It's likely true that CBC will never have to pay 50 million, but the author of this article is confused. The cause of action isn't wrongful dismissal, it's breach of confidence and defamation. The fact that Ghomeshi is in a union is irrelevant.

He is also filing a grievance under his CBA for reinstatement.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's likely true that CBC will never have to pay 50 million, but the author of this article is confused. The cause of action isn't wrongful dismissal, it's breach of confidence and defamation. The fact that Ghomeshi is in a union is irrelevant.

He is also filing a grievance under his CBA for reinstatement.

How did the CBC breach Ghomeshi's confidence or defame him? On Sunday morning, they announced they had fired him but did not disclose why, citing confidentiality reasons. There was all kinds of speculation at the time (see the first few pages of this thread), but nobody knew anything with certainty. It was his own Facebook post, which later prompted the Toronto Star to publish their story, that brought his private sexual proclivities (which may or may not have been 100% consensual) into the public eye. The CBC has been virtually silent on the matter, only disclosing that they've parted ways with Ghomeshi and thanking him for his years of service, but not stating anything beyond that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How did the CBC breach Ghomeshi's confidence or defame him? On Sunday morning, they announced they had fired him but did not disclose why, citing confidentiality reasons. There was all kinds of speculation at the time (see the first few pages of this thread), but nobody knew anything with certainty. It was his own Facebook post, which later prompted the Toronto Star to publish their story, that brought his private sexual proclivities (which may or may not have been 100% consensual) into the public eye.

That part I can't tell you--I'm just saying that the fact he is in a union doesn't preclude him from suing the CBC on this basis, in principle.

[Ozy_Flame]

Ed the Sock ‏@EdtheSock 4m4 minutes ago
#CBC Sports is making an announcement at noon. My guess: new show 'MMA Speed-Dating with #JianGhomeshi". #TOpoli


I chuckled, I'm sure I'm going to hell.

[handgroen]

can anyone enlighten me on what happened with sook yin lee? it was mentioned a few times in the thread but i am unfamiliar and some googling has proved fuitless

[nik-]

Originally Posted by handgroen

can anyone enlighten me on what happened with sook yin lee? it was mentioned a few times in the thread but i am unfamiliar and some googling has proved fuitless

She made a pseudo porn.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by handgroen

can anyone enlighten me on what happened with sook yin lee? it was mentioned a few times in the thread but i am unfamiliar and some googling has proved fuitless

She is bi, and had sex on camera in the movie Shortbus in 2006.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ed the Sock ‏@EdtheSock 4m4 minutes ago
#CBC Sports is making an announcement at noon. My guess: new show 'MMA Speed-Dating with #JianGhomeshi". #TOpoli


I chuckled, I'm sure I'm going to hell.

And Ed's essay on the situation:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...8&notif_t=like

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Julio

And Ed's essay on the situation:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...8&notif_t=like

Its a pretty good take on it.

This is a really weird situation, and he's right, what happens behind closed doors is what happens behind closed doors, however if you open the door to give people a peek, especially if you are a celebrity you will get the blow back that you rightly or wrongly deserve.

We as a society need to make sure that men and woman who are victims or abuse or assault are unfraid to step forward to press charges etc, however my guy instinct tells me that in the case of celebrities or the rich and powerful there's a huge fear of getting destroyed once you make the accusation, or having society turn on the accuser because the accused is handsome or rich or dreamy or whatever.

Even with the advent of the bravery behind the keyboard stuff, its devestatingly tough for people to come out and accuse their "assaulter" because you will instantly be ridiculed or threatened by anonymous people behind keyboards.

For the longest time in court it was ok for lawyers to attach the victim for their past reputation or behaviors or dress or social interactions. "The old she's a s%%t defense". As much as you hope its changed in certain cases it hasn't because now its the "She's lying to get my money or because she's jilted defense".

Absolutely the above happens, I'm not denying it, but the quick flocking to condemn the victim is preventing people from coming forward in a legal sense.

As for the BDSM lifestyle, I don't get it, but people are allowed to do what they are allowed to do sexually. I don't see the thrill of whipping a girl, or punching her lights out or choking her. Just like I don't see the fun in being whipped or whatever. So its all really strange, but from what I can figure, this is a lifestyle based around not only domination, but about trust, that the person doing whatever isn't going to take it too far, or do things that your really uncomfortable with, so there is a strong requirement for consent, the consent to give a body over.

If this celebrity took it over the line, then it clearly is a crime if the girls didn't consent to what he was doing. But even with a pattern of this kind of behavior its still a he said she said. He'll win though because of his social status and his popularity.

[Tinordi]

CaptainCrunch? Is that you?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

CaptainCrunch? Is that you?

????

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fatso

I definitely get what you're saying, but there is way too much filling in of facts by way of assumptions from the article to seriously consider the women's stories as allegations worthy of a response. For example: How do we know that the women didn't speak to each other in advance? How do we know the Star didn't obtain referrals to the other women? How do we know the Star didn't ask leading questions or refer to other allegations in their questioning?

I don't find the idea that the women spoke to each other in advance at all credible. Why would they? One person being that vindictive I can see, two, maybe but unlikely, but three? How do you get three people to hate you that much unless you actually did do something horrible to each of them?

As far as leading questions go, that I already said is possible, but again seems to be a case of over-complicating something that has a simple explanation. In one version, you have complex series of events that include anonymous revenge, collusion, and incompetence, and in the other version you have one guy who thinks he can intimidate and coerce women from a position of power. The former happens, despite conspiracy theorists, very seldom, and the latter happens frequently indeed.

[Manhattanboy]

I have been out of law school quite a few years - I don't recall breach of confidence being a tort. Troutman?