Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

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

I'm not a litigation lawyer, but there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_...in_English_law

I imagine it could also be argued to be a breach of contract terms.

[rubecube]

Owen Pallett has a pretty interesting take on the situation.

https://www.facebook.com/owenpallett...91910081073780

[Coys1882]

I just wish all of this stuff was resolved behind closed doors with names kept private until finished.

[Plett25]

Dan Savage

We will have to keep reading, like Zanin says, with open minds and operational bull#### detectors. But we are unlikely to ever read "Ghomeshi found guilty" or "Ghomeshi exonerated on all charges" in a newspaper headline because there isn't going to be a trial—except for the one currently underway in the court of public opinion. And with four (or five) women telling similar and deeply troubling stories, with Ghomeshi getting at best qualified support from kinky bloggers like Zanin, and with none of his other BDSM sex partners stepping forward to defend Ghomeshi (at least so far), it's hard to see how he comes out on top. Because with the info we have right now this doesn't look like consensual kink. It looks like abuse.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...nsual-bdsm-sex

[fatso]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

Even logically arrived at inferences are still inferences or theories and not evidence. Sociological trends may help with understanding claims, but they're not determinative. These things need to be tested within the specifics of the case.

It may be unlikely that all three women are conspiring, but it's not impossible. Their story needs to be tested. It is true that victims of assault are often fearful of raising it. But when they've gone to the newspaper rather than the authorities, it's fair to question if that is the case here. And above all else, it needs to be proven that Ghomeshi did something wrong (not disprove the presumption that he did).

Of course, the only way to do any of this is through a trial (or a proper, independent investigation by those trained to do them), but therein lies the problem with this case. Trial by way of the Star's reporting is meaningless because their second-hand story has little probative value.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Owen Pallett has a pretty interesting take on the situation.

That is interesting. I do not see how it is helpful or illuminative in any way (as opposed to the Savage article, for example). I wonder if his friend might not have a case for defamation against him.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by fatso

Even logically arrived at inferences are still inferences or theories and not evidence. Sociological trends may help with understanding claims, but they're not determinative. These things need to be tested within the specifics of the case.

It may be unlikely that all three women are conspiring, but it's not impossible. Their story needs to be tested. It is true that victims of assault are often fearful of raising it. But when they've gone to the newspaper rather than the authorities, it's fair to question if that is the case here. And above all else, it needs to be proven that Ghomeshi did something wrong (not disprove the presumption that he did).

No it's not. If you do any kind of research about or work with sexual assault victims, you learn pretty quickly that going to the police can often be an additional level of trauma and humiliation added on to the original assault. I can see a number of reasons why reporting it to the media would be a preferable course of action, specifically if the victims think their cases have very unlikely chance of being successfully prosecuted.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No it's not. If you do any kind of research about or work with sexual assault victims, you learn pretty quickly that going to the police can often be an additional level of trauma and humiliation added on to the original assault. I can see a number of reasons why reporting it to the media would be a preferable course of action, specifically if the victims think their cases have very unlikely chance of being successfully prosecuted.

Further to this, is there even any indication that the alleged victims went to the media as opposed to Jesse Brown and the Toronto Star seeking them out?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No it's not. If you do any kind of research about or work with sexual assault victims, you learn pretty quickly that going to the police can often be an additional level of trauma and humiliation added on to the original assault. I can see a number of reasons why reporting it to the media would be a preferable course of action, specifically if the victims think their cases have very unlikely chance of being successfully prosecuted.

I've acknowledged that very point though. It would certainly condition the legal significance of the response, but I do not see how the fact of trauma automatically precludes or disallows asking the question (in an independent, anonymized investigation for example).

And again, I still think the point of an investigation/trial would be to establish a victim exists, and not to work backwards to determine the story of someone accepted at the outset to be a victim. That is certainly a fundamental problem and potential injustice within our legal system's handling of abuse matters, but I'm at a loss as to how address it and balance other fundamental rights (to face one's accuser, presumed innocent, burden of proof in criminal matters, etc.).

[afc wimbledon]

The guys lost his job, nothing more. Everything else is a result of his statement, if it turns out that there are no charges, he stays fired and this is all that happens then it's basically his fault at this stage, the CBC would never say a thing, obviously rumours would fly but they were long before, he's famous kind of, again his choice, but that means people will gossip.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The guys lost his job, nothing more. Everything else is a result of his statement, if it turns out that there are no charges, he stays fired and this is all that happens then it's basically his fault at this stage, the CBC would never say a thing, obviously rumours would fly but they were long before, he's famous kind of, again his choice, but that means people will gossip.

This is what I don't get about his statement. He basically forced the Star's hand by releasing it. I doubt the Star releases anything that can't corroborated if he doesn't go off on the CBC. If the Star sits on this while the CBC gets crucified for Ghomeshi's side of the story (the "persecuted pervert" angle), then they lose more integrity in my eyes than they do by releasing the current allegations.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I just wish all of this stuff was resolved behind closed doors with names kept private until finished.

Ghomeshi went public though. He opened the door to his private life.

[rubecube]

Another example from my facebook feed on why a woman might want to remain anonymous or not report at all:

I (quietly) accused someone of assaulting me (he was probably too drunk to remember even doing it) and everyone pulled the "he said/she said, we're Switzerland" argument. I lost half my friends because I didn't feel safe entering his world anymore, and he lost nothing because that's how it works. You lose if you don't come forward, you lose when you do. This notion of hysterical revenge accusations is so... frustrating. It doesn't take two sober IQ points to click together to know that isn't how it's going to play out. The only thing that made me do it was realizing it wasn't my secret to hold.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not a litigation lawyer, but there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_...in_English_law

I imagine it could also be argued to be a breach of contract terms.

The law concerning the protection of confidential information in Canada is found in several parallel legal doctrines, which include theories of equity, contract, and property, as well as a "sui generis" theory that breach of confidential information is an action unto itself. The jurisprudence is not consistent in establishing the legal basis for the protection of confidential information, or in establishing which remedies are to be attached to each individual cause of action for a breach of confidence.
(Scott & Associates Engineering Ltd v Finavera Renewables Inc, 2013 ABQB 273 at para 66)

[CaptainCrunch]

I mean going by this article without quoting the in place work incident

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/49...-impropriety-/

If there was an on premise work incident then good for CBC for getting rid of him. But at the same time if CBC HR really blamed her for creating a toxic work environment then shame on them.

The woman said she complained about Ghomeshi to her union rep, prompting the Q producer to ask her "what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace" for herself. She said no further action was taken and the woman soon left the CBC.

Even without the bondage stuff at home, it sounds like he was the one bringing his sex life to the work place.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If there was an on premise work incident then good for CBC for getting rid of him. But at the same time if CBC HR really blamed her for creating a toxic work environment then shame on them.

I didn't interpret that line as the CBC producer blaming her, but rather asking what management/HR could do to improve things for her. Unless I'm mistaken, the bolded 'she' in this passage refers to the producer, not the alleged victim of workplace sexual harassment: "prompting the Q producer to ask her 'what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace' for herself."

Edit: but to this point, you're spot-on.

Even without the bondage stuff at home, it sounds like he was the one bringing his sex life to the work place.

If Ghomeshi did indeed grab her butt and say he wanted to "hate f*** you", then he should have been fired solely for that, never mind the other alleged non-consensual instances of sexual violence in his private life.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think we have a difference in interpretation March. I read it as what could the employee she do. I guess I cannot give a benefit of the doubt as It feels like the CBC protecting celebrities.

As well nothing was done about it anyways.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think we have a difference in interpretation March. I read it as what could the employee she do. I guess I cannot give a benefit of the doubt as It feels like the CBC protecting celebrities.

It's definitely an awkward sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The editor of that article should have re-written it to make the meaning more clear.

As well nothing was done about it anyways.

That may not be true, and I'd caution against jumping to conclusions based solely on the information we have to date. Ghomeshi was fired, and the CBC has not stated why, citing confidentiality reasons. For all anyone in the public knows, his dismissal had nothing to do with three alleged instances of sexual assault and he was fired solely because of the workplace incident.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Why does consent have to have reasonable limits?

I find it troubling that the Supreme Court can determine our own decisions on our own bodies (in the absence of provable mental illness). Perhaps a "women's body is her own" only applies to certain policies? But when those choices offend our delicate sensibilities (prostitution or rough sex), then the SC should step in to save us all.

But there is a long list of things that the supreme court decide with which I disagree.

I would assume the very reason that two hockey pugilists are not charged is because of consent. And yet, despite clearly damaging behaviour related to contact sports and hockey fighting, the SC is silent.

(euthanasia would be another example where consent to harm oneself should be permitted, but that's another thread for another day.)

[fatso]

A first-hand anonymous account of a woman's few dates with Ghomeshi about a decade ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile...ampaign=buffer

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I didn't interpret that line as the CBC producer blaming her, but rather asking what management/HR could do to improve things for her. Unless I'm mistaken, the bolded 'she' in this passage refers to the producer, not the alleged victim of workplace sexual harassment: "prompting the Q producer to ask her 'what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace' for herself."

Maybe the writer wrote it incorrectly, but taking that sentence at face value it can only really mean that the producer was asking the employee what the employee could do to make it less toxic. The word "herself" is a reflexive pronoun which means the subject and object of the verb ("do" in this instance) are the same. If it was referring to the producer then "for herself" wouldn't have been included.

The only other option would be if the producer was female and she was asking the employee what the producer do to make it less toxic for the producer, but that doesn't make much sense.