Jian Ghomeshi: Guilty or Innocent?

[Coach]

Guys, of your law degree doesn't cost $200,000, it's not elite, and a waste of time.

[DionTheDman]

Personally, I wish my law degree was from University of American Samoa. Accept no substitutes!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

90% of schools could likely point to some national or international recognition in a similar manner to UVic, UBC and Osgoode. Not sure if that is what is meant by elite.

So far, we have had votes for UVic, UBC (Troutman!), Osgoode, U of T, McGill, Dal and U of A (FBS!). Just need to hear from our own U of C, U of S, Western, Ottawa and we'll get to 90%!

EDIT: Sorry to derail. Just having a bit of fun.

Vote cast for U of S.

[OffsideSpecialist]

I used to curl with a lot of uOttawa law students. They've wound up all over as far as I know.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Honestly, from a biglaw perspective, there's U of T and then everyone else, basically. Western was considered a step below for a while but not anymore. Having gone to UBC I wouldn't consider it an elite school. As has been mentioned, it depends what you want to do; for aboriginal law it's very strong. There's a case to be made that the NCBL program gives you an edge. But then, the Alberta schools are pretty much the only places to learn energy industry specific knowledge, which for most people working here is hugely helpful even if you're not a big firm solicitor.

[peter12]

I guess I don't really care. I'm just proud of my wife.

[AltaGuy]

I have a law degree from UofA, but it's more of a prol degree.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, from a biglaw perspective, there's U of T and then everyone else, basically.

Honestly, you don't have a clue.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not sure who you think you are or I am, but I'm pretty comfortable I have a BIT of a clue.

I wasn't saying that everywhere else sucks or even that U of T is a huge step up such that you'd pass up a good candidate from any other school in favour of someone just because they went to U of T. But it is one rung above.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by troutman

Far be it from me to speak for women.

isn't that kind of what you are doing though?

Women are very interested to talk politics in other arenas.

Do you mean arenas, as in CP? can you really be sure this thread has less participation than any other thread? Is this a political thread? Or more like a criminal court case thread?

Obviously you are basing this on a hunch since I'm assuming you haven't conducted a formal male vs female survey of the posters in this thread.

I think you have part of the answer, but women do appear often in other threads.

depends on what you mean by often. Each thread often has at least one female contributor. Has usually been a very small percentage of total posts though.

I'm afraid they don't feel welcome to join these conversations.

I'm very curious as to why? Are you directly or indirectly blaming the posters in this thread of having an anti female bias? Or maybe you're just pointing out that women don't feel welcome because this thread contains quite a bit of complex legal discussion and jargon. In fact I'm not sure I feel comfortable posting in this thread. Is there any reason to suspect that any poster who doesn't post is doing so based on their gender?

If women are uncomfortable I'd be curious to know why. Are they afraid of not defending the victims? Are they afraid of sharing an opinion that goes against the grain? And why do you notice they are absent from this thread only? Why hasn't anyone expressed concern that women aren't posting in the Better Call Saul thread? Or the BvS thread?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

In fact I'm not sure I feel comfortable posting in this thread.

I don't post much in this thread because anything I can say is generally said better by someone else first, and so adding my .02 would be redundant.

Also, I have very little interest in the topic now.

[corporatejay]

Just to be clear, we all agree Windsor sucks the most, right?

Corsi, I agree with you that UofT is a step above if you want to practice in Toronto and New York (same with Mcgill) but I don't think firms in Calgary or Vancouver care if you went to UofT, Dal, UofC etc...

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by troutman

Far be it from me to speak for women.

Women are very interested to talk politics in other arenas.

I think you have part of the answer, but women do appear often in other threads.

I'm afraid they don't feel welcome to join these conversations.

You can tell gender from an internet handle!!!!!


Also great answers from Mrs Henein, but what an awful regressive set of questions from Peter..wow..

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People know that I'm generally one of the more outspoken people on this board on this topic, but I'm really having trouble taking seriously a lot of what's coming from people I'm normally aligned with on the issue. Do I think he probably did it? Yes, I do. Do I think that the system failed these two women? No, I can't really say that, and I think the people going after the judge or Marie Henein need to give their heads a bit of a shake. As much as I think more needs to be done to help SA victims, I don't think a lot of it can be done within the legal system.

Did you even follow the case? It wasn't about if he did... it he did choke them and he did hit them - he has never denied that.... the case was about consent and it should of never of gone to court to begin with

[zamler]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Also great answers from Mrs Henein, but what an awful regressive set of questions from Peter..wow..

Which for me made the interview all the more impressive. Mansbridge seemed desperate to push a narrative and fell on his face.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Peter Mansbridge interviews Marie Henein. Awesome interview, a must see for anyone interested in not just the case but the operation of the criminal justice system:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/j...idge-1.3511752

Gotta admit, that was a great interview. You can clearly see why Henein is so successful at her profession. Mansbridge kept fishing for slip ups with his questions, and Henein kept owning him with her answers.

[jayswin]

Lol, I know nobody in the media could ever get any level of respect or benefit of the doubt in any situation on this message board, but that wasn't Peter Mansbridge being owned.

He's a pro, he knew exactly how that interview was going to go. As a casual observer I guess it looked like a clown reporter being owned or whatever haha, but the point of this interview was to get certain comments out of Marie to air to the thousands of disgruntled women out there. He knew that, Marie knew it. They both knew what each other was going to ask/respond with.

Think of it as Peter basically asking her questions as if he was one of the disgruntled women so they feel like he's asking what they want to ask her, and getting relevant answers to their concerns, it's a very common technique in reporting. You can say you think the technique is stupid if you wish, but that wasn't a veteran reporter getting owned or not knowing how to ask good questions.

[Ducay]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Mansbridge is/was a poor interviewer, but rather, that he was clearly asking question to try and goad her into certain replies, to keep pushing this "women's outrage" angle the media is taking it. Some people see it sad that instead of doing real journalism, he is resorting to "gotcha" journalism.

And people are saying he got "owned" because while he is one of the best at his craft, and he tried his best, clearly Ms. Henein is at another level and denied him at every angle.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Lol, I know nobody in the media could ever get any level of respect or benefit of the doubt in any situation on this message board, but that wasn't Peter Mansbridge being owned.

He's a pro, he knew exactly how that interview was going to go. As a casual observer I guess it looked like a clown reporter being owned or whatever haha, but the point of this interview was to get certain comments out of Marie to air to the thousands of disgruntled women out there. He knew that, Marie knew it. They both knew what each other was going to ask/respond with.

Think of it as Peter basically asking her questions as if he was one of the disgruntled women so they feel like he's asking what they want to ask her, and getting relevant answers to their concerns, it's a very common technique in reporting. You can say you think the technique is stupid if you wish, but that wasn't a veteran reporter getting owned or not knowing how to ask good questions.

Well, if you put it that way, then I guess she owned the "disgruntled women" he was representing then. Either way, she came out of that interview clearly on top, despite Mansbridge's best attempts to goad her into slipping up.

[CliffFletcher]

While I agree that Mansbridge knew exactly what he was doing, I am disappointed that's the tack the CBC has decided to take on this story. They're giving credence and legitimacy to those who don't understand the justice system, and as Henein remarked in the interview, that's terribly misguided. But then, in the last few years I've become disabused of any lingering faith I had that the CBC places impartiality and professionalism above other news values. It has become just another advocacy news outlet championing hot-button issues in order to polarize its audience and drive up ratings. CBC stories generate a lot of heat, but shed little light.