Jian Ghomeshi: Guilty or Innocent?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Seriously though when did CBC actively decide to become the Canadian version of The Guardian? I didn't notice it, and yet here we are.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

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.

It's the CBC. It wasn't a cage match, a contest, or an interview conducted to end up with a headline like "Mansbridge crushes Ghomeshi's lawyer" or "lawyer pwns CBC elder statesman".

He asked her questions that (like them or not) people want to hear her answer. She answered them, answered them all very well, and the CBC presented the interview in a way that showed just that, which they wouldn't have if they were out to vilify the woman.

At what part was he trying to "goad her into slipping up"?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's the CBC. It wasn't a cage match, a contest, or an interview conducted to end up with a headline like "Mansbridge crushes Ghomeshi's lawyer" or "lawyer pwns CBC elder statesman".

He asked her questions that (like them or not) people want to hear her answer. She answered them, answered them all very well, and the CBC presented the interview in a way that showed just that, which they wouldn't have if they were out to vilify the woman.

At what part was he trying to "goad her into slipping up"?

Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer, denies she has betrayed women
http://www.cbc.ca/news/jian-ghomeshi...view-1.3510762

Thats about as biased as a title as you can get. You're insinuating she could have or did betray women, when in reality, it has nothing to do with that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer, denies she has betrayed women
http://www.cbc.ca/news/jian-ghomeshi...view-1.3510762

Thats about as biased as a title as you can get. You're insinuating she could have or did betray women, when in reality, it has nothing to do with that.

Well I didn't write that headline, but I can think of a few titles a lot more biased than that.

"After betrayal of women, Ghomeshi's lawyer squirms under withering Mansbridge attack"

You know, something like that.

She has been accused (not by the CBC) of betraying women, and they put it in the headline, because that's part of the story.

Really though, I don't understand the griping about this interview. Did everyone watch it? I don't think she could have come across better if she wrote the questions, set up the lighting, and edited the video herself. Who watched that and thought she looked like anything other than a very smart, principled person?

It's fun to hack on those goddamn CBC lefties (looking to crucify their own liberal minority employee in this case) but there is nothing to all this.

They devoted 20 minutes on their flagship show for Henein to calmly, intelligently discuss her role and opinions, and she did it.

[TorqueDog]

I just watched it, and Henein was awesome. Handled it like a consummate professional, and her answers were superb; well-reasoned, and unambiguous.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously though when did CBC actively decide to become the Canadian version of The Guardian? I didn't notice it, and yet here we are.

Based on that headline/story?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I just watched it, and Henein was awesome. Handled it like a consummate professional, and her answers were superb; well-reasoned, and unambiguous.

I imagine that she liked the opportunity to have a platform for addressing those questions and accusations. It would have been a disservice to not ask her to talk about those accusations.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

She has been accused (not by the CBC) of betraying women, and they put it in the headline, because that's part of the story.

So we can look forward to these headlines by the CBC?

"Notley denies she puts interests of federal NDP ahead of Alberta"

"Trudeau denies his lack of experience makes him unqualified on global stage"

"Feds deny Syrian refugee plan a hasty gesture that will put Canadians at risk"

Because those accusations have all been made. The question is how much credence and prominence you give them by putting the news organization in the position of asking them on behalf of the public.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can agree with this comment. My own comment was too flippant, apology offered.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So we can look forward to these headlines by the CBC?

"Notley denies she puts interests of federal NDP ahead of Alberta"

"Trudeau denies his lack of experience makes him unqualified on global stage"

"Feds deny Syrian refugee plan a hasty gesture that will put Canadians at risk"

Because those accusations have all been made. The question is how much credence and prominence you give them by putting the news organization in the position of asking them on behalf of the public.

Dude, you are such a hypocrite. Aren't you the guy that's always complaining about universities trampling on certain groups' free speech and thereby limiting discourse? Or are you just applying different standards to universities and the media?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So we can look forward to these headlines by the CBC?

"Notley denies she puts interests of federal NDP ahead of Alberta"

"Trudeau denies his lack of experience makes him unqualified on global stage"

"Feds deny Syrian refugee plan a hasty gesture that will put Canadians at risk"

Because those accusations have all been made. The question is how much credence and prominence you give them by putting the news organization in the position of asking them on behalf of the public.

You can look forward to them if you want!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Dude, you are such a hypocrite. Aren't you the guy that's always complaining about universities trampling on certain groups' free speech and thereby limiting discourse? Or are you just applying different standards to universities and the media?

I used to be a journalist. I'm not talking about limiting discourse, I'm talking about the torque on news stories. The CBC can write any story they want with any angle they want. And I can point out their bias and what kind of reaction they're hoping to get.

It would be nice if our publicly-funded national broadcaster was more detached and even-handed. But that's not the reality today. The CBC is chasing ratings the way every private broadcaster and blogger does - by taking a partisan position on hot-button issues and hoping to rile up supporters and opponents. It generates page hits and viewers. And they're so desperate I suppose that's all that matters. It's just sad.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I used to be a journalist. I'm not talking about limiting discourse, I'm talking about the torque on news stories. The CBC can write any story they want with any angle they want. And I can point out their bias and what kind of reaction they're hoping to get.

It would be nice if our publicly-funded national broadcaster was more detached and even-handed. But that's not the reality today. The CBC is chasing ratings the way every private broadcaster and blogger does - by taking a partisan position on hot-button issues and hoping to rile up supporters and opponents. It generates page hits and viewers. And they're so desperate I suppose that's all that matters. It's just sad.

As a former journalist, you would know that the editors write the headlines. While I agree that the headline was tailored in such a way as to incite interest, the story itself is a poor one if you want to decry the biased nature of our national broadcaster, as it only really presents Henein's statements to Mansbridge and little else. Doesn't even present the social media backlash aside from mentioning there is one.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I used to be a journalist. I'm not talking about limiting discourse, I'm talking about the torque on news stories. The CBC can write any story they want with any angle they want. And I can point out their bias and what kind of reaction they're hoping to get.

It would be nice if our publicly-funded national broadcaster was more detached and even-handed. But that's not the reality today. The CBC is chasing ratings the way every private broadcaster and blogger does - by taking a partisan position on hot-button issues and hoping to rile up supporters and opponents. It generates page hits and viewers. And they're so desperate I suppose that's all that matters. It's just sad.

You know what? I misread your first two posts. I apologize.

With regards to the content of what you're saying, I guess I don't find there to be that much of an angle to the story or the headline. Maybe it's because I watched the interview first and didn't have a problem with anything she said, but the headline gets at the heart and tone of the interview.

[jayswin]

Yeah, if anything Marie kind of hinted at the beginning that she felt she needed to do an interview to respond to all the threats/criticism she's had hurled at her since the trial. It didn't seem like much more than a "here's an interview with the lawyer that everyone's been wanting to hear from" piece.

[MBates]

The fact that nobody can in any way impugn the trial judge's various findings that the complainants colluded together as a team to take down the accused, lied under oath and had their credibility tainted by outright deception to the police, the Crown and the Court and yet people are still prepared to say (in fact openly publish) he likely did sexually assault them just like they claimed is extremely absurd to me.

What would it take to accept that maybe, just maybe, these complainants (fallible human beings all of them last I heard) are full of it and he is innocent of these alleged crimes?! Because while not mainstream, the intimate contact alleged was fully capable of being legally consensual.

For those of you saying you believe he sexually assaulted these people, what evidence do you base that on that did not come from the very witnesses that were caught with actual evidence and called out for the collusion, lying and deception?!?!?

What would you say if your spouse / family / best friend was subject to allegations from people that were found to have perjured themselves? Are we really saying that it doesn't matter if you collude, lie and deceive we will always believe you because you happen to be alleging a sex assault?!

Lying, colluding, and deceiving authorities and the Court are not rape myths, they are the bedrock hallmarks of false allegations. An impartial judge assessed these claims and made findings. But since the accused is scummy and sex assault is bad he still did it?!

I fully understand that a not guilty verdict is not a finding of innocence. But allegations from witnesses found to have colluded, lied and deceived the justice system do not revert to "likely true if it wasn't for historical systemic problems".

The criminal justice deck is most assuredly stacked - against the accused. Limitless resources of the state vs. your own pocketbook. Immediate (and apparently persisting no matter what the facts) mob mentality in the public. In one sex assault conviction that I had overturned at the Alberta Court of Appeal, all three judges agreed that the trial judge used events that never even happened during the trial to find the accused version of events was not credible.

And yet, only two of the three appellate judges found that warranted setting aside the convictions.

Trial judge imagines things during accused testimony + uses those imaginary things to disbelieve the accused and convict = no problem for a judge of the highest court in Alberta. Deck stacked indeed. Or wait, to make everyone be on my side I think its supposed to be #deckstacked. There...now I am right for sure...

And for all the sanctimonious garbage about how unfair it is for complainants to be cross examined by defence counsel not about the events but about collateral facts / issues, well give it a rest. The Crown does this to accused when they testify ALL THE TIME and when an accused complains about it, the Court says too bad, that's how cross examination works:

Third, the appellant cites R. v I.I., 2013 ABCA 2 (CanLII), 542 AR 52, and argues that the Crown only cross-examined him on collateral points. I.I. does not stand for the proposition that the Crown has an obligation to cross-examine an accused person on any particular topic. I.I. is a case about juries, and when and how a jury should be instructed when the Crown adopts a particular strategy at trial: I.I. at para. 13.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...&resultIndex=1

I could find and post numerous examples, but hopefully you will just believe me this is a thing based on these few:

The Accused was cross-examined and did not vary in any material way from any of his direct evidence. However, the Accused was not challenged in cross-examination on the key issue of whether he kicked the Complainant and thus he was not given the potential benefit of being able to demonstrate his credibility on this point: R. v. L.L., 2013 ABCA 2 (CanLII) at paragraph 23. This is one factor which can be taken into consideration when assessing the credibility of the Accused

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...&resultIndex=3

Crown counsel highlighted alleged inconsistencies in the Appellant’s testimony with respect to collateral matters and minimized those of the complainant in connection with whom she explained:

“I am submitting to you that this confusion over those details can be explained by the passage of time, and that would mean that Mr. [D.]’s memory is not as fresh on every single detail, especially when you’ve given a statement to the police and then given evidence later on at a preliminary inquiry and then later on at a trial where you’re on the stand for over two days - or two days, sorry.”
(AR 445/30-34)

The Appellant’s testimony was not viewed quite so generously. Crown counsel pointed to “three glaring examples” of inconsistency on collateral matters and explained why she had not challenged the Appellant on her sworn denial of sexual misconduct:

“As I said, the Crown has serious concerns with respect to the evidence of the accused. Yes, I did not ask her whether or not did you commit these assaults. I didn’t think I had to. I went over a lot of other inconsistencies in her evidence.” (AR 447/18-20)

She then invited the jury to reject the Appellant’s evidence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...resultIndex=13

[Fighting Banana Slug]

^^MBates, while I agree with your basic premise (I think), that a not guilty verdict is the appropriate outcome, I don't think that necessarily means that right minded individuals could still think the guy did something criminal. Collusion doesn't necessarily mean they made the whole thing up.

[AltaGuy]

I think if you're totally concerned with only one side of this thorny legal arena, there is something wrong with your thinking.

It is horrendous that innocent people are sometimes accused, tried, smeared, have their lives ruined, relationships sundered, relationships permanently damaged. It happens, and it's awful.

It is also horrendous that so many women are afraid to come forward for a myriad of reasons (men too), and so many people get away with abuse and continue to perpetuate a blight in society.

If you can only see one side of this tremendously thorny legal issue that the best jurists in the world have always struggled with, it's a reflection of poor thinking imo.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

^^MBates, while I agree with your basic premise (I think), that a not guilty verdict is the appropriate outcome, I don't think that necessarily means that right minded individuals could still think the guy did something criminal. Collusion doesn't necessarily mean they made the whole thing up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

Collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

My point is, if an accuser is found to lie under oath, collude with other accusers and have their testimony tainted by outright deception...and that is not enough to disbelieve them...then what is?

Or is it your view that no matter what, once an accusation has been made, it will always from that point forward be reasonable for people to think the accused actually did it? Regardless of how corrupt the accuser is found to be?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I think if you're totally concerned with only one side of this thorny legal arena, there is something wrong with your thinking.

It is horrendous that innocent people are sometimes accused, tried, smeared, have their lives ruined, relationships sundered, relationships permanently damaged. It happens, and it's awful.

It is also horrendous that so many women are afraid to come forward for a myriad of reasons (men too), and so many people get away with abuse and continue to perpetuate a blight in society.

If you can only see one side of this tremendously thorny legal issue that the best jurists in the world have always struggled with, it's a reflection of poor thinking imo.

Clearly as a defence lawyer I am purposely taking one side on the issue in my post...but that should not be mistaken for an inability to see other views.

I can easily see there is more than one side. The thing that bothers me is the people who want to blame the legal system are apparently given a free pass to make up whatever straw man they want. If you looked at my links above, for example, the prosecution rightly uses the exact same cross examination tactics and arguments regarding the credibility of the accused. But apparently those tactics are undermining the entire justice system when used by defence counsel on behalf of the accused.

Never mind not seeing the other side, the current social media driven public backlash pretends as though one side (defence) is doing something unique and unfair...when nothing could be farther from the truth. But no one seems to let things like fact and truth get in the way of a good hashtag campaign for change.

I very much doubt you will ever see the prosecution officially argue to end this tactic because it works in the search for truth...and they use it routinely.

But, if you want everyone to fix the system you have to first convince them it's broken...and since it is not really broken at all (note I am not saying it is perfect) then just create a false narrative and voila! Protests abound! And masses of completely uninformed people jump on the bandwagon.

That is the poorest of thinking in my view.