perhaps CBC should only hire those that like missionary position?
I'm not sure about the relevance to this post. You do know this whole thing has morphed past just BDSM preferences for ol' Jian right?
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
I'm not really following this closely at all. With all of these allegations the CBC's case must be sound. How is he justified in suing? What am I missing? Is it a nuisance suit? The guy sounds like a nutcase.
I'm not really following this closely at all. With all of these allegations the CBC's case must be sound. How is he justified in suing? What am I missing? Is it a nuisance suit? The guy sounds like a nutcase.
The legal analysts I read said the lawsuit was really just a way for him to get out in front of the story, and make allegations about his victim(s) that are protected through his law suit from being defamatory. It must have been known by his law firm that a union member can't sue his employer in this way.
He gambled too that only one woman was brave enough to come forward, and that he could paint her as a jilted ex, that consented to his kinks.
Another voice of reason has been Ghomeshi's former CBC co-worker George Stroumboulopoulos, who addressed the situation on his radio show without mentioning Ghomeshi by name. "It's almost all been heartbreaking, not just as a human but as a Canadian and as a member of the CBC family, a family that I am very honoured to be a part of," he said.
"My position today is what my position has been my entire life," Strombo continued. "There is no grey area when it comes to violence, and there is no grey area when it comes to sexual consent. And further to that, I hope we've all learned the value of creating a safer space for victims, so they don't have to hide or fear backlash. Men need to talk about this with each other, it's important. If you've experienced domestic violence or sexual harassment at work, there are people who can help."
"I'm not naive. I know what's on people's minds. Support and love to women who stepped forward, support and love to women who feel like they can't. We support and love you."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
i wonder if jian has left his house in the last two weeks or so.....i have to say the swath this guy has seemingly cut is astonishingly wide, but the new revalations which are coming out almost daily are getting tiring
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
The legal analysts I read said the lawsuit was really just a way for him to get out in front of the story, and make allegations about his victim(s) that are protected through his law suit from being defamatory. It must have been known by his law firm that a union member can't sue his employer in this way.
He gambled too that only one woman was brave enough to come forward, and that he could paint her as a jilted ex, that consented to his kinks.
The CBC is asking an Ontario court to dismiss former employee Jian Ghomeshi's $55-million lawsuit, saying the claim is "without merit and an abuse of the court's process."
"We will also be asking the court to conclude that as a member of a union with a collective agreement, Mr. Ghomeshi's only legal avenue is through the arbitration process, not the courts," a statement from the public broadcaster said Tuesday.
If it is an "abuse of process" could his lawyers be disciplined for unethical conduct?
PBS produces some outstanding content, NOVA and Frontline are 2 of the BEST documentary and news shows on television anywhere in the world.
The only people who criticize content on PBS must not watch it, because in the US their newshour and a great number of their shows are so leaps and bounds above anything else available on US television.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I don't get it. CBC hires a lawyer to conduct an internal review and invites employees with complaints, possible claims etc. against JG to come forward and be interviewed. Seems bizarre - wouldn't that preclude or prejudice a claim against CBC as employer?
I think a lot of work places would be able to produce a similar document.
The only really concerning thing in there in this case is
Quote:
Staff members are often held at the whim of the host. If we don't do what he says, we will be punished in some way. If
we try to communicate with him to obtain answers we need to proceed, he is often either not available or evasive, which
directly impacts our ability to do our job.
Possible Solutions:
- Leadership holds host to account, rather than operating out of fear of "stirring the beast".
But even this doesn't at all alude to what was happening in terms of the harassment going on. It just points to a terrible boss.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Agreed with GGG. Based on the description, I was expecting that document to be far more damning than it was. It's basically the gripes of a team that considers itself to be under-staffed and over-worked. Even the one quoted section that is specifically about Ghomeshi doesn't paint a picture of routine workplace harassment (sexual or otherwise).
That obviously doesn't absolve him of the other offenses for which he's been accused, of course.
“The culture was horrifying because of Jian,” says a former female producer. “He was a master of mind games,” says another former staffer. One day Ghomeshi would be jovial and generous, the next, cold and dismissive. His chronic lateness kept staff on edge; he kept people waiting for hours. Everyone bridled—at least privately—at his mood swings and his penchant for playing staff off against one another. The predominantly female staff found themselves reduced to tears by his tirades. The trauma and unhappiness within the unit was known within CBC, says a longtime CBC employee not associated with the show. And yet CBC management never intervened.
“Everyone thought he was rather confused sexually,” says one long-time CBC staffer. “I was at a party with good friends of his; I watched him zero in on young women. He should be embarrassed but doesn’t seem to be.”
Ghomeshi would occasionally brag about his conquests when only men were present, providing graphic details; there was never a mention of violence. “All it served to do was verify my impression of him as a ######y guy,” says Malcolm.
But years before his rise as a feminist hero, he had a reputation as a male feminist pig, at least according to Kerry Eady, who attended York in 1988-89 and lived in Stong residence. Eady recalls attending a meeting with 25 other women convened by female residence advisers at Stong before Christmas 1988 to warn them, after a few women had reported having “bad dates” with Ghomeshi. Those allegations involving hitting; one women claimed she’d been choked in the stairwell.
As many as 811,000 tune into Q during an average weekday, and 6.9 million listeners tuned in at some point during the 2013 and 2014 season. A weekly televised version of the show draws 300,000 viewers, the Q YouTube channel averages 1.5 million hits per month, and the podcast gets about 250,000 downloads every week.
On the broader stage, too, the CBC’s investment in Ghomeshi—he’s reported to make just shy of $500,000 annually—paid off.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Is it another example of the complicity of lawyers in the silencing of sexual assault complainants? If yes, is it ethical for lawyers to follow the instructions of a client to accomplish that purpose?
While it is true that lawyers owe a duty of loyalty to their client, lawyers also owe a duty to the profession and the public and to ensure that their conduct does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In Ontario, all lawyers must swear an oath (like the Hippocratic oath doctors swear) before they are eligible to practice law. Part of the oath contains the following commandment: “I shall not refuse causes of complaint reasonably founded, nor shall I promote suits upon frivolous pretenses.” The Rules of Professional Conduct also prohibit a lawyer from “instituting … proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party.”
To me looking at the internal investigations parameters of the CBC, its clear that CBC is in pretty much cover up and damage control
1) The lawyer can't approach people, the complainants have to approach her. So if one of the people that approaches her with a complaint stats that senior executive knew and did nothing, she can't approach that executive its up to him to go to her
2) The final report is about give us suggestions and nothing to do with what happened, so the truth doesn't have to come out, this is merely a feel good report
3) The investigation is confined to Q employees and Q management, it can't go outside of that boundry to look at the CBC executive suite.
The feeling is that the executives, including their senior HR officials knew that this was going on and did nothing because this scumbag was garnering ratings.
This really should be in hearings at Parliment hill. It sounds like the CBC executives have been lying about what they know, and their so called shocked surprise is disingenuous.
I've said for a while that Lacroix should have been fired for using his CBC expense account like another paycheck. But this is looking like a cover up and the cover has to be ripped up and the rats in the executive suite grilled.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
