Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[Guest]

Being acquitted will have no bearing on the basis for his dismissal. You don't have to commit a crime to get fired.

[BubberMiley]

No, that is simply not true.

They cannot abandon their contract when they feel like it.

He was fired when he showed his employers a photo of a woman with injuries he admitted he caused. He tried to sue them but it didn't get far. That was settled before he was even charged with anything, as I recall.

[On Guard for Thee]

He was fired when he showed his employers a photo of a woman with injuries he admitted he caused. He tried to sue them but it didn't get far. That was settled before he was even charged with anything, as I recall.

You recall correctly. Jian did at least two really dumb things: he showed his boss cell phone pics of his sexual antics, (that got him fired) and then he bemoaned he had a right to his private life and then proceeded to write and publish on public media a 1000 word discussion of his sexual preferences. Obviously he didn't have the type of legal advice he now has. Must be costing him a bunch.

[Hal 9000]

Whether a guy deserves to be fired is inconsequential, you have to look at why he was fired. And it arguable that Ghomeshi was fired because these women started a campaign against him and the CBC didn't like the optics.

It's like the dude who was fired for the FHRITP thing, he could be a shitty employee and deserve to lose his job, but he was not fired for that, he was fired because he went on TV and said FHRITP was hilarious. He has since been re-instated - I believe.

[On Guard for Thee]

Whether a guy deserves to be fired is inconsequential, you have to look at why he was fired. And it arguable that Ghomeshi was fired because these women started a campaign against him and the CBC didn't like the optics.

It's like the dude who was fired for the FHRITP thing, he could be a shitty employee and deserve to lose his job, but he was not fired for that, he was fired because he went on TV and said FHRITP was hilarious. He has since been re-instated - I believe.

Huh? If it's inconsequential, why do you need to look? Maybe try that again.

[Hal 9000]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The only thing that matters in a firing is the "why", and in this case Ghomeshi was fired because of his personal life being exposed by a group trying to ruin his reputation. The CBC can't go back and say "well, he wasn't nice to the staffers", because that wasn't why he was fired. The guy was fired over his personal sexual, consensual (so far) private life.

I hate to sound like a liberal, but I hope that we've come farther than firing people for their consensual sexual behaviours.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The only thing that matters in a firing is the "why", and in this case Ghomeshi was fired because of his personal life being exposed by a group trying to ruin his reputation. The CBC can't go back and say "well, he wasn't nice to the staffers", because that wasn't why he was fired. The guy was fired over his personal sexual, consensual (so far) private life.

I hate to sound like a liberal, but I hope that we've come farther than firing people for their consensual sexual behaviours.

Once again, that's not why he was fired. The real clincher was he showed his boss cell phone videos of what he thought was acceptable behavior. But what that clinched was that he brought an aura of ill repute to the corp. Can't do that these days.

[BubberMiley]

Whether a guy deserves to be fired is inconsequential, you have to look at why he was fired. And it arguable that Ghomeshi was fired because these women started a campaign against him and the CBC didn't like the optics.

Again, your timeline is all messed up. He was fired before the campaign started. The firing was what started the whole thing. He's already tried the suing for wrongful dismissal route and he already has given that up.

[Hal 9000]

Again, your timeline is all messed up. He was fired before the campaign started. The firing was what started the whole thing. He's already tried the suing for wrongful dismissal route and he already has given that up.

As I said before, we'll see!

[BubberMiley]

As I said before, we'll see!

No, we've seen what has already happened in the past.

[WestCoastRunner]

Few of Ghomeshi's emails have been presented in court. I read an article today that suggested the Crown may have initiated a search warrant to for his emails. This case is no slam dunk and it also reveals the growing importance of digital info going back years.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ghomeshi+emails+reveal+growing+importance+digital+debris/11703716/story.html

Edited February 8, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Hal 9000]

Few of Ghomeshi's emails have been presented in court. I read an article today that suggested the Crown may have initiated a search warrant to for his emails. This case is no slam dunk and it also reveals the growing importance of digital info going back years.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ghomeshi+emails+reveal+growing+importance+digital+debris/11703716/story.html

"Only a few lines of Ghomeshi's replies have been read out by the defence and the Crown has not indicated that it has digital dirt on the former CBC Radio host. It may not be too late for the Crown to seek a search warrant for Ghomeshi's emails, if it hasn't already, Fraser said."

This doesn't suggest anything except Fraser's opinion.

If the defence is willing to submit emails, I cant imagine they're too concerned with Ghomeshi's side of the interactions. And, in reading between the lines, one can easily surmise that Ghomeshi wasn't initiating and was only slightly aentertaining the advances of these women. Fact is; he seemed to be completely moved on from these women, while they were still trying to pursue a relationship.

The defence have called no police witnesses, no professionals, showed no correspondence...just 3 women (2 of whom we know to have fixations on the dude), clearly expecting an emotion based verdict. I suspect that the last complainant will get her day in court, and it'll be a full acquittal for Ghomeshi.

[WestCoastRunner]

The Crown likely had no idea of the emails hence the non appearance of medical health professionals. Can they now call on them to explain the behaviour of these women after the assaults have taken place?

[Hal 9000]

The Crown likely had no idea of the emails hence the non appearance of medical health professionals. Can they now call on them to explain the behaviour of these women after the assaults have taken place?

Good question, but I don't think so unless the defence directly calls into question their "emotional state". Which they haven't really done.

They kind of have to be careful as to what psychologist would say, usually battered women stay because they feel they have to for money or kids or something that the abuser has over them - none of that applies here, Ghomeshi didn't have anything over them and didn't intend to. These women were the ones trying to hold on to something that Ghomeshi seemed to want little or no part of.

[WestCoastRunner]

Good question, but I don't think so unless the defence directly calls into question their "emotional state". Which they haven't really done.

They kind of have to be careful as to what psychologist would say, usually battered women stay because they feel they have to for money or kids or something that the abuser has over them - none of that applies here, Ghomeshi didn't have anything over them and didn't intend to. These women were the ones trying to hold on to something that Ghomeshi seemed to want little or no part of.

That doesn't excuse assault.

[Hal 9000]

That doesn't excuse assault.

No, nothing excuses assault (If there was assault).

We're speaking as to the value of a psychologist - yes! All a psychologist can testify to is their behaviour after the alleged abuse.

Also, a side note. A psychologist would probably suggest that the way the women responded and treated him after the alleged abuse, likely empowered Ghomeshi to the point where he really didn't believe he was in the wrong. They might also suggest that the power these women gave him enabled and even made it easier for him to continue abusing other women.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Ash74]

That doesn't excuse assault.

No it does not.

But it is also the alleged assault.

He has not been found guilty.

[WestCoastRunner]

No it does not.

But it is also the alleged assault.

He has not been found guilty.

That is true.

[cybercoma]

The vast majority of sexual assault go unreported. That doesn't mean they didn't happen because the perpetrator wasn't found guilty in court.

[Hal 9000]

The vast majority of sexual assault go unreported. That doesn't mean they didn't happen because the perpetrator wasn't found guilty in court.

But these alleged assaults were reported, and so far the two women have been caught lying big time - so, i'm not sure of your point. Unless it's just a broad statement suggesting that despite any facts brought to light - women are simply victims of men....end of.

[Boges]

I think, at this point, a conviction would essentially criminalize BDSM behaviour. It's technically assault and if you can't consent to assault then a woman can retroactively contend that it was assault even if the other part thought they were doing something that their partner was fine with.

Slippery Slope.

[Big Guy]

I remember the 1952 movie "The Quiet Man" with John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. At one point John grabs her and kisses her where she slaps him hard across his face.

Later in the movie he drags her by the hair across the town to his house where they embrace and "live happily ever after".

Things have changed.

[Boges]

So the 3rd complainant was up today. Apparently she admits to giving Ghomeshi a hand job. A detail she forgot to mention in her initial statement to the police.

And the women have been texting each other, something they were told not to do.

These women are embarrassing themselves.

[overthere]

Again, your timeline is all messed up. He was fired before the campaign started. The firing was what started the whole thing. He's already tried the suing for wrongful dismissal route and he already has given that up.

Given up? Says you.

He withdrew his previous suit, which is entirely a different thing than 'giving up'. Northig prevents him from suing again, particularly if his grievance has not gone as he wished.

I would characterize pleading guilty to the charges as 'giving up'.

[overthere]

He was fired when he showed his employers a photo of a woman with injuries he admitted he caused. He tried to sue them but it didn't get far. That was settled before he was even charged with anything, as I recall.

THat is not cause for dismissal unless his contract has reference.

I could show employers a picture of a woman I hurt, my mother. Childbirth hurts.

And wasn't it our once Dear Leader Pierre Trudeau who established long ago that the state has no place in our bedrooms? Neither does the CBC or any employee. He loses only unless and only of his contract is a) legal in its morality clause and expressly forbids his actual conduct.

If I showed, for example, my employer the photo of some sexual activity that many would find repugnant but is not illegal could I be fired? Sure, but it would cost them. The only difference between Ghomeshi and anybody is the nature of his contract. And CBC better hope that the morality clause therein is both constitutional and airtight, or they will pay. Do you think that the sharktank lawyers he has working for him now are going to be satisfied with a million or two from Ghomeshi in fees for his criminal case, when 30% to 50% of a fat civil suit from a company with endlessly deep pockets can be litigated or negotiated?