Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[TimG]

It's not defamation if it's true.

Not true in Canada with its backwards libel laws. In Canada anyone with something to hide and a willingness to sue can silence any but the most deep pocketed and determined critics.

[jacee]

Not true in Canada with its backwards libel laws. In Canada anyone with something to hide and a willingness to sue can silence any but the most deep pocketed and determined critics.

No doubt. If it was only one person.

But suing 9 of them as even more come forward ?

I don't think that's likely now.

I do wonder, though, if the victims may choose a class action lawsuit against him, rather than individual criminal cases.

.

[Black Dog]

No doubt. If it was only one person.

But suing 9 of them as even more come forward ?

I don't think that's likely now.

I do wonder, though, if the victims may choose a class action lawsuit against him, rather than individual criminal cases.

.

Doesn't seem like they're interested in money. It's less about getting something out of it than making people aware of what a creep he is so he doesn't get away with it again.

[guyser]

Not true in Canada with its backwards libel laws.

How so?

[guyser]

I find it somewhat interesting how talk radio has been handling this case.

Pretty much none of the hosts I have listened to have been saying how there should be evidence presented or the prople should shut up.

They have all speculated what they think about this case. How delicious it all is from a reporting aspect. (Not the physical pain part of course)

Nobody but nobody has said this is a private matter.

And not one of them have accused the Star of a witch hunt.

LOL.....lets go back a year to Rob Ford.

Oh my !

[BubberMiley]

I think Christie Blatchford has been consistent in her opinion that no one should say or think anything about anyone else ever until any allegations against them have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[TimG]

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law

Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believe.

...

Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages.

...

Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus)

The law is an abomination that simply rewards dishonest people willing to sue. If you are sued any lawyer will usually recommend you settle quickly because the system is rigged against defendants. Edited October 31, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

If Jian goes down it is because the 'jury of his peers' has heard the evidence and concluded he is guilty. The fact that it was not in a court room is moot because he has had ample opportunity to present a defence. Ironically, his 'get the message out there first' strategy has kind of backfired because his version of events lends credibility to his accusers (one of whom is not anonymous and an extremely credible witness).

Yeah but they're probably faking it for attention, right?

[TimG]

Yeah but they're probably faking it for attention, right?

Context is everything. The people kicking up a fuss about games are shameless self promoters out to make a name for themselves. Ghomeshi's accusers kept silent for years and have nothing to gain. This makes them credible.

[Black Dog]

Context is everything. The people kicking up a fuss about games are shameless self promoters out to make a name for themselves.

You mean Adam Badwin, Chrsitina Hoff Summers, and all those other dicks who've glomed onto GG?

Ghomeshi's accusers kept silent for years and have nothing to gain. This makes them credible.

So, say, if they decide to sue, then you'll start doubting their story.

[jacee]

Doesn't seem like they're interested in money. It's less about getting something out of it than making people aware of what a creep he is so he doesn't get away with it again.

Yes I agree they wouldn't likely do it for the money.

And maybe they've already accomplished what needs to be done.

But if he starts threatening lawsuits against individuals as someone suggested ... a class action suit against him could be useful.

.

[TimG]

You mean Adam Badwin, Chrsitina Hoff Summers, and all those other dicks who've glomed onto GG?

Seem like self promoters to me. Have you looked at what Adam Badwin says about gay marriage? Are you really trying to claim his involvement somehow makes the story more credible?

So, say, if they decide to sue, then you'll start doubting their story.

If they opened with a large lawsuit then, yes, it would have undermined their credibility. But I am making judgements based on what happened - not hypotheticals. Edited October 31, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Seem like self promoters to me. Have you looked at what Adam Badwin says about gay marriage? Are you really trying to claim his involvement somehow makes the story more credible?

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of calling one person a self promoter and generally staying silent on the obvious self promoters who have hitched their wagon to the cause. Anyway, self-promoter is a pretty dumb pejorative to use on people who exist in the public eye.

If they opened with a large lawsuit then, yes, it would have undermined their credibility. But I am make judgements based on what happened - not hypotheticals.

See, this is the thing and one of the reasons why women stay silent about sexual assault or abuse. There's always some dickwad who assumes some ulterior motive no matter how credible the accusation is on its own merits.

[TimG]

some ulterior motive no matter how credible the accusation is on its own merits.

Perhaps because ulterior motives often do exist and considering the possibility is an important part of assessing the credibility of any claim. Anyone who wants to make a claim needs to be prepared for such questions and conduct themselves accordingly (e.g. by not launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit at the same time as making an accusation). Edited October 31, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Perhaps because ulterior motives often do exist and considering the possibility is an important part of assessing the credibility of any claim. Anyone who wants to make a claim needs to be prepared for such questions and conduct themselves accordingly (e.g. by not launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit at the same time as making an accusation).

LOL at the idea that there's some kind of careful consideration weighing the probability of a claim being true versus it being a shakedown. The latter is usually the starting point and it's up to the victims to prove they aren't lying. It's funny: alleged creeps always get more of the benefit of the doubt than the people who claim they've been victimized.

[jacee]

Perhaps because ulterior motives often do exist and considering the possibility is an important part of assessing the credibility of any claim. Anyone who wants to make a claim needs to be prepared for such questions and conduct themselves accordingly (e.g. by not launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit at the same time as making an accusation).

All hypotheticals.

We now have 9 accusers (and growing?) and no lawsuits.

.

[TimG]

We now have 9 accusers (and growing?) and no lawsuits.

.

Please read my prior posts. I made it clear that I do think the claims are very credible in this case. This was a side discussions.

[TimG]

The latter is usually the starting point and it's up to the victims to prove they aren't lying.

There numerous cases where liars were eventually exposed only after causing irreparable harm to an innocent person. Anyone who does not carefully assess credibility of these kinds claims (which includes looking for possible ulterior motives) is not acting out any desire for justice.

[Black Dog]

There numerous cases where liars were eventually exposed only after causing irreparable harm to an innocent person.

And far far more where there were no ulterior motives. To say nothing of the stories we never hear because people are afraid no one will believe them.

Anyone who does not carefully assess credibility of these kinds claims (which includes looking for possible ulterior motives) is not acting out any desire for justice.

Have to assume you're deliberately missing the point now.

[jacee]

There numerous cases where liars were eventually exposed only after causing irreparable harm to an innocent person.

Hypotheticals again. Why bother?

Or ... how about "numerous" links to back up your hypotheticals?

.

[cybercoma]

Have to assume you're deliberately missing the point now.

A common tactic from several people here.

[jacee]

I think Christie Blatchford has been consistent in her opinion that no one should say or think anything about anyone else ever until any allegations against them have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

While also describing court as a horror show of revictimization.

I think sometimes just putting the info out there is reasonable, especially as here with multiple unrelated victims.

They can be legally charged for defamation if untrue.

.

[jacee]

Today's update:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

The Star investigated since spring, then let it rest. In Oct a Star reporter tweeted about a big story. Ghomeshi thought it was about him. It wasn't ... but JG decided to 'get in front of the story' and showed CBC videos of himself causing 'consensual' bruises in bdsm sex situations.

CBC fired him.

It could have blown over, but JG blew himself up.

omigod ... can't help it ... gotta ... :lol:

.

Edited October 31, 2014 by jacee

[The_Squid]

Today's update:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

The Star investigated since spring, then let it rest. In Oct a Star reporter tweeted about a big story. Ghomeshi thought it was about him. It wasn't ... but JG decided to 'get in front of the story' and showed CBC videos of himself causing 'consensual' bruises in bdsm sex situations.

CBC fired him.

It could have blown over, but JG blew himself up.

omigod ... can't help it ... gotta ... :lol:

.

I don't find assaults upon women all that amusing...

[jacee]

I don't find assaults upon women all that amusing...

Me neither.

After a week of horrible victim accounts, watching a violent predator blow himself up figuratively speaking ... now that's worth a laugh!