Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 If it's pretty boring stuff, why did you start an OP on it? Uh... no. You misunderstand. You and I both took issue with the term 'vindicated' being used over a legal and consensual practice. That's what I'm saying - nobody should care about such practices; it's not the 1960s Fleet Street here... these are part of everyday life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ok. I assume that you're saying that you liked the ponderousness because you're older than me, and like that traditional aspect of CBC? Ok. Oh, so you were being sarcastic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I would expect most on air celebs have a 'morals' clause that gives their employers considerable latitude when it comes to these kinds of things. I suspect that the CBC execs realize that even if the abuse allegations were disproven the BSDM activities alone would have tarnished the CBC. Well... if there is a 'morals' clause then Jian G. is dead in the water. Furthermore, he's in a union so he can't sue his employer independently as I understand. The only think I think his a little farfetched is the idea that his bedroom activities "tarnish" anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Oh, so you were being sarcastic? Um.... which statement ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Uh... no. You misunderstand. You and I both took issue with the term 'vindicated' being used over a legal and consensual practice. That's what I'm saying - nobody should care about such practices; it's not the 1960s Fleet Street here... these are part of everyday life. I did misunderstand. I apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Well... if there is a 'morals' clause then Jian G. is dead in the water. Furthermore, he's in a union so he can't sue his employer independently as I understand. The only think I think his a little farfetched is the idea that his bedroom activities "tarnish" anything. Can he not sue for libel, damage of reputation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 $50 million is pretty hilarious. If Peter Mansbridge only makes $80,500. What does Jian get? Minimum wage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Suspend judgement? Isn't that what debating is all about. Contributing our thoughts. Sure. But do you really think this: " She was a vengeful ex, plain and simple." Without any other point of view other than his FB post, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. That being said, I have jumped to conclusions in the past - even on here - and been proven wrong, and admitted so. More grist for the mill. If you're going to make the leap to say you KNOW based on a hunch, then good for you. I'm circumspect about making statements like that, especially when the stakes are high. Plus, as a male, I am conscious that if I did declare Jian G. to be innocent without hearing from the women involved, it would look very much like a whitewash on my part. You should do what you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Can he not sue for libel, damage of reputation? I think labour law has something to say about his individual rights.... I suppose one of us could google that... (tag, you're it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 $50 million is pretty hilarious. If Peter Mansbridge only makes $80,500. What does Jian get? Minimum wage? Clearly, his annual salary is $50M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 If you're going to make the leap to say you KNOW based on a hunch, then good for you. I'm circumspect about making statements like that, especially when the stakes are high.Plus, as a male, I am conscious that if I did declare Jian G. to be innocent without hearing from the women involved, it would look very much like a whitewash on my part. You should do what you like. Well, I didn't say, that 'I know, based on a hunch', however, for Jian to publicly come out as he did, would lend credence to his admissions. However, you are right, we need to wait to hear the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I think labour law has something to say about his individual rights.... I suppose one of us could google that... (tag, you're it) I have no desire to google that, however, if that is what he is going for, than I trust his lawyers are doing the research for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 $50 million is pretty hilarious. If Peter Mansbridge only makes $80,500. What does Jian get? Minimum wage? Aim high! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) The only think I think his a little farfetched is the idea that his bedroom activities "tarnish" anything.Why should a CEO's treatment of animals or political donations tarnish anything? If you want to argue that legal private activities never have any bearing on a public facing job then make that argument for all cases. Don't try to pick and choose which "private activities" are acceptable and which are not based on your personal prejudices. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I saw on TV this week that a candidate for Governor of Kansas may lose because he once went to a strip joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Why should a CEO's treatment of animals or political donations tarnish anything? If you want to argue that legal private activities never have any bearing on a public facing job then make that argument for all cases. Don't try to pick and choose which "private activities" are acceptable and which are not based on your personal prejudices. Are you suggesting that kicking a defenceless puppy is the same as consensual sex in the privacy of someone's bedroom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 http://www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com/factors-wrongful-dismissal Unionized employees: Seldom will their disputes be heard by a judge. In a recent column, I wrote about Garry and Mark Coleman who sued their ex-employer and union in court, instead of advancing a grievance under their collective agreement. Rather than responding to the merits of the Colemans’ case, the defendants argued that, as unionized employees, they had no right to sue. In dismissing their claim, the judge echoed the sentiment held by Canadian courts – that absent exceptional circumstances, unionized employees must file a grievance, not a wrongful dismissal claim with the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) http://www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com/factors-wrongful-dismissal Well, it seems he is filing a grievance, among other things. "Ghomeshi is claiming general and punitive damages for among other things, breach of confidence and bad faith in the amount of $ 50 million, the statement said. He will also launch a grievance for reinstatement under his collective agreement." Edited October 27, 2014 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I saw on TV this week that a candidate for Governor of Kansas may lose because he once went to a strip joint. Not sure what this has to do with anything on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Not sure what this has to do with anything on this topic. It speaks to the necessity for morals clauses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 It speaks to the necessity for morals clauses. No, that has to do with American politics. Big difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 No, that has to do with American politics. Big difference! There is a difference but it's not essential, ie. there is still a need for morals clauses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 There is a difference but it's not essential, ie. there is still a need for morals clauses. American politics and Canadian Media should not be compared in the same sentence. It's blasphemy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Are you suggesting that kicking a defenceless puppy is the same as consensual sex in the privacy of someone's bedroom?S&M is not sex. It is violence for pleasure. I do not see any moral difference between people who gain pleasure from violence and people who kick dogs when they are misbehaving. However: you keep missing the point. It makes no difference if you think that taking pleasure from violence is a good thing. The question is whether a large segment of the population is revolted by such things. I believe this to be the case and that is why CBC could not take a public stand supporting Jian once the allegations were made public even if the worst of them were fabrications. BTW: I doubt the reaction would have been any different if the CEO was caught kicking the dog in his bedroom. So the public/private question is irrelevant. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 American politics and Canadian Media should not be compared in the same sentence. It's blasphemy! It's not really that much of a difference if they both have 'morals' clauses. It's just a difference price, like the price of gas in Canada and the US. If Canada didn't use them, then that would be something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.