Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[Hal 9000]

This is a lengthy article, but worth reading if you want to better understand how our "sexual assault" laws fail victims. I don't have anything else to add to it and it explains the situation in far more detail than I'm willing to put into a post here these days. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/?page=all

That's great, now see if you can find any articles about men getting railroaded 10 years after the fact because a woman had a tough time dealing with her past.

[Hal 9000]

He tried a wrongful dismissal suit initially, and quickly withdrew it, probably on the advice of a knowledgeable lawyer. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, he is wasting his time with a civil suit.

A civil suit before a criminal trial is not very smart to begin with. I'm sure the lawyers have said as much too. A civil lawsuit would show their cards before the criminal trial and they clearly don't want that - as we can now see.

There is no way he should be convicted, this shouldn't have gone to trial, he shouldn't have even been charged and he likely shouldn't have been fired. We always preach that what two consenting people do in private is nobody's business, and he shouldn't be fired for his sexual preferences any more than a gay couple should be fired for their sexual preferences.

Kimmy can say that he probably should've been fired for how he treated women at his job, and maybe he should've, but he wasn't - he was fired over this.

[On Guard for Thee]

A civil suit before a criminal trial is not very smart to begin with. I'm sure the lawyers have said as much too. A civil lawsuit would show their cards before the criminal trial and they clearly don't want that - as we can now see.

There is no way he should be convicted, this shouldn't have gone to trial, he shouldn't have even been charged and he likely shouldn't have been fired. We always preach that what two consenting people do in private is nobody's business, and he shouldn't be fired for his sexual preferences any more than a gay couple should be fired for their sexual preferences.

Kimmy can say that he probably should've been fired for how he treated women at his job, and maybe he should've, but he wasn't - he was fired over this.

The civil suit was going nowhere regardless of when it was filed. He may well be acquitted, but somehow I doubt he's innocent.

[Hal 9000]

The civil suit was going nowhere regardless of when it was filed. He may well be acquitted, but somehow I doubt he's innocent.

So, you re saying you believe these two witnesses? Based on what?

These women ruined his life and career...and the CBC cowardly went along with it. I'd say he's got a pretty good civil case in his future.

[On Guard for Thee]

So, you re saying you believe these two witnesses? Based on what?

These women ruined his life and career...and the CBC cowardly went along with it. I'd say he's got a pretty good civil case in his future.

First of all they are complainants, not witnesses. Second of all, doesn't matter if I or anyone believes them or does not, he will go nowhere with a civil suit. That's why he withdrew the one he filed at the outset of his firing from CBC.

[Hal 9000]

First of all they are complainants, not witnesses. Second of all, doesn't matter if I or anyone believes them or does not, he will go nowhere with a civil suit. That's why he withdrew the one he filed at the outset of his firing from CBC.

Is that a fact?

I guess we'll see.

[On Guard for Thee]

Is that a fact?

I guess we'll see.

That's a fact. You may recall he took a swipe at a $50 mil. wrongful dismissal suit quite soon after he was fired. He withdrew it when he was advised of the futility of it.

[ReeferMadness]

These women ruined his life and career...and the CBC cowardly went along with it. I'd say he's got a pretty good civil case in his future.

That's a very one-sided view of things. You are sure of his innocence how exactly?

[Queenmandy85]

The best way to initiate a basis for consent is to get married. After that, verbal consent should be obtained for each step towards coitus, each time.

[Hal 9000]

That's a very one-sided view of things. You are sure of his innocence how exactly?

The evidence - of course!

The evidence - so far, has not proven anything yet except exactly what he wrote in his letter (post #1).

What we've seen so far is two women who had some strange fixation with Ghomeshi that lasted years. A fixation that he didn't reciprocate or even encourage. We were told that he weilded power over these women, yet he held nothing over them, not family, reputation, career, money, not threats - and really seemed to avoid these women except for the odd one night stand and casual encounter.

However, this is the evidence so far. If the next witness has something - anything, then things can change.

The Crown is desperately trying to make people ignore the facts and rely completely on emotion and sympathy.

[Guest]

That's a very one-sided view of things. You are sure of his innocence how exactly?

Based on recent evidence, I don't think he is innocent of the acts he is accused of. I think the issue is more one of whether or not his accuser consented.

I'm no expert on relationships, but I've never wanted to **** the brains out of anyone who had done me wrong.

[overthere]

The civil suit was going nowhere regardless of when it was filed. He may well be acquitted, but somehow I doubt he's innocent.

I am entirely willing to let a court of law decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. So far, his defence has been that the acts were consensual, and the very recent disclosures from the first two complainants have not helped the prosecution at all. It may have damaged it severely. Apparently the prosecutuion has now been obliged to produce some last minute disclosure from the third complainant as well, which does not bode well for them overall.

The civil suit was canned because it was premature, it was not withdrawn on its merits or failures. Ghomeshi is or was a union member and as such is first expected/required to follow the process set out in the collective bargaining agreement. That means a grievance procedure is in place, and last I heard his union had filed a grievance for wrongful dismissal on his behalf. That does not preclude him from filing suit, and I expect he will do so if he is not convicted.

Actually he may still file suit and win if convicted..

Edited February 6, 2016 by overthere

[On Guard for Thee]

I am entirely willing to let a court of law decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. So far, his defence has been that the acts were consensual, and the very recent disclosures from the first two complainants have not helped the prosecution at all. It may have damaged it severely. Apparently the prosecutuion has now been obliged to produce some last minute disclosure from the third complainant as well, which does not bode well for them overall.

The civil suit was canned because it was premature, it was not withdrawn on its merits or failures. Ghomeshi is or was a union member and as such is first expected/required to follow the process set out in the collective bargaining agreement. That means a grievance procedure is in place, and last I heard his union had filed a grievance for wrongful dismissal on his behalf. That does not preclude him from filing suit, and I expect he will do so if he is not convicted.

Actually he may still file suit and win if convicted..

He could try to file a civil suit again, but again it will go nowhere due to his union membership, and because even if not convicted it can easily be shown he brought an unwanted focus on his employer which is grounds for dismissal. That said, I'm sure there will be lots of lawyers around ready to scoop up whatever funds he still may have.

[overthere]

No, because by that time his grievance process will have exhausted itself. Being a union member does not disallow a suit, it does affect when and how.

And you are wrong about 'unwanted focus'. since the CBC like all media organizations works extremely hard to get people to focus on them.

What will determine his success or failure is a suit is the conditions of his actual contract with the CBC. It will have language or should have language that makes reference to both his special conditions of employment if any other big paycheque, and wheterh the contract takes precedent over the collective agreement. You don't know that either his contract of the collective agreement has any kind of moral conduct clause or how it applies or where. Isn't it a heartfelt Liberal and Canadian belief that your private life has no bearing on public life, that the government has to butt out of our bedrooms? If they cannot convict Ghomeshi in a court of criminal behaviour, it does not automatically follow that the same would happen in a civil suit.

And it is wrong to assume he abandoned the suit because he thought he was going to lose.

[cybercoma]

That's a very one-sided view of things. You are sure of his innocence how exactly?

"Cuz bitches be crazy, yo!"

[kimmy]

So, you re saying you believe these two witnesses? Based on what?

These women ruined his life and career...and the CBC cowardly went along with it. I'd say he's got a pretty good civil case in his future.

In an occupation where your ongoing success depends on the goodwill of the audience-- actor, broadcaster, entertainer, athlete --people get canned for all kinds of reasons. Too old, too fat, too annoying, falling popularity, expressed unpopular views, told distasteful jokes, failed to uphold employer's public image... I think it's reasonable to suspect that details about Ghomeshi's private life would have had negative effect on his ratings even if criminal charges hadn't been filed.

I'm also curious to know how a wrongful dismissal suit would sound.

"Your honor, our claim is that the CBC was wrong to dismiss my client when it did, when CBC's internal report shows he should have actually been dismissed way earlier." Does that sound like a winner?

-k

[cybercoma]

Oh it should also be noted that people can't consent to abuse. That could pose a problem for Ghomeshi.p, but I doubt it. His lawyer knows what she's doing.

Edited February 6, 2016 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

No, because by that time his grievance process will have exhausted itself. Being a union member does not disallow a suit, it does affect when and how.

And you are wrong about 'unwanted focus'. since the CBC like all media organizations works extremely hard to get people to focus on them.

What will determine his success or failure is a suit is the conditions of his actual contract with the CBC. It will have language or should have language that makes reference to both his special conditions of employment if any other big paycheque, and wheterh the contract takes precedent over the collective agreement. You don't know that either his contract of the collective agreement has any kind of moral conduct clause or how it applies or where. Isn't it a heartfelt Liberal and Canadian belief that your private life has no bearing on public life, that the government has to butt out of our bedrooms? If they cannot convict Ghomeshi in a court of criminal behaviour, it does not automatically follow that the same would happen in a civil suit.

And it is wrong to assume he abandoned the suit because he thought he was going to lose.

The CBC certainly doesn't want the type of focus Gomeshi brought with these allegations, hence the term "unwanted". Especially in that business, but it's not the only one, that type of unwanted focus can in and of itself be grounds for dismissal. The outcome of the criminal case notwithstanding.

[Guest]

Oh it should also be noted that people can't consent to abuse. That could pose a problem for Ghomeshi.p, but I doubt it. His lawyer knows what she's doing.

So if someone pays a hooker to spank them, they can have them thrown in jail afterwards?

Doesn't seem fair to me.

[ReeferMadness]

Oh it should also be noted that people can't consent to abuse. That could pose a problem for Ghomeshi.p, but I doubt it. His lawyer knows what she's doing.

I'm not sure what you mean by abuse - people can't consent to being injured. BDSM is perfectly legal as long as it's not severe enough to cause serious bruises or other injuries. I haven't followed the trial closely but I haven't heard of the plaintiffs providing and proof of injury.

[BubberMiley]

Ghomesi is a sleaze who gets off on hitting women. Unfortunately, the way this case is progressing he is going to be found not guilty and end up with lots of $'s from the CBC for wrongful dismissal.

He was fired before these accusers even came forward and well before charges were laid. They had grounds to fire him and they do not require a conviction in a court of law.

[On Guard for Thee]

He was fired before these accusers even came forward and well before charges were laid. They had grounds to fire him and they do not require a conviction in a court of law.

I concur. If the next complainant does no better on the stand than the first two then he likely walks, but he won't be getting any money from CBC.

[overthere]

The CBC certainly doesn't want the type of focus Gomeshi brought with these allegations, hence the term "unwanted". Especially in that business, but it's not the only one, that type of unwanted focus can in and of itself be grounds for dismissal. The outcome of the criminal case notwithstanding.

No, that is simply not true.

They cannot abandon their contract when they feel like it. Neither can he. They can bail if he has violated a specific term of their contract, but we do not know that he has done that, or that he is guilty of anything.

And yes, the outcome of the criminal case may mean a great deal financially to CBC.

From where do you pluck these notions that an employer can simply walk away from their signed deals?

[overthere]

I concur. If the next complainant does no better on the stand than the first two then he likely walks, but he won't be getting any money from CBC.

If there is no basis for dismissal, and there is not if he is acquitted, why would he not be entitled to compensation for being unjustly terminated?

[On Guard for Thee]

If there is no basis for dismissal, and there is not if he is acquitted, why would he not be entitled to compensation for being unjustly terminated?

Being acquitted will have no bearing on his ability to sue.