Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[overthere]

I'll wait until the criminal charges against him are dealt with. Oh wait, there aren't any.

The hits just keep coming at CBC.

[cybercoma]

No criminal charges is a red flag, but needs to be understood in the context of the allegations. Many victims of rape and sexual assault have difficulty coming forward because the trial becomes about grilling them on something that's very painful and personal. It becomes about the victim and her consent, rather than being about the accused and his actions. She has to relive, recount, and justify her own behaviour in a situation that could be horribly traumatic for her. Unfortunately, this is necessary as presumed innocence is a foundation of a just society and legal system. This crucial aspect of our justice system sadly plays into the favour of rapists, as it forces their victims to prove that they did not give consent. All of that to say that there may be a very good reason no criminal charges were ever laid.

Having said that, I still tend to side with the women because I would think CBC is not stupid enough to fire him without something they see as overwhelming proof of rape or sexual assault. They said they would fight his lawsuit without reservations. To me that says they have enough proof about whatever is going on that they're confident they would win a trial. But then, maybe CBC is just that stupid. Who knows? Perhaps they have a "tarnish" clause as Michael Hardner mentioned and it's cut and dry for them without implying anything on Ghomeshi's part.

I'll say what the DJ on my local station said this morning, "Right now, I'm very Switzerland about this whole thing."

[Black Dog]

I'll wait until the criminal charges against him are dealt with. Oh wait, there aren't any.

The hits just keep coming at CBC.

Does one need to be charged with a crime to be a scumbag?

[overthere]

This crucial aspect of our justice system sadly plays into the favour of rapists, as it forces their victims to prove that they did not give consent.

Ah no, our justice sytem does nothing of the sort.

The way it works it that the Crown(not the victim) has to provide evidence to the court sufficiently convincing to get a verdict of guilty. At that point the accused becomes a rapist. Not before. The victim doesn't have to prove anything, though their testimony and physical evidence from their body may be important.

An ex-girlfriend that was dumped claiming anything is in itself not evidence of anything.

Would you prefer that it were?

[jacee]

Ah no, our justice sytem does nothing of the sort.

The way it works it that the Crown(not the victim) has to provide evidence to the court sufficiently convincing to get a verdict of guilty. At that point the accused becomes a rapist. Not before. The victim doesn't have to prove anything, though their testimony and physical evidence from their body may be important.

An ex-girlfriend that was dumped claiming anything is in itself not evidence of anything.

Would you prefer that it were?

Three "ex-girlfriends" ... interviewed indepth by TStar.

.

Edited October 27, 2014 by jacee

[overthere]

Does one need to be charged with a crime to be a scumbag?

No, but common sense requires that there be criminal charges and a trial to establish that anybody has committed a crime.

[overthere]

Three "ex-girlfriends".

.

No evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been provided to or by anybody.

I see we are in the usual rush to judgement.

[jacee]

No evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been provided to or by anybody.

I see we are in the usual rush to judgement.

No, I'd like to see it go to court, but I think you are grossly undervaluing the women's reports.

.

[cybercoma]

Ah no, our justice sytem does nothing of the sort.

The way it works it that the Crown(not the victim) has to provide evidence to the court sufficiently convincing to get a verdict of guilty. At that point the accused becomes a rapist. Not before. The victim doesn't have to prove anything, though their testimony and physical evidence from their body may be important.

An ex-girlfriend that was dumped claiming anything is in itself not evidence of anything.

Would you prefer that it were?

So ultimately the victim has to prove that she did not consent when the accused says that she did.

And of course I wouldn't prefer it otherwise. Just because I make an observation about the way things are, doesn't mean I think we should upend the foundation of presumed innocence in the justice system. Don't be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out how it favours the accused in these cases.

[cybercoma]

I hope some of you take the time to read this. It nicely sums up my thoughts and opinions on the whole situation as it stands right now.

Liking 'Q' Isn't a Good Enough Reason to Side with Jian

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-beach/jian-ghomeshi-fired-cbc_b_6051938.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[cybercoma]

I'm also hearing that they're up to 5 women now accusing him of sexual harassment and assault, which is exactly what happens when people are afraid to come forward. Once someone takes a stand, the others can find courage in that person's conviction to come forward themselves. Honestly, it doesn't bode well for Jian if more and more women come forward.

[Black Dog]

No, but common sense requires that there be criminal charges and a trial to establish that anybody has committed a crime.

In as much as we're talking about criminal acts sure. But when it comes to being a pervy d-bag, Jian is guilty as can be.

[PIK]

He should be vindicated because his dismissal was based on lies from a ex gf.

It seems she is not the only one. IMO he just got carried away with his sexual fantasies. Good fire.

[overthere]

So ultimately the victim has to prove that she did not consent when the accused says that she did.

Nope.

No, I'd like to see it go to court, but I think you are grossly undervaluing the women's reports.

.

Nope, I place equal value on the rumours of their statements and that of Gomeshi. I see no facts yet.

Oh, do you have a link to the womens statements? You clearly value them, where did you read their accounts?

[jacee]

I'm also hearing that they're up to 5 women now accusing him of sexual harassment and assault, which is exactly what happens when people are afraid to come forward. Once someone takes a stand, the others can find courage in that person's conviction to come forward themselves. Honestly, it doesn't bode well for Jian if more and more women come forward.

No it doesn't.

eta ...

But that may only be the 3 reported by the Star, one in the office, and one on the xoJane blog.

.

Edited October 27, 2014 by jacee

[eyeball]

this is where I'm at with it right now. Too many strange decisions on both sides at the moment. This is full on damage control right now.

It seems this story will likely just alienate people the CBC can usually count on for support while people that already hate them will just have another reason for hating them.

[Bryan]

So ultimately the victim has to prove that she did not consent when the accused says that she did.

It doesn't always work that way, but it certainly should. If you make serious allegations that can ruin a man's life, the standard better be a lot higher than he said - she said.

[overthere]

I don't hate the CBC.

I just do not want to pay for that form of entertainment for a few Canadians.

[eyeball]

I don't hate the military.

I just don't want to pay for sending it into other people'e conflicts.

[overthere]

It doesn't always work that way, but it certainly should. If you make serious allegations that can ruin a man's life, the standard better be a lot higher than he said - she said.

Again, there is no onus on the victim to prove anything in a criminal proceeding. The Crown proves it. If they feel there is insufficent evidence, they won't try to prove it. They do not consider gossip admissible in court. To date there is no criminal proceeding.

There is a civil matter, but that is between Gomeshi and the CBC.

[overthere]

I don't hate the military.

I just don't want to pay for sending it into other people'e conflicts.

Ah, a wordsmith in the Trudeau CF-18 dickwagging mold.

IMO, security of citizens is the very first priority of our government. Military, police, courts all serve to guarantee the rule of law that is the very foundation of our country. Without it, we have nothing. I see you equate that with having a few be served their entertainment by the many. RCMP funding vs. Rick Mercer. Gotcha.

[Bryan]

Again, there is no onus on the victim to prove anything in a criminal proceeding. The Crown proves it. If they feel there is insufficent evidence, they won't try to prove it. They do not consider gossip admissible in court.

Unfortunately, that's often not how it happens. People's lives get destroyed with literally nothing more than an accusation. People lose their jobs, their kids, their homes, etc. Even if it DOESN'T end up in court, the damage is already done.

[eyeball]

Ah, a wordsmith in the Trudeau CF-18 dickwagging mold.

IMO, security of citizens is the very first priority of our government. Military, police, courts all serve to guarantee the rule of law that is the very foundation of our country. Without it, we have nothing. I see you equate that with having a few be served their entertainment by the many. RCMP funding vs. Rick Mercer. Gotcha.

No you don't. I just think we should all be able to cherry pick the things we want or don't want our taxes being spent on.

I also think a public broadcaster is important to our security and the rule of law and I personally don't see how we can maintain these things without one. I also think this story will only provide oxygen to those who would cut or do away with the CBC.

[overthere]

Unfortunately, that's often not how it happens. People's lives get destroyed with literally nothing more than an accusation. People lose their jobs, their kids, their homes, etc. Even if it DOESN'T end up in court, the damage is already done.

Totally agree about lives getting destroyed, and you can count on that right now no matter what shakes out with Gomeshi.

He is done.

But yes, that is what happens every time in criminal proceedings in Canada.

The victim does not prove the crime.

The Crown does.

And that is not the least bit insignificant, the difference is what makes us all safe and accountable, it too lies at the heart of rule of law. It means a poor person can feel safe in giving evidence against a rich person, knowing that the Crown takes the side of the law, not the side of gossip and money.

[overthere]

No you don't. I just think we should all be able to cherry pick the things we want or don't want our taxes being spent on.

I also think a public broadcaster is important to our security and the rule of law and I personally don't see how we can maintain these things without one. I also think this story will only provide oxygen to those who would cut or do away with the CBC.

Then provide an example of how Terry David Mulligan has made us safer. Link Road to Avonlea to the Supreme Court.

Assigning national policy and financial priorities in a coherent and logical manner is not cherry picking. Do you really put your entertainment ahead of public safety?