Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[eyeball]

No, I put public broadcasting ahead of entertainment because I think public safety will be compromised without it.

[guyser]

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.

Theres yuour problem right there.

Legal vs illegal. Big diff, but apparently you have no idea.

[TimG]

Legal vs illegal. Big diff, but apparently you have no idea.

Nope. People are allowed to use physical force to discipline dogs. A single kick to a misbehaving dog is not grounds for an animal abuse charge. The outrage was because of all of prudes out there that think that any kind of violence against an animal is revolting. There is NO moral difference between those people and people who think that violence for sexual pleasure is revolting. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[Bryan]

Also, violence for pleasure isn't necessarily legal in Canada either. Two adults can't, for instance, mutually consent to repeatedly punch each other in the face.

[Black Dog]

Nope. People are allowed to use physical force to discipline dogs. A single kick to a misbehaving dog is not grounds for an animal abuse charge. The outrage was because of all of prudes out there that think that any kind of violence against an animal is revolting. There is NO moral difference between those people and people who think that violence for sexual pleasure is revolting.

One would have to be pretty dim to not see the difference between a person abusing an animal and two adults engaged in consensual BDSM relationship.

[TimG]

Also, violence for pleasure isn't necessarily legal in Canada either. Two adults can't, for instance, mutually consent to repeatedly punch each other in the face.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/

But, when it comes to BDSM – or at least its more intense versions – the law doesn’t actually care about consent. The Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to assault. While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context. So, if a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it.

This is pretty problematic from the perspective of the BDSM community. Carefully negotiated consent is rendered irrelevant, and effectively criminalizes all those who derive sexual pleasure from activities that involve physical pain, if it leaves a mark. But, it’s the law.

I did not know this but it shows that all of the people claiming that there is a difference between a dog kicker and an S&M participant don't know what they are talking about. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Also, violence for pleasure isn't necessarily legal in Canada either. Two adults can't, for instance, mutually consent to repeatedly punch each other in the face.

They absolutely can.

[msj]

Theres yuour problem right there.

Legal vs illegal. Big diff, but apparently you have no idea.

Apparently, we have no idea.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, it looks like BDSM is often illegal.

[TimG]

One would have to be pretty dim to not see the difference between a person abusing an animal and two adults engaged in consensual BDSM relationship.

IOW, according to you, a man should be free to beat up his partner during sex as long as he can bully her in to claiming it was "consensual". One would have to pretty dim not to understand why "consenting to violence during sex" should be abhorred even if it is tolerated. Edited October 27, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Apparently, we have no idea.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, it looks like BDSM is often illegal.

That strikes me as bogus as it applies to serious bodily harm, which, AFAIK, isn't really something that happens much in regular BDSM relationships.

[Black Dog]

IOW, according to you, a man should be free to beat up his partner during sex as long as he can bully her in to claiming it was "consensual".

Then it's not actually consensual, is it, silly billy.

One would have to pretty dim not to understand why "consenting to violence during sex" should be abhorred even if it is tolerated.

Not really. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom or sex dungeon.

[TimG]

Then it's not actually consensual

How do you know? After all if two adults say it is consensual then its none of your business.

It's none of my business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom or sex dungeon

You don't seem to understand the difference between tolerating a behavior and abhorring it. No one is suggesting the activity be restricted - just that people are entitled to have the opinion that it is revolting and to think less of the people who choose to participate in it.

[Big Guy]

Tough call. Yes, anything done in the bedroom is none of our business but when the person allows the information to come out and then spreads it to ....? I wonder.

If this person was a minister would I attend his church? No.

If this person was running for office would I vote for him? No.

Would I seek out this individual to befriend him? No.

Would I want him dating my daughter? No.

Do I want to him continue in his job? I would like to see his contract before I gave an opinion.

[cybercoma]

Nope.

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?

you clearly haven't been reading my posts and if you have, then you didn't understand what you read.

[cybercoma]

I don't hate the military.

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

you could have just changed CBC with military and it would have still worked.

[cybercoma]

Also, violence for pleasure isn't necessarily legal in Canada either. Two adults can't, for instance, mutually consent to repeatedly punch each other in the face.

boxing is illegal in Canada?

[Black Dog]

How do you know? After all if two adults say it is consensual then its none of your business.

Well there's not much anyone can do in that situation. Do you have a point?

You don't seem to understand the difference between tolerating a behavior and abhorring it. No one is suggesting the activity be restricted - just that people are entitled to have the opinion that it is revolting and to think less of the people who choose to participate in it.

Is anyone saying otherwise? Nope, it's just a dumb strawman.

[msj]

As an employer who is in the process of terminating an employee soon for matters that I wish had to do with BDSM, I can relate to this story and I am going to put forth my speculative reasons for why I would want to be rid of Jian:

1) An employer can fire anyone for any reason. If you have a good reason, can document it, and are willing to go through the legal system/grievance system, then you fire them and deal. If you don't have a good enough reason then you pay the employee off so they go away. So CBC has every right to be rid of Jian - the question,as always, is how much this is going to cost in time and money.

2) This is not a he said/she said story. It is a he said/(she said & she said & she said & she said) story.

I wonder how many women it takes to have the same weight of evidence as one man? Is this different in western countries versus, say, an Islamic country? Am I being sarcastic here towards liberal apologists or conservative dupes, or both?

3) Jian could be a sexual predator like Terry Richardson (google him) using his low grade fame and personal charm to do all types of terrible things which is likely insufficient for Jian to end up in jail but are sufficiently creepy to make one wonder about his humanity.

4) CBC has seen much more evidence than any of us and no doubt have taken a conservative approach to this (be rid of him while remaining tight lipped about the reasons). So far they have conducted themselves reasonably but time will tell, as always.

5) BDSM is often illegal (per Supreme Court) so CBC appears to have a leg to stand on if it comes down to using Jian's storyline. That is, even if Jian was telling the absolute objective truth, what he has done may still be considered illegal and, therefore, CBC has legal justification to not pay him $50 million.

6) Jian has pulled off a major PR coup with his pre-emptive letter. Brilliant. No one has ever claimed being a creep precludes one from being smart.

So, for me, given that you have three or four women making allegations, given the Carla Ciccone story from summer of 2013 (google it), and given that I think Jian is a pretty brilliant guy my opinion is that he falls into the sexual creepy kind of guy.

If I was his boss and had lots of emails/texts showing just his side of the story (which is about as positive as the story is likely to get for him) I would prefer to be rid of him too.

Edited October 27, 2014 by msj

[msj]

That strikes me as bogus as it applies to serious bodily harm, which, AFAIK, isn't really something that happens much in regular BDSM relationships.

Hmmm, an anonymous guy on the intertubes or a law professor... wonder who has more credibility here.....

[Black Dog]

Hmmm, an anonymous guy on the intertubes or a law professor... wonder who has more credibility here.....

Nice appeal to authority. Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted as a result of consensual BDSM activity? I'll hang up and listen.

[msj]

Nice appeal to authority. Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted as a result of consensual BDSM activity? I'll hang up and listen.

No idea.

I'm willing to admit I don't know and defer to someone, like a law professor, who is more likely to know more than anonymous.

Edited October 28, 2014 by msj

[Bryan]

boxing is illegal in Canada?

You can't consent to box on your own. You have to apply for a license, operate only under the sanctioning body's strict ruleset, and a referee decides for you if you're defending yourself sufficiently. You cannot consent to just let the other person hit you. You can't get a license to box someone who isn't a fair match for you either.

[WWWTT]

Wow!

This thread already has 10 pages?!?!?!

I have only briefly heard a little of this case due to my busy schedule so this is the extent of my contribution to this thread.

I'm guessing this is a popular subject because of Jian and the sexual subject/content that is at the center of the CBC actions.

I suspect that a thread dedicated to sex would be very popular on this site!

WWWTT

[overthere]

5) BDSM is often illegal (per Supreme Court) so CBC appears to have a leg to stand on if it comes down to using Jian's storyline. That is, even if Jian was telling the absolute objective truth, what he has done may still be considered illegal and, therefore, CBC has legal justification to not pay him $50 million.

If Gomeshi did something illegal, maybe you could link to the charges laid or convictions found or.... . CBC may have to use some hoickey revenue to pay off Gomeshi for wrongful dismissal. Oh wait there isn't any hockey revenue. No problem, taxpayers won't mind coughing up.

The boxing match I'd like to see is Billy Bob Thornton vs Gomeshi, winner takes on Doug Ford in a cage match.

World Class Entertainment , all the time, in Toronto.

[jacee]

You can't consent to box on your own. You have to apply for a license, operate only under the sanctioning body's strict ruleset, and a referee decides for you if you're defending yourself sufficiently. You cannot consent to just let the other person hit you. You can't get a license to box someone who isn't a fair match for you either.

So ... playing devil's advocate here ... unlike the SCoC says ... some people can consent to assault causing bodily harm ... for money ... but not for BDSM sex.

Hmmm ...