Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

Black Dog · October 28, 2014

There are forensic ways to prove sex wasn't consensual but you'd have to go right to the police and get a rape kit done.

Uh. There's no kit for proving if sex was consensual or not. Rape kits are used for collecting DNA evidence. That's it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Black Dog

Boges · October 28, 2014

Uh. There's no kit for proving if sex was consensual or not. Rape kits are used for collecting DNA evidence. That's it.

Shouldn't there be noticeable trauma if sexual "assault" happened?

Is the argument being made that having such trauma is how Jian liked it?

Black Dog · October 28, 2014

Shouldn't there be noticeable trauma if sexual "assault" happened?

Depends? I suspect consensual rough sex and assault can be hard to tell apart from a kit.

Is the argument being made that having such trauma is how Jian liked it?

Which still doesn't indicate the presence or absence of consent.

cybercoma · October 28, 2014

There are forensic ways to prove sex wasn't consensual but you'd have to go right to the police and get a rape kit done.

Not in all cases and it's also not that easy in cases of sexual assault, which is what's alleged here (as opposed to rape). Edited October 28, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · October 28, 2014

Shouldn't there be noticeable trauma if sexual "assault" happened?

Not necessarily.

cybercoma · October 28, 2014

There's also psychological difficulties with going right to the police or hospital. It's really not so simple. That's all irrelevant anyway. I'm just making an observation that the legal deck is stacked against victims of sexual assault (even more so for male victims). This is one of the many reasons people don't come forward and have little faith in the justice system when it comes to hearing cases of sexual assault.

I don't know how to improve it in a way that guards against convicting innocent people who are wrongfully accused. But it's something that the judiciary really needs to address.

guyser · October 28, 2014

Mine was focused on BDSM and the law for which it appears that few people actually have a grasp on - especially Jian.

Plenty of us have a grasp, you happen tho think that BDSM is illegal. Which of course isnt true.

msj · October 28, 2014

Plenty of us have a grasp, you happen tho think that BDSM is illegal. Which of course isnt true.

What I meant, in the context of the link for those willing to read it, is that we seemed to think that BDSM is no big deal - stuff between consenting adults etc...

Perhaps you are not surprised, but I am surprised by what the tax prof had to say and by the ruling and other information I have linked to.

IOW: it is not as clear cut as we thought and BDSM activities can be illegal under particular circumstances (this is probably a better way of stating it).

Black Dog · October 28, 2014

I think what they call that is; "innocent until proven guilty".

Thing is, even if someone is found not guilty, that doesn't mean they are innocent.

Hal 9000 · October 29, 2014

I don't know this whole story, but it looks like Ghomesi has tried covering all angles. If someone roughs up another person sexually (maybe even rapes them), it's easier to claim you're both sexual deviants than chance being accused of rape.

Black Dog · October 29, 2014

Excellent article on this.
Building a narrative, one sexual text message at a time

Ghomeshi has always had one thing going for him: He is masterful at maintaining control over the conversations he has on the radio, both with his guests and with all of us.

So yes, he is practiced at telling us stories. From a technical standpoint, the post that appeared on Ghomeshi’s Facebook page this past Sunday is so carefully constructed and wildly on-brand that it seems, at times, like Ghomeshi and his team (no longer a group of researchers and producers, but instead a $600/hr “image management” firm) copied it from some kind of Public Relations Mad Libs. When discussing his interest in BDSM — a topic that might be foreign, threatening or alienating to some of his listeners — he name-checks both Fifty Shades of Grey (relatable, familiar, safe) and “Lynn Coady’s Giller-prize-winning book last year” (CanCon!).

It’s also a nesting doll of leading logic. If you believe (as many people do) that your employer has no right to judge your private affairs, then you, too, should be outraged at his firing. If you might be worried about whether or not, in those private affairs, as the Toronto Star exposé has it, “[Ghomeshi] struck [his accusers] with a closed fist or open hand” without their consent, Ghomeshi’s narrative gives you a convenient answer: It’s a smear campaign concocted by an ex-lover out to ruin his sterling reputation. The construction here is flawless; as long as you feel comfortable dismissing the allegations against Ghomeshi, it’s easy to feel outraged on his behalf.

And the nut graf:

It is easy to prove that someone consented to rough sex with you; to show people your text messages and emails, to craft a familiar narrative and assert your likeable, familiar persona when you have one. It is far less easy to prove that you went into a sexual encounter expecting and consenting to one thing, and experiencing another. A woman involved allegedly brought her concerns to her employer and was dismissed instead of supported; we watched at least one other woman who spoke out publicly get flayed in print and pixel. In various ways, they were dissuaded from speaking up. These women understood — as many, many women do — that their words and their experiences may not be convincing enough.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Black Dog

overthere · October 29, 2014

It is easy to prove that someone consented to rough sex with you; to show people your text messages and emails, to craft a familiar narrative and assert your likeable, familiar persona when you have one. It is far less easy to prove that you went into a sexual encounter expecting and consenting to one thing, and experiencing another. A woman involved allegedly brought her concerns to her employer and was dismissed instead of supported; we watched at least one other woman who spoke out publicly get flayed in print and pixel. In various ways, they were dissuaded from speaking up. These women understood — as many, many women do — that their words and their experiences may not be convincing enough.

and... yet another quote completely devoid of facts of any sort related to the allegations

Black Dog · October 29, 2014

and... yet another quote completely devoid of facts of any sort related to the allegations

I didn't know we were only allowed to post sworn affidavits.

What's your deal?

overthere · October 29, 2014

My deal has been stated several times already in this thread.

To summarize: the rush to judgement -largely driven by a POS rag like the Star- on Ghomeshi is pukemaking. I don';t need affidavits at this point, but I'd like a fact or two. These are not even allegations,what has been set out so far doesn't even rise to that minimal standard. So far it could well be just shit made up to sell papers.

But he is already charged, tried, convicted and executed here and elsewhere. He is almost certainly finished from a public career in anything.

What really chaps my ass is that no matter what happens from here on does not matter at all to a mans future. Many people are now convinced that he is a brutal rapist, period. Nothing will change that , nothing. An avalanche of facts, a trial, recantations from the wholly anonymous 'victims'. Nothing.

Very disappointing from articulate citizens in a country supposedly operating in a tradition of rule of law.

That's my deal.

Black Dog · October 29, 2014

My deal has been stated several times already in this thread.

To summarize: the rush to judgement -largely driven by a POS rag like the Star- on Ghomeshi is pukemaking. I don';t need affidavits at this point, but I'd like a fact or two. These are not even allegations,what has been set out so far doesn't even rise to that minimal standard. So far it could well be just shit made up to sell papers.

But he is already charged, tried, convicted and executed here and elsewhere. He is almost certainly finished from a public career in anything.

What really chaps my ass is that no matter what happens from here on does not matter at all to a mans future. Many people are now convinced that he is a brutal rapist, period. Nothing will change that , nothing. An avalanche of facts, a trial, recantations from the wholly anonymous 'victims'. Nothing.

Very disappointing from articulate citizens in a country supposedly operating in a tradition of rule of law.

That's my deal.

I continue to be surprised at people like you who can't grasp that the way public opinion operates is not the same as the way a criminal court does in terms of the presumption of innocence (a standard, I should point out, that does not exist in civil proceedings). No one is perverting the course of justice by forming an opinion on this matter without absolute proof. If you honestly expect people to hold off on forming opinions until all the facts are in, I have to wonder what turnip truck you just fell out of. there's nothing wrong with taking the information at hand and forming an opinion for yourself (something you have already done, whether you chose to admit it or not).

So he's finished. Shit happens. Stop invoking the criminal justice system to pretend he's being unfairly prosecuted when there doesn't seem to be any suggestion criminal charges are forthcoming.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Black Dog

cybercoma · October 29, 2014

A post on Facebook from Owen Pallett: https://www.facebook.com/owenpalletteternal/posts/1491910081073780?fref=nf

I was challenged by a friend to say something about the recent allegations against Jian Ghomeshi.

Jian is my friend. I have appeared twice on Q. But there is no grey area here. Three women have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.

I have sat with Jian over drinks and discussed our respective anxiety disorders. We have been photographed hugging on camera.

Just ten days ago, I helped him find musicians for his father’s funeral. Three women have said that Jian beat them without their consent.

“We will never really know what happened.” Yes we do. Jian beat, at the very least, three women. Three women said so. “They were jilted exes.” Maybe so. They were beaten by Jian.

“They were freelance writers looking to get ahead.” Three women were beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.

At no point here will I ever give my friend Jian’s version of the truth more creedence than the version of the truth offered up by three women. Anonymity does not mean these women do not exist.

“They were engaged in BDSM role-play.” This: this is something I need to talk about.

The beauty of BDSM relationships is that the power is always in the hands of the sub. BDSM and choke play is a subversion of male violence.

To hear that anybody has been abusing the BDSM power relationship for the purpose of engaging in non-consensual violence-against-women is horrifying.

That is not the point of BDSM. BDSM is in fact about the exact opposite thing. It is about repurposing acts of violence into creating a power dynamic of fucking EQUALITY.

As for the rest. I have seen my Facebook feed littered with comments about how “for years we’ve known Jian to be a shady character.”

I too have heard endless rumours that he’s been a bad date, and have heard stories of shadiness and strange behaviour.

I have heard about his ridiculous pick-up lines and have (to my shame) tittered about them with my friends. But I have never heard, until today, that Jian Ghomeshi beats women.

I am skeptical of arts reporting. I am skeptical of Canadian journalism. I am sensitive toward shaming of people who are so-called sexual deviants.

But let’s be clear. Whether the court decides that predatory men are punished or exonerated does not silence the voices of the victims. It does not make victims liars.

Whether our culture continues to celebrate the works of predatory men is another issue. It does not silence the voices of the victims.

Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women. How our friendship will continue remains to be seen.

And a response he posted from a friend, Alex:

Statistically, it is not unlikely that some men we know or care for are abusers. when forced to confront this, it is too easy to silence victims, to disingenuously apply standards of criminal law to interpersonal relationships, to insist that they are 'nice guys' or that 'it's impossible to know what really happened.'

Assault and abuse of women in our society is widespread and underreported, and false accusations are extremely rare (~2%), but victims are attacked and their motivations besmirched simply for coming forward.

Believe women. You are not a court. You are not sentencing anyone to jail. You are not held to a criminal standard of proof. You /are/ sending a message to abusers and to victims of abuse about what we are willing to tolerate and who we are willing to listen to.

Statistically, it is not unlikely that some people we know or care for are victims of abuse. Statistically, most of them are unlikely to report what happened to them.

Think about what messages they are hearing from us this week. Believe women.

I think these posting make it abundantly clear the problem with overthere's arguments. Rational people don't lie about being sexually assaulted, let alone 4 of them over the same person. You are not a court and when you say you don't believe the victims, you are calling them a liar.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cybercoma

overthere · October 29, 2014

I continue to be surprised at people like you who can't grasp that the way public opinion operates is not the same as the way a criminal court does in terms of the presumption of innocence (a standard, I should point out, that does not exist in civil proceedings). No one is perverting the course of justice by forming an opinion on this matter without absolute proof. If you honestly expect people to hold off on forming opinions until all the facts are in, I have to wonder what turnip truck you just fell out of. there's nothing wrong with taking the information at hand and forming an opinion for yourself (something you have already done, whether you chose to admit it or not).

So he's finished. Shit happens. Stop invoking the criminal justice system to pretend he's being unfairly prosecuted when there doesn't seem to be any suggestion criminal charges are forthcoming.

You don't have any information that is worthy of informing an opinion on Ghomeshi. Neither do I. I do have an opinion on the process so far, and I cannot state it more clearly than I have.

It actually frightens me that somebody as articulate as yourself would speak like that at this stage of the process. What are the facts you speak of? Are you actually stating that you are content that his career is ended with what we know now, which is very little?

overthere · October 29, 2014

You are not a court and when you say you don't believe the victims, you are calling them a liar.

I'm not calling them anything. At this point, they are creations of the Star reporter.

I want somebody other than the Toronto Star to stand up and say ' I have been wronged by this man'. I don't believe in kangaroo courts, star chambers, Inquisitions , or McCarthyesue anonymous allegations.

You on the other hand, are content to try, convict and execute on what amounts to no information other than gossip. Owen Pallett is simply repeating gossip. Shame on him.

In an unrelated note, I saw Pallett a few years ago in solo concert. He was incredible.

guyser · October 29, 2014

At this point, they are creations of the Star reporter.

I want somebody other than the Toronto Star to stand up and say ' I have been wronged by this man'.

The old ' where is the video' cannard? Again?

Does the mere fact that....

National Post

Global TV

Hamilton Spectator

Van Province

Toronto/Calgary/Winnipeg/Edmonton/Ottawa Sun

Huff Post

...all report the exact same thing change anything?

Hope so.

overthere · October 29, 2014

The old ' where is the video' cannard? Again?

Does the mere fact that....

National Post

Global TV

Hamilton Spectator

Van Province

Toronto/Calgary/Winnipeg/Edmonton/Ottawa Sun

Huff Post

...all report the exact same thing change anything?

Hope so.

No, it changes nothing if they are all reporting the same unsubstantiated allegations.

guyser · October 29, 2014

No, it changes nothing if they are all reporting the same unsubstantiated allegations.

Hmmm....so in fact the old Rob Ford defence is used only against the Star.

How convenient.

The Star, the one that vetted and had the correct story all along is now doing some nefarious reputation damage to Jian Q?

Or maybe....just maybe they are reporting what is out there.

Black Dog · October 29, 2014

You don't have any information that is worthy of informing an opinion on Ghomeshi. Neither do I. I do have an opinion on the process so far, and I cannot state it more clearly than I have.

It actually frightens me that somebody as articulate as yourself would speak like that at this stage of the process. What are the facts you speak of?

The facts? He was fired by the CBC. That he has claimed this was over his private sexual kinks based on the machinations of a vengeful ex. That he has been accused by at least three as yet unidentified women of assault. And so on. To suggest we have no facts is to pretend to be ignorant of the entire story.

Are you actually stating that you are content that his career is ended with what we know now, which is very little?

No. I'm stating it's an entirely natural and expected outcome. My feelings on it don't enter into it, so I'm not going to work myself into a tizzy over it.

I'm not calling them anything. At this point, they are creations of the Star reporter.

I'll just point out this is a contradiction.

I want somebody other than the Toronto Star to stand up and say ' I have been wronged by this man'.

The Star never did that. The women in question did via the Star.

I don't believe in kangaroo courts, star chambers, Inquisitions , or McCarthyesue anonymous allegations.

You on the other hand, are content to try, convict and execute on what amounts to no information other than gossip. Owen Pallett is simply repeating gossip. Shame on him.

Such hyperbole, my goodness.

msj · October 29, 2014

Couple of things first: Completely agree with BlackDog and Cybercoma's posts above. No point quoting them again.

I also agree with Guyser2 as mentioned here:

The old ' where is the video' cannard? Again?

However, I will point out Ray Rice and his fiance. There was a video. I think there were two if I remember correctly: showing her getting punched and knocked out in an elevator.

Interesting how people, Fox News for example, stated things like "she should have taken the stairs instead" [paraphrasing based on memory here] etc as if violence against women is some kind of joke.

This is why I framed it as a he said/(she said + she said + she said) story in a post above and asked how many women does it take to be equal in weight to the word of one man.

For some of us, perhaps even that Hal guy, it's looking like Jian the creep rather than Jian the victim.

At least 3 women allegedly hit with one more allegedly harassed out of a job.

While others like overthere need more evidence while not recognizing the fact that he is choosing to believe Jian's side over the 3 women, I think most people, say, Elizabeth May for example, are realizing that it is more plausible for one man to be a sexual creep than for 3 or 4 women to make up stuff and go through an investigative journalism process to document it.

No doubt I could be wrong and it is a vast conspiracy.

But my court of opinion thinks this is highly unlikely.

Edited October 29, 2014 by msj

cybercoma · October 29, 2014

I'm not calling them anything.

As a matter of fact you are. You're calling them,

creations of the Star reporter.

You ... are content to try, convict and execute on what amounts to no information other than gossip.

And you're content with either misrepresenting my position or not understanding it. I'm not sure which. I am not a court, nor does my opinion need to meet the requirements of the judicial system. What I am saying is that rational people don't accuse someone of sexual assault when something didn't happen to warrant it. I'm saying in our personal lives we should first believe the victims in these situations. The courts cannot and more importantly should not do this.

Absolutely there's a chance they could be lying and are falsely accusing him of this. But I choose to believe that more often than not when someone is accused, especially by multiple people of the same terrible behaviour, that there is some element of truth to those accusations. I think we do more harm by painting the victims as liars than we would believing them on the oft chance that they're making a false accusation.

It's up to the courts to decide the legality of the situation, but I think on an interpersonal level it's important that victims are believed so they can get the support they need to come forward with these kinds of accusations. Conservatives like to talk about unreported crime and one of the highest categories of unreported crime are sexual assaults and rapes. We should first believe the victims until there's sufficient reason not to. The courts, on the other hand, can presume innocent in their application of the law.