Sex Scandal or Libel at the CBC?

The CBC has hired a labour lawyer to conduct a study of the "workplace" in that corporation. To me that demonstrates a terrible lack of understanding of how a creative business works. In the United States, if something like this happened under the old studio system, and the CBC is a "studio system" with contract players, somebody's head would role in upper management.

A situation like this would simply not be allowed to happen. This guy Ghomeshi, like him or hate him, is a multi-million dollar property, that has been allowed to go to ratcrap ON SOMEBODY'S WATCH.

There would be hell to pay for that in the United States.

Instead of fixing that situation, up here, they are concentrating on creating a plum job investigation team to look at the "workplace environment" at the CBC. This is putting the cart before the horse's ass. It's not the way the business works, but they don't know how the business works at the CBC. They aren't running a studio, they are running a department of government.

I had never heard of Jian Ghomeshi, and he's totally unknown in South Africa.
This afternoon I saw a debate on the issue on the Aljazeera channel, and it was interesting to see that he is the major talking point in Canada at the moment, and what feminists call a wider "rape culture".
Considering that South Africa has often been called the "rape capital" of the world (of any country outside a war zone) the debate was rather surprising, coming from what many may consider a Northern country with sound gender rights, and even radical feminist movements.
We've had our own high profile cases, such as that of the current President Jacob Zuma, who was found innocent of rape, but still slammed for acting irresponsibly, however his political support was such that the accusing woman lives in exile now, according to my knowledge.
Most of the rape in South Africa actually happens within groups of the same race and class, with higher statistics amongst the black majority (perhaps because they are a majority, while others may argue there are cultural factors or social changes in gender relationships that prompt some white, but especially black men to re-assert their power over women through rape).

While the amount of women whose stories coincide don't bode well for the innocence of this Ghomeshi character, I was however somewhat shocked in how the "innocent until proven guilty" cornerstone of Western justice was almost completely rejected in the debate - it seemed to go somewhat overboard in that respect.
It seems that as long as an accuser is of a "lower social status" and of a group with less historical privileges then any allegation they make must be true.
That seems to be a general insinuation, and not just leveled at Ghomeshi in particular.


But isn't that a witch-hunt form of justice (allegations without proof)?
So anybody can accuse anybody of rape or sexual abuse, and the accuser must always be believed?
What if some feminist at a university is accused of sexual abuse (and in the twitter discussion there were also some cases of lower class or status males who claim to have been abused by women from more powerful social positions)?
Wouldn't that bring us back to the worst cases of Satanic-panic from the 1980s, where even elderly ladies were incarcerated in long and drawn out trials that had no evidence, except some cooky psychologists who claimed we must just "believe the children" because they wouldn't lie (well, they didn't really, they were just manipulated by adults)?
And then there was false memory, where guided hypnosis created all kinds of sudden, false memories.

I'm not saying that this was the case here, but it is a bit of a warning that allegations are not proof, and this kind of system doesn't really empower anyone.
With heterosexist assumptions thrown out, anyone can be accused by anyone of anything.
Sure, in this case the amount of accusers weigh against the accused (mainly by a social media trial, it seems), but there are sociopaths out there and haters who can do the same to professors they don't like (for example) and if we must all believe the accusers then they must also be fired.
That could also create a system of abuse and even blackmail.
I was shocked at some of the other celebrity names mentioned, such as Bill Cosby.
Well, I hope all those people who say that one should always believe the accuser know what they are doing, as a general way of dealing with justice and ruining someone's life in every case simply because you must be guilty of something if somebody historically disadvantaged and "lower class" accuses you of something.

We still have tribal witch-hunts in South Africa, and people in certain areas and communities can be murdered and have their homes destroyed based on accusations.
This seems awfully similar to that, and activists against witch-hunts have a slogan that "Accusation is not Proof".
It is mainly women who suffer from such illegal and fantastical witch-hunts, and how would such arguments from Northern countries impact on their rights eventually?
Many of these women are merely accused because of village rivalries and jealousies over money.
Some people will happily have others killed simply for strategic reasons, a dislike, or competition.

Surely there must be trials with evidence, even if they take into account that there has been bias in the past.

Once again, I'm not familiar with the person or the case, just the way the debate was presented really gave me the impression that the "innocent until proven guilty" justice system should be abandoned completely, and that any accuser is always immediately right.
Surely that's not a tenable position for human rights either.

As history has shown, the female victims of an accusation based legal system - or trial by rumor and hocus pocus - will always eventually outnumber the men.

stream.aljazeera.com...

Ghomeshi has certainly been tarred and feathered in the press with repeated accusations of sexually related misconduct and some of his accusers have not been named. That is a troubling phenomenon for me, although I fully appreciate the importance of the efforts that the press makes to protect the identities of anonymous sources. Without guarantees of anonymity some information might never come to light, to the detriment of society as a whole.

This consideration is also behind the publication of anonymous posts like mine on the internet. Without some degree of anonymity, I would never voice many of my opinions with the same degree of forthrightness and bluntness. This kind of writing would not be able to survive in our society without anonymity, and I think that it is important that it does survive.

I think we have a lot of problems with sexual issues in our society. I was shocked to read recently that a doctor who assaulted female patients in a sexually related manner has been disciplined by his professional regulatory association by being restricted now to medical practice on men.

I really despair of our society when I read this sort of thing. I don't think a person guilty of a criminal offense should be practicing medicine at all. Men are just expected to put up with this. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if a doctor guilty of homosexual assaults on male patients was "disciplined" by having his practice restricted to female patients?

It is this kind of thing that confirms me in my belief that we are governed by blockheads.

Note: In an act of journalistic responsibility that one can only find online, anonymously, I will not even mention and certainly not dwell upon the sort of civil unrest (think Brixton riots) that would ensue if this doctor were restricted to veterinary medicine.

I say no more, as a responsible online journalist. Hell in the streets, I tell ya!

Jian Ghomeshi has chosen an attorney to defend him if charges are laid against him in connection with alleged assaults connected to sexual liaisons in which he participated. I'm not sure he has made the right choice. The attorney in question is Marie Henein, who is highly regarded, we are told, in Toronto legal circles.

She is certainly a looker.

www.torontosun.com...



According to the Toronto Star she made a joking reference to the Ghomeshi case at a dinner attended by numerous lawyers and judges not long ago, presumably before she had been engaged to represent Mr. Ghomeshi.

www.thestar.com...

“As criminal lawyers we represent people who have committed heinous acts. Acts of violence. Acts of depravity. Acts of cruelty. Or as Jian Ghomeshi likes to call it, foreplay,” Henein said at a gala on Oct. 29 to big laughs from the crowd of about 450 lawyers, including judges of both the provincial and superior court where his case might be heard if charges are laid.

The Star article includes an endorsement from former Attorney General, Michael Bryant:

In 2010, she got all charges dropped against Michael Bryant, including criminal negligence causing death, after bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard died. In his book, the former attorney-general of Ontario heaped praise on the “finest barrister I ever met.”

She “seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,” Bryant wrote in his 2012 book, 28 Seconds. “So able was she to find a person’s deepest frailties and exploit them.”

I'm not sure that getting Bryant off was quite the achievement it is being made out to be, but I think I do know why this would be portrayed by the Ontario Establishment as a Herculean task. People who are wondering about how hard Ms. Henein had to work to accomplish that "miracle" might want to check out my thread, Bizarre Dragging Death in Toronto at the following link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think Ghomeshi's ego is getting the better of him in his choice of lawyers. She has already made one joke in public that has led me, at least, to believe that she thinks her client is guilty. Now, she has a good record of getting people I think were guilty, off, but I don't remember reading about jokes on the subject of these clients being cracked by her in public in front of an assembly of judges.

If I were Ghomeshi, I would be worried about that, particularly if his trial is not conducted in front of a jury. However the trial is conducted, it is bound to be "technical". That situation favors a trial by judge alone. To me, this begs the question, is Ghomeshi an "establishment" favorite. I should say "no". There is every indication that the establishment intends to hang him out to dry.

Is a judge, or jury for that matter, hearing this case, likely to be thinking, "This very smart lawyer believes her client is guilty and is trying to pull the wool over my eyes."? I would be thinking that very thing.

Ghomeshi's press coverage is precisely the opposite of the coverage that the former Attorney General received. Ghomeshi should not delude himself. He is not an "insider" in Toronto. The "establishment" is giving every indication of wanting to make an example of him and score cheap points with the public.

Also, the linked Star article is full of praise for Henein, perhaps too full. My spider senses are tingling. Before Bryant went to trial, in camera, in the imported (from B.C.) Crown Prosecutor's office, the press was full of the elaborate lengths to which the Ontario legal establishment was going, to make sure that Bryant did not get a soft ride. We all know how that turned out.

If I were Ghomeshi, I would be very tempted to hire another attorney, on the sly, to keep a careful eye on Henein. When the visiting "crown from out of town" didn't file "failure to remain" charges in the Bryant case, the handwriting was on the wall, but Darcy Allen Sheppard's lawyer wasn't in court to object.

Read the following in the ATS spirit of "suspicion of a conspiracy". I think it is good food for thought.

Having mulled it over a little, I am even more convinced that the "establishment" is determined to nail Ghomeshi, no matter what it takes, and that Marie Henein is the perfect smokescreen to conceal their efforts.

We are told that she is an excellent trial lawyer. She is lauded to the skies in the press. This is phase one of the operation, in my opinion. Convince the public, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ghomeshi is getting a first rate legal defense. The same thing was done in reverse in the Bryant case. The public was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bryant was going to get a thorough prosecution.

Then the rug was pulled out. One charge, where they had him dead to rights, was not even laid. The entire trial was held in camera under extraordinary circumstances that have never been, to my knowledge, fully exposed to public scrutiny. Bryant walked. In an extraordinary coincidence, Ms. Henein was involved in that process.

It's a small world.

I don't think she was colluding in any way. As Martin Short would say, "She's just a child!", . . . but she herself must have been very surprised at how smoothly everything went. I think she was window dressing in that process.

She is not window dressing in the current case, but she is very convenient to the purposes of the people who have Ghomeshi in their sights, for reasons already mentioned.

I think there are two "babes in the woods" in this story, not one; Ghomeshi for sure, but also Henein. I think somebody intends to "take her to the cleaners" like a rube at the carnival. How are they going to do it? I have no idea, but the first thing I would do, if I were her, under these circumstances, is to be very careful that every important conversation I had about this case with my client, or my partners, takes place in a secure environment that has been professionally debugged.

I know this is Toronto "The Good" and that is a shocking idea . . . but . . .

I'm convinced that somebody on the opposition side, somewhere, is determined not to lose this case, by hook or by crook. If the subject were nuclear physics, in the establishment's cosmology Ghomeshi would be the "anti-Bryant", whose fate will be the precise opposite of that of the former Attorney General.

Thoroughly, professionally, debugged. Better safe than sorry, little girl.

Rex Murphy had something to say ,and like Rex always is ,he is spot on .

M'Luds, if it please y'r Ludships . . .

"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat"

From the bench there are nods of approval, but one magistrate, noticing wide eyes and looks of quizzical bewilderment on the faces of the jury, directs me to translate. My eyebrows rise in surprise. A look of mild wonderment passes quickly across my ruggedly handsome visage as I dip my head slightly in the direction of the bench and then wheel, gown swirling, wig sparkling, its queue wobbling like a pair of sequined pasties to the rear, and adopt a look of humble, smiling, ingratiating sincerity while delivering myself of the following, to the jury:

"the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies'

Indeed, this is the most cherished principle of the Common Law, although, to be sure, "trial by ordeal" and "capital punishment" have their adherents . . . consequently, that being the case, to have a former Member of Parliament of this great nation, forever strong, forever free and forever north, apologize(!?!?!?!) for having, in the first instance, adhered to that most worthy of legal principles, in the Ghomeshi case, is cause to wonder how poisoned has the atmosphere around this case, a case, might I add, in which not a charge has yet been laid . . . (pause for effect, lines of pain on my chiseled features, a look of entreaty timidly directed to the jury before sighing in despair and casting my eyes upward) . . . become.

We are told that former MPP and MP, Sheila Copps, (Hamilton East.)

news.nationalpost.com...

. . . has faced criticism in recent weeks after she defended Jian Ghomeshi when the initial allegations against the former CBC radio host came out.

“Do you really believe someone should be fired based on unproven allegations? What about due process?” she wrote on Twitter on October 29.

Copps apologized in Monday’s column for rushing to Ghomeshi’s defence.

“I should never have weighed on an issue as sensitive as that without taking the time to hear the other side of the story,” she said.

This is, of course, poppycock. (Pop Peacock?) Her original statement stands on rock. Her subsequent waffle reeks of subservience to the mob.

Despite appearances, I am no expert on Canadian law, but in reading up on the "ei incumbit", I noticed a variation in the interpretation of this principle in the UK.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, in sexual offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances where the defendant has an obligation to adduce evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting. These circumstances include, for example, where the complainant was unconscious, unlawfully detained, or subjected to violence.

If this interpretation of "the presumption" is followed in courts in Ontario, Mr. Ghomeshi might be in the position of having to prove, by putting evidence before the court, that he had the consent of his accusers to rough them up in sexual play.

In this sort of case, in the UK, it would seem to this untrained and completely amateurish eye, ruggedly handsome though it might be, clear, perfect and dazzlingly blue, that Ms. Henein, acting for Mr. Ghomeshi, might have to PROSECUTE his defense, as it were.

They say that the best defense is a good offense. In this case it might be the only defense.

This is part of the problem I mentioned in my earlier comment . The CBC's dismissal is a separate issue that may have more to do with ethics rather then law . The Crown's issue of law may not be about sexual assault but about assault . Your mention of the British case that has sexual assault preceded by violence may be a factor in determining weather it was a form of rape . Still I would imagine the two cases if it ever gets to the second case in court will be hard to keep independent of the other . The Crown may just wait to lay their charges knowing this .It's not like there is a statute of limitations on their part . a reply to: ipsedixit

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There are definitely two separate issues, as you say.

I have heard Lucy DeCoutere's explanation of what happened to her, but it won't be allowed to suffice in court. She will have to give Ghomeshi's attorney more detail. She says she was choked and slapped. What happened next? How did the encounter end? Were there other encounters?

Children are choked and slapped every day in the school yard. We have no contextual understanding of what happened to Ms. DeCoutere other than that it was unexpected and that she didn't like it and that she has complained to the police.

Did she need medical attention or was she only shaken emotionally?

The context in which "assault" takes place determines how seriously it is taken in our society. On a hockey rink one can come near to death or suffer permanent injury from assaults than have almost nothing to do with the actual playing of the game, before the police and courts get involved.

How seriously did Lucy DeCoutere take the assault on her at the time it happened? Was it something she shrugged off, but then later decided to complain about, when Ghomeshi's bad reputation became known to her?

Is Ghomeshi really being prosecuted because he is a physical danger to anyone, or simply because he is just another classic nasty "pouty boy" ?

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Personally, I find the very public walk out by the public relations firm that was representing Ghomeshi, disgusting. They say he "lied" to them.

Surely a lying client is not a rarity in that business. I'm very suspicious about the conduct of this company, Navigator.

I found it odd, to begin with, the hype the media were giving about that firm. When I was in PR, they were fair-sized, but not that large - I can think of at least a half-dozen that are bigger/higher profile.

Also, I think he got bad advice - the whole Facebook post and pre-emptive strike he did was just dumb, in my opinion. The smart thing would have been to first of all, not show his bosses that video, and then not posted that tl;dr TMI Facebook post. Sometimes, as he found the hard way, trying to control the discourse can back fire. There's a REASON so many politicians caught in sex scandals just say 'no comment'. That, really, is usually the smartest thing to do - hope interest just dies off quickly.

Also, it would have helped his case if he'd shut up, because some of the victims (like that XOJane blogger) come off as being almost as awful as he does - flagrantly use people for job connections and seem to feel 'entitled' - in his case, sex or whatever (I've seen no evidence he actually raped anyone. This is straight-up assault he seems to be mostly accused of) - and in theirs, expecting someone famous to help some random nobody get a job.

a reply to: Jessica6

I'm wondering if Ghomeshi's recourse to the "S&M lifestyle" as an excuse for rough handling of women is actually accurate.

Listening to Lucy DeCoutere describe her encounter with him, I was put in mind of the ubiquitous "bitches and hos" school of how to handle women that came out of the "gangsta" rap music scene. Remember, Ghomeshi is an ex-musician. There is a lot of melodrama and grabbing of women by the neck and forcing them up against the wall and calling them "hos" and "bitch slapping" them. "Slap her with your dick" is a line quoted by Chris Rock in a comedy routine.

People may not realize it, difficult as that is to believe in this media age, but aping the mannerisms of what used to be referred to as the demi monde, has been the rage among ordinary nice boys and girls for a long time now. Think Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and hosts of wannabes, none of whom are involved with real pimps and hos. Virtually every woman, in a certain age group, nowadays, is completely comfortable being referred to as a "be-atch".

Could DeCoutere's encounter with "Biggy G" simply have been a case of culture clash? Maybe she didn't "get it". Maybe she's not into being "pimped out" and acting like a "bitch ho" around "her pimp" the way a lot of other girls are. Maybe she is too old for all the primping and posturing and phony drama inherent in that scene. Maybe she was surprised because she'd automatically assumed, incorrectly (?), that Ghomeshi was too old for that crap too?

You are absolutely right about the mistake he made in bringing a video (in which he appears ?) to illustrate how consensual love play can leave marks. Video trailers from any number of websites would illustrate that nicely and not be self incriminating.

Well I listened to Lucy DeCoutere in a interview on CBC and I didn't get the impression she had been injured or that she had made a complaint to the police for that matter .I don't believe that CBC made their decision solely on what she told them either .There was indications that someone had showed them pictures with injuries they had received . Weather or not they took it to the police is another matter but because the police had made request for any information the media may have had the police may have the photos now and she may have decided to pursue a criminal case with them . I am thinking that CBC would be relying more on this other person that provided the photos then Lucy DeCoutere testimony but she said that she was only coming out in public so that others may get brave enough to as well . a reply to: ipsedixit

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You might be right, but if this is the case, Ghomeshi may be able to get a ruling of "malicious prosecution" out of any charges laid, and follow up with lawsuits.

Obviously one can't be too sure about any of this because all the cards have not been laid on the table yet. In fact, he may never be charged, if the Crown Prosecutor's office don't think they can get a conviction with the evidence available.

The potential that drugs were involved in some of these cases is a wild card that could lead off in any direction, depending on the drug.

I hadn't heard anything about any drug aspect to this situation . I did hear a interview this morning about there being 10 people coming forward .I am thinking that the Crown may be waiting for him to file his court documents against CBC . He will have to make a legal statement and that would or could be used as evidence against him in a criminal case .I am not sure how his Facebook statement could or would be used but the more the Crown has to work with the better chance they may have to get a conviction if charges are laid .

There are so many ways this thing could unfold but it's hard to imagine that it will come out very well for him .The CBC having to deal with what his lawyers decide to put on the table may as well work out to CBC laying their own suit against him .Something along the lines of SLAPP if and when the situation might warrant it ,is not beyond the pale .

I have been following the Mann vs Steyn case www.steynonline.com... and I have to tell you it shows that some of the most seemingly insignificant details can be very important . Timing can be everything and even tweets and online posts can have very detrimental effects .

In any case I guess we will have to watch and see how the lawyers will chose for this to unfold .
a reply to: ipsedixit

One of the things that is really sobering to contemplate is that simply laying the most basic sort of criminal charge against someone is to levy a fine on them immediately, in the form of lawyer's fees.

How the issue is decided is of no importance. Ghomeshi has already been fined several thousand dollars and that fine will continue to mount with every day that passes.

Ghomeshi is reasonably well off from his CBC earnings. Other people would be immediately crippled, their lives ruined, simply by having charges laid against them, whether they are guilty or not. An entire family could be ruined and torn apart, simply because a family member was charged by the police, even if the person was not actually guilty of wrong doing.

A lot of guilty pleas are entered and confessions signed simply to be rid of a ruinous process.

I have always been cynical about the Just Us system . A society that we are not a part of (Law Society) imposes laws they make up and control . They create statutes from acts and give them the weight of law .They are not laws but have the weight of law . It's a game they play in a court with a judge . They act on the fiction that is created at our birth and call it a person . In the oath they swear they promise to not tell us something and can be disbarred if they do .

It's a racket like you suggest .I watched Rob Minards (freeman) vids and have actually employed some of the knowledge I gleaned and have to say that the Crown can be rendered in a weak position due to procedures . It is a basic scam that requires you to play along and engage . I am not saying you can break the law and get away with it .If you want to break the law and get away with it then you are better off playing their game and paying the price . reply to: ipsedixit

Ghomeshi's "trial by press" continues in today's Toronto Star, where we are told that text messages referring to injuries sustained by one of his sex partners contain a reference to a "cracked rib". The person referred to is in the video Ghomeshi showed to the CBC (in the offices of his attorney!!). The video shows bruising connected to the "cracked rib", we are told.

www.thestar.com...

One pertinent fact that is not included in this story is whether or not the bruised person in the video has laid a complaint against Ghomeshi with the police. Surely that is relevant. Maybe the problem with that detail is that if the person with the bruise and alleged "cracked rib" had not complained about her treatment at his hands, that would tend to corroborate Ghomeshi's own explanation of his conduct.

I must say it is a mystery to me why Ghomeshi's legal counsel would allow him, if in fact that is what they have done, to make any disclosures whatsoever to the CBC, without a signed undertaking by the broadcaster to keep the contents of such disclosures secret. Maybe I'm being too hasty. Maybe they had such an agreement. Maybe it will feature in Ghomeshi's lawsuit against the CBC.

Sounds that he was using in his defense or justification and he could be correct on that one case .With 10 others coming forward and maybe having a different picture I cant see how one persons willingness to bear the treatment would or could nullify others who may not have been in agreement to participate . I would think the law might make a distinction to that effect . CBC might also be justified to making similar distinctions on ethical or moral grounds within the corporations standards the determine for their employees . I corporation can legally impose ethics and standards not found in laws for society . just sayin a reply to: ipsedixit

Just seen this "Former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi has been charged in a sexual assault investigation, Toronto police say.

Ghomeshi, 47, faces five charges under the Criminal Code:

Four counts of sexual assault.
One charge of "overcome resistance — choking."

Ghomeshi surrendered to police on Wednesday morning. He is scheduled to appear in court in the afternoon. www.cbc.ca...

And this "A $55-million lawsuit launched by Jian Ghomeshi against the CBC last month, after he was fired as host of the radio arts, culture and entertainment program Q, is being withdrawn.

Ghomeshi is to pay $18,000 in legal costs incurred by the CBC. The process still needs to be formalized through a court order.

CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson said lawyers for both sides have now reached an agreement." www.cbc.ca...

So he got bail at $100,000.00 and must live with his mother . Nothing of a surprise so far . I am thinking that after discovery his lawyer will try to make a deal with the crown and change the plee . I find it a bit curious that he changed his tact with regards to the CBC case and moved to the Union approach . Well not surprising in a monetary sense seeing how it's already cost him $18,000.00 That will be interesting to see how it plays out . I am sure even the Union has to concede that there must be justifiable grounds for dismissal .Not sure ...