Sex Scandal or Libel at the CBC?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

He filed the lawsuit almost immediately after being fired by the CBC, which indicates to me that he was probably acting in the heat of the moment. It would make more sense to go through the grievance procedure with the union first, and then, after the outcome of that process, to file suit, if at all, after taking legal advice.

The law in this country is a marvel. I'm amazed that "overcome resistance - choking" carries a potential "life" sentence. (The astronomical number of times this happens every day in the playgrounds and kids' bedrooms of the nation . . . and to think . . ., oops, forget about it. I know that thinking is not really fair in a discussion of the law.) Of course almost everything, it seems, in the law, has to be translated from misleading legal euphemisms into plain English to be understood.

A lot of activities seem to be covered by the term "sexual assault".

It is interesting to note that the charges filed by "an unnamed woman" refer to two separate incidents, in 2002 and 2003 respectively. This, depending on the exact circumstances of the two incidents, might be something that could be exploited in Ghomeshi's defense. Of course I'm only speculating. Until specific details come out, everything is speculation.

Ghomeshi has already suffered considerable loss. He seems to be on track to be made an example of in a political climate of extreme disapproval of violence against women.

I was very surprised as well at the "overcome resistance - choking" carries a potential "life" sentence" The Crown is not beyond piling on other charges as well . It may come down to making deals and so it gives them a way out of a long and costly trial .Yea we are going to have to wait and see how it proceeds from hear on out . I don't think CBC will give in, even to Union suggestions . I could also be a tactic for him to buy time and not allow statute of limitations to file a grievance . It may have been the only way out for his lawyer to try and dismiss the statement he made on his Facebook page . In the cbc piece a lawyer had mentioned that that was a key piece of evidence against him so they may be jockeying around to give themselves the best chance . a reply to: ipsedixit

a reply to: the2ofusr1

"Overcome resistance - choking" is a very serious charge, according to an article I read in today's Toronto Star.

In an article by Daniel Otis on page A31, in a special section of the paper devoted to the Ghomeshi case, we are told:

Section 246 of the Criminal Code defines overcoming resistance by choking as "attempts, by any means, to choke, suffocate or strangle another person, or by any means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle, attempts to render another person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance."

The story quotes a criminal defense attorney (I won't name him) as follows:

It's a very serious offense. Basically it means that you're choking someone with the intention of stopping them from resisting (the commission of a criminal act) . . .

He goes on to say that the charge is generally laid in connection with another charge like sexual assault. The article says that the charge is not uncommon and that sentences for it are served consecutively. "Life" sentences are seldom given for this offense, according to another quoted defense attorney.

We are definitely dealing with a clash of contexts here.

One is reminded of Pierre Trudeau's famous dictum,

"There is no place for the State in the bedrooms of the Nation."

I have difficulty putting what Ghomeshi is alleged to have done alongside the choking efforts of a kidnapper or serial killer, but clearly the State and his accusers believe his actions belong in that very serious category.

Do we need "dating law" in this country, or do all transgressions and all misunderstandings automatically get shunted into the rut of criminal law? Does Ghomeshi's "pattern of behavior" if it exists, indicate habitual attempts to commit criminal acts or persistent boorishness?

Maybe I am being overly delicate. Maybe all rough boorishness is a matter for the criminal justice system. I can't help feeling that the law itself is too rough an instrument for this sort of situation. Perhaps if there were such a thing as "dating law" and offenses were misdemeanors, Ghomeshi would have been brought to book a long time ago and certain alleged troublesome behaviors would have been altered for the better.

If he is found guilty of the charges and the Judge looks at the "severity" , not as to the extent it could be considered but to the extent the witnesses had suffered he has leeway to sentence accordingly . There was witnesses who chose not to lay charges and remain anonymous as far as the public exposure is concerned . The Crown may be fully aware of this and know they can get a conviction based on the present witnesses .

They are still looking for others to come forward so who knows . The case seems to suggest a pattern rather then a one off kind of thing . The case is definitely has opened up the subject in a mush bigger way then if it had been some twisted nobody . I think that is a good thing because we can learn a lot from this . Victims of any past or future similar crimes may come forward easier . a reply to: ipsedixit

Another step in the Ghomeshi process has taken place.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

TORONTO (Reuters) - Disgraced Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi pleaded not guilty to sexual assault and choking on Thursday in a pretrial hearing that sets the stage for a high-profile trial over what Ghomeshi has said was consensual rough sex with a series of women.

The trial is set to begin in February of 2016 and will be heard by judge only. I said earlier in the thread that Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Henein, might choose this option because of the technical nature of the case. I'm sure she doesn't want this trial to be a "popularity contest" with a jury.

Press coverage over the weeks in which the public became aware of and interested in this case, tended to bleed away much of the residual charm, from his media career, that might otherwise have been available to Mr. Ghomeshi for deployment before a jury.

She will want a judge's attention to fine points of testimony and sustained focus from him, on delicate minutiae which must be carefully weighed in the context of law, not disgust or revulsion.

Trial by judge doesn't guarantee that, but it does improve the odds of getting it.

Personally, I still think they are going to nail this guy to the cross, but if Henein gets "your average judge" as opposed to, say, a Mr. Justice Heynous Koffee (fictional character) style judge, who doesn't tolerate attempts, no matter how subtle, to influence him, then it is possible that we will see some kind of compromise judgment in the case, which is satisfactory to no one.