[DanSC]

Does it matter if he's a leftist or otherwise? The accusations against him are extremely serious. No political ideology can excuse sexual battery.

If people on the right or the left are defending him, that's extremely self-damning.

[Public_Domain]

[xerxes]

Good points. There's messy truth somewhere in the middle and I can understand why the CBC let him go even if seems hasty and unfair to Gomeshi. Better to cut the ties now and take the minor PR hit from that, or keep him on, wait for the more horrible truth to come out and take more heat for keeping him on after they knew.

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[DanSC]

We now know where Elizabeth May's loyalties lie in the War on Women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27 ... 56924.html

Hint: she's fighting that war.

[PluggyRug]

DanSC DanSC:

We now know where Elizabeth May's loyalties lie in the War on Women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27 ... 56924.html

Hint: she's fighting that war.

I thought Elizabeth May was a guy with a girls name.

[andyt]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

xerxes xerxes:

Good points. There's messy truth somewhere in the middle and I can understand why the CBC let him go even if seems hasty and unfair to Gomeshi. Better to cut the ties now and take the minor PR hit from that, or keep him on, wait for the more horrible truth to come out and take more heat for keeping him on after they knew.

If one girl came up to my boss and said I was less than orthadox, my boss might give me the benifit of the doubt if I insisted she's "crazy". If FOUR came up, I would absolutely be out on my ass.

I don't think it's unfair for him to be fired over the accusations, especially when they are so numerous.

If the accusations turn out to be pure bullshit, then I feel bad for him. But it's hard to get 4 people to lie at once against you with no potential payoff unless you've seriously wronged them.

If the accusations are true, let them go to the police. My guess is that this guy hates women ("hate sex") and that came out, while the women thought they were in some sort of mutual relationship. I also wouldn't doubt that him being in the media made them more willing to engage in this shit - maybe hoping for a job or rubbed off glory. A regular schlub that tried this stuff with them would be told to get stuffed.


So it's sounding like rape after the fact, ie I didn't like how things went so now I'm claiming rape, even tho at the time I consented. I mean this isn't some one night thing where there can be a different idea about consent - this is over and over. Would you go back to a rapist over and over? At some point women are going to have to take responsibility in situations like this.

That said, the guy sounds like he has issues and a real asshole. Not someone I would care to know.

As for 4 people lying, again maybe its' a media thing. Hoping for rubbed off attention because this makes the media.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Jian Ghomeshi’s CBC lawsuit is hopeless — even if he’s telling the truth

Howard Levitt | October 27, 2014 | Last Updated: Oct 27 5:53 PM ET

Jian Ghomeshi’s $50-million lawsuit against the CBC has everything to do with strategy and PR — but nothing to do with legal entitlement.

Quite apart from the fact that his actual damages likely do not exceed 2% of that figure, unionized bargaining-unit employees (as CBC broadcasters are) can’t sue in court for wrongful dismissal. This suit will almost certainly be quickly struck down by the courts without Ghomeshi recovering a penny.

Whether or not the violence he is accused of was consensual, as he maintains, or criminal, as some unnamed accusers are reportedly claiming — none of the allegations being proven — this is the era of Ray Rice, Donald Sterling and Brendan Eich: No major corporation relying on public goodwill will permit itself to be saddled with household name “talent” that could destroy or even substantially impair its brand. And there aren’t many judges or arbitrators who would argue that they should be forced to.

The most interesting aspect of this case is that Ghomeshi, while protesting loudly about the purported violation of his “private life,” proceeded to write a close to 1,000-word missive delving into some pretty explicit aspects of, well, his private life.

The fact that Ghomeshi has hired the Navigator PR firm creates the impression, to this observer — possibly unfairly — of some disingenuity. One wonders why Ghomeshi, a master of media himself, felt he needed assistance.

Presumably not because he wants the unvarnished truth to come out, unedited and unembellished. It is more likely that he wants to colour the news with his own spin, in anticipation of it later coming out, so that it will be then interpreted most favourably to him.

There is a risk in that. CBC’s first reaction was “no comment.” But, depending upon what the truth is, the corporation might be well advised to now respond in kind as a way to preserve its own reputation. That is what I generally advise my employer clients to do.

If the CBC has convincing evidence that Ghomeshi was involved in non-consensual activities that constituted violence against women, he becomes a poisoned chalice and executives had no choice but to release him. The courts in Canada, and even arbitrators, have become increasingly sensitive to the impact of personal employee misconduct on employers’ brands, and it is irrelevant if it occurs outside of the workplace. In an age of social media — tools that Ghomeshi uses skillfully — there is no such thing as private time versus work time. He had to know that.

In this era of obsession with privacy, there is actually less privacy than ever. Every employee should assume that everything he or she does, inside work and outside, public or private, could end up being revealed to an employer. Any other assumption is foolhardy.

It is interesting that Ghomeshi is issuing a $50-million claim against CBC, while simultaneously declaring his historic loyalty to and love for it. The reality is, as he must also know, that suit will go nowhere. As a unionized employee, he cannot sue the CBC in court but is stuck with having to grieve through the arbitration process.

It is a common misapprehension that many unionized employees have (although it’s hard to believe of Ghomeshi). They mistakenly believe that being part of a union provides them protection. In fact, it is the reverse: Unionized employees cannot sue their employer for anything flowing from the employment relationship, whether it’s wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal or anything else. Ghomeshi surely wishes he was not part of a union.

When a case goes before an arbitrator, historically, in the event that the employer cannot show cause for firing, arbitrators have almost invariably reinstated employees — meaning that, if the matter weren’t already settled within a year or two (as it almost assuredly will be) Ghomeshi would have found himself back in his public broadcasting chair.

But that’s history. Things have begun to change: Recent trends are against him in this respect, too.

Arbitrators (and judges) have increasingly resisted reinstating employees who, in the public mind, represent the employer and its goodwill, including radio and television hosts. It is one thing to force a factory to rehire an assembly-line worker. But arbitrators are more loath to force a television station to put someone on the air as its representative who no longer reflects its style, approach or desired image.

So although Ghomeshi may eventually be cleared of the allegations — which may yet be proved spurious — he will not be back hosting.

Even if Ghomeshi can prove all the alleged sexual scandals he’s accused of were entirely consensual, he likely has no case: If the activities were viewed as being so outside the norms and tastes of CBC listeners, he will likely not be reinstated, since doing so could hurt CBC listenership.

So even if Jian’s protestations of consensuality are true (and we have no cogent information as of this point), it will not be enough. This is really an object lesson in the fact that employees have no real privacy rights and should operate on the basis that all of their actions, wherever they occur, could be discovered by employers and, worse, become embarrassing fodder for the Twittersphere and op-ed pages. It happened to Rice, Sterling and Eich; and it’s happening right now to Jian Ghomeshi.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt & Grosman LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces and is author of The Law of Dismissal for Human Resources Professionals.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/ ... the-truth/

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

[popcorn]

It's always fun to watch the left immolate themselves with their own flames.

And the best example of that is watching Elizabeth May.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

False Equivalence.

Different grades of offense maybe, but no, they're the same category. It's not false.

Totally false. Rape is not even in the same league as consensual S&M.

But false equivalence is what you are good at, so . . . carry on!

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh for God's sakes. Here's what I said...

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And yes the documentation illustrating Suzuki has a touch of sleaze was also factual. He's no Jimmy Saville or Jian Gomeshi, but he does need to start behaving himself. The good ol days of we look the other way while Progressives claim a "war on women" are over.

In what world is comparing three things and saying one is less extreme than others "equivalence"?

I'll tell you what...stop taking things so personal, and I'll stop having to slap you about the ears with facts. Then you won't have to look so petty in your desperate need of an insult it sounds stupid, and I won't be all the time having to waste my time on nonsense. Win win.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh for God's sakes. Here's what I said...

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And yes the documentation illustrating Suzuki has a touch of sleaze was also factual. He's no Jimmy Saville or Jian Gomeshi, but he does need to start behaving himself. The good ol days of we look the other way while Progressives claim a "war on women" are over.

In what world is comparing three things and saying one is less extreme than others "equivalence"?

I'll tell you what...stop making things so personal, and I'll stop having to slap you about the ears with facts. Then you won't have to look so petty in your desperate need for an out of context insult, and I won't be all the time having to wast my time on nonsense. Win win.

Firstly, it's not personal. Logical fallacies are by definition, impersonal. I don't know why you are getting angry again over rational and logical debate.

Trying to equate David Suzuki with Jimmy Saville with Jian Ghomeshi is a "false equivalence". Jimmy Saville is accused of numerous rapes over his career, David Suzuki has not been accused of anything other than innuendo, and Jian Ghomeshi hasn't been charged with anything at all. He has admitted to consensual acts of what some may call deviant behavior, but his description is all we have to go on and on the surface seems legal if distasteful. Neither Suzuki or Ghomeshi are in the same league as Jimmy Saville. Bringing up Saville and Suzuki is also a logical fallacy variant of "Appeal to Emotion".

No actual facts were harmed in the drafting of your post. And for you to beat me over the head with facts 'again', there will first have to be a 'before'.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Firstly, it's not personal. Logical fallacies are by definition, impersonal. I don't know why you are getting angry again over rational and logical debate.

Look numbskull, you started with the insults. Don't start whimpering now that you're getting what you wanted.

$1:

Trying to equate David Suzuki with Jimmy Saville with Jian Ghomeshi is a "false equivalence".

I suppose it would be if it was ever done anywhere by anybody.

To state Suzuki is (and I quote once more) "no Jimmy Saville or Jian Gomeshi" is not to equate them.

That's only obvious.

What's with the desperation to make up say down anyway? What are you hoping to prove?

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Firstly, it's not personal. Logical fallacies are by definition, impersonal. I don't know why you are getting angry again over rational and logical debate.

Look numbskull, you started with the insults. Don't start whimpering now that you're getting what you wanted.

Not once have I ever insulted you, even in retaliation for insults you have offered me. The "Most Zen" medal requires careful cultivation, and is an ongoing award.

It has nothing to do with what I want, other than what I always want is 'truth' and 'facts'. (and laughs)

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

Trying to equate David Suzuki with Jimmy Saville with Jian Ghomeshi is a "false equivalence".

I suppose it would be if it was done anywhere by anybody.

To state Suzuki is (and I quote once more) "no Jimmy Saville or Jian Gomeshi" is not to equate them.

That's only obvious.

You intentionally misquoting yourself does you no service. The whole quote is "He's no Jimmy Saville or Jian Gomeshi", which does imply a comparison that does not exist. "He is" being the contraction you left out there. "Or" compares Suzuki to Saville, and Saville to Ghomeshi. Do you need an English refresher again?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What's with the desperation to make up say down anyway? What are you hoping to prove?

As above, I explore facts looking for truths. To invoke Suzuki and Saville in a story about Ghomeshi is neither. It's a logical fallacy meant to compare Suzuki and Ghomeshi with a serial rapist and kiddie diddler, thus evoking emotion. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

When you stop uttering such fallacies, I'll stop pointing them out.