Ghomeshi Trial Begins

NDPP wrote:

Live From the Trial of Jian Ghomeshi: What You've Missed So Far

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi-watch-what-yo...

"One of CBC Radio's star hosts, Jian Ghomeshi is now facing trial for sexual assault. Stay tuned here for regular updates from the court case in Toronto, explanations of the main cast of characters and more background on the case.."

 

Ottawa Law Professor on How the Ghomeshi Trial Could Play Out

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-law-professor-on-how...

"We spoke with Constance Backhouse, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa...about the Jian Ghomeshi trial, which begins Monday in Toronto..."

 

#ghomeshi

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghomeshi

Great topic so thanks for posting it. I was afraid to post it on this forum because it's a lot more controversial than anything I had said earlier in the first few days of being here.

So without defending or condemning Ghomeshi, I'll start the ball rolling with a comment that should be o.k?

It's been outrageous how the CBC has been able to do dirt on this guy outsie the court system and before a fair trial. He stands condemned in the minds of probably about 90% of Canadians already.

Or maybe that it's no longer important to present with an appearance that says "edgy" and "I make my own rules".

I'm just sayin'.

Quote:

those who are probably in their sixties who will cast judgement upon him?

There's no "those".  He only has to worry about Justice William B. Horkins, and I've no idea how Justice Horkins feels about man-whiskers.  But if I'm not mistaken, Ghomeshi went for the baby-faced look BEFORE facing Horkins today, yes?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

What's your point, if any? That it's still important to present with an appearance that will please the establishment and those who are probably in their sixties who will cast judgement upon him?

I'm in my 60's what is different about my age compared to someone like you who claims to be in their 80's? Was your generation more tolerant than the later generations?

And for the second time, I didn't claim I was in my eighties. Now run off and search all my posts to see if you can find me saying that.

Or don't bother because you won't find it. If a man walks into court with a pony tail, sadly he is hurting his chances. Unshaven, probably also true but to perhaps a lesser degree. That's because people in their sixties or seventies haven't adjusted to being more inclusive of others' preferences in dress and style. Not me, even though I fit in that age group, and apparently not you. Would you like to argue that too now? Oh, and they probably shouldn't have a face full of jewelry either, although an ear ring or two probably wouldn't hurt. I would take my chances clean shaven, well groomed with short or moderate length hair, and wearing a suit. 

Back to Ghomeshi. 

What ridiculous ageist prejudice.

As for Ghomeshi, I think it is because that casual unshaven look looks friendly if the guy is smiling, and it would hardly be good form for him to do it in court or in public now.

Northern PoV wrote:

Without excusing his behavior ... she went back for more!

I know you aren't kidding, but are you kidding with this victim-blaming?

The fact that someone returns to an abusive situation does not mean it is not abuse, nor that it might not be criminal. And someone giving a creep the benefit of the doubt isn't an invitation to be attacked again.

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

What's your point, if any? That it's still important to present with an appearance that will please the establishment and those who are probably in their sixties who will cast judgement upon him?

I'm in my 60's what is different about my age compared to someone like you who claims to be in their 80's? Was your generation more tolerant than the later generations?

And for the second time, I didn't claim I was in my eighties. Now run off and search all my posts to see if you can find me saying that.

I am sure you have claimed to have voted for the NDP all your life except for having voted for the CCF on more than one occasion. Am I wrong about that?

I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.

But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.

What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.

But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.

What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.

From today's proceedings... an email from 'victim' to JG one year after

Email: "if you want to keep in touch, this is my email!!!! (Phone number), Her name"

Some victim!

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.

But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.

What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.

From today's proceedings... an email from 'victim' to JG one year after

Email: "if you want to keep in touch, this is my email!!!! (Phone number), Her name"

Some victim!

Very sad but he may still be found guilty depending on what bodily harm he inflicted on the victim. This is the question that needs to be answered and it could already be covered by our laws.

It also brings up another question and that is, should the willing victim be apprehended in the process of seeking more bodily harm before it escalates to the point of no return. That being death or something of physical harm approaching death. My personal opinion is that she/he should because it is a decent society's responsibility. Maybe the libertarian would disagree?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The law is that you can't consent to assault, monty1.

And the only claim that this had anything to do with consent is in that lame letter Ghomeshi wrote to the CBC. Maybe someone whose knowledge of this doesn't go any further than 50 shades might buy that. I don't think anyone who actually knows about consensual BDSM would.

In the first place, they would know that even with consent you don't go punching people in the the head, kidneys, or other places where you run the risk of doing serious or permanent damage, if you don't want to risk being charged with assault.

But really, this case has nothing more to do with that than any other violent sexual assault does, despite Ghomeshi's claim.

(edit)

Just read your last post.

There are countries where rape victims wind up being arrested and given the lash, if that is the sort of justice you had in mind.

Here it's more the court of public opinion.

My report to the moderators referred to the last line befor it was edited by smith. Now it's the second to last line. 

monty1 wrote:

It also brings up another question and that is, should the willing victim be apprehended in the process of seeking more bodily harm before it escalates to the point of no return.

good luck with that one

monty1 wrote:

  The applicable part is, is this behaviour acceptable? Although it personally makes me first feel sick and then sad, the unfortunate fact is that it appears to be acceptable to a limit. I'm not sure if inflicting bodily harm that entails breaking an arm is acceptable under the law but I  would like to find out from somebody that does know. 

Domestic violence charges are now laid by police and it's mandatory. It doesn't matter if the victim claims to have "consented".

monty1 wrote:

  We must all rise above the emotional if we are to discuss this in a proper and adult way. According to our laws as they exist, it doesn't appear to be the fact that he dewerved to lose his job. 

The CBC would be legally entitled to fire him for picking his nose in public. He wasn't a clerk.

monty1 wrote:

  edit: I would also invite you to consider what the court 'can' do to deal with people like Ghomeshi? Or people out there that are apprehended doing physical harm to women in consensual sec acts, before they act out in a much more violent way that is definitely seen as illegal by the law! 

We are about to see what the court can do to deal with people like Ghomeshi and he is not the first.

A much less serious case is that of the Hydro One employee, an engineer making 100K+ was fired for defending a man who did the FHRITP harrassment of a reporter on air. You don't have to break the law to lose your job.

Pondering wrote:

Quote:

Domestic violence charges are now laid by police and it's mandatory. It doesn't matter if the victim claims to have "consented".

Speaking in general and not pertaining to this case, you've totally ignored my comment of there being a limit to domestic violence that is acceptable. That which doesn't qualify as domestic violence could be various acts of cruelty by either party in a marriage or relationship. What could that be? I'll leave it to your imagination but I'll offer, a slap on the face by the woman on her husband. Now you are going to have to draw the line. And it won't make any difference anyway because what we decide is the line may not be what the court decides. Or in the sense of the workplace then the arbitration court which is the arbitrator him/herself.

monty1 wrote:

And I thank the dogs that I've never had to be involved in this kind of a case where the union would have a responsibility of defending a charge such as what faces Ghomeshi.  

The union did not defend Ghomeshi.

monty1 wrote:

I"m telling you this because this can't be decided one way or another with an emotional reaction that influenced the decision. And so, you may be correct in saying that the CBC would have a responsiblitiy of firing Ghomeshi for picking his nose, (rhetorically speaking) but you alao could be wrong and we'll have to wait for the outcome to find out. 

Not the responsibility, the right. The CBC has the legal right to protect its public face. Morality clauses still exist in contracts. Hydro One union couldn't protect that engineer either even though there was no question that he had not broken any laws. Women are also union members and the union has a duty to protect them.

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

What's your point, if any? That it's still important to present with an appearance that will please the establishment and those who are probably in their sixties who will cast judgement upon him?

I'm in my 60's what is different about my age compared to someone like you who claims to be in their 80's? Was your generation more tolerant than the later generations?

And for the second time, I didn't claim I was in my eighties. Now run off and search all my posts to see if you can find me saying that.

I am sure you have claimed to have voted for the NDP all your life except for having voted for the CCF on more than one occasion. Am I wrong about that?

Off topic: My apologies to you. The NDP came into existence in 1961 and so that makes it impossible for me to have voted for the CCF. Just barely though. On proclaiming that I have always been an NDP supporter I threw in the CCF for dramatic effect because I was very aware of the CCF because my parents supported it. And maybe a little proud too. Perceptive of you to catch that and it indicates that you were showing a conern for my age! Please don't sue me or report me for lying to you. ;-)

Its okay Monty I have destroyed many mangers on the stand because I have an ear for inconsistencies in people's stories. Your story about being a lifelong NDP supporter who is gaga over Trudeau the Lesser I find quite hard to swallow however one of the etiquette things at babble is I have to accept things like that at face value. I was merely using your own words to determine your age because I mistakenly believed your posts about your life story. I will try not to make that mistake again.

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quote:

Domestic violence charges are now laid by police and it's mandatory. It doesn't matter if the victim claims to have "consented".

Speaking in general and not pertaining to this case, you've totally ignored my comment of there being a limit to domestic violence that is acceptable. That which doesn't qualify as domestic violence could be various acts of cruelty by either party in a marriage or relationship. What could that be? I'll leave it to your imagination but I'll offer, a slap on the face by the woman on her husband. Now you are going to have to draw the line. And it won't make any difference anyway because what we decide is the line may not be what the court decides. Or in the sense of the workplace then the arbitration court which is the arbitrator him/herself.

A husband slapping his wife or a wife slapping her husband would probably not even get reported by either party unless it was part of a pattern but either way it qualifies as assault. Degree of damage is a separate issue.

Right and wrong is not determined by the courts. They just apply the law. The court of public opinion is not bound by law nor should it be. People who do great things earn our respect. People who do smarmy things earn our disrespect. 

Ghomeshi tried to use the mantle of sexual freedom, to defend his practice on the basis of kinky preferences. I have great respect for non-practicing paedophiles. They are cursed with an attraction they can't change, but they know it is wrong to act on their orientation. Ghomeshi may get off on attacking a woman so severely that he breaks her arm but ignorance of the law is no excuse for someone as educated as he. Same goes for the BDSM excuse. The most casual reading on the topic places safety and rules first and foremost and in no way condones sucker-punching women in the head. It isn't feasible to think that Ghomeshi didn't explore the topic.

Whether or not he broke the law, or whether or not it can be proven he did, as a society we judge the credibility of public figures and treat them accordingly. The credibility of some of his accusers is beyond reproach and his behavior had reached the point where it was common knowledge that his behavior with women was inappropriate enough to warrant backchannel warnings on the grapevine for years.

Jekyll and Hyde well represents a man like Ghomeshi. They are so charming, so wonderful, so kind and thoughtful and understanding and everything a woman could possibly want in a man, unfailingly considerate, a man you fall in love with fast or at least see as someone you would want as a life partner. They make you feel like you are charming and delightful. Then they pull your hair, or scream at you, or do something else so shocking that you doubt your own senses. Surely that didn't just happen? Not so much any more, but many women have been socialized to be forgiving and even to want to help such men who don't understand their own strength. The "real" them is the man they see 99% of the time. When they lash out they imagine it is an affliction, the man is not himself. They don't want to give up the 99% guy.

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quote:

Domestic violence charges are now laid by police and it's mandatory. It doesn't matter if the victim claims to have "consented".

Speaking in general and not pertaining to this case, you've totally ignored my comment of there being a limit to domestic violence that is acceptable. That which doesn't qualify as domestic violence could be various acts of cruelty by either party in a marriage or relationship. What could that be? I'll leave it to your imagination but I'll offer, a slap on the face by the woman on her husband. Now you are going to have to draw the line. And it won't make any difference anyway because what we decide is the line may not be what the court decides. Or in the sense of the workplace then the arbitration court which is the arbitrator him/herself.

A husband slapping his wife or a wife slapping her husband would probably not even get reported by either party unless it was part of a pattern but either way it qualifies as assault. Degree of damage is a separate issue.

Right and wrong is not determined by the courts. They just apply the law. The court of public opinion is not bound by law nor should it be. People who do great things earn our respect. People who do smarmy things earn our disrespect. 

Ghomeshi tried to use the mantle of sexual freedom, to defend his practice on the basis of kinky preferences. I have great respect for non-practicing paedophiles. They are cursed with an attraction they can't change, but they know it is wrong to act on their orientation. Ghomeshi may get off on attacking a woman so severely that he breaks her arm but ignorance of the law is no excuse for someone as educated as he. Same goes for the BDSM excuse. The most casual reading on the topic places safety and rules first and foremost and in no way condones sucker-punching women in the head. It isn't feasible to think that Ghomeshi didn't explore the topic.

Whether or not he broke the law, or whether or not it can be proven he did, as a society we judge the credibility of public figures and treat them accordingly. The credibility of some of his accusers is beyond reproach and his behavior had reached the point where it was common knowledge that his behavior with women was inappropriate enough to warrant backchannel warnings on the grapevine for years.

Jekyll and Hyde well represents a man like Ghomeshi. They are so charming, so wonderful, so kind and thoughtful and understanding and everything a woman could possibly want in a man, unfailingly considerate, a man you fall in love with fast or at least see as someone you would want as a life partner. They make you feel like you are charming and delightful. Then they pull your hair, or scream at you, or do something else so shocking that you doubt your own senses. Surely that didn't just happen? Not so much any more, but many women have been socialized to be forgiving and even to want to help such men who don't understand their own strength. The "real" them is the man they see 99% of the time. When they lash out they imagine it is an affliction, the man is not himself. They don't want to give up the 99% guy.

A very thoughtful and well thought out post  I'll take some time now to digest it. With one note for you to consider: You don't seem to be acknowledging a person, male or female, who desires to be hurt in a sexual relationship. I'm sure you must be aware of same. If not then I can eleaborate.

Because, your example is flawed and I can elaborate on that too later if you like. In the meantime you may want to try to imagine what 'would' be within bounds for S and M behaviour?

monty1 wrote:

Off topic: My apologies to you. The NDP came into existence in 1961 and so that makes it impossible for me to have voted for the CCF. Just barely though. On proclaiming that I have always been an NDP supporter I threw in the CCF for dramatic effect because I was very aware of the CCF because my parents supported it. And maybe a little proud too. Perceptive of you to catch that and it indicates that you were showing a conern for my age! Please don't sue me or report me for lying to you. ;-) 

Gotta say I caught that too and I do take age into consideration because while people can be out of step with their generation (I am) age does represent experience of life. Having watched man's first step on the moon and watched the fall of the iron curtain and known people with a number tatooed on their arm is different from someone for whom trans rights and gay marriage and parenthood are just normal "duh" kind of rights. When I was growing up Lucy and Ricky Ricardo had twin beds because heaven forbid married people share a bed. Now we have Modern Family and Digrassi High. I'm out of step with a lot of people of my generation. I'm more likely to agree with people a couple of decades younger than myself.

monty1 wrote:

I don't think there's any etiquette rule at babble that says you have to accept anything at face value. However, I will take your reply as another indication of your character.

 

There is but you can be forgiven for not noticing seeing as it is so rarely respected.

monty1 wrote:

Because, your example is flawed and I can elaborate on that too later if you like. In the meantime you may want to try to imagine what 'would' be within bounds for S and M behaviour?

Why?

Again, this alleged assault has no more relation to consensual S and M than any other violent sexual assault. I see no reason to discuss that except to perhaps make attacking someone and beating them in the head seem somehow normal and permissible, and cloud the issue.

(edit)

But if we really need to go around the mulberry bush on this again, here's one of the articles posted after Ghomeshi's firing:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/10/28/Kinkster-on-Jian-Ghomeshi/

Quote:

A danger inherent in this kind of media-message success is that the "don't hate me for being kinky" defence will be used by people who perpetrate non-consensual violence, and that we, as a community, will stand by uncritically -- or worse, cry out in support -- as victims of violence are once again silenced. I don't wish to be complicit in someone's misappropriation of BDSM terminology and codes as a shield for rape and assault. So when this defence comes up, my immediate reaction is to listen very carefully, read everything I can find on a given instance, and hold back on my knee-jerk inclination to side with the "persecuted pervert." Persecuted perverts do exist, absolutely. But we don't know, until we hear the full story, whether that's what's really going on -- or if we're being thrown under the bus by someone who's no friend to sadomasochism....

Face-punching and choking to the point of unconsciousness are absolutely some people's kinks. But even among seasoned BDSM players, these acts are widely understood to be things you must do only with the most carefully negotiated consent, with a goodly amount of education and practice, and with the knowledge that they are highly risky. Beginner BDSM this is not. As a BDSM educator, I have been teaching how to do safe body punching for over a decade, and I don't go near the face except symbolically (fake or very light impact for psychological effect). It's just too easy to do major damage. I'm sure someone out there could teach you how to do it safely, but it won't be me. As for choking, it's a topic of massive debate among pervs, with some veteran kinksters even insisting that there is simply no safe way to do it and therefore shouldn't be done at all.

I'm not saying everyone agrees on the absolute-no approach. But I am saying that Ghomeshi's argument that what he does is a "mild version of Fifty Shades of Grey" does not match up with his apparent practice of engaging in very high-risk activities with women he's just beginning to date. If what they're saying is true, that discrepancy alone is enough to make me highly suspicious of his "I'm a poor innocent kinkster" argument. A mild version of Fifty Shades would be some dirty talk (probably with poor grammar) and necktie bondage.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

What I just did with you is what Ghomeshi's lawyers will be trying to do with the witnesses against him. Every inconsistency that is brought out weakens the credibility of a witness. It does not prove that everything one says is untrue it only means that after a number of half truths adjudicators give your testimony less and less weight unless it is supported by corroborating evidence.

Well that was clever .

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I don't think there's any etiquette rule at babble that says you have to accept anything at face value. However, I will take your reply as another indication of your character.

With your long history of posting on this board you are definitely the authority on babble etiquette. I was referring to life stories only. If I say I am a man and am going to be 65 years old this year then it is something that others cannot claim is untrue. I have extended you that courtesy. But that courtesy only extends to personal tidbits anything you state that is an opinion I feel free to rip into.

What I just did with you is what Ghomeshi's lawyers will be trying to do with the witnesses against him. Every inconsistency that is brought out weakens the credibility of a witness. It does not prove that everything one says is untrue it only means that after a number of half truths adjudicators give your testimony less and less weight unless it is supported by corroborating evidence.

A lot of people wouldn't be honest and admit the mistake and apologize. I did. \

This isn't a court of law and so you won't get a chance to react that way with me again. I'll now consider you not to be a person who is socially acceptable to carry on an informal conversation with. You will be in a court of law all the time. I know laywers that can't do anything else even over a glass of beer. You've made your bed, so sleep in it.

Northern PoV wrote:

Folks seem to be conflating long-term domestic situations with this interaction between two new acquaintances: a flame & a moth.

Conflating what, exactly?

Maybe you can explain how the "interaction" - a punch to the head and choking, if we want to say it plainly - is different in each case.

That is the accusation we are talking about. If you think there is something in either case that makes the assault any less of an assault, or any less serious, I am curious to hear.

monty1 wrote:

A lot of people wouldn't be honest and admit the mistake and apologize. I did. \

This isn't a court of law and so you won't get a chance to react that way with me again. I'll now consider you not to be a person who is socially acceptable to carry on an informal conversation with. You will be in a court of law all the time. I know laywers (sic) that can't do anything else even over a glass of beer. You've made your bed, so sleep in it.

I am glad you admitted your exaggeration. Not everyone admits things like that but then not everyone needs to. Strangely in the first week of law school we were warned that this type of thing would happen with many people. Once you spend three years and then a career looking at the world through a legal lens it is not something you can turn off. Its like my brother the carpenter it doesn't matter where we go he always has comments on the quality of the woodworking.  If its friends he tries to make pithy jokes that may or may not go over well.

It seems we got off on a bad foot but then I don't like anyone telling me what my views are or should be.

To get back on topic it seems that if the first complainant was the only one the Crown would have a hard time getting a conviction and that is obviously why they have brought a multitude of charges. While some of the story is going to be discounted at this point if it bolsters other complainant's testimony and makes them more credible then the Crown will have done its job. When one person complains about sexual assault I try to keep an open mind when numerous women complain I must say I become ever more skeptical that the accused could be innocent.

On a personal note I am one of those people who couldn't stand him. I found his style to be creepily smarmy and him to be way too full of himself.  Then again when I had respect for the CBC they employed people like Peter Gzowski .

Quote:

Assault is illegal period. No exceptions, not even with a contract.

How can I enter a Karate tournament then, for example, and permit someone to kick me in the face?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Assault is illegal period. No exceptions, not even with a contract.

How can I enter a Karate tournament then, for example, and permit someone to kick me in the face?

because consent is a real thing

until it ain't