CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations (host of NPR's "Q")

[bigworld]

Source: The Star

CBC star Jian Ghomeshi has been fired over “information” the public broadcaster recently received that it says “precludes” it from continuing to employ the 47-year-old host of the popular Q radio show.

Shortly after CBC announced Ghomeshi was out the door on Sunday, Ghomeshi released news that he was launching a $50-million lawsuit claiming “breach of confidence and bad faith” by his employer of almost 14 years. He later followed that up with a Facebook posting saying he has been the target of “harassment, vengeance and demonization.”

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/cbc_fires_jian_ghomeshi_over_sex_allegations.html

---

Basically, according to the newspaper, Jian says he simply likes consensual rough sex. But several women have allegedly maintained that it wasn't all that consensual.

[seabeyond]

1. an interesting read. a perspective i had not figured. women arent speaking up on the net,

because the mere fact of speaking out, results in massive harassment for some. we have talked about that often enough.

this is a little different, and very dangerous, and i can get it. women not oging ot cops, filing charges because of the harrassment front the masses, and looneys.

that is very dangerous.

i hate seeing that.

hate it

[Orrex]

2. Apparently at least one of the women involved was scorned.

Ghomeshi blames a woman he describes as an ex-girlfriend for spreading lies about him and orchestrating a campaign with other women to “smear” him.

Who would have guessed he'd go that route?

[seabeyond]

3. there are already enough hurtles for women to report crimes against them.

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

this is a new one. and it is a powerful one i had not thought of, or read about yet. maybe it starts with known people, but...

i have to figure there are some legs on these accusations for cbc to actually take the step of firing. they knew a suit would follow

[Orrex]

4. Definitely fucked up

Any time a dispute boils down to "our violent sex was totally consensual, honest!" it rings the warning bell.

The women will be criticized for not going on record, but it sounds to me like they could see what they'd be inviting if they had.

[xocet]

17. CDC? n/t

[seabeyond]

18. corrected

[NaturalHigh]

5. Is there any actual PROOF of these allegations?

[alp227]

8. What would qualify as proof? nt

[NaturalHigh]

10. Not sure, but I think that some sort of solid evidence...

should be present before a man is fired and likely has his career ruined.

[seabeyond]

11. evidence presented for him.... not for you. knowing there would be a law suit, i am sure

they looked at the angle of actually having evidence. and he has been informed and has yet to decide to share with the public.

you think?

[NaturalHigh]

12. Sorry seabeyond...I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I just don't think people should be fired unless there is evidence that they've actually done something wrong.

[seabeyond]

13. per your post, and my reply

but I think that some sort of solid evidence...

should be present before a man is fired and likely has his career ruined.

I just don't think people should be fired unless there is evidence that they've actually done something wrong.

no fuckin shit and i am SURE that evidence was presented to the dude, and that the dude has not choosen to share that evidence with you at this point.

because the article shares no evidence, does not mean, and is not likely that there is NO evidence. the odds are in favor that there was evidence. evidence you do not know about at this point.

so to suggest they fired him with no evidence, is sloppy, you think?

[alp227]

14. Either define what "solid evidence" is, or you don't have an argument.

What evidence is sufficient to believe a sexual abuse victim? Surveillance video?

[NaturalHigh]

16. Video would be good.

Corroborating witnesses would also be a good thing. "He said, she said" really doesn't mean a lot in my book.

[alp227]

19. The reality is that rape is often witness less.

As with any sexual abuse. If your standard applied in the court of law, Jerry Sandusky would be a free man today.

[NaturalHigh]

20. I'm aware of that.

I just don't think it's right to tell a guy "You've been accused of sexual harassment. You're fired."

This guy may be innocent or he may be guilty as hell. I think it's fair to remember that a lot of people have spent their best years in prison after being convicted for rape only to be exonerated later.

[seabeyond]

21. "You've been accused of sexual harassment. You're fired." was he told that?

[NaturalHigh]

22. I don't know. I was paraphrasing.

[seabeyond]

23. of course you do not know. but hey, put it out there as what was done. you do not know

they do not have evidence, but you keep putting it out there, there is none.

you do not know.... any of this shit, but this subthread you have done well to dismiss the company and the women as it all being bogus.

but hey.... you do not know.

[NaturalHigh]

24. I did not say it was bogus.

I simply asked if there was any proof. The article doesn't seem to say, unless I missed something.

Why are you so hostile here? I don't see any problem simply asking if there is any proof of these allegations.

Honest question, seabeyond - do you think that any man accused of sexual harassment should be fired even if there is no proof of the allegations?

[Jamastiene]

15. I doubt very seriously they would fire the man without evidence.

Most likely, there is proof, but they are not sharing that with the public. That is just a guess though. I tend to believe the victims though. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

[closeupready]

6. I don't see how they have any grounds to fire him

on that basis. I'm not a lawyer, but these women are not claiming that he raped them, they did not file domestic violence/assault charges.

He openly admits that he likes rough sex; there are many people who do, apparently. What is the problem here?

[Blue_Tires]

7. I'm wondering if there are sexual harassment complants in his employee file

and the network is sitting on them because of possible pending charges, or to avoid embarrassment -- Because it's clear that this dude gets around and if one co-worker is speaking out, there must be others...And even if all the "Sex Olympics" were 100% totally consensual, it doesn't look good for the CBC to have a high-profile employee constantly humping dozens of his (likely subordinate) co-workers...Sooner or later, it always creates an ugly, unlivable atmosphere in the workplace for everyone...

AFAIK, only ESPN can get away with that (Penny's worth of free advice: If you're an attractive woman who is a recent college grad or intern, and you're planning on making a career at ESPN, there is a fairly high chance you'll have to get on your back to advance, unless there has been a major housecleaning of some "gatekeepers" in Bristol recently)...

[closeupready]

9. Yeah, that would make sense.

Thanks.

[bigworld]

25. The CBC supposedly has a moral turpitude clause as part of all their contracts

...so I suppose it's their call, really. Just going by what he's admitted he likes to do is probably cause enough.

*Of course I'm not an expert in Canadian law, what do I know.