Jian Ghomeshi: How he got away with it

Jian Ghomeshi’s behaviour was an open secret, going back to his university days. Not that anyone took action. In fact, the CBC made him a star.


 
Ari Mintz/The New York Times/Redux

Ari Mintz/The New York Times/Redux

At 9:05 a.m. on Thursday, Oct. 23, Jian Ghomeshi leaned into the microphone for what would be his last Q with Jian Ghomeshi, though neither the CBC radio host nor his loyal audience knew it. Sitting in the red-and-black, cave-like Q studio that had seen performances by Arcade Fire and visits from Margaret Atwood, Ghomeshi began as he always did: with the trademark cheesy pick-up line addressed to a nation: “Well, hi there,” he intoned in his velvet baritone. What followed was another Q signature: a short essay almost always penned by Q staff, but positioned as Ghomeshi’s thoughtful or impassioned or funny musings. A telling measure of Ghomeshi’s popularity—and the collective belief that the words are his own—is evident in the way Q’s tongue-in-cheek protest against Kraft Dinner removing the artificial dye that made its noodles neon-orange prompted Kraft to create and tweet a mocked-up KD package with Ghomeshi’s face and the message: “Well, hi there, Jian Ghomeshi, you smooth-talking, early-rising, exquisitely coiffed national treasure.”

The essay he read on Oct. 23 was more sombre, spoken against the elegiac strains of Moby. Passionately and reassuringly, Ghomeshi addressed a country in shock from shootings on Parliament Hill the day before: “This is not what we do, who we are,” he said. He referenced Canada as CBC listeners want to believe it—an open, progressive, inclusive “land of peace and order.” He warned of political finger-pointing: “We believe too strongly in this country, this culture, this collective.” He addressed Ottawa: “A nation is grateful. A nation is thinking of you. I’m Jian Ghomeshi. This is Q.

Just five days later, his status as a man who could speak for Canada was shattered. A cryptic CBC memo announced Ghomeshi had been let go. Ghomeshi was quick to fill in the blanks, framing his termination as a high-minded fight over sexual “human rights,” as he put it in a Facebook post hours later. The letter, addressed to “my friends and family,” would inflame his progressive audience, despite the many telltale red flags—the retrograde “jilted girlfriend” trope, summoning Fatal Attraction and Gone Girl, the “freelance writer” with an axe to grind, and the claim that CBC had seen proof that all the sexual acts he was accused of were consensual, as if that were even possible. Ghomeshi, with the help of Navigator, a high-profile damage-control firm, invoked valued Canadian touchstones: He referenced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, echoing Pierre Trudeau’s “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” What he called his BDSM sexual practices were likened to scenes in Lynn Coady’s Giller prize-winning book. The note concluded by coming full circle to the Ottawa shootings: “I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country.” Within hours, the post had more than 102,000 “likes” and sparked ardent cries of support for the fallen radio host.

 

Premiere of Screen Media Film's "Trailer Park Boys: The Movie" - Arrivals

Within days, though, many of his staunchest defenders—among them Elizabeth May, Amanda Palmer and Judy Rebick—were asking themselves how they could have swallowed his version, hook, line and sinker. The warnings, beginning with the fact that we were only hearing one side of the story, were there for anyone who wanted to see. Within a week, nine women had come forward to accuse Ghomeshi of violence and sexual assault, two willing to be named. This week, Jim Hounslow, an employee at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, alleged Ghomeshi “grabbed my genitals and fondled them” when they were both students at York University in the 1990s. Toronto police launched an investigation, with three women, including actress Lucy DeCoutere (pictured left), coming forward to lay complaints, and the nation had been introduced to “Big Ears Teddy,” Winnie the Pooh’s dark doppelgänger.

By then, Canada’s most overt public shaming was in full swing. Its target: Ghomeshi, the unoffical ambassador of Canada’s “creative class,” a ubiquitous presence at galas, opening nights, concerts, screenings, awards ceremonies, panels, debates. Anger percolated over the seeming disconnect between the allegations and Ghomeshi’s public persona as an enlightened, sensitive progressive who called Jack Layton his “mentor,” who has interviewed political dissidents such as Ai Weiwei, and who tweets out support for white-ribbon campaigns. Ghomeshi had even been touted as a perfect Toronto mayoral candidate in 2012 by his friend Richard Florida, the social economist who coined the term “creative class.” “I would like to see a younger person and someone who is not the usual suspect; someone who looks and acts like Jian Ghomeshi,” Florida told Toronto Life.

As details of the allegations surfaced, a Jiandenfreude took grip: glee over the number of Facebook followers Ghomeshi was losing; Twitter shares of photographs of the scraping away of the 20-foot poster of the preternaturally youthful 47-year-old from CBC headquarters; and delight over news that yet another friend or associate had severed ties. Even his bandmates from Moxy Früvous—the group broke up almost 15 years ago— felt compelled to issue a group statement: “We are sickened and saddened by this week’s news. We had no inkling that Jian engaged in this type of behaviour.”

As those linked to Ghomeshi run for cover, the allegations provide a case study of systemic failure to address sexual assault and abuse, and they launched a full-on movement on social media.

But the soul-searching within the insular Canadian arts and cultural establishment had another component. Though the specific allegations themselves, and their horrifying nature, came as a shock to many, there had been foreshadowing for years in the circles in which Ghomeshi moved, a tribal drum dating back to his days at York University 25 years ago, warning women not to get too close. Yet, concurrently, Ghomeshi had carved out an ever-growing platform, aided by the CBC, his employer of 12 years. His public profile made him known, a familiar and seductive voice in the country’s ear.

In the circles that helped to propel Ghomeshi and kept him aloft, if there was a collective shock, it wasn’t based on the Jian we didn’t know, the Mr. Hyde we never saw. It was based on the Jian many had known for decades—the Jian hiding in plain sight.

Photograph by Peter Bregg

Photograph by Peter Bregg

As the allegations unfurled with grisly details, a new chorus emerged, with those close to Ghomeshi coming forth to say, “We knew something was off,” or, at least, “We should have known.” Articles appeared in Slate and the Guardian, along with tweets such as this one by National Post cartoonist Steve Murray: “Every time a Jian profile is about to come out, I’m like ‘FINALLY,’ and then it’s a puff piece and I get so goddamned angry.” The behaviour they referenced was Ghomeshi’s reputation as a cringe-inducing pick-up artist with a fondness for much younger women. On Facebook, former Q producer Peter Mitton reported that he was initially thrilled at being hired in “the media big leagues,” but left due to a “gnawing sense that my labour was being misspent. It may have been in the service of creating entertaining radio, but that was increasingly secondary to the service of building up the host’s public persona,” he wrote, adding: “It’s deeply troubling to hear in detail how he allegedly leveraged that same public persona in the service of his own troubled private self.”

Now, the private Ghomeshi—the version given a free pass by his employer but well known within arts and media circles as “kind of dark with women,” as a friend of one of his accusers put it to her—was suddenly public. It was a case of everybody knew—except for the hundreds of thousands of listeners who started the day with his soothing voice, and who, understandably, trusted in the person presented to them by the CBC.

No one saw that disconnect more clearly than the dozen or so people who worked on Q. Although Ghomeshi was not the boss at the show, he was the “talent”—and the place operated as his fiefdom of sorts, a workplace with exacting standards and often cruel punishment for those who didn’t live up to them. “The culture was horrifying because of Jian,” says a former female producer. “He was a master of mind games,” says another former staffer. One day, Ghomeshi would be jovial and generous; the next, cold and dismissive. His chronic lateness kept staff on edge; he kept people waiting for hours. Everyone bridled—at least privately—at his mood swings and his penchant for playing staff against one another. The predominantly female staff found themselves reduced to tears by his tirades. The trauma and unhappiness within the unit was known within CBC, says a longtime CBC employee not associated with the show. And yet, CBC management never intervened. A producer who has alleged that Ghomeshi fondled her and told her he wanted to “hate-f–k” her reported she was told by the executive producer to try to work around it; Ghomeshi wasn’t going to change. This week, according to CBC News, two more women—one a former Q staffer, another a current CBC employee—alleged Ghomeshi was abusive and sexually aggressive. One was afraid to speak out. The other says she told a supervisor but nothing happened. Even when Ghomeshi reportedly went to the CBC this spring about a story in the works about his interest in “rough sex,” management simply took his word for it that it was consensual.

But if Q staff saw a pattern of manipulation, it’s easy to see why they didn’t challenge it. “Nothing in Jian’s world happened by accident until recently,” says a former staffer. Anyone who disagreed with Ghomeshi could be cut off, says one producer: “If he perceived intellectual disagreement of any kind, he would freeze you out for days or weeks, which would make it impossible to do your job.” People who dared to confront him about his bad behaviour would be targeted. Ghomeshi could get angry and was often petulant, especially when he felt slighted. Story pitches would be subject to extra scrutiny, tiny faults would become a pretext for rewriting an entire script, and he would stop responding to emails and phone messages. Some staff came to believe that Ghomeshi was subtly telegraphing on air who was in his bad books by refusing to use their nicknames, as he usually did, when he read out the show credits at the end of the week.

Ghomeshi also had a reputation for being thin-skinned: “He could have an auditorium full of people applauding him, but if he goes out into the hall and somebody says, ‘You suck,’ it eats him alive,” says Roberto Veri, who worked as a Q producer in the show’s early days. “He’s a narcissist, very self-involved.” One former CBC employee who issued a critical tweet about an episode of Q, years after she’d left the corporation, reports that she received an angry phone call from the host.

(Rick Eglinton/Toronto Star)

(Rick Eglinton/Toronto Star)

There were occasional attempts to deal through official channels. And there was a widely shared view that management were unwilling to, or simply incapable of reining in the man who had become the face of CBC Radio. One former Q staffer saw the problem as systemic: “This whole economy at CBC is screwed up, and this guy took advantage of it. People are on contract; they don’t have secure jobs, and even those who do are led to feel lucky they do.”

In time, the line between Ghomeshi’s public-broadcaster job and personal brand blurred. Q became Q with Jian Ghomeshi, and Ghomeshi became more and more the show. In 2010, he arranged it so that when he took summers off, the show’s name would revert to Q in the Summer. Staff who didn’t tweet about him being named one of Hello! magazine’s “Most Beautiful Stars” were admonished. He took note of staffers who didn’t attend his book launch. And he made full use of the connections he made via Q, says one producer. His second book, now cancelled, was said to be about anxiety. In Q interviews, he’d insert questions about success, anxiety, and how to deal with fame, which became regular themes on the show.

The platform the show had created for him—and his on-air persona as an impossibly sensitive, progressive feminist—helped to draw women to him. He often searched for messages about him posted by women on Twitter or Facebook and, if the women were attractive, alleges one former staffer, he’d contact them directly. “He was soliciting non-stop. It was his playground.”

There was even a degree of flirting with famous and attractive women on-air, says one producer. “I was always shocked that there were no complaining letters. I guess people saw that as a charming dynamic.” It was also not uncommon for Ghomeshi to ask guests for their email addresses. “But that’s all you’d see; you wouldn’t see what was next.”

Many of the allegations made against Ghomeshi are twinned to industry events burnishing the Ghomeshi brand—the Banff television festival in 2003, show tapings, music or CBC events, signings to promote his memoir, 1982. A CBC producer in Montreal with aspirations of working on Q met Ghomeshi at one of his book signings. He expressed interest, and she said she told him: “I want to work for you, not date you.” The woman, who still works in the media but not at CBC, chose not to complain. “I felt like Jian was CBC god,” she told the Toronto Star. She received an invitation to a job interview from Ghomeshi’s executive producer shortly thereafter. She was surprised to find Ghomeshi present at the interview. She didn’t get the job.

His ego often overshadowed the show. When Q scored the Canadian exclusive with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in September, Ghomeshi seemed slighted when Assange greeted him with, “Good to be with you, Q.” He interrupted the conversation to correct him: Thank you—oh, thank you for calling me Q. I’m Jian. But you can also call me the name of the show.”

Stories circulated at the CBC about his penchant for “rough sex,” but they were mostly dismissed as gossip, says Paul Malcolm, a Q producer for four years. “I heard rumours of punching for as long as I was on the show, but I didn’t believe it.” “Jian was very private,” says another producer, who noted he seemed to have different tiers of girlfriends. There were high-profile women with whom he was aligned —Ani DiFranco, Sarah Polley, Lisa Ray, Tessa Virtue—as well as far younger women, who would accompany him after show tapings in other cities. They were of a type, she says. “They were very beautiful, very young and pencil-thin—they’d look breakable.”

Ghomeshi was known for pushing his advantage with women. One woman who met him at a party and rebuked his advances said he responded by asking if her rejection was tied to the fact that he wasn’t a “perky-nosed Brad Pitt type.” “Everyone thought he was rather confused, sexually,” says one long-time CBC staffer. “I was at a party with good friends of his; I watched him zero in on young women. He should be embarrassed, but doesn’t seem to be.”

But several women who knew him socially say the allegations don’t match the man they knew. “My experience was inconsistent with the picture that’s being painted,” says one woman, who went out with Ghomeshi in the early 2000s. Videographer Isis Essery, who filmed Ghomeshi’s book launch, has known Ghomeshi for several years: “I really don’t have any insight into this side of him,” she said in an email. “I was in just as much shock as anyone else.”

Related:
The other problem with ‘Q’
Editorial: A national conversation about sexual assault has begun. Finally.
Is it any wonder we don’t report?
#YouCantShutMeUp: Feminism goes viral
‘Q’ executive producer on leave amid Ghomeshi scandal

Ghomeshi seemed to have few, if any close relationships, says a former CBC co-worker who recalls asking him if he had a best friend. The host paused for a few seconds and finally produced the name of Jack Ross, his former manager, then added, “and whomever I am dating.” That response struck the co-worker as both sad and telling. “His best friends are a guy he pays, and whatever young woman he’s going out with this week,” said the former employee. One woman who dated him is now trying to sell her story.

Ghomeshi would occasionally brag about his conquests when only men were present, providing graphic details; there was never a mention of violence. “All it served to do was verify my impression of him as a douchey guy,” says Malcolm. Veri, who left the show in 2009 after his contract was not renewed, says one of the executive producers once told him that a well-known Canadian actress had claimed that the Q host had tried to choke her during a sexual encounter, but he didn’t know whether to believe the tale. Veri also says he once witnessed Ghomeshi come up behind a female co-worker and grind his pelvis into her. But the woman—now one of the 11 who has come forward with allegations—did not complain at the time, and Veri, uncertain of the circumstances, never mentioned what he had seen.

Within Q, there’s now concern that the show’s profile as a forum for socially and politically relevant topics—rape culture, queer-positive stories, trans stories, anti-racist stories—provided cover: “Jian cultivated an identity of total progressiveness,” says a Q producer who is grappling with the allegations. “I found it really confusing at first, because, on one level, this is not the person I know. He’s someone I like a lot and care for—and all of those things make it incredibly hard. But, as it sunk in more and more, the scales are falling from my eyes. I’m seeing that some of the other behaviours that were well known—like what a narcissist he was and how toxic he could be in the workplace—are related to all of this. Now, women on the show are asking: How much were we being manipulated to prop up that identity to help protect him from this other side—and provide a gateway?” Yet this, too, was not a secret within the CBC. A woman who interned in 2009 recalls rumours of Ghomeshi’s “inappropriate behaviour” while there, but saw no sign of it. Toward the end of her time there, a senior female producer took her aside to ask if Ghomeshi had made any inappropriate comments or had asked her out.

Jian Ghomeshi circa 1990, campaigning for York Student Federation President.

Jian Ghomeshi circa 1990, campaigning for York Student Federation President.

Ghomeshi’s ability to inspire near-messianic devotion to his politically progressive message—amid rumours and whisper campaigns—dates back decades, to his days at Toronto’s York University, where he began as a theatre major in 1985 and graduated with a degree in political science in 1995, with time out to tour with Moxy Früvous. In 1989, when he still went by Jean Ghomeshi, he staged a bold, but unsuccessful, coup to overthrow the student government. “It was like he was the Messiah,” says Peter Merrick, who sat on council at the time. “He came in with that flowing hair and people who supported him.” Ghomeshi spoke for those beyond the then-conservative student-council orbit: He wanted to bring more women, minorities and queer students, and their concerns, into student government. “It was like he was their saviour,” says Merrick. “He played right into that. He had this persona and supported all the right things; he took control of the narrative.”

The following year, Ghomeshi was elected president of the Council of the York Federation of Students with a record-breaking number of votes (he changed its name to the York Federation of Students, or YFS). His followers were known as “Ghomeshi-ites,” Merrick says. “He had this following of women, specifically; they were sort of enamoured with him. He had a rock-star persona.”

At York, Ghomeshi “wanted to be the champion of women’s issues,” says Mitch Blass, a council vice-president. Ghomeshi’s election promises included increasing funding to the Women’s Centre. He spoke out in support of increased safety measures for women on campus, and co-founded a pro-choice network. Under him, YFS boycotted and published names of companies that have “ties to, or engage in racist, sexist, or homophobic activities.”

But then, as in more recent years, it could be hard to separate the politics from personal, less ennobled ambition. Ghomeshi could be a “shameless self-promoter,” says Chris Lawson, who was on staff with the Ontario Federation of Students during Ghomeshi’s presidency, and is now a communications officer with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He recalls the student leader being front and centre among York students at a Queen’s Park rally for abortion funding: “Here’s this dude, carrying the banner, which, to a lot of people, was an act of ultimate hubris. I think most men who support women and support women’s rights wouldn’t want to take up all that space at the head of a parade about abortion. They would see their role as being supportive.”

Lawson also calls Ghomeshi a “saviour” figure, “in the sense that he was a president of [a student council] that had hitherto been a real political wasteland. And here he was, bringing them into the student federation. He was charismatic, he was good-looking, he played guitar, he could sing, he was this perfect kind of renaissance man, with great politics, to boot.”

Word around campus was that Ghomeshi used feminist lingo and his progressive credentials to get women into bed, says Lawson: “We used to treat it like a joke, in the sense that he was so blatant about it.” Men saw Ghomeshi as a “douchebag” with an incredible ego, says a male student who knew him at the time: “Maybe we despised him because he figured out how to use feminism to f–k women. It was obvious to many of us that he was strategically using that kind of sensitive, new-age guy, feminist guy. He was playing the role. He really, really needed a lot of attention.”

Student politics can be vicious, and some of his critics joked about creating a mock poster featuring a photograph of Ghomeshi hugging a woman with a smile on his face, Lawson recalls: “The wording on it was going to be, ‘Ever think about sleeping with men?’ ” And at the bottom, it was going to say: ‘Think again.’ ”

A woman who sat with him on the federation says he’d only talk to women in his office behind closed doors, even though that was against university policy. There was subterranean disenchantment, says Lawson, who says, “The shine started to come off of him. He was starting to lose fans among the groups that had got him elected. He was the figurehead, and they had done all the work.” But, years before his rise as a feminist hero, he had a reputation as a male feminist pig, at least according to Kerry Eady, who attended York in 1988-89 and lived in Stong residence. Eady recalls attending a meeting with 25 other women convened by female residence advisers at Stong before Christmas 1988 to warn them, after a few women had reported having “bad dates” with Ghomeshi. Those allegations involving hitting; one women claimed she’d been choked in the stairwell. In echoes of responses to alleged harassment at the CBC 25 years later, the York women were told to be vigilant—and to work around him, Eady told Maclean’s. “We were told to report his presence in co-ed floors or at house parties, so residence advisers could escort him out. He was considered a creep.” Maclean’s was unable to find others to corroborate the story at press time, though Merrick noted that rumours abounded that Ghomeshi could be “emotionally abusive with women.”

Moxy Fruvous. (Colin McConnell/Getty Images)

Moxy Fruvous (Colin McConnell/Getty Images)

Ghomeshi’s natural inclination to the spotlight—for someone who’d always identified as an outsider, he had an uncanny way of gravitating to the centre of things—also found expression in Moxy Früvous, the band he co-founded in 1990 and which became known for its antic theatrics, social satire and progressive audience. Its 1992 video for King of Spain, its first hit, was graced with cameos by Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, Daniel Richler, Cynthia Dale and Sarah Polley. There was no one front man, but when the band was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and People, Ghomeshi was the one quoted. In 2000, The National ran a short item about a song he’d written commemorating Pierre Trudeau, prime minister when his parents emigrated from England. A staffer was struck by Ghomeshi’s desire for the spotlight: “When I met him, I thought, ‘Man, this guy wants to be on CBC so bad, I can taste it.’ ”

In 2002, when Newsworld, the CBC’s cable news channel, was scrambling for a host for a new live, late-night pop-culture show, Play, Ghomeshi auditioned. The show, targeted to an under-40 audience, was part of the network’s ongoing “hip replacement” campaign, as one staffer puts it, to shed its highfalutin, fusty image. Ghomeshi’s personality, not his audition, won him the job, says a former Play staffer: “It was his charm, it was the way he spoke to the producers.” Staff were skeptical; Ghomeshi’s hosting experience was limited, he had no journalistic experience and he needed training in how to read a script, he says. A Globe and Mail reviewer was not impressed by his debut: “Ghomeshi is a breath of fresh air and he can be funny, but, in a rough tape sent for review, he displayed an odd habit: During an interview, he’d turn and mug for the camera. I’m all for lightening up things at the CBC, but this is just irritating, not to mention rude.”

The program quickly became the “Jian Ghomeshi show,” says the staffer. “He knew how to sell a crowd; that was his stage persona.” Former “Frü-heads,” as Moxy Früvous groupies were known, were busing in to see him, the staffer recalls: “After the show, he wasn’t there to socialize with the team; he was there for the fans. He’d always leave the show with someone who showed up.” Eyes would roll, but no one said anything, the staffer said. “We didn’t want to be judgmental. There was nothing illegal going on. Still, you’d think a 37-year-old man shouldn’t be hitting on 22-year-old women.”

Play’s predominately female staff joked about being part of “Jian’s harem.” He could be inappropriately “touchy-feely,” offering women back rubs, his former colleague says. Men on the show could not stand him, the staffer says. “There was something about him; he didn’t make eye contact with men.” Offstage, Ghomeshi was known as insecure, even paranoid, often storming out of meetings at any criticism. When the show filmed a cinéma vérité-style “day in the life of Play,” footage showed Ghomeshi in an unflattering light (“It was him being him,” the staffer says). He brought in his agent to stop it from airing; an edited, sanitized version was presented for public viewing.

But Ghomeshi prevailed by knowing what the Mother Corp. wanted to hear: “We’re trying to be a smart and critical show without being highbrow,” he told the Toronto Sun in 2002, adding, “I see myself as the new, brown Tommy Hunter.” The end of Play in 2005 due to poor ratings was not the end of Ghomeshi: He continued to be a regular contributor to arts and culture segments on The Hour and was handed other assignments. Ghomeshi knew how to appeal to CBC suits: “He told me he wanted to be his generation’s Peter Gzowski,” Chris Boyce, then head of program development (now executive director) at CBC Radio, told Toronto Life in 2013. Ghomeshi told him: “Okay, this is where I want to be, and I want you to tell me what I need to do to get there,” he said. He was given test runs hosting a panel-driven music series and, later, an 11-week gig filling in for Shelagh Rogers on Sounds Like Canada, which occupied the prime 10-11:30 a.m. time slot once held by Gzowski’s Morningside. Ghomeshi shook up the format, playing Radiohead and introducing more pop-culture coverage. Producers and long-time listeners were disgruntled; Boyce was thrilled.

Ghomeshi’s quest for the spotlight dovetailed with a seismic shift within a public broadcaster. In the mid-aughts, the network launched a study to find out how to resuscitate its audience: The over-55 crowd was dying out and not being replaced. Traditional public-radio ideals of the public trust, and it being a privilege to host a program, were being replaced by private broadcasting mantras, says a former CBC host and producer. “There was this weird crossover idea around popularity and accessibility, and this anti-intellectual thing began sweeping through—the sense that CBC is snobby and elitist and we have to change that. Stodgy old hosts and British accents were bad news.”

YouTube

YouTube

Veteran broadcast executive Richard Stursberg arrived in 2004 and filled the schedule with share-boosting shows such as Dragons’ Den, Battle of the Blades and Wheel of Fortune. Hosts from “planet TV,” such as George Stromboulopoulos and Ghomeshi, were groomed for stardom, a former staffer says. “It was very [Marshall] McLuhan-esque: The medium is the message. But these guys are the message themselves; it’s all about them.”

Stursberg, too, was a Ghomeshi fan, gushing in his 2012 memoir Tower of Babble that the host was “so clever, so charming and so driven.” Q began airing in March 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Ghomeshi lobbied hard for the prized former Morningside slot, Stursberg writes. “ ‘Put me in. We’ll move the numbers,’ [Ghomeshi] promised.” In June 2008, Ghomeshi got his wish. The move was meant to telegraph a major shift in direction, Stursberg writes: “It would indicate that we were pursuing a more urban and more contemporary feel, along with a younger demographic.”

It’s a formula that worked. As many as 811,000 tune into Q during an average weekday, and 6.9 million listeners tuned in at some point during the 2013 and 2014 season. That’s fewer daily listeners than The Current boasts, but Q is also syndicated in 160 stations in the U.S. on Public Radio International. Julia Yager, PRI’s senior vice-president for sales and marketing, says the number of Americans listening to Q on a weekly basis was 858,000 in spring 2014, up six per cent from last fall. Q is “one of the faster-growing public radio programs in the U.S.,” she says. A weekly televised version of the show draws 300,000 viewers, the Q YouTube channel averages 1.5 million hits per month, and the podcast gets about 250,000 downloads every week.

On the broader stage, too, the CBC’s investment in Ghomeshi—he’s reported to make just shy of $500,000 annually—paid off. In 2012, there was much celebration when Ghomeshi was named best talk-show host at the New York Festivals International Radio Awards. A former CBC employee sees Ghomeshi’s appeal to the CBC as a “projection screen for a lot of CBC insecurities. There was this idea of the non-existent Canadian star system, and we need somebody to participate in all of the s–ty galas we have. And Michael Enright might not be that guy.”

“It was a complicit relationship,” says a former CBC producer. “It wasn’t as if Jian arrived fully formed as their dream. He made sure he appealed to them, too, which is how he made the leap from a Newsworld show, which used to be the place [where] the smart people played.”

The medium worked for him, says a long-time CBC staffer. “On television, there was something about him that radio doesn’t have. He has that voice. On TV, he’s awkward.” Radio allowed Ghomeshi a tool of seduction, says a CBC host. “It’s incredibly intimate. It’s like a needle mainlining through a main vein. You invite people into your house, your car, your bedroom.” Ghomeshi consciously mirrored guests’ tone and cadence to create the illusion of intimacy, he told Toronto Life in 2013: “People connect with people who sound like them,” he said, “not to be too Machiavellian.”

Such was the sway of a man who referred to himself as the “Persian Prince” on Twitter that management sided with his version of events for months—until Ghomeshi himself served up graphic evidence that he had “injured a woman,” as executive vice-president Heather Conway wrote in an internal CBC memo the week after he was fired. “We also spoke to Jian at that time, and asked him directly if there was any truth to the allegations,” she wrote. “Based on Jian’s denial, we continued to believe Jian.”

Now, the network that believed and gave Ghomeshi a public platform is forced to look at what was lurking in plain sight. “It’s not simply the fact that it’s a show branded and sold with his image, but also that the CBC represents public trust,” says a former Q staffer. “Even if you don’t agree with the existence of a public broadcaster, the CBC belongs to everyone; it’s a public trust. What’s so tragic about this, is that has to exist in good faith, and partners have to exist in good faith to have that a living thing. That’s something that was abused. To think that it may have feathered his nest—that is such a monstrous story.”

It’s a story that’s far from over. Ghomeshi, who has gone underground, was reported to be in Los Angeles, then Ontario’s Muskoka region. He has said he plans to address the allegations, but has not yet done so. (Maclean’s requests for an interview were not answered.) Before any charges have been laid, the organizations that depended on Ghomeshi’s marquee value and showman skills have all distanced themselves. The Giller prize replaced him as its gala host; the Polaris Music Prize dropped him as a juror. Penguin Random House cancelled his second book—and told booksellers it had ceased further production of 1982. Valerie Poxleitner, the 27-year-old Toronto electropop musician known as Lights, had initially defended Ghomeshi, her manager for the past 12 years; this week, she posted a message on her Facebook page saying she had severed their business ties. “I am now aware that my comments appear insensitive to those impacted, and for that I am deeply sorry,” she wrote. “I hope everyone can heal from this.” Former Q guests—among them Atwood and musician Owen Pallett—added their names to petitions decrying violence against women. People who profited directly have also disassociated themselves. Speakers’ bureaus severed ties. So did Ghomeshi’s long-time manager and publicist. And in what is seen as an unprecedented move, Navigator, known for helping politicians and celebrities out of ignoble scrapes, dropped Ghomeshi as a client, suggesting worse to come. Based on what we’re finally seeing, that’s inevitable.

—with Jonathon Gatehouse, Michael Friscolanti, Genna Buck, Rachel Browne and Martin Patriquin


 
Filed under:

Jian Ghomeshi: How he got away with it

  1. He got away with it because for 2000 years our culture has been anti-women. People operate on assumptions they don’t even know they have.

    • “People operate on assumptions they don’t even know they have.”
      Hmmm

      • Like the saying that ‘fish don’t know they live in water’

        We accept everything about religion, women…life in general….because it’s what we grew up with.

        So unless something draws our attention to it….and makes us question it…..we just operate on the beliefs we already have without knowing it.

        • Oh, I understood what you meant. I found the statement ironic that’s all.

          • Oh, I thought you wanted to talk seriously.

          • I’ll explain. he found it ironic because you are the least self-aware of anyone we might find in these threads.

          • LOL This from the man who thinks I live in Ottawa and wants Canadian troops in Syria.

            Take your meds RR.

          • Denying your own words now are you?

            Raging Ranter Oct 26 2014: Where? Tell us where, right now, you want to send a Canadian peace-keeping force.

            EmilyOne Oct 26 2014: Okay then…between the Ukrainians and the rebels…..between the Israelis and the Palestinians and in Syria.

            Are you denying this conversation took place?

            If so, here’s the link to refresh your memory:

            http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/bearing-witness/

          • Ahhh…t’ole gaffer is trying to be cute.

            Sorry hon, you can’t just apply answers randomly.

            Go take your meds.

          • Nothing random about it hon. I asked you a direct question – where would you send Canadian peace-keepers right now? – and you answered it. Then you denied saying any such thing 5 minutes later, as is your habit. You deny it still. But there it is. Thank you. Always a pleasure to highlight your, um….. cognitive lapses.

        • Like I said, you can’t fit old answers to new random questions….no matter how hard you try.

          Altho I’m sure your meds make it sound alright to you. LOL

          Now then, off you go. No more silliness.

        • Yeah, sure, Emily =- none of us use our heads, our common sense or what might become of unacceptable behaviour. The real problem is that those who spend a lot of time listening or watching our mindless media worship celebrities. I have a hard time thinking of this creep as a celebrity but some must.

      • We do have far to much faith in others, politicians, religions and even news articles.

        Me, I resist, and try to be a unbeliever, always looking beyond the words. Public schools raise us with blind faith and conformance with an abstinance of critical and rational thinking, its by design. Makes us easier to lead, and many want us on the wrong path for their own motives.

        Took me many years to figure this out, as its a society level flaw.

    • This is a ridiculous comment. For 2000 years our culture has been about men protecting women and children at the expense of their own lives and wellbeing. When a story like this breaks, we all pile on because we have found yet another example of a perpetrator (i.e men) and a victim (women). But when a story breaks about a Winnipeg woman killing charged with concealing the bodies of 6 babies in her storage locker, we can´t even bring ourselves to call her what she is: God forbid we jump to conclusions about how the dead babies got there. In our feminized culture, women are victims, never perpetrators and so the JG firestorm seems perfectly normal while murderers who happen to be female are treated with kid gloves. Message to all you feminists out there: There will never be true gender equality until women start taking equal responsibility and accountability for their actions and that includes punishing those among you who murder, defraud, abuse, sexually abuse children, cheat and steal, to the same degree as male perpetrators. Then perhaps, there will be some room for male victims of murder, fraud, female teacher sexual abuse etc.. because, at the moment, the victim space is fully occupied, there´s no room at the inn.

      • Wow….I dunno where you took history, but it only seems to have covered a fairy tale about King Arthur.

        • Your response fits my response to Zoostationz exactly. Can you acknowledge that any of the abuses committed by women that he or she has mentioned have happened?

        • LOL of course women are so hard done by. Specially Canadian women in 2014. Everybody should just stop whatever they’re doing to feel sorry for Canadian women today. You win the Oppression Olympics.

      • I totally agree here. I’ve been wondering when anyone is going to acknowledge the astonishing number of female high school teachers who have been caught abusing male teenage students. And if these are just the ones who have been caught. But the media, nor anyone else has noticed them. Certainly no official feminist organization has. That’s one reason I no longer call myself a feminist. I call myself a humanist because I believe too often female chauvinism is disguised as feminism. I also hate emotional blackmail which is so often deployed by feminists, and that is to make everyone feel guilty for their grievances and anyone who questions their grievances is added to the list of enemies of women. If we believe in justice for human beings we will be covering all human beings. But there are feminists who hate the term ‘humanist’ and that’s another reason I, and an awful lot of women I know, don’t like to be called feminists.

        • I’ve wondered too why so many stories of female teachers abusing underage boys are small mentions. Also, regardless of what I thought about the story, I was astonished that several more liberal media outlets completely ignored the Lena Dunham story for days, yet felt it was more newsworthy to prominently feature a porn star humiliating a sports figure for asking her to find him a date. The biases are so blatant it’s hard to not take away that certain media outlets are pushing an agenda, and hard. Some feminists are employing the same tactics that people who defend Israeli aggression use. Don’t dare to comment or criticize because you will be labelled. It’s blatant censorship and it’s quite disturbing.

        • I don’t know, though, Christina, that stories about female teachers abusing male students get `small mentions.’ It seems that they are prominently mentioned in news stories.

          Some of the accused have even been acquitted.

        • Really well-said

      • I agree with you (and no, I’m not a man). I’m in full agreement that anyone – male or female, any colour, any faith – should be held accountable for wrongdoing, and that includes public figures like JG. There are sociopaths everywhere, both men and women, but women are definitely seen as the “less-serious offenders,” and female-on-male violence is routinely shrugged-off as not-too-serious – this, despite the fact that police officers confirm at least 50% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women. Yes, that means half is perpetrated by men – but we already know men can be violent. The point is that women can be, too. And women hold the market on other kinds of “crimes,” even if we aren’t at the point in society, yet, where we recognize them as crimes – women, for example, who conspire to entrap men into providing 20 years of financial support by intentionally becoming pregnant. Oh, I can hear the protests now, even through my computer! The point I mean to make is this – that the conversation needs to be less about “a certain kind of man,” and more about individuals who perpetrate crimes – and the oddities in our media culture that allow some crimes to go unanswered.

    • Still waiting in vain for your robot milkman, right EmilyAgedOne?

    • He got away with nothing….he’ll be paying one way or another for a long time

    • What a ridiculous statement. Yeah, our society is anti-women, that’s why we allow the vast majority of teachers educating our children to be women, because we hate women so much.

  2. A friend asked…”Who is Jian hoping they don’t discover?”… he was speculating that there may be many more victims, some of whom maybe worse off than those we currently know about. Here’s hoping there are no others.

    • Looks like quite a bit may come spilling out….from him, Parliament, everybody.

      And a week ago…or whatever it was….I’d never heard of him.

  3. How did he get away with it? The article explains that very clearly:

    Within Q, there’s now concern that the show’s profile as a forum for socially and politically relevant topics—rape culture, queer-positive stories, trans stories, anti-racist stories—provided cover: “Jian cultivated an identity of total progressiveness,”

    Lawson also calls Ghomeshi a “saviour” figure, “in the sense that he was a president of [a student council] that had hitherto been a real political wasteland.

    The platform the show had created for him —and his on-air persona as an impossibly sensitive, progressive feminist—helped draw women to him.

    Ghomeshi’s ability to inspire near-messianic devotion to his politically progressive message—amid rumours and whisper campaigns—dates back decades… “It was like he was the Messiah,” …“He came in with that flowing hair and people who supported him.” …he wanted to bring more women, minorities and queer students, and their concerns, into student government. “It was like he was their saviour,” says Merrick. “He played right into that. He had this persona and supported all the right things; he took control of the narrative.”

    Word around campus was that Ghomeshi used feminist lingo and his progressive credentials to get women into bed… “Maybe we despised him because he figured out how to use feminism to f–k women. It was obvious to many of us that he was strategically using that kind of sensitive, new-age guy—feminist guy. He was playing the role. He really, really needed a lot of attention.”

    What more needs to be said? A person who carefully places himself on the fashionable side of every “progressive” cause, and carefully cultivates that public image, earns himself an awful lot of social capital, which he can spend recklessly, even abusively.

    • LOL Jesus was a progressive.

      Looked about the same too.

      • Looks like they’ll meet the same end too. Except in Jian’s case, the “being nailed to the cross” will be more figurative, though no less career-ending.

        • Jesus rose again.

  4. …I had a passion for politics and history and that is what I ended up doing—pursing a political science and history double major that turned into a political science major/history minor with women’s studies as a minor as well.

    http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/jian-ghomeshis-advice-for-students/

    Even his education is unabashedly liberal arts-progressive. A man in women’s studies courses in the 1980s & early 90s? Such manginas are common place on campus nowadays, but he was breaking new ground 25 years ago.

    • Jian is a “Stepford” wife to the CBC … he needs to be re-programmed. And, thank you, for using the word “mangina” in a sentence. I’ve not heard anyone willing to label Ghomeshi with such a strong and all encompassing concept … well done.

      • You guys sure are frightened of women. Especially women with books.

        Worse than Isil.

        • I can understand your hurt and confusion Emily. Jian was absolutely everything you believe a man should be. Liberal arts educated – a minor in women’s studies no less. Well traveled. Well-known and respected internationally – syndicated on over 180 radio stations world wide. A Torontonian who is unfailingly progressive on every front. His life story to this point mimics exactly the advice you doll out to younger people in these threads all the time.

          In short, even though you claim not to have heard of him, he was one of your own. He exemplified what you believe Canadians should aspire to be. And if even a handful of the stories are true, he’s an abusive pervert who treats women like trash. I can only imagine the sense of betrayal you must be feeling right now. No wonder you were suggesting in another post that his problem was mental illness. That was you trying to cope. Your attempt to paint us as anti-woman because we dare to criticize Ghomeshi is just another misguided coping strategy. Unconsciously, you still can’t help but defend him. I hope I am never so morally confused as you. It must be a tortuous existence.

          • LOL nice try turnip-truck but I haven’t the slightest interest in your sexual confusion.

            Or in your confusion about my city.

            Actually, you’re just plain confused.

            Probably comes from squashing your balls up that way.

    • Was he always like this? A big phoney all along? Why didn’t the CBC speak to him about his behaviour at the numerous social events he went to? It was an “open secret” to the people who regularly went to these events and they warned new-comers about him based on what I’ve read. I don’t believe that word didn’t get back to them. I read his facebook post and it was pretty smarmy and I don’t believe for a moment that it all the women were fine with it as he insists. The CBC took their sweet time about doing something about him and now they are getting heat. It seems like they deserve it.

      • The article explains exactly how and why he got away with it for as long as he did. He knew how to say just the right things at just the right times, and to do so consistently.

  5. In the end he will get what he deserves. Karma has a way of biting you in the rear and restoring balance to the universe. I just feel bad for all of those women who felt they had to stay silent lest their reputations be destroyed by this predator.

    • He was a bully in every sense of the word. Now he’s getting his. It’s a pleasure to watch.

      • Will your disdain for bullies extend beyond those that are “progressives?”
        I’ve heard that word applied many, many times to certain people in government, including the guy at the top.

        • ahh yes, the other “mangina” at the top.
          ;)

        • Still crying over some ads you didn’t like?

    • And, yes, I too was acquainted with him during my days at York and he gave me the “douchechills”… One of those people your gut tells you to avoid.

  6. It’s telling that this predator was protected for years by leftists, feminists and gender activists. All he had to do was speak the politically correct language and support the politically correct causes in order to prey on others without fear. This betrays the utter shallowness of those that judge people by their political affiliations instead of their character. I’m guessing all those CBC managers that ignored complaints of sexual harassment are running for cover. This is a morality tale where large numbers of people were complicit in protecting a criminal because of their own self interest. Now the CBC will have as much dirt on its face as the BBC does for turning a blind eye to the predators in their midst.

    • I’ve met men like Jian all my life….most of ’em were heavy on the studly stuff. MachoX….even in a suit.

      Liberal arts has nothing to do with it.

      • The point being that his liberal arts education, his travel, his international credentials, all things you hold in high regard, did nothing for his character. It is true, his education nothing to do with him turning out this way. Nor did his liberal arts degree prevent it.

        A few months ago, under a piece about Mountie killer Justin Bourque, you wrote that an education and some travel were all he would have needed to avoid turning out like he did. Well apparently you now need to revisit those beliefs. Clearly neither education nor travel can overcome serious character flaws.

        • He lived in a poverty-stricken, overly religious, claustrophobic home….with no experience of a wider world.

          Perhaps some time travelling, and a better education than the one he was getting from ma and ma would have saved him.

          Is there some reason why you think Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Darwin, Newton, Orwell etc were somehow bad for the world?

          • Ghomeshi did precisely what you prescribed for Bourque. You see the results. You tell me.

    • Exact. Political correctness cultivates personas.

      • Deviants exist in all classes and leanings.
        What’s next? Are you gonna try and pin this on JT?

        • I agree, deviants exist in all classes, leanings, and in both genders now matter how they present themselves publicly. My comment was in reference to Paxilittle’s. People who had no inkling about his private life were particularly shocked because he was representative of certain political views.

  7. His type of behaviour in the workplace is more widespread than people like to admit. I have witnessed this type of narcissism and abuse in several work environments, large and small, and in both men and women. If the person is perceived as valuable to the company, superiors will generally turn a blind eye to behaviours that can be toxic to so many around them. It is also possible for one person to house multiple dualities. Someone can identify as progressive, a feminist, a pacifist, etc. yet still exhibit violent and abusive tendencies. Psychological and emotional makeup don’t always correlate with one’s politics. Our demons and virtues co-exist inside all of us. In Mr. Ghomeshi’s case, I suspect his demons take up a little more space than the average.

  8. “See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil”

    I wish current & former CBC on-air personalities who worked with Ghomeshi who’ve written about Jian since the scandal broke would admit to the obvious: they MUST have heard stuff about Jian’s bad rep re. mistreating women as it appears to have been such common knowledge at CBC, & in the entertainment industry generally. But Strombo, Steve Burgess (who was a regular on Jian’s “Play” show), & Elvira Kurt (who has had a regular weekly spot on Q) are three have all written post-scandal pieces on Ghomeshi, & none of the three own up to having ever heard a single story or rumour about Jian ever mistreating women. Seem implausible.

    “Do You Know About Jian?,” a blog post by “Melissa,” recounts Jian’s rep as a predator coming up again & again over years in conversations with people in the entertainment industry across Canada, starting with when she was warned by someone in the music biz to “be careful” around Jian as “he’s weird with women,” although she hadn’t known the worst stuff about beatings & chokings.

    A female former CBC intern wrote a piece titled “Former Q Intern Pissed Off at CBC Inaction,” by Toula Drimonis. She writes: “No question, JG had been a creep and a predator for years, and everyone knew it.” And that she, “like everyone else,” had heard “plenty of stories about his behaviour.” She didn’t know specifically about the choking & fists, but had heard repeated tales of Jian “creeping (women) on Facebook. Hitting on interns and junior staff at CBC. Grabby hands.”

    It seems incredible people in the entertainment biz who are or have been CBC regulars could believably have avoided hearing multiple stories of Jian’s bad rep with women. Elvira Kurt not only avoids admitting to it like Strombo & Burgess, she flatly denies it in Nov. 4 press interview: QUOTE: “I didn’t know about his reputation, I only knew him professionally,” Yeah, right.

    I wish these CBC personalities when they write about Ghomeshi would be brave enough to be honest with their readers instead of pretending they never heard a thing about his bad rep till the scandal broke wide open. Not believable.

    • …typos…Correction:
      “…are three who have all written post-scandal pieces on Ghomeshi, & none of the three own up to having ever heard a single story or rumour about Jian ever mistreating women. Seems implausible.”

    • The “Former Q Intern Pissed Off at CBC Inaction” piece was written by Elisabeth Faure.

  9. Elizabeth May and Justin Trudeau were both made aware of my case
    directly by me, but no media was watching, so I guess they didn’t have
    to make a choice, in my case. They straight up disregarded me, just like everyone I spoke to in the Conservative Party.

    ———————————————————————

    A Freemason network started out as a network of people in BC government jobs when the NDP was in power in the 1990’s, who were family-related by blood or marriage. Over time, they filled more and more government positions with people from their Freemason network. I was very perplexed by what I was seeing, and it took me many years of relentless research and investigation before I was able to see what had happened, and why. Before I was victimized by a government official, I had no idea what a Freemason was. In fact, an estranged member of my own family is in that Freemason network, and clearly had me targeted for blatant and overwhelming sabotage. The primary oath taken upon joining Freemasonry, is to do that which is asked of them by other Freemasons, and if you examine for yourself, you will see that every prominant lawyer in Canada, is a Freemason, and that leads to Freemason judges, so you cannot penetrate the justice process if you are targeted by that network. Since they don’t all know each other personally, they have a system of gestures that enables them to recognize another Freemason. They are facilitated by Freemason civil servants, who schedule which judge you will stand before in a trial, and Freemason police who have your name documented to be forwarded to specific individuals when you make contact with them. If they want to fix your case, they will set you before a Freemason judge. I would highly recommend that you inform yourself by way of your own research, because the hierarchy of mainstream media is firmly entrenched in Freemasonry as well, so you will never hear about Freemasonry on the six o’clock news. In the United States, judges and Attorney Generals are elected. In Canada, they are appointed by politicians.

    Freemasonry is a private society, and therefore, would operate under the Unlawful Societies Act of Canada, which would require them to report annually on the nature of their business activities, and the names of their Board of Directors. There are no Freemason Lodges that are reporting in Canada, therefore, there can be no “legal” Freemasons in Canada. For this reason, anyone who is a member of Freemasonry in Canada, is a felon under Canadian law. Yet, our landscape is dotted with Freemason Lodges all over the country. Recently, John Carten of the water war crimes website, requested specific BC judges to answer on whether or not they are Freemasons, and they took the position of “no comment”. Furthermore, are you aware that judges in Canada have no obligation to answer to anyone for their conduct, except to the Judicial Council of Canada, which is comprised of Freemason judges.

    I can also state with absolute firmness, that therein lies the reason that nobody will look at my evidence, and that is because they already know that I’m telling the truth. In fact, I have never asked anyone to believe me based on my claims. I have always asked that the evidence be examined, because it cannot be denied by that undertaking. Over time, thousands of Canadian policitians, police, lawyers and advocates have refused to talk to me or examine my evidence.

    The following link will get you started on your journey. You might also look at the Graveyard of the Guilty, which reports that more than 40 people have died suddenly and suspiciously, that were all connected to one specific legal case, of which 14 of those sudden deaths were supreme court judges, including the murder of Canadian Chief Justice Carolyn Laden-Stephenson. The case turns on selling BC fresh water to the southern United States and Mexico to alleviate their drought, and who exactly is going to come away with the cash benefits of those multi-millions of dollars. The claim is that these people were murdered after they facilitated with corrupt legal decisions, because they knew too much. They could have turned on the Freemasons and exposed them individually, so they were stifled in order to prevent that from happening. This is a private network, operating within government, so it would not be factual to say that all police, judges, politicians and civil servants are Freemasons, but they seem to be outnumbering non-Freemasons in major positions of authority at an alarming rate, and that makes Canadians enslaved. This could happen to you. It happens to Canadians every day, but with the mainstream media protecting the network, most typical Canadians don’t know it’s happening until they find themselves, as individuals, pulled into it while attempting to enforce or defend their legal, civil or constitutional rights. When that happens, who are you going to tell? In my case, the only one listening is you.

    Please Help Me.

    http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/newest-developments-blog—breaking-news—follow-ongoing-developments-here/canadian-chief-judges-hinkson-and-crabtree-refuse-to-disclose-membership-in-freemasonry-the-corrupt-courts-of-british-columbia-canada

      • You don’t know who wrote that wikipedia page, and you don’t know me, so why are you choosing a side, without examining any evidence on either side? That is the kind of brainwashed thinking that allows this network to flourish.

        • Wikipedia lists who writes the pages. And there are footnotes at the bottom.

          Choose a side? Examine evidence? This is all old crap long ago debunked.

          YOU need to talk to your doctor.

          • You are the one that has mental health issues. You are brainwashed. You are implying that this could not happen, and that is a foolish implication, especially considering that it is happening. A lot of media have read my posts over time, and not one has ever stepped up and asked to see this evidence that I claim to have. They are never going to do that, because the hierarchy of mainstream media are Freemasons. I would suggest that you either disprove my claims with evidence, or shut up.

          • Then kindly tell us who you think wrote the wikipedia page that you linked above.

          • I don’t have time to waste on people who should be on medication. Ciao.

          • Why don’t you back up your statement before you leave? Is it because you and I both know that you made a false statement about that wikipedia page? You say you don’t have time to waste on people who should be medicated, but yet, you repeatedly reply to my posts. You see, those are “specific” examples that disprove your credibility. If you are going to accuse me of lying about anything, you need to state a “specific” example, or else shut up.

          • You’ve finally run into someone as crazy as you Emily. Have at ‘er.

        • I Alan I know what you are saying is true about the freemasons….they are insidious and the real threat behind the world’s powers…The freemasons the shriners and countless others secret societies. ..go to great lengths to stay under the radar…ambiguous. I will check out that site. Keep spreading the word…and fighting the good fight. By the way the LDS Mormon church has it roots in Freemasonry and many are affiliated with both or either or…They have similar insidious goals…do your research …it is there to be found online. Both of these orgs want to rule the world.

          • It’s always refreshing, KWW, to enounter people who are informed about the reality of freemasonry. Part of the problem is that, over time, they have staffed senior positions within government, justice, policing, politics and media. Therefore, you cannot penetrate those entities to enforce or uphold your civil and constitutional rights, without interference by their network, if you happen to be targeted or opposed to anyone connected with their authority. I have a plethora of evidence of multiple criminal actions by several judges, politicians, lawyers and civil servants within BC justice, and nobody will examine that evidence. I cannot lay criminal charges without the involvement and cooperation of law enforcement, and they perpetually disregard my requests to examine the evidence in support of criminal charges. What is especially frustrating, is foolish people who want to mock victims of this network, and make statements of fact that freemasonry is a conspiracy theory, yet they appear oblivious to the existence of freemason lodges and freemason graveyards in every major Canadian city. The ultimate irony of freemasonry, is that you must be a Christian when you enter the cult, or at least worship a religious idol of some kind {no atheists} yet it morphs into satanism at the 33rd degree. Therefore, a satanic cult is tricking Christians into their membership, and most of them don’t even know it. I wonder why nobody has noticed that all the same entertainment icons at the highest eschelon of the industry, all have the same art….miley, beyonce, rihanna…..they all promote bondage, reptiles, sexual degradation of women…..that is not accidental. Please feel free to contact me on facebook. I would like to know how you acquired your realization.

    • Chief Justice Carolyn Laden-Stephenson died of cancer you psycho. Stop using her death to further your delusional nonsense. You’ve been posting links to your Water War Crimes site for years. Stop spreading your fanciful tales and get treatment.

      • It’s not my water war crimes site. It is simply a website that I encountered while researching corruption, which reports similar circumstances to my own situation. I have overwhelming evidence to support my claims, but nobody, including yourself, has ever examined this evidence before dismissing me. I cannot get beyond the Freemason network, to get to a non-Freemason authority that is willing to help me. I was severely sexually harrassed by a government authority, and I lost my career job because of it. I have a tremendous amount of hurt and loss as a result. I’m sorry that you think it’s okay to hurt me further, but I am telling the truth and I can prove it. I am not a public figure, not a broadcaster, not an MP, and therefore, I am being perpetually dismissed without any examination, and nobody will know.

        • Well someone has been posting links back to that site for years. At least the creepy voice doesn’t start talking as soon as I click on the link like it used to. How do you murder someone with cancer anyway? There must be a million easier ways to kill someone.

          • Shocking that you are now asking questions for which you formerly made statements of fact about. I will tell you that I was sceptical when I first started reading about “murder by cancer”, but the technology exists, and the research supports that it can be done. The reality is that these suspicious deaths by way of cancers and heart attacks occurred within a close network of justice people who were otherwise healthy in the weeks before they suddenly dropped dead of these healh conditions, and involves many of the same people that I know to be Freemasons who corrupted my own legal processess. I can actually name names, and explain how I discovered this network, and it cannot be denied, but I believe I would be putting myself at risk if I did that, because I have talked to John Carten of the water war crimes website, and he has received death threats. You should be doing a lot more research and a lot less mocking, because you are empowering them.

  10. All I see here is some guy being tried and convicted by the press. The moment they guy stumbles, people come out of the woodwork to try and slander him in any way possible attempting to conflate his “creepiness” or “doucheyness” with an actual criminal conviction.

    If they guy “got away with anything” it’s because no one ever prosecuted him. Perhaps it’s just one of those ugly little gray areas that are difficult to deal with in a just legal system. Assuming that something happened and proving it are two entirely different situations and both your country and mine are supposed to reserve punishment for AFTER something has been proven. This places a heavy burden on rape victims but it’s not something that can really be avoided without making a total mockery of the justice system.

    This is pretty much a virtual lynch mob.

    Some media personality got accused of some crime (not even indicted yet) and he was fired by his employer.

    • Some woman got severely sexually harrassed {and the government and justice authorities conspired to protect the offender} and she was kicked out of her government job by her government employer. [My victimization should be of equal importance to Canadians as that of Jian Ghomeshi. It’s not. I am being subjected to insults and ridicule, even though I am telling the truth. I have the evidence. Nobody in authority in Canada is willing to examine my evidence. Imagine how that feels].

    • He had it coming for a long time. That time is here.

  11. You know, Jian Ghomeshi might just be the best interviewer in North American media. He certainly is (was) the best in Canada and he eclipses anyone I have heard or seen. This article is not level headed journalism, it is “piling on”, vilifying rhetoric. Sure, the man is ill and he is predatory … and many other allowed him to get away with it … but he has become the satanic symbol of every man’s and woman’s guilt for not calling out injustice’s or witnessing the truth about sexual exploitation (use of power, position, hope and money to sexually use and exploit young men and young women). Gomeshi needs to be prosecuted for his crimes, but this article borders on xenophobia to turn on him so diametrically. He is the cultivated result of a culture and subculture that engenders and benefits from eating the scraps of sexual exploitation in business, art and education. The article’s imbalance – just like self-righteousness of the people who are at war with Gomeshi – should make us suspicious.

    • I have not lived in Canada for 20 years. I took notice when our local NPR affiliate picked up Q for air time at night a few years ago. I didn’t listen much, but I did find Ghomeshi a solid interviewer. One of the things I was always proud of Canada for was its lack of sensationalist media coverage. Then I started to follow this story. Hopped on here, read this, ah, thrilling account by Anne Kingston (apologies, I don’t know her work, nor track record for journalistic integrity), which included the stinging line about the “cheesy pickup line” with which Ghomeshi would start his show, and thought, “Anne Kingston, I never knew I was so gullible to this cheesy pickup line [or that it was a pickup line], thank you for defending me!”

      I was surprised at the, dare I say, “American” approach to things here. What happened to accusation, allegation, investigation, privacy, process, court, more privacy, and conviction or acquittal? Isn’t this, really, about the alleged victims? If someone says there has been harassment or a wrongful act, you take that person’s story as legitimate, and see it as worth defending until proven affirmative or negative. So, I’m wondering why the source-anonymous lines of oppression here? It got me thinking: what ever became of MacLeans, that magazine I’d see in dentist’s offices? I looked on your site, at the recent cover “State of Terror” and wondered, “what, is David Frum writing your headlines now?” The Pentagon, of course, has probably already called MacLeans to tell the editorial board they screwed up, that it’s “War on Terror” not “State of Terror” (the latter implying a surveillance state, or have I got that wrong?).

      At any rate, to the author(s) of this story, way to go! You really brought the American-style journalism up to a new level here. I suppose when the two countries are fracking and drilling and bombing and so on, together, why pretend about our relationship anymore?

      Back to Ghomeshi…if this is serious business, and why would we assume it isn’t, would you at MacLeans please respect the potential and alleged victims before you try to improve your ratings. Please?

    • The questions were written by others. Ghomeshi was skilled at asking questions from a script, and reading editorials written by others.

    • Ill? He’s a “sicko”, but he’s not ill. Just a narcissist who is used to having his own way, and won’t hesitate to step on people when he doesn’t get it. Many sociopaths are very socially polished, and they tend to inspire a lot of loyalty in people because they know just how to manipulate them and make them feel comfortable in all the right ways. You’ve been duped. Don’t feel bad. Many of us were. Just don’t cling to your cherished image of the guy long after that image has been shown to be a fallacy. He’s shown a history of being a complete creep since his university years. You’re just hearing about it now. Don’t get made at journalists for doing their job and telling you just how much of a creep he was.

  12. “TALENT CAN TAKE YOU WHERE CHARACTER CANNOT SUSTAIN YOU”
    From all accounts so far from those who been around him and seen the many facets of what can only be termed his “manipulative ways,” this man is certainly a narcissist, and like most sexual predators he clearly grooms his victims.

    I join the chorus of those hoping there are not more victims, but one has to wonder and certainly, as we keep discovering, it’s not limited to sexual harassment or violence. There are many ways abusers find to crush and intimidate.

    I have compassion for all those who have suffered from his Machiavellian ways. I do hope he experiences an awakening, or is isolated from society till he does, and serves a righteous sentence for his crimes.

    And Jian if you read this, please stop running, face the music, learn the proper meaning of the type of abusive and selfish conduct you have wrongly favored all these years, and maybe you’ll have a chance to finally learn how to deal with the damage you have caused. In other words: fess-up, repent, and let this be the wake-up call you need to become a better human being. Luc de Larocheliere wrote:
    “On est seulement ce que l’on peut
    On est rarement ce que l’on croit
    Et sitôt on se pense un dieu
    Sitôt on reçoit une croix
    Car la vie est si fragile”
    which translated means:
    We’re only what we can be
    We’re rarely who we think we are
    Soon as we think we are a god
    As soon we are given a cross
    For life, is so fragile.”

    Don’t fight it, accept it, be transformed and freed by it. Allow those you have hurt to be vindicated and have restored to them the dignity you violated. Don’t persist in being a sly bully…

    With best hopes you will do the right thing, and not just think of yourself, again and again,

    Andre Lefebvre
    Alberta

  13. wonder between now and the time any trial gets under way (2 yrs?) what will happen to Ghomeshi? I mean where will he hide out…perhaps leave north america perhaps to let some heat level off? hope his lawyers not only lose his case but also thin out his bank acct greatly.

  14. He didn’t get away with everything.

    He got away with the Dungeon-like cave studio CBC provided him in guise of work environment, his very own kink den. What he did not get away with was the anxiety, about which he is said to have spoken unpublishable volumes, both in writing and to a teddy bear. There is a theory out there that “he is a closeted gay man who does not want to face up to his orientation.” Could the anxiety and reported sexual dysfunction be explained by a repressed sexual orientation? With his hero father’s sad and recent passing, the closet door is now wide open.

    In the end, with no pun intended, JG is Iranian. Watch. He will go down in burning flames before he gives in to the threats of jilted xxx.

  15. And now Macleans joins the ranks of pedantic, portentous sycophants. Step it up guys.

    • Sycophants are people who are blindly loyal to someone. That would describe Jian’s ever-dwindling group of defenders.

  16. There’s another arm of progressivism that Ghomeshi was able to use besides feminism to advance his nefarious self that no one seems to mention except himself – the fact that he’s a multicult darling. The white head honchos at CBC would know that a charge of racism was always in the wings should they criticize or irritate the man who said: “I see myself as the new brown Tommy Hunter” or who demanded to know from a woman rebuffing his advances whether she did it because he wasn’t “a “perky-nosed Brad Pitt type.” Bet there are plenty more of those type of innuendos from this no holds barred self-promoter. Yet the greater leeway given to a touchy brown man by whites, including perhaps his female victims (all the public complainants so far are white) is a 3rd rail in Canada, not to be discussed even in an otherwise revealing article.

  17. Ghomeshi was able to get away with it because he had worked his way into the socialist elite.

    They have set up a tiny little club where their limited talent and big connections gets them far more $$$ and “fame” than they could actually earn in the real world.

    The Q was considered a huge success because it was sold to NPR. How much did NPR pay for it?

    Was there ever a chance that the Q would leave CBC radio to go to a private broadcaster? (theoretical question as we all fully understand that it is not good enough to make it on its own without our tax dollars) .

    There is no such thing as a “Star” at CBC. There would be no need to pay them from the tax payer.

  18. Jian Ghomeshi got away with it because patriarchy. It’s that simple.

    • Yup….same reason they all get away with it.

    • Got it all figured out eh? You’re talking about the U of T and the CBC for crying out loud. There’s about as much patriarchy there as there is on The View.

      • Our society is patriarchal RR…..western society…has been for 2000 years.

        • The CBC and the U of T are products of the western patriarchy? Sorry, but that turd doesn’t polish. Those to institutions are part of the vanguard of Canadian progressive left thinking.
          Had Jian gotten away with this in some corporate board room or a private club, you might have a point. But he didn’t, and you don’t.

          • The CBC and U of T are neither right nor left…they are, however, respected international institutions.

            Which should tell you where YOUR thinking is.

          • Thank you for confirming then, that the environments in which Ghomeshi was able to get away with abusing women were not products of the western patriarchy, but in fact “respected international institutions”, “neither left nor right”. That is precisely the same point I was making.

        • LOL now you’ve confused your questions AND your answers.

          Go play with the Freemason guy….you two are a matched set.

          Ciao.

  19. A thoughtful piece, revealing a personality who strives to achieve respect, so that it can be levered to enable bad behavior. We’ve seen many falls from grace, some much more severe, such as Russell Williams, some less severe, such as Peewee Herman, and ultimately redeemable.

  20. Constant criticism of his preference for younger women in this article. this is what i’ve been hearing since i was a kid in the ’70’s-about males. will the pseudo liberals also denounce kim campbell, gloria steinem, ellen barkin, susan sarandon etc etc for doing the same?
    we’ve made a lot of progress when it comes to liberal sexism and double standards-but we’ve still got a long way to go…

    • Indeed, I thought the criticisms of his preferences for 20-somethings were ridiculous. People commenting on his behaviour when they knew him in his 30s tut-tutting that he shouldn’t be chasing women in their 20s. He is an abusive creep because, if the stories are to be believed, he committed sexual violence against women. As far as him “using feminism to pick up women”, so what? A friend of mine used to attend various left wing protests in the early 90s at the University of Winnipeg for the exact same reason. He found young feminists all hot an bothered after a protest were particularly primed for some wild sex. He had nothing but disdain for the protesters otherwise.

      I find it funny that that’s what offends some people most of all… that Ghomeshi tarnished their precious political beliefs by using those beliefs to manipulate women. The violence and abuse was secondary to the blasphemy.

  21. Ok I think it is well past time to stop the medieval-style public stoning, of Jian Ghomeshi. He has been fired, a case is being developed by the police so, I really think it is time for the media to stop digging and digging for morsels of unpleasant innuendos from his past with which to further vilify him. He is down and beaten its time to stop kicking him. I don’t think a national media (and social media) scale public stoning of one person is healthy, in fact I think it is really sick. And I DO NOTthink it a healthy instrument with which to let people who have been raped and sexual abused know they are supported and encouraged to come forward. I think all of us need to remember a bit of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

    I worry that this level of shunning, shaming and humiliation with media people at CBC, The Star and now Macleans and online media has created a real suicide risk and that would be horrendous. To his friends whoever you are step up and help him through this, he is a human being.

    • “…he is a human being.” Is he? He certainly has not acted like one. None of this ‘piling on’ is anything in comparison to being a young, vulnerable person physically and emotionally beaten down by this closet case. Doubtful a narcissist of this calibre would ever commit suicide for the simple fact that he loves himself too much. No, more likely is an “attempted suicide” to win back the public followed by the “I never knew how sick I was. Forgive me Canada” routine. This guy is a cold, calculating monster. He deserves everything that’s coming his way. IMHO.

    • I absolutely agree. It’s crossed my mind that he could be a suicide risk, and anyone making comments to the effect that he should is disgusting. The national/social media meltdown over Ghomeshi is astoundingly disproportionate, and the same people who keep mentioning his celebrity as being part of the problem are churning out countless “think” pieces because of it.
      I’ve wondered why his FB page is still up, and if all the people leaving their hateful vitriol are potentially hurting the victims’ cases in some way. Enough. 3 women have been brave enough to come forward to open an investigation. Let the police and justice system take over.

    • Thanks for your compassionate and sensible post. The Internet has allowed all the haters fresh meat to chew on. Like in the middle ages so many people still want to have a pariah on which to dump all the misery for injustices in their life. Modern courts have taken too much fun out of this by implying everyone has to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

  22. Certain curiousities about this article stand out. For instance the tendencies for the interviewees to knock Jian Ghomeshi for his “egotistical” personality. I have travelled among the Fru-heads and what we all noticed was that Jian’s speaking voice and personality stood out way better than the others. When he spoke, his charisma, articulateness and great voice made him a natural spokesman. He had star quality. The others were much more shy and reticent. So, I say, no it wasn’t that he barrelled in front of microphones and cameras, elbowing the other three out of the way so that everyone would pay attention only to him. He was the natural spokesman, and as I saw it, the others saw it too and gratefully gave him something they were not comfortable with. A lot of bands do this. When has anyone heard from any other Rolling Stones except mostly Mick Jagger.

    There’s an ugly tendency in Canadian society to cut down tall poppies. Americans can wake up one day and say ‘I’m going to be a star’ and is cheered on. If someone in Canada says it, the response is ‘who do you think you are?’ Someone mentioned that it was obvious he had his eye on working at the CBC as if this was a devious thing to do. In America having ambition, with high and consistent goals is praised. Not here though. That’s why virtually every Canadian with star quality has had to go the U.S. to make it and only then can Canadians agree that yes, this is a star. We worship stars as much as Americans do but we don’t like to acknowledge them when they are still among us.

    Why were only the ones with grudges or nasty comments quoted in this article? Is it possible that in the past 30 years not one person genuinely liked Jian, or had a different perspective on some of these situations? Are we to believe that he was a Svengali who cast a spell to make good people support him when they should have trashed him? People aren’t that stupid. Someone who seems so ‘egotistical’ and such a phoney as this article paints him to be usually trips himself up very early. Yet, his fortunes kept growing and growing. He “got away with it” because a lot of people were impressed with him. He must have done something to earn their confidence.

    What makes me so suspicious of all this negative press is that I know how the media works when a hot story breaks out. Don’t get me wrong. I think Jian Ghomeshi has a lot to account for, but I have worked in the media as a story producer and freelance writer and I know that when a hot story breaks editors start to look for one point of view (with maybe one descending pov quote). They want to outsell the stories that readers will gobble up and get them ahead of the competition. I once pitched a story about women who had triumphied above their abuse and went on to have productive and happy lives because I was so tired of stories that depicted women only as perpetual victims, but I was told by the publication that they were looking only for violence against women stories. Only that and nothing else.

    That formula makes perfect sense to how the media has dealt with Jian Ghomeshi. When he was on top only good things were said about him, now that he’s on the bottom the jackels are tearing away at the fresh corpse. A few months from now, when all the frenzy dies down maybe we’ll be able to read something about him that is more in the middle and more humanly reasonable.

    • He wasn’t a tall poppy, he was a stunted little weed, who has finally received his dose of pesticide. I agree with the rest of your sentiments though. The all victimhood-all the time women’s movement in Canada grew tiresome forty years ago. Even Sheila Copps is in on it – misses the spotlight I guess.

      • Do you just travel around the internet perpetually demeaning women, even though you have no knowledge of the events they are reporting? That’s messed up. Can you share with us what you think is the root cause of your mysogyny?

        • It’s just kind of a hobby I guess.

    • A breath of fresh air from Christina H, Matthew2, and ThinkCritically and Compassionately. Thanks to all three of you.

  23. Once you’ve gone to journalism school, like I have, you learn not to trust any media. Like this one for instance.

    Anne Kingston has no claimed psychoanalytic credentials and yet she makes jumps to conclusions that skillfully guide readers to her foregone conclusions. She describes how Jian Ghomeshi manipulated us into believing he was more progressive, empathetic and capable of intimacy than he really was. She says he manipulated his tone and voice with that of the guests to seem more intimate than he really was. And yet, this is what all successful broadcasters do? It’s one of the tricks of the trade. But we are led to conclude that Ghomeshi was unusually manipulative with his guests and audience.

    Kingston makes another misjudgment. She tells us that his opening line, “Well, hi there.” was cheesy. Not suggests — tells. As if the million plus listeners his show attracted, plus more coming on all the time who bought into it were too thick to notice. I loved that opening line and loved hearing it in the morning. It made me feel welcome. Maybe she was listening to a person she already decided she didn’t like and now wants to lead us in that direction. So she makes normal skills seem a little less normal.

    It was more than voice and cadence that made me trust Ghomeshi as an interviewer. It was what he said. The questions may have been scripted but the deeper conversation had to be natural because it depended on the guest’s answers. His knowledge of the subject matter, understanding of the guest’s accomplishments and place in the arts on a deep and fairly complex level, and respect for the the guest that never drifted towards lurid aspects was what made me accept his qualifications to interview the guest. He also never asked a question the guest had already answered, and that’s something you can’t say for other broadcasters on the CBC. Some are so focused on the script, know so little about the subject matter they can’t veer away from it to really to talk with, or listen to their guests. Ghomeshi never fell in that category.

    All media has its manipulative tricks, which are most obvious in commercials. It’s common to use tone and cadence, or word selection that will relax guests and make their audience more trusting.

    Let’s focus on his real transgressions and not start labelling him as being deviant in all his accomplishments, especially for his effect on his audience. He had a passion for the arts and and conveyed it honestly. He gave value for the money he made and he really deserved his job. That’s why his fall from grace is such a big story.

    • You don’t need to be an expert in psychoanalysis to understand exactly what Ghomeshi did here. People who knew him nearly 30 years ago said he was a phony who used progressive causes as a front. A 30 year pattern becomes pretty damned obvious.

  24. I will say that I never heard Ghomeshi’s programme – nothing against him but I don’t bother with the CBC.

    I have enjoyed Moxy Fruvous though – they were a very decent band, funny too (in spite of what Colby Cosh says elsewhere on this site).

    I would be very interested in hearing his response to these charges, though. In spite of what has been said about `sexual harassment’, there is only one instance reported in this case that could credibly be defined as such (the allegation that he wanted to `hate frig’ someone).

    Again, with respect to his non-workplace interactions with women, they sound to me more so like common assault than sexual assault.

    Even before I learnt of complaints coming from women who knew Ghomeshi, I thought the CBC had every right to fire him for engaging in violent bedroom behaviour, even where it is “consensual.”

    • If you wanted to hear his response, you had only to read it on Facebook. He blamed it all on the CBC, an angry ex-girlfriend and his kinky love of consensual S&M sex. Of course he was the only who did the sado part of the sex. He liked to hit women but they liked to get hit according to him and a reporter heard about it and wanted to write a story. Jian wanted his employer to support him but they wouldn’t. Funny that. Seems there were lots of complaints of intimidation toward females at CBC by Jian and CBC had heard enough. Jian was going to sue.

  25. Good to know how and why CBC Radio has changed since 2000, as well as the info on Ghomeshi. I am over 55, and the endless, parochial patter on the new, young, ‘hip’ shows bores me to death. Whether it’s DNTO, or Q, it sounds merely like endless re-runs of Seinfeld. The only person that seems funny and talented to me in that group is Jonathan Goldstein, while Pia Chattopadhyay is also a good interviewer. Thank god Michael Enright hasn’t been fired, he’s the only one left who engages intelligently with global issues. CBC is a public broadcaster, it has a mandate to *inform* Canadians, not to hog ratings. CBC Radio is now just part of mainstream western media that dumbs down its citizenry. Perhaps the Ghomeshi scandal will lead to a rethink, but probably not.

  26. He got away with it because he is another Harper Conservative sleaze bag hire.

    • really – I believe he started at CBC during the early 2000s which would make him a Liberal entitlement hire

  27. Easy how get suckered how to overlook how he and others get away with it. We are trained to have blind faith that people are good and choose what we acknowlege to fit the paradym we want.

    Schools and parents do poorly at teaching critical thinking, rational assessments but work hard at blind faith and conformances.

    Hey, political parties count on this lie after lie. Religion too, need to belong overcomes rational thought.

    And in this case, CBC is not a well run company or news service, as bias often replaces facts as it is about managing the herd joirnalism. Too much dysfunctional politics at CBC I suspect.

    Me, I am a unbeliever, always verify, always examine hidden agendas and motives, look beyond cheap words and constantly try to evaluate. But it can make you a outsider as deception is everywhere if you chose to see it.

  28. And to think that Canadian listeners came to his rescue when Billy Bob Thornton treated Jian like the dips#%t dirtbag that he is. My apologies to you Billy Bob.
    As for you Jian, you are now “nothing” to this nation… a lame gutless pathetic nobody.

  29. Wouldn’t it be wise to wait for the trial to conclude prior to convicting this man in this rag?

  30. Thanks Anne Kingston for this excellent piece of journalism. Now I realize the facts!

  31. This article is misleading. Jian Ghomeshi was tricked into BDSM with one of the woman. 3 women who have came up to the court are trying to rob him because he’s famous just like what they’ve donr to Bill Cosby. Now, the ex girlfriend who has claimed that he raped her, she wanted him to do it so she will sue him for his money for a living so. But that was honestly a big lie and thay allegation is totally fake. It’s a scandal. And you’re making a ridiculous article to make us believe that he was getting away with it? You’re being bias and being begotten. You should stop that and i cared less if you get offended but this ends here.

    • You forget he has been nasty and a threat to people since his college days. Given his personae, he is the type of man for whom women want for them to take responsibility for their misdeeds and cannot help but have the urge to take him down a peg as he receives his comeuppance. To say the victims’ motivation was to get money out of him, simply is not true.

    • Jian admitted he likes to hit women in his facebook article. He only admitted because a writer was sniffing around him. He was afraid it was all going to be exposed. He needed CBC to support him. They had so many complaints from their own female employees about him. They were done. They fired their biggest star. He decided to sue. The police went trolling for females whom he had beat up on. They found 4 but who knows how many are out there.

  32. Now the news is saying he could be found not guilty. It doesn’t matter though. He is done in broadcasting and will ALWAYS look guilty in the eyes of the public. O.J. was found not guilty and is viewed as one of the most disgusting human beings on earth. He may not be convicted or go to jail but his time as a celebrity is OVER. I doubt he’ll be able to get a job anywhere after this, no matter what verdict is handed down.

  33. This comment has been removed

  34. How he got away with it? Wow no media slant there. How about because he wasn’t guilty and the women who brought charges against him were liars. They say the truth hurts, so I hope that helps you figure it out.

  35. He got ‘away with it’ because CBC and the arts community in Toronto and Canada is a very small, insular and corrupt group. As long as they get the ‘ratings’ and attention they feel they deserve, behavior really doesn’t matter.