40

The latest twist in the Jian Ghomeshi case

Another development in the case of Jian Ghomeshi sees a potential deal reached between the Crown, defendant and complainant


 
Former Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi with his attorney Marie. Jenna Marie Wakani/Reuters

Former Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi with his attorney. Jenna Marie Wakani/Reuters

In a final surprise twist in a criminal case chock-a-block with them, Maclean’s has learned that an arrangement was reached today by the Crown, Ghomeshi’s lawyers and the complainant, whose name is protected by publication ban: the final charge of sexual assault facing Ghomeshi—arising from the allegation that the former CBC radio host groped and rubbed himself against a former producer on his program in 2008—will be withdrawn. Ghomeshi is slated to appear in Old City Hall on Wed. May 11 at 10 a.m. where Crown attorney Michael Callaghan will lay out the charges against Ghomeshi, Regional Senior Justice Timothy Lipson will impose a peace bond  under section 810 of the Criminal Code to be signed by Ghomeshi; under it, Ghomeshi will have no criminal record if he follows certain conditions, among them “keeping the peace” and keeping distance from the complainant, typically for a year. It is also expected that Ghomeshi will deliver a statement to the court acknowledging his behaviour and expressing remorse.

As of late Monday afternoon, the Ministry of the Attorney General would not confirm that the case could be settled without a trial.  “The ministry does not comment on criminal cases before the courts, other than in court on the record,” ministry spokesman Brendan Crawley told Maclean’s in an email.

Such deals are “not uncommon,” says Toronto lawyer Jonathan Rosenthal, who notes they sidestep the cost and risks involved in court cases. “Crowns can use their discretion to divert cases from the formal process,” he says. “They can ask defendants for a public apology, or to provide restitution, or to attend treatment programs.” Such negotiations go down a number of ways, says Rosenthal—”It could be a discussion between the defence and Crown, or a discussion with complainant’s lawyer saying, ‘Would your client be agreeable to this?’ ”

The development, no doubt, will stoke more controversy. Some will surely express frustration, even anger, that Ghomeshi will not be subject to  judicial due process; others will claim the charges against him were weak and the result of a police and social media witch-hunt. Ghomeshi’s now-cancelled second trial, scheduled to begin June 6, was different in several aspects from the first, in which he was acquitted on four counts of sexual assault and one of overcoming resistance by choking.  The alleged assault took place at the CBC,  in a professional, not social context. A witness, another CBC employee, was expected to testify. The CBC’s own internal investigation, headed by Janice Rubin, a lawyer, revealed several CBC employees “had knowledge of” these events. Ghomeshi himself, Rubin’s report ruled, was “considered to create an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.” And there was a risk for Ghomeshi;  if convicted, he could have landed on a sex offender registry. That being said, the conviction rate in sexual assault cases is minuscule compared to other crimes.

Ghomeshi’s last public utterance, in October 2014, was a Facebook post in which he described his firing from the CBC as arising from “a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”  Only those in the courtroom, where recording devices are not allowed, will hear his once-famous voice on Wednesday, if he speaks. And if he does, it will be a rehearsal of sorts for the path ahead of him.  R v. Ghomeshi may be over in the courts, but it’s far from an end in terms of its social and cultural aftershocks.

Correction: This post has been updated to reflect the fact that Regional Senior Justice Timothy Lipson, Ontario Court of Justice will preside.


 

The latest twist in the Jian Ghomeshi case

  1. There was no surprise twist, in fact this was very predictable. The first trial was the stronger case and all three accusers were found to be liars that continued to pursue a romantic relationship with Ghomeshi in embarrassing fashion long after their alleged assaults. This second trial without a conviction in the first had little chance of moving forward.

    • How do you know which was the stronger case? Do you have some inside knowledge?

      If he agrees to a peace bond, then he is agreeing she has cause to fear he will cause her harm. The actual allegations themselves certainly fall on the lower side of sexual assault, and resolving them through a peace bond is quite common. I would suggest you cannot draw any conclusion on the strength of the case (ie the likelihood he would be found guilty) based on the peace bond.

      • The only thing he is agreeing to is a process which allows him to avoid the ongoing stress of public trial – not that the complainant has cause to fear anything.

        The reality is that the Crown was facing yet another humiliation and Ghomeshi was facing more months of “limbo”. The solution worked for both.

        • Actually, no. When you agree to a peace bond, you have to acknowledge the complainant has reason to fear you. There is no other way.

          If he doesn’t want to acknowledge that, he can refuse the peace bond and go forward with the trial.

          • You miss the point. He will not acknowledge that she has CAUSE to fear harm (which would imply that he had caused or threatened harm previously). He will likely acknowledge that she THINKS she has cause to fear harm … and what she thinks isn’t necessarily valid.

          • I don’t see that at this site, but it does clearly say, at the end, that getting a peace bond is in no way the same as saying one is guilty of the allegations. All they are agreeing to is the terms of the peace bond itself. http://lawfacts.ca/criminal/peace-bonds

          • From the Criminal Code, this is what has to happen before a court can agree to impose the peace bond:

            “If the justice or summary conviction court before which the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for the fear, the justice or court may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.”

            It is not about what she thinks, it is about whether what she thinks is reasonable in the circumstances. No one can enter into a peace bond unless they are willing to accept this standard.

            And yes, it is not a criminal conviction. This is a measure designed to ensure the safety of the complainant so that a criminal offence is not committed.

      • Agreeing to a peace bond is a pointless exercise so the CP can save some face. The accuser in this case no longer lives in Canada, and by all accounts Ghomeshi has refrained from contacting her for years, another year of not contacting someone he has no desire to contact that doesn’t even live in Canada is a rather ridiculous exercise.
        Peace bonds are more typical used for neighbours that have a disagreement. In no way would the Crown choose a peace bond over trial if they had a case. They have no case and are being creative in saving face about it.

        • So all those legal experts being quoted in the news who say this is not an unusual result in a case like this are lying? From where do you get your expert knowledge that a peace bond is typically used for a neighbour spat?

          Ghomeshi does not have to do this. He does not need to admit she has reasonable grounds to fear he will harm her. He could have a trial.

          • Ask those legal experts to cite a single example where one party to a peace bond isn’t even in the same country.
            The Crown is offering Ghomeshi to drop a criminal charge that will cost him around a 100k in legal fees or agree to peace bond that requires him to obey the law and steer clear of person that he has not spoken to in years and no longer lives in the country.
            There is no admission of guilt and after a year he gets the bond back (typically around $1000), the Crown would only offer this because they want to drop the case.
            Ghomeshi could choose to play chicken with the Crown, and not bother with the bond and see if they drop the charges without conditions but why take the chance, he has won.

          • “So all those legal experts…” Yes, all one of them.

            It is entirely hilarious how the haters are desperately trying to put lipstick on this dog of a case.

            The fact is that Ghomeshi’s agreeing to a peace bond is about the lowest admission of culpability manageable in the justice system. The Crown knew it would loose this case, just like the other one (as per the statements made by the complainant on a `Canadaland’ broadcast). Saving face, they were pled down to what is effect a nothing plea.

            I wonder how Jesse Brown – head of the pack of the anti-Ghomeshi lynch mob – will feel now that his own doings have exonerated Ghomeshi.

          • btw, I just read the entire apology letter from Ghomeshi and – as I said earlier – there is no apology for causing the complainant to fear for her safety. None. Zero. He apologizes for the discomfort and embarrassment he caused, but there is no suggestion whatsoever that she was fearful of violence against her.

          • First, the peace bond was offered by the defence, not the crown. The complainant agreed to it.

            Second, several legal experts have said a peace bond in this type of case is normal.

            Third, his apology letter is irrelevant. By operation of the law, entering a peace bond means he agrees she had reasonable grounds to fear him.

    • Agreed, Brad Johnson, there is no “surprise twist”.
      Anne Kingston and MacLean’s have been unbelievably biased against Ghomeshi from the start. They have resorted to sensational, salacious, unsubstantiated reporting.
      I had been a big fan of Anne Kingston’s for years and now have lost complete respect for her “journalistic integrity”. I do not trust her, and will not trust her at all, in the future. I will avoid her articles…just wipe her out of my memory banks.
      As far as Maclean’s goes, I currently have a subscription and will not be renewing it when it becomes due. Thank goodness, there is a lot of media out there (of all kinds) so I do not have to rely on these two discreditable sources.

  2. It is only a “surprise twist” if you think this is theatre. Or if you saw this case as an affirmation of your pre-conceived ideas about our justice system, gender equality, feminism, men, women, truth, honesty or any number of reasons people have instilled in this case more meaning than it deserves.
    .
    If you are viewing this in the context of our criminal justice system, it is the normal course for many cases. In fact, most feminists should applaud this outcome. As noted by Anne, it involves both the victim and the perpetrator in coming to a resolution. From the descriptions available about this crime, while disgusting, it is something from which the victim can recover. An admission of guilt is likely more helpful in that regard than a drawn out court case.

  3. Ms. Kingston,

    THIS is quite a Departure from your previous Video describing the differences between this case and the first round of this Vicious Circus!???

    AND Kudos to the Crown for “Not Getting Bullied Again” by the Media & Feminist Jihadists to have another Shameful, Catastrophic and Expensive Spectacle.

    AS for what Mr. Ghomeshi should or will say in Court, my sense is that it would be a “Minimalistic Statement So To Save Face For The Justice System For Having Been Manipulated By These Sorry Cast Of Actors” and “NOT Give More Junk-Food To The Believers To Milk A Dead Cow”.

    AND hope he would immediately Launch Lawsuits against the Media Outlets, Feminist Groups, Individuals, including the Complainants and all those who Ganged up on him to Savage/Destroy his Career and Life.

    ALSO we need to examine the approach of the Toronto Police after getting Bullied by the Media and the Feminist Groups to Solicit more “Alleged Victims To Come Forward” and see whether if any Laws were Breeched, especially the “Charter Rights”.

    AS for the CBC, it would be interesting to see how their Narrative/Reaction changes as the second case was triggered while both working at the Public Broadcaster.

    AND finally if Mr. Ghomeshi elects to issue a Public Apology, it should be to his Mother and Sister for being subjected to this “Cruel/Senseless Freak Show” and Thanking his Brilliant Legal Team of Ms. Henein and Robitaille for Defending Him and “Upholding/Safeguarding The Principles Of The Canadian Justice System” and above all Thank His Fans who stood by him and Did NOT Buy into this “Malicious Character Assassination Campaign” and use this opportunity to re-Launch his Career.

    AND I That Note Ms. Kingston, I Wish You A Pleasant & Peaceful Summer.

  4. It would be ironic if the peace bond does, indeed, require him to stay away. The issues with the women didn’t seem to include that he was hanging around too much. So I’m guessing that’s not much of an ask from him at this point.

  5. Taxpayer’s dollars and public resources were wasted on weak or dubious cases involving the relatively minor allegations of Ghomeshi’s accusers.

    As Christie Blatchford noted: “Peace bonds… often used to deal with allegations of misconduct that either don’t rise to the level of criminal behaviour, or barely meet the threshold.”
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgAs63Z16t0nng44pzWnFKeREkq4FsAx7

    In other words, the Crown is willing to drop charges for a peace bond because it realizes has a weak case and dubious complainant, and the Crown knows it risks being humiliated again by the defense. In this cancelled second trial, first, the complainant apparently publicly admitted in the past that her own sexual, strange and inappropriate behavior contributed to the negative work environment at the CBC — the defense likely has a list of witnesses willing to testify about the complainant’s behaviour. Second, there is no guarantee the witness would testify. Apparently he had animosity towards Ghomeshi. Third, his claims possibly would have been contradicted by CBC witnesses for the defense. Fourth, the CBC’s internal investigation is a CBC investigation using its hired contractor the lawyer – it is not an independent investigation. Internal investigations tend to be whitewashes protecting the top executives while placing blame on scapegoats.

    Radical feminists and their sympathizers keep parroting that the sexual assault conviction rate is minuscule compared to other crimes. That is a Big Lie.

    The Canadian police almost always lay a charge when a woman complains of sexual assault. The conviction rate for sexual assault cases is relatively high. Only 9% of all accused persons charged with sex assault are acquitted after trial. Canada’s conviction rate for sexual assaults (45%) is much higher than the more serious crime of attempted murder (20%), similar to criminal harassment (46%), similar to ordinary assault (47%) and slightly lower than murder (53%). In murder, there is usually hard evidence of a dead body. Search: “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric”

    To cover up the reality of these verified numbers, the radical feminist lobby and their sympathizers use over-inflated estimates of unreported sexual assaults in order to exaggerate that the sexual assault police reporting and/or conviction rates are miniscule. The estimates they use are 7 to 17 times excessive when compared to the U.S. rates.

    In the violent U.S., the sexual assault victimization rate is 1.1 victimization rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older (stated in the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Victimization 2014; the rates are estimates based on responses from victimization surveys and may include some false or exaggerated claims). This 1.1% comprises 0.4% reported and 0.7% unreported to police.
    Thus, in Canada, the estimate should be only around 31,000 female victims per year (both reported and unreported) based on the ‘1.1 per 1,000 age 12 and above’ rate from the violent U.S. The actual numbers are probably lower than 31,000 on the presumption that Canada is less violent than the U.S.

    In Canada, the overall rate of police-reported sexual assaults has continued to decrease over the past 20 years. In 1993 it was 136 per 100,000 population. In 2014, the police-reported sexual assault rate was only 58 per 100,000. This 2014 rate is close to pre-1983 rates of lower than 50 per 100,000 (for the pre-1983 offences of rape, attempted rape and indecent assault against females). And that’s even including the minor allegations of the type made by Ghomeshi’s accusers.

    Despite this, radical feminists and their sympathizers claim ‘there are 500,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year’ or ‘9 out of 10 sexual assaults are not reported to police’ in order to justify their exaggeration that conviction rates are miniscule. These claims are false yardsticks because these huge numbers – which are 7 to 17 times greater than the U.S. rates – are not real, verified numbers. They are only estimates based on Canadian victimization surveys and statistical analysis. These Canadian rates are 7 to 17 times greater than the U.S. victimization surveys and statistical analysis!

    The most oft-quoted estimate is 460,000 sexual assaults based on the 2004 victimization survey of almost 24,000 people. When I checked the data, I found that only 330 to 372 respondents had self-reported being sexually assaulted (78% of the 330 to 372 were for the relatively minor unwanted touching such as kissing, grabbing or fondling; the 330 included false reports, women on women sex assaults and sexually assaulted male victims). Statistical extrapolation inflated 330 to 372 actual responses into 460,000! Search for: “General Social Survey Cycle 18: Victimization (2004)” — where the title includes “User’s Guide to the Public Use Microdata File”

    This overblown 460,000 estimate for Canada is more than double the sexual assault estimate for the entire U.S.A. (207,760 in 2005)! This is ludicrous because the U.S. has a much higher rate of violent crime overall as well as over nine times larger population. This is how radical feminists have been misleading us on reporting and conviction rates.

    • Do you have a source for these statistics?

        • Wow, cool! A single source for a single statistic. You are pretty good at including links, so why don’t you do that for all of them?

          Though I see you are simply extrapolating and making assumptions.

          • Gayle, you are making speculations again. Is this your weak radical feminist attempt to obfuscate and taint my message because you lack the facts, logic and principles to debate what my points? It must be extremely painful for radical feminists everywhere to realize that — after all their jibber jabber — the complainants and cases against Ghomeshi were as weak as we have been saying.

            Or do you simply have problems comprehending and/or are too lazy to search the following articles/documents clearly stated in my original post:
            – “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric”
            – “U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Victimization 2014”
            – “460,000 sexual assaults”
            – “General Social Survey Cycle 18: Victimization (2004)” — where the title includes “User’s Guide to the Public Use Microdata File”

            For example, if you had searched “460,000 sexual assaults” you will come across numerous examples such this linked article repeating the YMCA’s false claim that “THERE ARE 460,000 sexual assaults in Canada EVERY YEAR” as if so many sexual assaults actually happen every year. Now if you simply exercise your common sense, you will find that the YMCA’s source is Holly Johnson’s article “Limits of a Criminal Justice Response: Trends in Police and Court Processing of Sexual Assault” who simply stated “an ESTIMATED 460,000 Canadian women were victims of sexual assault in 2004”. The YMCA’s radical feminists and their sympathizers took an estimate for one year (2004) and turned it into reality for every year! As the Montreal Gazette notes, this infographic from YWCA Canada that has been widely shared on social media.
            http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/the-problems-with-statistics-on-violence-against-women

            Now just keep using common sense, and you will realize that Johnson’s estimate of 460,000 came from Maire Gannon & Karen Mihorean, “Criminal Victimization in Canada, 2004” which was based on the 2004 victimization survey (“Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2004”)

            By now, common sense should inform you that my referenced link to “General Social Survey Cycle 18: Victimization (2004)” refers to this survey.

            The Big Truth is the rate of police reports of sexual assault has been dropping continually over the past 20 years. In 1993 it was 136 per 100,000 population. In 2014, the police-reported sexual assault rate was only 58 per 100,000. This 2014 rate is close to pre-1983 rates of lower than 50 per 100,000 (for the pre-1983 offences of rape, attempted rape and indecent assault against females). Unlike the inflated estimates used by radical feminists, these police reports are actually real (incidents reported to police over one year). By now, you should be able to use common sense to search the annual Criminal Victimization reports in order to verify what I just stated.

          • So the one source you actually provide a link to suggests that the number 460000 is probably low.

            I am pretty sure if I adopted your version of “common sense” I could accomplish the same leaps of logic as you, but I prefer to adopt the more accepted version of common sense.

          • Gayle: Did your source actually state exactly what you claimed “that the number 460000 is probably low” (or did he simply make a general speculation “estimates of unreported cases are probably too low”)? Are you telling the truth?

            What is your exact source or link for your claim, so we can check exactly what he said against what you claimed he said? Using common sense, don’t you think that you should apply your own standards by providing sources and links :)

            Your source failed to admit that the huge 460,000 estimate of sexual assaults was based on only about 330 or 372 actual women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted (out of about 24,000 people actually surveyed). This includes women who lie or exaggerate about being sexually assaulted, and may even include men who were sexually assaulted.

            As I suggested in my original post, the radical feminist lobby and their sympathizers often inflate and exaggerate the estimates of unreported sexual assaults.

            Now, use your radical feminist logic to prove your ludicrous claim that I made “leaps of logic”.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOdPfcp4YTQ

          • Just pointing out you said something and your source did not back you up. It is not that hard.

          • GAYLE, it is not that hard to understand what you are doing as you disingenuously misread and make “leaps of logic” to twist posts that contradict your radical feminist position.

            Obviously my source (a) is supposed to back up radical feminists like you and (b) is not supposed to back me up.

            I choose this source as an obvious example of the overblown 460,000 sexual assaults estimated for Canada that is often quoted by radical feminist sympathizers. This particular radical feminist sympathizer is defined further by:
            – what he tells us (he speculates that sexual assault estimates are too low – which backs your radical feminist position)
            – what he omits to tell us (YWCA graphic’s 460,000 (a) is not a real number of what actually happened every year, but is just an 2004 estimate relevant only for the year 2004 not every year; and (b) this 2004 estimate of 460,000 was extrapolated and assumed from only 300+ unverified claims of sexually assaults).

            My original post clearly noted: “Radical feminists and their sympathizers keep parroting that the sexual assault conviction rate is minuscule compared to other crimes. That is a Big Lie… The most oft-quoted estimate is 460,000 sexual assaults based on the 2004 victimization survey of almost 24,000 people… This overblown 460,000 estimate for Canada is more than double the sexual assault estimate for the entire U.S.A. (207,760 in 2005)! This is ludicrous because the U.S. has a much higher rate of violent crime overall as well as over nine times larger population. This is how radical feminists have been misleading us on reporting and conviction rates.”

            So, it is not that hard. Yet you disingenuously keep misreading posts that contradict your radical feminist mindset.

          • Well it is rather odd that is the only source you link to. Leads me to believe you have nothing.

          • Gayle, it is colossally odd is that you keep parroting your false claim that I provided no sources. Then, based on your false claim, you make the leap to “leads me to believe you have nothing.” Are you looking in a mirror when you type that :)

            To reiterate: “do you simply have problems comprehending and/or are too lazy to search the following articles/documents clearly stated in my original post:
            – “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric”
            – “U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Victimization 2014”
            – “460,000 sexual assaults”
            – “General Social Survey Cycle 18: Victimization (2004)” — where the title includes “User’s Guide to the Public Use Microdata File”

          • You know what I think? I think if you had any evidence to back your claims you would link to it. But you don’t.

            I also think we are done here.

  6. The CBC is reporting that there are very few people in line for public gallery seating this time around. Why? Because just like “The Hip” said, “no one’s interested in something you didn’t do”…

    • So Ghomeshi apologized for something he didn’t do? The CBC apologized and fired their HR department for something Ghomeshi didn’t do? There was a lawyer on the Fifth Estate last week who said only 3 in 1000 sexual assault cases come back with a guilty verdict. That is a failure rate of over 99 percent. Women way under report being assaulted. Nothing has changed. The woman is put on trial.
      I don’t see Ghomeshi or the CBC suing this woman even after the things she said in her press release. In fact the representative of the CBC indicated everything she said is true. Ghomeshi might recall that if one wants to sue for slander, the ultimate defence is the truth. Given that the CBC had documented all of this woman’s complaints, it is an uphill battle for any civil lawsuit.

      • How is Kathryn Borel being put on trial? (The publication ban has been lifted since this post went up.)

        This story ‘broke’ in the Toronto Star and was co-written by Jesse Brown’s. Brown is a good fiend of Borel’s by both their admission. In a podcast on Brown’s blog Canadaland, Borel admitted that her own behaviour during her time at CBC was “incredibly inappropriate, foul-mouthed and sexual”. Interesting how that part didn’t make it into her comment today.

        • I suspect it was not included because being inappropriate, foul-mouthed and sexual is not the same as being abusive. Considering no one at CBC appears to have complained about her conduct, it seems to be pretty irrelevant.

          • I think Shoop was being sarcastic–of course Kathryn Borel is not going to bring up behavior or language in her statement that makes her seem anything other than a wronged woman.

            Her inappropriate, foul-mouthed and sexual antics were probably very much relevant when it came to the Crown’s choice not to prosecute–it knew Borel’s credibility would end of being shredded on the witness stand if any of her saucy comments or actions had been directed at Ghomeshi

          • Except it was Ghomeshi who wanted to avoid the trial and offered to enter into a peace bond. So, no.

            And whatever she said in that interview (and I have listened to it) would not impact the case or her credibility. The days of believing women who are vulgar are “asking for it” are over. Long, long, long over.

          • Borel did not have to accept the peace bond offer, and the fact that she did suggests that her case was quite weak. By her own admission she was a lot more than “vulgar”–she crowed about having been reprimanded and being scene as a liability by the CBC. If she behaved in a sexual and inappropriate way towards Ghomeshi, his lawyer could have argued that they were engaged in mutual banter or flirtation. Who knows what else Heinen dug up her–Borel certainly didn’t want to end up in the same humiliating situation as the witnesses in the first trial.

          • I am quite sure she did not want to deal with anymore people like you, and others who post on this site and elsewhere who equate vulgar behaviour with deserving to be abused.

      • My comment speaks to the unfortunate state of our sensationalistic society.

        My point is, that when it came to light that there was little likelihood of conviction (again), the potential for the public humiliation and virtual lynching of JG disappeared too, and that just leaves boring; which is what we witnessed today. Nobody is interested in boring.

        It doesn’t matter if JG apologized. It doesn’t matter if the CBC fired their HR department. The absence of the judge slamming down his gavel and emphatically declaring JG guilty, and the whole matter limping over the finish line, caused the masses to lose interest, no matter what they think actually occurred.

        I agree that it would be unwise for JG to sue KB. And KB may want to think twice about suing JG; he seems to have a proclivity for saving things that make people look like liars.

        • If he sues he will have to testify. I suspect he will not sue.

          • Of course he won’t sue. He would have to explain his reasons for rubbing his pelvis on her derriere to re-inact the sex act. He would have to answer to all the complaints filed against him at the CBC for sexual harassment. None were acted on but they exist in the archives. People were fired over their failure to act on complaints about his behavior. I find it astonishing that after she complained to her supervisor and was told that “yes, it is your job to put up” with Ghomeshi’s inappropriate touching and sexual innuendo, that she might become vulgar and fight back herself. Do people not realize that it is the human condition to cope however one can? I am certain he upped his game as well as power over her was always in his mind. He pretty much admitted that in his speech about his 60 hours of therapy and what he learned about using inappropriate sexual behavior to exercise power over those who were younger than him and in positions of lower power than himself.

Sign in to comment.