34

Ghomeshi: End of the trial—and start of a redemption tour?

We heard directly from Jian Ghomeshi for the first time since that first infamous Facebook post, and if he’s to be believed, it’s a transformed Ghomeshi who’s speaking


 
Former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi leaves court after signing a peace bond with his sister Jila, right, and his lawyer Marie Henein, left, in Toronto, Wednesday, May 11, 2016. (Mark Blinch/CP)

Former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi leaves court after signing a peace bond with his sister Jila, right, and his lawyer Marie Henein, left, in Toronto, Wednesday, May 11, 2016. (Mark Blinch/CP)

This morning Jian Ghomeshi stood before Regional Senior Justice Timothy Lipson, his back to the public gallery, and spoke publicly for the first time since pleading not guilty in early 2015  to four counts of sexual assault and one of choking to overcome resistance. There was no “Well, hi there,” no “Happy Wednesday,” no signature lines once employed by the former marquee CBC Radio host to charm his legions of listeners. Ghomeshi read from a prepared, page-long statement; his voice was strong, if absent its familiar languid undertones, as he delivered a carefully crafted apology to Kathryn Borel, the former CBC producer who accused Ghomeshi of coming up behind her, grabbing her and simulating sex while both worked at the popular arts and culture show Q in 2008. Ghomeshi’s mea culpa, and his signing a peace bond,  a resolution negotiated by the defence and Crown, resulted in the the remaining sexual assault charge against him withdrawn and all criminal proceedings concluded.

Today’s court appearance, which lasted less than 30 minutes, definitely represented an ending, one that appeared a blessed relief to participants on both sides. Ghomeshi’s counsel, Marie Henein, a woman acutely aware of the power of imagery, showed up in bright-white jacket, in decided contrast to the funereal black she favoured during trial. Crown prosecutor Michael Callaghan, who was subject to a barrage of criticism during Ghomeshi’s February trial, appeared almost giddy, joking with media before court that he had no plans to scrum given his experience the last time he did so (he was flashed by a bare-breasted female protester).

But there was also no question that the morning’s events also signalled a beginning—the stage being set for Ghomeshi’s next chapter, his redemption tour of sorts. When last the public heard directly from Ghomeshi, it was via indignant Facebook posts, the first one immediately after his firing from CBC. Then still beloved by his fans as a progressive, a feminist, a supporter of White Ribbon campaigns, Ghomeshi laid claim to a fondness for less traditional sexual practices and painted himself as the victim “of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer” as well as a censorious CBC. He called accusations of non-consensual sexual acts perpetrated by him “a lie” and “salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for ‘scandal.’ ” He denied any problems with his behaviour at the CBC, a statement later contradicted by an independent third party report by lawyer Janice Rubin.  “And so, with no formal allegations,” Ghomeshi wrote, “no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance.” Weeks later, after nine women had come forward to say Ghomeshi had sexually assaulted them but before any criminal charges had been laid, he took to Facebook again:  “I intend to meet these allegations directly,” he said. “I don’t intend to discuss this matter any further with the media.”

Today, Ghomeshi seemed to reflect back on that past self as misguided, even woefully ignorant, while presenting himself now as an even more enlightened version of the Jian Ghomeshi CBC aficionados thought they knew. “The past 18 months have been an education for me,” he said, noting that he “spent a great deal of time reflecting on the incident and the difficulties caused Ms. Borel and I have had to come to terms with my own deep regret and embarrassment.”

This narrative of enlightenment and progress was echoed in a letter from a therapist Ghomeshi had been seeing since Nov. 12, 2014, two weeks before charges were brought against him. (The missive, entered as a court exhibit, is dated April 30, 2016, plumb in the middle of negotiations to drop the charge that took place between the defence, Crown and Borel.) The therapist, whose name was redacted, wrote of 61 meetings taking place almost weekly “focused on the social and personal factors related to the specific charges, the consequences of those charges and strategies for managing anxiety.” Among the topics explored, according to the letter: “dynamics of power and control and the intersections between gender and the social constructions of status and influence,” as well as “the effects of discourses related to male dominance” and “paradigms of intimacy.” If those were subjects Ghomeshi learned about in his years as a women’s studies minor at York University in the late 1980s, he seems to have been an even better student this time round. Ghomeshi is described in the document from the therapist as “a highly engaged participant, examining these interpersonal issues with great commitment and focus.” He’s given high marks for what should be basic, civilized behaviour: “He continues to take accountability for his choices and actions, and continues to explore and practice skills that support healthier relationships.”

The therapy lingo was echoed in Ghomeshi’s own statement, which avoided any reference to criminal behaviour; instead, he called his conduct “thoughtless” and “sexually inappropriate”: “I now recognize that I crossed boundaries inappropriately,” he said. He was “insensitive to [Borel’s] perspective and how demeaning my conduct was to her,” he said, and didn’t understand it would put a younger, junior co-worker in “an uncomfortable place.” He said he’d “reflected deeply and have been working hard to address the attitudes that led me, at the time, to think this was acceptable.”

Henein, too, offered instruction on how the court and public should see her client through a more generous lens in her “final thoughts,” remarks that echoed her statements in an April interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge. She told Mansbridge of how her client “had his life turned upside down and it has been a painful and difficult process” and hinted at the transformative nature of the process Ghomeshi had been through: “When you come out on the other side of [a criminal trial], it is something that you carry with you always.” Today she spoke of Ghomeshi’s legal battle as singular in her 25-year career: “The last 18 months are one of the most difficult I have witnessed anyone ever having to withstand. I do not think many of us would have been able to do so. But he was.” She spoke of a rehabilitated Ghomeshi, even though today’s proceedings involved no admission of guilt or any wrongdoing: as such, she has adroitly led her client from criminal charges and public ignominy to the road of redemption without ever having to stop and linger at “Sorry, yes I did it.” “He has taken this time to reflect in a meaningful and sincere way,” Henein said in court today. “His apology demonstrates that.” It’s time to look away from Ghomeshi, Henein instructed, taking a swipe at the reporters behind her: “While this matter has consumed the attention of so many, there are many equally important matters in this country that the public wants to know about and that I hope we can now turn our attention to.”

Outside Old City Hall, as a small group of protesters stood on the sidelines (“Peace bonds don’t give survivors peace,” one sign read), Kathryn Borel made it clear she wasn’t about to look away. In a strongly worded statement that was unsparing of the CBC and its institutional inattention to her plight, Borel pointed out that Ghomeshi “originally denied all charges against him”—but had now admitted to wrongdoing and apologized. She explained that she had been willing to forgo trial in return for the defence’s offer of a public apology: “It seemed like the clearest path to the truth,” she says. “A trial would have maintained his lie, the lie that he was not guilty, and it would have further subjected me to the very same pattern of abuse that I’m currently trying to stop.”

Today’s outcome now serves as a litmus test, interpreted vastly differently depending on who you talk to. Some commentators see it as the Crown folding, an admission their case was weak. Others see it as driven by Ghomeshi’s team because it avoids the risks of a second trial while offering a redemptive apology that’s not an apology at all. Then there are those who see it as a moral victory for Borel.

Undoubtedly, for Ghomeshi, this new humble posture are the first steps in his public rehabilitation. As for Borel, she’s pushing that moral standard farther: Ghomeshi hasn’t taken full responsibility, she said this morning; he “hasn’t met any of their allegations head on, as he vowed to do in his Facebook post of 2014. He hasn’t taken the stand on any charge. All he has said about his other accusers is that they’re all lying and that he’s not guilty. And remember: that’s what he said about me.” Apologizing to her isn’t enough, Borel said, noting that more than 20 women have come forward with allegations of against Ghomeshi: “There will be no resolution until admits to everything that he’s done.”

And so the morning ended: with the disconnect between the court of law and court of public opinion more pronounced than it was on day one.  And that’s the gap that the Ghomeshi redemption tour will have to ultimately bridge, or not.


 

Ghomeshi: End of the trial—and start of a redemption tour?

  1. The sad thing about this whole affair is that this useless piece of sh#t is going to make millions off of literally raping dozens of women. The CBC is to blame for letting this happen. They knew it was going on and did nothing to stop, in fact they encouraged it. The other sad thing about this is that his Millennial followers are behind him 100%. Makes me sick to my stomach every time I think about it. Rot in Hell Ghomeshi

    • Using a phrase like “literally raping dozens of women” should land you in court facing a lifetime of damage payments. What a ridiculous thing to say.

      At the very worst, he engaged in unacceptable sexual harassment. Without a demented feminist “movement” and the anti-social media, this would have ended with a reprimand or dismissal, not a mock trial designed to satisfy people who are incapable of reasoning. End of story.

      • All one can hope is that you don’t end up in a situation where someone bigger than you decides to lay hands on you in the same fashion Ghomeshi did to those women. Perhaps then you would have some empathy if the tables were turned and you were made someone’s b*tch. Suddenly, it really isn’t all about feminism because sexual assault happens to men too.

        • Where is your evidence that Ghomeshi laid hands on anybody without their consent and willing participation?

          And I didn’t suggest that the allegations had anything to do with feminism. But the rabid, mouth-foaming “public” response certainly did. That’s a damn shame in my view. I grew up during the early days of the modern era of feminism, when the movement had purpose and pride and value. I supported it then, and still support true feminists today. But I don’t support the idiotic psychobabble spouted by morons holding signs about supporting “survivors” who turn out to be liars.

          • So, where is your evidence? Lemme guess – you got nothin’ son. Big talk, big noise, no meat. Go away.

    • Citation needed.

      I missed the part where there were any accusations of him raping someone. He was on trial for hitting women, and bumping/grinding someone at work. The take I got from this trial is that he is an aggressive douchebag. Which sadly isn’t illegal.

      • He was charged with assault based on the ‘hitting’ and the ‘bumping/grinding’ incidents. Obviously pulling a person’s hair, punching a person, grabbing them from behind and grinding one’s pelvis into their derriere at the workplace without the person’s consent all are considered assault and all are illegal. The fact that the judge found the witnesses at the trial lacked credibility and that Ghomeshi agreed to a peace bond doesn’t change the fact that laying hands on someone in such a fashion constitutes assault of their person under the Canadian criminal code.

        • What a bizarre comment.

          Being charged with a crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. He was found not guilty of the first round of charges. There is no clear evidence whatsoever that he assaulted any of those complainants – none, zero, nada. As for the peace bond, again, no clear evidence of an assault (as defined in the criminal code). None, zero, nada.

          Stop listening to the voices in your head.

          • I suppose you believe Bill Cosby is not guilty as well. I don’t need the voices in my head to tell me what Ghomeshi is guilty of. I have the voice of the head of public relations at the CBC who backed up everything his victim from this second set of charges said in her statement. You see she did go to her supervisor and she went to HR three different times and there were records of what she said. The CBC public relations officer confirmed that on the national news. The victim said the police told her when Ghomeshi ground his pelvis into her derriere, that it constituted sexual assault. It does matter that they agreed to a peace bond after the fact. He committed a crime. That is why he was charged with. Many people are charged with crimes and deals are made to withdraw them. It doesn’t mean they didn’t commit them.

          • Christie Blatchford: “The complainant, Kathryn Borel, came out with a statement that was inaccurate in its recounting of what had just gone on moments before in Courtroom 125. When she first told Toronto Police what had happened to her at Ghomeshi’s hands, she said, “They confirmed to me what he did to me was in fact sexual assault. And that’s what Jian Ghomeshi just apologized for — the crime of sexual assault…“ In fact, Ghomeshi didn’t apologize for anything other than sexually inappropriate conduct and being insensitive to the fact that it was demeaning to Borel. He certainly didn’t apologize “for the crime of sexual assault.” And for Borel to thank the legion of other Ghomeshi accusers for giving her strength to come forward was too cute by half: She was, after all, one of the original four women quoted if not named in the first Star story that set the ball rolling. She came forward officially only two months later when she wrote a column in The Guardian, presumably having been inspired by her own courage in coming forward anonymously that she did it again but this time with her name.” (Read: “Christie Blatchford: At the end of the day, Ghomeshi is left with no record except a life in ruins” )

            CBC DID NOT back up everything that Borel said in her statement. In fact, the CBC backed up very little of what Borel specifically alleged. All the CBC gave were the following general comments: “What Ms. Borel experienced in our workplace should never have happened and we sincerely apologize for what occurred. As we said in April of 2015, the incidents that came to our attention as it relates to Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct in our workplace were simply unacceptable. We apologized then and we do again today. To be clear, like the trial in February and the subsequent ruling, this particular court case is also unrelated to our decision to end Jian Ghomeshi’s employment with CBC…”

    • Les Paul, a sad thing about this whole affair is how radical feminists and their sympathizers have been fabricating, exaggerating and twisting the facts. You falsely accuse Ghomeshi of “literally raping dozens of women” even though not one woman has accused Ghomeshi of even attempted rape.
      http://princearthurherald.com/en/culture-2/webelievewomen-hostages-modern-feminism

      All the allegations have been relatively minor. Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente: “Because of the massive publicity and inflated rhetoric that surrounded the Ghomeshi case, many people are likely under the impression that the allegations were far more serious than they were. Choking, punching, slapping and hair pulling are all criminal offences, to be sure. But the alleged assaults were of short duration and did not result in injuries. When they learned the details of the allegations, several people I spoke with wondered why the case had gone to trial at all.” (From “Save us from hashtag justice” )

      Remember that this is the arts, music and entertainment community – it’s chockful of promiscuous women and men looking to hook up for one-night stands and other casual sexual flings. My guess is that Ghomeshi the celebrity radio host and musician has had sexual flings possibly with several thousand women over the past 25 years – yet not one woman has accused him of rape and only a tiny fraction (of mostly anonymous women) has made relatively minor allegations against him.

  2. Whatever the outcome of this apology, one thing is sure.

    the available dating pool for Jian is now considerably smaller than he is used to.

    The only women who will be willing to date this creep now….are probably more nuts than he is.

    • What about the complainants who still wanted to date him after the alleged “assaults” took place?

      • He no longer has the status to create the power that those women crave.

      • It might come as a surprise to you unless you deny that battering occurs in relationships but some people, male and female, suffer from very low self esteem. Some were raised in households where domestic violence was the norm and those individuals feel they deserve no better than to be physically, emotionally and verbally abused by a significant other. It doesn’t make the abuser less guilty of assault just because the victim is passive and doesn’t fight back or returns when the abuser apologizes.

      • It might come as a surprise to you unless you deny that battering occurs in relationships but some people, male and female, suffer from very low self esteem. Some were raised in households where domestic violence was the norm and those individuals feel they deserve no better than to be physically, emotionally and verbally abused by a significant other. It doesn’t make the abuser less guilty of assault just because the victim is passive and doesn’t fight back or returns when the abuser apologizes.

        • It might come as a surprise to you, but my father was an abusive alcoholic who beat on his wife and children until he finally disappeared somewhere, hopefully to suffer a long and painful death. Don’t lecture me about domestic violence and self-esteem.

          • Wow. So these “alleged assaults” you and your family suffered. It makes sense how you would doubt that no one else could have the same experience. Strange how your father was an a**hole but you hate women.

          • @ Gage G: You are mind-boggling. Unable to think clearly and personally insulting. A typical Beta Male.

          • It is hard to reconcile that experience with your apparent belief that a woman who wants to date a man after he assaults could not have truly been assaulted.

          • Strangely, this is an opportunity to remind Gage G. and Gayle1 that assault victims often react unpredictably in ways that are hard for people outside the experience to understand. Seems like that should have been an easy one for the two of you. “Hard to reconcile”, Gayle? “Strange…but you hate women”, Gage? My goodness.

          • Cute. Nice try turning this around on us. It has apparently escaped your notice that Gage and I are the ones saying you should not judge the victim based on her subsequent behaviour.

            Maybe try reading comprehension or something.

  3. Ghomeshi’s apology is the most dishonest apology ever. He took women’s studies at York. He knew exactly what male behaviour constituted sexual predation.

    Never believe a sociopath.

    • Apparently you were never aware of any of Rob Fords apologies
      .
      Although I’m not trying to suggest that Ghomeshi was being sincere …

  4. I hope that we do not have to watch the redemption chapter.

    Although I do not believe he is guilty of sexual assault he did take advantage of his position of power and sexually harassed his coworker which is unacceptable behavior.

    I hope that he just goes away and we can put this unfortunate chapter behind us.

    • He admitted to sexual harassment and to taking advantage of his position. He said that his behaviour was unacceptable, and apologized for it.

      So … what exactly do you want? You do know that most convicted murderers can apply for parole after 20-odd years, right? But somehow a moron who behaved badly should face a lifetime sentence?

      And you do know that you do not have to watch anything, right?

      What exactly is your point?

  5. What a colossal waste of tax dollars and public resources because the Crown prosecutor and Toronto police made poor decisions to proceed with such weak cases to satisfy the cravings of radical feminists. Even liberal feminist Rosie DiManno concluded: “We’ve criminalized the picayune… Jane Doe — brutally attacked at knifepoint by the Balcony Rapist in 1986… Yet even “Jane” told me last week she couldn’t understand how the Ghomeshi case had ever come to court.” (From “The trial unfolded the way it did because the complainants were swaddled in fuzzy investigative treatment” ). Also search for the article: “#WeBelieveWomen: Hostages of Modern Feminism”

    Why did Ghomeshi/Henein agree to the peace bond and say what was on his carefully-prepared statement?

    The Crown was obviously fearful of losing and being humiliated in a second trial – if it had a strong case and credible complainant, the Crown would not have agreed to a peace bond. Furthermore, if it was a stronger case, the Crown would have tried this Borel case first before the February trial’s three cases in order to have the best possible chance of starting off with a conviction. Even David Butt (lawyer for one of the discredited complainants in the February trial) admitted: “A peace bond means Ghomeshi case was on life support… Whenever a serious charge is resolved with a peace bond, the unstated message is that the case was on life support. In serious cases, a peace bond is an all-but abject surrender by the prosecution, a face-saving measure just shy of a complete abandonment of the case… Peace bond negotiations are private, between the prosecutor and the defence lawyer. Complainants have a right to be consulted during negotiations, but have no veto.” From “A peace bond means Ghomeshi case was on life support”

    The defense, on the other hand, surely had a list of CBC witnesses to testify about Borel’s behavior in the workplace as well as give context to what actually happened. The defense was probably confident that, as Christie Blatchford noted, “this complainant, like the three who went before her in March at Ghomeshi’s first trial, may be vulnerable to questions about her credibility.” The videoclip below shows a different and unguarded Borel from the carefully rehearsed person who read her statement that had probably been carefully-prepared and reviewed by her publicist, lawyers and advisors.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1FWOETBAA

    Christie Blatchford explained (search: “Ghomeshi complaint being dropped over credibility issues?”) that Borel let her guard down in a December 2013 interview in which she cheerfully agreed as her friend Jesse Brown painted her as a “bizarre rabid unicorn” who was incredibly inappropriate and sexual in her workplace behaviour in a way that “would have gotten so many people fired instantly.” Borel’s unguarded interview with Jesse Brown also suggests that the CBC workplace environment was “proper and dry” and that it was Borel who brought inappropriate sexual conduct into the office. Had the trial proceeded, the defense probably would have revealed much more to the whole incident regarding Borel’s behaviour in the workplace that is relevant to the case as well as what really happened in that CBC workplace between Borel, Ghomeshi and other co-workers.

    So why did Ghomeshi/Henein agree to the peace bond and say what he said?

    First, my guess is that the Crown prosecution has, in exchange for the peace bond, quietly given Ghomeshi blanket immunity from being prosecuted for all other similar incidents that may be alleged to have happened in the past in order to protect himself from the hassle and cost of dealing with any new complainants who come out of the woodwork in future to take advantage of the publicity. (Of course Ghomeshi still could be prosecuted for any new and serious incidents that happen in future, but from now on he is likely to (a) check his future ‘sexual fling’ partners more carefully and (b) record his interactions with them. Telegraph on what some men have had to do in Britain: “If they decide to have sex with a woman who they think might say after that they raped her, then they film it.” “WHAAT? You’re not serious,” I said. “I’m afraid so,” the lawyer said, “and it does get them off the hook. In one case, the woman was quite drunk but the video did, um, show a degree of enthusiasm that was not consistent with lack of consent.” — from the article “British rape laws need urgent reform to prevent injustice” ).

    Second, perhaps Ghomeshi signed the peace bond and said what he said because he knows that soon further information will be revealed about Borel’s behaviour in the workplace and what really happened in that CBC workplace between Borel, Ghomeshi and other co-workers that will make Ghomeshi’s admission seem magnanimous and strategically smart — and he might still come out of this on an a more positive note. So stayed tuned as Borel/Ghomeshi’s former CBC colleagues begin to spill the beans. And for Ghomeshi’s tell-all book.

    • If the case was on life support, why didn’t Ghomeshi’s lawyer take the prosecution to the cleaners? Instead he made an apology for treating the victim sexually inappropriately and admitting to 60 hours of therapy in which he learned that he abused his position of power over her. Further, she got to give a statement explaining exactly what occurred from her perspective and the CBC backed her up 100 percent. Ghomeshi did not come out of this a winner because the victim got to say that there were 20 other women he abused just like he did her.

      • Why would he want to go through another ridiculous trial with an uncertain outcome?

        Why would someone who accepted his inappropriate behaviour NOT take therapy?

        What would have stopped the complainant (not victim) from saying whatever she pleased? The media is always there.

        If she had actually been assaulted, why did she walk away?

        Where are all the other loud-mouthed, pathetic “victims”?

        You really have no clue, and only a tenuous grasp on reality … just like the so-called “victims”.

      • Gage,
        You stated “If the case was on life support, why didn’t Ghomeshi’s lawyer take the prosecution to the cleaners?”

        – Already explained in my original post (re-read the two bullets under “So why did Ghomeshi/Henein agree to the peace bond and say what he said?”)

        – When a person enters into a peace bond, he does not plead guilty; there is no finding of guilt made; there is no conviction registered; and there is no criminal record.

        You stated “she got to give a statement explaining exactly what occurred from her perspective”

        – Any complainant, including Borel, can make such statements and say whatever she wants since: (a) the peace bond does not include the complainant as a party and (b) the peace bond does not impose any restrictions or requirements on the complainant (who is not a party to the peace bond). However, the complainant has no power to approve, veto, negotiate or change the terms of a peace bond.

        – Given this, we can see that Borel exaggerates and stretches the truth in parts of her statement (which was probably prepared and reviewed by her publicist, lawyer and advisers to make her look like a much bigger winner than she really is).

        – For example, Borel claimed: “so when it was presented to me that the defense would be offering us an apology, I was prepared to forego the trial.” However, Borel had no choice in the matter. (a) The prosecutor did not “present” the peace bond’s terms to Borel (the prosecutor just informed Borel’s lawyer about the terms agreed between prosecution and defense) and (a) Borel had no power to approve, veto or change the prosecutor’s decision to forego the trial. The terms of a peace bond are negotiated in private between the prosecutor and the defence lawyer in a resolution meeting. Since the Crown represents the Province of Ontario (not a complainant), the prosecutor in any criminal case does not need to consider what any complainant wants or to seek justice for the complainant.

        You stated “the CBC backed her up 100 percent”

        – No. CBC’s did not back up 100% of Borel’s specific claims with CBC’s general comments: “What Ms. Borel experienced in our workplace should never have happened and we sincerely apologize for what occurred. As we said in April of 2015, the incidents that came to our attention as it relates to Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct in our workplace were simply unacceptable. We apologized then and we do again today. To be clear, like the trial in February and the subsequent ruling, this particular court case is also unrelated to our decision to end Jian Ghomeshi’s employment with CBC…”

        You stated “the victim got to say that there were 20 other women he abused just like he did her”

        – To reiterate, Borel can claim whatever she wants. But every impartial person knows that Borel has absolutely ZERO knowledge of what allegedly happened between each of these mostly anonymous accusers and Ghomeshi in sexual flings that were totally different from Borel’s workplace context. Search for Barbara Kay: “As for the old feminist mantra that women never lie about abuse, can we finally lay that canard to rest? Women have lied about abuse and will continue to lie. When? When they are unscrupulous people to begin with… they will lie when it comes to their own self-interest, when there is some reward they value for lying (even for so tawdry a motive as celebrity), when there is vengeance to be easily taken on a creep they perceive to have humiliated them, and massive public sympathy to be gained… To add to the temptation – as we have seen in many demonstrably false allegations of rape on campus – there is usually no material consequence for doing so, even when their lies are exposed in courts of law” (From “Feminist chickens come home to roost at the Ghomeshi trial” ) In addition, women who have mental disorders, are criminals or stoned out on drugs/alcohol might also lie about sexual assault.

        – You can watch the other side of the story about the accusers here:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGX7ZXkT-PM&list=PLgAs63Z16t0nng44pzWnFKeREkq4FsAx7

  6. In essence, Jian Ghomeshi is being shunned, usually considered the most extreme punishment. The Toronto Star is now going after the psychotherapist, who asked for their name not to be published, understandably, to my mind. I keep thinking of Shirley Jackson’s story The Lottery. If you’re content to abandon any nuance or legal principle, Ghomeshi is the gift that keeps on giving.

    I hope in years to come a more measured analysis of how this all proceeded can be reached. The complainants were able to go down every possible legal avenue and still show every sign of clinging to their outrage. It turns out “having their day in court” was not enough. Thankfully, there is a legal system standing between them and Ghomeshi. But it’s truly disturbing to me how far this could go, and how outrage just stokes more outrage. As an activist movement, it’s extremely dysfunctional, if effective in the short term.

  7. Want to shift the conversion here… We all know there are douchebag (not criminal) men who use what they have (money, power, fame, etc) to fulfill their sexual desires. We know there are woman who also willingly play this game to pursue their own agendas. And when these 2 forces meet, drama quite often ensues. No surprise. An age old dynamic.
    What really troubles me about this whole affair is the spotlight put on the institutions that are supposed to protect us from social anarchy – the police and the crown. In this case, and many more I suspect, they seemed crippled by the optics and politicalization of their actions. Most disturbing were official comments by the police that they believe woman and their accusations. That’s not their mandate, in fact, it totally goes contrary to it. Their job is to take accusations seriously, and without bias, investigate those accusations. Had they in this case, it’s questionable if charges would have been laid. But because of the social media frenzied world we live in, they were probably worried about the optics of appearing anti-woman so treated the complainants with kid gloves. Or they just don’t understand their role in our society.
    This is a discussion that I wish was getting more reflective analysis.

  8. But you don’t talk about the difference is a single mother with 3 children roughly 56 dollars a day.
    but a single Syrian gets 71 dollars for food a day.
    The person who lived here there whole life paying taxes receives less from government then a immigrant does so how is that fair?
    The lower class and middle class suffer from immigrants it makes it harder for them such as cost of food,rent,utility’s and jobs will pay less and minimum wage will take longer to go up based on supply and demand.
    But government and upper class benefit from immigrants because they pay more taxes on food,rent,utility’s. {PERFECT EXAMPLE VANCOUVER}

    There also is numerous negative side effects such as abuse of the services of Canada,illegal immigration,trafficking drugs,identity and financial fraud,corruption of the government.

    Especially the Asians they should be any true Canadians enemy.They are coming to Vancouver with fraudulent money,bringing heroin,take student loans get degree and just leave and never pay them back,have illegal immigrants brought over,financial bearings,extreme corruption in(VPD,government,and social services),slumlords, and they gangbang 17 year old girls(seen with my own eyes)and with all of these facts why the fuck do they have there own month in Vancouver……where is aboriginal,English,french,Italian ,Ukraine,Indian,black month WTF is this favoritism……….welcome to japanada……i been told numerous times Canada doesn’t believe in there own people but i think its the people who don’t believe a future treachery country.

    WHEN SOMEONE TAKES FOOD OUT OF MY CHILDREN’S MOUTH I M SUPPOSE TO BE HAPPY!!!!!
    ACTION HAVE REACTION PEOPLE HAVE GOOD REASONS TO DISLIKE MIGRANTS TO CANADA.

    THE DIFFERENCE IS PRINCIPLES I GIVE EVERYDAY TO CANADA THROUGH WAR OR POVERTY I WOULD STAY EVEN TO DIE OR STARVE.

    THEY TRAVEL HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD TO CHASING GREED OR THERE COWARDS AND THEN WHEN THERE AIN’T SHIT THERE GONE…….THANKYOU COME AGAIN…..

Sign in to comment.