Jian Ghomeshi alleges firing due to Fifty Shades of CBC

[MJP]

So much for the presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence is for the courts.  Public opinion and the ability for an employer to release you have have little bearing.  In this case CBC releasing a statement could be expected especially considering the allegations and the ramification to the CBC itself.

 

[The_Falcon]

And the CBC president chimes in ....

I’m not sure where to begin. Like you, the unfolding allegations of the past week have left me in shock, sadness, and some anger.

As you have no doubt heard, since CBC fired radio host Jian Ghomeshi on Sunday, his lawyers have commenced legal proceedings against us. That limits what we have been able to say about the circumstances of his firing, but we will defend our action. In the meantime, there are a few things that are important for me to address.

I have always been proud of the way we at CBC/Radio-Canada represent Canadian values; the way our airwaves are a platform for the promotion of equal rights, multiculturalism, and respect. We have worked hard to cement those values in the way we operate as an organization, and the way we treat each other. As I told a parliamentary committee last year, we have a robust system of training and policy in place to try to create a safe work environment, and to investigate and respond appropriately if incidents occur. This case raises concerns that our systems have not been enough, and that upsets us deeply.

I empathize with those who have felt powerless to speak out, or who have tried to speak out and felt ignored. As the father of two young daughters, I share your frustration.

As you may have heard, we continue to look into allegations of improprieties in the workplace. We will also bring in an outside company with the specific expertise to conduct an independent investigation. We expect that the investigation will allow us to identify improvements that may be necessary to existing systems and assure a healthy work environment. The Executive Vice-President of CBC, Heather Conway, shares my commitment and determination on this. Once the investigation has concluded, we will share the recommendations regarding any improvements to our policies and procedures with our Board, our employees and with Canadians.

We are very concerned by the additional allegations that have emerged in the media since October 26, and about the impact of these events on our employees and on all Canadians.  We are committed to ensuring a workplace that is free from all forms of violence and harassment.

CBC/Radio-Canada’s values are those of Canadians.  We will live up to those values.

Hubert T. Lacroix
President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada

I don't buy his BS for second in light of this from Sun News a day or two ago...http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/11/20141102-073501.html

EZRA LEVANT | QMI AGENCY

The CBC has now joined other media in reporting about Jian Ghomeshi’s violent sexual misconduct. They’re interviewing women who accuse the former CBC star of beating them and forcing himself on them. (Ghomeshi claims the women consented to be beaten; so far, nine women have come forward saying they did not.)

In their news coverage this week, the CBC’s editorial tone has been sympathetic to the women.

But last week, the CBC had a different view of Ghomeshi and his accusers. According to Ghomeshi’s $55-million lawsuit against them, the CBC has been running a war room-style team of executives, lawyers and PR men working out how to deal with any women who made claims against Ghomeshi.

Ghomeshi says he proactively told the CBC about sexual complaints against him, and enlisted CBC executives Chris Boyce and Chuck Thompson to help him fight back. And they did. According to Ghomeshi, they had meetings and conference calls to “devise a strategy” to help manage the crisis for him.

The CBC did not investigate or discipline Ghomeshi. They did not suspend him. They helped him. They enabled him. They plotted how to respond to complaining women, constructing an alibi that would work if the story ever broke in the media.

Perhaps something finally came to their attention that they could no longer abide, and they fired him. But even after that, the CBC brass has kept Ghomeshi’s confessions secret.

It was Ghomeshi himself who first told the world about his appetite for beating women. After he was fired he wrote a 1,500-word Facebook post calling violent sexuality a “preference” and a “human right" and disparaging his accusers.

It was only after those audacious claims that any media dared to report the women’s side of the story.

Ghomeshi’s lawsuit against the CBC isn’t actually about being fired. He is suing them for “breach of confidence” and defamation – accusing CBC managers of not keeping his sexual secrets. When in fact, they did keep his secrets, and still do.

That’s the problem actually.

One woman who worked with Ghomeshi at the CBC says he groped her, and told her he’d like to “hate f—--” her. She told the National Post that when she complained to Arif Noorani, the CBC executive in charge of Ghomeshi’s show, “Arif's comment to me was, 'He's never going to change, you're a malleable person, let's talk about how you can make this a less toxic work environment for you'… No one was going to talk to Jian, he was too big.”

Noorani denies that. But many people who work at the CBC say it was an open secret that Ghomeshi sexually harassed interns. And there were rumours at the company of his sexual violence, too.

Last spring Sun Media’s Brian Lilley received a 1,454-page access to information document from the CBC about harassment claims against their staff – but with all details blacked out. The CBC’s boss, Hubert Lacroix, said it was just scandal-mongering by the Sun.

Why did Lacroix pretend all was well? Was he willfully blind to his top star’s conduct?

Or how about Kirstine Stewart, the self-proclaimed feminist who was a senior executive at the CBC for seven years. Last week, on Twitter, she claimed she was learning about Ghomeshi’s conduct “along with everyone else for the first time. Stunned. Horrible.‬”

Really? Were Lacroix and Stewart the only two people at the CBC who had never heard anything?

It’s easy today for the CBC to report on Ghomeshi’s misconduct. He’s their enemy now. But who at the CBC will report on what their own company’s brass knew, and when?

I think Hubert Lacroix needs to be hauled before Parliament and explain what he new and when he knew it.  He should also be the next one in line to get fired.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Just to make it clear the Lawsuit is a mute point. He's part of a union and therefore is required to go through the proper protocols.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't buy his BS for second in light of this from Sun News a day or two ago...http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/11/20141102-073501.html
I think Hubert Lacroix needs to be hauled before Parliament and explain what he new and when he knew it.  He should also be the next one in line to get fired.

If you want to see what else Jian's claiming about the CBC, here's a copy of the Statement of Claim he filed in a Toronto court (via Google Drive).  Remember, none of this has been proven in court at this point.

 

[a_majoor]

I think this story will enver reach a satisfactory ending. Since the CBC essentially fired their employee based on unproven allegations (remember, nothing has been proven at this point in time), we are now in a "he said/she said" sort of slanging match.

This is the worst sort of thing to get dipped in, since the standards of evidence and burden of proof are totally lacking, and any attempt of investigation in the future will be tainted. As well, there will be a huge push to reach some sort of predetermined outcome (especially if a non judicial star chamber becomes involved), and public pressure has been deployed as a weapon as well.

Whatever Jian Ghomeshi did or did not do, he has been effectively stripped of his rights to truely defend himself by facing his accusers in a court of law in front of an unbiased jury of his peers. His accusers have also been effectively stripped of their rights as well, to the detriment of all. People's reputations have been ruined based on what in effect are rumours and speculation.

 

[Good2Golf]

If charges against him resulting from the police investigations are laid, he will indeed have his day in court, as will the accusers.  I'm not certain I see how he has been "stripped" of his legal rights?  If so, then by whom?

Regards
G2G

 

[mariomike]

Presumption of innocence is for the courts.  Public opinion and the ability for an employer to release you have have little bearing. 

This case reminds me somewhat of a co-worker who was fired not so long ago.

He was caught, off-duty, sitting in his car with two 16 year old girls who were drinking beer and smoking cigarettes he had provided. He admitted to purchasing the beer and cigarettes but denied giving them to the girls, saying they just took them despite his disapproval.

There was no allegation of attempted physical contact.

The union took it to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the dismissal, finding the misconduct to be “unpardonable” for a paramedic.

He had been on the department for 10 years and was considered to be a good employee with a discipline free record. There were never any charges, and it never went to court.
http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession

 

[Kilo_302]

CBC cannot be privatized and be successful.  Labour legislation does not allow disposal of the union and the CBC union is the main reason it loses $ 1 billion annually.  That is the union AND inertia not unlike the military where the simplest of tasks are over-managed.

I don't know that the Marxists at CBC are rooting for the Conservatives all that much.

I think my post was misunderstood. The government is currently stacking the CBC board with their supporters. The CBC is rarely critical of Canada, our role in the world, and largely repeats the government line on things like our mission in Iraq. I believe the CBC in it's current form is focused on perpetuating Canadian mythology and nationalism to the point where self-examination as a nation has become virtually impossible.

As for the CBC being Marxists, I strongly disagree. The CBC is not REALLY part of this "liberal media" that is so often referenced. The only mainstream publication that might occasionally mount a criticism of capitalism or globalization is the Toronto Star, who just ended up endorsing Tory for Mayor anyways. Where the CBC may appear to be liberal is on the radio. And this brand of liberal thinking is mostly social window dressing and drivel about identity politics and the like. When it comes down to what I would consider the main indicators of one's political bent, namely views on our political and economic structures, the CBC is as liberal as the Globe and Mail or the National Post. Looking at the CBC news website today I see an "analysis" piece that largely defends Scotiabank's layoffs, a bit on the remains of a Canadian soldier in WW1 and the usual breaking news stories (today Trudeau suspending two MPs). A casual survey no doubt, but as someone who consumes 4 papers, a myriad of "leftist" and critical websites, FP magazine etc, I can assure you the CBC is not the Marxist threat it's often portrayed as.

 

[Jarnhamar]

This case reminds me somewhat of a co-worker who was fired not so long ago.

He was caught, off-duty, sitting in his car with two 16 year old girls who were drinking beer and smoking cigarettes he had provided. He admitted to purchasing the beer and cigarettes but denied giving them to the girls, saying they just took them despite his disapproval.

There was no allegation of attempted physical contact.

The union took it to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the dismissal, finding the misconduct to be “unpardonable” for a paramedic.

He had been on the department for 10 years and was considered to be a good employee with a discipline free record. There were never any charges, and it never went to court.
http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession

Surprised he didn't get open alcohol container in a motorized vehicle or something.


All around creepy story with Ghomeshi.  I'm surprised this didn't come to light sooner.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think this story will enver reach a satisfactory ending. Since the CBC essentially fired their employee based on unproven allegations (remember, nothing has been proven at this point in time), we are now in a "he said/she said" sort of slanging match.

IF (and it's a big "if") the Statement of Claim is to be believed, he claims he was dismissed because of worries that the CBC's brand would be tainted if word of his allegedly less-than-wholesome personal life became public.  OOkie-Jian = Ookie-CBC

This is not much different from other on-air talent in broadcast operations being removed because of what they were doing to "the brand" - part of the glory of being a "star" (while it lasts, anyway).

All around creepy story with Ghomeshi.  I'm surprised this didn't come to light sooner.

:nod:

 

[mariomike]

Surprised he didn't get open alcohol container in a motorized vehicle or something.

Not even that. The girls smoked cigarettes and drank beer in the park, while the grievor remained inside the car. There was no open alcohol in the car.

The entire arbitration is on the Canadian Legal Information Institute website. HR specialists seem to consider it a textbook case. The union and lawyers representing Jian and his employer may be familiar with the summary of it in Canadian HR Reporter.

"Jian Ghomeshi Hires Criminal Defence Lawyer, Male Victim Comes Forward"
http://www.etcanada.com/blogs/etc_118403/jian-ghomeshi-hires-criminal-defence-lawyer-male-victim-comes-forward/tv/

 

[The_Falcon]

Whatever Jian Ghomeshi did or did not do, he has been effectively stripped of his rights to truely defend himself by facing his accusers in a court of law in front of an unbiased jury of his peers. His accusers have also been effectively stripped of their rights as well, to the detriment of all. People's reputations have been ruined based on what in effect are rumours and speculation.

Don't forget though HE is the one that went on the offensive with his 1500 word facebook post.  HE is the one that at the outset that tried to curry the court of public opinion in his own favour.  He severely miscalculated (in that his "alleged" victims would never come forward), and his strategy backfired.  So lamenting the whole "innocent until proven guilty" "being tried in public" etc, rings hollow.  This circus is squarely on him, and his own attempts to manipulate public opinion.

 

[PMedMoe]

Not even that. The girls smoked cigarettes and drank beer in the park, while the grievor remained inside the car. There was no open alcohol in the car.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I think in the case you quoted, the real issue was this:

What made the circumstances even worse is the girls were from a treatment centre and the paramedic had first met them while on calls to the centre. So not only did his actions while off duty call into question his judgment and honesty, there was some tie to his job, since as the girls were former patients and he met them while on duty.

.....

In this case, while the paramedic’s misconduct took place when he wasn’t working, it could be linked to his job because he met the girls through performing his paramedic duties.

Don't forget though HE is the one that went on the offensive with his 1500 word facebook post.  HE is the one that at the outset that tried to curry the court of public opinion in his own favour.  He severely miscalculated (in that his "alleged" victims would never come forward), and his strategy backfired.  So lamenting the whole "innocent until proven guilty" "being tried in public" etc, rings hollow.  This circus is squarely on him, and his own attempts to manipulate public opinion.

I agree.  And I am also surprised that this hasn't come out sooner.  Seems there's way too many people who covered for him.

 

[mariomike]

Not to stray too far off topic, but I think in the case you quoted, the real issue was this:

"What made the circumstances even worse is the girls were from a treatment centre and the paramedic had first met them while on calls to the centre. So not only did his actions while off duty call into question his judgment and honesty, there was some tie to his job, since as the girls were former patients and he met them while on duty.

.....

In this case, while the paramedic’s misconduct took place when he wasn’t working, it could be linked to his job because he met the girls through performing his paramedic duties."

http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession

It goes on to say:

"This made it more egregious, but he may have been terminated even if he had met the girls another way."


"Jian Ghomeshi, Rob Ford and the cost of Canadian politeness

As the stories about Jian Ghomeshi grow in number and deepen in depravity, Canadians have asked themselves painful questions about how and why his alleged behaviour went ignored for so long. But if the history of Rob Ford is any indication, Torontonians are experts at not asking questions about a charismatic man’s treatment of women. And while the allegations against both Ford and Ghomeshi have not been proven in court, this reluctance to even talk about it suggests the famous Canadian politeness might give men cover for how they treat women.

It may seem strange to compare Ghomeshi with Ford. On the surface, they appear to be polar opposites. While Ghomeshi gleefully exploited his hipster cred among left-voting CBC listeners, Ford gorged himself on their frustration. But beneath their brands, the stories about them are disturbingly similar."
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/madeline-ashby-jian-ghomeshi-rob-ford-and-the-cost-of-canadian-politeness

 

[a_majoor]

Don't forget though HE is the one that went on the offensive with his 1500 word facebook post.  HE is the one that at the outset that tried to curry the court of public opinion in his own favour.  He severely miscalculated (in that his "alleged" victims would never come forward), and his strategy backfired.  So lamenting the whole "innocent until proven guilty" "being tried in public" etc, rings hollow.  This circus is squarely on him, and his own attempts to manipulate public opinion.

While I really have no opinion about Ghomeshi personally (I saw a couple of "Q" segments on YouTube looking up various bands), we need to remember that he was being fired for unspoken allegations, and once they surfaced, unproven ones. Ghomeshi's carreer is effectively ended because of this without any form of recourse. While going on the offensive via social media was probably not the best strategy, I'm not sure what other COA is open to anyone in that situation? How would you respond (or indeed be able to respond) if this was to happen to you?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thuc., I usually enjoy your posts even when I differ in view, however, your post below is one of your least thoughtful one I've ever seen. What bug got you? (Are you are rabid fan of Gomeshi??? )

Let me see here (my comments in yellow):

I think this story will enver reach a satisfactory ending. Satisfactory for whom? This is a Labour matter between Gomeshi and the CBC: They are the only ones that have to be satisfied by whatever resolution they reach - or deal with any court's decision.

Since the CBC essentially fired their employee based on unproven allegations (remember, nothing has been proven at this point in time) And nothing has to be proven - at least not to you and me - in a labour matter between employer and employee, at least not before the penultimate moment that the matter comes to a hearing. However, the CBC has tons of labour lawyers both in house and external, and I can guarantee you that like any other employer, they would not fire someone merely on a say so but only after they have sufficient evidence to make a reasonable case in court.

, we are now in a "he said/she said" sort of slanging match. An "he said/she said" scenario is a case where there is absolutely no other evidence but the word of two people against one another. When you get to one against nine, you are not in such scenario, and in these type of labour cases, you also have other external evidence that while indirect, supports the position of one side or the other.

This is the worst sort of thing to get dipped in, since the standards of evidence and burden of proof are totally lacking First of all "standard of evidence" and "burden of proof" are concept that (are the same) and only apply to a court (or other judicial) situation - not the court of public opinion. In any event all it means is who has to make the proof (burden) and to what degree any fact must be proven, which in a labour case is on a balance of probabilities (i.e. is a fact more likely to be true than false)

, and any attempt of investigation in the future will be tainted. Nothing that transpired so far makes it impossible for either the parties or the police to investigate this matter in the usual ways and with the usual results. Nothing is tainted and thus, could be set aside as evidence by a tribunal or court.

As well, there will be a huge push to reach some sort of predetermined outcome First of all, who would make such a push, and what would be their purpose for such a push? And second of all, what predetermined outcome do you have in mind?

(especially if a non judicial star chamber becomes involved) Gomeshi's case is before the Supreme court of Ontario - hardly a star chamber - if he faces criminal accusations later, it will also be in open court - hardly a star chamber - and any dispute on his firing may end up before a Labour Arbitrator or arbitration panel, a body that is accepted in law, is bound by the rule of law and subject to judicial review of its errors - again not a star chamber. In fact, notwithstanding your personal views as a freespeecher, I very much doubt that we have ANY star chamber in the canadian judicial system.

, and public pressure has been deployed as a weapon as well. I think you grossly overestimate the pressure that the public will bring in this matter. The Canadian public hardly gets excited over serious political issues to the point of bringing pressure on their MP. In Gomeshi's case, the "public" would probably not even know who to put pressure on or how, if they cared at all about the situation to the point of pressuring anyone.

Whatever Jian Ghomeshi did or did not do, he has been effectively stripped of his rights to truely defend himself by facing his accusers in a court of law in front of an unbiased jury of his peers. He has been deprived of nothing. He brought a court case and will be able to adduce any evidence he may have at the hearing (which, I repeat is the only place and time where evidence is brought). If he faces criminal accusation at a later point, he will face his accuser before a jury again at the trial only and not before - like everybody else. Oh, and he will have an "unbiased" jury. Even in super-publicized cases, we ultimately manage to find jurors that have not heard of the case or not formed an opinion: Magnotta trial anyone?

His accusers have also been effectively stripped of their rights as well, to the detriment of all. People's reputations have been ruined based on what in effect are rumours and speculation.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

While I really have no opinion about Ghomeshi personally (I saw a couple of "Q" segments on YouTube looking up various bands), we need to remember that he was being fired for unspoken allegations, and once they surfaced, unproven ones. Ghomeshi's carreer is effectively ended because of this without any form of recourse. While going on the offensive via social media was probably not the best strategy, I'm not sure what other COA is open to anyone in that situation? How would you respond (or indeed be able to respond) if this was to happen to you?

Thuc.: This is EXACTLY how it happens in every single case of firing for cause in Canada. You investigate the allegations against the employee (which I am sure CBC did - they are not stupid). When you have sufficient evidence in hand, you bring the "guy" in and confront him/her with the evidence to see if they deny it or not. Then you tell them they are fired and escort them off the premises. You don't have to answer to anyone on your evidence. A court/tribunal will sort it out at the appropriate time.

 

[The_Falcon]

Thuc.: This is EXACTLY how it happens in every single case of firing for cause in Canada. You investigate the allegations against the employee (which I am sure CBC did - they are not stupid). When you have sufficient evidence in hand, you bring the "guy" in and confront him/her with the evidence to see if they deny it or not. Then you tell them they are fired and escort them off the premises. You don't have to answer to anyone on your evidence. A court/tribunal will sort it out at the appropriate time.

Beat me to it.  Firing someone does not require the same legal standards as a criminal court (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).  They terminated him rather discreetly (or attempted too).  Ghomeshi, could have been just as discreet, and simply issued a statement that he would be challenging it (through arbitration).  Instead he deliberately, made a big splash re: Facebook, and announcing a civil lawsuit for an outrageous number, both of which were calculated decisions on his part.  I'm sorry, but he is the one who created this situation, and media shyte storm.  From all accounts it sounds like this guy thought he could do no wrong, and could get away with whatever the heck he wanted, and this was just a continuation of that, and as I said before in this last instance he severely miscalculated.

 

[observor 69]

From today's TO Star a report on his new defence lawyer, high paid high power help:

"Marie Henein is the lawyer Jian Ghomeshi needs, say justice system observers'
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/11/05/marie_henein_is_the_lawyer_jian_ghomeshi_needs_say_justice_system_observers.html

"Ruthless, smart, hardworking, an exceptional strategist and known for eviscerating cross-examinations, she is a go-to criminal lawyer in high-profile cases"

Which is why those assaulted are reluctant to report abuse. An experienced lawyer quite capable of destroying a layperson on the stand.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From today's TO Star a report on his new defence lawyer, high paid high power help:

"Marie Henein is the lawyer Jian Ghomeshi needs, say justice system observers'
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/11/05/marie_henein_is_the_lawyer_jian_ghomeshi_needs_say_justice_system_observers.html

"Ruthless, smart, hardworking, an exceptional strategist and known for eviscerating cross-examinations, she is a go-to criminal lawyer in high-profile cases"

Which is why those assaulted are reluctant to report abuse. An experienced lawyer quit capable of destroying a layperson on the stand.

KILLER quote from this story ....

In just a few days for top criminal lawyer Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi has gone from punchline to client.

“As criminal lawyers we represent people who have committed heinous acts. Acts of violence. Acts of depravity. Acts of cruelty. Or as Jian Ghomeshi likes to call it, foreplay,” Henein said at a gala on Oct. 29 to big laughs from the crowd of about 450 lawyers, including judges of both the provincial and superior court where his case might be heard if charges are laid ....