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.