CBC fires Jian Gomeshi for having kinky sex- Page 4

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:45pm

I went to the memorial show they had for Becca. She's funny as Melissa Mahoney.

[canmark]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 10:29am

Well, now it’s sounding like Ghomeshi is some kind of monster (and I retract any support of him I might have suggested previously), a modern day Jekyll and Hyde. If all the allegations are true, he has been assaulting women for over a decade and should probably be behind bars and not just without a job. It’s unfortunate that none of these many women felt that they could report him to the police or to his employer (CBC). Is/was he that powerful? Are the police/justice system in Canada so corrupt that these women felt that they would not be believed? Or were his assaults so calculated (leaving no visible wounds) and well covered up with “consenting” emails and texts and good public behavior that the women felt it would be just a he said/she said case? Given that most of these incidents are well in the past I don’t see what can be done other than public shaming – although I’ve read on the Internet that he has fled to Los Angeles. Women in California beware!

Updated On: 10/30/14 at 10:29 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 11:29am

A really interesting piece in Salon today, based on a (public) Facebook post written by a friend of Ghomeshi's.

Also, maybe it's time to change the thread title to reflect what Mr. Ghomeshi was actually fired for: beating women.



"Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women"

Updated On: 10/30/14 at 11:29 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 2:12pm

Why does this have to be about "believing women" or "bitches be crazy"?

Why can't it just be about criminal allegations that are proven or not in a court of law? If he's guilty of assault, then let him be punished for assault.

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 2:21pm

Maybe because women who allege sexual abuse almost always find their credibility being called into question, as has already happened in this case.

In a perfect world, everything would come down to "criminal allegations that are proven or not in a court of law." In the real world, things are messier and extenuating factors (like gender, sexuality, race, fame/notoriety, opinions on BDSM etc etc etc) are often dragged into the debate.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 2:29pm

Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing other

That's why it's about "bitches be crazy." Maybe it's actually true and we'll find out that in this case bitches do be crazy, but just last week we had a discussion at work about how boys (I work in a school) often try to discredit women by labeling them as crazy or obsessed with them instead of actually dealing with the issue at hand.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 2:47pm

The "bitch be crazy" accusation is hardly a male thing. You see women saying the same thing about each other daily on any daytime/reality show. It's a classic universal shut-down maneuver. And sometimes, it's actually true.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 2:50pm

Okay, though I still think it's much more common to hear a man say "She crazy. She obsessed with me" to shut down a woman than the other way around.
Updated On: 10/30/14 at 02:50 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:19pm

So we can never have a simple criminal case again?

I never even heard of this guy before this story. But every time I click on something about this story, I end up reading about how women are never believed.

I don't have any reason to believe them or disbelieve them. I would just like to listen to the allegations without having to listen to how women aren't listened to.

And is it every allegation that should result in getting fired? Or are there other crimes that will have to wait until the allegations are proven in a court of law?

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:19pm

"She crazy. She obsessed with me"

Even more troubling is the lack of verbs when men say this...

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:20pm

Right? They awful.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:29pm

So what do they say he did?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:37pm

Who what?

I don't know why you have to suffer through women bitching about not being heard, though. To your question about a simple criminal case, I guess it's tougher when the person is in the public eye. I'd never heard of him either until this. He know a lot of crazy bitches, though.

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:40pm

Of course people in the public eye face greater scrutiny. Alec Baldwin and Paula Deen both lost their jobs for making comments, and what they said wasn't illegal. We don't live in a world that's blind to circumstance.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:41pm

Remember when Sutton Foster and a bunch of people got an anti-gay-marriage guy fired?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 3:43pm

I have not paid detailed attention to this incident, but I would guess under a standards "morals" clause, he could be fired for conduct admitted to in his Facebook post.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:18pm

Which is what?

And who was the anti-gay marriage guy and what did he to to Sutton Foster?

Her I would believe!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:21pm

I found the Facebook post (which is too long!), but this is all he admits to in that:

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Is that enough to violate a morals clause?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:40pm

I have no idea what his Morals clause says. I was just pointing out that there probably was one in his contract, and such clauses have been used to justify termination if there is private conduct that could be viewed unfavorably. He also states:

"Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life."

To the extent that his private conduct, when made public, runs afoul of his contracts morals clause will depend on the contract.

Updated On: 10/30/14 at 04:40 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:41pm

I don't know anything about how morals clauses work. Maybe someone else does? At least one of the links in this thread details some of the allegations. I didn't see anyone crabbing about silencing women on it, either.

As for the Sacramnenbto Music Circus, oops, it wasn't Sutton Foster,
it was Susan Egan!

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:50pm

I think this morals clause discussion is out of chronological order, since his Facebook post came after he was fired. So, he was already fired when that appeared, not because of it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:51pm

Okay, Dan Savage clarifies it for me (as he frequently does with such questions):


While I certainly know that kinksters can face prejudice, and while I know that some kinksters have lost jobs or custody of children after their private and consensual sexual activities were exposed, I also know that some violent and abusive assholes—straight, gay, and everything in between—have attempted to cover for their crimes by claiming that everything was consensual.

And...

The ability to produce e-mails or texts showing that a person consented to kinks A, B, and C does not prove that person consented to kinks D, E, and F; those same e-mails and texts also don't prove that a person who had previously consented to kinks A, B, and C didn't withdraw their consent during sex that included kinks A, B, and C.




THE STRANGER: Prominent CBC Radio Host Claims He Was Fired for Consensual BDSM Sex

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 4:51pm

ETA: Haterobics is correct. The timing was that on Thursday he gave CBC:

"a voluntary disclosure of a scandal he feared was about to break, due to the efforts of “a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.” The disclosure included what Mr. Ghomeshi described as exculpatory evidence, proving the “rough sex” in question was consensual. He said the allegations and insinuations of “unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom,” as yet unmade in any formal or legal context, were “categorically untrue,” and that CBC executives said he was being dismissed essentially for the ugly optics of the situation, due to “the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out.”"

What I read is that by trying to frame the story, he basically validated it in the minds of CBC.


As for Morals Clauses, they are more common among entertainers and athletes - individuals whose conduct could impact the brand they are affiliated with. You also seem them in some divorce settlements. I am sure it is the reason that the "Honey Boo Boo" show was cancelled on TLC. Tiger Woods lost sponsors because of these types of clauses. Here is a discussion. As its states, they are usually broader than conviction, and can include language similar to the following:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Again, I have no idea what the clause actually says, but would not be surprised if it exists and was a basis for the decision.



Morals Clauses Updated On: 10/30/14 at 04:51 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 5:00pm

"Maybe because women who allege sexual abuse almost always find their credibility being called into question, as has already happened in this case."

AC, I'm not at all unsympathetic or unconcerned with there being a shameful historical (and in many instances continuing) marked lack of credulity about sexual complaints with very troubling societal sexist implications (in an overall sexist framework that transcends accusations of sexual assault). In fact its very troubling.

But having said that, it should also be understood that complainants of all types of crimes have their credibility questioned. That is all part of the very important process of confronting witness and putting the prosecution to its proof. What's important is that people, including of course women but not limited to women, who complain of sexual assault are treated with the same respect as people who claim to have had other crimes committed against them.




Updated On: 10/30/14 at 05:00 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/30/14 at 5:03pm

It sounds like the CBC fired Gomeshi in anticipation of the Star article, which had been in the works for a while.