Oh boy. (If his name was linked in any tiny way, they would be remiss if they didn't take a double look).
Interesting dismissal at the CBC.......
- Thread starter Scarey
- Start date
Quite likely he viewed this as one of the many perks and entitlements for being the awesome legendary Jian Ghomeshi!
Guys....This is simply a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, tiff"
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other...who-helped-get-jian-ghomeshi-fired/ar-BBc4ksS
An interview with Jesse Brown, the crowdfunded journalist who helped get Jian Ghomeshi fired.
An interview with Jesse Brown, the crowdfunded journalist who helped get Jian Ghomeshi fired.
Betcha that high priced, blue chip law firm has discreetly ditched him as well. Who the hell attorney wants to be part of a "$50million defamation suit" that just ran off the rails and ploughed into the guardrail?! Miserable and professionally embarrassing. And all your buddies in the lawyers' changing room at the court-house chuckle smugly when you walk to your locker.
Additional reading material if you don't mind. This is the latest woman to speak out and she has identified herself. She is an educated woman and did not report her case to anyone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296.html
I want to be clear that I am inclined to believe all of the accusations against Jian Ghomeshi. I don't buy any suggestion that these women were not victims or that they were not genuinely disturbed by what occurred. The fact that they chose not to report it, perhaps choosing not to have to re-live the events and account for themselves to a stranger(s) doesn't make their stories less credible.
There are aspects of Reva Seth's story that do bother me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296.html
1) She states, "I first met Jian in the late spring of 2002. I was 26 and after two years with the firm, was just leaving a job as a Bay Street lawyer (ironically at what is now Dentons, the firm Jian has retained for his case). I was about to start a job at Toronto City Hall as well as a Masters in Trade and Competition Law at Osgoode."
She then goes onto describe how she met Jian, their relationship and what is unquestionably a disturbing encounter that was, as described, quite likely a sexual assault.
However she then writes, "It was maybe six or seven weeks later that I next saw him. My mom was in town to attend my call to bar the next day and she was staying with me"
How is it possible that she just finished a two year job as a "Bay Street lawyer" and had not yet been called to the bar? It is possible she summered at the firm and then articled there (I don't see how that adds up to 2 years but give her the benefit of the doubt and some rounding errors) - but there is a huge difference between being a summer/articling student and a "lawyer" - no law student, articling student or "lawyer" would make that mistake.
I don't really know what to make of it. Frankly, it is not a minor slip. On the whole I am inclined to believe her account of what happened with Jian but I would say if you are going to go public and accuse anyone, public figure or not, of something as serious as this, your account should be unimpeachable. If you are a lawyer / author what possible excuse is there to be that sloppy in fact checking your article. I guess what bothers me is that she said she had just completed her 2 year job as a "lawyer" in the context of debunking the possible counter-argument that she, like some of Jian's other accusers, were "starstruck" or "wanting something professional" from him. She presents herself as more established, on a career path and with no susceptibility to be awed or star-struck by Jian. Certainly this argument is stronger if the author was a two year lawyer at a Bay Street firm, as opposed to an articling or law student with a Bay Street firm. Did she fudge the facts to strengthen her argument? Did she make an honest mistake and get some dates / events mixed up? If the latter is the case, how could she possibly proof-read the article and not realized that she had written that she was called to the bar after working as a lawyer for two years?
She got her LLB at Western. She says she was 26 in 2002. Two years of working as a lawyer means she started working as a lawyer at the age of approximately 24. Three years of law school and 10 mos of articling means she would have entered law school at approximately the age of 20. It is possible, although very rare, that she was admitted to law school after 2 years of university (which she presumably entered at 18) - or she entered university at 17 and attended for 3 years before starting law school. Assuming that is all true it doesn't leave alot of time to complete law school, get called to the bar in another jurisdiction, and then return to Toronto to work as a lawyer for 2 years before getting called to the Ontario bar.
I don't think I am hyper critical. I have pretty much taken everything Jian's accusers have said about him at face value and if I ever see him within 100 feet of my sisters or daughter I imagine things would go poorly for him. But this one bugs me. If you are going to accuse someone of something this serious I don't think you should be casual with the truth.
There are aspects of Reva Seth's story that do bother me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296.html
1) She states, "I first met Jian in the late spring of 2002. I was 26 and after two years with the firm, was just leaving a job as a Bay Street lawyer (ironically at what is now Dentons, the firm Jian has retained for his case). I was about to start a job at Toronto City Hall as well as a Masters in Trade and Competition Law at Osgoode."
She then goes onto describe how she met Jian, their relationship and what is unquestionably a disturbing encounter that was, as described, quite likely a sexual assault.
However she then writes, "It was maybe six or seven weeks later that I next saw him. My mom was in town to attend my call to bar the next day and she was staying with me"
How is it possible that she just finished a two year job as a "Bay Street lawyer" and had not yet been called to the bar? It is possible she summered at the firm and then articled there (I don't see how that adds up to 2 years but give her the benefit of the doubt and some rounding errors) - but there is a huge difference between being a summer/articling student and a "lawyer" - no law student, articling student or "lawyer" would make that mistake.
I don't really know what to make of it. Frankly, it is not a minor slip. On the whole I am inclined to believe her account of what happened with Jian but I would say if you are going to go public and accuse anyone, public figure or not, of something as serious as this, your account should be unimpeachable. If you are a lawyer / author what possible excuse is there to be that sloppy in fact checking your article. I guess what bothers me is that she said she had just completed her 2 year job as a "lawyer" in the context of debunking the possible counter-argument that she, like some of Jian's other accusers, were "starstruck" or "wanting something professional" from him. She presents herself as more established, on a career path and with no susceptibility to be awed or star-struck by Jian. Certainly this argument is stronger if the author was a two year lawyer at a Bay Street firm, as opposed to an articling or law student with a Bay Street firm. Did she fudge the facts to strengthen her argument? Did she make an honest mistake and get some dates / events mixed up? If the latter is the case, how could she possibly proof-read the article and not realized that she had written that she was called to the bar after working as a lawyer for two years?
She got her LLB at Western. She says she was 26 in 2002. Two years of working as a lawyer means she started working as a lawyer at the age of approximately 24. Three years of law school and 10 mos of articling means she would have entered law school at approximately the age of 20. It is possible, although very rare, that she was admitted to law school after 2 years of university (which she presumably entered at 18) - or she entered university at 17 and attended for 3 years before starting law school. Assuming that is all true it doesn't leave alot of time to complete law school, get called to the bar in another jurisdiction, and then return to Toronto to work as a lawyer for 2 years before getting called to the Ontario bar.
I don't think I am hyper critical. I have pretty much taken everything Jian's accusers have said about him at face value and if I ever see him within 100 feet of my sisters or daughter I imagine things would go poorly for him. But this one bugs me. If you are going to accuse someone of something this serious I don't think you should be casual with the truth.
You know things are looking bad when the people being paid to make you look good decide to drop you as a client.
This is a question for the lawyers or those in the know.
Even if all of the allegations are true, if after so many years, how can the victims prove what happened, and how can the Star defend itself from a lawsuit if their sources can't prove what happened?
JG may never go to court, and his accusers may never choose to charge him. Maybe they'll be merciful and just ruin what's left of his reputation, career, and be a warning to other women.
maybe.
I think what most people are thinking, that the middle ground is shrinking, and getting more miniscule by the minute.
There is very definitely some piling on going on in this case. I know many people in the entertainment business, and so many people are coming out of the woodwork to say what a complete tool this guy is / was. Some I believe are genuine, some may be trying to distance themselves from JG. What we're not hearing either "loud enough" or in "great numbers" is people coming to his defense. I'm sure there are, probably many, and maybe they can't be heard over the mob(s)...but one interesting point that's being made in this case is that the number of people that are carving this guy up is getting larger. The number of women that are feeling strong enough to tell their stories, is growing. It makes me wonder, "what could someone do that would make this many people stand up, and point the finger"
I think the answer isn't JUST, he's a misunderstood jerk, but maybe, just maybe, something far worse.
"Big Ear" was probably a video camera and Jian's computer and harddrive are probably at the bottom of Lake Ontario now.
Canadian actress Polly Shannon is number 10:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1645677/female-stars-speak-out-about-allegations-against-ghomeshi/
http://globalnews.ca/news/1645677/female-stars-speak-out-about-allegations-against-ghomeshi/
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/dear-jian-ghomeshi-open-letter.html
By girlwriteswhat
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Dear Jian Ghomeshi: an open letter
I have never liked your show. The primary reason I have always found you insufferable is because you have consistently pandered to feminism. You softball any feminist guest--hell, you tend to not just softball, but softball slow and wide and soggy enough to give them a walk every damn time, instead of ever asking them any difficult questions, or demanding they provide empirical evidence for their assertions.
And while I know that asking the really hard questions isn't what The Q is about, I have no doubt that had you ever interviewed me, you'd have been asking those hard questions. You'd have been demanding I prove every single claim I made. You'd do it the way every mainstream interviewer, whether on the political left or the political right, who has dared to talk to me has.
You have been told all your life that the rape of women is not taken seriously enough, even in Western cultures. That women who claim they've been sexually violated are not believed, and even when they are believed, they're blamed or dismissed. You've been told that we live in a rape culture where the sexual terrorizing of women is normalized, and men are absolved through the toxically masculine "boys will be boys".
You have implicitly agreed with that, every time you've swallowed any given feminist assertion at face value, instead of telling that person to prove it to you, and to everyone. You are now reaping what a feminist culture sows. What it sows is an assumption of sexual malice and malfeasance on the part of all men, and the attitude, to paraphrase Alan Dershowitz, that rape is so heinous a crime, even innocence is not a defence. You said yourself, the CBC doesn't give two shits about whether what you did with your partner was consensual--it's only concerned with the fact that some women have impugned your sexuality and your integrity. Some woman somewhere says Jian Ghomeshi is a creep? Here comes your pink slip.
I've been surfing on mainstream websites, and the "goss" is that you're a scumbag and a predator, all based on a single blog post about an alleged ass-grab, written by a female "writer" that "Literotica" wouldn't lower themselves to publishing, a story so cloying and saturated with rape-fantasy narrative that I'd be surprised the author doesn't masturbate to it every night before bed.
I have to say, Jian, I'm not happy with you. I'm really not. You've contributed to a culture where a woman's pointed finger is equivalent to a conviction. A culture Theodore Roosevelt predicted would eventually emerge all the way back in 1904--a future dystopia where any man so much as accused of rape would be as subject to public lynching as the black man was in his own day.
You have consistently and repeatedly enabled the architects of your own undoing, almost certainly thinking they would never, ever turn on you, and almost certainly thinking no man was ever accused of sexual misconduct who didn't deserve it. You were willing to believe the worst of every man who was not you--an entire society of them!--while simultaneously believing that playing by the feminist rulebook would somehow inoculate you against persecution.
I am a public figure who has spoken at political conventions and gender issues conferences, an advocate for men and boys, and a philosophical opponent of ideological feminism. I'm a high school graduate whose writings are currently included in the curricula of more than one university sociology or psychology class. I'm a waitress who is a friend of Warren Farrell (best-selling author of several books on the male experience), and Anne Cools, the first black female to become a senator in North America, and a leading opponent of ideological feminism. I am unusual in background. Atypical in my opinions and my associates. Not your average Jane. People like me have been out here all this time, for the 8 years you have hosted your show, and yet not once have you found any of us interesting enough to interview. Not when there's another Rape Culture hysteric to pander to, for lulz and listens, anyway.
I find you smarmy, self-satisfied, repugnant and unctuous in your 8 years of asking easy questions and avoiding controversy. I detest your smug interview style, your moralizing, prerecorded intros to the show, and your lack of journalistic integrity when presenting the status quo as truth by journalistic fiat.
But as much as I detest the way you've enabled and abetted what I have come to believe are the most insidious organized fraudsters in living memory, I detest even more the way you have been treated by them, by your employer, and by the general public.
Again, I don't like you, and I don't like what you have stood for over my years of listening to your program. But that does not mean I will automatically believe what is being said about you, and given the propensity for feminists to lie about men and about sex, I want to offer you my support, such as it is. I wish you well in your lawsuit.
If it turns out you are a scumbag (as many prominent male feminists somehow magically turn out to be, almost as if they view feminism as a means to groom their victims), I will condemn you as wholeheartedly as anyone else. But until the evidence surfaces to convince me of that, I will be in your corner.
Good luck to you, and here's hoping the all the evidence is heard.
-Karen
By girlwriteswhat
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Dear Jian Ghomeshi: an open letter
I have never liked your show. The primary reason I have always found you insufferable is because you have consistently pandered to feminism. You softball any feminist guest--hell, you tend to not just softball, but softball slow and wide and soggy enough to give them a walk every damn time, instead of ever asking them any difficult questions, or demanding they provide empirical evidence for their assertions.
And while I know that asking the really hard questions isn't what The Q is about, I have no doubt that had you ever interviewed me, you'd have been asking those hard questions. You'd have been demanding I prove every single claim I made. You'd do it the way every mainstream interviewer, whether on the political left or the political right, who has dared to talk to me has.
You have been told all your life that the rape of women is not taken seriously enough, even in Western cultures. That women who claim they've been sexually violated are not believed, and even when they are believed, they're blamed or dismissed. You've been told that we live in a rape culture where the sexual terrorizing of women is normalized, and men are absolved through the toxically masculine "boys will be boys".
You have implicitly agreed with that, every time you've swallowed any given feminist assertion at face value, instead of telling that person to prove it to you, and to everyone. You are now reaping what a feminist culture sows. What it sows is an assumption of sexual malice and malfeasance on the part of all men, and the attitude, to paraphrase Alan Dershowitz, that rape is so heinous a crime, even innocence is not a defence. You said yourself, the CBC doesn't give two shits about whether what you did with your partner was consensual--it's only concerned with the fact that some women have impugned your sexuality and your integrity. Some woman somewhere says Jian Ghomeshi is a creep? Here comes your pink slip.
I've been surfing on mainstream websites, and the "goss" is that you're a scumbag and a predator, all based on a single blog post about an alleged ass-grab, written by a female "writer" that "Literotica" wouldn't lower themselves to publishing, a story so cloying and saturated with rape-fantasy narrative that I'd be surprised the author doesn't masturbate to it every night before bed.
I have to say, Jian, I'm not happy with you. I'm really not. You've contributed to a culture where a woman's pointed finger is equivalent to a conviction. A culture Theodore Roosevelt predicted would eventually emerge all the way back in 1904--a future dystopia where any man so much as accused of rape would be as subject to public lynching as the black man was in his own day.
You have consistently and repeatedly enabled the architects of your own undoing, almost certainly thinking they would never, ever turn on you, and almost certainly thinking no man was ever accused of sexual misconduct who didn't deserve it. You were willing to believe the worst of every man who was not you--an entire society of them!--while simultaneously believing that playing by the feminist rulebook would somehow inoculate you against persecution.
I am a public figure who has spoken at political conventions and gender issues conferences, an advocate for men and boys, and a philosophical opponent of ideological feminism. I'm a high school graduate whose writings are currently included in the curricula of more than one university sociology or psychology class. I'm a waitress who is a friend of Warren Farrell (best-selling author of several books on the male experience), and Anne Cools, the first black female to become a senator in North America, and a leading opponent of ideological feminism. I am unusual in background. Atypical in my opinions and my associates. Not your average Jane. People like me have been out here all this time, for the 8 years you have hosted your show, and yet not once have you found any of us interesting enough to interview. Not when there's another Rape Culture hysteric to pander to, for lulz and listens, anyway.
I find you smarmy, self-satisfied, repugnant and unctuous in your 8 years of asking easy questions and avoiding controversy. I detest your smug interview style, your moralizing, prerecorded intros to the show, and your lack of journalistic integrity when presenting the status quo as truth by journalistic fiat.
But as much as I detest the way you've enabled and abetted what I have come to believe are the most insidious organized fraudsters in living memory, I detest even more the way you have been treated by them, by your employer, and by the general public.
Again, I don't like you, and I don't like what you have stood for over my years of listening to your program. But that does not mean I will automatically believe what is being said about you, and given the propensity for feminists to lie about men and about sex, I want to offer you my support, such as it is. I wish you well in your lawsuit.
If it turns out you are a scumbag (as many prominent male feminists somehow magically turn out to be, almost as if they view feminism as a means to groom their victims), I will condemn you as wholeheartedly as anyone else. But until the evidence surfaces to convince me of that, I will be in your corner.
Good luck to you, and here's hoping the all the evidence is heard.
-Karen
