Oh come on. The guy says it himself, he likes to punch, choke, slap and otherwise beat up women. His defense is that they consented to being hit, slapped, and choked. That's his thing. CBC is well within its rights to say they don't want to be associated with what his own defense has admitted to, regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Why can't you just accept that he is the victim of a false allegation. Thats why s.140 of the CC exist. I am beginning to think your a cop or a femenist.
look up www.shrink4men.com
some ex's are just evil and thats why always keep fotos, text messages, video and voice recording along with hand written letters.
love how he kept all that staff and has shown those 3 women for the liers they are
They look bad and real victims know that they are hurting the process that has taken so long to change.
Have to lov Kama, if you do wrong Karma will show you the way
I was extremely disappointed to read the Globe and Mail article how the trial is turning into a train wreck. The whole approach of the defence to focus on the victims is appalling. It's like telling a women she wasn't domestically abused because she didn't leave her husband after each beating.
We know for a fact that he likes beating up women. He has admitted it. It isn't disputed. His defense is that they consented to the violence.
The point, in case you missed it, is that he is a lowlife scum even if he is found not guilty just based on the things he himself has admitted at this point.
In terms of his job, guilty or not guilty, CBC isn't going to want to be associated with a guy who gets off on violence against women. Not even if it turns out to be consensual violence against women.
Yep.
JG was once a part of the liberal artsie fartsie crowd in the Canadian media establisment. In fact, he may have even been president of the club so to speak. But now he is and forever shall be a pariah and even if he's found not guilty they will never let him back in th club he once headed up.
They could have forgiven many personal short comings. He could have been found out to be a regular at a gay bordello, he could have been the worst junkie, he could have robbed banks and even have sold his mother to viking raiders. It all would have been over looked. But not this one.
One of the witnesses tried to use this excuse and the defence (quite rightly) told her that it was completely different circumstances. Battered wives are trapped in a relationship, usually for years and it is not easy to walk away. These witness are in a casual dating relationship and if Ghomeshi did something that they found repulsive - they had every opportunity to walk away. These women pursued him, sent love notes, photos and actively tried to seduce him.
There are many couples engaged in S & M relationships. Convicting Ghomeshi now would be a green light to prosecute anyone engaged in consensual S & M.
Ghomeshi is not out of trouble if this case reaches it's inevitable conclusion. He faces charges concerning CBC staff in June. I doubt the circumstances are quite as convoluted as this recent trial.
Accused won't testify, as closing arguments set for tomorrow
The Crown in the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi will begin its final submissions on Thursday, as the defence team for the former CBC host chose not to present any evidence or call any witnesses, including their client, to testify in the case.
The Crown rested its case on Wednesday after submitting a transcript of a statement from Sarah Dunsworth, an actress and friend of Lucy DeCoutere, one of the three complainants.
DeCoutere had testified that the former Q host had choked and slapped her at his home.
According to the transcript, Dunsworth said DeCoutere called her about a week after the alleged assault. She said DeCoutere told her that she and Ghomeshi had gone out on a date and that he had "ended up putting his hands on her neck and choking her." Dunsworth did not mention anything about the alleged slapping.
Dunsworth said DeCoutere asked her if she thought that was normal, to which Dunsworth replied, "It's really not normal." She said DeCoutere told her she and Ghomeshi had not previously discussed that kind of "sex play."
From my viewpoint, Ghomeshi can only hurt his by testifying.
The Crown in the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi will begin its final submissions on Thursday, as the defence team for the former CBC host chose not to present any evidence or call any witnesses, including their client, to testify in the case.
The Crown rested its case on Wednesday after submitting a transcript of a statement from Sarah Dunsworth, an actress and friend of Lucy DeCoutere, one of the three complainants.
DeCoutere had testified that the former Q host had choked and slapped her at his home.
According to the transcript, Dunsworth said DeCoutere called her about a week after the alleged assault. She said DeCoutere told her that she and Ghomeshi had gone out on a date and that he had "ended up putting his hands on her neck and choking her." Dunsworth did not mention anything about the alleged slapping.
Dunsworth said DeCoutere asked her if she thought that was normal, to which Dunsworth replied, "It's really not normal." She said DeCoutere told her she and Ghomeshi had not previously discussed that kind of "sex play."
From my viewpoint, Ghomeshi can only hurt his by testifying.
It truly comes down to consent....verbal and implied.
No, the dating and flirtation by these women after the fact doesn't mean they gave verbal consent.
But it does imply they were not as traumatized as they claim.
The 5000 emails between the two women make them out to be nothing but vindictive.
So will the judge rule that implied over-rides verbal consent?
No, the dating and flirtation by these women after the fact doesn't mean they gave verbal consent.
But it does imply they were not as traumatized as they claim.
The 5000 emails between the two women make them out to be nothing but vindictive.
So will the judge rule that implied over-rides verbal consent?
He may not get a criminal conviction but I don't feel sorry for him at all.
With some of his "feminist" friends
With some of his "feminist" friends
Last edited:
Maybe as much as they will not admit to it or indeed even explain it - some women like bad boys and seek them out.
That is the question the court will answer.
The scumbag question comes after that. For example. CBC won't hire him back either way because he is a scumbag who enjoys violence against women, and that isn't compatible with the corporate image they wish to project.
But this is a really ugly little greasy dude. If he didnt have a show he wasnt getting laid without a wad of bills.
