Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Your belief that there needs to be a video or a recording in order for it to be considered evidence is kind of cute.
Unfortunately you're wrong.
Witness testimony is indeed evidence. It will be up to th judge to decide whether the evidence is proof that a crime has been committed or not. You certainly do not need a video. The judge has to decide whether the testimony is believable or not. Even a video needs to be judged and deemed to be proof of a crime or not.
An "independant investiagator" also found those 2 liberal MPs guilty of sexual harrassment, even though we know from the events as described that was bullshit. We don't know if this investiagator is truely qualified, if there is such a thing.
Honestly we should call her what she is, a modern day witch hunter. I concider sexual harrassment law bullshit, if someone makes a pass at you turn them down or accept, if they try to blackmail you into sex, blackmail is already illegal, as if are start stalking you, again already illegal, if someone makes a crude joke laugh or tell them its a crappy joke, ect...
Sexual Harrassment law has done alot of harm to women and alot of it is complete bullshit. I was talking to a MPA and she told me at an office she'd worked at this guy gives this really fat chick a compliment on her hair, just to be nice and the bitch goes to HR to file a sexual harrassment compliant. He wasn't even attracted to her he was just being nice.
Then there are all the sexual harrassment lawsuits done purely for the money, and there is great money in sexual harrassment lawsuits.
The sad thing for women who had nothing to do with this, is that alot of male bosses don't even feel safe enough to be alone in a closed room with them.
And what's even worse is that there was study that found after going to sexual harrassment seminiars that people had less respect for women, they were made out to be weak and helpless.
Honestly we should call her what she is, a modern day witch hunter. I concider sexual harrassment law bullshit, if someone makes a pass at you turn them down or accept, if they try to blackmail you into sex, blackmail is already illegal, as if are start stalking you, again already illegal, if someone makes a crude joke laugh or tell them its a crappy joke, ect...
Sexual Harrassment law has done alot of harm to women and alot of it is complete bullshit. I was talking to a MPA and she told me at an office she'd worked at this guy gives this really fat chick a compliment on her hair, just to be nice and the bitch goes to HR to file a sexual harrassment compliant. He wasn't even attracted to her he was just being nice.
Then there are all the sexual harrassment lawsuits done purely for the money, and there is great money in sexual harrassment lawsuits.
The sad thing for women who had nothing to do with this, is that alot of male bosses don't even feel safe enough to be alone in a closed room with them.
And what's even worse is that there was study that found after going to sexual harrassment seminiars that people had less respect for women, they were made out to be weak and helpless.
My point is having a bunch of people make accusations isnt strong enough evidence, you need more corroborating evidence.
All you need to do is look at this current trial. So far we have just a bunch of accusations which are completely falling apart, and without more (stronger) evidence this case is in serious trouble
That doesnt tell us anything fuji. All it says is he investigated 100 people. Unless you can break it down as to how many employees witnessed the actual sexual harrassment its meaningless
You are just dangling by the neck here. The report is bullet proof from a job termination point of view. Two other CBC employees were terminated for having had information and not acted on it.
This entirely answered your question as to whether they're was any wrongful dismissal. There wasn't. CBC established through a very thorough process that he had been harassing people.
Secondly, he has admitted that he likes beating up women and his defence is that he beats them legally. CBC is on the high ground in arguing that beating up women is incompatible with its corporate image.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing and refusing to accept the facts. Exactly like you refused to accept that social security is subsidized by illegal immigrants even after you sawa direct quote from SSA'd top actuary stating that it was.
You don't care about facts, they don't have any bearing on your beliefs. So really, you are just a troll.
Actually, the bar for firing people is set extremely low. An employer can fire someone without cause, however the dismissed employee must be adequately compensated. In Jian's case, he, apparently, belongs to a union so maybe they can get his job back.
No report is bullet proof. At the end of the day, it still must be proven if challenged. That said, it may be incredibly compelling and justify (in the employer's mind) termination. But that doesn't make it fact.
Wow, I thought the first witness was bad. Lucy DeCoutere is turning out to be even worse. After she spoke to the police, she was told not to consume media but says she did. Then she goes on to do many media interviews and issues two press releases.
It doesn't look good when you say “I want him fucking decimated” and “The guy’s a shit show; time to flush.” or in an Oct. 26 email to a friend, for instance, she said “He’s walked the line so long, all the while becoming more famous….” On the day police charged Ghomeshi, DeCoutere wrote in a note to a friend, “I hope he’s panic-eating in a high-calorie way.” In a Feb. 24, 2015 email, appearing to delight in the fact that one of the detectives was an Iranian, like Ghomeshi, she wrote, “Fuck Ghomeshi.”
Again ominously, at least for the case against Ghomeshi, Henein also referred to several emails between DeCoutere and “another complainant,” where DeCoutere discussed cheerfully that actor Mia Farrow was now “on our team” (Farrow had tweeted her support for the IbelieveLucy hashtag that was spawned in the scandal) and celebrated an upcoming Vanity Fair magazine piece “on the whole shit show – hello cover!”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-defence-reveals-photos-of-witness-with-ghomeshi-taken-hours-after-alleged-assault
I couldn't find it but I also read she told a friend something to the effect of when the trial starts, that's when the real fun begins. Lucy is starting to sound like the shit show!
It doesn't look good when you say “I want him fucking decimated” and “The guy’s a shit show; time to flush.” or in an Oct. 26 email to a friend, for instance, she said “He’s walked the line so long, all the while becoming more famous….” On the day police charged Ghomeshi, DeCoutere wrote in a note to a friend, “I hope he’s panic-eating in a high-calorie way.” In a Feb. 24, 2015 email, appearing to delight in the fact that one of the detectives was an Iranian, like Ghomeshi, she wrote, “Fuck Ghomeshi.”
Again ominously, at least for the case against Ghomeshi, Henein also referred to several emails between DeCoutere and “another complainant,” where DeCoutere discussed cheerfully that actor Mia Farrow was now “on our team” (Farrow had tweeted her support for the IbelieveLucy hashtag that was spawned in the scandal) and celebrated an upcoming Vanity Fair magazine piece “on the whole shit show – hello cover!”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-defence-reveals-photos-of-witness-with-ghomeshi-taken-hours-after-alleged-assault
I couldn't find it but I also read she told a friend something to the effect of when the trial starts, that's when the real fun begins. Lucy is starting to sound like the shit show!
We can see how well the trial is going so far based on just he said/she said evidence. In other words, not very well.
What makes you think it couldnt just be some disgruntled workers who had a beef with Ghomeshi?? If JG is found not guilty in this trial the CBC has a massive wrongful termination suit coming their way
He was a unionized employee. Don't believe he can sue in court for wrongful dismissal.
EDIT: he tried that already and failed.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-s-55m-lawsuit-against-cbc-being-withdrawn-1.2849523
On the "is the report evidence or not" debate, I think neither side is describing it correctly.
The report is a document prepared by an individual. The document purports to be a record of interviews and analysis by the author supporting factual and legal conclusions that the author recommends should be drawn. It may also be a record of what actions or investigations were undertaken prior to the preparation of the report. To this extent only, the document could be relied upon as "evidence" - not as unassailable proof of the truth of statements made by those interviewed, only proof that the statements were made.
Neither a court nor a labour arbitrator will give any deference to the findings of the investigator. The statements were taken without benefit of cross examination by the accused (the most important procedural protection in our legal system). Unlike arbitrators or courts, investigators are not clothed with any statutory authority to make legally binding findings. So, if there were a trial or an arbitration, the CBC could not simply plop the report in front of the adjudicator and say - "there you go, case closed".
The existence of the report is actually more damning for CBC management implicated in the cover up. Their dismissal can be justified simply on the basis that they were aware of complaints (albeit unproven, or even in some cases not credible) and yet failed to properly and promptly investigate the complaints to determine whether they should be acted upon.
So, in summary, the report is evidence - of the existence of an investigation, and statements made by those interviewed - no more.
The report is not "bullet proof" evidence sufficient to answer a claim of dismissal without cause before an arbitrator, or the determination of a similar issue in some other proceeding.
The report is a document prepared by an individual. The document purports to be a record of interviews and analysis by the author supporting factual and legal conclusions that the author recommends should be drawn. It may also be a record of what actions or investigations were undertaken prior to the preparation of the report. To this extent only, the document could be relied upon as "evidence" - not as unassailable proof of the truth of statements made by those interviewed, only proof that the statements were made.
Neither a court nor a labour arbitrator will give any deference to the findings of the investigator. The statements were taken without benefit of cross examination by the accused (the most important procedural protection in our legal system). Unlike arbitrators or courts, investigators are not clothed with any statutory authority to make legally binding findings. So, if there were a trial or an arbitration, the CBC could not simply plop the report in front of the adjudicator and say - "there you go, case closed".
The existence of the report is actually more damning for CBC management implicated in the cover up. Their dismissal can be justified simply on the basis that they were aware of complaints (albeit unproven, or even in some cases not credible) and yet failed to properly and promptly investigate the complaints to determine whether they should be acted upon.
So, in summary, the report is evidence - of the existence of an investigation, and statements made by those interviewed - no more.
The report is not "bullet proof" evidence sufficient to answer a claim of dismissal without cause before an arbitrator, or the determination of a similar issue in some other proceeding.
Agreed.
I was involved in a 'termination with cause' situation in the past where an '3rd party consultant' provided an 'analysis' that was rife with inaccuracies and blatant opinion.
My former employer took this report as 'gospel' and acted accordingly. Myself and my lawyer disagreed... and eventually so did a pre-trial judge.
foolji's claims that these 'investigations' are bullet-proof from an internal policy perspective are (like him) ludicrous, especially when the target is rarely (if ever) given an opportunity to challenge the 'findings' before legal proceedings commence.
In my situation, I originally wondered why they were so secretive and wouldn't answer any of my questions. Once suit was filed, it all made sense. I saw this 'report' and LOLed.
The trial has nothing to do with the investigation into workplace harassment. Again, this is typical of you, you have been provided the evidence you asked for and now you are just denying it. Your views are totally disconnected from reality.
The trial relates to allegations of sexual assault and has nothing to do with harassment in the workplace, which was investigated by CBC resulting in the termination of multiple employees including ghomeshi.
An employer doesn't need to take you to court to terminate you. In court if he challenges it the question will be whether the employer acted reasonably. The investigation and report goes far beyond what is required to legally terminate an employee.
Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do...
Henein produced an email in court Friday that DeCoutere sent Ghomeshi on July 5, 2003, a day after the alleged assault. It read: “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brain out. Tonight.”
Another letter she wrote to Ghomeshi read: “Jian you are great. I want to have more fun times with you . . . . I am sad we didn’t spend the night together.”
DeCoutere read the letter’s sign off at the request of Henein. It said: “I love your hands, Lucy.”
In another email sent on July 17, 2003, 13 days after the alleged assault, DeCoutere wrote to Ghomeshi: “I think you are magic and would love to see you.”
Earlier in the trial, Henein produced an email from Nov. 24, 2003, after the Gemini Awards where DeCoutere alleges Ghomeshi once again placed his hand on her throat.
The email’s subject line was “brace yourself” and the message read: “I’m in town and am gonna call your cellphone and ask you to play me with me . . . in a manner of speaking . . . so you have fair warning.”
Henein produced another email, sent around the time that read: “how busy are you gonna be in banff? i wanna play with you.” And another, stating: “wanna go for a hike? pims on the terrace? chance encounter in the broom closet?”
Henein produced an email in court Friday that DeCoutere sent Ghomeshi on July 5, 2003, a day after the alleged assault. It read: “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brain out. Tonight.”
Another letter she wrote to Ghomeshi read: “Jian you are great. I want to have more fun times with you . . . . I am sad we didn’t spend the night together.”
DeCoutere read the letter’s sign off at the request of Henein. It said: “I love your hands, Lucy.”
In another email sent on July 17, 2003, 13 days after the alleged assault, DeCoutere wrote to Ghomeshi: “I think you are magic and would love to see you.”
Earlier in the trial, Henein produced an email from Nov. 24, 2003, after the Gemini Awards where DeCoutere alleges Ghomeshi once again placed his hand on her throat.
The email’s subject line was “brace yourself” and the message read: “I’m in town and am gonna call your cellphone and ask you to play me with me . . . in a manner of speaking . . . so you have fair warning.”
Henein produced another email, sent around the time that read: “how busy are you gonna be in banff? i wanna play with you.” And another, stating: “wanna go for a hike? pims on the terrace? chance encounter in the broom closet?”
