# Ghomeshi trials conclude



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After all the publicity and social media outrage, the Ghomeshi saga ended with a peace bond, which is the criminal court equivalent of a parking ticket.

Millions of dollars spent and lives ruined for what may be described as "much ado about nothing".

The last charge was somewhat dubious............a bump and grind episode, which probably could have been settled with a slap to the face, an angry response or a complaint to be settled by the CBC.

The charges that fell under the "sexual assault" category had almost nothing to do with sex, and more to do with boorish behavior in bad taste.

This kind of workplace shenanigans has been going on forever. Most often it is was consensual...........if we are honest about it. Office affairs are not completely unknown, after all.

I hope we have not degenerated into a criminal trial for every askew glance, inappropriate grope or workplace grievance.

My own workplace was filled with 600 employees, equally divided among young men and women. Affairs, divorces,......were common place in what was known as "Peyton Place".

An event such as was described in this latest charge would probably have resulted in an immediate dressing down and embarrassment of the perpetrator. 

Maybe women were made of stronger fiber in those days, and didn't accept a lot of "guff" from their male co-workers ? 

Shame on the CBC for not handling the workplace complaints properly, but what happens away from work in private lives isn't their problem.

Will employers now be required to request information on future employees private life ?

Would a proper employment question be.........."in your own words describe your sexual interests' ?

If it sounds ridiculous, read some of the twitter outrage that Ghomeshi isn't sitting in prison serving a 10 year sentence for his "inappropriate" behavior.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> ...
> Will employers now be required to request information on future employees private life ?
> 
> Would a proper employment question be.........."in your own words describe your sexual interests' ?
> ...


 ... maybe employers should offer self-defense courses - and women allowed to wear steel-toed boots in the office.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

Uh, sags, the "bump and grind" incident, as you so delicately put it, was witnessed by more than one person. And apparently it happened to more than one employee.

Grinding you sex organ into a woman's buttocks at work, when you are above her rank, and not already in a relationship with her, is sexual assault and harassment. I take it you are a man? If a male superior did the same to you at work, with sexual intent, would that just be workplace shenanigans? What if your boss liked to teabag you, just for fun? No harm, right?

For gawd sake, it's 2016. Deliberate hands or body parts on another employee at work that was unsoliciated is not only HIGHLY inappropriate, and usually criminal.

And incidentally, why do you think his lawyer went for a peace bond, after winning the first trial? Because they would NOT have won the second...there were witnesses this time.

The guy is putrid scum.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
The alleged actions are inappropriate. 
Interestingly, upon reading some articles from TO papers the management she complained to about it were (reportedly) two female managers. What ever happened to the feminist creed that if women had the power everyone would be happy? 


But, RCB, I think your assumption is that her allegations are indubitably true with no mitigating factors. There are two parts to your question, but you only asked one part. Why do you think the prosecution went for the deal? If they had a case, why would they fold and go for the peace bond? They folded because their odds of winning were not good, witnesses not withstanding. I think you have to consider that the two managers who she complained to might have to testify, and they would have to explain why they did nothing. It possible they have a valid reason we don't know about. One of the themes of the trial was the complainants had a habit of leaving out relevant facts, so I'm not about to conclude that didn't happen again with this one.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

Pluto, you have a point. IMO, the police botched the first investigation, so I wouldn't be surprised if the second went the same way. The prosecutors get what they are handed by the police.

Regardless, in his "apology" for the peace bond, the scumbag admitted wrongdoing.

I will add that anyone previously on the receiving end of this type of behaviour can often pick these creeps out in a crowd. Unfortunately I am one of those people. There's a big difference between the average guy (or woman) misinterpreting signals and acting vs. someone preying on those at a disadvantage due to circumstance (age, employment position, etc.). It is the thrill of sexual gratification and the thrill of power, and quite frankly is no different than pedophiles taking advantage of children to young to be confident to tell, and too small to fight back.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The turning point in this trial seemed to revolve around a blog cast that was found on the Canadaland website, where Kathryn Borel was discussing her own inappropriate sexual behavior at the CBC and how she didn't fit into the staid CBC atmosphere.

Her revelations and her assertions don't seem to jive. Christie Blatchford is the only journalist who wrote about it the other day. None of the other media have mentioned it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...r-credibility-issues-interview-may-hold-clues

_But the 36-year-old woman, who now lives out of the country, revealed herself in the Canadaland interview not only as an articulate and ambitious talent but also as a sometimes-profane outlier at the staid CBC.

She told Brown that “I definitely got rapped on the knuckles for my behaviour” at the broadcaster for such things as “making a terrible fist-f—ing joke in the middle of a story meeting” and said she often felt she was walking “a tightrope.”

When Brown remembered how “tone-deaf” she had been to CBC politics, she agreed: “The feedback I was getting was that I was tone-deaf to office politics.”

And when he told her she was so much a fish out of water at the CBC — “incredibly inappropriate, foul-mouthed and sexual and culturally out of step” — that her behaviour would have got anyone else fired, she said she was just 23 and “making it up as I go along.”_

A few weeks after it became public there was the announcement of a peace bond agreement. 

The timing looks suspect, but Ghomeshi is certainly guilty of highly inappropriate behavior of his own. Given the Crown's record of achievement........0 for 4, I just think there might be better alternative solutions than criminal trials.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The turning point in this trial seemed to revolve around a blog cast that was found on the Canadaland website, where Kathryn Borel was discussing her own *inappropriate sexual behavior at the CBC and how she didn't fit into the staid CBC atmosphere.
> *
> Her revelations and her assertions don't seem to jive. Christie Blatchford is the only journalist who wrote about it the other day. None of the other media have mentioned it.
> 
> ...



Hmm? How did she get hired in the first place?. this kind of attitude should have been apparent right from the job interview. 

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have somebody on one side with inappropriate language in the workplace and somebody that needs harassment training for inappropriate touching, or grinding, or whatever..there is or was a serious problem in that workplace. 

Somebody should have read the riot act to get things under control a long time ago. 

What we don't know is what kind of empowerment these females got, to allow them to behave like that...and for Ghomeshi...he's darn lucky not to be hustled off to jail as a sexual deviant, that becomes uncontrollable, if taunted in a certain way. 
He still needs psychiatric care and meds. 

Now...If I were judge..10 years in the slammer for Ghomeshi to rethink his future , and maybe 2 years less a day, to those women that should have behaved themselves like proper ladies in the workplace. Shame on them! Shame on Ghomeshi! Shame on the CBC! 

As the Queen of Hearts (Ghomeshi in CBC Wonderland) exclaimed: 


> The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

RCB said:


> ... If a male superior did the same to you at work, with sexual intent, would that just be workplace shenanigans? ...


Having seen such behaviour that were treated as workplace shenanigans, I would say the "If" part can be removed.




RCB said:


> ... For gawd sake, it's 2016. Deliberate hands or body parts on another employee at work that was unsoliciated is not only HIGHLY inappropriate, and usually criminal.


+1 ...




RCB said:


> ... And incidentally, why do you think his lawyer went for a peace bond, after winning the first trial? Because they would NOT have won the second...there were witnesses this time.


Both sides had to agree to it so one wonders why, given the speech on the steps - a clear winner would pass by going for the peace bond.


Cheers


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

There really needs to be another way of dealing with these things.

People today must be very very careful of their behavior one size does not fit all.
In the case of any man once an allegation is made long before any court rules on fact, the man's life is ruined, he's publicly named assumed to be guilty until found innocent but it doesn't stop there. The shear cost of defending against an allegation can bankrupt anyone and the stakes are high. 

The tone of RCB , Ghomeshi has not been found guilty, was he over the line well he should know better how things really are.
I'd be afraid to get on a bus and bump into a women's butt or try and squeeze past her who knows what could be said.

I've sat at a work place and listened as managers made clear what behavior was not to be tolerated jokes, innuendo, zero tolerance.
The next day several women sat in mixed group with crude jokes read sexual, I noted that none of the men were going to engage in any way
because they remembered what was said the day before and weren't going to be baited.

The first line of defense for any women should be if a man say's or does anything the women considers inappropriate is tell him straight up after that he's on his own.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> The turning point in this trial seemed to revolve around a blog cast that was found on the Canadaland website, where Kathryn Borel was discussing her own inappropriate sexual behavior at the CBC and how she didn't fit into the staid CBC atmosphere.
> 
> Her revelations and her assertions don't seem to jive. Christie Blatchford is the only journalist who wrote about it the other day. None of the other media have mentioned it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Blatchford is a straight shooter. 
Borel, during her speech in front of the courthouse didn't mention her own misconduct and apologize for it. A tad hypocritical. 
Her inappropriate behavior kind of fits with management not doing much about her complaint: the pot calling the kettle black kind of thing. 
So I don't really see the idea the he is the scumbag while the others are pure and innocent.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Daniel A. said:


> The tone of RCB , Ghomeshi has not been found guilty, was he over the line well he should know better how things really are.
> 
> 
> I've sat at a work place and listened as managers made clear what behavior was not to be tolerated jokes, innuendo, zero tolerance.
> The next day several women sat in mixed group with crude jokes read sexual...... .


This type of workplace incident should be noted more often. It is very manipulative for women to point the finger at some guy, but not acknowledge what they do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Other than Judge Horkins and defense lawyer Marie Henein, I don't think anyone came out of this circus with their credibility intact.

Lucy Decoutere very publicly quit Trailer Park Boys as soon as charges were laid against Mike Smith (Bubbles) citing his arrest for sexual abuse as the reason.

When the police investigated, found there was nothing to the allegation and dropped the charges, there was no public apology forthcoming from Decoutere to Smith.

Good luck to Decoutere and her career path now.

Linda Redgrave, one of the complainants was at the court asking reporters to interview her so she could ask "where is my peace bond" and promote her new sexual abuse website.

Apparently it escapes her that she was the complainant in a criminal trial in which Ghomeshi was found not guilty.

Kathryn Borel states she is a writer for an American sitcom in LA, but on a list of 20 writers who contributed to the show her name isn't on it.

http://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-american-dad-writers/reference

It is all very muddled...........a little truth here, a little lie there............what difference does it make.......they ask.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Ghomeshi got away with something............or thinks he got away with something, that is for him to live with. 

I think this movie quote sums it up........

"All men with honor are kings. But not all kings have honor... Honor is what no man can give you, and none can take away. Honor is a man's gift to himself."


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> If Ghomeshi got away with something............or thinks he got away with something, that is for him to live with.
> 
> I think this movie quote sums it up........
> 
> "All men with honor are kings. But not all kings have honor... Honor is what no man can give you, and none can take away. Honor is a man's gift to himself."


as it is said.."there is no honour amongst thieves",..or sexual deviants.

Technically he got away because his accusers are airheads, and didn't get all the facts straight. They are stupid and he is stupid for
falling for the bait. 

I wish them well. While they have gained some notoriety during this trial, they will be forgotten very quickly just like him.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> It is *all very muddled...........a little truth here, a little lie there............what difference does it make.......they ask*.


*Kathryn Borel's Statement:*



> Everyday, over the course of a three-year-period, Mr. Ghomeshi made it clear to me that he could do what he wanted to me and my body. He made it clear that he could humiliate me repeatedly and walk away with impunity.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-peace-bond



> Throughout the time that I worked with him, he framed his actions with near-daily verbal assaults and emotional manipulations. His inferences felt like threats, or declarations like I deserved to have happening to me what was happening to me. It became very difficult for me to trust what I was feeling. Up until recently, I didn’t even internalize that what he was doing to my body was sexual assault because, *when I went to the CBC for help, what I received in return was a directive that yes, he could do this, and yes, it was my job to let him.*


??? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..is this a lie or is this her perception that the CBC workplace in Toronto is a den of miscreants where anything is acceptable. 
*miscreant[/B

a person without moral scruples
Synonyms:
reprobate
Type of:
offender, wrongdoer
a person who transgresses moral or civil law*


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Other than Judge Horkins and defense lawyer Marie Henein, I don't think anyone came out of this circus with their credibility intact.
> 
> Lucy Decoutere very publicly quit Trailer Park Boys as soon as charges were laid against Mike Smith (Bubbles) citing his arrest for sexual abuse as the reason.
> 
> ...


 ... including lawyers and judges.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> > Throughout the time that I worked with him, he framed his actions with near-daily verbal assaults and emotional manipulations. His inferences felt like threats, or declarations like I deserved to have happening to me what was happening to me. It became very difficult for me to trust what I was feeling. Up until recently, I didn’t even internalize that what he was doing to my body was sexual assault because, *when I went to the CBC for help, what I received in return was a directive that yes, he could do this, and yes, it was my job to let him*.


 ... it would seems to be a lie and a perception but it is neither. 

It appears that she had complained of the sexual harassments (then assaults), only to be told to "take it or leave it" the job that is, i.e. if she wants to keep her job, don't try rocking the boat but to shut up.... until someone went to the "media (ironic?)" and did the exposé. The deviant perp thought he was the almighty with the power to do whatever he wanted there in that big castle.

I would give Ms. Borel a medal for having the courage to come out on front page news.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... including lawyers and judges.


The clear winner in this media circus is Marie Henlein. 
She will collect her fees from Ghomeshi and continue on in her career, advertised through this trial that she is a lawyer
that can defend her clients. 

The rest are a bunch of losers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... it would seems to be a lie and a perception but it is neither.
> 
> It appears that she had complained of the sexual harassments (then assaults), only to be told to "take it or leave it" the job that is, i.e. if she wants to keep her job, don't try rocking the boat but to shut up.... until someone went to the "media (ironic?)" and did the exposé. The deviant perp thought he was the almighty with the power to do whatever he wanted there in that big castle.
> 
> I would give Ms. Borel a medal for having the courage to come out on front page news.


Ok,so some as*h*le at CBC told her to put up or shut up. 

That would be grounds to write up a report on that person (managerial?) and the letter sent to 
personnel at CBC with copies to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-pre...ed-harassment/2-identifying-sexual-harassment

Although the statements made to her (ie: put with with the sexual harassment, which was clearly the case
here; or shut up...which can be interpreted as "if you don't like what our deviant is doing to you, THEN LEAVE!; 
was verbal.... (he said/she said)... in a court of law, the follow up investigation, even if it resulted in her getting fired
would be blown wide open. 

That letter would result in an investigation by the Ontario Sexual Harassment tribunal, that would blow the lid off the den of miscreants at CBC..
She would then have grounds to sue the CBC and Ghomeshi for sexual harrassments. 
But to have grounds to sue, you don't go "running off at the mouth" to the media about the details of the case.

but she didn't do that..and continued putting up with it until there was enough complaints against him for her to come forward.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ms. Borel began her statement acknowledging she agreed with the peace bond outcome, but then laid out a litany of reasons the trial should have gone forward.

A fitting ending to a bizarre case.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

carverman said:


> The clear winner in this media circus is Marie Henlein.
> She will collect her fees from Ghomeshi and continue on in her career, advertised through this trial that she is a lawyer
> that can defend her clients.
> 
> The rest are a bunch of losers.


Marie Henein is considered the best defense lawyer in Canada and is in line for an appointment as a Judge anytime she wishes.

The best defense lawyers often end their careers as Judges..........Jeanine Leroy was an appointment to the bench a couple of years ago.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> *Ms. Borel began her statement acknowledging she agreed with the peace bond outcome*, but then laid out a litany of reasons the trial should have gone forward.
> 
> *A fitting ending to a bizarre case*.


 ... doesn't that resemble an out of court settlement? Nothing bizarre about this case and the ending is fitting only because it was directed as such.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> The clear winner in this media circus is Marie Henlein.
> She will collect her fees from Ghomeshi and continue on in her career, advertised through this trial that she is a lawyer
> that can defend her clients.
> 
> The rest are a bunch of losers.


 ... yes the clear winner is a lawyer of a deviant client who will then sue CBC for wrongful dismissal, write a book and go on collecting millions. What a way to seek fame and fortune in our non-existent judicial system.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... it would seems to be a lie and a perception but it is neither.
> 
> It appears that she had complained of the sexual harassments (then assaults), only to be told to "take it or leave it" the job that is, i.e. if she wants to keep her job, don't try rocking the boat but to shut up.... until someone went to the "media (ironic?)" and did the exposé. The deviant perp thought he was the almighty with the power to do whatever he wanted there in that big castle.
> 
> I would give Ms. Borel a medal for having the courage to come out on front page news.


By her own words in an interview with Brown, she did similar things herself, so what's the medal for, playing the victim? 
She did not make a formal complaint. And we don't know what she was told by management, all we have is her version.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... doesn't that resemble an out of court settlement? Nothing bizarre about this case and the ending is fitting only because it was directed as such.


A peace bond is a directive order from the court after the evidence given is pondered by the court. 

It is not considered a settlement of any kind, probably due to the behaviour and conduct of the so called "victims' in this case.
Apparently, the court could not find any evidence of actual criminal behaviour based on the witnesses testimony. 

I'm sure that his lawyer would grill the "victims" to determine the circumstances in each case and exactly what the relationship
they had with Ghomeshi at the CBC workplace, (which is governed by Ontario Human Rights Commission sexual/harassment rules), and
away from the workplace where they may have associated more openly with him..ie: going on dates and/or sleepovers..etc. 



> In Canadian law, a peace bond is an order from a criminal court that requires a person to keep the peace and be on good behaviour for a period of time. This essentially means that the person must not be charged with a criminal offence.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes the clear winner is a lawyer of a deviant client who will then sue CBC for wrongful dismissal, write a book and go on collecting millions. What a way to seek fame and fortune in our non-existent judicial system.


I'm sure she will get around to that..the sooner the better..as they say "strike when the iron is hot!"
Lot of things went badly in this one. A sexual deviant with a reputation at CBC, the victims coming into the CBC to work (I presume) in "devil may care" atmosphere where...one of the victims said in a press interview""to put up or get the ??? out if she didn't like it by ???.

I can see a book by his lawyer, then followup books by himself and two or three of his so called victims...BUT will the public buy it?


I should stop using these cliches..but as you know"rust never sleeps"...:biggrin:




> Hey hey, my my
> Rock and roll can never die
> There's more to the picture
> Than meets the eye.
> ...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Pluto said:


> By her own words in an interview with Brown, she did similar things herself, so what's the medal for, playing the victim?
> She did not make a formal complaint. And we don't know what she was told by management, all we have is her version.


 ... for putting her name out on front page news (and not "playing" victim as she is a victim - perhaps not the "perfect" victim) ... and now imagine if she was your wife, daughter, etc. what do you think she should do?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... for putting her name out on front page news (and not "playing" victim as she is a victim - perhaps not the "perfect" victim) ... and now imagine if she was your wife, daughter, etc. what do you think she should do?


If she was a victim, they would have had a trial. The prosecution folded because there was no crime. You don't know she is a victim, all you know is what she claimed. 
I'd want her to take responsibility for her doing similar things.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> If she was a victim, they would have had a trial. The prosecution folded because there was no crime. You don't know she is a victim, all you know is what she claimed.
> I'd want her to take responsibility for her doing similar things.


Under what circumstances was she a victim?
Was there any bodily injury anywhere..even around her neck? Why did she not report it immediately to a supervisor at the CBC, a person with some authority to investigate if it was at a workplace?...or was she just a "hang about" to get some airtime 
on "Q", the talk radio show he was hosting?

While we don't have all the information on what went on, these are grown women, not children, and they should have had the sense not to encourage him.

I'm sure that with some of these that came forward later on, they already knew he was a pervert, but being a "CBC personality-talk TV host", they must have saw some kind of opportunity there, 
than just get accosted in his studio or in the halls.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Pluto said:


> If she was a victim, they would have had a trial. The prosecution folded because there was no crime. You don't know she is a victim, all you know is what she claimed. .


... and neither do you know for sure that there was no "crime" committed ... the prosecution may not have proceeded due to back room negotiations ... I don't suppose the perp would have so easily agreed to the peace bond and offered an "apology" given his "hotshot" lawyer would have just as easily shredded Ms. Borel's testimony. 




> I'd want her to take responsibility for her doing similar things.


 ... the fact she's on the front page news and whatever she said in an interview will follow her with consequences. Now would you have had the courage to make those "claims" in public?


----------

