http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/…

This isn't BDSM, these are allegations of sexual and physical assault.

One of the women is Lucy from "Trailer Park Boys"? Jeesh. These poor women.

I didn't want to comment earlier as I felt too few details were available, but the thing that should have been a serious red flag was when Ghomeshi himself referenced "50 Shades of Grey."

Having read a number of posts from those more kinky than myself over the last 18 months I understand that 50 Shades is NOT BSDM, but an abusive controlling relationship. The fact that Jian called himself a kinkster, but then referenced said book was a tacit admission that a line had been crossed between consensual private behavior and something less than becoming of a decent human being.

Thank you Dan for your explanation. When I first read Jian's FB post, I believed his every word. Over the next few days though, I've changed my mind of course. I've been asking myself, "What would Dan Savage think of this?"



Your explanation makes a lot of sense, much more than anyone's so far.



I honestly always thought he was too good to be true. He's just too nice to his guests, especially the men, whom he always calls "Sir."

The woman you interviewed did seem to like what he was in to. But you know what never once came up in your very thorough interview? A Safe Word. Isn't a Safe Word among the most basic and frequently used terms in the BDSM/kink community? I've only ever hovered around the edges of the kink community, but I hear that phrase all the time. It boggles my mind that two people who are into such rough play never once brought up Safe Words.

And if he isn't using a safe word with his kinky partners, he's an asshole.

Thanks Dan. This makes a lot of sense.

Reverse Polarity @7, yes, lots of folks in the scene use safe words because they want the freedom to yell NO NO NO! STOP STOP STOP! and not end the scene. Others use POS (Plain Old English), which has the advantage of being clear about exactly what the problem is.

(The issue in this particular case would be that he claimed to use safe words but apparently did not.)

It's nice to see some actual journalism happening in a tricky situation like this rather than speculation and wrong headed calls towards one side, the other or "the truth must be in the middle".

@10: Jesse Brown is an excellent investigative reporter and has been working on this story for months before Ghomeshi's firing made the Star post the first article on Monday. Real journalism is happening in this case & it has already happened.

Another news article has been published - The Toronto Star reports:



"Jian Ghomeshi: 8 women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment"



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/…



It appears the ex-radio host and his PR team were anxious to miscast as BDSM his non-consensual abuse.



Thankfully the truth is coming out more quickly than his spin campaign is able to suppress.

Apparently there is a deadline for commentators in the media to reach a conclusive judgment about exactly what happened in this case? If not, what's the urgency in that regard all about? I've been a Dan Savage fan since he was on the radio in the mid-90s. Still am. But what on earth is going on here? A Slog commenter recently alluded to grief Dan takes from the Right about the alleged negative effects of his influential opinions. If that's any part of what's behind Dan's post here, I'll say I think he has been abundantly clear about the issue of consent in his columns over all these years. I get it, though, if he wants to take this opportunity to revisit the issue. But attempting to emphasize the point by concluding that Jian Ghomeshi is either an abuser or a sociopath at this point in the life of the story seems premature, juvenile, and just plain odd.

desertwalker @13, This is why:
http://www.nothinginwinnipeg.com/2014/10…

Criminal convictions are not the only way to keep people safe. Gossip helps keep people safe too, and it has the very real advantage of not disturbing the social order.

I'll second Dan's podcast observation: the truly remarkable thing about this case is that is showcases how acceptable and acknowledged BDSM and kink is today. The fact that the discourse is centered around "consent" instead of "perversion" says we've come a really long way, baby.

BFTO

@15: At least in the city I grew up in, lots of us kids used to take the municipal bus system to school. It snowed a lot. Every Thursday, the Ottawa XPress came out and was available for free along with the Capital Xtra - and we'd grab them to read *for free*, cover-to-cover, on the long rides home.

You know who normalized kink for us? You know who provided the children of Ottawa with their most comprehensive sex ed?

Dan Savage.

@17: Oh yeah. For sure. No doubt.
I give Dan full credit for his role in this sea change of cultural stigma. But no matter who contributed to it, it's still kind of mind-boggling for me.

" Big Ears Teddy".. Right. What a tosser.
If a staff member complained yrs ago and nothing was done about it then, one hopes those who didn't pursue this complaint will also loose their jobs.

Aaaand his fancy elite PR firm (who probably wrote most of that Facebook post) is now running from him like a rat from a sinking ship.

Well, we are up to 8 women he has assaulted. Very, very young women. All of whom were afraid to lay criminal charges against someone who assaulted them brutally. (I am a divorce attorney, and I firmly believe in the full penalty of the law for domestic violence.)

What has saddened me this evening is to realize these young women, barely out of adolescence, were uniformly too frightened to call the police, and did not feel our courts would protect them and stop his predation upon the young and vulnerable. As a Canadian, I am deeply ashamed.

Keep in mind Ghomeshi is almost 50 years of age, never married, no children. He has been a "man about town" all his life, so I leave it to your imagination just how many women he has really assaulted over the years. And for the life of me, how is it possible CBC "just" figured this out? What have they been tolerating all these years, just because they could make a buck off him? I think THEY were threatened with it all coming out, and so took action at the 11th hour.

It is time for the police to launch an investigation, and for charges to be laid.

(P.S. Dan, my goodness, but do I ever love and respect you! You have no idea how many people you have helped in your "It Gets Better" campaign, for which I admire you immensely.)

I think you've just identified the material point here, that "only an idiot or sociopath" would behave this way, and we know that Jian is not an idiot. This is a more disturbing realization than anything, I reckon.

Ghomeshi is a smart man and he understood the optics of a female nobody half his age accusing him of anything that could be construed as self-serving.

I'm not sure how the woman's story who had consensual BDSM play with Jian is supposed to act as a defense? Obviously not every sexual encounter he had was abuse. Rapists and abusers of women often have previous wives/girlfriends/hookups who weren't raped or abused by them, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of it. I mean if he was abusive to every woman he encountered how do you think he's managed to keep doing this for so long?

More women have come forth that had long-distance relationships with him. They all have remarkably similar stories: They're fans who he meets them at an event (mostly book signings); they start an intense correspondence by Skype and text; he pushed the conversation into sexual territory; he shares his proclivities for "rough sex". If they respond negatively, he says that they're just fantasies and he won't act on them in person. They agree to meet up with him, and he assaults them.



Maybe he thinks that they're all secretly "into it" and won't admit it? Maybe he's hoping that once he hits them, they'll realize they actually like it, and is disappointed when they don't? Maybe he just doesn't give a toss for how they feel about it, as long as he gets to live out his fantasy?

More women have come forth that had long-distance relationships with him. They all have remarkably similar stories: They're fans who he meets them at an event (mostly book signings); they start an intense correspondence by Skype and text; he pushed the conversation into sexual territory; he shares his proclivities for "rough sex". If they respond negatively, he says that they're just fantasies and he won't act on them in person. They agree to meet up with him, and he assaults them.



Maybe he thinks that they're all secretly "into it" and won't admit it? Maybe he's hoping that once he hits them, they'll realize they actually like it, and is disappointed when they don't? Maybe he just doesn't give a toss for how they feel about it, as long as he gets to live out his fantasy?



So yes, it seems he just got lucky with the woman you spoke to. Given the number of women he has likely assaulted in this way over the years, he was bound to eventually run into one who shared his tastes.

They met in the fuuuuuture!

I for one, cannot speculate on the sexual practices of Time Travelers, who are able to have sexual encounters in 2102 and come back to tell about it.

My worthless guess - the relationship fizzled with the experienced women who shared his kink because he found it more exciting with younger, less experienced women who do did not know how to navigate BDSM dynamics as well. Perhaps he enjoyed freaking these women out more than engaging in mutually pleasurable kinks with willing partners.

I am not even kidding by saying that the first consensual account was probably written by him.

uglier and uglier. I am literally breathless. What really freaks me is that he seems to truly think these were consensual encounters---since he claims to have shown the CBC 'proof' of consent. Awful

....and the Big Ears Teddy twitter account?

Jezebel ran this this morning:
http://jezebel.com/the-awful-details-of-…

This isn't consensual BDSM--this is really horrible abuse perpetrated by someone who counted on his fame, popularity, and power coupled with the relatively powerless status of the victims he chose, to protect him.

@13: " I've been a Dan Savage fan since he was on the radio in the mid-90s. Still am. But what on earth is going on here?"

You missing the point, apparently. Are you looking for a movie villain? This article is about a man, but moreso about a bad example for how to handle communication that others can learn from.

It's also a great explanation for why one woman can have a good time with him and why another would have a horror show. Neither of them is lying, and the reasons behind this were important for Dan to distinguish.

So the non-abusive relationships were recent, and the abusive ones were less recent, right? I might be wrong, I haven't been keeping up with all the details. It's possible he used to be abusive, but then began to realize he could get in trouble for that. Either way he's terrible.

Any guy who knows he's got to turn his Teddy's face to the wall because the Teddy won't like what he's about to see, knows what he's about to do is non consensual.
There's his admission of guilt, right there. Teddy's don't like forced sex play.

Of course, not a time for jokes. Sorry.

@38: "So the non-abusive relationships were recent, and the abusive ones were less recent, right? I might be wrong, I haven't been keeping up with all the details."

Why don't you figure out the details first before going out of your way to make excuses?

How is that an excuse? I even went out of my way to say he's a terrible person, which of course you conveniently cut out of my post before quoting it.

Poor phrasing on my part, apologies.

If you're going to counter the plausible presentation of the article with a timeline, at least add the pertinent details to match the assumption.

I was just asking a question. I guess I'm not allowed to do that.

OK! That's something to think about. Now can we remove Q from OPB's 2 PM slot and put Terry Gross's Fresh Air back? Q can have the 7 PM slot -- I'm not saying ditch Q -- but I did not give consent to replacing Fresh Air with Q -- now look what has happened!

@44, it is an interesting speculation, and it runs counter to my own speculation that he came to prefer "spring the kink with out warning" (aka assault) to enthusiastic participation with lots of articulated consent before hand. We have one account of the later and at least 8 accounts of the former so far- but even if he was in the process of self correcting, he should take responsibility and not hide behind this persecuted kinkster act he's putting on. My hope for a silver lining is that the publicity from this will reach people who are trying to incorporate their BDSM desires in dating as examples of what to look out for or what not to do.

I enjoyed listening to Q. I always found his voice to be very pleasant he gave very thoughtful and interesting interviews. I'm trying to imagine his voice saying "I want to hate fuck you" and I've got nothing

Even the woman who had a 'good' experience with him thought he was too extreme at one point--I wonder, is there any way that someone can behave this way and NOT be a sociopath?

What's the issue of debate here? He did some shit and no he's likely to receive comeuppance.

@last "I was just asking a question. I guess I'm not allowed to do that. "
Keep asking questions! Just don't expect answers to come easily. Filter out the nonsense.

I think most of the anonymous reports are recent.

I liked Dan's illustration of critical thinking.

The issue is, it was known about for a long time by many people. One woman complained to management and no action was taken. The issue is , this creep, was " allowed" to continue with his creepiness , because?

"Only an an idiot or a sociopath would interpret someone's vague and non-verbal consent to some mild roughness as consent to being punched repeatedly in the head with a closed fist."



Jian is messed up, but why would you put yourself repeatedly into the same situation?

"Only an an idiot or a sociopath would interpret someone's vague and non-verbal consent to some mild roughness as consent to being punched repeatedly in the head with a closed fist."

Jian is messed up, but why would you put yourself repeatedly into the same situation?

@44: "I was just asking a question. I guess I'm not allowed to do that."

You can, but speculation itself can ask its own questions. If you investigated enough to observe one possible trend, but don't want to do the effort to see if the supposedly available facts match your guess, it could come off as devils advocacy or concern trolling. Call it nitpicking if you will, but more important than someone "just asking questions" is how you ask your questions.

"yet all of these women hated him enough to conspire to get him fired and publicly humiliate him. They "colluded" to establish a false "pattern of [nonconsensual, potentially life-threatening] behavior." Because one of them was rilly, rilly mad. Can we take a moment to think about how incredibly unlikely that is?"

Can we take a moment to consider what a false dichotomy that is?

My girlfriend was raped when she was younger. A man whose house she was at for a date, spontaneously in the middle of the evening, grabbed her throat, overpowered, and manhandled her, saying "This is how I could kill you." He then began trying to have sex with her. She complied. She reported it to the police, and the officer told her, "Just because sex happened, that doesn't mean it was rape." She told her social group about it, and another girl in her social group told her, "You're full of shit."

Shortly thereafter, another girl in their social group was raped by this man. "Full of shit" girl, now that the story had the credence of multiple accusers, replied this time with "Oh, he tried it on me, too, but I got away!" She wasn't "conspiring" or "colluding". She was loudly and vocally jumping on whichever side she saw as having the greater social support & power.

While my gf is angry about the reaction of the police officer, who was an expression of rape culture, she is still FURIOUS with the other woman, who is an architect and perpetuator of rape culture. Women like this exist, and they exist in more abundance than I think most people are willing to admit.

Also, the likelihood that you'll remember something is proportional to the intensity of your emotional response to it; however, the likelihood that you'll forget and confabulate the details is ALSO proportional to the intensity of your emotional response. Time also increases the likelihood that details will be wrong, since we remember emotions more than facts. Considering that only 1 of the last 4 to come forward is recounting events that occurred within the last decade, it's safe to assume there's a LOT of confabulation going on.

When I read the accounts and consider the similarities between them, especially on random details like the teddy bear, I can't help but hear an abundance of cowitness-contamination, leading questions, and suggestability. The person who initially contacted these women seems to have been the woman that originated the accusation, and I sincerely doubt she was capable, or even willing, to employ Cognitive Interview technique to make sure not to contaminate the other women's memories. Also, by the time these women came forward, the predominate social wind was distinctly AGAINST Ghomeshi.

It would be very easy (and very human) for someone who had a neutral, or even positive, experience with him 10+ years ago and who was horrified by the first account against him to feel angry and betrayed by his alleged behaviour to the other woman and project those feelings onto her faded memories of her own experience.

That's not to say I take Ghomeshi's side, but I honestly cannot take the accounts of the accusers at face value when viewing them critically. I think the underlying truths behind the allegations and defences is that he is a dangerous, un- or under-trained practitioner of advanced BDSM activities, and needs to do some serious work on communication and consent before someone gets seriously injured. At the very least, for his level of play, he should have written contracts before engaging in any BDSM play with his partners.

Jaysus. I never even heard of this guy until this week with all this scandal business. All I can say for sure at this point is:

1) He's an asshole, who

2) Gives legitimate BDSMers a bad name, and

3) Where can I find these kinds of submissive women?

Thanks for this, Dan.



Listening to the various cases, it seems to me that he went a little further than "initiating violent sex" with these women, then backing off if there was obvious protest. Sometimes he backed off, and sometimes he took it further, seeing how much he could get away with. In many cases, these were one-time encounters, so the women didn't come back.



I wonder too if he backed off more quickly with Lucy DeCouture because she is also high profile and has more power in this situation than with, say, a twenty-something fan or CBC aspirant.

Thanks for this, Dan.

I think Ghomeshi took it further, though, than "initiating" violent sex without consent. These were assaults, often sustained assaults. In several of the cases, he continue to hit or punch these women even if they showed shock or seemed upset. He backed off Lucy DeCouture after a few slaps (and the slaps without consent are inexcusable) but one wonders if he was more conscientious with her, given her high profile. So many of his victims were much younger fans, a particularly vulnerable cohort.

It seems to me he was always testing what he could get away with, and it speaks volumes that he was able to get away with so much for so long.

@ The Beatles,



He is really famous in Canada. His celebrity status probably made it easy for him to get away with this for years. Girls fawned over the dude.

@The Beatles it is because the man is very famous in Canada. He also goes after women a lot younger than him usually, so they are star struck as they are green behind the years in their career. He has a power advantage.

@54 - "Cowitness-contamination"? Why, what big words you know. Can we take a moment to stop being a patronizing prick and ever so mansplainingly speculating on how NINE women, two of whom have now gone public with their names, somehow don't know they were assaulted? Fuck off.



And just a reminder that the only person who says that there's a woman contacting a bunch of other women (presumably to play on their "suggestibility"!) was Ghomeshi himself. And his credibility level is zilch at this point.

@53 I'm aware of the risk of sounding like I'm defending him, which is why I said I don't have all the facts. I'm curious about his behavior, but not curious enough to take notes on everything I read. Anyway, even if I'm right and he did stop abusing people, that's not a defense of his behavior in my mind. He should still go to prison.

@51: When he says "punched repeatedly in the head with a closed fist," he's not talking about being punched on different occasions, he's talking about multiple punches in succession.

@60 - "Why, what big words you know."
Yeah, it's almost like I use the words that I mean and have access to Google to look up the exact term and make sure I'm not completely off-base before posting. Crazy.

"mansplainingly"
Oh my god, it's an adverb now, too!? Clearly, your assumption about my gender, and what my gender says about my perspective and competence, completely undermines my credibility.

"And his credibility level is zilch at this point."
"I've decided I don't believe him, which makes everything he says a lie, so we clearly can't trust him." What wonderful circular, self-affirming, womansplaining logic you have.

Honestly, look at him.
How low does your self-esteem have to be, for you to even consider being alone with this thing?

Sex?

Not even with a rubber dick, and Dan Savage pushing.

WTF, people––there are rapists, murderers, and child molesters whose partners thought they were in happy loving marriages with a sane person. Psycho- or sociopathic behavior isn't going to be consistent across all relationships, in fact, continuing to get away with horrible, twisted behavior pretty much depends on the perpetrator NOT doing that. Why does no one seem to think that that applies here? Cause they're too wrapped up in trying not to stigmatize his professed healthy BDSM play?

BTW, I'm wholly in favor of consensually playing rough; I think it's terrible that he's using that as a dodge for what definitely sounds like a pattern of abusive behavior, and it does not help the cause of kink at all. BDSM tendencies were only downgraded from DSM-listed condition in the last year or two.

How come you're out and about on your own @63?
Where's your wing man, Mr E ?

Its due time people speak out on CBC's dirty little secret...

http://www.aspektz.com/the-great-ghomesh…

Its due time people speak out on CBC's dirty little secret...

http://www.aspektz.com/the-great-ghomesh…

@54 "cowitness ontamination"?!?!?

Cowitness contamination happens when people see the SAME event, like a shooting or an accident, and one eyewitness's testimony influences the other person.

The interviews by Kevin Donovan and Jesse Brown are not depositions. They are interviews with reluctant participants. To interview the women involved, they had to go to great lengths to protect their anonymity. The reporters are going to protect their sources, and not share their accounts with other sources. The reporters have been working on this story for a year. Ditto that the CBC investigation on Jian and the sexual harassment allegations have been going on for months beforehand.

Nothing in the women's stories show faulty memories, given they talked about their shock in being beaten, choked and for some sexually assaulted, they explain in other details leading up to the events of their assault.

Jian doesn't want to role play or practice BDSM. He just wants to physically assault women. These are physical attacks. Many of the attack came out of nowhere, not a BDSM relationship or some talking about what was about to happen by Jian. This is about more about a paraphilia of Jian than it is about BDSM. Jian is using BDSM to minimize the assault that took place.

@54 -- The fact that your girlfriend knew some crazy lady way back when doesn't tell us much about these particular women or this case. They weren't all interviewed by the same source, for starters. It's also hard to imagine how some of the women who've chosen to come forward publicly -- a Captain in the Canadian Air Force, a successful author and lawyer -- would benefit from this situation socially, as you suggest. And Ghomeshi isn't an "un- or under-trained practitioner of advanced BDSM activities". What these women describe wasn't poorly practiced BDSM, it was sexual assault and just plain assault.

@71: "an "un- or under-trained practitioner of advanced BDSM activities". "

Ugh, gross that they would even bring this up. If he's playing by a different ruleset not discussed with all of them beforehand, that's not BDSM by any definition. The practice requires informed consent by both parties, redefining BDSM to mean abuse is pretty sleazebag of them.

@65: Exactly. The idea that someone can be nice to one person, and not-so-nice to someone else, ain't exactly rocket science.

@55 I'd wager a very large portion - maybe like a third of women in the dating years (~20-40 or so) at the lower end - are interested in some form of "submissiveness". On the lightly interested end, they're just interested in you, the male, calling all the shots: where the date is, what position you are having sex in, etc. You lead, they follow, like a dance.

The trick is, you've got to "man up" and actually take the lead - but be careful or you'll end up like Ghomeshi and taking the lead a little too forcefully.

This is the best thing I've seen all day.

The link seems to be starting near the end. Just go back to the beginning or click on this. It's brilliant.

@74 Taking the lead well also assumes that you are well aware of the general position of your fellow dancers, create the space and develop the cues necessary for more difficult moves, and don't just yank up your date, throw her shoulder out of socket, and half heartedly apologize claiming some impression she might be into it. That's so extreme you deserve the abusive reputation you get.

@76 Awesome link. Fave was Blind Ignorance - "Apply quickly, confidently, and without really critically thinking".

@75: Holy shit that is awesome, thank you.



@54: How many women would the Star have to interview anonymously or not before their stories started to have more credibility than Ghomeshi's? Is his voice worth the equivalent of ten abused women? Twenty? Fifty? Can we take a moment to consider what a preposterous, disingenuous rationalization your post is?

@78: I love this.

"I honestly cannot take the accounts of the accusers at face value when viewing them critically. I think the underlying truths "

So they are both "critical" and observing of "underlying truths". It's sad how pathetically they're going out of their way to look for excuses to discount the experiences of everyone who has been assaulted by Jian.

Dan, you say Jian is either a sociopath or an idiot; what do you think of the theory being tossed around various comment boards lately, that "he is a closeted gay man who does not want to face up to his orientation. He is from a background which does not accept homosexuality. He loved his father and didn't want to lose his father's love. He tries very hard to be straight but when push comes to shove, his rod just won't perform so he digitally penetrates women, he hits women because in his mind it's their fault he can't get it up, and he makes women fellate him because no matter one's orientation, that is a never-fail way to make it stand to attention.


The other comment with this:


"I figure that six months down the line, he'll "bravely open up" and come out of the closet and will claim to be "healed" and "empowered". His legions of swooning fans will flock back to him and all will be forgiven because he was oh so brave to open up and heal. This is, of course, only a theory on my part."

Dan, you conclude here that Jian is either a sociopath or an idiot. What do you think of the theory being tossed around various comment boards lately, this one from Huffpost, that "he is a closeted gay man who does not want to face up to his orientation. He is from a background which does not accept homosexuality. He loved his father and didn't want to lose his father's love. He tries very hard to be straight but when push comes to shove, his rod just won't perform so he digitally penetrates women, he hits women because in his mind it's their fault he can't get it up, and he makes women fellate him because no matter one's orientation, that is a never-fail way to make it stand to attention.
The other comment with this:
"I figure that six months down the line, he'll "bravely open up" and come out of the closet and will claim to be "healed" and "empowered". His legions of swooning fans will flock back to him and all will be forgiven because he was oh so brave to open up and heal. This is, of course, only a theory on my part."

wondering @ 80/81,

Even if your (implausible-sounding but ok, whatever) theory that Ghomeshi is a closeted homosexual is correct, he would still have to be a sociopath or an idiot to think it’s ok to behave towards women the way he does, or to think he can get away with it indefinitely.

Other evidence does not square with your interpretation — for instance, the bits where he has intercourse with his dates or where the woman Dan interviewed says he treated her well.

To think that the closeted-homosexual hypothesis is more plausible than the just-likes-to-beat-women hypothesis, it would help to have evidence that women are more likely to beaten by closeted gay men than by out straight men. Since I don’t think you have that evidence, occam’s razor suggests that the closeted-homosexual hypothesis introduces unnecessary complexity.

@80: "Dan, you say Jian is either a sociopath or an idiot; what do you think of the theory being tossed around various comment boards lately, that "he is a closeted gay man who does not want to face up to his orientation."

I don't see how that would preclude the former two. Being in the closet wouldn't turn you into an abuser?

No one has the right, at any time or situation, to assault another individual. It is not a question of whether or not there was something consensual about the incidents. Each woman has clearly stated that she did NOT provide any form of consent. Disregard the "sex" aspect of the story and you are left with the fact that this person assaulted these women in the same way that a mugger on Church Street or Bathurst. How would you react if someone had stated that they had been mugged or robbed by the same individual. NO MEANS NO! And a surprise slap, punch or choke is against the criminal code whether you are in a "relationship" or not. Focus on the central fact and there's nothing else that you need to say. 'Nuff Said

This link seems relevant.

Apparently, Gomeshi is the kind of person who "hires" an unpaid intern for CBC to do his laundry and clean his house, who never even sets foot in the CBC offices.

What an opportunity.

For purely selfish reasons I want to embrace the brief respite from the horror of the Jian Ghomeshi saga that this young woman's testimony suggests: that mercifully at least one person left this decades-long "party" with only the bruises that she actually signed up for.

However, it seems likely-ish that during the final weeks of October 2014, Jian Ghomeshi made senior production staff, radio management and human resources officials at the CBC privy to visual depictions of the same young woman who volunteered to share her story with Dan Savage. Regardless of how consensual their play was, that consent doesn't cover his sharing of text messages, photographs or video of her (or of any one else) in his last-ditch effort to keep his job. It has been reported that the images Ghomeshi showed in his defence were contained in a smartphone owned by the CBC; it would come as a great shock and disappointment to all if the CBC allowed Mr Ghomeshi to leave the building on 26 October without surrendering a piece of public property of such high evidentiary value. I hope that both the CBC and the Toronto Police Service are making every effort to investigate whether consent was given in every instance for the production and dissemination of the images contained in that device.

For purely selfish reasons I want to embrace the brief respite from the horror of the Jian Ghomeshi saga that this young woman's testimony suggests: that mercifully at least one person left this decades-long "party" with only the bruises that she actually signed up for.


However, it seems likely-ish that during the final weeks of October 2014, Jian Ghomeshi made senior production staff, radio management and human resources officials at the CBC privy to visual depictions of the same young woman who volunteered to share her story with Dan Savage. Regardless of how consensual their play was, that consent doesn't cover his sharing of text messages, photographs or video of her (or of any one else) in his last-ditch effort to keep his job. It has been reported that the images Ghomeshi showed in his defence were contained in a smartphone owned by the CBC; it would come as a great shock and disappointment to all if the CBC allowed Mr Ghomeshi to leave the building on 26 October without surrendering a piece of public property of such high evidentiary value. I hope that both the CBC and the Toronto Police Service are making every effort to investigate whether consent was given in every instance for the production and dissemination of the images contained in that device.

It is confusing to me how the public can chastise a human being so vehemently yet this is the same public who has made a book about the emotional, physical, and mental abuse of a woman a best seller as well as a wildly anticipated movie. My heart goes out to the victims of all of this, but to be reading the attacks that I am reading, I have to wonder how many people have bought the book or will go out to see the movie - I for one have not read Fifty Shades nor will I go watch it, but I know that many will - and will the same folks who are verbal about what is going on with Gian, be just as vocal about the content of that movie or will it fulfill peoples needs for entertainment...

Agree with previous commenters here: this is physical assault.