Prominent CBC Radio Host Claims He Was Fired for Consensual BDSM Sex

Comments

1
Hmmm what to make of this knot. Is it even possible to have an opinion without being a(n) feminazi/MRA?
2
Crap. He had a great show the aired most nights on WBEZ in Chicago. Lots of wonderful interviews with interesting people.
3
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this Dan. I first read this story this morning, and what stuck with me, was that Jian was blaming his victimization on different things than the accusations against him. These people aren´t jilted ex lovers, they are victims of physical abuse... BDSM isn´t the subject of contention. The problem is his sexual violence toward women.

I also assume this story is going to take a life on its own.

When a corporation bans a worker from the building, whether as a suspension or for termination/firing purposes, it is standard human resources practice for sexual or workplace harassment issues. I won't be surprise that Jian did alot of sexual harassment at the CBC..
4
I don't know how this will or should shake out, obviously, but it seems worth reminding people of Sook-Yin Lee's experience almost a decade ago now, when she almost lost her CBC job over non-simulated sex in John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus film but ultimately retained her job with public support (here).

Is there a reactionary and reflexive prudishness in Canadian public broadcasting that is worse now than ten years ago, and if so, why? And just imagine what would have happened with either of these scenarios in U.S. broadcast media, public or private.
5
I thought his name looked familiar. He was with Moxy Fruvous, I have some of their stuff.
6
From our armchairs all we get is he-said/she-said. Which is ultimately why many employers will stand by their employees until there is a court case or a conviction in a court case. I can understand the CBC wanting to shuffle a potentially embarrassing story under the rug, but now they get to deal with the equally embarrassing story of how they fired the guy and presumably his wrongful termination lawsuit.
7
@6: His lawsuit is PR, and won't go anywhere.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/1…
8
http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2011/03/21/dan-…
9
I don't think this a "he said/she said" situtaion. Jian Ghomeshi appears to be terminated/fired with cause. It is not about his private life, but most likelly sexual harassment and workplace harassment at the workplace. Corporations don't banned you from the building after termination, unless they do it for workplace harassment reasons to protect the harassed workers.

The CBC would be interested in his private life/his social life, if there were criminal investigations on the allegations against him about physically assaulting women. They would probably suspend him or put him on an indefinite leave. Ditto for a criminal court case..

As much as Jian is crying that he is being victimized, he seemed to be using his job and his weight at the CBC as way to harass and attack women. This is one way how workplace harassment can survive, fear of the boss versus someone lowere down the corporate ladder.

Look, if the guy is stating he is going to "hate fuck" a staff member on his production team, he is most likely doing this frequently throughout the workplace, besides thinking it is super cool that a super hip talk show host can cup a woman's ass or grope her breast.

From the XO Jane article, what comes across is a just sexual predator, who doesn't understand his behavior is not borderline criminal, it is criminal....
10
The incident with the woman on his production team is just plain sexual harassment. The two women with whom he arranged normal dates and then physically attacked are assault victims. This asshole isn't going to be winning any lawsuits against the CBC.
11
rob! @4, I love Shortbus! I had heard about when it came out, but didn't watch it until a year or two later when I came across a copy of it in Portland's public library.

That Sook-Yin Lee almost lost her job over a movie which I checked out of my local library boggles the mind.

As for Ghomeshi, I enjoyed his work, but am switching on my BS detector as I type this.
12
The Globe and Mail has an op-ed about how Ghomeshi's alleged victims' alleged consent probably won't get him acquitted -- the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that you can't consent to physical harm. (Although this generally has been applied to things like workplace safety and hockey, not sexual assault.)
13
TheLurker @12--He's not charged with anything or currently under legal investigation at all anyway. :/
14
Damn acronyms, being a brit and not so familiar I misread it as CBN and thinking "and everyone thinks it is odd that they'd fire him".
15
RealMonster @13, no, but he’s supposedly bringing a suit against the CBC.
16
@6,

Are you kidding? Almost no employers will stand with employees accused of a crime.

@4,

Worse now? He stands accused of sexual harassment and assault, not participation in porn.
17
wow



a lot of words......



he is a filthy pervert.



good riddance.
18
I am a huge fan of Ghomeshi's. I loved the humanity with which he populated his interviews. He seems like a really nice guy.





I am also a :pervert" My wife and I practice consensual BDSM play involving flogging, cuckolding, bisexuality, humiliation etc. We are very good at pre negotating boundaries but even with our level of play, modest to moderate in the eyes of the kink community we move in, probably shocking and disgusting to many in the vanilla word, we get into grey areas that require checking in and reevaluating our play midcourse.





What Ghomeshi describes vs the reports in the Toronto Star are diametrically opposed. But here is the real point. For anyone who is taking sides at this time, there is not enough information to even begin to judge. Taking a stance now based on hearsay on one hand {as far as I know, the accusations in the Star piece are being made anonymously and the women have not come forward. Ghomeshi's FB post oculd be 100% true and yet he may still have crossed the consent given in his play.





If the women don't come forward and face questioning about the incidents, then I can't give them a lot of evidential value. On the other hand, Ghomeshi's appeal to pre consent has no evidential value re consent still being in place during the play.





That the women the Star reported as making accusations against Mr Gomeshi did not go to the police matters not one whit to the truth of falsity, or the provability of anything. Just as Mr Ghomeshi’s face book post does not offer proof.





Here are examples from my experience with consent and harassment:





I one time had a play date with a woman. I revealed certain information in the pre negotiation. We met and the play got hot and heavy right away. We were in the middle of a sexual act when she realized something I had already disclosed. She might have missed my disclosure and only just then discovered it in the course of the play. Or she may have had second thoughts about having sex with a man she had just met 5 minutes before. I have no idea why she did what she did but it doesn’t matter. In any case, mid sex act she said "whoa, lets stop" and we did. We talked for a few minutes and it was obvious that she had withdrawn her consent and I went home, very frustrated, very dissapointed but secure in the knowledge that I did the right thing.





I also worked for a large company in a position where I had to handle accusations of sexual harassment and workplace violence. There were times when you thought that the accused just barely stepped over the line or reacted in a totally reasonable to that person way, but in a way that violated the company policy. In any case, the unit management (of which I was part) had to investigate, and then report it to the corporate labor attorney and the head of HR. The attorney decided what was proven and not. I a case was proven, there was no doubts, the accused was terminated. In cases where there was no clear resolution, the path was to try to go back to the accusers and the accused and see if a middle ground could be found that satisfied each party.





There was a guy who was attacked in a fight and picked up a knife to defend himself. He got fired for brandishing a weapon. His reaction was totally inappropriate and against policy, even if he tried to claim self defense. Its too bad because he was sweet and he had had a rough life and his reaction was understandable in light of his life experience. But not appropriate in the light of his working in our company. Firing him was one of the hardest things I ever did and his thanking me for giving him a chance, I was the guy who went on a limb and hired him, made me feel horrible inside.





One of my first investigations of harassment seemed, at first glance, to be an open and shut case of harassment. But our investigation resulted in it boiling down to a he said/she said investigative result. We had no feeling, evidence or proof one way or the other as to what actually happened. Both sides told stories not supported by what evidence we could obtain. And neither side told stories that were provably false in any major way. But both sides came out looking like the truth was somewhere in the middle and pretty far from each sides initial position. We decided that the accusations were not supported and that the evidence given that was contradicted by our investigation did not rise to the level of a friable offence. But we still let each side express what would make them feel comfortable and we saw that we could easily implement it and did so. We made no finding of harassment, but thru scheduling; we were able to make both sides feel that we were being fair.





Another time when and accusation of harassment was made. The accusation was not sustainable even though we thought the guy had been a bad actor. But the investigation led us to uncover another incident where bad action was clearly sustained. The victim in the second incident wanted us to do nothing about the abuse she endured. We could not. We had credible information and we acted on it. The individual was fired.





Incidences like these have made me realize that the initial accusations and stories are not the ultimate results you find when an incident or situation is looked into. Protestations of consent may be invalid of that consent was withdrawn even up to mid act. Behaviors alleged may not be what happened. And behaviors that are borderline in one case may be unacceptable if it is a pattern of behavior.





So I wish neither side would rush to judgment. My real wish in this case is that all claims will be looked at with fairness being the goal and a good result will be the outcome. The CBC has done their investigation and it seems that a finding of a gross breaking of company policy has been supported of, as reported; he was barred from entering the place of business. While I can’t believe the CBC would act without a thorough investigation, I am not a part of it nor is any one who is making statement, as far as I know, a part of the investigation. But apparently, there are remedies for Mr Ghomeshi in his contractual relation with the CBC.





But what I really wish for is that whatever happened neer had happened and w would not be losing out on a voice that is so special. But even medial people with fabulous things to say can be assholes in real life and they can also be falsely accused and, in fact, both can happen. Today’s culture and its hero worship of people for what they say and for their outward persona and not for the actual evidence of wha thtye do is a major problem. This case only reinforces it



19
@16, unless there is breaking news I have not read, he is not accused of anything in the legal sense. He has been fired and he went public with his side of the story. The Star went public with their allegations based on anonymous allegations.
20
Fox News would hire him. Ask O'Reilly.
21
18



we vote for 'less'
22
Gomeshi is (was) one of the CBC's biggest cash cows, at a time when they desperately need every one of those they have. They also have excellent legal counsel. I just don't think they would do this unless they really felt they had to. Friends of friends (so plenty of grains of salt) who work at the CBC say they have been expecting something like this for a long time.
23
So many of the people who are defending him are bringing up the fact that no charges were ever filed - despite the fact that many, many women who are victims of sexual violence never report their crimes.



A lack of a police report, or reports does not equal no wrongdoing.



I half wonder if he was fired because CBC wanted to get ahead of any controversy before The Star published.
24
If the four women all know each other, then it isn't exactly that shocking. At this point, can we stop using "why would people lie?" as proof positive of people accusing famous people of sexual assault. There have been enough high-profile cases where the accuser has either recanted or been proven unreliable that this isn't a question anymore.

- Duke Lacrosse
- The Elmo guy (including financial lawsuits)
- Brett Ratner (including financial lawsuits)
- Conor Oberst

Not that every accusation is false. But, there have been enough high profile false accusations that we shouldn't treat every accuser as being automatically correct and every victim as automatically guilty.
25
I am one of the guys who emailed you yesterday.



I was quick to defend. The CBC had in the past treated Sook Yin Lee badly after she appeared in Shortbus so I thought the brass had done it again.



His PR worked on me for about 16 hours. Almost makes you think it was done on purpose on a Sunday afternoon. Clearly there is a pattern of behavior that is loutish and a multiple allegations of sexual violence.



I regret being so quick to defend him. I am not saying he's guilty but being great at radio does not make him a good human being. The women who are talking now deserve to be listened to carefully and thoughtfully.



CBC brass probably acted properly. We shall see.



Thanks Dan for waiting and thinking.
26
This may be a little too "after the fact" but I could NEVER stand listening to Q on WBEZ. He was an insufferable host and I could feel the smarm ooze out of my radio whenever it was on. The worst was when he went off on one of his guests for calling him "John". 5 minutes of indignant reproach.
27
@24 -- If the four (or five) women all know each other, then it's believable that they'd join forces to vilify this guy ... for what reason? We don't know. But I don't think Dan or Andrea Zanin has presented a "why would people lie" line of reasoning as "proof" of Ghomeshi's guilt. Both have expressed an opinion that things don't currently look great for Ghomeshi, which I'd agree with.

He explains this "smear campaign" against him as the work of a jilted ex and a writer who doesn't like him. He offers no real explanation as to why three (or four) other women would want to become involved, other than a suggestion that the jilted ex manipulated these parties by playing victim. So that's his story.
28
The CBC is funded by Canadian taxpayers, it's been on thin ice for a long time and the top brass and legal team know it. At the start of the story, he was canned for taking denied personal leave when his father died (illegal as fuck). Then the jilted ex, blackmail post on
FB post came up. Now it's four (or more women). This situation is shady as all hell and I didn't even know his name until yesterday.
If he's innocent and wrongfully terminated, the court of public appeal best appologize and he gets EI and 2 weeks pay for every year of employment (pretty sure that's far short of $55m, but I don't know his contract). He brought his sex life into it (Canada does have termination without cause, and it's very hard to prove otherwise when the R.O.E gets filed).
Guess when the facts are straight, we won't even get the story.
29
Christ #3, want to go ahead and say that hes a pedophile while you are making shit up?
30
The CBC has been subject to serious cuts over the past few years, and people are angry about that. Jian Ghomeshi is exploiting that anger, making it look like he's being censored for his political opinions.

It's likely he was fired for cause. He has apparently been sexually harassing employees and women for years.
31
@29

I am not making shit up. Three women have accused Ghomeshi of physical assault. One woman accused him of sexual harassment in the workplace. The XOJane piece, if it is Ghomeshi, shows this guy is a sexual predator..

This firing of Ghomeshi has nothing to do with BDSM. It has to do with a sexual predator.

There is probably going to be lots of news stories about Ghomeshi to come out as women feel less fear in reporting about his behavior...
32
@16, I'm clearly pondering the situation @4 (and before much of the additional information came out), but brought up the Sook-Yin Lee case for any useful points of comparison it may offer (perhaps none in the final analysis). I would assert, though, that Shortbus is not porn.

@11, I enjoyed it too. Bought the DVD at Fry's and watch it every year or so.
33
@27 I'm approaching this story with the same amount of weight I think should have applied to Zoe Quinn's ex and that has been applied to Tao Lin's ex. The CBC, in turn, if they fired him for this reason, should have waited to see if there was any real validity to the charges rather than knee-jerk fire him.
34
@9: And we all should of course trust that whatever XOJane says is unimpeachably true, they being the people who character-assassinated Conor Oberst with bogus rape charges just for fun.
35
Not sure obviously how this will play out, or if in Canadian law one has the right to face one's accusers. But he has already lost...his job...and his accusers have won.
36
is the bigger question who would bang this guy?
37
I know a doctor who had exactly one date with him, years ago, which ended when, while they were kissing, he grabbed a handful of her hair, yanked her head back and told her he liked it rough. How's that for consent? This lady is mildly kinky but steered clear after that.
38
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/10/27/wh…
39
Maybe all the scandal that erupted re Jimmy Saville in England- his sexual abuse ( apparently)covered up by staff at BBC, has made the Commonwealth Public Broardcasters very jittery.
40
I mean the staff apparently covered it up. The abuse happened .
41
Navigator PR - corporate spin-meisters in Canada - are working with the former radio host and successfully framed the story by with a lengthy pre-emptive post on facebook.



It's now that the fog of PR is being cut through - thanks to such informed analyses as this article from Dan. And, this post from Canadian blogger Steffani Cameron - "Jian Ghomeshi's BDSM firing is not about bedroom privacy":



http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion…



Thank you!
42
Navigator PR - corporate spin-meisters in Canada - are working with the former radio host and successfully framed the story by with a lengthy pre-emptive post on facebook.

It's now that the fog of PR is being cut through - thanks to such informed analyses as this article from Dan. And, this post from Canadian blogger Steffani Cameron - "Jian Ghomeshi's BDSM firing is not about bedroom privacy":

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion…

Thank you!
43
Ok.. Sounds like this guy has been sprung.
44
The piece by Carla Ciccone, i.e the XO Jane article thinly disguising JG was the biggest piece of crap I've ever read. If her allegations were true, that's sad. It's her piece under the guise of "journalism" that I object to for shit writing and her adolescent point of view. She had a crappy date. How rare is that? (Not that if his "groping" were true it makes it okay). It's too bad that the thrill-seeking women (oh, I'm dating a "hot guy" who is a celeb). didn't get his warning signals about "rough sex." There may have been in their minds a bit of spanky spanky and some silk hand-ties. If he got heavier without warning, that is too bad, and he's a prick. If they weren't expecting rough fore-play at all, his bad--that's not only not fair, it's criminal. He claims "consensual," but I could see why they wouldn't come forward. As opposed to pressing assault charges, they toddled over to the Toronto Star (who was fed anecdotes for months by a wannabe, underemployed "journalist" who thought he was on to a real scoop. )





The TS refrained from printing the allegations, liability insurance and all because the women wouldn't go on record. To embarrassing for you to file an actual assault charge? Because that's what you are claiming...assault. Too many awkward questions to answer and giving up your anonymity?











As to his CBC incident in which he allegedly sexually harassed a worker on his show, and she went to her union rep: why wasn't he brought up on charges then, starting with the union and then civil court?











While these many "allegations" are coming out (the TS indicated that his ex was refuting her complaints and that his lawyer has evidence that the sexual meetings of others were "consensual" via email and texts and would be easily discredited in court), where is the evidence? We may never hear of it...he will probably get a great big pay-out to go away and not taint the "good" name of the CBC any further. Unless there are criminal charges which can be proved in a court of law....sorry, victims, you'll have to show your faces and give your real names. Yes, if it's that important to you. Running to journalists as an anonymous source ain't gonna cut it.











It will bring up some very interesting and precedent-setting legal issues, I'm sure re: consensual kinky sex.
45
@34 XOJane didn't publish the rape allegations about Conor Oberst from Joanie Faircloth. Joanie Faircloth made the rape allegations in the comments section of an anonymous story about rape.. The story is still up, but Joanie Faircloth's comments have been deleted..

Jian Khomeshi wasn't fired because the XOJane piece. He was fired because it appears he was sexualy harassing women at work. The CBC isn't talking, but if they did a monthslong investigation on Khomeshi's behavior. They fired him with cause, which is trying to be ironclad, against any union briefs on the matter to the lawsuit filed by Khomeshi.

My guess is that is there is going to much more accusations by women coming out for the next couple days, because he has been doing his antics for years...
46
Thanks so much, Dan, for this post. It pulled together done viewpoints and information I hadn't found, and I feel somewhat better informed for it.
When the news broke on Sunday with a Facebook splash, I had a knee jerk 'poor persecuted Jian' reaction (probably fueled by my love of Moxy Fruvous) that was probably common among fans. I read a bunch of posts and stories that supported this position, and was righteously indignant for a couple of hours, and then I read one blog post by a rape survivor. I hated it - which is why it was the most important commentary I ran into all day. The primary points the author made were these:

1) the narrative in Gomeshi's Facebook post vilifies his accusers before they can even make a public accusation. This kind of pre-emptive attack does not make his position more true, it just makes it look that way. Therefore the public should exercise careful judgement.

2) on a societal level, this rush to demonize the (at the time) theoretical accusers serves to inhibit accusation. In this storm of backlash, anyone who was tempted to open her mouth and go on record with complaints is going to be seriously inhibited, fearing to see that vitriol turned on her. Not just Gomeshi's accusers, but ANY woman reading that participation in kinky conversations equates to consent to whatever followed. This is not a healthy message we're sending.

3) Historically in North America, sexual assault is UNDER-reported. In addition, it is not uncommon for victims to withdraw their complaints in the face of social and media backlash - why subject themselves to a second victimization, especially given the unlikelyhood of a successful prosecution in a he-said she-said situation?

None of this means Jian Gomeshi is guilty of non-consensual sexual violence. But no more does his statement mean that he's innocent. In light of the lack of evidence in either direction, we in the court of public opinion need to withhold judgement.
47
Whether or not Jian actually engaged in non-consensual activity is not the real issue here. The real issue is that he was fired based merely upon an unproven allegation, coupled with the fact that these allegations (except for the alleged harassment of a co-worker, which was NEVER brought forward to the CBC) were in the context of BDSM, has resulted in him being fired based upon his sexual orientation (or, if you prefer to hair-split, sexual practices).



Had Jian been accused of rape/sexual harassment in a 'non-kinky' context, he would not have been fired. The CBC, as his employer, would have conducted an internal investigation - and would not have taken any action against him at this stage. Its clear that they have not heard any evidence against him - and its equally clear that the Toronto Star was not convinced of the accuracy of the allegations - otherwise, they would have published in May, when those allegations came to their attention.



Jian is quite properly standing up for his rights to have these allegations dealt with and properly adjudicated. Anonymous slanders are all that is going on at the moment.


48
Whether or not Jian actually engaged in non-consensual activity is not the real issue here. The real issue is that he was fired based merely upon an unproven allegation, coupled with the fact that these allegations (except for the alleged harassment of a co-worker, which was NEVER brought forward to the CBC) were in the context of BDSM, has resulted in him being fired based upon his sexual orientation (or, if you prefer to hair-split, sexual practices).

Had Jian been accused of rape/sexual harassment in a 'non-kinky' context, he would not have been fired. The CBC, as his employer, would have conducted an internal investigation - and would not have taken any action against him at this stage. Its clear that they have not heard any evidence against him - and its equally clear that the Toronto Star was not convinced of the accuracy of the allegations - otherwise, they would have published in May, when those allegations came to their attention.

Jian is quite properly standing up for his rights to have these allegations dealt with and properly adjudicated. Anonymous slanders are all that is going on at the moment.

49
FYI: the globe article included has since changed: the Supreme Court of Canada allows consent to assault unless he assault causes bodily harm in which case you cannot consent to it. In other words, bodily harm vitiates otherwise consensual assault.
50
@17: If you can't discriminate between pervert and assaulter, you're the sickest person in this thread.
51
Here is the other side of the story:







http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/…
52
I really don't buy the narrative that Jian wouldn't have been fired if not for his kinks being involved. He got the axe because the CBC didn't want to employ someone with multiple credible accusations of assault and sexual assault against him.



In his facebook post he tries to frame the whole thing as him being fired for his kinks, but that's a red herring. These women aren't saying "he's a pervert" they're saying "he assaulted me".
53
@48 If Jian engaged in non consensual sexual activity, it is a big deal: It is sexual assault, it is a felony.

Jian was fired based on a months long CBC investigation. We don't know anything about it, because it hasn't been made public. What the public does know is one allegation that Jian grabbed the ass of the CBC and a Q production team employee and stated he wanted to hate fuck her.

I just know that termination and banning a person from the workplace is standard for major sexual and workplace harassment, as a way to protect the employees that have been harassed. There has been enough innuendos about how Jian treats women, that this was bound to happen.

If Jian was wrongfully terminated from his job, the first avenue is through the union, to file a grievance with the union for wrongful termination... not a PR linked $55 million lawsuit. There seems to be a huge PR spin in this whole sad episode.

Instead Jian threw many red herrings out, that he is being discriminated for practicing BDSM and a vengeful girlfriend. This case has nothing to do with BDSM. This case has to do with sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace... The Toronto Star article points to four examples, three of them are sexual and physical assault allegations.
54
While I agree that we should keep our critical thinking filters turned up, I think it's somewhat damning that the CBC also fired Sook-yin Lee for taking the lead role in shortbus. Still, this is one of those things that's really hard to tell who's telling what. The whole thing seems very odd to me. While we may wonder what the 4 women would gain, I equally don't see what Jian would gain when he was apparently given the option to go quietly.


55
Minor correction to the Globe article that Dan quotes. The legal rule is not that you can't consent to assault -- it's that you can't consent to assault causing serious bodily harm. Many acts that meet the legal definition of "assault" do not cause serious bodily harm. So the legality of the BDSM activity would depend in part on the severity of the harm that was intended and caused. There are many consensual BDSM activities that would, on the face of it, qualify as "assault," but to which the defence of consent would still apply.



This is still problematic for the BDSM community, but it's a little more nuanced than a blanket prohibition on consensual "assault."
56
Minor correction to the Globe article that Dan quotes. The article misstates the Canadian legal rule. It's not that you can't consent to assault -- it's that you can't consent to assault causing serious bodily harm. Many acts that meet the legal definition of "assault" do not cause serious bodily harm. So the legality of the BDSM activity would depend in part on the severity of the harm that was intended and caused. There are many consensual BDSM activities that would, on the face of it, qualify as "assault," but to which the defence of consent would still apply.

This is still problematic for the BDSM community, but it's a little more nuanced than a blanket prohibition on consensual "assault."
57
@53 "Jian was fired based on a months long CBC investigation. We don't know anything about it, because it hasn't been made public. What the public does know is one allegation that Jian grabbed the ass of the CBC and a Q production team employee and stated he wanted to hate fuck her."



Exactly. If the CBC investigated this incident and found it credible they had to do something about him regardless of the validity of other allegations that occurred outside of work. Jian is the one that seems to want to muddy the water with the whole meanie ex is just spreading bad rumors about me angle.
58
Just a note: you can consent to BDSM in Canada, since bodily harm is defined as “hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature” s.2 [of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]. Therefore, BDSM that causes injuries that are transient or trifling can be consensual. Of course there is a tremendous amount of grey area around what transient and trifling means. However, this grey area does mean that some level of hurt or injury can be consented to.
59
@53 "Jian was fired based on a months long CBC investigation. We don't know anything about it, because it hasn't been made public. What the public does know is one allegation that Jian grabbed the ass of the CBC and a Q production team employee and stated he wanted to hate fuck her."

Exactly. If the CBC investigated this incident and found it credible they had to do something about him regardless of the validity of other allegations that occurred outside of work. Jian is the one that seems to want to muddy the water and get out in front of this with the whole "meanie ex is just spreading bad rumors" about him angle.
60
Re Jian-- A couple of years ago another CBC host, Sook Yin Lee, was threatened with being fired by the CBC after being filmed having unsimulated sex (ie, sex) in the film Shortbus. Many of her many listeners spoke up in her defence, the CBC moved on, and SYL kept her job. All of that makes it less likely, imho, that Jian's story about the CBC's response to him is accurate.
61
A woman at his work claimed he approached her from behind and whispered "I want to hate fuck you" in her ear. She went to the higher ups and her complaint was ignored. This alone would be reason to fire someone in most jobs. The guy has a long standing rep as a slime. Just because he had a cool radio show doesn't make him a cool guy.
62
We don't know what happened. Jian Ghomeshi says that his encounters were fully consensual and that he was able to prove it to the CBC last summer. The unnamed women say that they didn't consent to what happened but, according to the Toronto Star, don't want to speak publicly because they don't want their texts, tweets and email messages to be made public and they don't want to be put through what they think may happen if their identities were made known. It sounds to me like there was a lot of negotiation about what the parties did and didn't agree to sexually. But, you know... what we think something will be like and what it's actually like when it happens aren't always the same. That's what safe words are for--to say, "This is not okay with me. Stop." Did these women use those safe words? It's actually not all that easy to do it, especially if you're worried about upsetting or disappointing your play partner. Sometimes it might be easier to just get through whatever is going on and deal with things later. If that's what they decided, did they have those conversations? The ones that include, "That thing we did where you did X and I did Y? I thought I'd like it but I didn't and I don't want to do that again." If they didn't debrief, and they hadn't used the safe words, and they never told him that what they'd consented to wasn't really so okay with them after all, how is it JG's sole responsibility that things weren't what the parties involved had expected? If he did what they'd agreed he would do and had no feedback that it wasn't okay, is he an abuser? I don't think so.



I'm not saying that this is what happened. I just know that many women who are new to, or have no history with, BDSM are reluctant to safe word their way out of a scene. They don't understand that safe words are there to protect them and their partner, both. That safe words are the promise that both parties are paying attention and will respect the need to change things, immediately. Safe words also free both parties to enjoy the scene and to feel many things. Someone can complain about a spanking hurting a lot, for example, without actually ending it. The provision of a safe word is a way to ensure that the Dom works within limits. Abusers don't pay attention to safe words. Good dominants do.



Did JG respect the limits of his partners? I have no idea. I hope he did. Did the women tell him that they weren't happy with what was going on ? Again, I have no idea. I hope they did. That's how adults play: they take responsibility for themselves with each other. Somewhere along the line, though, it seems that someone didn't communicate well, for whatever reason. The women alleged to have been involved apparently didn't seek to make their experiences public until a reporter and an ex-girlfriend came looking for them. Is that important? And if the women were unhappy, what did they want to have happen? Did they want apologies? Acknowledgement that things didn't go well? Something else? Did they want to help a journalist who acknowledges that he doesn't like JG ruin his man's career? Did he even have their permission to publish their unsubstantiated allegations, particularly after many months during which no one would print the story?
63
Jesse Brown is probably the best investigative journalist in Canada. If he & the Star are working together on this, I believe them. They'll have done more than due diligence.
64
@62, from everything I've read, you don't ask a newbie who might be willing to try something a little different, somebody unfamiliar with the BDSM world, and then beat the heck out of them, closed fists and all. Of course they didn't report it. They knew they said they'd be fine with a little rough play. This guy took it to an extreme.

Frankly, we only have his word, or should I say the word of his PR team, that there were safe words, it was all consensual, etc.

But back to the main point, my guess is the CBC action is because of his actions with other CBC employees. Actions that made them feel unsafe.
65
@5: me too. I saw Moxy Fruvous numerous times at folk fests in the 90s. When I heard Ghomeshi on Q, I assumed it was a different guy, because he spelled his first name differently back then. This really sucks, but he appears to have done some really awful shit.
66
This comment is for Dan, my hero. I am the lawyer who here in Quebec, Canada, successfully fought the battle for the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry, years before the Boston, Mass. victory.



I do not agree with Professor Cossman's article in the Globe and Mail at all. Here's why:



The Supreme Court's judgment in the Godemiché case (which is what we Quebeckers call it: The Dildo Case!) did not convict the accused because he erotically asphyxiated his spouse until she fell unconscious. He was convicted for inserting a dildo in her anus. Her prior consent to this activity was considered invalid. Consent must be contemporaneous with all sexual activity, because consent includes possessing the faculty of withdrawing consent!



Once she fell unconscious, she could no longer give, or withdraw, consent to the dildo in her anus. She had "no state of mind". She could not draw her attention to the sexual touching.



In other words, the erotic asphyxiation was just fine. The subsequent anal penetration - followed by vaginal intercourse - were not fine.



Moreover, consent must be clearly expressed at each stage of sexual activity. It is quite easy to imagine a scenario where a young woman, experiencing a rapid escalation of violence would be too paralyzed by fear and terror to do anything but submit and hope to get away alive.



I also beg to differ, Professor Cossman, with respect to your qualifier that "if a sexual activity causes bodily harm..." The Supreme Court has already decided, some years ago, that the threat of entirely "conventional" sexual activity is in and of itself a threat of bodily harm. From the perspective of a woman, penetration, even without other assault, is bodily harm, period. Consent is key.



The distinction then between "sexual activity" and "bodily harm" is in the mind of each partner.



Dan, please understand your analysis is 100% spot-on with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on consent. Consent to ABC, does not mean consent to DEF. Consent to ABC now still permits you to withdraw your consent to ABC 15 minutes from now (like, if it hurts, or goes too far!).



As I just tweeted you, the minute Jian (who has interviewed me before; I did Canada Reads with him) compared BDSM and "rough sex" to "Fifty Shades-lite", I knew he was absolutely bogus. This is nothing in that poorly written book that begins to resemble pleasurable sex of any kind, and certainly no hot BDSM (or even lukewarm BDSM!). Frankly, I have never met a respectable guy who shares an interest in BDSM who would ever fail to check that there is on-going consent to every sexual act.



My take on what Jian wrote in his own words is a media-savvy fellow repackaging old-fashioned violence into consensual kink. (Things I read later support my initial impression; and here's a shout-out to Andrea Zanin!)
67
I like how the article says don't jump to conclusions and that seems to be all that is going on.
68
@62 The details about this affair are not about BDSM. It is about allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and sexual harassment in the workplace. Jian Ghomeshi Facebook post doesn't address the issues at hand. His facebook post was trying to set parameters of the debate without addressing the allegations and why he was terminated from the CBC with cause. This case has nothing to do with BDSM. BDSM is being used by Jian as an excuse to minimize the allegations against him, besides trying to disassociate himself from his actions that he physically and sexual abuse three women.

One of the allegations of physical assault is choking Jian's alleged victims, one cannot breath let alone speak while being choked, so it is irrelevant about "safe words", what is relevant if there is evidence of an assault taking place and does it reach a level of criminal prosecution. Ditto with assaulting women with hitting them with a closed or open fist in the face.

The first priority for the CBC in this triage situation, is to investigate the allegations of sexual and workplace harassment at the CBC against Jian Ghomeshi. We don't know what they found, what evidence was critical to their actions against Jian Ghomeshi, and what evidence they dismissed. What we do know that they fired Jian Ghomeshi with cause and banned him from his workplace. Corportation banned suspended and terminated workers to protect employees that have been harrassed and sexually harassed in the workplace. They don't banned fired and suspended workers out of spite.

The women who stated these accusation haven't come forward for many reasons that women don't want to report sexual violence against them. They don't want to be re-victimized by an ongoing criminal investigation and trial by media..Jian doesn't have the choice to hide from his accusations, but it appears the CBC have investigated the allegations against Jian for months..

I would be much more supportive of Jian if his little Facebook post address the serious allegations against him. Instead it was more of a media play to set the parameters of the debate and minimize the allegations against him that he physically and sexually assaulted women pluse the allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. It is an insult to the BDSM community to try to hide behind them, when his actions are physically attacking women..
69
IF the women are telling the truth, then Jian is using BDSM to try to convince the public that what he did was OK.





Far more worrying to me is what he thought all the times he was doing this. Was he thinking at the time that he was doing BDSM with his dates and partners? Where did safe, sane, and consensual fit in?





If you follow all the links above there are lots of kinky people saying how BDSM should be done. Safe words, mutual pleasure and fun, etc.





But the majority of BDSM on the internet is fantasy. It is all feeding how the reader wants to feel, and the fantasy is that the other person will do all that he wants.





If Jian thought that he was doing BDSM then the key of real BDSM - that the person without power is the one really in charge - has been lost, and lots more abuse will be happening because of this distortion of BDSM.
70
I agree that this all requires an open mind and the presumption of legal innocence (although the witch hunt is well underway), but I do take exception to one of Dan's points. You point out, quite correctly, that these women haven't come forward due to the stigma of being involved in BDSM sex (among other reasons). However, you then explain your distrust of Gomeshi's story by stating that "none of his other BDSM sex partners [are] stepping forward to defend Ghomeshi." You can't have it both ways, Dan. If refusing to make a public accusation because you don't want to be labeled (and then dismissed) as a kinkster is valid, then why on earth are you setting the bar of Gomeshi's defense that high? He's supposed to call up past relationships (which have, by definition ended - possibly not amicably) and ask THEM to stand up publicly and admit that they had consensual BDSM sex in order to raise his credibility in your eyes? That's a pretty tall order - and one that doesn't in any way invalidate the allegations in question! He could have had dozens of perfectly healthy BDSM sessions previously and then gone on to abuse these specific (alleged) victims. Expecting him to drag his past lovers out in public when you are perfectly willing to accept anonymous allegations smacks of the sort of double-standard you usually decry.





Frankly, the issue here that I find concerning is the fact that any public figure can be toppled by anonymous allegations made to any journalist willing to print them. Jian's effectively doomed (there's no way he'll be exonerated by the court of public opinion) but he's got a valid complaint that he's being fired for something happening in his private life. Unless there's evidence of misconduct that happened AT THE CBC (completely possible - we don't have all the info), then this is only going to drive kinksters further into the closet.





Finally, I find it a bit disingenuous that you think there's no possible reason why any woman would make up anonymous allegations of abuse against a famous and wealthy individual. Do you seriously believe that no one has ever done anything like this looking for a quick payout or to take down a celebrity? We love our celebrities in this culture and we love ripping them down even more. None of this will ever be proven in court, but it's a bit disconcerting to see how a few anonymous complaints to a muckraking journalist are enough to destroy the career (and possibly life) of someone high-profile.
71
@70: Have you looked at the response Carla Ciccone got to her XOJane essay describing her encounter with a creepy, unnamed Canadian radio journalist? Ghomeshi fans and assorted other dickheads decided she was talking about Ghomeshi, cranked up the Internet Hate Machine, and gave her both barrels.

Maybe that is why these women don't feel comfortable coming forward publicly. Ghomeshi is a media professional. He is playing PR hardball and anyone who accuses him can expect a rough ride. There's no upside to accusing him.

See, for example, this article.

"Who is going to risk being potentially sued for defamation by a party who has already assembled a team of lawyers and PR agents and showed a readiness to take on even the comparatively powerful CBC for $55-million? Given that they have already been painted by Ghomeshi's version of events as being into BDSM kink - something they may not even be, or may not want known to friends and family - how quickly will any accusers come forward publicly now and risk being joined to this outsized action?"

73
http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/…

yeah just a "he said/she said" thing...
74
So, in the link provided, wherein this girl meets a guy who she thinks is a gay, c-list celebrity & goes on a date with him, how does this in any way make him look like some creepy, abusive rapist?


She wrote about a typical date. He put his hands on her back & shoulders. At one point, he touched her butt. When she shunned that, he didn't do it again. It sounds like he thought he was on a date with a girl that he thought liked him. He was trying to connect/hook up, & to impress her. She has turned around & made him sound like he was being super creepy. Sorry, that's not how i read it. And it discredits the point you are trying to make by including her "article".


As far as how this many ladies can come forward convinced that they have been abused?


Let me tell you a story...


( and it is one of many )


My son, who is 22, hung out recently with a lady that he has known for many years. She's almost 30. They've been buddies for near 10 years. She buys the booze, they both know that they're attracted to each other. They spend the night drinking & hanging out. At one point they kiss. They do a little making out.


They write to one another after, & acknowledge that they probably should not have kissed ( he has a girlfriend). But, she tells him that she still feels his lips upon hers.





2 weeks later, his girlfriend is flipping out on him, accusing him of raping this girl. i sat with him as he wrote the friend that he kissed & she explained that...Her brother had told her that she had been taken advantage of. That, because they had been drinking, she had been raped. So, when my son's girlfriend wrote & asked her what happened, she said that she had been raped.


This brother of hers...is vindictive, rejected & manipulative. He is an obsessed stalker. Harassing & obsessed with my son. He believes that my son & himself are soulmates. Destined to be together forever. Needless to say, there are restraining orders against this guy. Seriously mentally ill, but that doesn't excuse it. My point is, it is that easy. She suddenly found herself "raped" after a kiss, and my son's girlfriend believed it because ...relationship fears & stuff.


i'm just saying, this does happen. People may have a consensual relationship, but when it doesn't work out, suddenly it isn't. i wish that i wasn't writing this. But i have seen this happen too many times.


And it isn't right.


If he did wrong, then he should answer for it.


But, i don't believe that the court of internet opinion makes for wrong or right.


And i know that i have had to deal with exactly this level of crazy.


Maybe, we shouldn't just jump on him as an abuser of women.


Maybe, we should really take a look at who's talking & why. It all sounds an awful lot like highschool he-said, she-said.


And look at why he was fired/left. The CBC fully admit that, based on the evidence, all of his private, sexual activities were consensual.





i understand the culture that we live in. i know that to speak out is to risk retribution. But, i just don't see that here. i see a whole lot of media. And i found what he wrote to be really honest. Now, that may mean that he is self-deluded in his honesty. But, i think that he is trying to be honest, nonetheless.


To admit to his private, sexual, preferences in the way that he did, took some courage. And, any PR team would have been telling him to shut his mouth ~ NOT to talk about his kinks.


So, why would he write so openly about it?


i just started listening to Jian in the last year. i have no loyalty to him or to Canada. But, what i have heard from him was really...straight. i remember...first, to refute that weird ladies "article", an excellent interview he did with Jake Gyllenhaal about the movie Enemy. Deep conversation. Talked about Jung & the shadow, etc.


Second ~ he was talking to Boy George. That was one of the most uncomfortable interviews i have ever heard. BG was a total dick. Jian was gracious. He asked some hard questions, but dealt with the dickery with grace.





Look, i am not a fan of every man. Nor am i hopping on the band wagon of every feminist trip. i have been reading both.


i just think that we should take a look at the person. And really look at whether or not we have ever had someone like this in our lives.


i'm not saying it is; i am saying it could be. So, be kind. And maybe think about your own life, before you judge others.



75
@74: Read the XOJane article again, more carefully:
I felt a sweaty hand travel across the back of my dress and grab my ass.

I asked him to stop
, and stepped away from him and his hand.

I watched the concert intently, but he soon grabbed my hand to hold it.

I discreetly pulled my hand away
, crossed my arms over my stomach and stared straight ahead.

When he started rubbing my back, I again told him to stop, and when he put his hand over my shoulders, I said I was hot and lifted it off.

[He] grabbed the strap my large purse and took it off my shoulder... placing my purse on the ground and slipping his arm around my waist to pull me closer.


He touched her ass. She told him to stop.

He grabbed her hand. She told him to stop.

He touched her back. She told him to stop.

He put his arm around her. She told him to stop.

This is not a typical date. She clearly indicated by her words and actions that she did not want him to touch her. He ignored all that.

Many other women are now coming forward with their own stories.
76
I am glad the CBC fired The Q Monster. 'Nipped Him in the Bud' before he had a chance to Fully Sexually Mature! I am grateful none of these women were killed. Are there any unsolved murders he could be linked to? Missing Women? You never know. He is very similar to the rapist murderer Colonel Russell Williams from Ontario a few years back. The higher up the ladder he went, the bigger his ego became, his twisted sexual desires came out & he felt invincible & thought he could get away with murder - which he did for a short while. He started with rapes & it progressed. He thought he was too important & no one would ever suspect him which they wouldn't have until he hit that dreaded police traffic stop & his tires matched the tire tracks left at near one of the murder scenes. The Q Monster seems very similar - The more fame & success, the sick kinky desires come out & grow. Women are trash. They are socially below me & too scared & intimidated to rat on me. "Mr. Invincible" I say again 'Nipped in the Bud!'. Thank God!
77
It's 9 women now and two have gone to the police. The police are investigating.



CBC has released more details regarding their rationale, including strong evidence that Ghomeshi breached the corporation's Code of Ethics.



CBC has also announced that it will initiate a 3rd-party investigation into the allegations about Ghomeshi.



Last night's Twitter hashtag, #beenrapedneverreported, was enlightening to say the least, and gripping, especially when it trended to #3 in both Canada and the USA. Our continent has a lot of work to do on the issue of violence against women.
78
@76 - I'm not defending this dude at all, but your post is QUITE a leap.
79
Wow crazy article. You'd wonder what the real story is! Keep up the good work. Cheers & HNY!