Sex Scandal or Libel at the CBC?

I get all of my media on the internet.

Television and radio programs that I watch/listen to, I find on YouTube and other websites. Consequently I am completely unfamiliar with most mainstream media “personalities”.

I have heard the name Jian Ghomeshi. I have heard it repeatedly.

It had penetrated my mind to the point where I was aware that he was a Canadian media personality connected to the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). I had heard of the band, of which he was a member, Moxy Fruvous, although I had never knowingly heard their music. The name of the band was catchy and stuck with me.

After the Jian Ghomeshi “scandal” broke, I watched an interview on YouTube that Mr. Ghomeshi had done with Joni Mitchell. I found it thoroughly boring. It was only interesting when the camera cut away to shots of Mitchell’s paintings, which, though highly derivative, are quite good.

My impression of Ghomeshi was of an intelligent “pretty boy” who was not intimidated by the famous. He wasn’t a gusher or a fawner. Good.

We are told that women, in alarming numbers, have come forward with allegations that the “pretty boy”, on occasion, slapped them, choked them, punched them and beat them with a belt. In the work place he is described as sweaty and reeking of cologne. We are told that he pawed women. We are told that his various public pawings and private assaults were uninvited.

We are told that incidents of the sort described go back many years. We are told that Jian’s bosses at work were aware that complaints had been made about him. We are told that there was a general awareness, on set, and in the production milieu of his program, that everyone was, to some extent, a prisoner of Jian’s “personality”.

Obviously, if all of the above is true, that is not a healthy situation. We are told that some people left the production because of what was going on. Careers may have been thwarted. Hopes may have been dashed by the behavior of a very self indulgent, immature, unprofessional sociopath, if all of these various allegations are true.

None of this has been tested in court, but various people and groups and one large corporation have made haste to distance themselves from Ghomeshi. In the CBC’s case, it is asserted that evidence has been shown to them, which justifies their having severed relations with an important creative “property” in Ghomeshi.

Leaving Ghomeshi and the allegations against him aside, there is something very distasteful in all of this. One is amazed to find no mention whatsoever of anyone at all who has suspended judgment of Ghomeshi, pending adjudication in court of the allegations against him.

The list of people who have written Ghomeshi off even includes his old bandmates. It’s as if anyone connected with him at any time in history cannot be distanced quickly or distantly enough, in the modern “twitterverse”.

www.thestar.com...

His former bandmates from Moxy Früvous, who had not played together since about 2000, said in a Facebook statement they were “sickened and saddened” by the allegations levelled against Ghomeshi.

“We had no inkling that Jian engaged in this type of behaviour,” Mike Ford, Murray Foster and David Matheson said in a statement.

Comedy abounds in this story.

We are told by the National Post

www.msn.com...

Police say they will be reaching out to the CBC about “graphic evidence,” which resulted in the public broadcaster firing one of its biggest stars, that allegedly shows Ghomeshi causing physical injury to women.
“It would be great for the CBC to reach out,” said Beaven-Desjardins. “It saves us tracking them down.”

Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing funny, the police “reaching out” to the CBC and the CBC “reaching out” to the police?

It sounds like a scene from Police Academy, the movie. “No,” you say. “It is an example of “sensitivity” in language, being shown by the police department during a traumatic event for the CBC. The corporation is distraught and the department is being sensitive to its distress, you lunkhead.”

But what about the part where the police say they want to be saved the trouble of “tracking down” the CBC?

You roll your eyes and say, “You don’t get it, you sad old geriatric has been. The CBC is huge. The police could wander around in “props” forever and never find what they were looking for.”

OK. That’s probably true. My turn to roll my eyes.

I’m not trying to make light of the allegations against Ghomeshi. It’s the SENSITIVITY WRIT LARGE coming out of the police department that amuses me. I’m not against a sensitive police department. It’s just that it takes a little getting used to. The last I heard about them, they were making mass arrests, kettling crowds in the street and conducting strip searches in scenarios reminiscent of the Gestapo or the concentration camp.

I have had a lot of professional contact with the police over the years and I know that there are many fine officers in the Toronto Metropolitan Police Department. That being said, the Police Chief, himself, made a video admonishing them to tell the truth in court. Just the other day a judge cleared someone on the basis of police testimony believed to be unreliable. If I were Ghomeshi, I would be shaking in my boots at the thought of being investigated by the Toronto police department.

Of course there is probably nothing whatsoever political about the Ghomeshi story, but all the same, I just wanted to point out (I admit that I am wandering off topic here.) that The Toronto Police Association, gave a political endorsement to the current Mayor of Toronto when he ran unsuccessfully for that office in 2003.

This followed the police having found no evidence to substantiate claims made by another candidate, John Nunziata, of an attempt by individuals, assumed (by the press) to be connected to the Tory campaign, to induce Mr. Nunziata to drop out of the race in exchange for being appointed Deputy Mayor, should Mr. Tory be elected.

This is only my own opinion and like a typical geriatric has been (actually “neverwas”), I could be all over the map wrong about it, but I don’t think the police should be giving political endorsements. I think the police should be outside of politics entirely, as a department. There should be no police political solidarity in our society, in my opinion. Such a thing is perilously close to constituting a political force in the society. Castanets and burritos, fine. A political police force, emphatically no!

According to Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Toronto Police Association (TPA), founded in 1944, is a labour organization representing the approximately 5,500 uniformed and 2,500 civilian members of the Toronto Police Service in Toronto, Canada. While police officers in Ontario are prohibited by law from forming a union, the TPA fulfills most of the functions of a public-sector union, including collective bargaining contract negotiations with its membership's employer, the Toronto Police Service.

I am not trying to overturn the police’s applecart, but if you read the description of the Toronto Police Association, you can’t fail to notice a certain amount of flexibility with regard to legal restrictions upon it. I don’t want to make more of this than is justified, but in my experience, those who enforce the law have a sort of proprietor’s attitude to it, as if laws were stock in trade, like piles of string beans to a green grocer.

That is the thin edge of the wedge of a police state. Mission creep. Political opinions. Political allegiances. Financial dependencies upon political favorites. The investigation of accusations as a public relations exercise or as a political move. The leaking of information from criminal investigations for political effect or for the personal use of political favorites.

I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that Ghomeshi’s situation vis a vis the police is anything more than the result of credible complaints made against him to the police, but I think the situation merits careful scrutiny all the same, if for no other reason than that Ghomeshi has said that he intends to file suit for defamation and wrongful dismissal against the CBC, which is after all, the national broadcaster.

$50,000,000 is a lot of taxpayer money that could potentially have to be handed over to Mr. Ghomeshi. A $50,000,000 omlette is a lot of egg all over some important faces, if the charges against Mr. Ghomeshi can’t be made to stick in court.

Is the deck being stacked against him in the press? Could he get a fair trial in a criminal case? Is an attempt being made, well in advance, to communicate in some improper way with the future judge in a civil litigation involving Mr. Ghomeshi and the CBC?

“No, yes, no”, is the way those questions would undoubtedly be answered if one were to ask them in the offices of the press in Toronto. Personally, a shadow of suspicion has entered my mind. Surely Mr. Ghomeshi is not being moved against in ways suggestive of a “table tilt” in pin ball, is he?

I am certain that I am wrong to harbor even the hint of a suspicion of such a thing. I must be wrong.

The CBC can hardly be blamed for being a fountain of ignorance on the subject of what is going on at the CBC. Anyone who has worked anywhere knows that management seldom has a clue about what goes on at work, particularly with regard to the personal behavior of employees, even less so in unionized shops, like the CBC. A shop steward once told me that the biggest problem that shop stewards have is the misbehavior of rogue unionized employees, whom they are forced to defend against completely legitimate complaints from management and from other unionized employees.

Was the Ghomeshi situation like that?

According to MSN News, the CBC was initially approached by Mr. Ghomeshi himself, last spring, months ago, and informed by him that

www.msn.com...

. . . the Toronto Star “was looking into allegations by an ex-girlfriend that he had engaged in non-consensual 'rough sex.'"

. . . at that time, CBC executives were not contacted by the Toronto Star directly and "were not otherwise aware" of the allegations against Ghomeshi.
"When directly confronted, Jian firmly denied there was any truth to those allegations," the memo says.

So, Ghomeshi’s superiors were informed by Ghomeshi himself, that the press were investigating allegations against him that were, potentially, of a criminal nature.

Nonconsensual “rough sex” is rape, is it not?

I suppose, splitting hairs here, one might raise the question of which part of the act was “nonconsensual”, the roughness, or the sex. Presumably one could willingly participate in lovemaking and then be surprised by violence and so, technically, not be a rape victim. This is complicated though, because if the violence caused one to not want further lovemaking, any lovemaking that occurred after a voiced objection, would constitute rape.

Did CBC management discuss such an eventuality, the laying of a rape charge against one of their stars, at that time, in the spring, when they first had an inkling that some sexual impropriety was being alleged against him?

Later, in the summer,

a Q employee was sent a letter from a reporter asking about Ghomeshi and whether "his behaviour may have 'crossed over' into the workplace."
The memo says that with this information, CBC and the human resources team conducted an investigation and conducted interviews with employees and management. The memo doesn’t detail how many interviews were conducted or how long the investigation took, saying only that the investigation "determined that there were no complaints of this nature about Jian’s behaviour in the workplace."

The CBC satisfied itself that Ghomeshi’s conduct in the workplace had not been the subject of complaints.

We are told in the CBC’s memo, explaining its actions in this affair, that

. . . the situation changed for the CBC on Oct. 23, when CBC saw "for the first time, graphic evidence that Jian had caused physical injury to a woman."

The memo does not detail what that evidence was.

"At no time prior to last week was CBC aware that Jian had engaged in any activities which resulted in the physical injury of another person."

The memo says that after viewing the "graphic evidence," CBC decided that Ghomeshi’s conduct was a "fundamental breach" of CBC’s standards.

The source of this evidence is not given. Was this evidence furnished by Ghomeshi himself to prove that bruises can occur in consensual sexual “play”? I have read that he did give some sort of video documentation to the CBC to support such a contention. We are not told the source of the CBC’s “graphic evidence” in this particular story. Did a CBC employee, having been victimized, go directly to management with the “evidence”? Were they shown evidence by the police department in advance of a complaint being filed?

Not being explicit, the MSN News story, leaves many questions and does nobody a service, least of all Mr. Ghomeshi.

According to a story in the National Post

www.msn.com...’s-journey-from-immigrant’s-son-to-cultural-icon-to-pariah/ar-BBcgUzu

Mr. Ghomeshi has described approaching the CBC last week with what he said was exculpatory evidence, proving the impugned sexual encounters were consensual.

Was this the evidence used to come to a decision to fire Mr. Ghomeshi? That would be odd, since it was supplied by him.
Up to Thursday of this past week, three days after Mr. Ghomeshi was fired, the Toronto police had received no official complaints about Ghomeshi.

When he was fired by CBC, last Sunday, he had not been charged with any offense and presumably was not under investigation by the police for any offense, since no official complaints had been lodged with them.

(I thought this was true when I wrote it, but that turns out not to be the case. As we shall see later, the police started investigating this case, prior to receiving any complaint at all about Mr. Ghomeshi.)

The only investigations which had taken place, prior to Ghomeshi’s dismissal, were those undertaken by The Toronto Star and the CBC.

Ghomeshi issued a statement on Facebook

www.msn.com...

. . . responding to his firing and denying any involvement in non-consensual, violent sexual acts. Ghomeshi detailed his sexual preferences in his statement and said he wasonly ever involved in acts that were "mutually agreed upon, consensual and exciting for both partners."

On Thursday, he issued a new statement, saying "'I want to thank you for your support and assure you that I intend to meet these allegations directly. I don’t intend to discuss this matter any further with the media."

The President of the CBC also issued a statement:

. . . titled "Note to Canadians" late Friday, saying the allegations that have surfaced in the past week have left him "in shock, sadness, and some anger."

Lacroix's statement cited Ghomeshi's legal action, saying the lawsuit "limits what we have been able to say about the circumstances of his firing, but we will defend our action."

He reiterated the message that an outside company with "specific expertise to conduct an independent investigation" will be brought in. No timeframe for the investigation is provided in either memo, but Lacroix said the results will be shared with the CBC board, staff and Canadians.

The mention of the hiring of an outside company to conduct an “independent investigation” troubles me a little. Does this constitute an admission that the original investigation undertaken by the CBC, upon which the decision to fire Mr. Ghomeshi was based, was not adequate?

Would the intended release of the results of this independent investigation constitute further instances of possible defamation of Mr. Ghomeshi’s character?

These are interesting questions that might very well be raised by Mr. Ghomeshi’s lawyers.

This morning, one week after Mr. Ghomeshi’s firing, the Toronto Sun is reporting that three women have made complaints about Mr. Ghomeshi, to the police.

www.torontosun.com...

“The Toronto Police Service is committed to investigating this matter fully,” Insp. Joanna Beaven-Desjardins, of the Sex Crimes Unit, said Saturday at police headquarters.

However, she cautioned, “at this point, these are allegations.”

Be that as it may, other statements made during in her press conference, express a more firm commitment by the police, to the veracity of allegations made against Mr. Ghomeshi.

The police inspector told the press with regard to these allegations,

“ . . . we believe them right from the onset. There’s never a doubt about believing them.”

She goes on to say that is necessary, in court, to show a pattern of incidents.

Is this another way of saying that the police consider an accused person guilty until proven innocent?

One can’t control what people believe, but I’m not sure a statement like that, on behalf of the police department, serves the interests of justice in this case. I would have preferred a little more impartiality from the police.

Could the police be sued in a defamation case by Mr. Ghomeshi, based on the evidence presented against him up to this time?

The Sunday Star clears up the question of at least part of the evidence upon which the CBC based its decision to fire Mr. Ghomeshi.

www.thestar.com...

Police are also investigating videos Ghomeshi showed his CBC bosses Oct. 23 containing “graphic evidence that Jian had caused physical injury to a woman.”

It is interesting to note though, that the police have still not seen this video, if I understand statements made by Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins, at her news conference, correctly.

The police are appealing for those with possible evidence to contact them.

The video that seems to have caused all the trouble for Mr. Ghomeshi, must still be in his hands, if it exists at all any more.

Here is Inspector Beaven-Desjardins' press conference.

Good thread . Reading through your op I think you might have brought a few aspects to the "Ghomeshi" story that should be separated . The police investigation into allegations is one aspect that is not associated with Ghomeshi law suit against the CBC . Weather the police and some of their actions could be looked at as political in other instances is a bit of a moot point because of the duty they have to look into what they must now realize has merit .

I think Ghomeshi is toast in so many ways .The CBC took the high road in this one imo .When viewed in light of the BBC and their roll in allowing a known pedophile to operate for many years .I think most of the public was shocked about Ghomeshi .Especially his fans ,but some of us were always a little curious about the guy .I had looked at him as a sort of Canadian treasure of CBC and was a icon . As more of the story has been coming out I think CBC took the appropriate actions .

Both sides of this story will no doubt have influences in the other .Before the interview with 2 of the women on CBC I was unsure just what the heck could have happened .CBC to me was always well aware about the bedroom being a different issue and does a reasonable job of keeping it so . This is a different issue and crosses a line I had hoped they had .Violence .

Now I would think that his lawyers have their work cut out to get a piece of that 50mil . That is their carrot ,but I am thinking that if the crown gets enough evidence to press charges and take it to trial that Mr. Ghomeshi may find himself in a place where he may find himself on the violent end of a sex act that will have nothing to do with a bed room .

Mr. Ghomeshi should be very afraid . It may be reaping what you sew or just karma .Lets hope in the end that it is just .

Star and flag for an extremely well put together opening post. I'll be following this thread.

a reply to: the2ofusr1


I don't think Ghomeshi is a pedophile... He's a pervert and a control freak (alledgedly). Has he been charged as a pedophile?
You know what a pedophile is, right?

My mention of pedophilia was in connection with the BBC and not the CBC . Both are public broadcasters who both have figures that work within their institutions . The BBC knew about the crimes that were being committed but chose to hide them .CBC not so much . a reply to: 001ggg100

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Okay... Sorry about that, my pi$$up...

There is a documentary film about the world of BDSM, called Tops & Bottoms: Sex, Power and Sadomasochism.

This shows the historical development of what we are familiar with today as S&M. The main thesis of the movie is that people are "tops" (sadists) or "bottoms" (masochists) for sociological reasons connected to the regimentation of life which occurred after the industrial revolution. The practice of S&M is seen as helping to correct psychological imbalances caused by the regimentation of modern (post industrial revolution) life.

Typically, one who is an authority, like a boss, in modern life, will, in the S&M world, gravitate to the position of being a "bottom" in that world, in order to rebalance his/her psychology through participation in scenes as a masochist. The reverse of this also occurs. A low ranking manual laborer or cleaning woman will gravitate to the status of a "top", enacting scenes of sadism, which compensate for all of the humiliations a socially low status individual must endure in ordinary life.

These choices of roles may be made quite unconsciously, and be felt only as "itches" that one must scratch.

I personally wonder if, in fact, Ghomeshi actually falls into the category of "top" as described in the movie. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the allegations against him are true, I see him more in keeping with behavior associated with members of minority cultures who make inroads into the mainstream of a society and then use that "beachhead" as a position from which to isolate and injure members of the majority group, but as a gesture of social adjustment from one social or ethnic group to another.

It is a kind of variation on the "tops and bottoms" theme, where the "top" is actually a "top", not just in fantasy life, but in ordinary life as well, but is revenging himself on the mainstream, for rejecting him as a youth. Think successful black man with white "trophy" wife, whom he abuses.

In these cases there is no genuine "bottom" wanting and actually needing to be taken down a peg.

In situations involving real "tops" and "bottoms", there are no complaints. Everybody goes home satisfied, at least in theory.

The above is just one way of looking at this situation.

Anybody else here work at CBC for a quarter of a century.

a reply to: ipsedixit

The list of people who have written Ghomeshi off even includes his old bandmates. It’s as if anyone connected with him at any time in history cannot be distanced quickly or distantly enough, in the modern “twitterverse”.

Probably indicative that they knew of an underlying problem but it hadn't exploded to what it eventually did when they were around him, or they simply didn't know the extent of his behavioural problems.

The fact that there are so many girls coming out I think it speak volumes of whether or not it really happened. Also, coupled to the fact that his actions (as they describe them) mean it may be very hard for them to proceed in the court of law because he did everything he could to simply say, "I didn't do it" and he went just far enough that there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict on.

Its obvious by other peoples accounts he is into BDSM/dominatrix type relationships, if he had a regular dominatrix that he could call out as a witness stating that, "Yes, he does carry these relationships but he does so in a safe manner, with a safe word and the consent of the girls he is involved with" that would be a statement about his character that would support him in public and judicial scrutiny, but, simply having us believe a bunch of girls are mad because they couldn't get in his pants, or are just "crazy ass chicks" and they all want to slander him for no reason, well, sorry.

If it walks like a duck.

Some situations are very telling by the facts released, whether or not the media is trying to hang someone or cover it up.

Personally, I find the very public walk out by the public relations firm that was representing Ghomeshi, disgusting. They say he "lied" to them.

Surely a lying client is not a rarity in that business. I'm very suspicious about the conduct of this company, Navigator.

Of course everyone else in this story is above reproach. The CBC's conduct was impeccable. "Saddened, shocked and angered" were the emotions expressed by one mouthpiece. Rock-It Promotions, presumably from the "keepin' it real", "hip", "up to the minute", "trending", "viral" world of media celebrity fluffing, have also dropped Ghomeshi. It begs the question, What would they have done with big league degenerates and sybarites like Mick Jagger or Kate Moss? If they had any brains, these companies that have cut and run on Ghomeshi would stick with him and ride out the situation.

I wouldn't touch either of these cowardly companies with a ten foot pole.

The ex Moxy Fruvous bandmates said in a message that they were "sickened and saddened" and had no idea that Ghomeshi was into this kind of stuff. They haven't played music with him since 2000. 2014 - 2000 = 14 years of not being involved in musical stuff with Ghomeshi. They are innocent folks. Like Charlie Watts, the quiet "Stone", they didn't know what their bandmate was into because on road trips and during down time in lonely hotels, they all did crossword puzzles and didn't really get to know one another. They are safe to hire and safe to have one night stands with that will be wholesome and tender and yes, will leave a girl feeling used and trashed, but not roughed up.

A pox on all their houses.

A thought that occurred to me is that the court case, if there is one, against Ghomeshi, will probably resolve down to whether a jury believes what "he says" or what "she says".

Inspector Beaven-Desjardins mentioned the importance of building up evidence for a pattern of behavior or similar occurances of assaults by Ghomeshi.

Another pattern which might tend to corroborate Ghomeshi's version of events would be a pattern of "second dates" after alleged instances of assaults. Surely someone who alleges to have been assaulted against her will on one date would not then agree to a second date. I think Ghomeshi's lawyers would be happy to find that sort of thing, if it happened.

It would not surprise me if they did find women who might be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having come back for more of whatever happened on the first date.

The Toronto Star has published an interesting account of interactions between Ghomeshi and a female potential job seeker at a taping of the Q program. It shows the sort of ambiguous nuances that might well be exploited by an attorney defending Ghomeshi, despite the negative interpretation of events given by the complainant.

www.thestar.com...

She had asked Q’s executive producer for an invite to a taping, she said. She said she hoped to land a job with CBC.
Seeing a new face in the control room, Ghomeshi invited her into the studio after the show, she said.

Alone in the room, the two chatted about Q and guests Ghomeshi had interviewed. The conversation was friendly and she assumed they were networking — despite a comment about how good she looked, she said.

So far it is a well played match with no points on the board.

“I was under the impression . . . he thinks I’m smart, he thinks I’d be a good fit for working at Q,” she said.

Strategic thinking going on. An evaluation of the situation by the female.

When conversation wrapped up, she alleges Ghomeshi said, “Aren’t you going to give me a hug?”

Evidence of strategic thinking by Ghomeshi. An evaluation of the situation by him.

At this point what would a jury's impression be? They might very reasonably conclude that two people are involved in two completely different games in this situation, with two completely different strategies. They might also very reasonably conclude that at least the possibility of differing agendas should at this stage be evident to the female.

“He gave me a bear hug and he lifted me up,” she said, adding the situation was “weird” but she thought perhaps he was just friendly. She had heard rumours he was flirty, she said.

A jury hearing this and hearing that no sort of caution or objection to such behavior (between prospective boss and prospective employee, who had just met that very day) had been issued by the female, might reasonably conclude that Mr. Ghomeshi might very reasonably have seen no sign that he should not continue his advances.

But when she turned to leave a second time, she alleges Ghomeshi came up behind her, placing his hands on her waist and pressing his body against her backside.

“As I’m walking towards the door, he was behind me, kind of hugging me from behind and walking with me,” she said. “That’s when I thought, whoa, this is kind of a bit much.”

At least the female, at this point, indicates that Ghomeshi has gone beyond the limits of what she is willing to allow. However, she does not make her objections known to Ghomeshi. A jury has been given no reason to believe that he has overridden any protest to his actions.

She said she does not know if anyone else witnessed the incident.

As they walked, with Ghomeshi still holding her, he mentioned she should laugh at his jokes, she said.

She left and returned to work, still shaken and unable to focus.

Clearly she was shaken by what happened. Clearly, she voiced no objection to Ghomeshi about anything that had occurred between them, at least in the account given by the Star

One hour later, she received a text from Ghomeshi asking her to meet up for a “non-work related drink,” she said. He added a winky face —

— to the message, she said.

This sequence is highly ambiguous. A jury might well be very troubled by the lady's story at this point. Mr. Ghomeshi's intentions would seem to be crystal clear. He wanted to "hook up" with the lady in question and I think a jury would see that. A jury might reject a contention by the lady in this case, that she did not see that.

She, however, says:

“I didn’t want to date him, but then I thought this would maybe be a good opportunity to speak to him about the industry,” she said, responding by text and telling him a “friendly meet up” would be OK.

“If you could help me get a job that would be cool, too,” she added.

More troubling ambiguity. She didn't want to date him, but agrees to a date. She adds that she wants a favor from him. She wants him to help her get a job. A jury hearing this might very reasonably believe that, in the circumstances, Mr. Ghomeshi might have every reason, based on indications coming from the lady, that she was establishing the terms of a possible exchange of "friendship" for "job assistance".

Ghomeshi texted back saying he wasn’t interested in a personal friendship and didn’t want to be used as “conduit to a job,” she said. The text messages stopped shortly after, she said.

Ghomeshi immediately rejected that as a basis for further contact. He said he wasn't interested in personal friendship. He said he wasn't interested in being a "conduit to a job". A jury might very reasonably conclude that by now, the lady involved should have realized that Ghomeshi was only interested in a sexual encounter. Full stop.

After the Ghomeshi scandal broke in the media, this woman has chosen to represent highly ambigous messages to Ghomeshi as "sarcasm" and wonders if he misinterpreted that sarcasm.

In the months to follow, she continued second-guessing her handling of the situation. She wondered if perhaps he had misinterpreted her sarcasm as flirting.

She gave up trying to get a job at Q, she said.

It was only when the Star reported allegations from women against Ghomeshi that she felt a final sense of relief, she said. “Thank God I didn’t agree to meeting up with him,” the woman, now 28, told the Star Sunday.

A defense attorney hearing this might well ask this lady if she had clearly marked sarcastic passages in her text with some indicator of sarcasm, like an "lol" after asking for job help.

It takes a very accomplished writer to make sarcasm self evident in written text. If Mr. Ghomeshi were to say he didn't see any sarcasm, but only someone angling for a job, a jury might very reasonably take him at his word.

I suspect, from the analysis above, that the defense position in this case is by no means hopeless.

Leaving aside some of the legal issues in the two cases that may in fact never get to court ,one thing is emerging is a conversation on multipal levels .Consent and what will end up constituting consent may be at the heart of the matter .The story has developed it's own form of becoming viral just by mentioning some of the questions surrounding it .I suspect it will get a ton of air time .Every nuance will be magnified and hopefully placed into the proper context .With the CBC I think it will boil down to ethics withing the Corp. and how public figures need to maintain responsibility after hours . If the investigation collects in their mind enough evidence that shows he may have been committing a crime even though the girls were kind of going along with him ,it will be interesting to see how the Crown proceeds . a reply to: ipsedixit

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I've never been one to insist that public figures maintain a presentable level of personal conduct. I'm happy if they just do their jobs proficiently. What they do on their own time is between them and law enforcement, but that is just me.

Dave Chapelle did a funny skit on the use of legal release forms by celebrities when they date, including nondisclosure of any failures to "perform". Those may become standard at the CBC.

Incidentally, Margot Kidder had some good advice for young women trying to make it in Hollywood. "Only sleep with him after the contract is signed."

I think that CBC would agree with you but where this thing gets very close to a line of legality ,and not having that line defined ,it becomes a judgement call .Better to side of the side of safe then to be put in a situation of a big libel case . a reply to: ipsedixit

Under the old Hollywood studio system everything would have been hushed up.

The ladies with the complaints would have been paid off to keep quiet and Ghomeshi would have gone on to bigger and better stardom. In this case CBC has cut off one of its stars and has to start over from scratch. One can't help feeling that somebody at the CBC was asleep at the switch while this pot was slowly simmering over a long period of time.

I don't think it would have come to this if one of the old time Hollywood czars had been in control at the CBC. I think Mr. Ghomeshi would have been hauled onto the carpet and had the riot act read to him by someone capable of holding his attention.

Latest news is that the main producer of the show has taken a extended time off .Hard to say at this point what that may really be about but it does look a bit suspect to me . CBC is a far cry from a Hollywood .The CIA have deep roots there but I don't think CISIS works on screening or production here . a reply to: ipsedixit

This is the latest that has been getting a lot of play on YT ..Jian Ghomeshi "All My Fans Make Me Sick" I also heard that he has got himself a high profile criminal lawyer .Seems a bit premature at this point though . This story is not going to help stroke his EGO . He may want to get a high profile Shrink to help him deal with this .