'Sexual assault' pandora's box is now open . . . .

[(ಠ_ಠ)]

The media should have left the Ghomeshi case where it belonged: in a court
room to be decided between accuser and accused. Only after such determination
of guilt or innocence should the name of the accused and the names of the
accusers been published.

What has happened instead, is that the Toronto Start, prodded by a freelance
shit disturber, Jesse Brown, decided to make 'a story' out of the accusations
against Jian Ghomeshi. Once they'd decided that, he had no choice but to fight
back with as much 'proof of consent' to his style of sex life as he had
available. Apparently it's not the LACK OF consent that is even the issue for
the CBC executive types: it's some marks left on the person of the female
partner of Ghomeshi.

Now the CBC has given an interview [
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-investigation-defended-by-cbc-1.2827969
] in which a female CBC 'head of English programming' is saying that the 'CBC
is not the police'. Really? TTHEY made the decision that the marks on a
woman's body constituted 'assault'. THEY made the decision that S&M sex by one
of their employees in his private off-duty life (pretty private, I'd say) would
reflect badly on the CBC if it become public knowledge - which the Toronto Star
was promising to make it. THEY made the decision to fire a top-notch radio
personality PRIOR TO that public release by the Toronto Star. And now they're
saying 'they're not the police' ?!

You bet they're not. NO ONE went to the police over the sexual activities of
Ghomeshi in his private life. No one even laid a formal complaint on
Ghomeshi's actions ON THE JOB, although suddenly everyone seems to have a tale
to tell about his sexual appetites, dating habits, and 'touchiness' incident.
The CBC acted as police, judge and jury on Ghomeshi. They opened up an
atmosphere of 'come to us and tell us your stories' AFTER they publicly
humiliated the man. Now they just can't seem to find those complaints or
stories or any employer actions taken against him for those actions.

Worse still, the Toronto police chief, Bill Blair, has gone public to ASK FOR
female complainants to come forward if they have anything on Ghomeshi. They
obviously aren't getting too much in the way of strong evidence against him, if
they have to go to that extreme. They've also 'invited' Jian Ghomeshi to come
in to talk with him and give his side of the story. Are we kidding here?
If there is enough evidence to lay charges against him, they wouldn't need him
to tell 'his side' of any story. They would lay the charges and let the
lawyers for the parties get both sides of the story IN A COURTROOM.

This public lynching is having even more serious side effects as a result of
statements made by the media, by the police and by lawyers who seem to know
less than about such cases than do some professionals who deal with sexual
assault cases. The fact that the police have made it clear that there 'is no
statute of limitations on assault or sexual assault' has many people who have
experienced sexual harassment or sexual assault suddenly 'remembering and
replaying' the incidents from their pasts. And for many of these, the current
example of a man's career, personal reputation, and future job prospects being
damaged through strictly MEDIA reporting is quite an adventure for them.

If the stats on 'unreported sexual assaults' is anywhere near what is being
reported, then there are thousands upon thousands of 'victims' out there who
can take advantage of the current system of roasting a person through the media
- without even having to provide proof of the acts in their accusation. The
media will be their weapon or mechanism to inflict real and serious punishment
or revenge. This could even become a tool for taking someone 'down' for past
humiliations or even business transactions gone wrong.

The examples are now pouring in: MPs in the House pointing the finger at each
other for incidents from the past. Even a homosexual coming forward to point
the finger at someone who was overly 'touchy-feeling' with him. The ALLEGED
offenders are being named. But the accusers, in most part, are NOT.

This is a wholly-opened Pandora's box which will do a whole lot of harm to a
whole lot of people just because of the way THE MEDIA and the POLICE have
handled it. They've implied that their doors are open to any and all
allegations . . . 'come one, come all, we're here to hear you out and to put
the name of your alleged offender in the media'. Where have the voices been
that warned: 'Any accusations will be thoroughly looked at and if enough
evidence is provided or found, charges will be laid and the case WILL PROCEED
TO A COURT OF LAW.'

Of the NINE women who initially said they had been in some way harassed or
assaulted by Ghomeshi, only THREE went to file a police complaint. And the
police obviously didn't have enough evidence come in from those 3 complainants
to lay charges - they're now appealing, through the media, for any evidence to
support these womens' stories. And still no charges to date.

Now we have the CBC trying to protect their own executive asses by saying THEY
received no complaints from anyone? And no one is coming forward to say that
they took their concerns to a level of even a formal complaint?

Watch what happens in the next few weeks, months and even years . . . . people
who have bitter memories of improper sexual advances are going to use the media
to exact revenge on others. The perpetrators will have names. The accusers
will not. Guess who's already in the winner's box?

I would like to remind the misogynists we have posting here, on these
newsgroups, that they may have had 'bad dates' or sexual interactions in their
past that could make THEM targets of this latest method of 'exacting
punishment'. It's called using the media as the whip. . . . . the best kind of
S&M tool create to date: permanent scars without even owning a riding crop.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
The media should have left the Ghomeshi case where it belonged: in a
court room to be decided between accuser and accused. Only after such
determination of guilt or innocence should the name of the accused and the
names of the accusers been published.

The CBC didn't dump Jian because he broke the Law(tm). He didn't.
What he did was physically damage some of his "dates". I don't give
a shit if they DID consent to it, it seriously contravenes the
"sister's" keeper clause of words I live by. From CBC's POV it's
worse: they were his FANS to whom he was an Authority and he was
taking advantage of that to abuse them as objects without any
consideration for their actual desires. That breaks the Onan Rule
and in some circles it's a capital offense.

Dhu

[(?_?)]

"(?_?) " wrote...

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
The media should have left the Ghomeshi case where it belonged: in a court
room to be decided between accuser and accused. Only after such determination
of guilt or innocence should the name of the accused and the names of the
accusers been published.

[Snip rest of rant]
Let's set aside for the moment your long history of smearing people with
no evidence whatsoever m'kay?

Let's set aside your usual bs and character assaults and let someone more
balanced discuss this issue.
You don't qualify - except as one of the misogynists I referred to.

[(ಠ_ಠ)]

And still another example of what the Jian Ghomeshi case has caused to come out
of the box of Pandora:
__________________________
Leah McLaren - Special to The Globe and Mail - Friday, Nov. 07 2014


Women shouldn’t have to wait years for sexual offenders to apologize

When I was in my early twenties and a contract employee at The Globe, I went to
a staff Christmas party hosted by my boss. I was standing in the crowded
kitchen, chatting with a bunch of jolly, drink-flushed senior journalists, when
I felt a hand slip up the back of my skirt and fondle my bottom. I moved away
but the hand followed. At first I assumed it was my boyfriend, but then I
realized it wasn’t and the blood drained from head. I turned around to face a
colleague. He was swaying, obviously drunk, but managed to meet my eye. His
face was utterly blank. Back in the office on Monday, it was as if nothing had
happened. We never spoke of it.

For years, as most women do, I’ve racked my brain to figure out why I failed to
react in that moment. Why didn’t I shout or hiss or just wind up and smack him?
Why did I stand there like a frozen idiot, listening to the senior journalists
joking while my colleague, unbeknownst to everyone but the two of us, brought
new meaning to the word “handling editor”?

The answer is easy; I didn’t want to make a fuss. I didn’t want to become that
girl, the one people gossip about in the cafeteria line, which I undoubtedly
would have been if I’d filed an official complaint. But looking back on it now,
I can’t help but marvel at the misery of those two choices: Either stay silent
or point a finger and accept a starring role in the newsroom scandal of the
year. The system seemed broken somehow. What did I stand to gain?

He was a respected editor who was older and more experienced than me. Managers
at the paper admired his skill and story sense and I had been explicitly
instructed to let him take me “under his wing.” For the most part, he was a
thoughtful and thorough editor.

I, on the other hand, was a contract employee, anxious to prove myself and
desperate for a full-time job. I felt I needed my editor’s approval for both.
The thought of getting bogged down in some sort of drawn-out complaints process
before I’d even been offered a real job was unattractive. I’d seen what
happened to women who went down that road and I wasn’t prepared to be one of
them. It was, now that I look back on it, a depressingly familiar story.

I wasn’t traumatized, but the whole thing bugged me. It bugged me that I’d said
nothing. It bugged me that he got away with it. It bugged me that he had lots
of interesting, liberal female friends who clearly thought he was a sensitive,
thoughtful guy. And in many ways he was – just not in every context. It bugged
me, but did I think he deserved to be frog-marched out of the building with his
belongings in a cardboard box? That seemed a bit extreme. And so I kept my
mouth shut.

And I would have stayed that way, except last week something happened that made
me change my mind.

Since the Jian Ghomeshi scandal erupted, there’s been a great deal of talk
about the explosive “cultural conversation” that’s taking place across the
country on the subject of sexual harassment and abuse. It’s been a great
catharsis in many ways – and I am impressed by the women who’ve come forward in
that case. I’m astonished at the courage it must have taken for those women to
stand up and accuse an adored cultural hero of sexual assault. And let me be
very clear: I am not comparing the nature of my experience to theirs. There is
world of difference between an unwanted fondle and a closed-fist punch to the head.

At the same time, there was – and is -- something about the “conversation” that
bothered me. Something hypocritical and queasy-making. I couldn’t quite put my
finger on it until I read an essay about the Toronto media community’s moral
complicity in the Ghomeshi scandal and the culture of sexism and abuse it
exposed. The essay – which many friends were passing around admiringly on
social media -- was written by the man who’d groped me.

The sheer hypocrisy of that fact took my breath away. Reading the piece also
made me understand what had been bothering me about the so-called “cultural
catharsis” all along. There were so many victims, so much righteous moral
outrage and hyperbole, but apart from Ghomeshi, where were all the
perpetrators? I suddenly knew what we were missing here and that was an honest
admission of guilt.

If we are going to have this conversation, I thought, let’s at least have it
honestly.

So I sent my former editor a message, reminding him of the incident and telling
him how it had made me feel and why I’d kept quiet for as long as I had.

And you know what he did?

He did not deny it or even contradict my version of events. He didn’t lash out
or try to discredit me. He said that during that period 15 years ago he had
been drinking heavily and had been prone to blackouts. He did not offer this up
as an excuse but as an explanation for why he has no memory of the event. He
said he felt terribly ashamed.

And then he apologized – abjectly and sincerely – several times.

As soon as I heard his apology I was overwhelmed. All the anger evaporated from
me instantly. The incident, which had bugged me for so long, was finally over
and done with – poof! – just like that. Why on earth had I waited 15 years to
ask for a simple and well-deserved apology?

Afterward, I spoke to The Globe and Mail’s HR department which was helpful. I
didn’t make an official complaint because for me the matter was over. Once
they’d spoken to the parties involved and were satisfied, the case was
effectively closed.

And then, to my immense surprise, I felt remarkably better – like
anvil-off-my-chest better. The whole process of just talking about it made me
want to run into every newsroom in the country and stand up on a desk and shout
out a memo to my juniors: “Hey younger, hipper versions of me: If you have been
harassed or hassled or groped – stand up and be counted! Confront your
colleagues and talk to your boss. Just don’t stay silent like I did because in
retrospect, my silence didn’t help anyone. Not him or me or the culture of my
newsroom. Silence, when it comes to stuff like this, just sucks.”

Yes, I was groped by my editor at Christmas party 15 years ago, and for a long
time it bugged me. But now I have spoken up. And he has apologized. And the
whole office knows. Because of this column, the whole country knows. But the
funny thing is, even despite all that, I feel much better. And I don’t think
less of him. In fact, in a strange way, he has gained back my respect.

Over the course of this grand “cultural conversation” we’ve been having about
sexual abuse and harassment I’ve heard countless victims stand up and tell the
story of what happened to them. But how many abusers have admitted to their
part – no matter how minor -- in this culture of abuse? How many have stood up
and apologized?

Most women never even get that satisfaction.

No court has yet told Jian Ghomeshi to apologize. But that doesn’t mean abusers
shouldn’t do so on their own.
______________________________________

So, for those of you who are accepting that the Ghomeshi case is rightfully
being 'tried' in the media, just hope that no one remembers YOUR greasy hand on
their buttocks.

[Alan Baker]

Post by (?_?)

"(?_?) " wrote...

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
The media should have left the Ghomeshi case where it belonged: in a court
room to be decided between accuser and accused. Only after such determination
of guilt or innocence should the name of the accused and the names of the
accusers been published.

[Snip rest of rant]
Let's set aside for the moment your long history of smearing people with
no evidence whatsoever m'kay?

Let's set aside your usual bs and character assaults and let someone
more balanced discuss this issue.
You don't qualify - except as one of the misogynists I referred to.

So what was that other than a character assault, Karen?

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by (?_?)
Let's set aside your usual bs and character assaults and let someone
more balanced discuss this issue.
You don't qualify - except as one of the misogynists I referred to.

So what was that other than a character assault, Karen?

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[(ಠ_ಠ)]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Alan Baker

Let's set aside your usual bs and character assaults and let someone> more balanced discuss this issue.
You don't qualify - except as one of the misogynists I referred to.

So what was that other than a character assault, Karen?

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Loading Image...

[(?_?)]

You can blame Ghomeshi for the revelations of his predilection to rough sex.
The CBC had simply announced that they were ending their relationship with him
and did not say why. Then Ghomeshi got on FaceBook and announced about the dark
side of his sex life, claiming it was always with consenting partners. He also
announced that he was launching a massive lawsuit against CBC, which was
obviously intended to intimidate other possible victims from coming forward.

The lawsuit was against his employer, not against an accuser. Why would that
"intimidate" accusers from coming forward.
It had the opposite effect: everyone wanted a piece of Ghomeshi and their own
day in the limelight.

His plan backfired. Other women were inspired to come forward and tell of their
experiences with the man.

His plan was to force the issue into a courtroom, ya dumb rabbit . . . . That's
where he plans to prove that his employer used PRIVATE information he'd shared
with them to in fact, use against him. Even though it involved an issue not
related to his job or job site.

The two women who came forward publicly are both very credible.

Too bad they didn't come forward until 10 years after the fact, eh, 'Smith'. A
whole lot of "credibility" gets lost over so many years.

[(ಠ_ಠ)]

(ಠ_ಠ)Раиса wrote...

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
The media should have left the Ghomeshi case where it belonged: in a court
room to be decided between accuser and accused. Only after such determination
of guilt or innocence should the name of the accused and the names of the
accusers been published.

[Snip rest of rant]
Let's set aside for the moment my long history of smearing people with
no evidence whatsoever m'kay?

Okay.
I just wanted to add that the interview of a CBC female executive, Heather
Conway, exposed some very valuable information that the lawyer for Ghomeshi is
going to use:

1. There were no problems on the job with Ghomeshi relating to harassment,
sexual assault, or discipline.
2. Even though there were none (of the above), they fired Ghomeshi for
"violence against women" relating to his private sexual affairs.
3. Mansbridge replied to the last statement with two very important questions.
Watch the interview to understand what those questions - and the
ramifications of them - are going to be:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%20Shows/The%20National/ID/2591408941/

Mansbridge always comes across as a very reasoned, calm and thoughtful
interviewer. But you can sense that he's not conducting this interview for the
benefit or comfort of his CBC masters. He's asking some very important
questions. Good luck to the CBC in the courtroom after this interview.