Ghomeshi walks

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Are we unionized against female attributes as negative to the senses? Gut Lord a Gar Field ... Gar being a toothy fish ... if you can't get by that odd word ... you could be bit by something or other ...
 
Inukshuk said:
No doubt that Ghomeshi's voice and career have been silenced in Canada ~ however the recent GOP campaigning, in the name of politics, lead me to believe he is already fielding job offers from somewhere in the USA.
Click to expand...

If he is considering moving to the US he'd better do it soon, before (or if) Trump wins the Presidency.
Ghomeshi was born of Iranian parents and raised in a Muslim household.

Trump has stated that he would stop all immigration of Muslims to the US. He has also stated that Muslims living in the US would have to wear identification - as well as talked about other measures against them.

I hope and pray that neither Trump or Cruz win the election. But if Trump wins and people pressure him to follow-up on his campaign promises, I feel sorry for any Muslims living in the States.

(Of course Trump didn't mean people like Trump - well known, almost a celebrity - who claims to be secular and to observe Christmas and Easter.)
 
Justice is served

Here's a Peter Mansbridge interview with Marie Henein -- nice to get a peek 'under the hood' so to speak
 
I listened to Q for years as that was the only station my radio could receive (this was before getting an IPhone). I always felt uneasy about him. I, too, am disappointed how this trial went.
 
So . . . . .

Rather than face a second trial Ghomeshi signs a peace bond and makes a public declaration of sorrow.

Which means he has to fly straight for 12 months or face breach of court order charges. It also means that he cannot be charged criminally with the work place harrassment of Ms. Borel.

Part of the peace bond was the farce that is a public apology. It would probably be more sincere if it wasn't so meticulously crafted by a lawyer or PR firm. How sad is it that an individual is incapable of apologizing without professional help? And that the apology chooses not to detail behaviour that is being apologized for.

Thanks to Kathryn Borel, the victim of Ghomeshi's inappropriate conduct for filling in the blanks for us.

And please Mr. Ghomeshi, if she invented offences that your apology was not designed to cover, take her to court and make her prove that she fabricated all of those offences she alleges you committed.

More to the point is the bombshell contained in Ms. Borel's remarks:

Kathryn Borel said:
Up until recently, I didn’t even internalize that what he was doing to my body was sexual assault because, when I went to the CBC for help, what I received in return was a directive that yes, he could do this, and yes, it was my job to let him.
Click to expand...

This is stunning. Somebody, in the CBC actually said it was her job to let him behave this way? In 2014?

CBC for its part has released a statement the day before saying their decision to terminate Ghomeshi's employment was unrelated to today's proceedings. And it acknowledges the Rubin investigation and changes they have made as a result of that investigation (which I hope meant the buttheads in Human Resources who thought that Ms. Borel's job description entailed sexual harrassment are finding out what unemployment looks like).

At any rate, it is no where near satisfying as a conviction and I am sure that Ms. Borel is going to have to take some flack for agreeing to this legal avenue.

Already one of the witnesses from Ghomeshi's previous trial is protesting Borel's willingness to go along with this course of action. One wonders what the outcome might have been if the three previous witnesses had been passingly credible.
 
I expect her interview that was replayed a coule of days ago, where she talks about being crude and rude and sexual at CBC. Trying to shake it up, likely added to the Crowns belief she would not make a good witness.

Which begs the question.

If you work with someone who is sexual in tone and action and conversation how do you handle it. And if you go along or act on that persons behaviour is it assault? Or are the actions of both people highly inappropriate for work and should both have been fired

It certainly feels like a person who was way out of line at work got away with it. And the CBC should take a beating again over their management policies
 
Lastpointe said:
I expect her interview that was replayed a coule of days ago, where she talks about being crude and rude and sexual at CBC. Trying to shake it up, likely added to the Crowns belief she would not make a good witness.
Click to expand...

Hard to say.

Information released so far suggest that Borel was agreeable to the Peace Bond. It is also unusual, at least from my experience with cases where a peace bond becomes the solution, that the formerly accused actual speaks in court and certainly not to offer an apology of any kind.

I haven't seen anything, anywhere, that allows anyman to grab anywoman from behind and dry hump them. Nor have I seen anything, anywhere that stipulates allowing anyman to grab you and dry hump you is a pre-requisite for working at the CBC. Unless there are reams of hidden e-mails with her begging Jian to do that to her publicly I don't think a case can be made that allows sexual harrasment to be protected by work place agreement or ethos.

I expect that had the case proceeded to trial there would definitely have been no apology (weaselly or not).

While the peace bond does not result in a conviction the apology certainly does indicate that Ghomeshi engaged in behaviour worthy of getting one's self fired.

Lastpointe said:
Which begs the question.

If you work with someone who is sexual in tone and action and conversation how do you handle it.
Click to expand...

Broader than that, what are my obligations to society and how are they trumped by my obligations to my employer.

Some years back I was a student at Redeemer University (I was head of the School Security Detachment) and I had a meeting with the Senior Staff person that I was directly accountable to. In our first discussion it was expressed that if we had a serious issue involving a student that I leave that for the School Administration to settle. I responded that it was not my responsibility to settle a problem and that if I was convinced that something criminal had happened my obligation was to report that first to the Police and then to the School Administration. There was a moment of silence and then the appeal for school image was made. To which I responded that the School image would not be threatened by one student breaking the law to the same degree that it would be tarnished by a whole school ignoring the law. And that if my response to criminal action was contrary to the polity of the School I should not be hired to lead let alone serve on the Campus Security Force. I was hired. It never became an issue.

Problematic to this particular issue is the fact that employers believe what happens in their place of employment is similar to diplomatic immunity.

While serving as a Camp Co-ordinator (overseeing all operations) I was presented with a Counselor who had given a camper a wedgie. Normally that would have been a warning (in my defence we weren't as sensitive in 1991 as we are in 2016). Other factors came into play which convinced me that this particular counselor was a liability. I had a fairly long consultation with the Staff Sergeant at the OPP detachment with jurisdiction over the property. Advice from the Police at that time was limit liability to the camp by disciplining the Counsellor immediately. I contacted the individual I was responsible to on the Camp Committee who came out immediately and oversaw me firing the Counsellor on the spot.

It was not a pleasant affair. No charges were ever pressed against the Counselor. Police had a written report from me to enter as evidence if needed a copy went to the Camp Committee for their records.

As time wears on I am more and more convinced that what we did was the most appropriate recourse of action. That nobody of higher authority went further with it doesn't mean I was wrong to do what I did.

Unpopular with that Counselor's friends and family certainly. Wrong. Not at all.

As far as handling sexualized language in the workplace. That isn't the same as sexual harrassment in the workplace. There is a line separating the two. That line might differ among all of the various staff relations. Once it has been crossed the appropriate response is to report and Admin needs to take responsibility for reconciling all involved parties.

"Let him dry hump you as much as he wants" is not reconciling sexual harrassment.

That individual needs to be disciplined seriously.

Lastpointe said:
And if you go along or act on that persons behaviour is it assault? Or are the actions of both people highly inappropriate for work and should both have been fired
Click to expand...

I suspect this is a duty of care question. In my workplace lines of accountability are pretty clear. I know what to report, to whom and how. I also know that socially in the faith community when I say something needs to stop there are few who will say that I'm being a prude and should lighten up.

If I witness any criminal activity and fail to report it I am risking my career. So if I witness a Trustee Dry humping a member of the UCW in the Kitchen the only thing that might give me pause is their relationship to each other. If I suspect it is unwanted sexual attention then I'm taking action no matter what their relationship might be. Of course I'm of the opinion that husbands are capable of raping their wives and that such a thing actually can, does and has happened.

Lastpointe said:
It certainly feels like a person who was way out of line at work got away with it.
Click to expand...

Up until a point they certainly did.

Lastpointe said:
And the CBC should take a beating again over their management policies
Click to expand...

They certainly should.
 
To the over sexed ... know means you think yes ... let us enter the vail of the Shadow and deal with the cone 've sequence later ... without a thought!

The irregularities sparkle ...
 
Luce NDs said:
To the over sexed ... know means you think yes ... let us enter the vail of the Shadow and deal with the cone 've sequence later ... without a thought!

The irregularities sparkle ...
Click to expand...

Well, I guess there has been only one case of pregnancy by dry hump* and every Sunday I gulp His blood and mange Her flesh

Dieties are bizarre

I'm sure people's fairness n purity moralities.have been triggered by this case.l n sombunall will blame their feelings on Go Mesh. We still live in a conservative culture where the human body is seen as ugly and dirty. I'm currently living with an old friend who is Sikh Punjabi and they are.more clean as a part of their culture...its part of their faith. Eastern white Canadians...they'll steal your land and convince you it.was your idea

Again this post inspired by LSD's HS

*id love to see the Lord's dataplan
Bluetooth pregnancies?
 
Last edited:
Sterton said:
I listened to Q for years as that was the only station my radio could receive (this was before getting an IPhone). I always felt uneasy about him. I, too, am disappointed how this trial went.
Click to expand...

I always found him to be full of himself, and too smarmy. I came to appreciate his interviewing skills, especially when he interviewed Whitney Houston's mother. He just strikes me as extremely narcissistic, which includes superficial and over the top charm.
 
Northwind said:
I always found him to be full of himself, and too smarmy. I came to appreciate his interviewing skills, especially when he interviewed Whitney Houston's mother. He just strikes me as extremely narcissistic, which includes superficial and over the top charm.
Click to expand...
How do u find the new.host?
 
revjohn said:
Part of the peace bond was the farce that is a public apology. It would probably be more sincere if it wasn't so meticulously crafted by a lawyer or PR firm. How sad is it that an individual is incapable of apologizing without professional help? And that the apology chooses not to detail behaviour that is being apologized for.
Click to expand...

I thought he only had to apologize to her. How public is this apology to be, and has it happened?
 
Last edited:
Inannawhimsey said:
Well, I guess there has been only one case of pregnancy by dry hump* and every Sunday I gulp His blood and mange Her flesh

Dieties are bizarre

I'm sure people's fairness n purity moralities.have been triggered by this case.l n sombunall will blame their feelings on Go Mesh. We still live in a conservative culture where the human body is seen as ugly and dirty. I'm currently living with an old friend who is Sikh Punjabi and they are.more clean as a part of their culture...its part of their faith. Eastern white Canadians...they'll steal your land and convince you it.was your idea

Again this post inspired by LSD's HS

*id love to see the Lord's dataplan
Bluetooth pregnancies?
Click to expand...

Conceived by telecommunication and a bit of troth at the conjugal ceremony ... not too much troth tho' ... makes the authorities nervous that common people know too much about dirt and when not to dirt ...
 
Dead Dog Café on icons and signs ... is there a sign of an unknown eternity out there ... as it is dark?

With such a Shadow form ... could we know what ID knows?
 
I think that the CBC should make a public apology to Kathryn Borel and to every person who had to work with that hyena (I was going to use pig, but I like pigs...)
 
It seems pretty clear that CBC needs to make changes.....if they haven't already. A public apology would help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top