Ghomeshi Trial Begins

968 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gustave

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Gustave you seem to be conflating trauma with PTSD. Many people experience trauma that does not produce clinical PTSD but that does not diminish the fact that they have experienced trauma.

I did indeed. My bad. And from the linked article the trauma can alter memory even without PTSD.

Northern PoV

I borrowed this from another thread....

Northern PoV wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Seems to me that when we discuss crimes or trials on babble, the language chosen varies depending on whether babblers are sympathetic to the accuser or sympathetic to the accused.

If they're sympathetic to the accuser:

- it's appropriate to refer to the accuser as "the victim"

- it's appropriate to refer to the accused as "the killer" or "the stalker" or whatever

- posters will say things like "so you're saying the victim is just a pathological liar who made it all up?" and "why the hell do I want to hear the rapist's side of the story?"

If they're sympathetic to the accused:

- it's appropriate to refer to the accuser as "the alleged victim"

- it's permissible to focus on details of the case such as how long it took for the accuser to make a complaint, or whether the accuser might have some axe to grind with the accused

- posters will say things like "so you don't believe in the right to the presumption of innocence then?" and "what if we all just let the judge and jury do their job and stop trying this man in the court of public opinion?"

Will anyone (else ;-)  ) listen to this voice of reason? (Its the indignation in the objections to discussion that strike me.  ) 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear.

He always struck me as a smarmy narcissist, and his nasty controlling personality has been documented well before the current scandal. As has his taste for women 1/2 his age.

Who are all the "nice" men that are like him? Seriously.

That was always my view as well as my wife's. Her sister, who fell for two different abusive men, couldn't get enough of his program.

Yeah, me, your wife's sister, all the women who were attracted to Ghomeshi are just too stupid I guess. We should have known better.

mark_alfred

Interesting article about how trauma can lessen memories of peripheral details, and how lawyers like Heinen will exploit this to try to discredit witnesses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trauma-brain-memory-neuroscience-1.343...

Quote:
It's a common tactic for lawyers to dial in on the minute details of a witness's testimony, pressing to expose any possible contradictions in various retellings of the same story and therefore, the theory goes, raise doubts about its truthfulness.

Those who say they have lived through trauma, however, are sometimes unable to articulate a coherent narrative owing to the brain's tendency to zero-in on only the most essential elements of what happened.

ETA:  All of us lose memories or have memories of events be altered over time.  So it would be a challenge for any of us to remember in minute detail everything about an event that occurred over a decade ago.  But apparently this can be especially true for victims of trauma.

Quote:

That's not to say all memories contain inaccuracies. In fact, generally speaking, the human brain does an extraordinary job of encoding countless experiences every day.

But it would be too overwhelming to retain all of the information we take in throughout our lives. Research suggests that while we sleep, our brains whittle down experiences — not just traumatic ones — into their most useful parts to make more room, like freeing-up space on a hard drive.

"It's beneficial to our emotional well-being to remember the gist rather than every detail," says Fernandes.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Yeah, me, your wife's sister, all the women who were attracted to Ghomeshi are just too stupid I guess. We should have known better.

Why are you attacking me by putting words into my post that were not there and not implied? I know I don't like Justin but please keep the animosity you have for me because of it out of this thread.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:

It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear.

brookmere wrote:
He always struck me as a smarmy narcissist, and his nasty controlling personality has been documented well before the current scandal. As has his taste for women 1/2 his age.

Who are all the "nice" men that are like him? Seriously.

I let Brookmere's comment pass but these women were younger when the attacks occurred. Ghomeshi had a reputation as a feminist in university and as a man who could be very charming. The women themselves testified that he treated them very well at first, was a perfect gentleman to them.

In reference to Brookemere's Kropotkin said...

kropotkin1951 wrote:
That was always my view as well as my wife's. Her sister, who fell for two different abusive men, couldn't get enough of his program.

Why mention the two abusive men your sister-in-law, who also liked Ghomeshi fell for? There is a definite implication that her judgement is lacking. 

So I responded....

Pondering wrote:
Yeah, me, your wife's sister, all the women who were attracted to Ghomeshi are just too stupid I guess. We should have known better.

I know that you have been supportive of the women Ghomeshi abused, and I assume that Brookemere is also supportive of them but that doesn't change the message inherent in both statements.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

You know, I was feeling that it might be inappropriate to mention that Roosh video in here (bringing stuff about other posters cross-thread I mean). But it is surprising how he uses exactly the same terms as you do (in that video, and his vile "How To Stop Rape" article), except that he uses it to justify "vanilla rape" as nothing wrong at all. Of course he sets up the scapegoat of a drooling stranger lurking in the bushes as the "real rapist". But aside from that non-public rape should be legal because once that door is closed any woman should know what to expect from a man. It is their responsibility to have chaperones, to not drink alcohol, and to treat themselves like property (a cell phone is the comparison Roosh made). And nice guys should be free to do whatever they want.

I still don't want to drag that over to cloud this thread; there is enough to talk about here WRT this trial.  But it is (not surprisingly so) all related.

Kind of interesting that we both used the same term but from opposite perspectives. I have never heard it. I was thinking about the people who think that there is rape, and there is rape rape as though regular rape isn't that bad although "regular" didn't seem right either and "vanilla" popped into my head so I used that as a shortcut to differenciate it from stranger rape.

And yes, it is all related and it is all connected to rape culture and the notion that there is something blurry about the line between rape and consentual sex so maybe the guy just doesn't really understand.

That's why the lawyer is so heavily focused on the after events. She's creating the narrative that Ghomeshi had no way of knowing that they weren't into the same kink as he is. It's just miscommunication.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
Ghomeshi had a reputation as a feminist in university and as a man who could be very charming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSkjqK4SdP8

MegB

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko?  

This is anti-woman and victim-blaming. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the issues around cases of sexual assault and its aftermath. I'm going to ask you to stop commenting in this thread as some of the women here are feeling distressed by your comments.

lagatta

I'm so glad I was busy with other stuff. This thread is extremely distressing. Is there a remedial Feminism 101?

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

It's just miscommunication.

And after the fact.

None of this happened before the attacks so there is no miscommunication for him to assume permission.

It seemed incongruous BECAUSE it happened afterwards.

Our friends here are making a lot of hay with that, And certainly Henein was focusing on it to upset, undermine, and ultimately build up to an accusation (without foundation) of lying.

But DeCoutere and her lawyer pointed out that none of that behaviour amounted to permission or changed the fact that the attack happened.

One hopes that the judge is holding that point even if some in the public aren't.

 

 

 

Caissa

I knew Jian when he was a student at York University. That's all I am going to say about that given that the trial is ongoing and Rabble should be rightly concerned about issues of libel.  I look forward to hearing the verdict. Somehow, I think an appeal will be launched if Jian is found guilty on any of the charges.

Gustave

MegB wrote:
This is anti-woman and victim-blaming. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the issues around cases of sexual assault and its aftermath. I'm going to ask you to stop commenting in this thread as some of the women here are feeling distressed by your comments.

This sounds like double standard moderation. I have not seen one anti-woman statement in his posts.

Also, I was attacked on my penis size. I'm very triggered by it (what if I had my prostate removed and suffered from erectile problems?). I wonder what would happen if a guy here tryed to make an argument using the size a woman participant's tits.

Have you ever blamed any woman on this forum for all the abuse and bs they throw at men?

Is this forum to become what the skeptics community has become: bleached by political correctness where what, when and how subjects may be discussed is determined by the feelings of some who invoke "triggering" the moment they don't agree with something? If they are distressed by comments here, there is no way they can read the media reports on this trial.

MegB

Gustave wrote:

MegB wrote:
This is anti-woman and victim-blaming. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the issues around cases of sexual assault and its aftermath. I'm going to ask you to stop commenting in this thread as some of the women here are feeling distressed by your comments.

This sounds like double standard moderation. I have not seen one anti-woman statement in his posts.

Of course you haven't, because you share the limited understanding of Northern PoV.

Ward

Man...woman....woman ...man... mean people are not nice. ( almost a haiku)

Gustave

mark_alfred wrote:
We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies).

The link provided is not a FBI study.

The way  the authors present the percentage is misleading. Anyone not reading the study will naturally conclude that 92 to 98% of claims are true. It is not the case. The most amazing thing about this article is that they don't even try to find how many are true. The cases are broken as follow:

5,9% false

44,9% did not proceed

13,9% insufficient information

35,3% proceeded

No info on the proceeding results

So from this study we know 5,9% are most certainly false. Of the remaining 94,1% we have no idea. That's it.

Also, N=136 is very small and an all campus cases study forbids any inference to the general population.

So, sorry but no, we do not know that 2 to 8% of claims are false. It is simply impossible to know or even approximate the ratio of false claims. As a matter of fact, this article proves that the false claims have to be superior to 5,9%. It could be a little (10% for exemple) or a a lot (40% for exemple).

Edit: I misleadingly associated mark_alfred with the original claim. I corrected accordingly.

6079_Smith_W

Caissa wrote:

 Rabble should be rightly concerned about issues of libel.

On that, I have been noticing that some of the strongest epithets ... scummy, unfit for society, creepy rat who deserves this shitstorm.... are coming from those who are his supposed defenders here.

Which again makes me question how much this is about concern for him, presumption of innocence and seeing justice served,and how much of it is really about just using this as a foil to bash and undermine women.

While these incidents haven't been proven, we do know that his comversation with the CBC concerned violent acts which he claimed were consensual. Not to say that there isn't a possibility of a suit (after all, he sued the CBC, and has a bill to pay for) but given that we have seen newspaper headlines about "how he got away with it" it is anyone's guess where he might direct that if he was so inclined.

...or maybe I misunderstood and you were talking about the accusation of perjury.

 

Caissa

 I was suggesting that I could potential make libelous comments, if I spoke of the time I new Jian in the early 90s.

mark_alfred

Judge to rule on Crown's plan to call 4th witness

Quote:
Judge William Horkins will rule this morning on whether to allow a fourth Crown witness to testify in the Jian Ghomeshi case, after the prosecution argued it wanted to call more evidence to corroborate Lucy DeCoutere's testimony at the Ontario Court of Justice last week.

Crown attorney Michael Callaghan said the defence alleges DeCoutere made up the allegations of slapping and choking to gain fame, but he says he can prove that she told a friend, Trailer Park Boys actress Sarah Dunsworth, about the alleged incident 10 years ago. 

If allowed to testify, Dunsworth may appear in court via Skype or the trial will be delayed so that she can fly to Toronto from Nova Scotia.

Also:

Quote:
The defence had been prepared to close its case tomorrow, which makes it unlikely Ghomeshi will testify.

I kinda figured the defence planned to not have Ghomeshi testify.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

JG would be insane to get on the stand. I fully expected he wouldn't.

I just read that the fourth witness, who will corroborate Lucy DeCouture's testimony, has been accepted. There may be travel issues, in which case her police testimony will be read. 

mark_alfred

Timebandit wrote:

I just read that the fourth witness, who will corroborate Lucy DeCouture's testimony, has been accepted. There may be travel issues, in which case her police testimony will be read. 

Excellent!  I've read that the testimony may be via Skype if the travel issues cannot be overcome.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Wonders of the modern age.

I'm glad the testimony is being allowed.

It also occurred to me that the defense of this case - if they rest at this point - has been trashing the witnesses for the prosecution. That's it. Nothing else. While that trashing was pretty devastating, it gets you thinking about what hasn't been said.

Sometimes the silences are as important as the words.

lagatta

Absolutely. This sort of line of attack was current in rape trials (back when sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault were "rape").

Ghomeshi makes me think of people who have wound up killing others, or doing them very serious damage. And of some serious creeps I've known.

Gustave

Anyone knows what level of sexual assault he is accused of?

Sexual assault level 1 (s.271): An assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim.

Sexual assault level 2 (s.272): Sexual assault with a weapon, threats, or causing bodily harm. 
Aggravated sexual assault (level 3): Sexual assault that results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Ghomeshi had a reputation as a feminist in university and as a man who could be very charming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSkjqK4SdP8

Well I guess women should have watched that video before dating him. 

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/11/10/how-jian-ghomeshi-pulled-the-femin...

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been interviewed by male journalists who have been clearly antagonistic to my feminist, anti-porn position. I can usually tell within the first five minutes of the interview that these guys are very upset by my argument that porn shapes male sexuality in ways that normalize sexual violence. They often become hostile and insulting, and end up accusing me of being an anti-sex prude who hates men.

Because I’ve been on the receiving end of so much hostility from male interviewers, I remember well those who were particularly sympathetic to the feminist view. One who stands out in my mind as a thoughtful interviewer is Jian Ghomeshi, former host of the popular CBC radio show, Q. Ghomeshi had not only given my book Pornland a close reading, but also expressed empathy for the women in porn whose bodies are sexually used and abused for male entertainment.  - Gail Dines

and

Initially, the allegations against Ghomeshi did come as a huge shock to me — up until the day he was fired, I’d been a fan — but that shock didn’t, for a moment, lead me to question whether they were true. He gave himself away immediately — the red flags were all there. Beyond that, women rarely make this stuff up. As I read Ghomeshi’s defensive Facebook post, I was filled with a familiar rage — his attempts to pin the accusations on a “bitter ex” à la, “bitches be crazy, wink wink,” to paint himself as a victim, and, of course, his appeal to the current “anything goes because, consent” political climate (“Sexual preferences are a human right,” he stated confidently) were so transparent. - Meghan Murphy

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lewis-wynnejones/jian-ghomeshi-feminism_b_6...

There's something about Jian Ghomeshi's alleged crimes that's done something really nasty to all of us, and I think it has to do with the fact that when we close our eyes and concentrate we can still hear him saying "happy Monday." We don't like that we trusted him or thought he was cool or had a crush on him or listened to the Bargainville tape on repeat. We don't, in short, like that we let the monster into our homes. And it's made us talk. From the recent outpouring of videos, blogs, articles, Twitter blasts, and Facebook discussions with the comment section reaching double and treble digits, it has become clear that we've a lot to say about what it means to be a woman. - Lewis Wynne-Jones

and

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/cult-of-jian-ghomeshi-leah-mclaren/

It’s difficult to describe the shock and confusion that Jian’s friends and acquaintances felt during that time. In those first few days, when the indie rock violinist Owen Pallett went public with a Facebook post saying Jian was his friend but that he believed the victims’ stories, I was filled with relief. After agonizing obsessively with people who knew Jian either well or vaguely, it was the first time someone had honestly summed up the feeling of being torn between the charismatic person we knew and the predatory über-villain portrayed in the media. It turned out Pallett and I both had the same vivid fantasy. “At first,” he told me wistfully, “I kept hoping Jian would call me up and ask for advice and I’d tell him, ‘Just apologize. You need to own this.’ But he never did.”

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Look it up yourself.

As I said elsewhere, you have fingers like the rest of us.

And again, if this is a lead-in to how far up your throat your balls can get kicked before it is considered real assault, I am not interested in playing that ignorant game.

Punching someone in the head and choking them is serious.

 

 

 

 

Gustave

Smith_W, No need to play the "charogne". I was not talking to you. I'm never talking to you anyway. The questions I ask are never asked to you. I'm allways talking to others, even when adressing you.

That was clear stalking.

So I am asking you to stop the stalking.

monty1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Look it up yourself.

As I said elsewhere, you have fingers like the rest of us.

And again, if this is a lead-in to how far up your throat your balls can get kicked before it is considered real assault, I am not interested in playing that ignorant game.

Punching someone in the head and choking them is serious.

I don't think that punching someone on the head or choking them is the deciding factor and that's why he's asking. It doesn't seem to define between the two. We are all aware of people who are involved in BDSM activities of choking their sex partners in a way that deons't come close to inflicting bodiily harm. The hitting of someone on the head would likely be as non-definitive depending on the amount of force. But breaking a person's arm would in my opinon make it type 2. And sickening to hear of to say the least. Try not to be so nasty with others when all they do is ask for an opinion or a definition. It reflects badly on you.

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Pondering for the links to these articles. I especially liked the Gail Dines piece. It explains alot about how you and so many others were duped by his persona.

Gail Dines wrote:

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been interviewed by male journalists who have been clearly antagonistic to my feminist, anti-porn position. I can usually tell within the first five minutes of the interview that these guys are very upset by my argument that porn shapes male sexuality in ways that normalize sexual violence. They often become hostile and insulting, and end up accusing me of being an anti-sex prude who hates men.

Because I’ve been on the receiving end of so much hostility from male interviewers, I remember well those who were particularly sympathetic to the feminist view. One who stands out in my mind as a thoughtful interviewer is Jian Ghomeshi, former host of the popular CBC radio show, Q. Ghomeshi had not only given my book Pornland a close reading, but also expressed empathy for the women in porn whose bodies are sexually used and abused for male entertainment. 

...

So how can we reconcile the Ghomeshi on Q with the real Ghomeshi, who acted like a typical male porn performer by using women as disposable sex objects? I don’t know Ghomeshi personally, so I can’t offer any psychological analysis of what drove him to allegedly assault women. What is evident is that he had a brand to protect—a thoughtful, reflective journalist who had a reputation for being a sensitive, woman-friendly host. Siding with a pornographer who is renowned for his misogyny wouldn’t have done much for his reputation.

But when the stories started to appear in the Canadian press, Ghomeshi ended up sounding a lot like Stagliano by claiming that the women had wanted it. He wrote on his Facebook page on Oct. 26, “I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participated in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.”

The “partners” tell a very different story. According to an article in Slate, three women interviewed by the Toronto Star “allege that Ghomeshi physically attacked them on dates without their consent. They allege that he struck them with a closed fist or open hand; bit them; choked them until they almost passed out; covered their noses and mouths so that they had difficulty breathing; and that they were verbally abused during and after sex.”

I wish I could say that these types of assaults are news to me, but I have seen thousands of porn scenes that map out exactly the acts these women describe, and have interviewed hundreds of women who recount the same type of violence. Of course porn isn’t the only reason men assault women, but when you hear the same stories over and over again, from being choked till they almost pass out (and many of the women I interviewed have indeed passed out) to being verbally assaulted during the attack, then, as a sociologist, I have to ask: What “playbook” are these guys following?

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/11/10/how-jian-ghomeshi-pulled-the-femin...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But breaking a person's arm would in my opinon make it type 2. And sickening to hear of to say the least.

Just so we're all on the same page here, whose arm did he break?

6079_Smith_W

Stalking?

I had no idea you had a flair for comedy, darling . That actually made me laugh out loud.

You know, I hired a buffoon one time who thought it was his place to ask everyone else in the office to do his shit for him. getting Coffee fetching papers. Funny that he directed a lot of it at the women.

It's not just that you are attempting to water this down by reducing assault to grades and sub-clauses, as if that makes a punch less of a punch. None of us owe you any favours, and most of us don't try to pawn that basic research on one another because we are too lazy to do it ourselves.

For some reason since you boys have been weighing in on stuff it is a standing favour.And sorry for mistaking you for monty before. I guess now you know why.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tut tut 6079 please try to play nice.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Gustave wrote:

Smith_W, No need to play the "charogne". I was not talking to you. I'm never talking to you anyway. The questions I ask are never asked to you. I'm allways talking to others, even when adressing you.

That was clear stalking.

So I am asking you to stop the stalking.

Smith has been an active and welcome presence in this thread, Gustave. Continued participation is not "stalking" (holy self-importance, Batman!) If you care to direct your question, identify who, specifically, you are asking. If not, the field is open. FWIW, I second the motion that google is as much your friend as it is anyone else's.

Pondering, thanks for the quotes. It's hit a nerve for a lot of us.

monty1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But breaking a person's arm would in my opinon make it type 2. And sickening to hear of to say the least.

Just so we're all on the same page here, whose arm did he break?

I don't know but we are told that he showed a video to the CBC which contained that kind of physical brutality. Possibly not one of the women involved in the case? But still hopefully evidence that can be included in the case on some pretext. If you know of a lawyer you could ask him/her, or do the research to find out?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't know that there was a specific arm break, but there was photographic evidence of severe rib bruising, etc. And footage of him inflicting the injuries. So.

Gustave

kropotkin1951 Gail Dines is using this court case to peddle her anti-porn stuff. The Ghomeshi case has nothing to do with porn.

Dine, in a nutshell:

Porn shapes men's sexuality

And  Porn is violent

Therefore  Men's sexuality is violent.

It's a receipy. You can adapt it to anything you want to comment on. 

 

At the extreme opposite, you have Diana Davison who just put a video online on the case yesterday. I don't agree overall with her, but the level of details in her analysis is pretty good. Similar to this, she has done a superb series of videos revisiting  the battered women's cases presented in a Elizabeth Sheehi book. She has a fascination for details. Her videos are like good novel books.

TRIGGER WARNING The folowing video is on the Gomeshi case. It may offend some listeners because of it's language, the eyes of the narrator, details of the story and most of what she says. Other warning: Davison has worked for AVFM in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGX7ZXkT-PM

6079_Smith_W

@ k

Yeah, sorry. I just can't help myself sometimes. besides, it is his fault. he was a willing participant and led me on. He continued talking to me, after all. Though befor ehe said he was only talking to me. Now he says he's never talking to me. How can you trust the word of someone who can't keep his story straight?

*grin*

And regarding the CBC evidence, I read that it was a cracked rib, and bruises.

 

 

 

 

quizzical

Gustave wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i find it wildly interesting the same peeps here who are blatently on Ghomeshi's side and against women, in this thread, also support legalization of prostitution to keep women "safe" in the other threads on the topic......just sayin.........

It's kind of funny you say that because I was on opposite side to you on the public response to prostitution, and on you side here, in regards with the Gomeshi case.

contrary to your personal beliefs you are not on my side or any woman's in this discussion thread.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Some thoughts on what this trial means - the bigger picture:

https://janeeatonhamilton.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/the-preludes-to-assau...

Quote:

The preludes to potential assaults are these: language or behaviour or touching that create in their  targets vague senses of unease that we “get over” as the day or week wears on. There is so much of this kind of crap slung in women’s directions in the average day that often we don’t even bother mentioning an encounter. We don’t tell our spouse. We don’t tell our employer. We don’t call a friend. Because these little infractions against our sovereignty, these thousands of small infractions, intended to train us to patriarchy, are par for the course. But we all understand what they’re actually telling us: they’re actually reminding us about what could happen.

If, say, we get uppity. If, say, we say no. If, say, we fight back. If, say, he woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

A year before you massaged my back, Jian Ghomeshi, you [redacted], you allegedly hurt Lucy de Coutere. And there were alleged other victims, too. With that same hand you extended to me. With that very same hand you used to caress me. If the allegations are true, you wrapped that hand around victims’ throats and choked them. If the allegations are true, you used one of your hands to slap and punch your victims.

But guess what, Jian Ghomeshi, you [redacted], let me tell you something about society. There are lingering effects to minor harrassment. Harrassment is a bridge built of a substance called continuum that Canadian women walk over every day of our lives from the day we are pushed into our pink worlds to the day we close our eyes the last time. And on that bridge are guys, nice guys, scum nozzles, and turds rolled in sprinkles. On that bridge of spectrums are guys (and some others) with their hands out, fingers waggling. Guys demanding we pay the toll. We’ll let you cross, they say, but only if you’ll smile. Only if you’ll give us a little kiss. Only if you’ll stop a minute and chat. Only if you’ll go home with us. If you want an “A.” If you want that promotion. Only if you get scared, because we appreciate scared. Only if we get to bash you in the head, throttle you, rape you and leave you for dead.

They say, We know you like it. They say, You asked for it.

You know what this mountain of harassment (and worse) does to the harried? It makes us queasy. It makes us question our interpretations. It makes us question our importance. It makes us scared to go out at night. Nervous to walk our own streets. Careful to lock our windows. It makes us tamp ourselves down.

It does all that because it’s meant to do all that. That’s exactly what it’s for.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

 

Well I guess women should have watched that video before dating him. 

The blame belongs with Ghomeshi (and patriachry), not the women.  ETA:  which I realize is your point with the subsequent articles you quoted, so of course I'm agreeing with you.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But breaking a person's arm would in my opinon make it type 2. And sickening to hear of to say the least.

Just so we're all on the same page here, whose arm did he break?

I don't know but we are told that he showed a video to the CBC which contained that kind of physical brutality. Possibly not one of the women involved in the case? But still hopefully evidence that can be included in the case on some pretext. If you know of a lawyer you could ask him/her, or do the research to find out?

Apparently it was a bruised arm and cracked rib and I think the lawyers already involved in the case will have considered that.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Pondering for the links to these articles. I especially liked the Gail Dines piece. It explains alot about how you and so many others were duped by his persona.

Thanks for checking them out. I actually never heard of him before this came out. I just know his type really really well. Perhaps unfairly I don't trust charming men. Not saying they are all abusers but they make me suspicious. I don't mean the odd charming behavior but men who are known for being charming. The worst they are usually charged with is womanizing.

In the accounts about Ghomeshi there are stories of having felt a special connection with him, a meeting of minds, which created confusion when he suddenly turned violent. 99.9% of the time they are the sweetest guy ever so there is the feeling that the sweetheart is the real man and the sudden violence some sort of anomoly that a good woman could help him get over because other than that he is the perfect man. The truth is the charm and the violence are driven by one desire. To use women to satisfy his own desires.

The same character exists in women though they (and male charmers) don't necessarily resort to violence but they do use people. I'm not saying all charming people are like that, but people who are excessively charming do set off a red flag.

quizzical

tks for the links and articles kropotkin, Timebandit and pondering.

i'm so sick of casual misogyny in my own life and in the greater world.

Paladin1

Ghomeshi's accusers exchanged 5,000 messages before and after going to police

http://www.680news.com/2016/02/08/ghomeshis-accusers-exchanged-5000-mess...

Quote:
TORONTO – Two of Jian Ghomeshi’s accusers discussed their allegations of sexual assault against the former broadcaster in thousands of messages they exchanged before and after they went to police, with one of them acknowledging Monday that she deliberately misled the investigation by withholding information.

 

Ghomeshi emails reveal growing importance of 'digital debris' to trials

http://www.680news.com/2016/02/07/ghomeshi-emails-reveal-growing-importa...

Quote:

VANCOUVER – The unearthing of 13-year-old emails in an attempt to discredit a woman accusing Jian Ghomeshi of sexual assault underscores the growing importance of “digital debris” in criminal and civil trials, experts say.

Lawyers and technology experts say the Internet has allowed for extensive records to be kept of one’s movements and comments unlike anything in the past, but most people still don’t consider the potential permanence of their words when firing off a message.

6079_Smith_W

Surprisingly, this isn't in the editorial section, or the funnies; it ran as a straight news piece:

Quote:

With the collapse Monday of the third accuser’s credibility — she might just as well have been wearing a suicide vest, so thoroughly did she blow up — it’s now apparent the case was built upon the self-serving and carefully edited allegations of dishonest complainants, two of whom appear to have been colluding and gleefully anticipating Ghomeshi’s ruination, and raised up on the gossamer wings of unproven allegations in the press and on social media.

Now the trial, merely by continuing to proceed, actually threatens to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-6

Considering that the prosecution has had a rough ride of this, why the dire prediction? What are they afraid of that they feel the need to stamp our any consideration that there might be truth to the allegations?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

The same character exists in women though they (and male charmers) don't necessarily resort to violence but they do use people. I'm not saying all charming people are like that, but people who are excessively charming do set off a red flag.

I call them smarmy. My abuser was the nicest man you could ever want to met and so good with young teenagers. That is where my spider sense probably started. Both my wife and I have done a lot of union activism and that type of charming people riddle the PR and HR departments of many companies. It makes it way easier to spot if you have seen it enough times.

When Q first started I was favourably disposed because I loved Moxy Fruvous however part way through the first show I listened to I turned it off because all I could hear was the falseness to his charm and a nauseating narcissism.

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And regarding the CBC evidence, I read that it was a cracked rib, and bruises.

 

I don't think that video is part of the evidence in this trial.  I went through the report and didn't see a mention of it (though I may have glanced over it).

CBC's blog on it is here (see url).  There's six days so far, so just change the URL from 1 to 6 to go through it all (each day has a few pages to it)

Day 1 is below:

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Jian_Ghomeshi_trial_Day_1

Here's a timeline:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/timeline-jian-ghomeshi-1.3417978

Herre's the latest (day 6):  http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Jian_Ghomeshi_trial_Day_6

NDPP

Amazing! I had exactly the same reaction. I used to leave my radio on CBC all the time. After listening to one show, I found myself rushing in a mad dash to shut it off the moment I heard 'Hi there..' I was revolted. But arrogant 'false charm and nauseating narcissism' has become a rather common personality type, here in Toronto, anyway - especially among the yuppie class and media/entertainment industry types. All legends in their own minds, egomaniacs consumed by their own self-importance and entitlement. Hungry ghosts..

6079_Smith_W

@ mark alfred

No, I know it isn't. But it has been published.

Hey timebandit, I think you might have mail.

NDPP

ps The pathology, I thnk, it not unconnected to the sociopathic, predatory  capitalist ethos which lays waste within and without. Predation and 'taking care of number one' becomes all that matters. Misogyny is invariably part and parcel of this disease.

Pages

Topic locked