Last year, Carla Ciccone went on a bad date, a really bad date, and she wrote about it, while protecting the obnoxious handsy fellow’s identity with a pseudonym. Apparently, there were enough clues at the time — “Canadian radio celebrity”, how many of those can there be? — and people figured out who she was talking about. That’s where it got weird.
The guy she described got uncomfortably physical with her on a concert date, and later pursued her with text messages that assumed a degree of interest that she plainly disavowed, asking him to leave her alone. This is creepy behavior. It’s patently rude, inconsiderate, and possessive, and you’d think everyone would agree that this is stuff guys shouldn’t do.
But that’s not the response she got.
Last year Ciccone wrote an article for the website XOJane about a “bad date” with an unidentified, very popular Canadian radio host whom readers speculated to be Ghomeshi.
In the days that followed, Ciccone received hundreds of abusive messages and threats. An online video calling her a “scumbag of the Internet” has been viewed over 397,000 times. Ciccone’s claims about the behaviour during her “bad date” were far less severe than the allegations of abuse from the women now accusing Ghomeshi, who fear the online backlash could be significantly worse for them if their names were made public.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised anymore.
The man she reluctantly and briefly dated was Jian Ghomeshi, who is now facing allegations of all kinds of sexual misbehavior.
The women now accusing Jian Ghomeshi of violence began as his fans. Two had very similar early experiences with him. After Ghomeshi met them at public events, which he had promoted on CBC Radio, he contacted them through Facebook and asked them on dates. They eagerly accepted.
Each woman said she remembers Ghomeshi being initially sweet and flattering, then later suggesting or hinting at violent sex acts. When they failed to respond or expressed displeasure, they recalled Ghomeshi dismissing his remarks as “just fantasies,” reassuring them he wouldn’t ask them to do anything they weren’t comfortable with. The women deny that “safe words” were employed in the relationship.
In one woman’s case, she visited Ghomeshi at his Toronto home and alleges as soon as she walked into his house he suddenly struck her hard with his open hand, then continued to hit her and choked her. The woman alleges Ghomeshi repeatedly beat her about the head and choked her.
Ciccone got off easy. But apparently it was such widespread knowledge that Ghomeshi’s fans would abuse and harass to silence criticism that his victims were afraid to come forward. This is how sexual predators thrive, isn’t it? By creating a climate in which women are afraid to speak up…and they rely on their fellow men to foster that hostile environment.
No more silences. Men must not collude with these kinds of creeps — they must speak out.
This one’s going to get…interesting. As has been reported in the press, the CBC aggressively publicized Ghomeshi in the last few years, making him the de facto “face” of the radio service. He has scored some major interviews over the years, and is wildly popular. I myself am a fan of his show.
Ghomeshi claims that he was fired over private, consensual sex acts that include S&M and BDSM. If that’s true, then his firing was unjust. “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”, as Pierre Trudeau said when he oversaw the decriminalization of homosexual sex in the late 60s.
If, however, he truly behaved as alleged, then I’ll be glad CBC kicked him to the curb.
Ghomeshi did a bit of “getting ahead of the news” or “poisoning the well” by prepublishing some stuff about how a) it was all consensual BDSM, he uses safe words etc. b) there was just this one ex-girlfirend who felt jilted and is lying about him.
Sounds like more than one woman was involved, though, doesn’t it?
Otherwise, it sounds like every other creepy guy doing creepy tricks and counting on socialization, fear, slut-shaming and general misogyny to take care of the rest.
@frugaltoque: I agree. Ghomeshi’s Facebook post is definitely an attempt to preemptively control the discussion. He may well be minimizing his actions here.
As I said, I’m a fan, although I only “know” him through his public persona. I hope he is truly the person he presents himself to be, but I will be disappointed (and DEFINITELY no longer a fan) if he’s not.
This is going to be extremely painful to watch.
I have listened to CBC Radio for as long as I can remember, and have been a huge fan of Jian Ghomeshi since his show started.
I don’t want these allegations to be true, but I fear they are.
Jian Ghomeshi now? Say it ain’t so.
My exposure to Ghomeshi is entirely on the show “Q” which airs on my NPR station and he just sounds like such a nice, thoughtful, calm, intelligent person. I can see how this might lead his loyal listeners to be unwilling to believe such allegations against him. I would have also thought, however, that anyone who listened to a show like that would not be the sort to engage in abusive messages and threats.
This is really sad.
Also, Ghomeshi has consistently presented himself as a feminist and staunch supporter of progressive values. Please don’t let him be just another hypocrite…
He was in the band Moxy Fruvous, wasn’t he? Yeah, I used to be a fan too then. Geez.
@doubter #1:
I’m just waiting for Ghomeshi to invoke Trudeau on this behavior. Already the headlines seems to be coalescing around the idea that “CBC fired him for kinky sex” rather than “CBC fired Ghomeshi for punching and choking women to unconsciousness” which, I suppose is a tribute to his PR team (the crisis communications firm “Navigator”). They’re the same firm that smeared the bicyclist victim of Canadian politician Michael Bryant so badly they were planting stories about how the cyclist had an alcoholic mother. They have a history of aggressively and preemptively smearing the victims of their clients.
As of right now, I don’t believe a fucking thing Ghomeshi (or his slimy PR firm) is saying, and with three women coming forward to The Star, I think the odds of three false accusations (or even one) are vanishingly small. But you know that claims of false accusation will be all we’ll hear from the Canadian MRA crowd. We’ll probably see dozens of Ghomeshi’s victims come out in the next few weeks.
It shows that you can never tell about people. Ghomeshi is the best interviewer in media today. He comes across as a thoughtful, intelligent and easy going person. It is shocking to hear such allegations about his private behavior. I am always dismayed when people whos work and accomplishments I respect turn out to have feet of clay.
@swampfoot #8:
The allegations about Ghomeshi may well prove to be true. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but I certainly won’t continue to be a fan if he did what was alleged. That would mean he has committed sexual assault and should be prosecuted.
Yeah, this sucks. He was a really good interviewer, very much in the sort of thoughtful, warmly curious style of Terry Gross. Really disgusted to find out that it was an affectation.
doubter @10:
Given the prevalence of violence against women in well, everywhere on this planet, I’m siding with the women on this one. I don’t care how Ghomeshi has presented himself to the public. I don’t care how he carefully crafted a public image. He brutalized several women and he needs to be punished.
johnradke @ 11
Care to explain this further? Why would it need to be an affectation? Do you imagine that there’s something about one’s natural demeanor that would make it obvious they’re a sexual predator unless they affect a persona to cover it up? I hope you’re not because that’s not remotely helpful.
Unfortunately the “celebrity effect” will be active even if convincing evidence builds up that Ghomeshi has done bad things. Just look at the Ray Rice affair, where even video of him knocking out his then fiancée hasn’t been enough to convince many people he was in the wrong.
…And dressing up as him and his wife for Halloween.
As a tangent “We all have an obligation to publicize bad behavior” is apparently a controversial position. It seems to me Michael Nugent spent tens of thousands of words defending the position that going public was not appropriate. Or at the very most that only authorities should have this capacity (for no explicit reason that I could understand). In good faith I can take the point to mean that victims don’t have such an obligation (since it presents a risk of revictimization, e.g.), but where he is silent is whether victims have the choice at all. I’d say of course victims have that option, and if they can they should for the safety of the public and the purposes of shaping norms.
I’ve stopped taking the “I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt” approach with celebrities and public figures. They already have a built-in benefit of the doubt because of their status. They’ll have fans and supporters who will give them the benefit of the doubt just based on their name, while the victims coming out with the accusations don’t have such a support. If anything, they have plenty of MRA assholes trying to blame and shame them and call them opportunists the minute they speak up.
Another reason I don’t give benefit of the doubt is based on what Tony said above: sexual abuse and violence against women isn’t an unheard of or new thing.
Seems to me that grabbing a co-worker’s ass and telling her you want to “hate-fuck” her should be enough to get you fired from any job, regardless of what else may have been going on…
Preface: I don’t feel like siding with Mr. Ghomeshi any more than the presumption of legal innocence requires, and completely repudiate any non-consensual abusive behaviour he may have engaged in.
This is more in the spirit of the blog post’s headline, “we all have an obligation to publicize bad behavior,” so I hope it’s seen more a sub-thread than any kind of derail here. I respectfully suggest that when it comes to the dynamics of positive adult sexual relations in 214, even those people we think deserve a respectful hearing are often struggling too.
There’s a new one of these borderline cases every day that could be discussed. But as a case in point for today, I submit, is cartoonist Jeph Jacques, favourably cited by PZM recently (https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/10/08/a-humor-question/). His strip today (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2821) shows a supervisor, upon being told to behave himself at work, assertively kissing his work subordinate/new intimate partner on the mouth without apparent consent. The smile on his face in the last panel is a clear visual “this is how it’s supposed to work” to the audience. (It’s a day-old relationship, so there’s no implied understanding here: the aggressive possessive aspect in response to being told to cool it is clear.)
Yes, it’s “romantic”: got it. Yes, Jacques is an great role model for other cartoonists in the way he has dealt with many of these issues: no question. And yes, I’ve read him for years, would buy his books, and will continue to do so. I’m just saying even the “best” of us are tripping up on consent questions.
Yes, we absolutely need to discuss these issues, and report bad behavior. I’m just suggesting that there often aren’t “simple and easy” behavioral guidelines here, and we’re kidding ourselves if we think otherwise, or try to litigate things that go on “in the bedrooms of the nation,” as another famous Canadian playa-slash-national icon once said.
Last post should have read “sexual relations in 2014,” dropped a “0”.
And I absolutely agree with #18. I have numerous colleagues who work in large Canadian public institutions, including the CBC, and it’s hard to imagine, if that specific allegation had been taken to the stage of formal complaint, that it would not be taken VERY seriously. The rest of the allegations relate to Ghomeshi’s public image as a star, and CBC is in an unusual position with those, no doubt, but an allegation of workplace behaviour would absolutely be taken very seriously.
There’s no doubt that both sides think they’ve got the goods here, but Ghomeshi’s statement and lawyers are talking about stuff outside the office (where they think they have texts, etc. from the young women that establish consent or no hard feelings), whereas CBC, for all we know right now, could be sitting on a stack of workplace complaints the Star reporter doesn’t even know about yet. There’s more to come out here.
@Tony #12
I meant to quote this “He brutalized several women and he needs to be punished.”
Kopper
Learn what blockquotes are for and don’t say stupid stuff.
A Hermit
Sounds like a pretty good rule of thumb. Not really that gray of an area.
For anyone wondering who this Jian Ghomeshi person is, here’s a link to a brief article in the Toronto Star that hits the highlights of his career: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/jian_ghomeshi_earned_loyal_following_with_interview_show.html
TL;DR Remember the time Billy Bob Thornton went squirrely on a Canadian radio interviewer? Jian Ghomeshi was the interviewer.
Chigau
What exactly was stupid?
BruceR @ 19 – Um, I have no idea where you got that interpretation of that comic strip but I completely disagree. The strip is about two coworkers who are in a relationship. They are not in the workplace yet and one of them is pointing out that while at work, they need to be professional. So the other person kisses them before they go into work. There’s nothing in that strip indicating violation of consent.
By the way, this?
Is defensive, obfuscatory bullshit. “Consent is soooo haaaaaaaard! We can’t blame men for not understaaaanding it!” Bull. Shit. The simple and easy rule is: don’t violate another person’s boundaries. Don’t do anything they haven’t consented to. If you’re not sure, you ask. If you do violate a boundary without meaning to, apologize and don’t do it again.
oh and @20
Yep, because a large public institution would never, ever ignore or silence a victim of assault, especially if said victim’s accusation was threatening to a popular public figure at the institution. That’s why all those colleges across North America routinely punish all rapists, why the US military has no problem with sexual assault, why the president of the IMF would never rape multiple women for years, etc. Are you fucking kidding me with that shit?
Kopper @ 26
It was only one sentence, diddums.
@Seven:
Yours too, does that make it stupid?
Case in point, everybody loved Jimmy…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/
Sexual assault scandals are the same the world over.
Getting ahead of the message. Nobody has ever sent a preemptive message claiming “Those things you’re going to hear, completely untrue, it was consensual + a conspiracy of dem crazy wimmins”
Claiming there were no HR complaints. Entirely possible because HR might be as inept as our skeptic organizations are with their harassment reports, especially when it’s regarding star talent. “No reports were made at all” “What about mine?” “Well no OTHER reports were made, and it’s no surprise cause when he drinks well… boys will be boys”
Yep, that’s the only criterion.
Here is an opinion from a kink oriented website: poor persecuted pervert?
#27: That’s your interpretation of the art in question. I understand you disagree with mine. But I really don’t think the abusive profanity in your reply was necessary or valuable.
Re your last comment, I am saying in my personal direct experience with multiple similar situations at similar Canadian institutions in the last few years, including several in the same city as this complaint would have been, those institutions have taken action in response to similar allegations when they escalated above the level of direct management. Maybe not as fast or completely as I or others would have liked, but ultimately effectively in each case I have knowledge of. That’s my direct experience, and I think it’s relevant. (You have a point about star performers potentially getting kid-glove treatment, but so far as we know right now, CBC acted quite rapidly here, at least when allegations looked to become public. Certainly that is the accused stars’ claim of mistreatment being debated today. As of right now anyway, this isn’t an “institutional coverup” story yet.) I have no direct experience with any of the counter-examples you state, and I did not make a universal claim that encompassed them. Again, I don’t see the point of your swearing at me there.
Kopper @ 29
…
…
I meant the stupid part shouldn’t be hard to find because you only posted one sentence. Christ.
@33 Acitta…
He said it better than I could have. This doesn’t sound at all like a BDSM relationship gone sour. Carefully negotiated consent is a major issue – especially when inherently dangerous things like choking are involved.
This sounds a lot like a predator who thought he could get away with it by virtue of his fame and high-standing. Gee…where have we heard that before?
BruceR @ 34 – Awww, did I offend your delicate sensibilities? You poor thing.
You said that you found it “hard to imagine” based on your personal anecdata that a large public institution wouldn’t take accusations of sexual violence seriously. You did not specify a particular institution, you generalized. And that is, I repeat myself, utter bullshit. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of exactly that happening. I cited a handful of them.
OK Thanks, I’ll rephrase.
@ Chigau #23
My one-sentence stupid stuff implied that Tony (#12) was wrong in stating “He brutalized several women and he needs to be punished.”
HOW was this stupid?
Here’s what makes me very angry at this: Due to the inherent male privilege in our society a man, to some extent, can publicly admit to having unusual sexual preferences and practices, even if such an admission is reluctant and forced by circumstances as in this case. For a woman, however, it’s an avenue to slut shaming and worse, even if everything was entirely consensual. Which means that a predatory male can enter into such a relationship in an entirely ethical manner, agree to the use of “safe words”, mutual consent for all activities, etc… and then change his mind, engage in the kind of abuse alleged here, and leave the woman stuck between a rock and a hard place. (I’m not suggesting any of the women in this story are lying when they say the behavior was non-consensual from the beginning.) The predator can thus continue his behavior, leaving behind a trail of abused women who are – justifiably – afraid of speaking out.
Never listened to his radio show, but as Sally Strange recalls, he was in Moxy Fruvous, a hilarious, witty skiffle/college rock band from the early 90s, who got some radio play with both (Once I Was) The King of Spain and Green Eggs and Ham. I still have three of their songs on my phone right now.
This is the first time someone whose work I’ve greatly enjoyed for a long time has turned out bad; Dawkins and the other Footswallowing Horsemen never did anything for me, and I’ve read none of their books. I pay as little attention to celebrity news, on principle, as I can, so actors and writers and such going bad rarely hurts at all, and it’s never been hard to believe their accusers.
So it’s weird to me that I read that well-poison Ghomeshi dropped last night, and recognised the vocab as someone familiar with the kink community (as I am), and hoped for a little while that there might be some chance that this time, maybe, it really was a vengeful ex.
But overnight, enough other women have come forward to have dried up that fog pretty quickly. Adding in that being part of the community and living near Toronto, I’ve heard through the grapevine that it’s best not to engage with famous people who show up – because a few had been notably predatorial, though no one named names, just ‘stay clear of anyone you recognise but don’t know personally’.
What is being described, though, would be way out on the edge of kink morality, which emphasises ‘safe, sane, and consensual’. People who do non-consensual stuff get banned, quickly. A place that got a reputation as not being interested in seeing to the safety and consent of the guests would be shunned by most of the community.
In the end, I believe he is probably what he is accused of being, and I hope sincerely that if he can be shown to have done these things, he should be convicted, and if ‘all’ we have to go on is the word of several women, well, that’s good enough for me to let his memory and material to end up in the bin with Grisham and others who’ve turned out to be predatorial. I’m not a court, just a survivor, so I get to pick my own standards of evidence and proof.
Kopper aka Claudio aka Copernico: sockpuppetry is strongly frowned upon here. If you can’t settle on a consistently recognizable pseudonym, you will be banned.
#37: I don’t know you and you don’t know me AFAIK, but your very first response to to a post of mine today was abusive. I’m sorry if you didn’t like having that pointed out in public. As far as the sentence you quoted, it clearly refers to the allegation being taken seriously by CBC HR, not all institutions everywhere, as anyone can see if they read it in my post or your pull quote, and if there was any doubt I have clarified that that is what I meant to say quite precisely, so your followup assertion is incorrect.
Pretty much the same thing with Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris in the UK. TV personalities that got away with abuse for decades but everybody was afraid to publicly question their activities, particularly Saville.
@drst #37
*Borkquote, paragraphs starting “Doesn’t the evidence..” and “It was definitely not constructive…” are mine.
BruceR to bring you up to speed, excerpt from the Commenting Rules
Your words were criticised. I realise you may not understand that this is different to you being accused of being something bad, but here is an opportunity to learn.
BTW Marten and Clare are co-workers, it was before going into work, and from looking at the artwork if you think that’s an assertive kiss (given that he wasn’t even holding her) then you have some weird ideas of what assertive kisses are like.
PZ: I’ll stick to Kopper, sorry about that.
This is the most sensible advice I’ve read so far on this issue, taken from Acitta’s link in #33: (emphasis mine)
“Like I said… Ghomeshi could be totally innocent. I’m sure his many fans would like him to be. For now, I’m going to keep reading, with my critical thinking turned up high. I suggest we all do the same.”
SHIT.
I’m a die-hard fan of CBC radio, and have been for two decades solid. I’ve followed Jian’s work for a long time now, which perhaps makes these allegations even more of a shock. As others have mentioned he is a consummate interviewer, and clearly very well-informed in a range of subjects, but particularly in music and politics.
If it turns out he’s guilty of the allegations, I can comfort myself with the fact that the CBC still has awesome radio personalities like Anna-Maria Tremonte, Rex Murphy, Gloria Mackarenko, Steven Quinn, Rick Cluf and Terry O’Reilly. And his victims will have some closure, one hopes. :-(
Count me as a fan of Ghomeshi who figures it’s far more likely that he’s an abuser than a victim of persecution for his sexual preferences. So, um, likely a former fan…unless some pretty compelling evidence comes out indicating that for some unknown reason 4 different women fabricated similar stories. Yeah, I’ll go with former fan.
@Kopper 47: If you were really using critical thinking, you might have noticed that incidents of men acting in a sexually predatory manner towards women happen far more frequently than incidents of women falsely accusing men.
To a large extent, he has been a staunch supporter of progressive values. He’s been campaigning for improved abortion access for years, since back in his York University days; he and Moxy Fruvous used to do benefit concerts for Dr. Henry Morgentaler.
That said, we’ve had plenty of evidence around here that being progressive on most fronts doesn’t always prevent privilege-blindness and mistakes on others.
hyrax: Shhh. Don’t disrupt a hyperskeptic in their native habitat of denial. Facts and evidence and probabilities and statistics mean nothing to them. It only makes them deny more ferociously.
It’s alright, hyperskeptic. There there. Yes, yes, of course the internet is exactly like a courtroom. Of course facts aren’t facts and truth isn’t truth accept by determined by a judge’s verdict. Everything is exactly like you presume it to be. Back to sleep, now.
@ teragram42 #49 – As the day progresses, I’m coming around to this view as well. There seems to be too much smoke to rule out a fire now. Multiple women with similar stories, large power imbalance between accused and accuser, and so forth. Dammit.
I’m glad the brass at CBC learned something from the Jimmy Savile case…
@BruceR #19: OT – those characters ARE in a relationship. That’s what they were discussing in the very installment PZ linked. Possibly the change in hairstyle and addition of glasses rendered the woman (not sure about her name, I don’t follow the strip, and it’s not mentioned in either of the two installments I’ve seen) unrecognizable? Here’s the first one, in case you want to compare again. You’re rather seriously misrepresenting that cartoon, though it could be unintentional.
BruceR @ 42
You said something that I thought was bullshit. I told you I thought it was bullshit. That’s not abusive. I’ve made no attacks on your character or your person. I have however used your name in every reply, a courtesy you have not extended to me.
You also knowingly engaged in derailing, prefacing it by stating “Oh hey I’m derailing but I’m doing it politely!” Then there was some confusing stuff about I respectfully suggest that when it comes to the dynamics of positive adult sexual relations in 214, even those people we think deserve a respectful hearing are often struggling too. I have no idea what that means. Nobody I know and respect struggle with this. I don’t respect people who struggle with understanding the definition of consent. By default, if you think consent is confusing, you (generic) do not deserve my respect.
Then you bring up a comic that PZ mentioned a few days ago and allege it’s now depicting assault even though it isn’t. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
I already covered your apologetics. I’m going to break this down one more time:
“Having colleagues” is the equivalent of saying “some of my friends are X.” It’s unprovable, and it’s also irrelevant, as your personal experience yields anecdotes, not evidence. If you could somehow prove that there have been multiple previous situations at large Canadian public institutions where these types of allegations were handled promptly and justly, that would be different, but that’s not what you’re saying.
“Hard to imagine” – only for you. I have absolutely no trouble imagining this thing you claim is so out there. In fact, I recited off the top of my head multiple examples of this very thing you can’t get your brain around happening. By throwing in that “it’s hard for me to imagine this” you set yourself up as being ill-informed at best and willfully ignorant at worst about the reality of sexual violence and workplace harassment.
“if that specific allegation had been taken to the stage of formal complaint” is a convenient dodge for how many rapists and harassers intimidate their victims into not complaining in the first place so nothing gets “to the stage of formal complaint,” but that only feeds into your presentation of yourself as someone who doesn’t know jack shit about this subject. You’re also dealing in hypotheticals instead of the actual situation here.
“it would not be taken very seriously” – see previous comments re: your lack of imagination. There are plenty of examples, some of which have already been named in this thread, of that not happening.
@BruceR #19: OT – also, I see nothing to suggest that Clare (thanks Ariaflame) is Marten’s subordinate. So, again, you’re either intentionally misrepresenting the work in question, or you’ve made a sexist assumption, a behavior of which you should try to be more careful in the future.
@hyrax
I do noticed that pattern. It makes logical to be inclined to side with the women but not to declare a verdict.
Well that’s disappointing. I listened to his show often over the summer (only a radio was allowed in the lab; no phones or ipods). He always seemed reasonable, intelligent, and compassionate. Of course. I’ve thought the same of friends of mine; it didn’t always work out in those cases, either.
This fucking idiotic bullshit again. This blog is not a court of law. Show it is with conclusive evidence, or drop the claim. The people at this blog are not jurors in the trial. We are entitled to opinions, including those of a verdict. Again, show conclusive evidence we can’t do that in the course of posting at this blog, or drop your claims.
Waiting for your third party evidence to back your assertions…
Kopper @ 57
So side with women but only in the privacy of your own skull because the absolute last thing anyone wants is to give the impression that they’re supportive of victims of sexual assault/rape/harassment, amirite!? Kindly fuck off.
Freedom of speech means anyone has the absolute right to declare any verdict they damn well want to on fora such as this one.
Part of the reason we have “innocent until proven guilty” in our COURTS is precisely so that this freedom of speech CAN be preserved for the rest of us observing the case from outside. We can be as prejudicial as we want to be, safe in the knowledge that the system will not be unfairly prejudiced by our expression of our opinions, and thus we do not have to worry about self-censoring.
“or drop your claims”
“back your assertions”
What claims? What assertions????
“We are entitled to opinions”
Me too, I guess.
“only in the privacy of your own skull”
Mind reading was not yet invented, so fuck off too, kindly or otherwise.
I never liked Ghomeshi myself. I always found him pretentious and tiresome, as an interviewer. He wasn’t bad all the time but there were definitely interviews he had where I found myself wishing he’d shut up and let the interviewee speak (an interview with Gord Downey of the Hip comes to mind). Also, I was never a huge fan of Moxy Fruvous.
So maybe that’s why I’m so uninvested. I was very turned off by Ghomeshi’s self-serving, pre-emptive, well-poisoning Facebook post and, in typical contrarian fashion, thought it said more about his guilt than innocence. The Star was right about Ford and they seem pretty confident about Ghomeshi too.
The assertion that we can’t give an opinion on what the verdict should be. That is implied by your idiocy. Now, show me the law that says I can’t say he should get jail time for abusing women.
Kopper @ 62
Words! How do they work?
I was paraphrasing what YOU said, shitwit. Not claiming to know what you’re thinking. You said:
Which means you think it’s fine for people to be “inclined to side with the women” but not to say they think the accused is guilty. For which I invited you to fuck off. Individuals are under no obligation to keep their opinions about these things to themselves just because there has been no legal verdict on the matter.
Ugh. This sucks.
Other things that muddied the initial picture (Gomeshi played his opening gambit *really well*):
1. Gomeshi’s father died just two weeks ago, to a huge outpouring of support from his fans.
2. The Conservative government has been trying to shut down the CBC, including by appointing administrators whose mission seems to be sabotage the organization. How convenient they’d discover a way to fire a top star.
3. The tories would really like to regulate the bedroom. It’s easy to believe that a tory lackey would be appalled at BDSM.
4. Gomeshi really played the “bitches be crazy” card well by having his story be a vindictive ex sneaking around behind him to harangue the other exes — and having his story come out first, before the press could react. Canada is not much different than the US on this.
So the initial Facebook posts I saw about this were outrage at Harper for firing our dear Jian.
I’m ashamed to admit that point 4 had its desired effect on me until I stepped away and thought about another reading of the same story: it’s an abused ex trying to find the other victims. Oh, right — that thing that a woman close to me did in order to find the strength to confront her abuser. And she found other victims, of course (in both cases).
So, good on the CBC for taking action. Too bad it took a while — seems they should have found him out some time ago, like when his employee complained.
And Kopper, we get this every time there is such a case. A tactic used by MRA/misogynist fuckwits is to claim we must wait until a criminal verdict is obtained in order to have an opinion on the subject of the alleged perp’s guilt. Why are you sounding like one of them?
@Kopper,
“It makes logical to be inclined to side with the women but not to declare a verdict.”
Is a claim, that is what is being referred to I think.
@64, Nerd
show you the “law” that you don’t have free speech to say whatever? really? you think that’s a reasonable way to resolve this dispute?
Crap. Another post of mine just disappeared without a trace. I guess I should write them in another window, then edit when they fail to appear, until I’ve found an nixed all the bad words.
It’s a trend I’ve been noticing: celebrity X faces allegations/charges/etc…
And on the opposite side of the outright denial on the part of some fans, you have people saying: ‘Y’know, there _was_ always something about the guy…’
Last I experienced it was with Cosby. And, okay, I was nodding along. Maybe there _was_ something about that guy….
But here’s a confession: I never got any sense of that off Ghomeshi. I figure I’d have trusted that guy with my daughter. And I listened to his show, frequently enough…
So it’s gonna be more disturbing than with some, if it turns out, as per the link above, this really is no case of ‘poor, persecuted pervert’, so much as one more celebrity figuring he’d get away with it.
(Data point, potentially, therefore, against any kind of reliable creep radar.)
jrfdeux @48:
Ah, good old Rex Murphy, one of my favourite dinosaurs;
The lad does have a nice turn of phrase, I’ll give him that.
Are you a judge in a courtroom? No? Then no verdict is necessary for you to declare.
Now stop acting like a fool and either spit out the evidence that suggests that the women in question are all lying in a malicious conspiracy to discredit Mr. Ghomeshi, or voice your unreserved support for women who take their experiences with sexual harassment and sexual assault public.
Rob #70:
If nothing else, Rex does have an outrageously rich vocabulary and a way with words. I wouldn’t argue with “dinosaur” as a label.
With respect to what the CBC did with the original workplace complaint:
@BruceR The producer put the onus on the victim. In that kind of environment, why would someone risk lodging an official complaint? Why would they think they’d be treated with respect when the man they’re accusing is the host of the fucking flagship show? Do you honestly believe that a more formal complaint would have been handled any better than the actual complaint that she made?
Has it occurred to you that you only hear of the successful complaints? That first, victims are intimidated into silence by the prevailing culture and refrain from reporting their experiences at all, then those that make complaints despite this are pressured to drop them or are ignored or accused of lying or quietly gotten rid of for being troublemakers, and that only a few complaints are taken seriously?
Now, in this case, CBC did eventually do the right thing, when it became aware that multiple accusations of sexual abuse were about to become public–this shouldn’t be downplayed at all. It would have been so easy for them to circle the wagons around their literal poster boy and dismiss all the allegations as a matter of consensual sexual privacy that they weren’t going to get involved with. They didn’t do that and they should be given all the kudos. But we ought not to pretend that the culture here is all roses. Not when a woman drugged and gang raped by two doctors is raked over by defence council and her rapists are acquitted.
Also, I read somewhere that Piya Chattopadhyay might be taking over Ghomeshi’s show.
“We all have an obligation to publicize bad behavior” Not quite, not all of us.
I would say all men have that obligation, but as long as it is unsafe for women to speak up they may be encouraged but not obligated.
It goes beyond obligation, for us men it is in our own best interest.
TO THE MRA;s: you need to wake up and smell the coffee, these guys like Ghomeshi are not your friend, they are your worst enemy, they make women more afraid. Get that? They make women more of afraid of you and me.
The main reason women are not openly friendly with you is because of men Ghomeshi.
How is that hard to understand?
*counsel
(I’ve been doing the municipal voting thing today and city council(lors) are on my mind.)
In regards to other personalities that the CBC employs, Rex Murphy also stands with George Stomboulopoulos. So, whatever you think about the celebrity and capability of Jian Ghomeshi, the CBC has a vast range of what can sometimes be described as talent.
I’m a bit taken aback by this. Apart from how I might feel about Ghomeshi, it’s really disheartening that someone who I saw at least as an ally in gay rights and women’s rights might really have done the things he’s accused of. The juxtaposition between that public image and what he’s been accused of are virtually irreconcilable for me. I want this not to be true, but then there’s no real reason to doubt the accounts as given. It’s very disturbing, considering the detail of the accounts.
If we have an obligation to publicise bad behaviour, I also hope that, now that this is squarely in the public eye, the entirety of this comes to light.
Maybe the CBC could bring Barbara Budd out of retirement now, ha ha hah. Hell, I still miss Alan Maitland. As for Ghomeshi, I’m pretty sure the CBC has good legal advice on retainer and the fact that they canned him is pretty damning. Ghomeshi is certainly a good guy in many respects, but that doesn’t rule out misdeeds and outright abuse either.
Seven @ 65:
Words! they can go wrong both ways.
I said: “I do noticed that pattern. It makes logical to be inclined to side with the women but not to declare a verdict.”
This means: That Pattern (i.e. the alleged abuser is at fault most of the times) MAKES LOGICAL to side with the women. The pattern ALONE (i.e. still no other details known) doesn’t warrant a verdict.
I didn’t say you can’t say/opine otherwise! A contrary opinion is not a prohibition.
I do believe women who are or even feel harassed should be protected in their right to speak up. I also believe that Jian be thrown to jail if he misbehaved. I hope there are not many ways to interpret what I just said. I’ve never been called an idiot so many times in a day.
Also not in a city in which Rob Ford (who, among other things, was a sexual harasser while in office) will likely be elected back to city council and had a shot at beating Olivia Chow in the mayoral race before he pulled out.
Whether he is guilty, legally, and whether he is a despicable immoral human being worthy of contempt are two different questions as well.
I am by now complrtely unsurprised about seemingly liberal guys being complete assholes to women. Those guys are great supporters of those parts of feminism that benefit them. They hate all modesty bullshit since it would limit their access to womens bodies. They are in favour of women having jobs, the underpaid kind that makes dude lives easier and leaves them with all their income for themselvrs. And they are sure as hell great supporters of reproductive choice (provided she makes the right choice) because a shotgun wedding and having to feed a family isnt their idea of fun either.
But all that support ends when it comes to treating us like actual human beings. When we want more agency in our sexuality than contraception and abortion. When we want admittance to the dude playgrounds as well.
Ibis3 @80: Even Doug Ford will probably get more votes than Chow. And Tory will probably win. Depressing.
ludicrous #75:
ObMRA: “Women should be letting us feel them up anyway, those joyless bitches.”
Again, where has anyone asked you to render a verdict? Pretending that any sort of verdict is called for is covering for abusers and harassers. You can reach your own conclusion without further facts because you are not a judge in a courtroom and as such are not about to deprive anyone of their ability to move about freely.
You clearly need to be called an idiot more often, if that’s the only thing that can entice you to say things that are detailed enough to be engaged with, instead of vague and hand-wavey MRA tropes.
AJ Milne @ 69
Really?! Ew. I got major douchebag vibes off of him. I’m not saying I had any idea about the allegations of violence but he always struck me as the type that would expect you to fuck him because he’s a star.
Maybe it’s because of Moxy Fruvous?
Kopper @ 79
Point me to where anyone says it warrants a verdict other than where you sarcastically advised Tony! to notify the relevant courts of his personal opinion so they could act on it.
You feminists just don’t understand the legal concept of “awesome dude beyond criticism until proven guilty.”
Seven:
Everything started with my sarcastic advice for Tony (#12), that was the only verdict I ever referred to.
Kopper, here’s a thought then. You should maybe stop being offended by what you said,.
Yep, show that one who isn’t involved with a trial, and not party to any criminal proceedings, cannot have an opinion and voice it based on published reports of evidence involved.
It’s called “put up or shut the fuck up”.
The pattern alone is enough for any sane and non-biased person to seriously consider the possibility of guilt, and assign it at any time they please.
@Kopper
Despite the fact that anyone operating with any reason at all must acknowledge the likelihood that all of the victims’ accounts are true, and that for every public account of abuse there are probably more that we’ll never hear of, these incidents will never be the subject of criminal proceedings. Gomeshi will never be convicted and he will never be punished by the Crown. So now what?
Other than repeating that he should get jailed of guilty, I don’t know. It only takes a prosecution team to ignore Jian’s popularity to get ahead with a process. And, hope that a pre-trial deal between the parts won’t leave us without ever knowing what happened.
@ 92:
I am not a lawyer, but IMO the CBC can reach a settlement with Ghomeshi over his termination without foreclosing the right of anyone to bring charges against him.
One of my daughters once befriended a couple of on-air radio personalities. One of them kept asking her out, but gave her the creeps. The other one, a single Dad with two little girls, was a perfect gentleman, and they remained friends until he moved his family to another state.
He was quiet about his radio partner for a while, but eventually warned her that the guy had a past of dating and abusing fans. Some of those guys seem to let a bit of fame go to their heads and become quite arrogant.
I wonder if the nicer guy took the job in another state because he was disgusted with the creep that he worked with.
I’m glad that my daughter had the sense to pick out the decent one.
Kopper @ 88
Yes, diddums, I know you’re the only one talking about verdicts. That’s the point. The rest of us are expressing personal opinions and you’re bleating about verdicts.
@Kopper
No. First it takes the willingness of victims to make a complaint to police. This has not been done, and, given the odds of conviction put against the stress of testifying, it is extremely unlikely that will happen. Second, even if a police investigation is launched, and even if the Crown is completely on the side of the victims (not a sure thing mind you), they would need good evidence to proceed. As you are no doubt aware, due to rape culture, victim testimony (especially uncorroborated) is not generally regarded as reliable in sexual abuse cases. When that testimony can be “discredited” by pointing to evidence of romantic and sexual acts the victims did consent to (“He warned me he would be aggressive. I thought this meant he would want to pull my hair and have rough sex. He reassured me that I wouldn’t be forced. (Later) he attacked me. Choked me. Hit me like I didn’t know men hit women. I submitted.”), there isn’t a chance that prosecutors would indict. Even in the case I mentioned above, in which a woman was drugged and gang raped (and a former victim testified showing a pattern) and the rapists weren’t famous with a bunch of rabid fans standing around just panting to further abuse the accuser, the judge acquitted.
We know what happened. Women were hit and choked as “foreplay” and during sex by Gomeshi without their consent.
BruceR
In this instance, what went on is assault. It should be treated as such, and not equated with, or explained away as possible BDSM. Your trying to explain that it might possibly have been consensual sex and we shouldn’t be so quick to litigate (huh!?) is straight up sexist rape culture denialism. I suggest you check your impulse to be so accommodating to sexual assault, rather than complain that you got called some bad words for suggesting we shouldn’t believe the victims.
Some interesting stuff I’ve found on this topic:
A statement from Canadian Singer/Songwriter “Lights”, whom Jian Ghomeshi manages.
https://www.facebook.com/lights/posts/10152780986716328
A risky statement from Lights, as these allegations seem pretty damning.
A legal analysis of BDSM in Canada, which seems to indicate that many forms of BDSM are legally sexual assault even if consent is given.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/
Bleah. I made the mistake to read some comments to his facebook post. It’s amazing how many people think that sexual assault counts as legit personal sexual preference. They’re outraged that people would bring up his ‘sex life’, link the firing to puritanical values, etc. So sad to see how few people even realize that the issue is one of consent.
jrfdeux @48, Rob Grigjanis @70
Re Rex Murphy: I did not realize he was an AGW denier. But see also this obnoxious rant: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/27/rex-murphy-the-angry-athiest/
According to you, you’re helpless to do anything besides hoping that a criminal conviction will send him to jail. You can’t think of anything you or anyone can do. Only the police and the courts have the ability to do anything about things like this. Cultural change? What’s that? Speaking out? Eh. Writing, blogging, etc., in support of the victims and against sexual assault and harassment? You’re not gonna do it. Even something as basic as unequivocally stating that you believe the victims is a bridge too far for you.
The only thing you’ve done so far is chastise someone for not being wishy-washy enough in their statement of support for the victims who are talking about their experience.
Here’s a thought: next time you want to help instead of harming, try shutting up, ‘kay, Kopper? Thanks.
Uh. No. If there is consent, there is no sexual assault. That said, you cannot render a person unconscious or prevent them from communicating and then perform sexual acts on their body because, at that point, they can not communicate a withdrawal of consent. Whether they agreed to something in advance is irrelevant. In other words, people engaging in sexual activity must assume “No” unless and until and as long as there is a “Yes”. Legally, everyone involved has to have the capacity to say “No” at any point in time. We have to have the ability to say “Yes” to hair-pulling, and “No” to being beaten or “Yes” to choking but “No” to being fucked while passed out. That’s what safe words/gestures are for. And that’s why, when you’re into kink, you have to be extremely careful and constantly aware of your partner(s) enthusiasm or lack thereof.
The only thing is…what’s with the all the “I just thought he was gay!” stuff? I know the guy seems to be a completely skeezy ass, but I felt like the xojane article using it to score points against him. I hate to derail, but mentioning that “HE JUST SEEMED SO HARMLESSLY GAY!!!!” every other paragraph was bugging the shit out of me.
Ibis3 #102
From the article I quoted, a legal analysis
So yes, even if you write up a contract saying you want to suffer bodily harm for the purposes of sexual pleasure and consent constantly while maintaining conciousness, it is STILL assault if you suffer bodily harm.
A lot of folks seemed to think he was gay. Why, I don’t know. Then again if you go looking it’s not hard to find a lot of people who think any celeb is gay, that they give off “gay vibes,” whatever the hell that means.
What has being gay or not, got to do with being a sexual predator?
@Kopper: I think I understand your reserve, but the word you used, “verdict”, implies a different standard: the legal one rather than the moral one.
Of course, to pass even moral judgement you need to have some evidence.
We have three witness, witness that have everything to lose by witnessing and very little to gain.
Further, the guy’s defense seems to be more about whitewashing, as happened in too many other cases, rather than “I have never done the alleged things and I am sure that this will be proved in court”.
What is more likely? That a celebrity abuses his status or that three women risk confronting said celebrity’s fans just because? Can you imagine the pressure on them?
By saying that he’s innocent until proven guilty, you are saying that the three women are liars and trying to blackmail him (ie not innocent) until proven otherwise.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to say that they did not lie until proven otherwise?
#44 =8)-DX
Except CBC refused to do anything about one victim (the co-worker who was ass-grabbed and hate-fuckable) and asked her what she could do to make the workplace better. That was several years ago.
I put money on them protecting the shitweasel for years because he was their poster child, their face so regular rules (if they were applied to other men in the first place) don’t apply. They’re only now kicking him because they knew shit was going to hit the fan and didn’t want to get caught in it since they’ve fucked up too. Which would explain why they wanted him to say he was leaving. They only give a fuck about their image and you can bet your ass the victims don’t mean shit and never did.
It’s all about image. And people are believing it.
=================
#42 BruceR
Oh the fuck it was. Blunt with curse words? Sure, but abusive? Fuck off with that nonsense.
====================
#57 Kopper
It’s impossible for anyone outside courtroom athority to declare a verdict, assclam. Form opinions and expressing them isn’t an official fucking verdict and doesn’t have to do a damn with court. Are you properly dressed and waiting for the judge to let you speak right now? No? Then drop the court bullshit or stay fucking quiet so you won’t come off like a stupid hypocrite.
=============
#82 Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
This.
chigau (違う)
Because bullshit rape culture. Rape and sexual assault are about sex and the man losing control over his lust and blah, blah, blah. Therefore gay male is okay, unless it’s boys or other men. Just like Priests are okay around girls and women including nuns despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Because it’s all about the fucking menz.
Ghomeshi (“Keith” in the article) comes off as a huge creep in the xojane piece, but so does Carla Ciccone:
Yes, she really could have just left. She “didn’t know what to do”? She wasn’t being held captive by anything except her own agenda to establish a friendship that might lead to exciting career opportunities for her. She wasn’t there because she liked him or genuinely wanted to get to know him. She goes on to describe an entire evening where she could have just left. In this anecdote, Ghomeshi sounds like a clueless narcissist and a creep who touched her without asking and kept touching her despite her telling him not to, and Ciccone sounds like an opportunist who was annoyed that Ghomeshi had an agenda for the evening that was different from hers. (Also, not everyone thinks Ghomeshi is gay, and the assumption that a man is ‘gay and harmless’ is both stupid and condescending.)
The reason she didn’t tell him early on that he was being an asshole is because she wanted to go to the concert he had invited her to. And then she didn’t leave because, “I was concerned that he would somehow ruin my fledgling career in Canadian media forever if I bailed on him, as stupid as that sounds.” Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds because, as she so clearly knew, he is a ‘C-list celebrity’. And then she lets him drive her home. There are all sorts of abusive situations in which a woman or girl really is trapped and unable to get away from the creep who’s creeping on her, but this wasn’t one of them. Yes, she was young, and when we’re young and inexperienced we make stupid choices, but she was downtown in a big city, she had her cell phone and her purse with her, and two good legs with which she could have walked away. She didn’t need to lie or placate his ego. She could have simply said, “I thought this was going to be a platonic friend date, which I think was a misunderstanding on both our parts, and I’m not having a good time, so I’m going to go.”
I do not think the laws that apply to assault of any sort would be very applicable to the world of BDSM. Leaving a mark is a completely unreasonable standard for a consensual sexual activity. Rug burns and bruises in odd locations are common side effects of plain vanilla sex. Laws against assault are meant to penalize assault. If someone commits assault during a BDSM encounter, it doesn’t matter if they claim it was consensual. It is very easy to discern consensual sex from assault, contract law doesn’t really come into play in either scenario unless you happen to be a professional dominatrix.
loopyj, your victim blaming is noted.
loopyj, #110
Yeah, how dare she think it’s possible to go to a concert, make a friend, advance your career while also not being sexually molested! She sooo asked for it, bro.
Fuck off.
Weird! I remember reading in that article that she regrets not leaving and handling the situation differently. But maybe if you give her that advice, time travel will get invented and she’ll go back and do it differently.
My greatest achievement as a father occurred recently.
My littlest angel, my tiny 11 year old girl spoke out! The man is outed as a peadophile.
My angel is safe, he got away with nothing.
Other kids are safer.
And all because speaking up is the enemy of peadophiles!
My greatest achievement so far is to teach my little girl that anything can be talked about with her dad. Anything at all. At any time.
She is my hero.
loopyj@110:
Oh boy. You’re going to go over well here…
“It wasn’t sexual assault! We just had different agendas for the evening!!!!!!” Bravo friend bravo. That is fucking pantheon level right there.
Apparently hindsight bias doesn’t exist, in loopyj’s world. The fact Carla Ciccone wasn’t infallible and didn’t run away, and DARED to want to network makes her a creep with an agenda, and therefore something something deserved something something.
That’s great that you are so good at Monday Morning Quarterbacking what a rape victim could have done, loopyj. You are the first person to ever attempt it, a true fucking pioneer.
You are the very fucking picture of blaming the victim here. Rape apologetics, simple and clear. I very much hope that that was a mistake and it is something you will rectify. Call me an eternal optimist.
loopyj, #110
Ciccone’s agenda
Listen to live music
Make a friend
Network to get ahead in her career
Ghomeshi’s agenda
Touch
Grab
Grope
Rape
Yup, you nailed that one. They’re both creeps.
No. She didn’t ASK for it! It was just MISCOMMUNICATION! SHE was there for a concert, potential friendship and a networking opportunity. HE was there for BDSM, groping and dirty talk! THEY JUST HAD DIFFERENT AGENDAS!!!!
I saw this start yesterday, and really wanted to believe his facebook post. Multiple victims, the story from Ms Ciccone last year? No. He really looks like scum now.
I think the “gay and harmless” thing was a belief that women, in general, don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted by gay men. I take it from the various comments above that this is not the case?
He does tend to flirt on air with men and women both. I got the impression that he was either gay or bi. In my experience, straight men tend not to be as comfortable flirting with other men as gay men are with flirting with women.
loopyj
Really? You think that trying to make new friends and allies in your chosen profession is creepy behavior?
I think her assumption was that she could go out and socialize with him without being subject to sexual advance from him. It’s a basic safety awareness 101 for the female half of the population, not anti-gay sentiment. That he took advantage of her offer of friendship, and showed up expecting sexual favors is grade A scuzzball behavior, and it doesn’t reflect poorly on Carla that she politely went through with the social engagement that she had consented to attend.
T.O. @107:
Thanks for the only constructive response I got. I see the problem with me using that word. Having learned English as an almost grownup I often pick the wrong word if meaning is critical. Especially because Im not a lawyer, thanks jebus. Cheers.
The Dao of the douche is to victim-blame.
The victim is the one in control, the one who knows the Dao. The douche is of the Dao, but ignorant of the Dao. And so it is that the victim is the one in control.
The Nature of the douche is to excuse.
In excusing the douche, there is reciprocal benediction. Thus, the Nature of the douche is not just to excuse the douche, but to excuse the self.
If the Dao of the douche is to blame the victim, and the Nature of the douche is excuse, what is the Path of the douche?
The path that avoids awareness of privilege.
From the Dao of the Douche
Kopper
Multiple people explained that this is not a law court and we are quite justified to criticize this sexual predator before F.O. posted their comment. Seven and Isis and Sally are some of their names. Why are you pretending their responses are invisible?
I’m not. They were just temper tantrums and incoherent noise.
Oh, I should say in my opinion
Why don’t I ever notice the words that are off by one letter on preview? That should be Ibis, not Isis in my #123.
Or, that of someone engaging in dudebro behavior. Spoiled brat tantrum, etc. Nobody has to be nice to you. Live with it, and either engage everybody, or nobody. Or you are a nobody.
snerk I see, you can see them, and you responded to the various rational criticisms by obvious female names by calling them tantrums and noise and then bragging about your selective hearing. I agree that you are an asshole.
Brenda Cossman in the Globe and Mail*:
So what, other than being completely fucked up, does this mean?
Ghomeshi is suing, he must have had legal counsel. If that counsel doesn’t know this about Canadian law then they’re incompetent. If they do know then it paints his lawsuit in a much different light. It makes it look like a desperate and doomed attempt at a cash grab rather than any kind of defence of his behaviour because if this went to trial there’s no way he can win.
Giant, neon, sparkler festooned caveat: I’m so far from being any kind of lawyer that I’m not even sure I can say that I’m on the same phylogenetic branch as them.
*Stolen for Dan Savage’s post, on this.
I don’t want this to be true.
But I know that not wanting something to be true doesn’t change whether or not it is true.
Ariaflame (#46), I’m well aware of the rules, thanks. I was calling out drst’s initial response because it was not, in fact, “charitable at first.” I’m sorry if this is a trigger issue for that individual or something.
For the record (been reading QC for years) Marten is Claire’s senior at work. He worries about the optics of being kissed by another intern who was hired with Claire here (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2769), so he’s aware of the power imbalance. I’m actually glad Jacques is dealing with these issues, he’s consistently made me think, but I read today’s act by Marten as overly aggressive-possessive. And John (#54 and #56), to be clear this is the first time they’ve been at their workplace since their first kiss which in comics time appears to be about a day ago. The fact Claire is clearly shocked (possibly happy-shocked) by Marten’s actions shows this.
Drst (#55), I apologize unreservedly for not using your name previously: it was not an intentional slight. I would suggest you read a little about Ontario’s Bill 168 (www.bill168.ca), which is one of the more progressive pieces of workplace legislation on this issue, and has been a strong impetus for Canadian public institutions to take this issue more seriously in recent years.
The “actual situation” here, specific to the work environment side that I was arguing was probably the focus of CBC’s justified concern, is that there is at least one allegation of workplace harassment, that was or was not pressed to the stage of a formal complaint. That’s the only fact we are discussing here. Telling your union advisor is not necessarily a formal complaint, and there is no confirmation of even this, yet. The CBC’s procedure for complaints is outlined here (http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/management/human-resources/2-2-15/) and we have no evidence as of now it was not followed. As far as prevalence, right now we have a data set of one occurrence, where the CBC apparently acted very promptly to dismiss the individual, as others have pointed out.
Again, so my original statement is clear: I do find it hard to imagine that CBC, specifically, given the legal obligations they face in Canada on this issue, would ignore or brush off a formal workplace harassment complaint about Ghomeshi if one had been made as easily as some have said. I was saying the fact they fired him peremptorily indicates to me they probably actually have more than one, enough to give them justification irrespective of the heat the Toronto Star was putting them under on the “bad/BDSM date” front. This is consistent with his depiction in other media as a bit of a creep. I said nothing about the World Bank, or the American military, or campus rape.
Ibis (#73), I was appalled by the outcome in the doctors’ case too.
To be clear, at this point we have the uncorroborated source found by freelancer Jesse Brown, in a story so problematic until now that the Star said they would not print, at least not until Ghomeshi went public with his own version himself. We don’t know why that person left the CBC’s employ, for starters. (If that was the producer’s actual statement in any form of mediation, they should be disciplined for it.) But again, I’m saying that on the balance of probability I believe that complaint probably *was* taken formal, and, possibly along with other workplace testimony, probably was a more significant justification for the CBC’s dismissal here than the private-life details, on which they are on somewhat shakier legal ground. I agree my sample set is limited, and I assure you my glasses on the larger issue are certainly not rose-tinted.
BruceR
No, you said that there was some sort of moral grey area here, and we should refrain from being quick to litigate what happens in peoples bedrooms back at #19.
Rushing in to equate sexual assault with consensual sex is what you are being criticized for, and what is being pointed out as rape culture in action. Why would you think that rape culture is somehow limited to college campuses?
matthewdempsey@114: seems to be intended for another thread, but regardless, good on your daughter and your parenting. How do you avoid going utterly ballistic when you get that kind of revelation, and instead end up dealing with the issue effectively?
fossilfishy@128: Gomeshi has legal counsel that told off the Star a few times during its investigation, and now he’s got PR counsel. His legal counsel is suing the CBC.
I think BruceR’s characterisation of the QC strip (#19) could be misinterpreted as meaning that Marten was kissing Claire at work, after being asked not to. That certainly would be nonconsensual, but it’s not what happened. Here’s the relevant bit, emphasis mine:
Claire: Before we go in to work, there’s something we need to discuss.
Marten: Sure.
Claire: When we go through those doors, we’re two library employees, and nothing more.
Marten: *kisses her*
Claire: H-how am I supposed to maintain my professional decorum when I’m blushing like an idiot?
She’s making a statement before they enter the workplace about the rules that will apply after they enter the workplace. They’re not yet in the workplace, so that’s not yet in effect.
Tethys (#97), I think it’s worth pointing out the Toronto Star story here is just as carefully wordsmithed, as Kevin Donovan’s stuff generally is (ie, the guy who brought down Rob Ford, another reason I have no doubt there’s fire behind the smoke here) as Ghomeshi’s statement. I would note to you that none of the 3 women found by Jesse Brown who were the alleged “rough dates” are alleging sexual assault in that story, or saying they were forcibly restrained from leaving Ghomeshi’s presence when they were physically assaulted. They are saying they were physically injured more than they expected or wanted. The example there is the story of the woman who claims she was slapped hard across the face by Ghomeshi when she walked through his door. She then apparently stuck around, and they had sex after. We know she didn’t walk out. But we don’t know that she objected at the time and we don’t know if Ghomeshi ever apologized for misunderstanding. If Donovan and the Star thought there were grounds for a legal sexual assault claim in her story, they undoubtedly would have used those words. Again, those words were chosen carefully and we need to respect them as written in discussing this.
I am accepting everything the victims have said so far at literal face value above. I don’t give Ghomeshi’s own words a lot of credit on this issue, and I don’t believe anyone else should at this point. But let’s be clear about the allegation.
As others have pointed out, in Canada you cannot legally, under any circumstances, consent to your own physical injury. Any consent given prior to a Dom for that is null and void, the courts have clearly ruled. Doesn’t matter if it’s enthusiastic or reaffirmed or written down. Further, it is clearly established (in Canada) that employers have an absolute responsibility not to keep sexual abusers on their payroll. Period. There are some who feel that those two laws taken together, as evidenced in a high profile case like this, where someone is apparently fired for “damaging the company brand,”could potentially drive kink underground, alongside bestiality and child porn. Hey, maybe that’s where it should be, my opinion on that is irrelevant. But I think a discussion of that possibility does require accuracy in the facts.
Yet you sound like you are apologizing for the abuser by saying this. This is why people are giving you words. Stop sounding like you are looking for a loophole. There is none. Stop the Vulcan intellectual sophistry. This is an emotional issue, and it properly generates emotion.
Yep, lose the Vulcan attitude. What you think are facts, might not be. Let the situation work itself out.
@Kopper: I (pretty recently) made the same mistake.
I let the harsh tone put me off and spent too long complaining about it rather than actually trying to understand the point people were trying to make.
When I eventually did, I felt like a fool.
Please consider that Tethys is probably right.
If such confrontational tone is not what you want, I’d recommend you to bring the discussion in the Lounge.
#108 (JaL), I’m not aware where it has been said anywhere that Ghomeshi’s workplace complaint occurred several years ago, as you claim, in saying CBC sat on this. Source please?
#111 (Tethys), the law he was talking about was the Criminal Code of Canada. You cannot consent to your own physical harm. Period. Serious kink exists only because no one notifies the police, and the police are disinclined to act, just as the gay scene once did before it. But much past bondage and spanking you’re into illegal territory.
#132 (Tethys), I agree Ciccone’s account involves unconsensual touching, as does the workplace complaint. Under Canadian law those are both potential sexual assaults (there is no separate offence for rape in Canada, where sexual assault is defined as “intentionally applying force without consent” in a sexual context.) Notably, the Star calls the other incidents “sexual abuse.” The Star is very careful on terminology on these kinds of stories. It’s an interesting word choice, to say the least, if any of those stories were actually brought to them as sex assault allegations in the first place. I suspect they weren’t.
#132 (Tethys): For the record, I did not say anything about anything being confined to campuses. The previous poster said, given the issues of campus rape and military harassment and the World Bank guy, why would I believe the CBC here? Because I have deep personal experience with them, for starters. I certainly don’t think those other issues, as real and horrible as they are, challenge that belief.
Again for the record, I would not believe a word Ghomeshi said at this point, uncorroborated anyway, and I am personally familiar enough with Kevin Donovan and the Star team to believe they were extremely precise in what they could prove and what they couldn’t, so I do take every word of that allegations story precisely at face value. I don’t doubt for a second Ghomeshi has been proven in the court of public opinion to be a serial creep and guilty of real REAL bad judgment with women over and over. He may well be guilty of much more. (I also was appalled to read how Ciccone was treated for her article, which I hadn’t heard about until the Star story.)
As far as the facts being in? Well, the facts are in, were all in on Sunday, for those who have a direct stake. Ghomeshi is gone. He will not be reinstated or work in his chosen profession in North America again. His lawsuit is a frivolous one, intended purely to prevent CBC from making any kind of statement summarizing the information they have, that he knows he can’t win if CBC clams up. All that’s left is to contextualize the story and what it means as a precedent and cultural litmus test for the rest of us, from the info that’s left. (For Ghomeshi, the only thing left at stake is whether he can avoid criminal charges. It’s machts nichts to me right now whether he succeeds in that.)
Mostly, I agree with Dan Savage on this one: “I oppose the demonization of consensual kinksters. I despise abusers who cover for their crimes by claiming to be consensual kinksters.” Like I believe Savage would be, I am somewhat (not overly, just a little) concerned for this story making it harder for the practitioners of kink in Canadian culture to enjoy approval and tolerance and workplace security. I also agree with this blogger: http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/, who I thought had the best long-form take so far. Their conclusion is worth repeating here: “For now, I’m going to keep reading, with my critical thinking turned up high. I suggest we all do the same.”
Thanks for the clarification Bruce. I wasn’t sure where campus rape and the World Bank came into the discussion.
Liability laws require journalists to use words like allegedly when reporting on crimes. Turning it into a discussion about the morality of BDSM merely obfuscates the issue exactly like Ghomeshi intended by framing it as consensual sex gone wrong.
My critical thinking points out that the victims have absolutely nothing to gain by making this public, and there are not any criminal assault charges pending against Ghomeshi. Therefore all this talk about BDSM and Canadian legal definition of assault is irrelevant to the fact that a man in a position of authority has been revealed to be an undetected serial sex offender with a habit of luring female fans to his home so he can assault them for fun. I don’t need more information to decide that he is a scumbag who should suffer the full consequences of his crimes.
Kopper #121:
When asked why he was ignoring multiple posts with the same exact message as #107:
Let’s compare and contrast:
#107:
#52, anteprepro:
#59, Nerd of Redhead:
#60, Seven of Mine:
#61, Amphiox:
Kopper, at #62, clearly pretending to understand, when he really didn’t:
Nerd responds:
Seven of Mine responds:
And, finally, me, #71:
It goes on.
But I think I have collected enough evidence here to show that there were no “tantrums” nor any “incoherent noise.” It was perfectly comprehensible for anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language. You say that English is not your first language, but you grasped it well enough in your FIRST post to make the connection between “VERDICT” and “COURTS,” therefore, no excuses from you about not understanding the implications of the word “verdict” and why people objected to it.
Conclusion: Kopper is a dirty, weaselly, slimy liar.
Fuck off, Kopper.
Sigh. If the whole thing weren’t so serious (and sad), I would be tempted to write a parody about the situation, based on “The King of Spain”.
@Kopper #121
Fuck you, you liar.
Ugh, I’m reminded of Dan Savage telling people to distrust women when they say their partner engaged in BDSM to which they didn’t consent. I thought it was a rather bizarre, incredibly sexist, but so specific that such an idea likely wouldn’t cause much harm in the long wrong.
Way to prove me wrong, world.
@BruceR #138: I’m not clear on the “you can’t consent to violence” thing.
Doesn’t Canada have boxing matches?
@Jacob Schmidt #144: I’m completely missing this. A woman that got BDSM’d without her consent has suffered assault & battery. What’s not to trust? o_O
BruceR
I am aware that the law is Canadian, it was clearly cited in the comment that I was responding to at #111. I am saying that the laws against assault are not applicable to consensual BDSM because kink is not a crime. I’m not sure what parallel you’re trying to draw between consensual kink, gays, the police, and assault. If the intent is harm it is classified as assault regardless of the circumstances of the assault. The intent of spanking is not causing someone bodily harm, so it can’t logically be assault. . Otherwise pregnancy and childbirth would qualify as harmful results of sex that left a mark, right along with rug burns, bruises, or rope burns. If your laws are truly worded so broadly that a case of whisker burn from a vigorous make out session qualifies as sexual assault, I think you should lobby for better laws.
I don’t know where kink turns into serious kink, but I do know that locally, Mistress Raven and company have been giving out safe spankings and bondage every Tuesday at bondage-a-go-go night for the better part of a decade. You might be surprised at how little sex is involved in BDSM, and how many abusive asshole men claim to be Doms to justify their abusive behavior. Safe and informed consensual kink is not something the police care about.
=8)-DX @44:
Sure is. I chose to look at what is known and put my support behind the women who have come forward and said he brutalized them. I don’t see why I should believe the word of this man when several women have made similar claims about his actions. In addition, women who have been victims of violence against men are routinely not believed, and I will NOT contribute to treating women as liars. If evidence turns up that shows they weren’t telling the truth, and that Ghomeshi is innocent of all charges, I’ll amend my opinion.
****
Kopper @57:
Why does it bug you that little old me, who has no power in any justice system, let alone Canada’s, has decided to believe the women and want to see Ghomeshi punished? This isn’t a court of law. My opinion cannot lead to the man being imprisoned without a trial. I’m just judging the situation as I see fit. Violence against women happens all too often in the world, and overwhelmingly men are the cause of it. Why should I give Ghomeshi the benefit of the doubt in this case, especially when multiple women have accused him of brutalizing them?
@88:
I’m hoping you’re less of an idiot before I finish this thread.
I also hope you’ve learned to blockquote at some point.
I also, also, hope you have come to realize that my opinion of Ghomeshi means squat to the Canadian justice system, so my “verdict” doesn’t amount to anything more than my opinion based on the facts that I’m aware of. That opinion could change as more facts are known, but at this point in time, I feel he’s guilty of the accusations set forth against him.
@124:
If you were able to look past the tone of their responses, you’d see that there was indeed substance behind their comments. None of it was incoherent, fool.
****
F.O. @137:
It really makes me happy to hear this. Not the part of you feeling like a fool, but rather, your coming to understand the importance of substance, rather than tone.
****
Tethys @140:
Thank you for this! I’ve long wondered why news articles use words like ‘allegedly’.
BruceR
My apologies, I misremembered. The Star started investigating last year claims of sexual assault that occurred two years previously yet mentions the co-worker in the same breath (“one of the victims”) and saying they spoke with “the women” several times without clarifying when it happened. Which comes off as odd but probably to protect her identity so people can’t try tracking down who left when as process of elimination.
Doesn’t really change much though in light of his history and the union rep’s response. Just strike the “that was several years ago” and I stand by my bet. They didn’t do a damn thing for that victim and the story would be completely different if CBC was actually firing him because of her complaint. So it sounds and certainly seems like awhile ago but I won’t say that for sure.
Your experience with CBC still means nothing to me. Plus there’s plenty other commenters that I know as well as you saying the opposite elsewhere.
F.O.
Because male erections need tending to and it’s just like women to have morning after regrets and claim rape to avoid shame.
/puke
BruceR @19: Since you are not a judge or juror sitting on a criminal trial in which Mr. Ghomeshi is a defendant, you are not ‘required’ to follow any presumption of legal innocence.
On the issue of BDSM and consent, in British law — which isn’t Canadian law, but with which it does have a not-very distant relationship — thanks to the case arising from Operation Spanner, actual physical harm in the context of fully consensual BDSM activity can be prosecuted as assault. According to Wiki:
Which has just struck me is a circular definition: BDSM activity which causes harm is illegal because it’s not a lawful activity. I wonder if that’s a wiki error or if it’s present in the original judgement?
Either way, while it would be sensible to you or I to regard actual harm consented to as legal, the legal apparatus would not necessarily agree, which causes unwanted secondary effects to those who partake in such activity, including vulnerability to blackmail and so on.
What a bunch of bullshit. The twats should have the courage of their convictions and put their names to their allegations. Hope the CBC loses 55 million.
Ah, an epsilon male heard from. All noise and illogical fuckwittery, no cogency or social conscious whatsoever. Why should you be able to intimidate and harass them? Back to your hole bully.
kyuss, #155
They have put their names to their allegations. They’re just being withheld from MRA pieces of shit like you so you can’t cause them further harm. Because you know, you guys are such courageous dudes.
kyuss @ 155
…says the anonymous troll whose ‘nym doesn’t link anywhere. The fuck do you need their names for? Ghomeshi obviously already knows who they are as evidenced by his own fucking Facebook post the entire point of which was that he knows exactly who the women in question are.
Tethys @142 I brought up campus rape and the IMF because BruceR brought up his “colleagues who work in large Canadian public institutions” and then claimed he “couldn’t imagine” an accusation of sexual assault or harassment not being taken seriously. I cited multiple examples of large public institutions doing exactly the opposite to point out that maybe his imagination needs to read the news occasionally, or stop assuming that because he knows a few people personally that institutional sexism could never happen there.
I’m not a rape apologist and I’m not a ‘bro’. Ghomeshi groped Ciccone without her consent, which is sexual assault but not aggravated sexual assault in the way that most people define rape, and should not be conflated with the non-consensual and abusive sex he’s alleged to have had with several women. I never said that she asked for it and I never said that her agenda of ‘making a friend’ (a fake friend that her primary interest in was how he might help advance her career) was as bad as Ghomeshi’s agenda to grope her and be his typical creepy self. Ciccone isn’t responsible for how Ghomeshi treated her, but she is responsible for not putting an end to the date at the concert when her suspicions were confirmed–via his creepy, persistent groping–that Ghomeshi wasn’t going to be her new gay fake-friend who could help advance her career, nor was he a ‘harmless’, charming straight guy who was interested in romancing her.
Ciccone’s account is of a single date with a narcissistic creeper. My point was that Ciccone does not come across as a young woman who was trapped or who didn’t know better–she knew very well what was going on and she mentions several times that she had outs that she wished she had taken. Most young women put up with creepy, abusive behaviour from men–especially older men–because they aren’t confident enough to stand their ground or walk away. But this encounter with Ghomeshi wasn’t an ongoing personal or professional relationship–it was a first meet-up, she owed him nothing, and she wasn’t going to lose anything by calling him on his crap or simply walking away. She was willing to set aside a tiny piece of her dignity in order attend the concert, but when she got there she realized that it wasn’t worth it, and rather than returning to Ghomeshi after she excused herself to visit the restroom, she should have followed her gut and left.
Both Ciccone and Ghomeshi are creeps in that they had very specific, completely selfish agendas for the evening. Ciccone didn’t tell Ghomeshi that she thought he was gay and that she had expected a platonic date, but Ghomeshi telegraphed very clearly to Ciccone that he expected this date to be an opportunity for him to get in her pants.
LoopyJ, still victim blaming. Stop that.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls, You’re accusing me of things I didn’t say and opinions I didn’t express. Stop that.
kyuss @155:
It’s not bullshit. There are a lot of costs women face for coming forward with allegations of sexual assault and harassment. This shit is all too real and happens all too often, but there are still people-like you-who won’t believe women when they speak up about their experiences. When they do, they often aren’t believed, are called liars, have their names smeared through the mud, and are subjected to further harassment, as well as rape and death threats*. Also, law enforcement often doesn’t believe them either. There’s no recourse for women thanks to people like you.
BTW, drop the gendered slurs. They aren’t cool and they aren’t acceptable around here.
*these are called “reasons women don’t reveal their names”. Also, revealing their names doesn’t change the facts in evidence, it just gives misogynists and sexist assclams specific targets.
loopyj:
If you don’t recognize how dangerously close this comes to victim blaming (and in fact, may cross the line), I don’t know what to tell you.
loopyj obviously has no idea of the amount of conditioning that women especially have throughout their childhoods to not make a fuss, or not make a scene and to be polite and not be rude and walk out on people.
Hindsight is 20/20 true. But while you are in the middle of it you don’t always realise that things are going to get that bad.
Yeah.
And the ones who went drinking with BikeShorts could have just said, “No thanks”.
loopyj @160:
Right there. That is victim blaming. She should, somehow, have been prescient and known what would happen and, since she didn’t somehow know what would happen, then it is her fault.
Ariaflame @165,
Exactly! I’m really bothered by how long I allowed shit to happen because we women are very much socialized into “It’s not so bad. He’s a good guy.” This doesn’t sound odd to me.
You don’t actually justify the assertion that Ciccone is a creep. You don’t even attempt it.
What, specifically, did Ciccone do that was creepy? How? She gave a man the benefit of the doubt? Wrong choice, in hindsight, but how is it creepy? She didn’t have the confidence to just up and bail? That’s unfortunate; in fact, it downright sucks; but how is it creepy?
You make a claim with no evidence to back it; however, the claim does serve to feed a “both sides,” victim blaming narrative, and to rebuke a woman for being nicer than was good for her. As far as I can tell, that’s what this is all about.
loopyj, #160
What in the world is creepy about thinking someone is gay, wanting a platonic friendship, and hoping to advance one’s career by getting to know someone? You seem to not know the definition of the term.
You have failed to give a single thing Ciccone did night that makes her even 0.005% responsible for his disgusting behavior. You’re trying to make it sound like both people contributed to it. You’re victim-blaming. It’s see-through.
Shit like this is why I think you’re a “bro” and are victim-blaming. Telling someone you want to have sex with them is telegraphing to them you want to get in their pants. Grabbing and touching when the person is very clearly uncomfortable with it is beyond that.
@169 Jacob Schmidt:
loopyj actually did attempt in his first post:
Then in the part you quoted he confirms that it’s having a specific agenda for the evening that makes her a creep. So there you have it: the reason is that she was trying to do networking.
Ladies, you should all know by now that if you don’t want to be creepy, you shouldn’t be trying to do things like network or look for career opportunities. When men explain the wage gap as a legitimate consequence of how women don’t do them enough, it was supposed to be a justification of the status quo, not an invitation to act differently.
(I don’t post here too often, so maybe I should be clear: that is sarcasm.)
loopyj @ 160
Other people are handling the victim blaming just fine, but I want to address the inherent sexism on display here.
What you are describing, loopyj, is networking. It is something necessary for most careers to one degree or another (if you disagree, try being an asshole to your boss and coworkers), but it’s especially pronounced in the media. Ciccone sought a career in the media and to have such a career she needs contacts. This is how it works. Everyone in the fucking industry knows that this is how it works.
The trouble is? When women do it, it’s framed differently. Because men are often in positions of power, women trying to network have to please men who have more power than they do. Because of sexism, these women trying to network–a perfectly ordinary and innocent activity–are objectified. What would be seen as the understood need to make contacts and make friends in the industry if performed by a man suddenly makes a woman “fake.” She is either “sleeping her way to the top” or “leading people on”; she is portrayed as a liar and a manipulator.
Women are shamed for engaging in the basic, career-building activities of networking. They are subject to harassment and assault when they attempt it. When they call it out, they are labeled–by people like you, loopyj–as fakers. As using others to advance their careers.
Guess what? This is what we do. This is what everyone does. It is valuable to all of us to engage with and have friends in our own professional communities, from the clerks at the gas station to the heads of state. For people with greater power in these networking relationships to leverage it for sex is wrong. For people with greater power in these networking relationships to cast the weaker parties as being manipulative or “fake” simply for trying to make friends in their industry is wrong.
Seeking out friends in your industry and trying to treat one another as equals–which is what Ciccone did–is not wrong. It’s normal, ethically acceptable behavior…which women are punished for engaging in.
But that’s just it: that’s not an attempt at justification either. I’m fully aware that loopyj would like us to accept that being friendly and making friends in your field are creepy behaviours, but there’s no actual attempt at connecting “creepy” to “networking”; it’s simply implied. There’s an assertion that Ciccone was being fake, which would be a start, but that isn’t justified either. It’s empty assertions, all the way down.
loopyj
We have already explained why only one of the people was being creepy. Your repeated claims about what she should have done are pretty ridiculous. If women called men on their crap and walked away every time they were subject to minor sexist creepiness, most every work day or social occasion would be marked by all the women getting up and leaving. It is not our responsibility to educate the creepy assholes of the world, so a far more practical and effective solution would be for men to stop being entitled creepy assholes.
No you idiot, it wasn’t a date at all. He didn’t ask her out on a date. He got her there under false pretenses and then sprung a SURPRISE! date on her. Did you miss the fact that he is 15 years older than Carla? He knew perfectly well that she wasn’t interested in him as a sex partner, but he thought that it was ok to trap her in a situation where he could molest her and test her boundaries. Fuck you for trying to blame her for his actions.
drst
It’s ok, I don’t need an explanation of all the red herrings that somehow entered the discussion. Much of the dissent in this thread is due to men who just can’t imagine what it is like to be female. Sexual harassment is a fricking fact of life for women, and I find it particularly galling when men react with shocked disbelief and denial when confronted with the everyday sexism that occurs right under their noses.
I suspect we’re soon going to see questions about the level of sexual harassment at the CBC. After all one of those accusing Ghomeshi of misconduct is reportedly a former CBC employee, who quit after her sexual harassment complaint against Ghomeshi wasn’t treated in a way she felt appropriate. And if Ghomeshi got away with it you can bet he wasn’t the only one.
loopyj,
I’ll demonstrate to you why your viewpoint is sexist.
Consider the following scenarios:
1. Instead of Carla, it was a man (call him Carl for narrative purposes) that decided to go to a the concert with Ghomeshi, but for exactly the same reasons: listen to Metric, make a friend, improve his chances of getting ahead in the profession. Ghomeshi has no sexual interest in this man and their day goes perfectly well. Nothing untoward happens.
Would you say that Carl was an opportunistic creep? Explain your answer.
2. This time it actually was Carla, and again with the exact same reasons she decides to go to this concert with Ghomeshi. However, this time Ghomeshi has no interest in exploiting her for sexual reasons. Nothing untoward happens. The day goes perfectly well.
Would you say that Carla was an opportunistic creep? Explain your answer.
If you honestly answer these questions and explain each answer, you’ll realize how what you’ve been saying is sexist and constitutes victim-blaming.
@numerobis@135.
I did intend it for this thread.
The context of my comment comes from the title, and closing lines of PZs post.
“We all have an obligation to publicize bad behavior”.
“No more silences. Men must not collude with these kinds of creeps — they must speak out.”.
Further to this is the basic need for the victim to be able to speak.
Without that first moment, how can others speak up about what they do not know.
So how do we create the world where victims feel free to speak up? It is to my great pride that I managed that for my little one. More importantly, she is doing well because of all the people who have congratulated her and called her a “super-hero” for speaking up. Now she is going to go into the world encouraging others to speak up.
It is all about every single person speaking up. Spread the word that talking is fine about anything. Anything at all.
If anyone is avoiding a subject, find the peers to help you talk about it and move forward.
I want to SCREAM and SHOUT. I want to kill the fucker. I want to erase him from the planet and all of his kind.
Instead, I hold to what I have achieved so far and try to make that enough.
matthewdempsey @178:
One of the things that I still have to remind myself of, in those dark times when I have thoughts about harming someone or wishing violence upon someone, is to remind myself that the world I want to live in is one with a vast reduction in violence. That includes violent rhetoric. I’m still training myself, and boy it’s tough. My kneejerk reaction to hearing of atrocities is still to wish harm on others. It takes my rational side kicking in to realize that bringing more violence into the world won’t make the world better. Once I do that, I usually realize I would rather an offender be suitably, but not violently punished (nor robbed of basic human rights), and also given the opportunity for rehabilitation.
Saad @177,
QE-fuckin-D!
Dear PZ Myers… Yes, I will speak out. but perhaps not in the way you expect. First I want to be clear that I condemn Mr. Ghomeshi’s reported non-consensual violent actions. We don’t know yet exactly what is true, but even if ALL the charges were to be proven false, the actions described would still be wrong. Are we clear? I say that hitting people outside of clearly -defined BDSM consensual relationships is wrong. Wrong!
However, while it’s obvious that Keith IS Mr. Ghomeshi, Keith’s behavior as described in Ms. Ciccone’s article does NOT include any of the violent actions that are currently alleged. So we should judge Keith AND Ms. Ciccone only by the reports in the article. And those reports are disturbing because they cast Ms. Ciccone in a very unfavorable light.
Ms. Ciccone is a self-admitted liar. Six paragraphs into her article she admits to telling a bald-faced lie. Ms. Ciccone wrote, “I sent Keith (aka Jian Ghomeshi) a public Twitter message saying it was nice to meet him. It was. I, like many Canadians, was a fan of his show. Actually, truth be told, I’ve never listened to his show.” Voila! She’s a liar. Everything after that is simply a litany of Ms. Ciccone’s deceptions. She pursued Mr. Ghomeshi socially to gain “career opportunities”, thinking he was gay. Then, when he turns out to be straight, she’s disappointed. She lies that she’s “hot” when he puts his hands on her shoulders, and that she has a migraine, and so forth. She goes home with him and even hugs him at the end of the evening. At one point she just says plainly, “I lied”.
Again, let’s be clear. I’m NOT defending the fact that Keith touched her butt. While butt-touching would be okay on some dates when there is a lot of mutual play, in the context of THIS date (as described, if we can believe Ms. Ciccone who lies a lot), we can conclude that Keith was out of line. BUT he was certainly getting mixed signals from someone who was intentionally deceiving him. So the line is blurred… by Ms. Ciccone.
Lies are wrong! Ms. Ciccone is a bald-faced opportunist who admits to lying repeatedly. In my opinion, she’s not a victim in this situation, she’s a predator.
At any point along the way she could have said, “Hey I thought you were gay, but you’re not, and that disappoints me. I wanted a gay friend, so I don’t want to be on this date anymore.” Then she could have left. But NO. She stayed and perpetuated the charade to further her “career opportunities”.
I think it’s a shame because there ARE many women who are abused, some probably by Mr. Ghomeshi. Men are abused, too. It’s always wrong! The stories I read about Mr. Ghomeshi’s alleged actions are heartbreaking. Unfortunately, Ms. Ciccone’s story draws legitimate attention away from those serious accounts. Ms. Ciccone’s tale is mostly a distasteful litany of her HER bad behaviors, not Keith’s.
Now I expect many of the people here to pillory me and shout me down for expressing these very carefully considered thoughts. I offer this as a preamble to the storm I expect… My mom taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right. And that lying is wrong. So however we judge Keith, Ms. Ciccone’s behavior is still wrong by my standards.
Oh, well, if it suits your standards, that’s alright then. We can all just stand down, The Truth has arrived, on wings of gossamer True Scepticism. Thanks so much for dropping by to Reveal that to us today.
Bless your heart.
Gack, borked the blockquotes in #182, try again.
No, we should not go by one piece of evidence in making up our minds about sleazes like Ghomeshi. And this isn’t single claim. it is multiple claims by multiple women (all evidence by the way) with the same theme. Unwanted attack by Ghomeshi.
And by my standards your post is WRONG. Live with it.
I think the pillory is currently installed in the Thunderdome. It’s right next to the spanking couch. As for your carefully considered tripe, it has already been called out as victim blaming bullshit in this thread. I see no need to waste my time on obvious trolls who can’t bother to read. No pillory for you!
In reply to SAAD message 177…
Scenario 1: Yes, I would say Carl IS an opportunistic creep if he lied to get the date. Ms. Ciccone lied herself into the situation by saying she was a fan of Keith’s work, when she had never heard Keith’s work. I think that’s pretty creepy. In my world, that’s about as egregious as saying you’re single when you’re really married or in a relationship. It’s not a “fib” such as, “You look great today”. Lying about a person’s life’s work to their face destroys the seed of any healthy budding relationship. It replaces trust with a lie, and everything that grows up after that is weeds of deceit.
Scenario 2: Yes! Once again, Ms. Ciccone is a creep for being deceptive and predatory.
If YOU honestly consider these questions, and my answers, you’ll realize that what YOU’VE been saying is sexist, and it condones the bad behavior of a self-admitted liar.
Take it to the Thunderdome. Your honesty is in serious question, along with your impartiality. Which is why you need to change venues, so this thread doesn’t get derailed.
How did I know when I saw a commentator named truth2power in the recent comments bar that I’d find a load of ignorant bloviating when I clicked through?
If you ever find yourself writing such a lengthy disclaimer about not condoning hitting, violence, or whatever, you may as well stop there and delete the whole thing. Nobody is going to believe you. If you really didn’t condone anything like that, or think it was unjustifiable, then you wouldn’t need this disclaimer.
Case in point.
Cuz the power ain’t here. If this fellow really wanted to speak truth to power, he’d have been writing emails to the CDC or something.
Speaking of creeps, it takes a pretty creepy mindset to twist professional networking into predatory abuse.
Sorry for the bjorkage at 191. Hopefully it is obvious that the troll quote is in comic sans.
Nerd of Redhead in 184… Actually, my opinion is the one you’ll have to “live with”, because it’s factual and based on the truth. Facts have a way of winning in the end. You’re position is toxic and excuses someone for deceit. Lying is wrong. I don’t understand why you defend Ms. Ciccone’s dishonesty.
Tethys in 195… No facts supplied from you, just epithets. I read Ms. Ciccone’s article. Apparently you didn’t bother. She describes her lies and actually says at one point, “I lied”. Very clear. It’s not “victim blaming” to call out someone for deceit.
CattieCat in 182… Thanks for your blessing, and for being only sarcastic rather than attacking me with random phrases like “victim blaming” and “troll”. I’m not here to stir you up. I feel that I’m contributing an important perspective. While I disagree with much of what has been said here, I’ve tried to be respectful, and I have categorically NOT condoned any alleged bad behavior reported about Mr. Ghomeshi.
But Ms. Ciccone is still a liar. And lying is wrong. She initiated the contact on false pretenses, then proceeded to lie her way through the evening, intentionally misleading her date on numerous occasions. Very wrong.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy,
Pattern recognition?
Tethys is 192… You wrote, “it takes a pretty creepy mindset to twist professional networking into predatory abuse.”
I think it’s creepy and scary that you think lying is ok when you’re professionally networking. Walk up to someone and tell them you like their work when you don’t even know their work. Ya… THAT’S the way to network?
Healthy relationships can’t be build on lies. Begin with trust. Begin with truth.
If the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi are true, then his misdeeds were not just about violence, but also BROKEN TRUST! That’s why Ms. Ciccone should not be given a pass for her deceitful behavior.
Victim blaming is not a random phrase. It has a specific meaning, troll. Learn it and stop doing it.
Wow.
I hafta go AFK for a couple of hours.
Leave some for me, OK?
I have called you a creep and a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Nice attempt to move the goalpost troll. Your attempts to equate CC doing a completely non-malicious ordinary thing with being a sexual predator are once again noted as very, very creepy, and a textbook example of victim blaming.
We have a victim blaming troll. Xe wants so hard to let hir hero “Keith” off the hook that xe latches on to a bit of ego stroking on Ciccone’s part and that become much more important than Ghomeshi’s sexual assault. truth2power considers a lie to be a much more severe crime than sexual assault.
Thanks for telling us where your priorities lie. Now please fuck off.
Tethys in 198… I didn’t “move the goalpost”. I’m simply reminding you that there IS a goalpost. It’s called… Don’t lie! It mystifies me why you defend a liar. Your describe her deceptive behavior as “non-malicious ordinary”. If you’re serious about that, then I weep for your supposed friends and would-be friends, because you think it’s “non-malicious ordinary” to bald-faced lie about a person’s life work, to manipulate them into a false relationship, which you then can discard when the victim isn’t as gay as you hoped. That’s the way to make friends, right?
Can’t you see that her behavior is emotional abuse? Is it only wrong when it comes from a man? Do Mr. Ghomeshi’s alleged transgressions in OTHER places absolve Ms. Ciccone’s bad behavior? You think it’s “non-malicious ordinary” to be a consistent liar? No. Lies are wrong. That’s a darned good goalpost.
And as for your illogical rant, “I have called you a creep and a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong.” Well… I call you an iPhone and a Ferrari. Feel free to prove me wrong.
What a paternalistic creep.
Steven Santagati thread. What did I step into here? Aww, shit.
@200, truth2power
Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous?
…iPhones and Ferraris aren’t people…
and your rant in 181 is creepy as hell. The victim is the perpetrator? “Mixed signals”?
Even a person who actually is interested (not lying about it) shouldn’t be assaulted. The fuck is wrong with you? “Mixed signals” are not relevant to anyone looking at this situation except creeps like you. Get a clue.
Only in your delusionnal mind. What there is of one.
Al Dente in 199… Wow… Now you’re being as deceptive as Ms. Ciccone. You wrote, “Xe wants so hard to let hir [sic] hero “Keith” off the hook…”
No. I never excused or minimized Mr. Ghomeshi’s alleged violent behavior. I explicitly condemned it. For you to claim otherwise is simply a falsehood.
You also wrote, “truth2power considers a lie to be a much more severe crime than sexual assault.”
Practically, speaking, it depends on the lie. Lil Kim went to jail for lying. So did Bernie Ebbers. In Ms. Ciccone’s article, the level of lying never reaches that awful standard of perjury. But then again, Keith is never violent, never hints at violence. So the whole lie vs. sexual assault comparison is a red herring in THIS situation. The date was unpleasant and unsavory, significantly because Ms. Ciccone lied her way into the encounter, and lied her way through it. Whatever can be said of Keith, it does NOT absolve Ms. Ciccone.
My priorities rest on the truth. Yours apparently involve using profanities and deceit as arguments.
This is the most absurdly oblivious third-party tu quoque I’ve ever seen.
Shorter truth2power: I don’t condone what Ghomeshi did, I’m just saying WE REALLY NEED TO DISCUSS AT GREAT LENGTH THE FACT THE ONE OF HIS ACCUSERS SAID SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT ALTOGETHER TRUE!
Another classic case of somebody with “truth, “rational, ‘intelligent, “or skeptic in their ‘nym, and displays none of those atributes.
Yes, victims of Abuse deserve to be heard, so other women aren’t victimized. You are taking the focus from the victims to by trying to show the perp has been a victim somehow. Classic victim blaming. Typical MRA misdirection. You reek of their arrogant attitude and dishonesty.
oh surprize, I’m reading the article and the signals weren’t mixed after all. Only creeps like truth2power think those are mixed signals. Yuck.
Poor creepy trolls always have such delicate ears.
This
isn’t meant as an attempt to blame the victim? Oh shit, what do the words “significantly because” proceeding after an event mean? And if the procession of words afterward are an action by a person, implying the direct result? Damn, whatever could it mean… surely not victim-blaming.
Trolls first comment
trolls newest claim
I agree that your herring is red, lying troll.
brianpansky in 203
Yes, nobody should be assaulted. How was Ms. Ciccone assaulted? Did it happen when Keith touched her butt?. Is that automatically assault? Well, yes, clearly in some situations. No, in others. You’ve never been on a date when butts were touched, and the touch was welcome? Be honest.
But it wasn’t welcome here, right? We agree. So exactly how was Keith supposed to know that butt touching was verboten? What explicit cue did Ms. Ciccone give PRIOR to the butt touch that indicated his touch was not welcome? What cues did she give PRIOR to the touch that his contact WAS welcome? Ms. Ciccone’s litany of lies blurred the clear lines that could otherwise have been drawn. Did he touch her butt again after he was told to stop? No, he didn’t.
What else did he do? He touched her shoulders. Is that unacceptable on a date? He touched her back. Is that also unacceptable on a date? “YES!”, you might say, “It’s unacceptable on THIS date!” I agree, but how is Keith to know this unless Ms. Ciccone states clearly, “Hey, I thought you were gay, but you’re not, so I’m disappointed, and I want to end our date.” THEN if Keith crosses a line, his transgression is clear.
I’m NOT saying that people are absolved from ignoring cues. I’m NOT saying that Keith was correct in his touching. I’m certainly not saying that Mr. Ghomeshi’s alleged violent behavior in OTHER places is acceptable. Violence of this sort is disgusting!
But still… Ms. Ciccone is a liar, who used deceit as the seed for a date, and then continued to mislead and deceive throughout the evening. She’s a predator, not a role model. And her tawdry story discredits and distracts from the serious allegations leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi.
It IS, if unwanted an unexpected, liar and bullshitter. Anybody who understands consent knows that. Why don’t you? Oh, right, MRA obfuscator at work.
Just as you do with every post. And that’s the truth.
Starting to sound to me like someone might be a vengeful ex of Ms. Ciccione, trying to poison the well against her.
Also, just FYI, truth2nowhere, saying “I do not condone $ACTIVITY” is not a magical incantantation. It’s just an assertion, and when contradicted by the evidence before us, you cannot be surprised when we reject the naked assertion for the self-motivated twaddle it is. Get on back to AVfM, huh?
Nerd in 208…
You wrote, “Yes, victims of Abuse deserve to be heard, so other women aren’t victimized.”
I completely agree… So when we lift up liars as role models, then our important arguments are clouded. Don’t fall into the trap of black-and-white thinking. Just because Mr. Ghomeshi is an alleged villain, that doesn’t automatically make Ms. Ciccone a hero, or a truth teller. There are other more credible people who have stories to tell. Let’s not debase their heartbreaking accounts by lumping them in with Ms. Ciccone’s litany of lies.
Let’s stand for the truth.
I’m not. Anything you say is taken with extreme skepticism. You have all the hallmarks of a True Believer™ trying to blame the victim. Your word must be supported properly, and according to brianpansky, isn’t. I’ll take his word over yours every day of the week.
No begone troll.
Says the one who thinks all lies are always wrong and equally as wrong as sexual assault.
Seriously, have you never been in an awkward or uncomfortable situation and you weren’t sure exactly what to do or say in that moment? How about when you have the social pressure that women do to “not be rude”? Your standards are ridiculous, and I doubt even you live up to them.
Fuck off with your victim blaming bullshit.
CattieCat in 216…
You wrote… “saying ‘I do not condone $ACTIVITY’ is not a magical incantantation. It’s just an assertion, and when contradicted by the evidence before us…”
What evidence? I have consistently and categorically condemned Mr. Ghomeshi’s alleged violent behavior. I have said repeatedly that the published allegations about Mr. Ghomeshi are disgusting.
To characterize my statements as otherwise is you NOT being truthful. You’ve gone from blessing me to being untruthful about my arguments. That’s what happens when you get into the habit of excusing lies.
Go ahead, hit me with some profanity now. That will make you a real winner.
Wank elsewhere, trollio.
#NotYourPorn
Yawn, can’t prove his hero, the rapist, is innocent, so it is trying to impeach the testimony of victims. Doesn’t work that way in science. Keep trying to bullshit us troll. We will point and laugh as always at feeble efforts to shift the goalposts. One woman doesn’t matter. You must impeach them all….or shut the fuck up….
We all know that you are trolling, since you announced it your first comment. Pretending to be a bigger fan than you actually are is not a crime. It’s barely a lie. Even if she had never heard of him at all and lied about it, he never asked her out on a date. Asking a colleague to hang out and then showing up expecting sexual favors is mega-creeper behavior. Your claim that CC ignoring his advances was misleading or deceptive is utter bullshit. There are no circumstances in which it becomes ok to sexually harass and assault people. Fuck off, cupcake.
truth2power #181,
She pulls away from his contact, reacts to him touching her butt with shock, and actually verbally TELLS him to stop when he rubs her back.
That you consider those mixed signals is hard evidence that you’re a piece of shit. This is sufficient for me to disregard all your disclaimers. You support Ghomeshi’s behavior that night.
truth2power, #186
Look up what is meant by the terms creep and predatory. Then revise your answers. They’re incorrect as they stand right now.
Ooh, look! Some more “mixed signals” according to truth2power:
Look at those mixed signals! I wouldn’t know if a human being wants me to plant my lips on their face if they were responding to me like that! Poor, confused Ghomeshi!
Get the fuck out of here.
Now I fully understand why the regulars here don’t give the benefit of the doubt (not that you deserve it) to newcomers who say asinine things. It gets fucking old.
toska in 219…
You wrote, “Seriously, have you never been in an awkward or uncomfortable situation and you weren’t sure exactly what to do or say in that moment? ”
Yes, many times. I have learned that telling the truth is the best policy. Being polite and diplomatic does NOT involve bald-faced deceit. One doesn’t have to be rude or mean to be truthful. My standards are NOT ridiculous. They just seem ridiculous to anyone who has grown up believing that lies are the way to get along. Would that be you?
Clearly, you’re the type of person who thinks that crude profanity is the way to get along. It really furthers your arguments and contributes to an atmosphere of trust and respect. Right?
Because, we’re all about trust and respect here, right?
truth2power, #205
Saad’s question time again.
1. What harm did she do to Ghomeshi?
2. What harm did he to to her?
Case closed. You’re done.
Aw, fuck. Actually, don’t answer those. I know you’ll victim-blame. Just piss off.
truth2power @205
Guess what, I don’t believe you when you pretend not to excused or minimized Gohmeshi’s alleged behavior. I think you’re trying to excuse his sexual assault by diverting attention to the victim’s alleged misdemeanor. I think your belief is “she got assaulted but she deserved it because she lied to my hero Keith.”
More and more you make it obvious that your concern is about the supposed “lie” and you couldn’t care less that a woman got raped. You might not use profanity but your writing is much nastier than any swearing anyone could use.
This is a rude blog. If you don’t like it, this isn’t the place for you. Leave.
@213, truth2power
To avoid pointless quibbling over terminology, I’m going to focus on whether it was wrong and creepy or not. It was wrong and creepy. You don’t just touch someone like that.
Now that I’ve stated that, I once again have to note your creepiness. You seem to be implying that such an action can turn out not being creepy after the fact if the person responds well. But by then it’s too late! Doing that has already demonstrated a creepy disregard for either outcome.
Now I read the rest of your comment, and you think someone needs to give clear signals not to touch them? Of course you do, because as I’ve said befofre, you are a creep. And no, there wasn’t a “litany” of mixed signals. You only think there were because you are a creep.
You have it completely backwards. First, she already said no to stuff, and generally showed disinterest. Second, “how is he to know unless communication is clear” is exactly the problem, which he completely blew past, and that is something he did wrong. His transgression is clear. To alter your last sentence here so that everyone can see how backwards you are thinking: he should have asked or something , THEN if Keith does something, he hasn’t crossed a line.
She used deceit at the start, but not to “get a date”, it was a get together between potential freinds. She had no clue this guy wanted a “date”, if you read the story. She was not predetory at all, she was survivalistic in her attempt to get through the evening. Like, the opposite of a predator, she wanted to get AWAY.
gawwed.
Come back to reality.
Learn what affirmative consent is, if you are capable of learning and not the disingenuous shit bag you appear to be.
But regardless of Intent: Go fuck yourself, rape apologizing troll of the hour.
Nope. No trust and respect to you ever. You are twisting facts to fit YOUR interpretation of them. I know that from your first post. You had all the Dog Whistles of a MRA liar and bullshitter, pretending to be impartial. Which has happened a dozen times with this case alone. You bring nothing new copycat.
Pitiful you are, arrogant ignorant fool. A liberturd would be my guess.
@225
truth2power
We don’t want to get along with a creep like you. Silly of you to think this is our “way to get along”…
I’m actually glad you said this, truth2power in #181:
Because now I can drop some verbatim quotes from her article (bold emphasis mine):
Cold. Hard. Evidence.
You’ve outed yourself as a sexual harassment defender. You cant call those mixed signals and also say Ghomeshi was out of line. Pick one. Asshole.
brianpansky
Exactly.
truth2power
We are telling you to leave. We do not want you to feel welcome here. Take a hint, eh?
I tend to avoid associating with creeper pro-rapist idiot trolls with creepy agendas.
Saad in 224…
And yet AFTER the butt touch, she went home with him. And she lied about being hot”. And she had a fake migraine. And the whole damn date began because she lied her way into the encounter. And all those lies were pushed out because she was trying to use him for “career opportunities”, and he wasn’t gay, and that disappointed her. Was Keith clueless and did he act inappropriately? Yes, probably, it’s hard to say while squinting through the litany of lies.
She had many MANY opportunities to clear things up. Simply saying, “Hey, I thought you were gay, but you’re straight and that bums me out. so I’m gonna end our date.” THAT would have been an honest way to go. Or the real honest way would have been to tell the truth from the beginning.
You wrote, “You support Ghomeshi’s behavior that night.” That’s not true. I don’t support it. I disapprove and imagine that he was probably wrong. But Ms. Ciccone’s breathtaking list of deceits cloud the account. As I wrote previously… Just because Mr. Ghomeshi is an alleged villain, that doesn’t automatically make Ms. Ciccone a hero, or a truth teller. There are other more credible people who have stories to tell. Let’s not debase their heartbreaking accounts by lumping them in with Ms. Ciccone’s litany of lies.
Let’s stand for the truth.
Also, if you don’t mind, let’s stand for respect and decorum… and dignity. That’s really the deepest basis of this subject, right? It’s about the dignity of people. So please try to avoid profanity if you choose to respond. Thanks.
Nah, Imma just gonna call you a fucke brained abusive asshole and compare you to a shit-smeared genital wart, or a weeping herpes blister outbreak.
@236, truth2power
erm, I’ll quote her:
What was your point again?
Yep, you are a rape apologist. That’s the truth, and the real truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Rape apologists have no dignity. They are the scum of the Earth, and should be called what they are.
Always remember, if you don’t like what we say, you can fade into the bandwidth with your tail between your legs, like all other epsilon males….
So, lies2nowhere is just trotting out the old attitude that if a woman is less than perfect, she is not to be believed when she says a man assaulted her. Same old, same old, just wrapped up in more verbiage.
Weaksauce trolling, 1/10.
@t2p
See, this is exactly what everyone already knew you were doing. You’re trying to sell that it was “hard to tell”. It wasn’t. You keep ignoring this.
No, those lies were pushed out because she was embarassed and unsure how to handle a creep. If you read.
brianpansky in 229…
You wrote… “She used deceit at the start, but not to “get a date”, it was a get together between potential freinds.”
So that makes deceit okay? And Keith was supposed to know this how?
Then you wrote… “She was not predetory at all, she was survivalistic in her attempt to get through the evening. Like, the opposite of a predator, she wanted to get AWAY.”
Really? Away? Then why did she stay? Why didn’t she walk out of the wine bar? Or walk out of the concert when he touched her butt? Why did she go home with him? Um… No… She didn’t try to get away. She stayed while pimping her “career opportunities” Yes. You don’t believe me? Well, you should. Ms. Ciccone clearly writes, “I was concerned that he would somehow ruin my fledgling career in Canadian media forever if I bailed on him.” Of course, he gave her no indication of this. Really, she should have left, or not started the whole charade.
In any case, I’m heartened that you, Tethys, Saad, and a number of others would never stand for Keith’s behavior (assuming Ms. Ciccone is telling the truth about it). You’d use profanity, tell him to f+!ck off, probably dump your beer on him and walk out. And you know what? I would support you in that. Yes, profanity would be okay then. I would cheer you lustily! What I wouldn’t support is you lying your way into a date, then lying your way through the evening pushing your “career opportunities”.
Deceit is wrong… gawwed. Come back to reality.
brianpansky in 238…
You asked, “What was your point again?”
My point was that she went home with him, continuing the deceit. You quoted it yourself. She didn’t ask him up, thank goodness!
Oh do fuck off troll. There is no dating involved in this incident, as anyone who is not a sociopath will agree. It is not the responsibility of CC to do anything but say no once, and that should have been the end of JGs creeping on her.
I miss killfile.
Yeah, and you know what? I didn’t always have the self confidence to do that. A younger version of me let a situation get too far because I didn’t know how to stop it. I knew that every time I stood up for myself, I was called a b****, so how do you tell someone to leave you alone without hurting their feelings and being perceived as a b****? And telling me or anyone else what they could have done differently doesn’t help anyone because I’ve already told myself hundreds of times. And young me didn’t deserve sexual assault any more than older, more assertive me does. So no, I’m not going to be patient and polite with you. And I will tell you to fuck off with your self righteous victim blaming.
@t2p
It’s debatable whether he already knew it wasn’t supposed to be a “date”. That wasn’t dishonesty on her part, she never said it was a date. Still, any criticism that can be levelled at her (she already levels some at herself) for lack of assertiveness over this (which is probably victim blaming, a situation was thrown at her prior to however she handled it) and even criticism over her initial tweet doesn’t change how clear it is that the guy’s actions were wrong, contrary to your “squinting” difficulty seeing it. We’ve now gone full circle and you simply have to re-read my very first response to you in 203:
and onwards to my further comments after you quibbled about “assault”.
Nice rationalization liar and bullshitter. Does the sun rise in the West for you tomorrow? That is why your word is dismissed.
brianpansky in 241…
You wrote, “those lies were pushed out because she was embarassed and unsure how to handle a creep.”
The way you handle a creep is to get away. She went from the wine bar to the concert, left him and returned, and then he drove her home. That’s not getting away. Ms. Ciccone engaged in a charade to benefit her “career opportunities”. She freely admits this. Her serial deceit necessarily clouds the story and makes it somewhat more difficult to judge Keith’s responses (even though I judge him negatively).
Really, really… if we are to hold Mr. Ghomeshi to a correct standard of behavior, let’s do it with the testimony of people who have more credibility. There are a few. And I say unequivocally, that I stand with you in condemning the reports of alleged violent abuse.
Eat shit and bark at the moon, asswipe. If you don’t want to read profanity then go elsewhere. This is a rude blog where substance is preferred to form. Right now the substance we’re reading from you is that you approve of sexual assault and you will pull out any excuse to justify it. Your hero assaulted a woman but you don’t give a fuck (yeah, I know you pretend you’re against sexual assault but we don’t believe you). So you’re saying “she lied…she lied…she lied….” Your priorities are well and truly fucked up. A woman is sexually assaulted and all you can do is blame her.
I won’t tell you to fuck off and die. Instead, please beat off and become seriously ill.
truth2power @249
Hey asswipe, I thought you were against lying. So why are you writing this obvious and blatant lie? You don’t care about sexual or any other kind of assault. All you care about is trying to minimize what your hero did to Ms. Ciccone and blame her for your hero’s actions. We’re not as stupid as you think we are. Your priorities are quite evident.
@242, truth2power
No, I’ve never said that her initial tweet was ok.
When I talked about her trying ot get away, it was when she lied about the headache.
And again you are saying she “went home with him”, ignoring that she tried to prevent that and simply didn’t know how to handle it.
And no, it’s not ok to blame people for fearing that those with more power and status in an industry could wreck them for not being nice.
Toska in 246…
You asked, “…so how do you tell someone to leave you alone without hurting their feelings and being perceived as a b****? And telling me or anyone else what they could have done differently doesn’t help anyone…”
Actually, we CAN help people… by being role models and not excusing and promoting deceit. We do it by teaching our young men and women ways to graciously say, “Hey, no offense, but I don’t want you touching me. Please don’t do it again. And by the way, I’m walking out of here.” Or if a person is being flagrantly improper, then a beer dump seems appropriate. If under those circumstances, a clearly bad person thinks your a b****, then I think it would be a badge of honor, and a benefit to your life to have drawn a clear line. You shouldn’t be around bad people.
You didn’t have the confidence or knowledge about this when you were young? Well, let’s remedy that and teach a new generation.
But let’s NOT teach them to lie and deceive for personal gain. And let’s NOT excuse people who do. Because their bad behavior just muddies the water and make it harder for any of us to see what’s right.
@truth2power
She didn’t really consider him a creep while at the wine bar.
You were talking about specific lies she told. Those were ones she told AFTER he had begun to get creepy.
And, no, you’re advice on how to handle a creep isn’t relevant anyways. She said herself she really didn’t know what to do. This is entirely realistic, I’ve had unpleasant encounters with a harraser, other people did too with the same person, even though there were a group of us, none of whom liked him. He was tagging along with us and we didn’t know what to do. If you want to take this to the level of science, it turns out that humans are really bad at handling uncommon circumstances.
Troll2zero @249
Bullshit. “You can’t believe her, she said she’d listened to his show and she hadn’t!” Riiiight, that invalidates everything else she said about a creeper who’s since been shown by multiple testimonies to be a serial rapist. So what next? How are you going to save poor widdle Gomeshi from those other nasty b*tch*s? They must have told lies at some time in their lives, and when women lie about one thing, well, you know you can’t believe them about anything. They must have denied taking the last cookie from the jar when they were five. Or said it was nice to talk to someone they’d had no desire to see. Or said “Fine, thanks” when someone asked “How are you?” and they were actually feeling lousy.
truth2power #236,
You believe if someone lies to you about being a fan of your show, you can then sexually harass them even though they tell you to stop touching them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you rape someone. You’re a piece of shit.
truth2power, #236
As long as you keep defending sexual harassment, I’ll keep calling you what you are: a sexist, victim-blaming shit-brained asshole.
truth2power
I know that you are just trolling, but
Is lying to someone worse than punching someone in the head?
truth2power, #236
Well, as if the shit spewing from your feeble mind needed any more discrediting, it turns out you didn’t even read what she wrote. She didn’t go home with him. She got out a block away and didn’t let him walk her to the door.
Nah, I have zero respect for people like you. I believe it is moral to treat people with such opinions with ridicule. It warms my heart actually.
Yet your argument is deceit, lies, and bullshit. Your only way out is to shut the fuck up. But, then, you are too stupid and arrogant to do so.
I don’t want them to learn a damn thing from you. Deception, lies, and bullshit be thy name.
I agree, your behavior and attitude makes it harder to see what is right. YOU ARE A LIAR, BULLSHITTER, AND RAPE APOLOGIST.
You are the only person who is making excuses for Jian the rapist.
fuck off dipshit. You aren’t ever going to be one of us while claiming that CC lied so she can’t complain about the sexual harassment.
No, actually, a person doesn’t have to be perfect for me to see that it’s wrong to sexually assault them. I don’t think “Hmmm, I thought sexual assault was wrong, but then I heard about this victim who lied about having a headache and being a fan of someone’s show of all things! Now I can’t tell if sexual assault is wrong, or if maybe lying is worse.” No decent person thinks like that. So what’s your problem?
Saad in 226…
You asked… “1. What harm did she do to Ghomeshi? 2. What harm did he to to her?”
Neither person was harmed physically. Potentially, both were harmed psychologically. I can’t say (and neither can you) based solely on a one-sided account by someone who admits to being a liar. How much does it mess you up when someone completely lies to you about liking your life’s work? Not just in a casual encounter, but as the pretext for a date? And then to be deceived further by your date who doesn’t really want to be there because you’re not gay? I dunno. It has to suck at some level and qualify as emotional abuse for some people. Others wouldn’t care. On the flip side, how much does it mess you up when someone touches your butt out of context. Some people would be shaking with rage. Others wouldn’t care. People have different standards in different situations.
What I can say (if I can believe Ms. Ciccone’s report) is that she started the encounter with a bald-faced lie, and then continued the charade on multiple occasions when she could have ended it. That’s pure manipulation. The fact that “Keith” apparently BELIEVED her litany of lies (probably for the benefit of his own ego), and the fact that he was subsequently alleged in OTHER circumstances to have been a violent abuser, does not absolve Ms. Ciccone of her deceit.
Compared to the proven lying of Ghomeshi? You are a delusional fool. And it shows to all. You are you own worst enemy, and like any liberturd, you can’t understand why anybody finds your words and ideas offensive and stupid.
What deceit? The deceit that only happens in your delusional mind? I see no deceit, just a young woman trying to improve her rolladex with contacts in the field.
Lie all you want, I won’t listen to your lies.
truth2power,
I’m just going to leave you with some advice, which I know you disagree strongly with, but I feel it’s my moral duty:
Please don’t touch anyone unless they make it clear it’s okay to touch them.
I know you’re pretty set in your sexual predatory thinking, but maybe somehow that’ll sink in and potentially save you and someone else a lot of trouble.
Clearly, she was just pretending to want a career in the entertainment industry when she agreed to “go to a concert”. That she didn’t react to a sociopath testing her boundaries with immediate macing when she then went to the concert is all the evidence lyingtroll needs to declare CC at fault for existing to be harassed in the first place. Also in rape denying trollspeak world, being harassed and female automatically discredits you as a credible witness to your own harassment, .
Saad in 256…
You wrote… “You believe if someone lies to you about being a fan of your show, you can then sexually harass them even though they tell you to stop touching them.”
No. I never said that. I don’t how you fabricate such things. But I DO wonder, if Ms. Ciccone was being sexually harassed (which is questionable after the butt touch, because she stopped him and yet didn’t end the date)… Why didn’t she dump her beer on him and leave? Why didn’t she just walk out. Clearly, it was because she was pursuing “career opportunities”. Indeed, she says this exactly… Ms. Ciccone wrote, “I was concerned that he would somehow ruin my fledgling career in Canadian media forever if I bailed on him.” Ohhhh… so then sticking around and lying that she was “hot” and then had a “migraine” is okay under those circumstances, right?
NO! Not right! Geez were you raised in a barn? Lying is wrong! Don’t lie!
You also wrote… “She didn’t go home with him. She got out a block away.” Like that really matters? Tell that to a cab driver when he asks for his fare!
This thread is very educational.
I’m not sure that PZ is following it.
Should I Alert him?
truth2power is obviously much2stupid to see no-one here will buy his bullshit.
Go away you blathering idiot, there’s sure to be another site somewhere on the vast internet where they’d believe your shit smells sweet.
If only creepy lying troll would follow their own advice.
Yes, we were all raised in barns, and this upbringing taught us to be evil liars, and you are so morally superior to us. Here’s your trophy; now go away.
chigau
meh. It’s a boring troll but I see no need to bother PZ. I will bet money that troll is a slime sockpuppet, and will be auto flushed very soon.
Boy, you are a desparate liar and bullshitter, aren’t you. We don’t have to refute your bullshit. It shines on its own as grade A bullshit, from an epsilon male. PATHETIC.
Don’t lie, d’you hear me? Don’t tell a potential rapist you’ve another appointment, or a headache, or someone’s waiting for you! Don’t say anything dishonest to get away from someone! Don’t tell an abuser you don’t know where their victim is, because that’s lying!
FUCK OFF RAPE APOLOGIST LYING SHIT TROLL
chigau in 258…
You asked, “Is lying to someone worse than punching someone in the head?”
I dunno. Depends on the lie, depends on the punch. Both could land you in jail, depending on the circumstances. Ms. Ciccone wasn’t punched. But she DID lie. From what I can tell, neither she or Keith did anything illegal during the date. If she feels that Keith DID do something illegal, then I encourage her to press charges. We’ll see how far she gets. In the meantime, I think that both she AND Keith behaved badly.
Btw… You called me a troll. If by troll, you mean someone who intentionally wants to upset people, then no. I’m not a troll. I just happened upon this blog and thought I would share my perspective. Unfortunately, most of you are making baseless arguments in a self-confirming echo chamber, spewing profanities and slogans at me rather than considering the basic facts of my arguments. I’m NOT trying to convert you. But I do want you to understand that some people see things differently, and we’re not evil for doing so. Once again, I state unequivocally, that I condemn the violence that Mr. Ghomeshi is alleged to have perpetrated.
There are hundreds of millions of people like me, who try to see the forest AND the trees. We get angry at injustice, but we don’t let our rage cut us off from others who may have valuable ideas and valid points of view.
I leave you with this… Abuse is wrong. Let’s not abuse people, In fact, let’s be respectful, honorable, and well behaved to everyone! And… Lying is wrong. Let’s not lie.
P.S. I won’t post here again, unless someone asks me kindly to return for a respectful dialog. I’m not against any of you, and I actually respect and like a few of you.
What’s this? We have a tone troll Rape Culture apologist? Gosh, we never get any of them around these parts. And the pest actually thinks he is going to sway anyone with his odious views.
Look truth2power, you’ve been told this isn’t the audience for your bullshit. Despite the excuses you’re making for Ghomeshi’s actions, there is no excuse for what he did. He’s a sexually harassing and assaulting asshole of the highest caliber, and you’re trying to excuse his actions by putting Ciccone in a bad light. Not going to work around here. You may as well pack it in. We’re not viewing this situation through the dudebro MRA lens you are. And we’re not going to, bc unlike you, we deplore those who sexually assault others and we believe women when they talk about their experiences. Clearly you do not.
Also, you can take your tone trolling bullshit and fuck off. As previously mentioned, this is a rude blog. Here, substance is far more important than tone. You can come here cursing like a sailor, and as long as the substance of your comments is reasonable, you won’t have a problem. But when you come here and you engage in Rape Culture apologetics, as you’ve done, you’re going to get rhetorically smacked down hard. You deserve every fucking harsh word you’ve received…and then some. If you can’t parse the substance of a comment because your fee fees get hurt at FUCK SHIT DAMN ASSHOLE, then there’s no point in you continuing to comment here (there never was to begin with), bc that’s what you’re going to keep getting. you deserve no less.
And since you’re a fuckbrained shitspigot, and I’m sure you won’t stop commenting, why not learn how to fucking blockquote?
<blockquote> place quoted text here </blockquote>
produces
P.S. to Saad in 265…
You wrote, “Please don’t touch anyone unless they make it clear it’s okay to touch them.”
Yes, I agree completely.
truth2power @275:
Ha!
You tink you have a valuable idea or valid point of view.
You. Do. Not.
You’re an apologist for some of the worst behavior humans engage in. You’re also an ignorant fuck who doesn’t know the many ways women have to adapt to deal with people who have more power than them. Yeah, sometimes they have to be dishonest. For fear of reprisal. None of the “lies” you cite negate what Ghomeshi did to her and NO, they do not cast her in a bad light, unless you’re a fucking MRA scumbag who’s looking for an excuse to dismiss what happened to her. Which is exactly the script you’re playing by.
truth2power
You are a lying sack of shit.
Your request for “asks me kindly to return for a respectful dialog” will not be met.
Nothing you said was respectful or kind. You should not expect respect or kindness.
Fuck off.
jeebus
5 fucking minutes between
and the next comment
I see the self-proven epsilon male is still flinging poo. Xe can’t fling anything else, as xe has nothing else.
FUCK
OFF
DESPICABLE
RAPE-APOLOGIST
It’s the Noel Plum school of trolling. Boring, endless, repetitious droning that amounts to calling women liars for objecting to misogyny, coupled with much whining about profanities and compulsive lying.
The compulsive lying is an especially stupid tactic in a comment thread. Plausible deniability is so much easier when every word of the discussion isn’t written down for reference. Nobody but the troll has forgotten that they began trolling by accusing CC of being a sexual predator, liar, and hypocrite.
wtf, html?
“Don’t lie, lying is wrong,” said the lying liar as he lied.
Jebus
Truth2power’s third sentence of their first post:
[and a few song-filled sentences later]
Later on in Truth2power’s first post:
**magic happens**
Truth2power’s conclusion:
Aw diddums, what a pity your mommy never taught you that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Also I just luuurve this bit:
If only those cray-cray bitchez would recognise my SUPER EVIDENT TRUTH that social pleasantries (the sort Truth2power never partakes of) are some nebulously-defined moral equivalent of uninvited sexual violence.
How the fuck does that make it questionable? Rather: what are the prerequisites which must be met before we can call something “sexual harassment”, according to you? You sound like every rape apologist ever.
“Why didn’t she just go home with her friends instead of staying with a drunk guy she hardly knew?”
“Why didn’t she do X instead of Y so that Z didn’t happen?”
You know you sound like you’re saying “She was asking for it,” Truth2Power, right? That’s why everyone here is justifiably angry with you and make it abundantly clear in their excessively demure rudeness toward you. You, on the other hand, are the epiphany of assholism on display. Woman lies, it was her fault for the evening. Woman stays, hoping to salvage the rest of the evening, its her fault for his groping. Spare us the complacent condescension.
truth2power, #277
Thank you. I’m glad you had a change of heart.
This wasn’t a waste of time after all. :)
It better not be me. We’re enemies. I don’t want your respect. If you respect me then it means I’m probably doing something wrong, you disgusting victim-blaming human-shaped trash pile.