OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Sunday, November 30

#20193

OMG: Wonder what'll happen if Jian Ghomeshi is found 'not guilty.'

I mean, the guy's a creep regardless (don't need aa trial to prove that), but I wonder if the public will ever view him as being *not* a criminal, even if the court exonerates him.

48 comments

  1. No use playing around with "ifs", he is guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh wow, we might as well just hang him in public right here and now. Whether he is guilty or innocent is for the courts to decide. That is one of the cornerstones of our justice system, innocence until proven guilty.

      If you are ever accused of something, wouldn't you like some benefit of the doubt?

      Delete
    2. 1 - probably, but unless the prosecution can convince the courts that it is DEFINITELY the case, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, the 'if' is totally justified.

      Note OP didn't say 'if he is not guilty,' but 'if he is FOUND not guilty.'

      Delete
    3. 1 - what evidence do you have that he is guilty? Wait, let me guess, daytime TV told you, right? TV doesn't sell the truth, it sells controversy.

      Delete
  2. It's true, the court of law is very distinct from the court of public opinion.

    Slightly off topic, did anyone see the episode of The Fifth Estate looking into how much CBC knew of his "actions" before he was fired?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. My view? Jomshi should be locked in prison. I hope he doesn't drop the soap. Every CBC ninwit in charge, especially that buffoon Mike, should be fired. And they need to straighten their backs from top to bottom.

      Delete
  3. How do you creeps know he is?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did an internship this summer at a media company downtown Toronto.. it's an open secret that he's a creep

    ReplyDelete
  5. What does it mean for the public to "view him as being *not* a criminal"? Criminal is a specific legal category, distinct from: abusive, violent, creepy, misogynistic, mendacious... If he's not criminally convicted, then I'm pretty sure the public will think of him as not criminally convicted -- but still an abusive, violent, creepy, lying misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's possible there will be insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. Those usually have pretty high burdens of evidence.

    The standard of public opinion is a lot different than the standard of "throw you in prison"; I hope it is clear that just because there isn't enough evidence for a conviction doesn't mean that a person isn't guilty. See, OJ Simpson murders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True enough. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two different things.

      Delete
  7. It would be pretty wild if he was found not guilty, since he allegedly showed pictures and videos to people. I mean, maybe the videos he showed were of the strictly consensual stuff and it shows, but then it wouldn't make sense for the CBC to finally pull the trigger on him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He does have a high profile lawyer who managed to get Michael Bryant acquitted of his charges so there is a chance

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey everyone! Lets make a decision based on biased TV reports because the courts are full of idiots with law degrees! Get the torches and pitchforks! Someone get the rope!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^same tone as threads on UW's counselor/sexual harasser

      Delete
    2. Ghomshi tied me up with the rope months ago; I had to cut it apart to free myself :(

      Delete
  10. who cares, fuck

    worry about your own life

    ReplyDelete
  11. Serial: Season 2.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If? Do you mean 'when'? Nobody has any evidence beyond their word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12, last I checked, there are pictures/videos.

      Delete
  13. Not guilty in a court means that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not that nothing happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Somehow we take a judge's/tribunal's/grand jury's decision as telling us definitively what actually happened or didn't happen. As if what they say makes reality as they say.
      We're learning slowly how fallable these people are.

      Delete
    2. 13a, it's not about telling us 'what happened/didn't happen,' but it absolutely IS about telling us whether or not what happened was criminal, and therefore a justification for taking away somebody's freedom.

      No, it's not a perfect system, I'll grant you that. Consider the options. Imagine an example where 100 people are charged with crimes. You basically have 2 options, in a realistic setting:

      Option 1:
      ->90 are actually guilty, and are convicted.
      ->1 is actually innocent, and is acquitted.
      ->9 are actually guilty, but are acquitted because of the high standards for conviction that allowed 1 to be justly acquitted.

      Option 2:
      ->The 90 guilty are still convicted.
      ->The 9 are guilty, and this time they are convicted.
      ->The 1 innocent is convicted, because the standards for conviction have been dropped to the point where he/she can't adequately defend his/her innocence.

      The prevailing school of thought is that Option 1 is the more 'just' system, and that allowing the 9 guilty men to walk is a necessary evil that comes with ensuring the lone innocent will always be acquitted. Your personal freedom is paramount, and a system that takes freedoms away from the innocent in order to try and catch more of the guilty must fundamentally be considered a flawed system.

      Delete
    3. 13b, they are crimes. Rationalize them away but what we're seeing both here and in the States is a larger trend of just how bad the people we rely on to judge are at carrying out their roles to keep specific groups of us safe, using laws already in place. Our justice systems have failed women here, black men in the States. It's institutionalized, it's broken, we're suffering, and have been for too long. The status quo is not a viable option. Not for me, not for her, not for him.

      Delete
    4. 13c, you said a whole lot of nothing instead of actually sharing some concrete suggestions for improvement.

      I'll grant you that the justice system in the US is broken on a fundamental level. For starters - elected judges. Like actually, WTF. But there absolutely IS a lot of racism still in certain parts of that country, and not a lot of checks and balances in place to make sure the legal system there is doing its job properly.

      But the legal system here, as it pertains to women... alright, I'll bite. Leaving aside the question of policework for now, please explain to me how the current setup of the Canadian justice system fails women. Then explain to me what you would do to fix it. Surely it can't be broken beyond repair, surely your eye is on a solution, rather than merely complaining about the problem. But I'll leave that bit to you to explain.

      Delete
    5. 13d, I agree with 13, a and c. Each added their piece. 13c did a good job pointing out how this is not enough for women's and blacks' safety needs and rights. We don't each have to come up with a full solution. There are a lot of us and we can work together.

      Who gets harmed, call out.
      Who sympathizes, cry out.
      Who senses injustice, speak out.
      Who sees the perpetrator, call out.
      We'll go full circle together.

      None of us asked for this.
      None of us needs to feel we're required to fully solve this to say anything at all.
      None of us should feel pressured into silence.

      Delete
    6. 13e, you're quite right in saying that no one person is expected to solve this issue fully. Many people sharing ideas and thoughts IS how this problem will get solved.

      BUT

      So far, all that you, 13a, and 13c have done is say "the current system is borked." You seem to have gone so far as to say we need to - as a society - go on a collective witchhunt for perpetrators (forget justice, we'll take the law into our own hands and pronounce guilt as a mob!). That's obviously not a solution either.

      Even just AN idea would be nice. What is ONE change we could make to our court system - a system that has been slowly evolving and changing over 1000 years, and is MEANT to be improved when found flawed - that would improve it from the status quo? Just one idea - not a full solution, but *something* of actual substance.

      Delete
    7. 13f. Not everyone has to ability to come up with an "idea." However, they do have the right to call out something they feel is wrong and broken. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that unless people actually come up with a fix ("something of substance"), what they're saying is a "whole bunch of nothing."

      NO! Just NO! What's going on in the U.S. right now (just as an example), is proof positive about why people need to speak up about injustices-even if they don't have answers as to how to fix them. These people are calling out the many shades of White Supremacy and the damages it's causing in their lives, and all I'm seeing is a shocking number of people calling "reverse racism" and "thug" and "get a real job" and on and on and on.

      We need to call out this crap, to make people aware of what's going on, because far to many people have gotten comfortable with the status quo at the expense of our fellow citizens.

      Delete
  14. We'll each decide what we believe happened, what we'll say about it, and what we'll do. Or we'll decide who to believe or not care at all. Many would defend the system that has for years gagged women from reporting violence, sexual assault and harassment. Some will speak to defend their own interest. If they feel unsafe for themselves or women they care about. Others will want what is effectively their freedom to touch women against their will to not be infringed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Canadian justice system still works more often than it falls flat.

      Obviously it's not a *perfect* system - you still get occasional guilty people who, for various reasons, slip through the cracks. Even worse, you get the occasional innocent person who gets convicted and spends 10-15 years in prison before new evidence surfaces that exonerates them. It's a real shame.

      But the occasional failure of the system doesn't justify the rest of society acting outside of the system. The moment you do, you're just as bad as the people who DO go to prison, disrespecting the laws and structures that hold us together as a society. And your cause subsequently loses the sympathy of the masses.

      Delete
    2. I'll speak out. I abhor the way UW keeps trying to sweep the Counselling Services fiasco under the rug. Their weak, wrong-headed responses make it worse.

      Delete
    3. 14a, Dr Morgan had specific concerns for women's safety at Counseling Services. I share the concerns she bravely voiced. I doubt your numbers reduce those risks.

      Delete
    4. 14c it's all well and good that you share those concerns. The Tribunal did not, and their reasoning for that decision was clearly stated in their ruling, alongside the evidence provided.

      I'll go out on a limb here and trust the qualified and legally empowered disciplinary body over the opinion of some random anonymous on the internet. Sorry if that seems nutty.

      Delete
    5. I trust Dr Tracy Morgan who stepped forward without anonymity, yes bravely, and alone. I don't share your trust in the legally empowered.

      Delete
    6. A rare employee who should be commended.

      Delete
    7. If there were more like her I'd trust this place 100x more.

      Delete
  15. Your trust is not shared. Processes failed to resolve issues in Counselling Services. Wrong decisions don't alleviate concerns. Rationalizations and excuses don't make us stop knowing what's happening in Counselling Services. Dr Morgan was finally silenced but we are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 15, explain how the issues weren't resolved? The money was paid out, the ruling was archived publicly, and everybody went back to work. There have been no additional issues.

      That sounds pretty resolved to me. Don't create drama where there is none.

      Delete
    2. I never got how giving money to one of the victims and not changing anything else was supposed to end women's safety risks in that department.

      Delete
    3. 15b, it was intended as "compensation for the complainants hurt feelings and damaged dignity." She WAS asking for $20000. She got $7500, because the tribunal found most of her claims to be overblown or frivolous.

      Bear in mind that this is still all under CIVIL law, which just weighs the BALANCE of evidence in making its decision. The standard of proof the complainant needs to bring forward here is MUCH lower than in a CRIMINAL trial, where the proof must be convincing "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt." It's comparatively easy to win a civil case, and the evidence at hand was so non-compelling that she couldn't even do that.

      If this guy constituted a safety risk, or if this behaviour was the result of overarching issues within the university or the department, the evidence would have suggested as much, and the members of the tribunal (who aren't idiots) would have at least used their power to compel the university to dismiss the respondent or require policy/oversight changes.

      Let's not blow this out of proportion. This isn't some predator who's coming into his female colleagues' offices and groping them. This is a guy who had too much to drink and got a little handsy, spooking his female colleague in the process. Is it appropriate? No! In fact, it's so inappropriate he had to pay out thousands of dollars in compensation. Does it make him a dangerous individual who should be fired from his position and tarred for the rest of his working life? Hell, no it doesn't, and I don't want to live in a world where it does.

      Delete
    4. Didn't he molest another Counseling Services staff member too?

      Delete
    5. There is no evidence to support that claim, 15d.

      Delete
    6. How do you know?

      Delete
    7. 15f, correction: there is no evidence to support that claim that is accessible to the general public. As such, speculation of this nature is nothing more than hearsay.

      Delete
    8. Going from bad to worse. This Jian Ghomeshi OMG is a fitting place for this talk.

      Delete
    9. 15h, yes, making things up certainly is going from bad to worse. Witch hunting is never the answer.

      There is no evidence to suggest that this guy ever did more than behave somewhat inappropriately at a work function after having more drinks than he should have, once. Let's not look for signs in places they just don't exist, eh?

      If new evidence comes to light and the police see a reason to press charges, I'll be the first to eat my words on this. But I don't like demonizing people, especially when there's a strong chance they aren't actually demons.

      Delete
    10. There are no appropriate times, places or circumstances for acting inappropriately. Stop making excuses and burn the witch.

      Delete