the saga of Jian Ghomeshi

[overedge]

Oh, boy:
http://business.financialpost.com/2...ip-he-had-to-play-in-his-defence-lawyer-says/

Howard Levitt is a good lawyer, but he generally acts on the management side of labour disputes. I think he is not clearly describing the union's obligation toward Ghomeshi.

In the grievance, Ghomeshi would likely be alleging that the CBC did not follow due process in firing him, and/or did not have just cause for doing so. The union's job would be to decide whether there is enough evidence to prove whatever wrongdoing Ghomeshi is alleging before deciding whether to support him in pursuing the grievance - and once he files the grievance, it's the union's job to take it forward, not Ghomeshi's (although he would certainly be involved as the complainant in any investigation/hearing).

The union could decide not to pursue the grievance because they didn't think there was enough evidence to prove that Ghomeshi was treated unfairly by CBC management, or that the grievance wasn't winnable. Then Ghomeshi's complaint to the Canada Labour Relations Board would be about the union's process in making that decision, and whether it was fair (judged by whether it was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, as Levitt mentions). The complaint wouldn't be about whether the union thinks Ghomeshi is "toxic" or about whether the union's principles go against what Ghomeshi did. It's about whether the union handled his grievance fairly.

FWIW, there are some of these types of cases ("duty of fair representation" complaints) where the union members have done some really bad or awful things that led to management disciplining them. But the union members have won the complaint against the union because the union didn't handle their grievance appropriately. Levitt is right, though, in that the success rate for duty of fair representation complaints is very low.

 

[kwanfan1818]

The complaint wouldn't be about whether the union thinks Ghomeshi is "toxic" or about whether the union's principles go against what Ghomeshi did. It's about whether the union handled his grievance fairly.

I thought that was Levitt's point when he wrote, "Its only obligation is to not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith against him."

Levitt says that if he were representing Ghomeshi, he'd go the whole "I am a sinner" route -- which would play in America, not sure about Canada -- and make out as if CBC fired him when he was disabled, without giving him a chance to recover. Again, that would be an American strategy that would work in many places.

 

[overedge]

Arbitrary would be e.g. if the union declined to pursue the grievance without adequately investigating how the firing happened. Discriminatory would be e.g. if the union refused to pursue the grievance because Ghomeshi is of Iranian heritage. In bad faith would be e.g. if the union dropped the grievance without telling Ghomeshi, or didn't answer his emails.

It's not about whether the union agrees with the CBC that Ghomeshi did really awful things to women. It's about whether the union treated him fairly when he filed the grievance in which they were obliged to represent him.

 

[overedge]

Forgot to add that "disability" would usually be defined as physical or mental disability, and if the employer has been made aware of the disability and asked to accommodate it at work, they are expected to do so. Apparently CBC was aware that Ghomeshi had some disorders involving anxiety and had accommodated that. I think it would be very difficult to argue that liking rough sex and hitting women (even if he thought they had consented) is a disability that an employer needs to accommodate in the workplace.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Would it be arbitrary if they had a pattern of not investigating, regardless of who it was? Unless they were silly enough to put it in writing or say it out loud -- which, of course, could happen -- I'm not sure how anyone could prove that they were being discriminatory, unless there is a pattern of brushing aside grievances from union members of Irani heritage. Bad faith would be more easily proven, if it had, because either the union had proof of notification or that they answered emails.

Levitt has asked whether the union is obligated to represent him if he has harmed other union members.

ETA: If he argued that hitting women or rough sex or hitting on them in the workplace was a symptom of sex addiction, that could work as a disability in the US. If CBC could fire him because of hitting women or rough sex against women's will due to him being obligated to be upstanding in some sense, then it seems that he should be able to claim that a disability prevented him from behaving in the contracted manner.

 

[overedge]

Someone making a duty of fair representation complaint doesn't have to prove a pattern of the union acting a certain way in other cases. That would be really difficult for the complainant to prove, because he or she doesn't know how or why the union made its decisions on managing other grievances.

Ghomeshi hasn't suggested that he has a sex addiction AFAIK, and that doesn't seem to have been part of the CBC's decision. But even if he did have that kind of addiction it would be pretty hard to argue that it should be accommodated by his employer so he could do his job. The only thing I can think of would be e.g. if he wanted time off for treatment and they refused his request.

 

[LilJen]

Ghomeshi was two years ahead of me at York University. When I was in my 2nd year, he was student president (can't remember the exact title). I was introduced to him once at a student gathering and stuck by his charisma. (Margaret Wente writes about his charisma in today's Globe.) He had an amazing ease with people and wonderful ability to remember names. After that brief meeting, there was no doubt in my mind that someday he would be famous. At the time, I thought that he would end up in politics (he was a political science major). Moxy Früvous was the next time that I heard about him. I thought that they were a very poor version of the Bare Naked Ladies and wondered why he didn't go into politics.

I really enjoyed Ghomeshi time as the summer guess host of the CBC's Sounds Like Canada. That show made me laugh and I needed to laugh that summer. He was quite hilarious in chronically his attempt to read James Joyces' Ulysses over the summer. I listened to Q from time to time, but did not become a huge fan. I saw his bit on Tessa and Scott's show and thought, "Ick".

So, I am not writing this to give you my account of a brush with someone famous. Rather, I read the Globe and Mail's article, Behind the CBC's decision to Fire Ghomeshi this morning. (Sorry, can't link the article, I used up all my free views.) I was stuck by the fact that the CBC executives said that if Ghomeshi had been even somewhat repentant and willing to get help, they could have worked things out. He wasn't. Shame, Ghomeshi is talented and charismatic, but somewhere along the line developed a huge ego. Goes to show that there really is truth in the old saying, "Pride goes before the fall".

NO!!! This guy was in Moxy Fruvous??? My world is crumbling. . . I love that band. . .

 

[Scrufflet]

If JG were to get a job in the U.S., he;d have to admit he was wrong and go on Dr. Phil. I'd lay odds that the Dr. Phil show is looking for him. Makes one long for the simpler days of Rob Ford. Agh!
Last I heard, he (JG) was in LA. I was going to say keep him, but in fairness to my American friends, he's Canada's problem and we've got to deal with him and get it right. Oh I hope we can.

 

[mag]

If JG were to get a job in the U.S., he;d have to admit he was wrong and go on Dr. Phil. I'd lay odds that the Dr. Phil show is looking for him. Makes one long for the simpler days of Rob Ford. Agh!
Last I heard, he (JG) was in LA. I was going to say keep him, but in fairness to my American friends, he's Canada's problem and we've got to deal with him and get it right. Oh I hope we can.

I believe California's rules on consent are quite clear. Is it not the state that requires an actual "yes" for consent as opposed to the victim needing to say "no" if they don't? JG sounds terribly impulsive ... I wonder how long it will be until there is a complaint in LA?

 

[MacMadame]

I believe California's rules on consent are quite clear. Is it not the state that requires an actual "yes" for consent as opposed to the victim needing to say "no" if they don't? JG sounds terribly impulsive ... I wonder how long it will be until there is a complaint in LA?

I'm not sure if it went into effect immediately, but it's only for college campuses.

 

[vesperholly]

I am very puzzled. Because at the moment there is a parallel set of scandals going on in the atheist/humanist world where gender relations are by many accounts poisonous. And you all may be aware of the Gamergate controversies in the online gaming world.

Either we are having a moment where a lot of young-ish women who may not have previously identified as feminist just get fed up and tell the truth...or the whole "rape culture" thing is out of control and ordinary jerky behavior is being re categorized.

Tangentally, there's a similar scandal going on in a YouTube community, mostly with British male video makers. The entire thing happened on Tumblr, mostly anonymously. A lot of the complaints were very serious, but some of the accounts I read honestly sounded just guys being jerks. There's a big difference between a jerk and assault, and another big leap from assault to rape. It's like as soon as bad behavior takes place, it's the most serious, horrible thing ever, and that person is a misogynistic rapist who should just go die. Tumblr is a scary place.

Anyway, that's nothing compared to the Ghomeshi accusations.

 

[overedge]

Oh dear.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...deo---all-my-fans-make-me-sick-200938199.html

 

[mag]

Clearly his mother didn't have that chat with him about the Internet is forever so be careful what you say

 

[PeterG]

Oh dear.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/jian-ghomeshi-in-1996-video---all-my-fans-make-me-sick-200938199.html

The silly voice, the giggles, the goofy attitude, the over-the-top wording...and the laughter of other people in the room...is it possible he was joking? Hmm, tough one to figure out.

The last line of this article reads:

There’s no indication if he is serious or just hamming it up.

Wow. That writer must be the stupidest person on the planet.

 

[mag]

The silly voice, the giggles, the goofy attitude, the over-the-top wording...and the laughter of other people in the room...is it possible he was joking? Hmm, tough one to figure out.

The last line of this article reads:



Wow. That writer must be the stupidest person on the planet.

Well prior to all the allegations one might laugh it off and say he was being silly, poor taste perhaps, but still silly. The catch is that now all of these serious allegations HAVE been made and many people are not in a mood to laugh things off which is why posting stuff on the Internet that could be taken out of context later is really not a good idea. Obviously anything can be taken out of context, but this is really a bit to close to reality because it looks like he really did go ahead and some fans.

 

[MacMadame]

There is also the idea that lots of times people say mean things and then say "I'm only joking" to get away with it. He was clearly saying these things to make people laugh but was he laughing with his fans or at them? There is now this idea that Ghomeshi is That Guy. He's claimed that encounters were consensual that don't seem to be consensual so why should we take his "I'm only joking" at face value?

Or maybe he was just high.

 

[Andora]

Or maybe he was just high.

Having grown up listening to Moxy Fruvus, this is my first guess.

 

[DAngel]

ETA: If he argued that hitting women or rough sex or hitting on them in the workplace was a symptom of sex addiction, that could work as a disability in the US.

Really? Can a rapist or a pedophile claim that too?

 

[antmanb]

Clearly his mother didn't have that chat with him about the Internet is forever so be careful what you say

In 1996 maybe his mother had never heard of the internet

Well prior to all the allegations one might laugh it off and say he was being silly, poor taste perhaps, but still silly. The catch is that now all of these serious allegations HAVE been made and many people are not in a mood to laugh things off which is why posting stuff on the Internet that could be taken out of context later is really not a good idea. Obviously anything can be taken out of context, but this is really a bit to close to reality because it looks like he really did go ahead and some fans.

I doubt he posted it on the internet himself, and certainly someone being filmed being stupid (come on it's clear he's being a dick for laughs in this video) in 1996 was not expecting to post it to the internet.

The allegations against this man are serious and are looking very likely to be true. This video of him nearly 20 years ago is a total non story IMO.

 

[Scrufflet]

What strikes me about that video is how immature it is. I would expect such behaviour from an adolescent (and roll my eyes) but the guy was about 30 at the time!

 

[screech]

The silly voice, the giggles, the goofy attitude, the over-the-top wording...and the laughter of other people in the room...is it possible he was joking? Hmm, tough one to figure out.

The last line of this article reads:

That actually wasn't the last line. The article continues to say

“I just want to say, it sounds like a bit of a joke song, but it’s something that I really mean,” Ghomeshi says in the video. “I just find that there’s a lot of people – for instance at the Buffalo show tonight – in the audience who are, for lack of a better term, losers.”

The former CBC host, fired Oct. 26 over allegations of abuse, goes on to say how much he enjoys snubbing fans. “Yeah, I’m saying this with a smile, but I am serious.”

 

[PeterG]

screech, have you ever heard of Monty Python?

 

[Habs]

CBC has filed a motion with the courts to have Ghomeshi's lawsuit against them dismissed. As they should, and I'll be very surprised if it isn't dismissed.

 

[algonquin]

Ghomeshi has hired a top defense lawyer that “seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,” and able to "...find a person’s deepest frailties and exploit them.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...meshi_needs_say_justice_system_observers.html

 

[antmanb]

Ghomeshi has hired a top defense lawyer that “seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,” and able to "...find a person’s deepest frailties and exploit them.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...meshi_needs_say_justice_system_observers.html

Has he actually hired her though? Most of that article was about her and about she is the lawyer he needs, but no formal statement that she has been hired?

Have criminal charges been brought yet against Ghomeshi?

 

[Habs]

Has he actually hired her though? Most of that article was about her and about she is the lawyer he needs, but no formal statement that she has been hired?

Have criminal charges been brought yet against Ghomeshi?

As far as I know, no. But the police have opened an investigation.

 

[algonquin]

Has he actually hired her though? Most of that article was about her and about she is the lawyer he needs, but no formal statement that she has been hired?

Linked the wrong article - http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...fended_exattorney_general_michael_bryant.html

 

[overedge]

There's a mention in this article of him being "aligned" with Tessa and other "high-profile women" (the mention is about one-third of the way through the article):
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-how-he-got-away-with-it/

Were they at other events together - other than the one that was shown in the documentary?

 

[Habs]

Jian Ghomeshi has dropped his lawsuit against the CBC and has to pay their legal costs of $18,000.

He's also been formally charged and will appear in court this afternoon.

 

[Really]

Good.