Ghomeshigate

Roomie said:
One of mine really deserved it I just never got around to it before I traded her in *shrugs*
Click to expand...

If we're talking figuratively then I run into people daily that are begging to be choked...... But in this case I meant literally.
Slim Jim said:
If you did, you would of left yourself open for a possible assault charge, just as Ghomeshi has done now.
Click to expand...
Oh ok... Well in that case I didn't do it. :angel5:
 
Sativa Quemador said:
he showed CBC a video of him not raping or assaulting anyone. why would anyone show a video of a rape or assault in progress.

unless......... do you think the video shows the woman/women asking him to keep going ? lol


im still going with what i think... these ladies wanted to try their own 50 shades and found out 40 of those shades were too dark.. hehe


lets see some evidence that he broke a law, why should your employer care what you do in your bedroom.

if he was a crossdresser would he have been fired ?
Click to expand...
He showed a video of him beating a woman, whether she wanted or not, it's assault.
 
Slim Jim said:
He showed a video of him beating a woman, whether she wanted or not, it's assault.
Click to expand...

Ever considered that what goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults shouldn't really be any of the government's business?
 
Last edited:
Where those 2 consenting adults are breaking the law, no they shouldn't stay out of it. What if one of those adults die from the beating, I guess that's ok too.
 
Even if some of the ladies consented to it, I'm sure not all of them did. Not all of them went back a second time.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
ooops. didnt see that
more he said/she said. lets see the school document that was handed out to students.
you'd think there MUST be a copy of that somewhere. the school should have it
Click to expand...
Documentation doesn't really matter since their decision to blacklist Q as an internship isn't incriminating on its own. It's just a prudent step for an organisation to take to protect themselves if they've heard allegations of abuse, regardless of whether they were true or not.

It does however add credence to these latest allegations.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
he showed CBC a video of him not raping or assaulting anyone. why would anyone show a video of a rape or assault in progress.

unless......... do you think the video shows the woman/women asking him to keep going ? lol


im still going with what i think... these ladies wanted to try their own 50 shades and found out 40 of those shades were too dark.. hehe


lets see some evidence that he broke a law, why should your employer care what you do in your bedroom.

if he was a crossdresser would he have been fired ?
Click to expand...
My guess is Jian DID show a video of him beating a woman, which means he'd have to be deluded about what assault consists of. It's consistent with reports that after his assaults he would return to his usual self as if everything he had just done was perfectly normal, and his determined defense of his actions now, and the fact that his PR companies dumped him.

I'm not saying that to belittle him, I think delusion is a pretty common mental illness that many people need help for. It certainly makes more sense to me than to claim that a bunch of women decided to publicly avow their regretful decision to get beaten up by him!
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
Documentation doesn't really matter since their decision to blacklist Q as an internship isn't incriminating on its own. It's just a prudent step for an organisation to take to protect themselves if they've heard allegations of abuse, regardless of whether they were true or not.

It does however add credence to these latest allegations.
Click to expand...

Documentation really matters since their decision to blacklist Q as an internship is incriminating on its own. I think you're confusing public court of opinion with court of law.
 
inreb said:
Documentation really matters since their decision to blacklist Q as an internship is incriminating on its own. I think you're confusing public court of opinion with court of law.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason for the black listing was that the interns, rather than being given any of the sort of broadcasting experience that they were nominally there for, were detailed to menial jobs like fetch & carry, and getting coffee. That's a pretty normal reason.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...warned_away_from_q_internships_professor.html
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
Part of the reason for the black listing was that the interns, rather than being given any of the sort of broadcasting experience that they were nominally there for, were detailed to menial jobs like fetch & carry, and getting coffee. That's a pretty normal reason.
Click to expand...

That and any other parts of the reason would, hopefully, be spelled out in any documentation.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
why should your employer care what you do in your bedroom.
Click to expand...

This isn't even up for debate it has long been established that if you are the public face of a brand and they don't want your personal actions to be associated with them they can and are entitled to fire you. This isn't even up for question its what happens and always happens. Its exactly why many public faces have morality clauses in contracts because their personal behaviour can and will effect the company and their public perception.

Look at all those who fired Tiger Woods off their roster and what he did isn't even as serious as what has ben alleged against JG. The court of public opinion is all that is needed here and rightfully so as the public are the consumers of these brands.
 
By the way, for the record I don't condone nor enjoy inflicting violence against women but I do get off pleasing my partner in the sack and that means different things to different people.

With that said it certainly doesn't sound like those women enjoyed it but my point is that "because no one enjoys that" is not a valid argument.
 
So is the real question where is the line drawn between terrible BDSM and sexual assault?
 
TwistedKestrel said:
So is the real question where is the line drawn between terrible BDSM and sexual assault?
Click to expand...

With the BDSM community that would be Pre-discused consent to any and all activities performed and an understanding of safety words if you want to stop.
The law in Canada says that any act that could leave lasting marks or bruising cant be considered ever as a consensual activity its kinda a poorly worded law and has worries the BDSM community and a few other extreme sex fetishists but so far hasnt been used to prosecute anyone belonging to a club or who attended any events. After all thats not its purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom