Stecyk

NYC Ballet considers social media guidelines

85 posts in this topic

The state felt it had a case, and they brought him to trial. Having to defend oneself is what would have happened to anyone charged.

I agree with your comments. It's interesting, though, that the state's case fell alert on the credibility of the witnssses. The judge found that they lacked credibility. Yet, there are no direct repercussions. Put differently, the asymmetry in consequences is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I'm sure his accusers are sharing martinis and have walked away unscathed.

The asymmetry of gender and influence is also interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I'm sure his accusers are sharing martinis and have walked away unscathed.

The asymmetry of gender and influence is also interesting.

Your first comment is comical, though somewhat unexpected. Please remember, I didn't indicate sympathy for either party. And, one must admit, some of their discussions and actions do raise questions and doubts. Still, it seems odd that one can level serious allegations without repercussions. That's the point I was driving at.

Most are quick to rush to judgement. One just hopes that he or she is never on the receiving end.

One should remember, too, that Ghomeshi was declared not guilty. He was not, however, declared innocent. There's a difference.

Now, as to your second point, I am not sure what you are driving at. Is a broad societal remark, or is it confined to this court proceeding?

Share this post


Link to post

No repercussions in revisiting a traumatic experience and being scrutinized by the state? The state might not have gotten the results it wanted, but they would not have brought it to trial by blindly accepting the women's description of humiliation.

Trials are to determine guilty or not guilty, never to determine innocence. As far as being quick to judge, I'm willing to believe he is as guilty or not guilty as, let's say, Bill Cosby as far as consent is concerned.

The trial took place in context, so that my comment was in regard to both.

Share this post


Link to post

No repercussions in revisiting a traumatic experience and being scrutinized by the state? The state might not have gotten the results it wanted, but they would not have brought it to trial by blindly accepting the women's description of humiliation.

Trials are to determine guilty or not guilty, never to determine innocence. As far as being quick to judge, I'm willing to believe he is as guilty or not guilty as, let's say, Bill Cosby as far as consent is concerned.

The trial took place in context, so that my comment was in regard to both.

Helene, you're cracking me up. I am surprised you didn't mention OJ Simpson--you have a good sense of humor.

You're right, though, that the state felt it had a good case. It's too bad that it learned more facts at trial. Those should have been discovered prior to trial.

Did you read the court's decision? Or, perhaps, watch the CBC discussion last evening? I found the broadcast balanced. They interviewed the women. And, they also interviewed a former cop now working for his own security agency. He discussed that it is often difficult to draw out all the information from the complainants in these types of cases. You have to take them at their word. As discovered by the defense, there was more to complete the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that's what our system of justice relies upon, especially when the case boils down to "she said, he said."

Share this post


Link to post

For those reading this thread, I urge you to read the court filing: Ontario Court of Justice - Between Her Majesty the Queen and Jian Ghomeshi (pdf). In case this link no longer works: Date: 2016.03.24 and the Court File No.: Toronto 4817 998 15-75006437.

Exercise your own independent judgement to reach your own conclusions. I believe this judge provided a well-written explanation of his findings. He knew that this case is high profile and would be subject to much scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post

From the judge's decision:

As I have stated more than once, the courts must be very cautious in assessing the evidence of complainants in sexual assault and abuse cases. Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants. I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this — 24 — trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.

By stating that "the twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this" I think he shows he has far from "a firm understanding of the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship." If he had simply said, "I understand the dynamics of the situation, but in this case, the behavior of a victim and an opportunist was indistinguishable, and the rule of law is, I can't rule him guilty with reasonable doubt, and I won't" I would have respected his decision, which was predictable in any case.

I don't know of research done for men in the same circumstances, but, especially in very closed social and professional groups, which Canadian entertainment is, women have been trained to question their reality of sexual situations, given the consequences of coming forward and bringing charges, which would have been unthinkable in the early 00's, especially against a "nice guy" with high connections in the entertainment world working for state television and huge support from both management, representatives of the state, and his union. With a climate shifting slightly to the better, they might have had a fighting chance if he had attacked them today, but reconstructing what happened over a dozen years of suppression and rationalization was a non-starter.

And if you still think that being identified in a court decision and deemed unreliable is of no consequence, and only he has suffered in any way, I don't know what to say in response.

Share this post


Link to post

From the judge's decision:

By stating that "the twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this" I think he shows he has far from "a firm understanding of the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship." If he had simply said, "I understand the dynamics of the situation, but in this case, the behavior of a victim and an opportunist was indistinguishable, and the rule of law is, I can't rule him guilty with reasonable doubt, and I won't" I would have respected his decision, which was predictable in any case.

I don't know of research done for men in the same circumstances, but, especially in very closed social and professional groups, which Canadian entertainment is, women have been trained to question their reality of sexual situations, given the consequences of coming forward and bringing charges, which would have been unthinkable in the early 00's, especially against a "nice guy" with high connections in the entertainment world working for state television and huge support from both management, representatives of the state, and his union. With a climate shifting slightly to the better, they might have had a fighting chance if he had attacked them today, but reconstructing what happened over a dozen years of suppression and rationalization was a non-starter.

And if you still think that being identified in a court decision and deemed unreliable is of no consequence, and only he has suffered in any way, I don't know what to say in response.

At least now you've read the court decision, though I am puzzled by your earlier comments where you wrote with such force and conviction.

I am surprised by your comment, "I think he shows he has far from 'a firm understanding of the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship.'" I can't help but wonder if you are qualified to judge a judge's reasonableness of understanding. And, then you conclude that paragraph by writing, "...which was predictable in any case." I have no clue what you meant by that, though it doesn't matter.

While I could go through the court decision and pick point by point to state my position, we both know that would be a useless endeavor, for neither of us will convince the other. Instead, I urge others to read the court decision for themselves to reach their own conclusions.

I will, however, write a few words. Like many, I thought it was "game over" for Ghomeshi when the story first broke and his public relations firm dropped him after more women came forward. Then, when I learned of his acquittal of all charges, my closed mind opened. Why and how did the court arrive at its decision?

I read a few online articles and watched the CBC segment on the decision. Some of the comments made by the ex-cop in the CBC segment helped me to understand how the situation arose. He indicated that when a sexual assault victim comes forward to lodge a complaint, the police and the Crown trust that individual. They don't interrogate the individual nor do they go through the individual's hard drive, for that would only worsen the already dismal number victims coming forward. I agree with that position, because as a society we want justice to prevail and thus need victims to come forward. After the CBC broadcast, I read the court decision.

One of the issues I have, however, is that complainants must under oath provide to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not a selective version of the truth. In a similar vein, the judge showed his dislike of the possible collusion where approximately 5,000 messages were exchanged.

As your summary comment, you wrote, "And if you still think that being identified in a court decision and deemed unreliable is of no consequence, and only he has suffered in any way, I don't know what to say in response." One complainant deliberately chose to reveal her identity at the very start of the "Ghomeshi Scandal," while the other two complainants are completely anonymous. I trust you read the court decision carefully, so I am perplexed as to how two anonymous complainants (indeed, it's against our laws to reveal their identities--see the preamble to the court decision) are identified.

Our discussion, Helene, is unfortunate. As our discussions progressed, we each stated our positions with fervor. I suspect we each felt frustration with other's lack of understanding and empathy. And our discussion devolved from there. That's unfortunate because we agree on so much more than we disagree. So in an effort to repair some of the damage, please allow me to state where I believe we do agree.

Earlier you wrote, "The asymmetry of gender and influence is also interesting." I am positive we both agree that your statement could be expanded to include race, skin color, and sexual orientation, among others. I suspect we both believe people's influence should rise with their character and their ability to contribute. If we had a more diverse group of people who influence our societies, I believe there would be more opportunities for everyone. Unfortunately we are not there yet. Without veering off into politics, one need only look at the current political environment to see how much room there is to grow.

I get the impression from our discussion that sexual assault is a hot-button issue for you. Every reasonable person is against domestic and sexual violence regardless whether the victim is male or female. As we know, overwhelmingly most victims are female.

A friend of mine is a retired Crown prosecutor. She indicated that if she were victimized, she would not go to the police because of the hell victims go through. Given her knowledge and prior position, that's a strong and unfortunate statement. While I don't know what the proper steps should be, obviously we have more work to do.

I am positive we both believe in fairness, honesty, and justice.

So with that, I hope we have reached some common points of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

"Hot-button issue" is often a way to dismiss someone's argument as irrational. I hope it wasn't your intention in my case.

Share this post


Link to post

"Hot-button issue" is often a way to dismiss someone's argument as irrational. I hope it wasn't your intention in my case.

No, that certainly wasn't my intent. My apologies for phrasing my thought in a manner that could be misinterpreted. I hope my next statement doesn't put my foot further in my mouth. I meant that this is an issue that you're passionate about.

As I was having lunch, I realized that I forgot to mention our shared interest in ballet, the reason why we here. We have that in common, too.

Again, sorry for the clumsy and unfortunate wording.

Share this post


Link to post