Jump to content
Stecyk

NYC Ballet considers social media guidelines

Recommended Posts

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

There have been some recent issues, which I will get to in a moment, that reminded of this thread. I recall this thread being quite lively.

 

Before going further, those that recall this thread will remember that Helene and I seemed to take opposite sides. In reality, I believe our moral and ethical compasses are strikingly aligned. We might disagree on this particular "Ghomeshi" case; however, we both abhor violence and ill treatment of others. So with that, let's continue on with the new comments.

 

I'd like to draw your attention to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article by Neil Macdonald "You don't like the Ghomeshi verdict, fine, but don't take it out on the judge."

 

Quote
"Each complainant," he concluded, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion."
 
Referring to a witness whose excuse was that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkin aridly replied that " 'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
 
The lies destroyed the value of the complainants' evidence, he said, and created reasonable doubt. And that was that.
 
The list of falsehoods, many of them under oath, have been repeated endlessly in earlier accounts of the trial; they may be titillating, but they aren't worth repeating here.
 
What matters is that they were told, and, as Horkins put it, "The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth."

 

The CBC and Neil Macdonald have solid reputations in Canada for fair reporting. Please go to the above article and read the CBC's instructions starting with: "'There are those who disagree strenuously with the outcome of this trial.'" Had the judge shown bias, I am confident that Madonald would have voiced his opinions, loudly and clearly. If you haven't done so earlier in this thread, please read the actual court decision (pdf link).

 

Next, I encourage you to view an interview with Ghomeshi's lawyer found here at the CBC: "Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer, denies she has betrayed women."

 

Next, we note that Ghomeshi's second trial did not go forward. Please see CBC article: "Jian Ghomeshi to avoid 2nd sex assault trial by signing peace bond, source says."

 

When I was watched the US presidential election process and watched the women who came forward against one of the candidates, I thought back to the Ghomeshi situation. In the US, the women were visible and accountable. In the Ghomeshi situation, the women could remain anonymous unless they chose to become public. I am not advocating that one is right or better. It's just an interesting observation.

 

I also find it interesting that Ghomeshi who has not been convicted of any crime and who, to my knowledge, received no assistance from his union is not allowed to sue his former employer.

 

So what brought me back to this topic? This past week a judge in Calgary resigned. Please see CBC "Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal" and New York Times "Robin Camp, Canadian Judge, Resigns Over Handling of Rape Trial." The reason for highlighting this development is that we do go after judges who mishandle trials. That's not to say that every judgement is correct, but it does indicate that Canadians will not tolerate a judge who shows extreme bias. The Ghomeshi trial was a high profile court case. Had the judge shown similar bias, the furor would never have died down. In reality, after a couple of days when most had an opportunity to read the court decision, people moved on.

 

Edited by Stecyk

Share this post


Link to post

There was a recent discussion about Misty Copeland with regard to Kevin Plank's comments as CEO of Under Amour. Today I came across an article from Harvard Business Review that discusses how companies should handle situations where an employee or spokesperson speaks out. I believe readers are allowed five free HBR articles per month.

 

Quote

Last month three of Under Armour’s celebrity endorsers — Stephen Curry, Misty Copeland, and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson — publicly criticized the company’s CEO, Kevin Plank, for making a favorable statement about President Trump. This was an unusual PR challenge. Normally, executives worry about their endorsers behaving in ways that reflect poorly on their companies, such as getting in trouble with the law. They don’t expect to be reprimanded by the very people they’re paying to market their products.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stecyk said:

There was a recent discussion about Misty Copeland with regard to Kevin Plank's comments as CEO of Under Amour. Today I came across an article from Harvard Business Review that discusses how companies should handle situations where an employee or spokesperson speaks out. I believe readers are allowed five free HBR articles per month.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.  Copeland is speaking here next week, on an alumni series at the local university, so it's not the standard dance audience.  Hoping that she'll talk about this situation.

Share this post


Link to post

@sandik I would expect Copeland to avoid specific discussions with Under Amour and focus more on her talking points. Plank has provided more commentary to the effect that while he supports a pro-business approach, he will oppose those measures that are harmful to the company's core principles as suggested in this Esquire article "Under Armour's CEO Pens an Open Letter to Clarify His Pro-Trump Comments."

 

Quote

Plank also asserts that, "we believe that immigration is a source of strength, diversity, and innovation for global companies based in America like Under Armour." As far as setting the record straight on whether Under Armour is a pro-Trump company, this seems pretty clear cut. Plank is essentially saying that the brand is not pro-Trump, but pro-business, pro-equal rights, and pro-immigration. Where Trump succeeds in that regard, it will support him. And where he fails, it will oppose him.

 

Here's a link to the Baltimore Sun article "Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank responds to Trump tempest with letter to Baltimore."

 

Quote

"We are always mindful of the responsibility that we have to those who choose our brand, especially the young people who represent the bold and bright future of a diverse and inclusive America..." Plank said. "In a time of division, we aspire to be a force of unity, growth and optimism for our city and our country."

 

I expect that Plank and the company's spokespeople have had in-depth conversations as their beliefs and values. I am confident that they understand and respect each others' positions. So comments now are likely to be forward looking in that they speak to core values as opposed to past statements.

 

By way of disclosure, I should mention that I am a long-time shareholder of Under Armour. These past few months have not been pleasant--not only for Under Armour but also for most retail and apparel equities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Stecyk said:

@sandik I would expect Copeland to avoid specific discussions with Under Amour and focus more on her talking points. Plank has provided more commentary to the effect that while he supports a pro-business approach, he will oppose those measures that are harmful to the company's core principles as suggested in this Esquire article "Under Armour's CEO Pens an Open Letter to Clarify His Pro-Trump Comments."

...

 

I'm sure you're right -- I have a feeling she'll stick to her foundational story, but since it's not a dance-specific audience, there might be room for a non-technique question...

Share this post


Link to post

I just wandered into this topic thinking it was about NYCB social media guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Olga said:

I just wandered into this topic thinking it was about NYCB social media guidelines.

 

“I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.”
― Mae West

 

If you start at the beginning, you'll see some comments regarding NYCB social media. From your comment, you seem displeased that we drifted off topic. Just start at the beginning and stop when you lose interest. :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Stecyk said:

 

“I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.”
― Mae West

 

If you start at the beginning, you'll see some comments regarding NYCB social media. From your comment, you seem displeased that we drifted off topic. Just start at the beginning and stop when you lose interest. :)

 

 

 

Well I was confused because I got

on in the middle of the long discussion about a lawsuit (still don't know

who was involved) and then it drifted to Misty. Kind of funny, like the Mae West comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×