[Thanos]

The CBC case is more solid because it involves abuse of a staffer. And apparently the CBC has photographs of the person with bruises too. Ghomeshi's slam dunk in criminal court won't be repeated elsewhere. He'll be stuck with blogging for a living when all the dust settles down.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Simpler solution, Bart: get a video camera. Then you have hard evidence (sorry, bad pun) of consent.

That's a double-edged sword.

Sure, you'll clear yourself of the initial accusation but then the hyenas will circle around and attack you for making the video.

[andyt]

Not guilty just means that there was insufficient proof of guilt, not that the person is innocent, ie proven not to have committed the crime. No one is ever found innocent in English speaking countries.

He dropped the suit against CBC, so he's very unlikely to revive it now. And there's no one else he could sue, unless some of the victims made statements that were libellous or slanderous.

[Freakinoldguy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If the CBC did indeed fire Jian because they didn't like that he liked to have "rough sex" that's going to be a problem for them.

I'm guessing his contract probably had a morals clause in it somewhere that his aberrant behaviour likely crossed. So, he might just have a tough time getting compensation or his job back from CBC.

If not, alot of the millions in new funding Trudeau gave to his parties propaganda wing will be going right out the back door to Gomeshi and his lawyer.

[BRAH]

Jian Ghomeshi could still be found guilty in a civil trial.

[Thanos]

Does Canada even have civil trials for this kind of thing?

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Does Canada even have civil trials for this kind of thing?

Um, yes.

[BRAH]

Thanos Thanos:

Does Canada even have civil trials for this kind of thing?

They have civil trials for hurt feelings on Twitter so one would assume they would have civil trials for this.

[Thanos]

On what grounds, considering that there's a glaring absence of any proof of the kind of physical damage to any of the complainants that has left them crippled for life? This is no where near as open-shut as a roofing company not bothering to make sure the ladders were safe for the employees to lose. Ghomeshi's a thoroughgoing twat but it's not like he was mailing out obscene death threats or burnt a cross on someone's front lawn and left them emotionally scarred and unable to leave the house ever again.

[Thanos]

BRAH BRAH:

Thanos Thanos:

Does Canada even have civil trials for this kind of thing?

They have civil trials for hurt feelings on Twitter so one would assume they would have civil trials for this.

That's what made the meltdown on Jezebel most amusing today. Sorry, your tears and boo-boos are not proof enough that the icky man broke the law, especially not when you meet up with him again weeks later to give him a handjob in the park.

[peck420]

BRAH BRAH:

Jian Ghomeshi could still be found guilty in a civil trial.

You can't be found 'guilty' in a civil trial.

In Canadian law, guilt (guilty vs not guilty) only pertains to criminal cases. Civil cases end with the presiding judge ruling in favour, or not in favour, of the party initiating the dispute.

I'm sure this has some legal linguistic significance somewhere.

[OnTheIce]

BRAH BRAH:

Jian Ghomeshi could still be found guilty in a civil trial.

Neither of the women would have the resources or the credibility to pursue a civil trial nor can one be found 'guilty' in a civil trial.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

He showed them a sex video he had on his phone. If your boss finds out you have kinky sex at home, you're ok with being terminated because of it?

Yup. Not for the possession of the video nor for committing the acts it may display, but for thinking that I could show it to my boss (or anyone else, for that matter) and still be considered a professional.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Wrong. In the eyes of the criminal justice system, he's not guilty.

Which makes him innocent. You need to look up the definition of innocent.

I'll say this a third time in the hope that three is enough remediation for you to get it clear in your head: "innocent" is not the same as "not guilty". "Innocent" means he didn't do what he was accused of. Innocence is an objective fact. "Not guilty" means it was not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that did it. Ghomeshi is not innocent.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

nor can one be found 'guilty' in a civil trial.

Correct. Similarly, one cannot be found "innocent" in a criminal trial.

OTI OTI:

You have enough idiotic statements you've written all by yourself. Perhaps you should be more worried about those than a misquote.

Maybe, but not on this thread.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Maybe, but not on this thread.

Yep.

$1:

I'll say this a third time in the hope that three is enough remediation for you to get it clear in your head: "innocent" is not the same as "not guilty". "Innocent" means he didn't do what he was accused of. Innocence is an objective fact. "Not guilty" means it was not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that did it. Ghomeshi is not innocent.

Courts don't prove people innocent.

There is no evidence he did any of these alleged acts to the accusers. There are no charges. No convictions.

Innocent:

in·no·cent
adjective
1.
not guilty of a crime or offense.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Innocent:

in·no·cent
adjective
1.
not guilty of a crime or offense.

Yes, but the courts don't use the term innocent, he is not found innocent but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the say as saying he didn't commit the crime - we don't know.

$1:

Horkins added that while the evidence in the case raises a reasonable doubt, it "is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened."

The judge certainly didn't find him innocent.