The news hasn't stopped. Jian Ghomeshi, a famed Canadian radio personality likes his sex rough. He likes it rough and he chooses partners who like it rough too, per him. Those are his words, not mine. (Not his exact words but you get the gist of it).
Jian Ghomeshi is a practiser/practitioner of BDSM. I am not sure how you say that properly so forgive me any "practisers" that read this. BDSM stands for bondage, dominance, sadism, and masochism. Ghomeshi told the world he practised this in a Facebook status update last week. In this statement he mentions always having consensual partners. He said that issues arose forcing him to disclose his personal preferences because of a scorned ex girlfriend. And finally, he states that he was asked for evidence of consent by his employer, the CBC (the "Canadian Broadcasting Company"). Apparently another news company had information about several women complaining that there was no consent in their violent interactions, some of which were violent sexual interactions, with Ghomeshi. Ghomeshi made his statement on Facebook to the world immediately prior to an announcement by the CBC that Ghomeshi was terminated. Mr. Ghomeshi then filed a 50 million dollar breach of trust suit against the CBC. CBC countered with a statement of their facts for termination. Since all that back and forth, which streamed for days on everyone's TV and computer, 9 women have come forward to claim that they had violent non-consensual interactions with Ghomeshi. To reiterate, they claim there was NO consent.
From what I can gather BDSM is very much about power. One party wants it, one party gives it up. They consent to what they will do role playing out these power positions. The two parties agree in advance to what they will do, what they will NOT do, and a safety word to end the power play altogether. And sexual gratification plays a very big part in this. I say that it plays a part in it, because in many cases, there is no sex. Sometimes it's about BDSM alone, not the sexual activity that can sometimes go with it. In some cases it is about violent activities such as whipping, hitting, choking for example, and there is no sex involved.
As I said earlier, 9 women have come forward, in the news, to say they were harmed by Ghomeshi and they did not consent to being harmed. Many people are asking why these women didn't come forward at the time, and to the police for that matter. Every day women are harmed by their partners and they do nothing about it. I am sure there isn't one person who will read this that doesn't "know a girl who knows a girl", who stayed in an abusive relationship long past the first hit. In many cases these women feel they somehow deserved it, that they did something to provoke it, and they are embarrassed it happened to them. They find themselves asking, "How could it have happened to me? How did I become "that" woman? Maybe if I just go along with this it will stop?" Then factor in that Ghomeshi was somewhat famous and the women become even more scared and intimidated, embarrassed, and unsure. Maybe they somehow led him on? Would the police even listen to them? What would they have to reveal about themselves to win something like this against a man with fame and money? We've all seen CSI and Law and Order. It's not easy being the victim and without even being one we know that already.
When this first came out I thought Ghomeshi was the victim. I thought the big bad corporation had wronged him. I started to write about that. I pulled it from my blog and Facebook because I stopped, just for one second, and thought about the supposed "scorned ex girlfriend" and wondered if she had been physically harmed. If that was the case then was I ever gonna feel like shit siding with Ghomeshi as the victim of this wrongful dismissal. Don't get me wrong, I don't think an employer has the right to fire you for your personal life....unless that personal life is criminal and thus harmful to their brand. And the brand better be contingent to the corporate success as is the case with a broadcasting company. Public opinion not only matters, it's tantamount to their success. Further an employer has a legal obligation to ALL it's employees to keep them from harm. If they are aware of a potential harmful situation they must do something immediately to negate that risk or potentially face litigation from all the other employees. In this case I believe CBC did the best they could. They took the information they had, balanced the risk to liability, and made their decision. Should they have suspended their employee versus termination while the facts came out? Who knows. We likely don't have the information they have, nor do we have their full employee guidelines and practises, their union handbook etc. They made a decision that no one has to agree with. That we can agree on.
Let's review the facts shall we?
BDSM is a personal choice.
BDSM harms no one if both parties have consented to partake in the activities.
Consent means full, true, and plain disclosure of all the facts and an agreement to all facts.
Not having consent means the other party has been given full disclosure of all the facts and has said no or they simply don't have all the facts to say no to.
Not having consent but acting as if you do, removes a person's rights. Their freedom of choice. And will cause harm at a minimum just by the removal of their rights.
With all that information in hand I decided that I had nothing to say just yet. At that stage we had Ghomeshi's word, CBCs word, and the "apparent" word of an anonymous woman labeled by Ghomeshi as a jilted ex girlfriend. I would wait to hear more about the developing story. I read, and I read some more. I looked at the legal side to Ghomeshi's case against his employer. I even read some legal jargon pertaining to whether as a unionized employee could he even sue at all. FYI, they cannot until they have gone through arbitration with their union representative and their employer. In most circumstances, if their case goes to a judge, into a courtroom, the judge will defer back to the arbitration agreement because they do not wish to step into union business. That's a whole other ballgame.
As of today, two women have come forth publicly, to the press and admitted to being alone with Ghomeshi and his causing them physical and/or sexual harm without their consent. They are claiming they knew nothing of the BDSM rules. They did not have full disclosure of the facts. Therefore they couldn't consent to what they didn't know. In addition to these 2 women who've come forth publicly, 7 more have come forth anonymously. They all claim to being harmed by Ghomeshi without consent. None of these women have gone to the police. Until today, doing a little light reading (aka research), I wasn't aware you could even go to the police after two years had passed. In these cases, there is no time limitation for filing charges.
The question seems to remain, why these supposed victims have gone to the press and not the police? I can only assume it is much easier to skewer a person in social media than it is in court. If these women file assault charges against Ghomeshi they have the burden of proof to prove he is guilty. He is presumed innocent of the charges. In turn then, are they not assumed guilty of lying basically? Seriously! Think about it. He is presumed innocent which means the person saying otherwise is lying. Therefore the liar must be proven innocent while the innocent proven guilty. The victim's lives will be ripped apart to prove they are telling the truth. Would you file? Or would you let the people on social media decide his fate?
Did you know roughly 90% of sexual assaults in Canada go unreported.
Of the 10% reported, 1/3 of those are decided unfounded. There is not enough evidence to lay charges.
Charges are laid in about 16% of the 10% reported.
(statistics from a Globe and Mail article, October 2013 "How Canada's Sexual Assault Laws Violate Rape Victims)
I ask you again, would you go to the police?
I was raped in 1989. I did not go to the police.
This is the only time I have spoken of it publicly. Close friends know. My husband knows. My therapist knows. And of course the doctors and nurses at the clinic I recently stayed at know. It's a huge part of treatment for any woman who finds themselves staying in a Mental Health Facility. As per the professionals at the clinic, it is something that has sadly happened to "most women" who end up there. You'd be amazed how many women in the clinic had been raped. It was frightening and sad how many of us there were, most of whom, didn't report it. I didn't go to the police because I was drunk. I was out of control drunk. I should not have been. I should never have been that out of control that I couldn't say yes or no. That laid partial blame in my corner in my mind. With that fact alone I knew better than to go to the police. If I did, I would have to prove it, and I wouldn't be able to. The burden of proof would be in my court. So I put it away, and I went on with life.
9 women have come forward.
They say that Jian Ghomeshi hurt them and they didn't consent to being hurt. From what I have read, none of them are part of the BDSM community at large. BDSM is not their preference or current practise.
1 man has come forward.
He says he did it, yes. He choked these women. He hit these women. He put himself in a physically dominate power position over these women. But he did so with consent. He gave these women full, true, and plain disclosure of all the facts beforehand and they all said yes to all the facts.
9 to 1 odds. I'd take that bet. Would you?
For the record, considering what MIGHT be at stake here, the non-consensual harm of 9 women, these t-shirts are fucking shameful. Facebook and it's Advertising department alongside this tee shirt company should be really ashamed of themselves.
http://teespring.com/teamjian?utm_campaign=TAretargeting&utm_medium=retargetingTA
No comments:
Post a Comment