CBC fires popular radio host Jian Ghomeshi because of his sex life

Violet

New member
Dec 22, 2005
432
4
0
Vancouver
Earlier today the CBC announced, "The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end. This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration. Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well."

See article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/jian-ghomeshi-host-of-q-no-longer-with-cbc-1.2813670

Now Ghomeshi has spoken out about it on his Facebook page:

Dear everyone,

I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.

This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.
Today, I was fired from the CBC.

For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.

I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I've never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.

All this has now changed.

Today I was fired from the company where I've been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I've done nothing wrong.

I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.

As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.

I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.

I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others.

After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.

It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned – through one of my friends who got in contact with this person – that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me.

Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues – all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I've had to live with.

And this leads us to today and this moment. I’ve lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for "scandal". And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a "pattern of behaviour". And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all.

I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone's business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me.

CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they’re not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for "the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out." To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.

I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.
 

apl16

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2011
1,392
473
83
Look left. Way left.
that is horrible! I feel for the guy!

On the other side of things. Q is/was a crappy show with Ghomeshi kissing the ass of everyone he interviewed. The mothercorp should have cloned the talented and other G, of Morningside fame.

Mr. Quinn should take his spot.
 

Lo-ki

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2011
4,022
2,654
113
Check your closet..:)
Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

It doesn't surprise me. Our personal lives are not really ours anymore. Social media has taken care of that. Even if it isn't true what is being said there is always that doubt that it could be by other people.
 

hornygandalf

Active member
Okay... I'm going to be a little over the top here (provocatively):
Really unfortunate, but is it surprising that a government intent on pushing through Bill 36 would also want to eliminate what they see as an overpaid celebrity who engages in what they consider to be obscene or unbecoming sex acts in his private life? The Prime Ministers Office now has direct input into the budget of the CBC (as a public corporation), and is it beyond the realms of possibility that upon hearing about this smear campaign, they had a quiet word to the management of CBC that Jian Ghomeshi should be fired as he didn't fit their agenda of what are suitable sexual relations?

I really do feel for Mr Ghomeshi and will be watching for news of the lawsuit with interest, though I suspect there will be an out-of-court settlement so it will quietly go away. Is this something we can expect more of, though, with the government really interested in what goes on in our bedrooms?
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,672
7,234
113
Westwood
Maybe this was an excuse to fire him over a vague "just cause" clause in his contract?

Like the poster above, I didn't think he was very good and the woman replacing him the last few days is much better. Jian was in love with himself and his hour long show only had fifteen minutes of actual content. The rest was his pointless monologues and talking about his future shows. CBC stretches minimal content to fill time that way.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
i'm conflicted about what public figures should and should not do

on the one hand, i believe in the sanctity of privacy, especially private sexual acts

but on the other hand, i think about these celebrities making WAY more money than a normal person can make... more even than a highly trained skilled professional can make - for what, putting in a full day and showing up on time in front of the camera?

so if a celebrity makes that much money, and they ARE in the business of performing for the masses, don't they have at least a small obligation to live their private lives in a manner that will make them immune from blackmail? if they wish to lead a private life that they DON'T want out in public, then they shouldn't be practicing a public life IN the public eye

i also take issue with the following statement:

That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.
i believe he has missed the point. his (ex)employer wasn't 'having dominion' over his private life, it was protecting it's own arse by distancing itself from what could, and likely will, turn into a VERY messy situation!

so yeah, i'm conflicted :confused:
 

plumbcrawl

Active member
Aug 12, 2007
428
94
28
ya sure he provided the whole story...:thumb: I'm guessing there is more to this story and kinky sex in the end may have nothing to do with why he is gone
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,544
306
83
In Lust Mostly
So how on earth did the Mother Corp become aware of his bedroom choices?

Sad really. I enjoyed his broadcasts and content.

He must have deep pockets to take on a Billion Dollar Corporation backed by the Federal Government. They will be a difficult opponent to pin down.
 

plumbcrawl

Active member
Aug 12, 2007
428
94
28
So how on earth did the Mother Corp become aware of his bedroom choices?

Sad really. I enjoyed his broadcasts and content.

He must have deep pockets to take on a Billion Dollar Corporation backed by the Federal Government. They will be a difficult opponent to pin down.

Well since CBC claims they pay him & Mansbridge $60,000 a year I'm guessing the lawyer took the case on contingency.
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,544
306
83
In Lust Mostly
Well since CBC claims they pay him & Mansbridge $60,000 a year I'm guessing the lawyer took the case on contingency.
OTTAWA — CBC president Hubert Lacroix insulted and disrespected taxpayers by not fully disclosing the salaries of high-level CBC employees, said senators on a committee studying the public broadcaster's future.

Lacroix responded to the Senate's committee on transport and communications' request for financial disclosure by submitting 184 pages of base employee salary scales that senators said left out the full take-home income of many of the corporation's big-name personalities.

For instance, Lacroix's submission revealed that the host of CBC's The National, Peter Mansbridge, one of the most famous journalists in Canada, makes roughly $80,000 -- the same as a lower-level reporter.

"It's just not credible," said committee member and Sen. Terry Mercer on Wednesday. "You can't give us numbers like that and expect us to believe it," he said.

Sen. Dennis Dawson told QMI Agency that Lacroix's non-disclosure was "an insult to the committee."

Dawson said British citizens know how much their public broadcasters make, "so why should we have an exception for the CBC in Canada?"

The CBC has often refused to disclose its financial information, despite its annual $1-billion taxpayer subsidy.

Lacroix's spokeswoman, France Belisle, said specific salary information is confidential under the Privacy Act, but that the CBC "is continually looking at ways to improve how and what it reports to Canadians."

The public broadcaster shields itself from scrutiny by using a section of Canadian law that exempts it from disclosing information related to its "journalistic, creative or programming activities."

The CBC hasn't been able to shield itself from market realities, however.

It is currently cutting hundreds of positions after it lost the rights to air the popular Hockey Night in Canada, reportedly leading to $100 million lost annual advertising revenue.

Mercer said the cuts reveal the CBC "doesn't have a plan."

He added that most committee members want the CBC to succeed, "but (the CBC) has come at it as if we are the enemy. We're not."

"When they lost (the hockey rights), what was their reaction? They cut 600 people — you don't do that without a plan," Mercer said. "We're here to help but you aren't winning any friends by not giving us the full picture. Nobody believes those numbers."

A spokesman for Heritage Minister Shelly Glover said the CBC has the responsibility to provide timely and accurate information to Parliament.

"The Senate and its committees have every right to request documents from the CBC," said Mike Storeshaw.

Independent MP Brent Rathgeber told QMI Thursday that the CBC is mocking the government by refusing to release its employee salaries.

However, Rathgeber said the government is also being hypocritical by demanding the CBC be transparent while also voting down his bill, which would have forced public entities such as the CBC to disclose certain employee financial data.

"The government wants salary disclosure at CBC but they didn't support my bill which would have provided it," he said. "And (the government) doesn't want salary disclosures for other political appointments. You can't have it both ways."
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,672
7,234
113
Westwood
And he is suing for fifty million dollars!
Methinks his self worth is a bit exaggerated.
 

johnsmit

Active member
May 4, 2013
1,297
16
38
Well I think he just might end up being our poster boy
They sold millions of copies of 50 shades of gray
And every one drank it up.. it about what he has done and more
They prob even reviewed the book on cbc
So It time to open people's eyes stop them ftom buring there heads in a false disbelief
There is a lot of fucking stuff that goes on in people sex life.
Wise up people it normal...weather you like if or not..

This is the 21 century.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
..saw one of his shows, well part of it....switched channels to a Messier commercial
 

1nitestan

New member
Jun 18, 2013
778
0
0
CBC has dropped the ball on Hockey Night in Canada and again with Ghomeshi. Like him or not, Q is a very popular show with a wide audience and Ghomeshi made it what it is. As a corporation with a great employee, CBC should have stood behind the guy until such allegations had been actually proven. They should be protecting their asset instead of proetecting their asses. Poor stewardship of our tax dollars.
 

leoghaire

Member
Sep 9, 2009
205
0
16
there is now another side to this story being presented of him being a violent unrepentant sexual harasser. A version of the truth will come out over the next few days. No need to be jumping to conclusions at this point
 

MrBrown

Making memorabe moments
Nov 29, 2008
352
3
18
Vancouver, BC
He should never allowed himself to become a liability to the network. Any network that appeals to the masses would give him the axe, more so a government owned broadcaster.

There must be something about him that got him to get into such trouble... He probably treated his female friend badly. Call it karma.

And if she was sooooo into him there must have been a way to trap her, I think he mentioned there was an opportunity.

In such situations you have to be smart, not right.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
the history of the cbc explains a little bit about their reticence to divulge information

the allies set up a huge 'listening' network during wwII to listen for german military radio signals. this included listening posts all over the world, like bermuda in the atlantic, new delhi in india, etc. this listening network was the beginnings of wwII intelligence operations

the u.s. chose to remain neutral early in the war, but roosevelt's sympathies lay with great britian. British Security Coordination (BSC) was set up covertly in new york city, over a year before u.s. entry into the war, and rooseveld laundered a huge amount of funds, people and equipment through the bsc into canada for training allied agents from the british commonwealth and the u.s. in canada. the canadian broadcasting corporation was exempted from publicly disclosing budgets and funding, and these funds were laundered through the cbc so the american public had no idea that they were actually involved in the war

of course, once the attack on pearl harbour was made, roosevelt had no problem publicly entering the war, and the rest is known history

to this day, the cbc does not have to publicly divulge fiscal information. so if you're wondering why they have such a large budget, nobody knows how much of that budget is for funding clandestine government operations

this and other very interesting information about wwII is found in william stevenson's book, 'a man called intrepid' about canadian born spymaster william stephenson. wikipedia says, 'Many consider to be a more reliable account H. Montgomery Hyde's The Quiet Canadian (1962, before Stevenson's book). But generally acknowledged as the most accurate account of Stephenson's life is Bill Macdonald's The True Intrepid (1998), with foreword by a CIA staff historian. The book clears up the spymaster's fictitious background and contains oral histories from his ex-agents.'

one of stephenson's trainees was ian fleming, who later wrote the 007 james bond series of books. many people consider stephenson to be one of the real-life inspirations for james bond. fleming himself once wrote, "James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is ... William Stephenson."

so next time you're watching hockey night in canada on cbc...
 
Vancouver Escorts