Monday, October 27, 2014

Statement Analysis: Jian Ghomeshi, CBC

Jian Ghomeshi has been terminated from his employment with CBC and made this public statement on Facebook to explain why.  

Questions for analysis:

Is he truthful?

Is there missing information?

Does CBC have information that will indicate his behavior was abusive towards a woman (or women)?

Did he engage in illegal activities?

*************************************************************************************************

Since this is only the side of the account, what can Statement Analysis show regarding his defense of his behavior?

Did he engage in behavior that is abusive?  Or, as is his contention, it is not abusive if it is consensual?

Also, a very important question to consider:

Do you believe that CBC attorneys and executives have more information than what is listed here? 



does his statement suggest that there may be more victims coming forward?






23 hrs · 
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.

Here is the same statement with highlighting added for emphasis.

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

Where one begins a statement is important.  It is often the reason for writing.  Here he uses the word "because" to tell us why he is writing:
1.  To be the first to learn
2.  To be the first to learn "some" news
The word "some" is used, and not "the" news.  This should lead readers to ask what more news will they hear, though they may not be the first to hear.

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. 

The  loss of the job has much "more more" than the loss of father, and worry over mother.  
Today, I was fired from the CBC.
This is a short sentence and is reliable on its form.  

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.

"all this" has changed.  He gives us a list of that which has changed:
1.  doing his best for openness and truth, on and off the air
2.  never being anything but honest 

This is a strong signal that what proceeds from here will be 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. 

He was
1.  fired
2.  stripped
3.  barred
4.  separated 

Note the wording that he chooses, given the context of what he is have alleged to have done. 


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. 
This is an indication that he has done something, but what he did, to him, is not "wrong."
Everyone has their own personal, subjective internal dictionary.  It would be interesting to learn what he believes is right and what he believes is 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.

Herein lies the importance of listening to what one says, rather than interpreting. 
He was fired because of "the risk", not "a" risk, but "the risk."  It is the risk of his sex life being made public for the reason for being fired.  
He then added "false allegations"
This tells us that he knows that the details of his sex life being revealed is something that could get him fired, and that this is separate from "false allegations."
What is it about his sex life, that is true, that runs the risk of being fired?

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

Why would friends and family be "owed" the truth?  This is a public forum and his audience is in his own words,

"Dear everyone"

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

The verb used indicates the ongoing process. 
Note that this follows the statement about who is "owed" the truth. 

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some. 

note the need for forgiveness but only if it is 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.

Note the order of his entry:
1.  Interest
2.  participate

There are things that he is "interested" in, which is then minimized, by comparison, with the word "but"; making the things he has "participated" in different than the things he has been "interested in."
The latter is what he is wiling to reveal.

It may be the former that CBC attorneys are concerned more about. 

Keep in mind:  he has revealed something he is "interested" in, but did not participate:  

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. 

Note the need to state her age.  

Why did he feel the need to tell us her age, in her "late 20's", following the reporting of being "interested" in something but not participating in it.

Readers should wonder if under the age of consent sexual relationships is involved.   

Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. 
Note that it is only "casual" but "affectionate" and "passionate."
Note that the word "affectionate" is added to a relationship that is already "consensual."
Why would someone need to tell us that a consensual relationship was "affectionate" since "affectionate" is something that makes up a sexual relationship. 

This should alert us to hearing something that is not "affectionate" in description from the CBC or the alleged victim (s).

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. 

Note "adventurous forms of sex" includes "role play, dominate and submission" but do not "consist" of. 
This is an indication that there are more elements to the "adventurous forms" that he has not mentioned.  

We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). 
Note "rough" after the wording of "affectionate" above. 

We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. 

Note that he does not say they used "safe words" (when to stop hurting someone) but only that they "talked" about it.  When someone uses the word "talk" in a statement, it means that the conversation was very important.  

She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. 

He attributes "role play" to her, but not "dominance" or "rough" or "submission"

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. 

Note that they only "joked" about it being "like", and not that it was "like a mild form"

This tells us that it was likely harsher than the two references cited.  

I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. 

Note that in the open statement he tells us it is not "truly" anyone's business, even as he addresses "everyone" 

I have never discussed my private life before.

Before we saw a reliable sentence about being fired.  Here we have an unreliable sentence.  

 Sexual preferences are a human right.

Note "a" human right and not his right.  Note that "consenting adults" is now "human right" and not "adult 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. 

1.  upset
2.  disappointed
3.  anger 

Note the change in language.  


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

Note that "would lead to months of anxiety" is passive. 

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. 

"It came to light" is also passive.
Note that "a" woman and not "the woman" or "my ex girlfriend"

This should lead readers to question if this is a second victim or the same one as his ex girlfriend.  If it is his "ex" why would he introduce her here as "a woman" since she has already been identified.

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. 

There is concealed information here. 
Note the use of the word "nefarious" regarding "consensual relationship", particularly since the relationship is modified by "consensual."
Note that "this person" is gender neutral, with "this" being close. 
Note that it was on "one occasion"; an event that is important in his mind. 
Note that there were "women" (singular used by error perhaps?) that he only "seemed" to be dating. 
This would lead to questions about what he considers "dating"

This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. 

Why is "this person" gender neutral? 

Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me. 
Note the need to clarify friends as "female" friends.  

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. 

Note the acknowledgment that "corroborators" exist.  They would have "some sympathetic ears"

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?

Note that he reports this to be the question that "everyone contacted" had.

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. 

Note the "a major Canadian media publication" avoids using the name. 

One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. 
"One assumes" but he does not say that he assumed.  
Note also that he only believes that "one assumed" that these 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. 

He recognizes that "this stuff" could defame him.  This is not to say that they are false.  "Before facts refute false allegations" is not to say that these are those false allegations.  Remember:  we listen to what one says.  

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). 

Note that "the ex" is, on the scale of Social Introductions in Statement Analysis, the lowest, indicating a very bad relationship.  It is interesting to note that in the light of the problematic social introduction he does not have her refute "any of these" categorically untrue allegations (plural), which also suggests that there are allegations that are not "categorically untrue" along with some that are. 

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. 

Note what may be an embedded admission, without refutation.  This may suggest knowledge of criminal activity.  "Unsavory aggressive acts..."

And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. 

Note that the subject is preparing his audience on what they "may" here.  Give the repetition of the word "consensual", it is this theme that is so sensitive to the writer. This is to acknowledge that criminal activity, "non consensual" took place:  sexual assault. 

And that will be a lie. 

Note the distancing of "that", rather than the stronger denial.  Note that he does not give a 3 component reliable denial:
"I did not engage in non-consensual..."

We view what one says, and what one does not say.  This may indicate that he believes he will face sexual assault charges. 

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. 

Note that he uses the word "salacious" with "gossip" and "hunger" for "scandal."
Note the acknowledgment of some who will believe, hate or laugh. 

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". 

Note that he knows what is coming.  

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. 

Note that it will be "based in lies" rather than being lies.  Note that rather than tell us the truth, he is telling us a "story" (his word) in the hopes that the truth will conquer all. 

I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. 

He was not "open" with CBC before these things "ramped" up.  This means that there was a time when he could have spoken with them, but things had not escalated as of yet.  Take this with the pledge of truthfulness above. 

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. 

Note that he had "evidence" that everything he had done was "consensual."  What kind of "evidence" was this?  Whatever it was, according to the subject, it caused them to fire him. 
Note that he "voluntarily" showed this "evidence."


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. 

Note the attribution of one thought and one mind to a plural number of execs. 
One might wonder why the names of the CBC execs who thought and spoke ("later they said...") in one might were not used, nor quoted. 

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. 

The material interests of a company sometimes rely upon a reputation to sustain audience.  If that audience is reduced due to the perception of "unbecoming" a "prominent" host, the material loss to the company is realized.  

Therefore, a decision is made. They can let the host continue, and risk losing customers, or they can let the host go, risk losing customers due to his popularity, but gain, perhaps, loyalty or customers through principle. 
They chose to fire and now he is posting, publicly, against their action. 

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.

Note that he says "a" story and not "this story."

This is another indicator that there is more information to come that he, himself, is aware of, could share, but has chosen not to.  

This is deliberately suppressed information. 


Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. 

note that he wants to be "the first"; please compare this with his opening statement. 


They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. 

note the order:
strange
enticing
weird
normal
outright offense



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. 

note that his "secret life" is his "private life" is his "personal life."
He uses "secret life" first, before that which is private and personal. 
Note the use of the word "dominion" (see "stripped) in his sentence.  


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.

Note that "no charges" enters his vocabulary after no "formal" allegations (informal allegations?).  "Charges" suggests that there may be illegal activities engaged in or accused of.  


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. 

Note the "prominent host" does this work for his "country."
The word "tried", in past tense, indicates attempted but failed. 


But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.

Again, he calls it his "story"

Analysis Conclusion:

There is missing information.  

The lawyers from CBC likely have more information that show that the information that the subject has released here is missing many important details, particularly about "
consensual" relationships and the legality of his actions.  

We must also note that at no time does he issue a reliable denial about not forcing or coercing someone into something that was no consensual.

For new readers, please search "Reliable Denial" for understanding.  

He has not told "the truth" in his account, with much information missing.  He indicates that there is likely more victims to come forward and that some information may bring charges.  


Wise As a Serpent; Gentle As a Dove: Dealing With Deception

16 comments:

Ginette Morrison said...

Thanks for this. I read his statement and was thinking there was something off about it, then came here to see if you had anything to say. I was glad to see you did.

tania cadogan said...

off topic

A Colorado woman has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for abducting her newborn nephew in an attempt to pass him off as her own son.

Kristen Smith, 31, kidnapped Kayden Powell from the Wisconsin home of a relative in February this year.

Once police were alerted, she put the four-day-old baby in a plastic bag and left him at an Iowa petrol station

Officers found Kayden alive and well after the boy spent more than a day in sub-zero temperatures.

On Monday, US District Judge James Peterson gave Smith the minimum sentence, citing her mental health issues.

Smith, of Aurora, Colorado, claimed she was given permission to take Kayden by the boy's father.

The parents, Smith's half-sister Brianna Marshall and her boyfriend Bruce Powell, were supposedly going to join the accused a few days later in Colorado.

But prosecutors said Smith was a manipulative liar who had filled out a birth certificate application to rename the boy Kaysin.

Smith's defence lawyer had argued that his client had no need to steal a baby as she had four children and a stepchild of her own.

But she was convicted in July.

http://news.sky.com/story/1361520/aunt-jailed-for-kidnapping-newborn-nephew

Anonymous said...

There was another imbedded confession : I had engaged in non-consensual behavior

Maybe said...

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2014/10/26/cbc_fires_jian_ghomeshi_over_sex_allegations.html

Anonymous said...

Think the worst of this slobbering, whining, sexually deviant creep, caught with his pants down and you're probably right. The obvious: he is careful to describe the ex-girlfriend involved as being consensual and in her 20's. If she is the only one and is of legal age, why give her age?

There are likely younger women involved in this rapidly brewing scandal as well; possibly rough gang banging with debased party sex that includes teenagers and younger participants, both male and female. This admission he withholds, only presenting the consensual of-age activities.

IMO, CBC is aware of the legal troubles they face. He revealed evidence to his superiors that could only have been videos of the consensual sex play as proof but held back videos of criminal sexual activities; what other proof could he have shown CBC execs concerning his consensual sexual activities?

IMO, this is a sickening 'dirty ole perverted man' who gets his kicks any way he can, now the chickens are coming home to roost. He thinks his up-front denials before the s--t hits the fan will clear his name. Not. There were meetings between him and them. The CBC legal team will protect themselves at all costs and may have coerced him into making his public statement, attempting to clear their good name by stating they had fired him.

IMO, CBC didn't fire him for no good reason. Why would their legal team be meeting with him if there wasn't more yet to be revealed that could put them in a very bad legal position? They are in a better position to defend themselves by being rid of him and denying he did anything wrong to their knowledge, before anticipated lawsuits come down on them. Just my opinion.

john said...

"She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator.

I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country.

that someone had rifled through my phone"

I'm wondering if the role play was based around Military. If, has he says "she was the initiator" was he the rookie and she the officer. Or, has he toyed with the idea of joining the Military, or been rejected. Thus him becoming the submissive and her the dominant one ?

Anonymous said...

Just a little FYI regarding BDSM/role playing evidence of consent.

It is common in the BDSM world for partners to sign a "consent form". Along with "safe words" the consent details what is and is not permissible for each partner. This form would be signed by the participants especially if there is not a strong romantic bond but a more casual relationship.

Michele said...

In his paragraph "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.

He is passive “have always”. And always is trying to persuade. Instead of saying something like “I operate under the principle of dignity and commitment to openness and truth” he adds "both on and off the air". He’s trying to influence and persuade his audience.

Nic said...

Aside from a lot of "and's" (missing information,) the thing I took away from this statement was that he is implying that the CBC decided that he wasn't "Peter Mansbridge enough" so he was wrongfully dismissed based on his life style, not non-performance. I think the "and's" around this allegation are indicative of the back and forth debate around his bohemian lifestyle - which he downplays with a reference to 50 Shades of Grey - a mainstream book, reference being common/harmless/ordinary "play".

I agree that he isn't forthcoming with all the information surrounding his dismissal. I'm thinking he wanted to name 'her' without naming her per se (attaching her to a freelance writer,), so that whomever was reading could rule themselves out as being attached to the scandal. And by extension, not being sued himself for defamation as there probably is a very grey (pardon the pun) area around whether the acts were consensual (video, maybe?).

He also admitted that he had been speaking with the CBC's HR/team for months and they agreed that the allegations were baseless (my word). Yet suddenly he is dismissed. One has to wonder what suddenly came to light for them to want to distance themselves from a very popular host?

jmo

Peter Hyatt said...

as often is the case, interesting comments, Nic.

I think the "evidence" he gave them was emails and text messages.

Rape victim advocates will likely have something to say about the "evidence", if I am correct about it.

Peter

Anon19 said...

"I have always been a good soldier" - extremely inappropriate giving the timing. Canada is still reeling from the loss of two soldiers last week in attacks (one shot at the war memorial at our Parliment buildings). The public sentiment towards are soldiers are at an all time high. I think making this comparison is an obvious attempt to bring some public sympathy his way. I am disgusted.

C5H11ONO said...

I am fascinated by the analysis. I find myself now trying to identify "passive" language and am having a hard time with it.

Jem said...

Peter,

Thank you so very much for analyzing this! I didn't trust his statement and certain things stood out as problematic to me but mostly it just didn't feel right and I couldn't put my finger on why. Your analysis is so thorough and uncovered so many things I didn't notice.

Perhaps the most interesting part of your analysis for me is the emphasis on age. That's something that didn't stand out to me but it fits with some of the murmurings I'm beginning to hear.

Thank you so much for answering my request and for doing such a fine analysis.

TrueNorth said...

I was reading this seriously right up until we hit the part where we hypothesize that somehow this statement is somehow a vailed confession indicating Jian could be pursuing minors.

I think at that point my rational mind kicked back in and recognized the over zealous, hyper paranoid minds of others reacting to instead of truly analyzing a situation.

All this fear mongering, it comes from a primitive part of our brains that seeks to make examples of and punish others in an effort to elevate the self.

As a man who was in an abusive relationship with a female for many years, and tried very hard to end it on many occasions, I can say with most certainty that the FIRST thing in the toolkit of a mentally unhinged jilted girl with a control issue is going to be to turn around and make the abused out to be the abuser. Because they know society will pile on to that issue, and they know they can leverage that to end up looking like the victim.

It happened to me, and it happens to more men that you would ever imagine. Now no doubt our tales are a little different. I don't have preferences as adventurous as Mr. Gomeshis' by any stretch of the imagination. But that doesn't mean that I cant respect his right to engage in those activities with consenting partners. And it doesn't mean that he might not be the victim of a similar situation.

I can't believe that in 2014, you all still rush out and attach the label of victim to the woman every god damn time. One would thing that by this day and age we could be a little more calm and rational about these things and accept that until we know the FACTS, any one of the parties involved in this, MALE or FEMALE could be the true victim. And your mass hysteria and piling on does nothing to move us toward a more rational society or true equality for women and men.

I heard Lucy Decoutere on CBC radio this morning claiming that when on a date with Jian kissing escalated into choking which then escalated to Jian slapping her. The one thing that struck me about this audio statement was that she said not once but twice that in response to this she "said nothing" and "didn't know what to say", essentially that as this was happening she made no effort to stop it from happening, and didn't even have the common sense to speak up and say, "hey, you know what Jian, this is NOT something I am comfortable with." She said NOTHING and did NOTHING, thats like people who don't vote complaining about politics, it is just plain ignorant.

I also notice that in the audio statement she fails to describe how the situation came to a conclusion. Obviously she is alive and well today, and I didn't hear any claim that it escalated further or that a sexual assault took place. And so, at some juncture, Mr. Ghomeshi must have become aware that this was not a consensual situation and stopped it, despite Lucy Decoutere's poor communication skills regarding the issue of consent.

TrueNorth said...

We wouldn't expect someone who was into tamer sexual pursuits to stop and ask for verbal consent at every step would we? "can we kiss, can a place my hands on your body, can I remove your shirt, your pants, can I pull you into bed with me, can I escalate to intercourse now?"
No, that would be complete lunacy! we would no longer be procreating as a species if thats what it took. We go forward with our partners based on a trust that they will be truthful with us about consent, because if we had to ask every time that would really kill the whole passion and whimsy of the sexual experience. Regardless of your own sexual desires and preferences, this rule of thumb is going to ring true, and you can't fault the guy for initiating the sort of physical experience that he desires. Its up to both parties to make clear where there comfort zones lie when those boundaries are tread upon.

As far as loosing his job, I think its ridiculous. What kind of Canada are we living in today when a persons personal life can get them fired from there job, or where ones employer is even permitted to take an interest in the personal dealings of an employee? Its not the strong free society I was told I was growing up in 30 years ago thats for certain. I would have hoped for legislation to prevent employers from doing just this by 2014; legislation to protect individual privacy, to make illegal the firing of an individual based on anything other than poor job performance or willful neglect of assigned duties.

But no, we are living in a Canada that flocks like vultures to this stuff, screeching and cawing, just hungry for a scrap of meat.

Do I think the CBC was flat out wrong in their decision to fire Jian? Yes.
Do I think Jian is going to have any recourse to compensation over this grave misstep by the CBC? No.
Do I think as Canadians we should all be deeply troubled by this fact? you're damn right!
If the man did something illegal let the authorities do their work, let him have his day in court, and if he is found guilty then let him pay for his transgressions.
But to drag all of this out into the public fray, and to fire the man from his job over mere allegations... What kind of country are we living in? Might as well start playing baseball and watching Fox News, seems the rest of Canada isn't interested in upholding Canadian values anymore.

C5H11ONO said...

He started hitting these women while they were fully clothed. They were not even engaged in a sexual nature at the time he began to pound on them. Below is a link to one victim's version and it is very compelling to hear her side:

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/10/29/jian/

Actual recording:
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2577457919

He was successful in appealing to the people, who certainly don't want their employers involved in their personal lives. This particular case though is different, because he is a TV personality and they have to hold a "public" persona to a certain code of conduct. I believe he was fired because there is an excessive amount of evidence that he has engaged in deviant sexual behavior without the partner's consent. That could be tantamount to rape. I think this guy is really wickedly deviant. It was a great analysis. It was Ghomeshi's own words that revealed the truth. To let Statement Analysis work for you, you must put aside your emotional side. When I first read his statement it sounded like there was a campaign to smear him, but then when you carefully review his words a different picture starts to emerge and again, if SA will work for you, you must accept the laws of SA. And in this case, Ghomeshi purposefully left information out of his statements, and he did so for a reason. His purpose was to sway the public, by using our emotions and attacking our right to privacy. We all are entitled to our privacy, but in his case, the allegations are serious and I suspect the CBC fired him because he's going to get arrested and charged with a ton of stuff.