I'm so conflicted about the whole situation. I don't know what/who to believe. I really, really don't want it to be true. I just can't imagine him doing something like that. Clearly he's into some out there stuff which is just fine by me. His business, not mine. But I really don't want to believe that he's a rapist/abuser. He's my favourite! I've jokingly called him my boyfriend for years. I refer to him as my "freebie" to H. Some women pick Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Not me, I love me some Jian!
My h and I were discussing him last night. A fb friend of mine knows him professionally and has commented a couple times that she's not surprised by the allegations, she's heard rumors and rumblings about his "preferences" for years. (Her words)
Is this the CBC getting out in front of a violence against women situation so they aren't crucified in public opinion like the nfl?
Post by bananapancakes on Oct 28, 2014 18:37:34 GMT -5
I agree with the jilted lover bit. Or at least I want to believe that is it. I was super shocked to read CBC's statement on Sunday afternoon then Jian's statement really shocked me.
Jian had been very forthcoming with CBC about the threats/allegations and they were initially supportive. I wonder what changed? Maybe they did uncover that the allegations were true. I really, really hope not.
Post by bananapancakes on Oct 28, 2014 18:39:46 GMT -5
I also read something about it bring impossible to consent to some BDSM acts as one cannot consent to abuse. So the sex itself can be consensual but the other stuff can never truly be consensual even if both parties agree beforehand.
Post by aprilsails on Oct 28, 2014 18:44:56 GMT -5
The news today was a bit more damning, or at least fell in the area of 'probably not good'. The multiple allegations are bad, and there are other small claims coming out of the woodwork. I also read through a couple of articles that said his facebook statement was an attempt to come out ahead of the allegations and to shape the context of the conversation based upon the media consultants that he hired. Or it could be the truth. Hard to say.
I have never listened to the show regularly so I'm not a fan by any means. I think he probably has gone too far on more than one occasion or these women wouldn't be making these kinds of accusations.
I don't know what to think either. I don't think employers should fire people for what could just be allegations. But I recognize that only part of the story may be public.
Okay, I guess I'm a bad Canadian because I didn't really know who this was. I definitely recogonize his face but don't watch his show. But apparently I've met him because my signed copy of Moxy Fruvous' Bargainville was like, my most prized possession at 15.
Post by bananapancakes on Oct 28, 2014 19:09:20 GMT -5
Yes, used to be lead singer for Moxy Fruvous, most recently host of CBC's Q. He's just so damn smart and hot. He is seriously the best interviewer around. I love listening to him.
I've been catching up. It really isn't looking good.
is this the "I wanna hate fuck you" employee?
That's not good at all.
Yes, and he grabbed her ass on a different occasion.
Does anyone know if the three women know each other? Like any chance the one woman is trying to get back at him and brought the other two along for the ride to make her case more believable? I realize this is a stretch.
I'm just trying to figure out why would they go to the Star and not the police?
Post by littlesthobo on Oct 28, 2014 19:13:15 GMT -5
I believe the women. The story one of them told where she thought he just meant pulling her hair and rough sex but he actually hit her...it just rings very true for me. I think they thought they were consenting to one thing and he took it way further than they wanted.
I believe the women. The story one of them told where she thought he just meant pulling her hair and rough sex but he actually hit her...it just rings very true for me. I think they thought they were consenting to one thing and he took it way further than they wanted.
I can see this. Like maybe the sex itself was consensual but he took the BDSM stuff too far.
I don't know about this. I think it is probably true and he released his statement first so that the public's view of the situation was already biased. There's multiple allegations. Have the women released anything further? I've only seen Jian's and the CBC's official statement that they let him go.
It seemed that the firing happened after the employee complained. But then I heard today that the CBC found that out from the toronto star which is odd and out of order.
Yeah, I don't understand the timing. He showed the CBC "proof" of consent on Thursday, which led to him being fired. What prompted him to show them anything now? Wasn't the Star article put on ice months ago? I don't get it.
Post by missmaddie on Oct 28, 2014 20:16:46 GMT -5
On Sunday some of my Toronto media insider friends from CBC/CTV/etc. were discussing it on FB before his FB post came out, and the rumours were "worse" (without getting into a Mamasaurus debate on the definition of worse, people were sharing wild guesses such as underage women/pedophilia, photo evidence, etc), and there were about a dozen of my friends' colleagues commenting that this was all consistent with his lecherous rep and ongoing behaviour toward all women, all the time. Many had charming anecdotes if meeting him and his ego.
I'm inclined to believe his rep is well-earned and I'm not losing any sleep feeling bad for him. I mean, there's a reason people all assumed last year's blog was about him, and there's probably a reason these women are all making claims about him and people haven't started "smear campaigns" (if that's what it turns out to be) about Lloyd Robertson or Peter Mansbridge, you know?
It seemed that the firing happened after the employee complained. But then I heard today that the CBC found that out from the toronto star which is odd and out of order.
Yeah, I don't understand the timing. He showed the CBC "proof" of consent on Thursday, which led to him being fired. What prompted him to show them anything now? Wasn't the Star article put on ice months ago? I don't get it.
What "proof of consent" could even exist though? Like a signed contract between both parties? "I'm going to pull your hair then slap you twice before tying you up" Unlikely. Even if he has proof of consent for sex (text messages maybe?) how would he prove that the women consented to the physical violence? Such a tricky situation.
Yeah, I don't understand the timing. He showed the CBC "proof" of consent on Thursday, which led to him being fired. What prompted him to show them anything now? Wasn't the Star article put on ice months ago? I don't get it.
What "proof of consent" could even exist though? Like a signed contract between both parties? "I'm going to pull your hair then slap you twice before tying you up" Unlikely. Even if he has proof of consent for sex (text messages maybe?) how would he prove that the women consented to the physical violence? Such a tricky situation.
This was brought up in the CE&P thread a yesterday. link
Canada's Supreme Court has ruled before that a person cannot actually consent to anything that causes physical harm, so their level of consent may be a moot point (in terms of the law).
Yeah, I don't understand the timing. He showed the CBC "proof" of consent on Thursday, which led to him being fired. What prompted him to show them anything now? Wasn't the Star article put on ice months ago? I don't get it.
What "proof of consent" could even exist though? Like a signed contract between both parties? "I'm going to pull your hair then slap you twice before tying you up" Unlikely. Even if he has proof of consent for sex (text messages maybe?) how would he prove that the women consented to the physical violence? Such a tricky situation.
From what I've read, I think the " proof" is texts between him and the women about how he likes rough sex, etc. I think the Star alluded to this being the reason they didn't go to the police. What are they going to say? "Yes, I went over there for rough sex, but now I want to report him for having rough sex"? That's why I think he took things further than they wanted.
Yeah, I don't understand the timing. He showed the CBC "proof" of consent on Thursday, which led to him being fired. What prompted him to show them anything now? Wasn't the Star article put on ice months ago? I don't get it.
What "proof of consent" could even exist though? Like a signed contract between both parties? "I'm going to pull your hair then slap you twice before tying you up" Unlikely. Even if he has proof of consent for sex (text messages maybe?) how would he prove that the women consented to the physical violence? Such a tricky situation.
Apparently it is not uncommon to email each other lists if what is ok and not ok. In the kink world they do this as a contract and ongoing dialogue.
I hate that he is getting a bigger benefit if the doubt than the women who haven't gone public. He has so much power. I think his FB post was a sleazy move, it buys him sympathy. Imagine being a woman who agreed to BDSM, and later had to bring forward tape allegations? Nobody would listen to you seriously. Then add his celebrity? Fuck. It's real life law and order.
What "proof of consent" could even exist though? Like a signed contract between both parties? "I'm going to pull your hair then slap you twice before tying you up" Unlikely. Even if he has proof of consent for sex (text messages maybe?) how would he prove that the women consented to the physical violence? Such a tricky situation.
Apparently it is not uncommon to email each other lists if what is ok and not ok. In the kink world they do this as a contract and ongoing dialogue.
I hate that he is getting a bigger benefit if the doubt than the women who haven't gone public. He has so much power. I think his FB post was a sleazy move, it buys him sympathy. Imagine being a woman who agreed to BDSM, and later had to bring forward tape allegations? Nobody would listen to you seriously. Then add his celebrity? Fuck. It's real life law and order.
I suspect his FB was advised by the major damage-control PR firm he immediately hired. I think it was someone on Reddit who said nobody innocent has ever gone to them (obv an exaggeration).
Quebecker checking in, I was just reading about this but I have no idea who he is. The face seems familiar but that's it, lol. But in a situation like that with multiple alleged victims, yeah, I believe the victims.