For him to go after the CBC for wrongful dismissal would be decided upon by his lawyer. How much of the original trial would be rehashed by the court and the media? Is it in his best financial interests to do so?
There are several things I noted throughout this trial.
The first has nothing to do with the accusers or the defendant. It amazes me how quickly the Internets gets out this information. The Net has supercharged how we, the great unwashed, interpret the news.
Sympathy, which is found between **** and syphilis in the dictionary, seems to go to whoever releases the story first, and gets the best media coverage. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence; just good marketing. Twitter, email, forums like this, and other outlets spread stories like wildfire. The truth does not necessarily spread with it.
This is at odds with when the news travelled slower. Stories had to pass through newspaper, radio and television news people before we found out. Was this a good or bad thing? The good was that everyone, most importantly, the news writers themselves, got to consider their writing. They were less likely to point a finger of quilt. Do we have the facts? The bad? sometimes incidents have to be acted on quickly in order to come to a fair or safe resolution.
The second thing is the special interest groups. These days, they leap upon a story like this, and they do not know the facts. They appear on television shows and give their opinions about the matter, and they only know what the viewer knows. Their appearance can stir up hate, confuse or twist facts and generally impede the legal process. They did this years ago too, but satellites and the Internet were not available to spread half truths or ignorance as quickly. For example,
"I'm not saying Ghomeshi did that, but these women should consider his reputation within the industry and get a good lawyer. Maybe some counseling There has been talk that he has done this before, but no legal action was ever taken."
What message is being spread there?
When I hear or read similar statements like the above, I question the media outlet. These shows have to titillate the audience, but if no news is released because the Crown or the defendant's lawyer says nothing, why do they allow this sort of story telling? In the US , they yell, "FOX News!"
Third is that fact that the lawyers from both sides came up with the peace bond idea. It was an agreement the lawyers worked out. Ghomeshi and the women had no say in this. It's legal wrangling.
Fourth was the judge's assessment after the trial. In a nutshell, insufficient evidence and lying by the women involved and some witnesses. That was not Ghomeshi's fault.
Fifth, when you suggest that the legal system is broken because Ghomeshi was not found guilty, please just shake your head. The vast majority of people that say this were not in court to hear the evidence, were not involved in any way with the accused or the women. None are lawyers.
This kind of loose talk is a loop back to my first point about the Internet and instant communication.
I truly hope we get a handle on this Twitter, forum, youtube stuff somehow.
The only thing I do know is there was insufficient evidence to convict him.
Is he a jerk? Dunno, I've never met him. Is he a perv or sex pig? Dunno, he's never hit on me and I'm not in his circle of friends. Why was he silent through most of this? Because his lawyer told him to shut up.
By saying that I agree with the decision makes me a male chauvinist in some people's eyes. I prefer to let the courts do their job. Despite what they say about lawyers, there are some that DO know their way around a courtroom.
