Re: Trial by media
 

Ever been to British hen party in full flow, Kiwi? Do we sack every drunken fool for every drunken outburst? It's all about context. Nobody is defending his behaviour. Whether he should be fired or not has nothing to do with his gender.

What speaks volumes to me is the general public braying for some young nobody to lose his job when no real threat took place. It's the politics of being offended. The guy should have been verbally slapped down by the reporter (which he was) possibly slapped down by the media (which he was) asked to apologise (which he did) end of story.

Re: Trial by media
 

Lucky u is a lady writing this, imagine if a guy wrote it. Oh my, and then they found out where he worked oh my oh my :ohmy:

Re: Trial by media
 

But here's the major difference relevant to this situation.

Outside of work and in private with other consenting adults is one thing. Outside of work but in public and harassing other folk trying to get on without hindrance in their lives is something else.

I would expect the same rules to apply as in other situations where some may expect employer action.

This isn't really the same as exercising freedom to go on a demo or take part in some other kind of protest. People are not free to be obnoxious just because they want to be. There are consequences.

Re: Trial by media
 

it's official. You just don't get it.

In spite of all of the women on this thread telling you that this behaviour IS threatening and demeaning and lets other women know, by being allowed to continue, that treating us like crap and making sexual jokes at us because of our gender is okay. You just don't get it. And this, my fellow women, is why we're still in this position.

Re: Trial by media
 

What position?

Re: Trial by media
 

wut?

Re: Trial by media
 

You must spread some rep etc. But I think you were hoping for too much.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes.

She was just trying to do her job.

I'd rather have seen the Police caution and fine this guy. I think it's something that should have been handled by the authorities.

I can understand why the employer severed ties too. You can't be seen to condone that behaviour in anyway. The tragedy here is that the guy who originally shouted into the microphone has never been named or shamed. He is living his life quite happily with no doubt some notoriety amongst his bro's.

Re: Trial by media
 

I want to know what position you are still in?

Re: Trial by media
 

In the kitchen cooking duh :eek:

Re: Trial by media
 

The position of being subjected to sexual harassment and abuse in public or at work by men who think it's no big deal, I should imagine.

Re: Trial by media
 

Firing, or not hiring, someone because they are a woman, or not white, or are gay is discrimination.

Firing, or not hiring, someone because they are an arsehole isn't.

Re: Trial by media
 

If she has that in her work place she should speak up in line with her company policy, call in the police or a lawyer or work somewhere else.

Ranting on a forum anonymously will not solve the issue.

Re: Trial by media
 

"Somewhere else" being another country?

(Note that my belief that sexist behaviour is rampant in Canadian workplaces should not be construed as an endorsement of such behaviour. Nor should it be taken to mean that I think specific other countries are necessarily better. Still, I think there's little an individual victim in Canada can do about it).

Re: Trial by media
 

A dose of reality, regarding employment in the US military:

US: Military Whistleblowers At Risk | Human Rights Watch

Summary

Spat on. Deprived of food. Assailed with obscenities and
insults—“whore,” “cum dumpster,”
“slut,” “faggot,” “wildebeest.” Threatened
with death by “friendly fire” during deployment. Demeaned. Demoted.
Disciplined. Discharged for misconduct.

It is no secret that the US military has a sexual assault
problem: the Department of Defense estimates that 18,900 US service members
were sexually assaulted in fiscal year (FY) 2014.[1] But the slurs, sanctions, and scorn described above are not the punishments
that soldiers and their superiors have meted out to those who have perpetrated
sexual assault in the armed forces, but rather what happened to victims
who reported their experiences.

Military sexual assault survivors almost never see a remedy
for these actions, for which virtually no one is held accountable. Military
surveys indicate that most respondents—62 percent—who experienced
unwanted sexual contact and reported it to a military authority faced
retaliation as a result of reporting.[2] In other
words, military service members who reported sexual assault were 12 times more
likely to suffer retaliation for doing so than to see their offender, if also a
service member, convicted for a sex offense. Just 5 percent (175 out of 3,261)
of sexual assault cases in the Defense Department’s jurisdiction
investigated with a reportable outcome in FY 2014 led to a sex offense
conviction.[3]

It is estimated that only one in four victims reports sexual
assault to military authorities. In surveys, service members consistently cite
fear of retaliation from the perpetrator or the perpetrator’s friends, or
concern about their careers, as reasons for not reporting.[4]

Re: Trial by media
 

Military's Response To Sexual Misconduct Report Curtailed By General's Orders

Not much different in Canada.

Re: Trial by media
 

I disagree. It's a start.

Re: Trial by media
 

Perhaps the victims can, instead, contact the RCMP?

Oh, hang on:

Sexual-harassment claims against RCMP reach 336 - The Globe and Mail

Re: Trial by media
 

HA HA HA excellent Greenhill

Re: Trial by media
 

Never said it was "ok" and I don't doubt his behaviour is demeaning and possibly threatening. If the woman feels assaulted she can press charges, and the matter will judged in a court of law. What I am disputing is whether an employer should be judge and jury on this. In this case, I don't think it should.

Re: Trial by media
 

I am surprised by the defense that he should be able to say what he likes outside of work, this behavior has a direct link with his work. How are people expected to work alongside someone who has publicly exhibited such disrespect for women? I would not want to work in a team with him, so God knows how a woman would feel about it.

Re: Trial by media
 

To most of us on here it is known and accepted that Canada is a place behind the majority of the Western world.

I've watched several sexual discrimination things unfold here over the years in the work place.

It's more common with the "jobs for the boys" culture I guess.Hard to fire the CEO or his drinking buddy.

Re: Trial by media
 

You have changed your position from "when no real threat took place".

Good.

Re: Trial by media
 

Really? I think most posters can understand the concept of different.

Re: Trial by media
 

Only the reporter will know if she, supported presumably by a camera person, felt truly threatened or not. She did not seem the shy retiring type. She explained that she constantly has to put up with this typ of behaviour, which suggests it wasn't an unexpected occurrence. If she was worried about the abusive behaviour, I would hope she would have spoken to her employer about the risks involved or, if self-employed, judged the risks accordingly.

Was it a genuine threat as you imply? Who knows. Apart from yourself of course.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yup, how on earth has he got away scot-free on this? He must be thanking his lucky stars right now!

Re: Trial by media
 

She has a camera person and a security guard. You see the security guard with her when she confronts them.

Re: Trial by media
 

Myself, yes, I believe it was. Not just due to the words he chose (including the ridiculous "vibrator" comment) but also his body language and chosen facial expressions, as well as the context of the situation. Let's see him as the yappy little dog, that's trying to humour and appease the alpha males and get some attention.

Looking at it from a different angle, give this character the fuels of testosterone, alcohol, perception of acting with impunity, time of day/ opportunity, chance of being caught etc. Would you put him in a dark alley, alone, with your daughter/wife/niece/sister?

If your answer is "no" then his threat is genuine and it has reached you, directly.

Re: Trial by media
 

That's a fair comment. If pressure is put on the company from within (or without) the clearly the company needs to act. My issue is with the body corporate being moral arbiter.

There are plenty of people we would not want to work with if we had video of their drunken behaviour. Should someone's career be ruined for a verbal outburst? Not convinced that this is the right way forward.

Re: Trial by media
 

And there is the first guy with the sunglasses. Also unnamed. He lives in my neighbourhood.

His employer claimed to have "dealt" with it but nothing further in the public domain.

Re: Trial by media
 

Could well be forking out money left right and centre as we speak to remain anonymous..
Whereas so many people these days seem to wish to become famous, I can think of nothing worse - because the transgressions (remembered/serious or not) of your past potentially have the ability to screw your life up and make you infamous instead :eek:

Re: Trial by media
 

And that's probably why she felt she could confront them.

The cumulative effects, and aftershock of this kind of abuse have to be considered too. A society where this behaviour is accepted is one where you don't walk home alone at night, where you don't take the short cut through the alley or across the park, avoid walking past a group of men, cross the road before you get to the building site.

Re: Trial by media
 

The dark alley example is getting into the realms of mind reading. Irrelevant. As I said, only the reporter knows whether she was assaulted (threat is sufficient).

Re: Trial by media
 

Which is pretty much the society we are in today IMO unfortunately.

Re: Trial by media
 

"Mind reading" is an interesting choice of two-word phrase. However, "Statistical probability" is a better one.

Re: Trial by media
 

It appears that we have all agreed that this was an assault and as close to a rape without the physical action

So what does this say about our Toronto's finest, police? Who continue to do nothing about this vicious assault that was caught on camera and broadcast to millions.

Re: Trial by media
 

Why only the reporter? Surely everyone that heard this guy knows. To threaten someone with harm is assault. It's quite simple.

Re: Trial by media
 

If anyone feels personally threatened by this guy, the of course, they should report it. I don't think that's the issue here, but I don't disagree with your point.

Re: Trial by media
 

Ever considered joining the Baltimore Police Force? :p

Re: Trial by media
 

Simple to us as lay persons but not as simple when dealing with the legal system.
One would have to read carefully sections 264.1 and section 265 of the Criminal Code. We have all seen the video so in your best guesstimate was it Uttering Threats (264.1) or Assault under 265.
Why no charges were laid is anyones guess but they weren't. Is it the fault of the Police, the crown prosecutor or the reporter for not having charges laid?

Criminal Code