Re: Trial by media
 

Let's try a different angle. You go get some booze down yer neck.

Then come back on here when you're a bit sozzled. Hit reply to any of the comments made on this thread by a female forum member, paste in the following single line statement, then click "Submit Reply":

You're lucky there's not a ****ing vibrator in your ear.

Tomorrow you can apologise and blame the drink. Easy!

Alternatively, if you don't want to do it, can you explain your reasoning?

Re: Trial by media
 

Bizarre post.

The reason I am so against companies laying down moral codes is precisely because of the illogic and bias that posts like this display.

Re: Trial by media
 

But this is exactly what our ex-hydro employee said to Shauna (which you classified as non-threatening).

Rather than calling it bizarre, and dodging the bullet, can you not put into words exactly why you feel that my suggestion is a bad idea?

Re: Trial by media
 

It is a sad state of affairs when we start relying on corporations to enforce morale code.

Most of the evils in the world are by corporations and the notion of greed that is driven by capitalism.

The individual being fired was more about good publicity and brand damage limitation than anything else sadly.

Re: Trial by media
 

Of course. By adding the rider - speaking generally to the point about employers being free to do what they want - I hoped to make it clear I wasn't talking about this case.

Re: Trial by media
 

Well it's a stupid suggestion to start with. Like the dark alley, it prejudges the character of the person, and just as you don't know the You Tube guy, you don't know me, so to even hypothesise that I (or anyone else) would do such a thing is just nonsense.

It's extrapolating a future behaviour from a minor glimpse of current behaviour. It's similar to me looking at your army avatar and thinking you must be a military nutjob that lives in Montana in the certainty of an armed resistance against the US government.

People say many things when they are drunk and when they are sober. YT guy's comments may be indicative a deep misogyny (hatred of women) or it may be male bravado. It may even be that internet meme. Who knows. The way to find out is to discuss it with the guy, when he's sober, and make a judgement then. The police could interview him, and if charges are pressed, a court could assess him. Jumping to conclusions about his character and his true mindset is not unlike the American cops that jump to conclusions about black men having criminal intent.

HTH.

Re: Trial by media
 

Im going to play devils advocate here. this is the video of the incident everyone is talking about
RAW VIDEO: Shauna Hunt confronts men about 'FHRITP' - CityNews

So according to this thread the guy in the Arsenal shirt was the employee fired.
At 0.08 you see the back of his shirt.
At 0.24 a guy with a goatee wearing a dark coloured shirt with red stripes just below the shoulders utters the obscenity into the guy with the white BMO shirt right ear but obviously loud enough for the camera and reporter to catch it. He then walks away. She admits on camera she won't confront him because he is drunk even though a security guard is present.
At 0.44 she then decides to confront a group of guys and ask if they were waiting to say FHRITP. Can we all agree that this group of guys have been drinking but as we are not considered experts in a court of law we can't actually say they were drunk but a Police Officer could.
Mr Arsenal shirt appears at around 1.15 not really saying anything.
At 2.00 she confronts Mr Arsenal shirt who thinks the phrase FHRITP is hilarious.
As he states he doesn't care he finds it hilarious.
At 2.35 he makes the comment You are lucky that theres not a ****ing vibrator in your ear like in England.
So by uttering those words is he
1. Making a factual statement that she is lucky that she doesn't have a vibrator in her ear
2. Threatening her by stating she's lucky not to have a vibrator in her ear and if he had one he would stick it in her ear
3. Assaulting or threatening to assault her bearing in mind the definition of section 265 of the Criminal Code.

So what say you the jury?

Re: Trial by media
 

Quite. It's the fact that there is a groupthink by the company and the general population that this guy breached something, and therefore must automatically be fired which I find troubling. (In addition the obvious vulgarity/threat etc.)

Re: Trial by media
 

:goodpost:
1.

Re: Trial by media
 

It's not about what we think he meant, it's about what the the reporter thinks he meant. If she met him alone in Greenhill's dark alley, her thoughts may be very different than meeting him in this rowdy public context with her security man next to her. That's the point. But I don't know what she thought, I have never met her.

Re: Trial by media
 

But you accept that there are people who have jobs that require them to maintain professional conduct at ALL times?

Re: Trial by media
 

Yep. Well the thing with the device is if you don't use your personal devices for work or access company databases on them they can't tell you that they need to wipe/look through them for company security priviliges. Even if they did i'd just hit the reset button in settings and say have at it :lol:

With regards to this whole situation yes the guy did something bad. It was def out of hand. Like JamesM said so is the fact that the guy who originally started it is off laughing instead of being charged. If he was charged by the police I would say he got what he deserved. But i'm with Shard that it isn't the employer's responsibility. It is unfair that the employer can say "You're fired because you did xxx outside of work and we don't like it." If the way society viewed this was different this guy would still have his job, and maybe the police would have actually done something for once and justice would be served. But here in Canada everyone is obsessed with what is "politically correct" , and then you have a bunch of angry people saying that "whatever he gets, he deserved it" while not actually analysing whether the punishment was fair or not. Society basically ignores the fact that it isn't correct for the employer to be dishing out the punishments, but rather it is the police's job. What kind of society are we creating by allowing anyone/anything with some sort of governing influence in someones life to restrict them?

Re: Trial by media
 

Neither have I but many on here are saying he should have been charged and Im saying charged with what?
Uttering threats as per section 264.1 or assault under section 265 or no charges at all.
we are the ones convicting him on here but could we actually convict him in a court of law.
Taken from another article
Toronto police confirm they won’t lay charges after a CityNews reporter was subjected to offensive comments while she was taping a report at BMO Field after Sunday’s Toronto FC game.
Spokeswoman Meaghan Gray told 680 NEWS officers spoke with Shauna Hunt and the Crown and determined charges weren’t appropriate in the case.
So while she has every right to feel offended and potentially threatened no charges were laid. Id be interested to see if she agreed to this or was basically told it would be hard to get a conviction if we did charge him.
Getting fired from his job was probably more severe than getting charged and convicted.
The next question is will he fight his dismissal or just move on and find another job and put this behind him.

Re: Trial by media
 

Not speaking for Shard, but no I don't. I am a believer that work life is entirely separate from personal life. As long as the person is able to go in, do their job and do it well, who gives a shit what they do when they aren't at work? Obviously there is a line to be drawn say if you are sentenced to a prison term, or the predicament affects your ability to work, eg alcoholism, drugs, etc.

The only people who have to be in professional conduct at "all times" are people like the heads of states of countries. Not someone who happens to work for the hydro company.

Re: Trial by media
 

Exactly. It wasn't severe enough for him to be charged under S. 264.1 or s. 265 of the criminal code so being fired from a job seems unfair given criminally he did nothing wrong. Whether or not its offensive/threatening/a sexism issue is entirely separate. The facts at hand are that he was not charged with a crime. Therefore there is no reason for him to have been terminated.

Re: Trial by media
 

Taken from the CBSA Code of Conduct which applies to me

4. Private, Off-Duty Conduct and Outside Activities

Our CBSA values of Respect, Integrity and Professionalism guide us throughout our work day. They can also extend to our private time. This is especially true in terms of engaging in outside activities on social media fora, outside employment, and political activities.

We understand that our outside activities and off-duty conduct are usually private matters. They could become work-related matters, however, if they have negative consequences on the Agency. We avoid such activities, which may include those that:

reflect negatively on the Agency, its employees (including its managers) or its programs;
render us unable to perform a requirement of our duties;
lead other employees to refuse, be reluctant or be unable to work with us;
renders us guilty of a breach of the Criminal Code; and
make it difficult for the Agency to manage its operations efficiently and/or to direct its workforce.
We also avoid activities that place us or the Agency at risk by knowingly associating, outside of our official duties, with individuals or groups

Oh crap I had better not comment on Tony Gazebo Clement anymore :eek:

Re: Trial by media
 

But that's not true- there are plenty of ordinary folk who do jobs which require a certain level of behaviour... doctors, nurses etc are expected to maintain a professional code of conduct at all times, to not bring the profession into disrepute. It what we sign up for.

Re: Trial by media
 

To be honest I think it shows a naivety to the things that protect you in the world at the moment... Teachers for instance would be subject to the same rules as nurses. Do you really think it would be acceptable for a teacher to say that in public and then go back to his class of impressionable teens? Of course it isn't.

For me the only point in the legalities of it all are did he know that the company expected him to maintain certain behaviour in public? If he did, then on his head be it...

Re: Trial by media
 

To be honest, that really irks me, especially the 'social media' bit...
Sure, it may be in the "code of conduct" , but the greater issue or greater point that I am trying to make here is that regardless of what the 'code of conduct' says, it should not apply outside of work! Doctors, nurses, what does it matter as long as they take the best possible care of their patients as they can? Teachers, their job is to follow the educational standards the government has set for the students, so as long as they do that during school there isn't an issue. I've had lots of teachers say "My personal experience/opinion is/has been different but the law requires me to state this opinion: ...". Based on your logic they would have to represent the government's opinion on whatever topic even when they aren't working, just because they are a teacher? On top of all that, regardless of someone's profession the fact is that he wasn't charged. Whether he was a doctor, nurse or teacher doesn't change that.

Re: Trial by media
 

Nope, Gozit. just nope.

Re: Trial by media
 

Not knowing the Canadian educational system, can you give any examples, as the educational systems that I do know, have very few opinions that need to be stated.
....Or do you mean things like climate change, "Scientists think........" Is that the kind of thing you mean?

Re: Trial by media
 

Sure you want to be arguing on the same side of "that" Shard?

You have literally no clue Gozit...

Re: Trial by media
 

The bottom line, if a guy is a sexist douchebag, Gozit thinks they should be allowed to be a sexist douchebag outside of work and be protected.

Re: Trial by media
 

Oh he has no clue. No clue at all. Agreed. I just want to read him admit it instead of dressing it all up in bs about free speech outside of work.

Just admit it. Guys should be free to make rapey, sexually harrassy comments outside of work all they want and keep their jobs and careers with no blowback in the (gasp!) media or in the workplace. And it should be forced on to the woman to complain to some official authority to make it an officially sexist or harrassy comment/action, it's not enough to just be witnessed.

Come on then. Own it. Cos that's what you're supporting and you, too Shard.

"Man" up and own it.

Re: Trial by media
 

Are you really saying that as a parent of a girl I should let a teacher stand up in public and say what he wants to do to her and that's ok? Or a male nurse could make that statement and then go and care for a female and she shouldn't be uncomfortable?

I can't quite believe what you're saying. Dear god I hope my sons never think like you.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes you should. it's free speech and it's a SLIPPERY SLOPE OMG A SLIPPERY SLOPE. Can't you take a joke Tiry! Oh and he was drunk! Drunk men do that. Everyone needs to chill out. jeeze.

Re: Trial by media
 

I'm just quoting your post since it was the most recent: I know nothing about the specifics of this case except what's been said on this thread.

But I have a question relating to scale: Don't you think that the status quo in the Canadian Forces (not to mention the RCMP) deserves a bit more attention than the case you're all on about?

Re: Trial by media
 

This case is the lightening rod for a wider discussion: I don't think any woman on this thread is saying this case is somehow more important than the sexual abuse etc going on in the RCMP or the Forces. We're saying this is a symptom of the WIDER CULTURAL ISSUE, of which the RCMP etc is a part. All of it needs to stop. ALL OF IT.

Re: Trial by media
 

Absolutely right. I'm just puzzled as to why us feminists aren't campaigning for mass firings of soldiers and policemen.

Re: Trial by media
 

Agreed.

Re: Trial by media
 

There's no pack mentality to do it.

People like to jump on bandwagons, find strength in numbers and be self righteous.

Easier to fight a won battle with odds on your side than something sensible.

Re: Trial by media
 

Have you ever gone on to a thread and not tried to be a victim???

Re: Trial by media
 

Have you ever gone onto a thread where you're losing the argument and made personal attacks and name called?

Re: Trial by media
 

Nope. Never needed too and never cared enough.

Re: Trial by media
 

you just did, so that's not true.

Re: Trial by media
 

*cough*

exhibit A. but, I'm thrilled in a way you implied I have a victim mentality, because it shows I hit a nerve with my post. Good. I hope i did.

I mean, obviously only a "victim" would write what I wrote. Not someone who might have an actual point to make. Oh no that's not possible. It's because I'm a victim. I'm a victim who just doesn't get it when men make a joke, etc, etc etc as explained before by the apologists ad nauseumblah blah blah /sarcasm. It's just exactly the same kind of thinking as Gozit et al.

Re: Trial by media
 

Gozit believes that an employer should not be able to exert control on a persons free time.

He never at any point has condoned the behaviour.

You are taking it out of context and looking for drama.

Re: Trial by media
 

There is no nerve to hit.

I don't really see what point you are making?

A drunk individual did something stupid on camera. He has been punished and has since apologised.

Several people on here feel the punishment is harsh. Shard and Gozit who think it should've been dealt with in another way. They agree the guy was a "douche" but think the employer should not be involved.

You have since personally attacked them.

Now you're upset because I've pointed it out. LOL

Re: Trial by media
 

It is just a wild guess, but I don't think JamesM has met ExKiwilass in real life.

Re: Trial by media
 

Short of a miracle, I can confirm this guess.

<the miracle would be that either of them survived the encounter>