Re: Trial by media
 

:rofl: I like that!

Re: Trial by media
 

As yet we have not met. My ambition is to one day attend a Vancouver Meet Up as an excuse to go to a pub/bar which sadly does not happen to me often.

I'm sure ExKiwilass is a charming, well respected and honourable individual.

I do think this thread has crossed a line of being blown out of proportion. I'm not in agreement with Shard or Gozit but I see some logic in their posts.

Anyway I'm going to log off for the evening.

Re: Trial by media
 

erm...:unsure:

Re: Trial by media
 

Does anybody go to the WISE club?

Re: Trial by media
 

I'm just trying to help make sense of your ambivalence.

And you still can't make your mind up, so offer rambling, wordy, deflections :confused:

So, Shard, do you opine that his behaviour was "threatening" or "not threatening"?

You will tell the truth! Answer the question!

Was he threatening? Answer: "Yes" Or "No".

Re: Trial by media
 

looking for 'drama" - interesting choice of words there. Why, because I'm a 'drama queen"? Is that because of my gender?

He believes the employee should not have been fired for their action/words, which seems a lot like condoning the action/words to me. The underlying theme of his and Shard's posts is that this case is not that serious. I disagree. I think it is serious. I just want them to admit that's what they really think, because the logical inference of 'employer can't fire someone for acting like a sexist douche in their free time" is condoning that behaviour and saying it's not serious enough to warrant being fired. So, admit it then, you lot.

Re: Trial by media
 

Trust me, I get that you don't get my point. YOu in the same boat as Gozit and Shard in not getting it. None of you get it, because none of you have walked in the shoes of women dealing with this regularly. No surprises there.



What is fascinating to me is how the guy being fired is such an issue, but what happened to the woman is not. Still guy being fired is more important than woman being harrassed for many of you.

Re: Trial by media
 

Well, just to be clear, my Government has made every effort to prevent Shard and Kiwi from subverting Ordinary Canadians and from threatening Ordinary Families' financial stability and downright ruin.

But let me be absolutely clear, any attempt by immigrants including so-called "Permanent" Residents, who commit crimes such as saying nasty things about My Government of Canada and are therefore sentenced to six months or more in one of my shiny new prisons (inc.) will be exported, or to be absolutely clear, buggered. This is to protect Ordinary Canadian Families who earn more than $225,500 per year.

Re: Trial by media
 

See post #170.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes, of course I accept that. Healthcare professionals, teachers, politicians, public figures, probably a few other categories, but not everyone.

Re: Trial by media
 

Too busy getting your knickers in a twist about drunk Arsenal fans. ;)

Re: Trial by media
 

...which was another rambling, wordy, deflection.

Tell us your opinion, Shard. Put yourself in the position of the reporter, if you like. Imagine what you would think about the comments made towards you. Would you find such behaviour threatening? Greenhill asked for your opinion, not what you thought other people's opinion might be.

I'm now fascinated to hear the answer to this question. It's not a very difficult one, but in a Paxman/Howard sort of a way you're making more of an arse of yourself by deflecting it, or answering a different question, than you would by just answering what Greenhill asked.

What's your opinion: was the fans' behaviour threatening, or not?

Re: Trial by media
 

I'll throw my opinion in here - been following this thread, I'm mostly with Zoe that it's just making me rage.

If I were the reporter... would I feel threatened that he was actually going to try to rape me in public, or shove a vibrator in my ear? Probably not.

However, would I feel threatened that he would continue hurling verbal abuse at me while I'm on camera trying to do my job, or threatened that he would continue getting belligerent and that him and his friends, who outnumber me, would just keep drunkenly yelling over me, since clearly there is not going to be any reasoning? Would I feel threatened that *I* may then get in trouble because I decided to try to stand up for myself on live television? Absolutely.

Re: Trial by media
 

My opinion: The fans behaviour was threatening, but the reporter did not feel threatened.

It was a silly question by Greenhill, and you show you equal incapacity to hold an intellectual position by reiterating it.

Re: Trial by media
 

Just nope? Is that all you have? I think you are the one that isn't understanding: We aren't talking about feminism or about the guys actions. We are talking about the issue of employer induced pressure/punishment when it is out of place. In a general sense. Outside of the context of this incident. Regardless of the situation it is not the employers job to police the individual. Thats a de facto dictatorship/censorship on an individual to more restrictive extends than the law, with threat of joblessness. For the millionth time. I'm not condoning the guys actions. He was an arse. His actions were wrong. But the punishing body [the employer] stepped out of their bounds. They are the employer. Their rules or standards do not/should not apply to the employee when they are off the clock. The thing here is he wasn't convicted. If he was convicted under the sections mentioned by FL, and the employers had a policy where they have the right to evaluate the actions of people convicted under the law, and chose to terminate him at that point, that would be different. But he wasn't charged or convicted. The law seems to have no problem with him. Maybe thats something that needs to change. But since he didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law, the employer has no right to terminate him like that.
Yes, climate change, the state, police, things about military etc they have to give the opinion their superiors tell them to. At least in the catholic system where I am. That was beside the point but what I was trying to say there is that by Tirytorys logic teachers wouldn't be allowed to express their own opinions on those subjects outside of work because its "policy" or "keeping the integrity of the profession".




Good post and good post! Thank you.

Re: Trial by media
 

The question I had (which you lead me to beat around the bush) was regarding your statement in post #121. You said something that upset other forum members. I questioned that.

Now you're labeling my questioning of that as "silly"?

Re: Trial by media
 

Actually this is a good point and I agree with the sentiment.

Gozit and Shard have challenged how much influence an employer should have in an employee's personal life.

But then the thread title is "Trial by media" so it's only natural that the thread is focused on the individual who was tried and found guilty by social media by everybody, including yourself. The prime punishment is that he lost his job and this was executed when he was not working or representing his firm.

I don't think you can be too critical of the individuals who are looking at what is applicable to the title.

However I am in total agreement that because of the "pack mentality" and opportunity to self righteously bully a culprit that people have lost sight of the victim which sadly happens too often when there is heavy media attention involved.

The reporter was clearly irritated and angered more than anything else and rightfully so. As she points out it happens a lot and she was fed up with it. The behaviour was drunk and immature and once you add the content it tips to highly offensive and threatening. The latter in my opinion justifies the employer wanting to sever their ties.

I don't think the reporter had any particular reason to feel threatened. The game was over and there were thousands of people walking past minding their own business, a police presence in the area and a camera man and security guard.

I actually probably walked past the incident myself but had no interest in CityTV as last time they interviewed me they edited my highly intellectual comments on the launch of the new iPad to take me out of context and make me look a bigger wally than you all know me to be (hard I know) :rofl:

Don't get me started on how cheap I think City TV's journalism is.

Re: Trial by media
 

Me too. I had to bow out, I was getting so angry.

Re: Trial by media
 

And what opinion do you think he was trying to express Gozit????? That's it entirely acceptable to ".....". This is not something to do with for example a science teacher teaching evolution who believes in God and creation (is there one anyway?) This is a person making a violent and sexual remark to another person in public for all to hear.

Re: Trial by media
 

:goodpost:

I would just like one of them to admit that is what they're defending here: a man's right to insult and harrass women outside of work without consequences to his job.

Re: Trial by media
 

[QUOTE=Gozit;11653527... Outside of the context of this incident ...[/QUOTE]

OK then, let's take it out of the context of his incident.

An employer can choose who it wants to employ.

That is it. The end of the matter.

Re: Trial by media
 

That's right. There was no "Trial by media", so that's a moot point. The board met, they discussed "threats" and "opportunities" (business terms for external stuff), then chose wisely.

Re: Trial by media
 

I might be wrong but I think the point they were trying to make is that it is who is applying (administering?) the consequences that they thought was wrong.

They haven't said it is a mans right to insult and harass - just that it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels by impartial authorities. (In fact I think Gozit even said perhaps the law should be changed to recognize the problem)

Re: Trial by media
 

But in this case they are completely misunderstanding what is happening. His ex-employer is not punishing the arsehole for what he did. As you say, that is the prerogative of the police and courts. They simply decided they don't want to employ an arsehole.

Re: Trial by media
 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Priceless!

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes, impartiality, due process, etc.. Companies are not sufficiently equipped to assess situations out of work and are relatively easy to manipulate. We should aim for less corporate intrusion into our private life in principle.

Re: Trial by media
 

I am once again at a loss to understand your point here.

A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.

Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?

Re: Trial by media
 

I also note that Shard's insistence that action against the douche go through "proper legal channels" forces an onerous legal process on the victim of his harrassment. Great way to silence women - because that would be the effect, intended (?) or not.

Re: Trial by media
 

In principle, I'd like men to stop harrassing women. Any company that supports that principle has my support :thumbsup:

Re: Trial by media
 

I would further add that I believe there is an onus on the company to evaluate and protect it's other employees. Not in a big brother watch your every move way, but if someone puts it out there as he did, then they have an obligation to act.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes. And I think this is why the company was right to act.

Re: Trial by media
 

And vice versa. I'd like to see woman stop harassing men. There is no room for harassment in any place let alone the work place.

Re: Trial by media
 

BREAKING NEWS
Newly elected NDP MP 26 yr old Deborah Drever has been suspended from the NDP caucus for making homophobic comments on Instagram.
Note only suspended she gets to keep her job and sits as an Independent.
Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus - Calgary - CBC News

Err can we class this as a double standard? Im sure all of the female posters are just as outraged as I am.

Re: Trial by media
 

The NDP "fired" her, though if I'm not mistaken, they can't make her lose her seat as she was still elected, no?

This is just my ignorance here - is NDP able to do more than expelling her from the caucus and refusing to allow her to sit as part of the NDP? Or have NDP done all they can for their part?

Or would it be up to someone else to "fire" her to the point that she actually loses her seat?

Re: Trial by media
 

The provincial NDP leader just stated they would review her situation after 12 months and then would reconsider letting her back into the NDP caucus.
Bottom line is she hasn't lost her job and is now an Independent MP of the Alberta Legislature.
So basically she hasn't lost her job.

Re: Trial by media
 

Who would be the one to fire her, though?

If all NDP can do is suspend her, then they've done what they can do, in my books.

It's a bit like all the Rob Ford stuff last year... the rest of City Council couldn't remove him as mayor, so instead they did the max of what they could do: stripped him of pretty much all his powers as major and just let time run out.

So in this case, how would she 'lose her job'? She's not employed by the NDP, she's employed by the people who elected her, so I assume then there would have to be some kind of recall or byelection in order for her to actually lose her job?

Re: Trial by media
 

This is pretty outrageous, and it would be a fair bet that if she were employed anywhere else this sort of thing would be a career-limiting event. But I'm not sure the NDP can do much more than expel her from caucus. Does Alberta have a mechanism to recall, or dismiss, MLAs? Of course, if she was honourable she'd resign, but the very nature of her social media comments suggests honour is not high on her list of attributes...

Re: Trial by media
 

Expulsion
30 The Assembly may, after a hearing conducted in accordance with its standing orders, expel a Member for any cause that is sufficient in the opinion of the Assembly.
1983 cL-10.1 s36

Resignation
31(1) A Member may resign the Member’s seat as a Member
(a) by declaring openly in the Member’s place in the Assembly during its proceedings that the Member resigns the Member’s seat as a Member, or
(b) by delivering a resignation signed by the Member and attested to by 2 witnesses to the Clerk.
(2) When a Member resigns the Member’s seat in accordance with subsection (1), the seat immediately becomes vacant.
(3) The resignation of a Member does not affect the Member’s liability to prosecution for an offence under Part 5 or 6 of the Election Act.

Re: Trial by media
 

That's pretty clear-cut, then. The NDP has done all they can from the party management perpsective, by throwing her out of caucus. If she won't resign, the Assembly can expel her so long as enough MLAs agree. "Any cause that is sufficient in the opinion of the Assembly" is actually much broader than I expected it to be... we shall have to see what happens.

Re: Trial by media
 

The sad thing here is this is a public figure as well.