February 16, 2016
SHARE
Short Cuts
#57 #Ghomeshi: The Eggs Awaken
The Twitter eggs are emboldened by coverage of the Ghomeshi trial. Jen Gerson co-hosts.

Jen Gerson of the National Post co-hosts.

Jen and Jesse talk about why Canadian media has so many boots on the ground to report on U.S. politics. Why we can’t leave the American coverage to American?

As the Ghomeshi trial continues, reporters make mistakes in court and the Twitter eggs come out in full force.

Jen’s Twitter: @jengerson

NOTE FROM JESSE: 

I got out of my depth in this episode by wading into legal analysis: I should stick to the media. I research what I think I’ll be getting into on Short Cuts, but then we have an unscripted conversation; in this case it led me to offering legal analysis that turned out to be just plain wrong.

Based on this Globe and Mail article I had it in my head that the law doesn’t actually care about consent when it comes to BDSM. The part I forgot was that consent is only a non-factor when the assault results “in bodily harm” which seems to be determined by whether or not it leaves a mark or causes injury. In the case of the current plaintiffs, the Crown is not arguing that bodily harm was caused, so (as I understand it) consent does matter, contrary to what I said on the show.

None of which is to say that consent was granted in these cases. If I believed it had been, I would not have reported on the allegations.

More from this series
Jen Gerson of the National Post co-hosts. Jen and Jesse talk about why Canadian media has so many boots on the ground to report on U.S. politics. Why we can’t leave the American coverage to American? As the Ghomeshi trial continues, reporters make mistakes in court and the Twitter eggs come out in full force. Jen’s Twitter: @jengerson NOTE FROM JESSE:  I got out of my depth in this episode by wading into legal analysis: I should stick to the media. I research what I think I’ll be getting into on Short Cuts, but then we have an unscripted conversation; in this case it led me to offering legal analysis that turned out to be just plain wrong. Based on this Globe and Mail article I had it in my head that the law doesn’t actually care about consent when it comes to BDSM. The part I forgot was that consent is only a non-factor when the assault results “in bodily harm” which seems to be determined by whether or not it leaves a mark or causes injury. In the case of the current plaintiffs, the Crown is not arguing that bodily harm was caused, so (as I understand it) consent does matter, contrary to what I said on the show. None of which is to say that consent was granted in these cases. If I believed it had been, I would not have reported on the allegations.
February 21, 2025
The $6 million lawsuit that killed an indie Alberta podcast. 
February 19, 2025
Somebody That I U.S. to Know.
February 14, 2025
Is there order to Trump’s tariff chaos?
February 12, 2025
Poilievre’s slogans can’t compete with “Buy Canadian.” 
February 7, 2025
A tariff reprieve and the trade war that wasn’t. 
February 5, 2025
Emboldened by Trump, Poilievre denies the existence of trans people in an interview on CP24.
January 31, 2025
Doug Ford cashes in his “Captain Canada” chips
January 29, 2025
all podcasts arrow All Podcasts
Short Cuts