Little contrition

Re: Why should Ghomeshi not be allowed a voice? Christie Blatchford, Sept 15

Reading Jian Ghomeshi’s expose in the New York Review of Books, I was struck with how little contrition Ghomeshi appears to have for his victims. While admitting some culpability (“It went deeper than that. I was demanding on dates and in personal affairs. I would keep lobbying for what I wanted. I was critical and dismissive. Some women I cared about went along with things I wanted to avoid my disappointment or moods. I ought to have been more respectful and responsive with the women in my life.”), Ghomeshi states emphatically that, “even as I feel deep remorse about how I treated some people in my life, I cannot confess to the accusations that are inaccurate.”

How curious that Ghomeshi signed a peace bond with complainant #4 for being “sexually inappropriate” which resulted in his final count of sexual assault against him being withdrawn. Ghomeshi is admitting that there was not consent for this “sexually inappropriate” behaviour, whatever that behaviour may be.

Christie Blatchford correctly states that the complainants colluded by exchanging email messages. I have no doubt that had the women been instructed by counsel to not have contact with one another, then this case would have had a much different outcome.

Occasional moments of reflection and sadness imbue Ghomeshi’s “reflections”, however what stands out is his continued sense of importance declaring that he was the “first” #MeToo perpetrator. Firsts are great at Wimbledon or the racetrack, but this is one group that it’s better not to be a member of.

Sheryl Lipton, Toronto