Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault) PART 2

[MXD]

LOL Tom Renney

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Why would anyone WANT to remain silent on this, though? Unless they had something to hide...

Sorry but you are clearly ignorant when it comes to law and police matters...

If one of them misremembers something and makes a statement, they could be charged with perjury/lying to authorities later on. That's true even if they're completely innocent of the sexual assault stuff.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Seems like Hockey Canada has been able to skate by all these years due to the mix of patriotism and national fervor for the sport. But it's important to remember "Hockey Canada" is not one and the same with "hockey in Canada" as much as they would like you to think it is. Hockey Canada is a distinct organization run by corrupt men. There is no kneejerk need to defend the organization out of any sense of patriotic duty.

 

[Perrah]

It mentions that everyone has the right to not be denied life, liberty and safety of the person unless they have been punished by the proper legal procedures.

Therefore, until those same people have had a reason to be denied the right to work at Hockey Canada, they can't be denied such.

You mean like not co-operating with an internal investigation when you were a key part of said investigation? If they want to tuck tail and hide from it that is their choice. That choice comes with a known consequence.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Sorry but you are clearly ignorant when it comes to law and police matters...

If one of them misremembers something and makes a statement, they could be charged with perjury/lying to authorities later on. That's true even if they're completely innocent of the sexual assault stuff.

So what should the players do, then? Since they're all under the microscope right now.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

It mentions that everyone has the right to not be denied life, liberty and safety of the person unless they have been punished by the proper legal procedures.

Therefore, until those same people have had a reason to be denied the right to work at Hockey Canada, they can't be denied such.

Sure they can. People apply for jobs and don’t get jobs all the time. People get dropped from positions as layoffs too.

Nowhere once again, does it mention the right to play hockey.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Your opinion is duly noted for what it is : an opinion, and an uneducated one at that. No more, no less.

No one is entitled to a specific job. There's no special exception for hockey.

Lemme rephrase: No one has the right to deny someone a job they are qualified for for arbitrary and unproven reasons.

 

[Perrah]

Sorry but you are clearly ignorant when it comes to law and police matters...

If one of them misremembers something and makes a statement, they could be charged with perjury/lying to authorities later on. That's true even if they're completely innocent of the sexual assault stuff.

Short of lying about being in the room and pertinent information about the allegation of what happened in said room do you think anyone would get a perjury charge for misremembering anything?

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The bolded is essentially the most important thing we need to remember.

Despite the failings of the system and the perception that it is made to "protect the criminals", it is essential that we do our best to protect the rights and freedoms that the Charter provides to all of us as a blanket.

There is nothing worse than innocent people getting caught up in the furor of "justice" and having their lives completely torn apart. It doesn't help anyone at all, and only serves to sew doubt into the judicial system even further.

When we punish, we need to be as certain as we can that we have the right people in the crosshairs and that we are punishing them for the crimes they committed, not the ones we suspect.

Agreed but I'll go further: even if they're guilty they still have the same rights.

 

[Melrose Munch]

It mentions that everyone has the right to not be denied life, liberty and safety of the person unless they have been punished by the proper legal procedures.

Therefore, until those same people have had a reason to be denied the right to work at Hockey Canada, they can't be denied such.

People are fired with cause all the time.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

The Charter right to play the Spengler or WC. Sure, why not.

 

[WarriorofTime]

if Canada is anything like the USA, like I suspect, then I'm sure you can't deny someone employment due to being a member of a particular class (i.e., race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, things like that), but there is nothing that would prevent you from electing not to hire somebody because they were part of a hockey team where some of its members likely engaged in gang rape and you didn't come forward.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Every time I see people misuse the charter of rights and freedoms I just want to bash my head.

There is no fundamental right or freedom that includes employment for hockey. None.

This is a classic reverse onus. It's not someone demanding the right to a career, it's another entity denying someone a career. Again, I was talking about being denied employment you're qualified for, by an entity that has a virtual monopoly on said employment opportunities, with no proven reason to do so. Suspecting someone did something illegal without proof isn't a reason. Not being happy someone won't comply with your demands to be interviewed by a lawyer isn't a reason. Well, in my uneducated, ignorant opinion that is (as I've been told).

 

[Bevans]

It mentions that everyone has the right to not be denied life, liberty and safety of the person unless they have been punished by the proper legal procedures.

Therefore, until those same people have had a reason to be denied the right to work at Hockey Canada, they can't be denied such.

Respectfully disagree with your interpretation of section 7.

 

[MXD]

if Canada is anything like the USA, like I suspect, then I'm sure you can't deny someone employment due to being a member of a particular class (i.e., race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, things like that), but there is nothing that would prevent you from electing not to hire somebody because they were part of a hockey team where some of its members likely engaged in gang rape and you didn't come forward.

This is basically another way of saying there's no entitlement to a specific job.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So what should the players do, then? Since they're all under the microscope right now.

It's a tough situation. If someone had truly nothing to do with the sex assault allegations, i don't see why they would have a problem with going. i was talking more generally in dealing with police.

but for players might have been involved in what's being alleged, it's a lot tougher. the smartest thing legally would be to probably skip the hearings. anything they say can probably be passed on to police and could hurt them later on.

they should ask their attorneys for the best advice. the point is 'Talk if you have nothing to hide' is a farce.

 

[MXD]

Not being happy someone won't comply with your demands to be interviewed by a lawyer isn't a reason. Well, in my uneducated, ignorant opinion that is (as I've been told).

At least, you know what you are and aren't pretending otherwise.

 

[pcruz]

Agreed but I'll go further: even if they're guilty they still have the same rights.

I wouldn't go as far as saying "the same rights".
They have rights, but part of the process of conviction of a crime is that you have certain rights revoked.
Which rights and what severity of the limitation on those rights depends on the conviction.

Sure they can. People apply for jobs and don’t get jobs all the time. People get dropped from positions as layoffs too.

Nowhere once again, does it mention the right to play hockey.

Those people who apply for jobs and don't get them aren't denied such jobs based on a revocation of their right to the job. Maybe they're less qualified, maybe they have a criminal history, etc.
If you apply for a job and are not successful, but firmly believe that the reasons for not getting the job are a breach of your rights, then you can sue the employer.

The people who are currently working in a position and are terminated due to proper reasons have the right to know what the reason is/was and if they believe the termination to be unlawful, to sue the employer.


The Charter gives everyone equal protection under the law. Anyone treated different from others for reasons that violate the Charter, have good cause for civil/criminal action against those who have mistreated them.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

In-camera meeting for the interim report being presented to the Board. No notes or minutes! Oopsie poopsie!

 

[Bevans]

Since people seem hell bent on shoving the Charter into this convo. Here is an example of how it could be used.

Player X participated in an interview due to the threat of being banned from HC.

He then says something incriminating in that interview.

Later, in a criminal trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce Player X's testimony made to investigators.

Player X objects to the introduction of this evidence based on his right not to self incriminate.

To raise the Charter now is to place it well before the horse.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I just want to bash my head in reading some responses in this thread.

Not as bad as the people celebrating Virtanen's verdict (calling him innocent, not understanding the ruling), but still disappointing.

 

[MXD]

Since people seem hell bent on shoving the Charter into this convo. Here is an example of how it could be used.

Player X participated in an interview due to the threat of being banned from HC.

He then says something incriminating in that interview.

Later, in a criminal trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce Player X's testimony made to investigators.

Player X objects to the introduction of this evidence based on his right not to self incriminate.

To raise the Charter now is to place it well before the horse.

And even then, it can't be used that way, because that interview is in no way, shape or form a criminal proceeding.

 

[I am toxic]

Nater just called for the resignation of Hockey Canada leadership/board.

Huh.

 

[pcruz]

People are fired with cause all the time.

if Canada is anything like the USA, like I suspect, then I'm sure you can't deny someone employment due to being a member of a particular class (i.e., race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, things like that), but there is nothing that would prevent you from electing not to hire somebody because they were part of a hockey team where some of its members likely engaged in gang rape and you didn't come forward.

Respectfully disagree with your interpretation of section 7.

What you guys are conflating here, is that the players and staff at Hockey Canada, until convicted of having committed infractions of the law, are no different from anyone else who has not been charged with the same actions.

Anyone who works for Hockey Canada and is not at all associated with the criminal complaints/civil accusations, have the same protections under the law and the Charter as those who have been accused and are never convicted of having done anything wrong.

What the Charter provides us, is protection from being treated differently from others without a valid reason - and being accused of something, without being convicted of it, is not a valid reason to be treated differently.

What WarriorofTime is asking about in that post, is "guilt by association". That means that individual guilt need not be proven if you are associated with people accused of wrong-doing.

That's a major fundamental breach of our rights.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

I wouldn't go as far as saying "the same rights".
They have rights, but part of the process of conviction of a crime is that you have certain rights revoked.
Which rights and what severity of the limitation on those rights depends on the conviction.




Those people who apply for jobs and don't get them aren't denied such jobs based on a revocation of their right to the job. Maybe they're less qualified, maybe they have a criminal history, etc.
If you apply for a job and are not successful, but firmly believe that the reasons for not getting the job are a breach of your rights, then you can sue the employer.

The people who are currently working in a position and are terminated due to proper reasons have the right to know what the reason is/was and if they believe the termination to be unlawful, to sue the employer.


The Charter gives everyone equal protection under the law. Anyone treated different from others for reasons that violate the Charter, have good cause for civil/criminal action against those who have mistreated them.

Well in that case. We should be expecting Virtanen to go to the Supreme Court since his rights were clearly violated in your eyes.