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

[WarriorofTime]

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.

Nobody is facing jail time if an organization opts not to hire you.

Being "qualified" via resume doesn't entitle anyone to a specific job.

 

[pcruz]

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

If anyone were stupid enough to assert their position to not sign him because of the accusations, he would have a slam-dunk case.

However, as you will understand, Virtanen would have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt that his rights have been violated.

The teams/organizations are also assumed to not have committed the infraction of violating his rights just like the player was assumed to not have committed the crime of sexual assault, unless proven in a court of law.

Also, just as a side-note: you don't "go to the Supreme Court" for anything. You file claims with the lower courts normally the Superior Court of Justice and appeal decisions made by the various court levels to the next higher level.

 

[I am toxic]

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

A properly managed in camera meeting has the participants take personal notes. You never know when you will need them.

Which it appears at least one exec will be providing.

A competent, transparent board would have both taken personal notes, and made this clear to the committee in advance, and provided those notes as appropriate.

Rather than being forced to grudgingly admit to the existence of such notes, as was the case here.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

A properly managed in camera meeting has the participants take personal notes. You never know when you will need them.

Which it appears at least one execs will be providing.

A competent, transparent board would have both taken personal notes, and made this clear to the committee in advance, and provided those notes as appropriate.

Rather than being forced to grudgingly admit to the existence of such notes, as was the case here.

They're Costanza-ing themselves again. "Oh, NOTES? You were interested in those? My word. I suppose I could see if I had any. Didn't occur to me you'd ask!"

 

[NyQuil]

Also, just as a side-note: you don't "go to the Supreme Court" for anything. You file claims with the lower courts normally the Superior Court of Justice and appeal decisions made by the various court levels to the next higher level.

And the Supreme Court typically only grants leave when a legal issue requires clarification with far-reaching consequences, which is something like 8.5% of the applications for appeal.

 

[pcruz]

Nobody is facing jail time if an organization opts not to hire you.

Being "qualified" via resume doesn't entitle anyone to a specific job.

Again, you're misunderstanding what a right is.

You have the right to not be discriminated against during the hiring process.
You have the right to not be treated differently from someone else without just cause.

If an organization opts to not hire you because of your sex, sexual orientation, marriage status, race, ethnicity, religion, health, etc - you have all the ammunition available to sue the organization for denying you the opportunity to be hired based on a violation of your Charter Rights.

Not being hired because someone has made an accusation against you, in the past, without cause, is not consistent to the protections under your Charter Rights.

 

[I am toxic]

Another committee member echoing Sheldon Kennedy's call for resignations.

Someone should do a post about using available evidence and logical reasoning to arrive at conclusions, in the absence of criminal trials arriving at decisions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh wait, too late.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

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

You don't have to be like this. I'm being polite and just giving my opinion.

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.

Totally agreed. I was just talking about during the process. Once convicted, you forfeit a lot of rights and rightfully so.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Hockey Canada paid out to hush up victims FOUR f***ING TIMES FOR ONE GUY and we have no idea who it is. Out-f***ing-standing.

 

[I am toxic]

They're Costanza-ing themselves again. "Oh, NOTES? You were interested in those? My word. I suppose I could see if I had any. Didn't occur to me you'd ask!"

These guys are so incredibly slimy.

Listen to how they refer to those who are criminally convicted being heavily sanctioned, on a go forward bases.

As opposed to those who might lose a civil case, where the standard of proof is much more reasonable.

The best evidence available shows that the vast majority of rape cases go unreported, the chance of obtaining a conviction is remote, and any victim/survivor is going to be re-raped by the process. HC knows this, and is essentially giving the impression of taking a hard line, while in reality not doing much anything at all.

This is not random, there is a pattern here.

And another committee member calls for new leadership at HC.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Again, you're misunderstanding what a right is.

You have the right to not be discriminated against during the hiring process.
You have the right to not be treated differently from someone else without just cause.

If an organization opts to not hire you because of your sex, sexual orientation, marriage status, race, ethnicity, religion, health, etc - you have all the ammunition available to sue the organization for denying you the opportunity to be hired based on a violation of your Charter Rights.

Not being hired because someone has made an accusation against you, in the past, without cause, is not consistent to the protections under your Charter Rights.

Being a member of the 2018 World Junior Hockey team is not a protected characteristic.

 

[MXD]

Martel raised a solid point here (players on 2018 team at the WC in 2022)

 

[Perrah]

Being a member of the 2018 World Junior Hockey team is not a protected characteristic.

Yeah people are treating these guys like a bunch of dumb f***s that can only skate or they will never make a living.

 

[MXD]

If an organization opts to not hire you because of your sex, sexual orientation, marriage status, race, ethnicity, religion, health, etc - you have all the ammunition available to sue the organization for denying you the opportunity to be hired based on a violation of your Charter Rights.

You're basically saying that a player being the object of a police inquiry and/or refusing to participate in this inquiry should receive preferential treatment.

I mean, it's not what you're explicitly saying, but your interpretation would have that exact effect.

(It's also erroneous)

 

[pcruz]

These guys are so incredibly slimy.

Listen to how they refer to those who are criminally convicted being heavily sanctioned, on a go forward bases.

As opposed to those who might lose a civil case, where the standard of proof is much more reasonable.

The best evidence available shows that the vase majority of rape cases go unreported, the chance of obtaining a conviction is remote, and any victim/survivor is going to be re-raped by the process. HC knows this, and is essentially giving the impression of taking a hard line, while in reality not doing much anything at all.

And another committee member calls for new leadership at HC.

I've had enough of you.

Your constant assertation of rape is just so derogatory to the criminal process and does nothing but take away from the actual meaning of the act - Rape.

You can't get "re-raped by the process" and claiming this is beyond reproach.

Plastering these boards with claims that player X and person Y is a rapist is, as I have mentioned in the past - libelous.

The irony in that opening statement is incredible.

 

[Bevans]

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

Disagree with your legal opinion here.

 

[Sempiternal]

Wow, so makes a claim and gets paid by Hockey Canada.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Smith really not interested in answering why or how they could settle a lawsuit on behalf of people who didn't know about it in the first place.

 

[Magnum23]

Hockey Canada paid out to hush up victims FOUR f***ING TIMES FOR ONE GUY and we have no idea who it is. Out-f***ing-standing.

Wow....let the shitshow begin

 

[red devil]

 

[pcruz]

Being a member of the 2018 World Junior Hockey team is not a protected characteristic.

Guilty by association without conviction is not a valid reason to deny anyone the right to vie for life, liberty and safety of person.

You are not guilty of the crimes of your family members based on your family ties.
You are not guilty of the crimes of your coworkers.

You are guilty of the acts you commit.

If you are not found guilty of committing those acts, then you have the right to pursue your life without the stain of those people's convictions who are associated with you for whatever reason, preventing you from being successful.

If you can prove that you have been prejudiced based on falsehoods, then you can make a Charter claim against those you feel have aggrieved you.

 

[MXD]

Disagree with your legal opinion here.

Your disagreement is duly noted and is also contrary to the jurisprudence on Section 11c) and 13 (7 does not apply).

(The players can absolutely refuse to participate in the interview, however. The minute that right is taken away from them, the situation becomes muddier)

 

[WarriorofTime]

So Hockey Canada has basically operated a slushfund to "investigate" (re: silence) and payoff credible sexual assault allegations... for who knows how long. This is becoming pretty clear. Don't know how anyone in good conscience can support this organization anymore.

Gut the whole thing and start fresh. Picking out all star rosters for international tournaments is not a super difficult job and put minor hockey under a better umbrella.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Hockey Canada paid around 1 million for one guy on four different occasions.

Can’t wait to see how the usual suspects spin this.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Guilty by association without conviction is not a valid reason to deny anyone the right to vie for life, liberty and safety of person.

You are not guilty of the crimes of your family members based on your family ties.
You are not guilty of the crimes of your coworkers.

You are guilty of the acts you commit.

If you are not found guilty of committing those acts, then you have the right to pursue your life without the stain of those people's convictions who are associated with you for whatever reason, preventing you from being successful.

If you can prove that you have been prejudiced based on falsehoods, then you can make a Charter claim against those you feel have aggrieved you.

You are talking in circles. Again, nobody, and certainly not me, is saying people need to go to jail solely because they were a member of that team. Right to work means you have the right to pursue employment by engaging with an employer that is willing to hire you and compensate you for your services. If an employer is not willing to hire you, you are not entitled to work for that employer. You are fundamentally misunderstanding how civil liberties work.