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

[ChaoticOrange]

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

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

Thing is if they paid out four times for one guy, how many times did that one guy's actions not blow back on him hard enough to get to the payout stage?

Hockey Canada literally defending a serial rapist.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Kevin Waugh who worked in broadcasting in the WHL before becoming an MP knows all about Hockey Canada and their board and CEOs. It's got Smith on his heels a bit.

 

[pcruz]

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.

This depends on the reasoning for the employer being unwilling to hire you.

For example, although your surname is not a protected circumstance for employment, if you were told that you were ineligible to be hired for a company because your last name is Hitler, or Putin, or BinLaden, then you would have a slam-dunk case against that company in a Charter violation claim.

Similarly, not being hired because you were employed by Enron in the past and some of your colleagues were accused of and convicted of crimes, would itself be a breach of your Charter rights.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Ultimately this will be good for the sport, as bad it all sounds now.

 

[I am toxic]

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.

Show me a single post where I claimed that player X or person Y is a rapist.

I will immediately retract it.

Or did I never make such a claim? Are you making up shit again?

 

[pcruz]

Thing is if they paid out four times for one guy, how many times did that one guy's actions not blow back on him hard enough to get to the payout stage?

Hockey Canada literally defending a serial rapist.

Does Hockey Canada not have a HR department?

HR has 1 objective and 1 objective only - to protect the organization from real or potential harm.

How could a single person credibly be associated with multiple actions requiring settlements out of court and the organization not see that person as potentially harmful?

It doesn't add up.

 

[PostBradMalone]

This depends on the reasoning for the employer being unwilling to hire you.

For example, although your surname is not a protected circumstance for employment, if you were told that you were ineligible to be hired for a company because your last name is Hitler, or Putin, or BinLaden, then you would have a slam-dunk case against that company in a Charter violation claim.

Similarly, not being hired because you were employed by Enron in the past and some of your colleagues were accused of and convicted of crimes, would itself be a breach of your Charter rights.

Please show the class where in the Canadian Charter of Rights discrimination based on “sharing a surname with a despot” or “worked for a shady company” are explicitly barred.

 

[4thline]

Please show the class where in the Canadian Charter of Rights discrimination based on “sharing a surname with a despot” or “worked for a shady company” are explicitly barred.

Ironically enough, though not in the charter the one thing that that the poster is holding up as the only allowable cause for discrimination (Record of Offences) is *actually* protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (allowances for the employer to justify that specific crimes are disqualifying for specific work.

 

[canucksfan]

Not only does Hockey Canada need to be rebuilt from the ground up, hockey culture in Canada needs to rebuilt as well.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

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.

Well, it's actually pretty common for victims to settle before a court-case to avoid being re-traumatized by the trauma of a court case, specifically cross-examination, if the potential victim even decides to come forth in the first place. For people who are true victims, discussing the details publicly and then it either being insinuated, or straight up stated, that they're lying is very emotionally damaging.

Also "reproach" means to show disapproval... So describing @I am toxic 's claim as "beyond reproach" would mean that it has so much integrity that it cannot be critiqued or questioned.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Yikes, people need to get off their ledges of outrage.

No, nobody is entitled to work in hockey or play in the NHL.

Yes, it's okay to be critical of the social media mob that goes after certain people, but not others, because they're convinced someone is a criminal after reading a 750-word article on the internet.

But everyone should remember that social media is not representative of the general opinion at large. It's a small minority of people who yell really loud at each other. Most people are fine with players playing in the NHL if they haven't been charged or convicted of a crime (and yes, I know, that doesn't mean they're innocent). And that's exactly what will happen if there are no charges or convictions in this case.

The average hockey fan is not combing through old Facebook photos to figure out which player might have been in a hotel room 4 years ago.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Yikes, people need to get off their ledges of outrage.

No, nobody is entitled to work in hockey or play in the NHL.

Yes, it's okay to be critical of the social media mob that goes after certain people, but not others, because they're convinced someone is a criminal after reading a 750-word article on the internet.

But everyone should remember that social media is not representative of the general opinion at large. It's a small minority of people who yell really loud at each other. Most people are fine with players playing in the NHL if they haven't been charged or convicted of a crime (and yes, I know, that doesn't mean they're innocent). And that's exactly what will happen if there are no charges or convictions in this case.

The average hockey fan is not combing through old Facebook photos to figure out which player might have been in a hotel room 4 years ago.

As usual, people like you are more outraged and the “social media mob” than the actual shit that’s happening.

 

[DaveMatthew]

As usual, people like you are more outraged and the “social media mob” than the actual shit that’s happening.

No, most people are fine leaving the matter of justice up to the judicial system.

The average hockey fan in Canada is thinking, "Man, that sounds bad. Hopefully changes are made to Hockey Canada and if the players are found guilty, they're punished". The average hockey fan is not conducting their own investigation via Facebook.

Hell, I bet even you're okay with the Oilers re-signing Evander Kane, and have no problem with Connor McDavid publicly endorsing him, despite it being reasonable for people to believe that he is, in fact, an abusive scumbag. There's no real reason to doubt the allegations made against him. But, he wasn't charged or convicted, so you moved on, as did the rest of the hockey world. And that's fine.

That's what will most likely happen here.

 

[pcruz]

Well, it's actually pretty common for victims to settle before a court-case to avoid being re-traumatized by the trauma of a court case, specifically cross-examination, if the potential victim even decides to come forth in the first place. For people who are true victims, discussing the details publicly and then it either being insinuated, or straight up stated, that they're lying is very emotionally damaging.

Also "reproach" means to show disapproval... So describing @I am toxic 's claim as "beyond reproach" would mean that it has so much integrity that it cannot be critiqued or questioned.

Why did you settle with "re-traumatized by the trauma" and not "re-raped by the system"?

Because those words have meaning.

Having the validity of your accusations questioned is not the wrong thing to do. It is by definition, the law.
If you have been wronged, you should bring forth a case against the perpetrator. You need to have the strength and courage to do so, and hopefully there is a base of support to help you through that when your own strength and courage falters.
It helps nobody to not bring forth the case to its completion, but the person who committed the wrongful act.

 

[ellja3]

Waugh dude was spot on; what incentive do they have to report a player on any kind of incident if it would hurt them financially?

 

[pcruz]

Waugh dude was spot on; what incentive do they have to report a player on any kind of incident if it would hurt them financially?

From a Hockey Canada perspective?

Integrity.

From a victim's perspective?

Justice.

 

[ellja3]

From a Hockey Canada perspective?

Integrity.

From a victim's perspective?

Justice.

See, that's the morally correct answer. In reality, it doe$n't work that way.

 

[pcruz]

See, that's the morally correct answer. In reality, it doe$n't work that way.

Well, "morally correct" should be the goal.

It's why I completely disagree with settlements in regards to sexual assault suits.
Nobody wins.
Nobody is made whole.
Nobody is punished for the crime, or absolved of the same.

I see everyone acting in a slimy way when monetary values are put on the injuries sustained from alleged sexual assault cases (including the plaintiffs for accepting money to allow the case to die quietly).

 

[ellja3]

Well, "morally correct" should be the goal.

It's why I completely disagree with settlements in regards to sexual assault suits.
Nobody wins.
Nobody is made whole.
Nobody is punished for the crime, or absolved of the same.

I see everyone acting in a slimy way when monetary values are put on the injuries sustained from alleged sexual assault cases (including the plaintiffs for accepting money to allow the case to die quietly).

Listen, maybe you misunderstood me. I agree fully w what you are saying. I am saying that currently these junior leagues have zero incentives, moral ones aside, to reveal any incidents. They stay silent and get money. It's beneficial for them to not report anything. Therefore, I don't believe anything will change here. Not that it SHOULDN'T.

 

[The Marquis]

Well, "morally correct" should be the goal.

It's why I completely disagree with settlements in regards to sexual assault suits.
Nobody wins.
Nobody is made whole.
Nobody is punished for the crime, or absolved of the same.

I see everyone acting in a slimy way when monetary values are put on the injuries sustained from alleged sexual assault cases (including the plaintiffs for accepting money to allow the case to die quietly).

The monetary punishment only meets your criteria if a 3rd party is paying out. If the perpetrators were the one's losing the money, then there is definitely punishment there. I say that and I also don't disagree with what you said, I just think it CAN be a punishment, but only if the right people are punished. I'm also not talking about this case alone, but this and any similar case where a 3rd party paid a monetary settlement to possibly protect a perpetrator of a possible crime (see Vince McMahon using WWE money to possibly cover up sexual coercion for a similar situation that is currently ongoing and also entirely different).

 

[Angry Little Elf]

4 sexual assaults by one person.

Covering for a serial rapist, holy f***. This organization is rotten

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Why did you settle with "re-traumatized by the trauma" and not "re-raped by the system"?

Because those words have meaning.

Having the validity of your accusations questioned is not the wrong thing to do. It is by definition, the law.
If you have been wronged, you should bring forth a case against the perpetrator. You need to have the strength and courage to do so, and hopefully there is a base of support to help you through that when your own strength and courage falters.
It helps nobody to not bring forth the case to its completion, but the person who committed the wrongful act.

I'm not the one who made that initial statement so I can't say why he chose that word 're-raped', I was pointing out what I think anyone reasonable would glean from that statement of being 're-raped'. I don't like using that specific term outside of its express meaning of force-able sex, so that's not up to me.

I'm not sure if you don't quite understand the idea of being re-traumatized by a court case or if you're just pretending you don't understand why female victims of rape or other sexual crimes may not want to participate in a court case (or may not have the strength or courage to do so).

Just as much as a certain crowd is hounding people for jumping to condemn Virtanen, you can see others shouting just as loud that points out exactly why victims do not come forward. Imagine, if just for a moment, that this woman WAS abused, but wasnt able to gather enough evidence. Now you've got people proclaiming that she was just in it for the money or saying she should be sued for defamation and forced to pay her abuser for the rest of her life, and even worse.

 

[I am toxic]

Well, it's actually pretty common for victims to settle before a court-case to avoid being re-traumatized by the trauma of a court case, specifically cross-examination, if the potential victim even decides to come forth in the first place. For people who are true victims, discussing the details publicly and then it either being insinuated, or straight up stated, that they're lying is very emotionally damaging.

Also "reproach" means to show disapproval... So describing @I am toxic 's claim as "beyond reproach" would mean that it has so much integrity that it cannot be critiqued or questioned.

I missed that. Between my dyslexia and skimming their posts, I just thought they'd called me a cockroach.

Which is a step up from toxic.

 

[pcruz]

The monetary punishment only meets your criteria if a 3rd party is paying out. If the perpetrators were the one's losing the money, then there is definitely punishment there. I say that and I also don't disagree with what you said, I just think it CAN be a punishment, but only if the right people are punished. I'm also not talking about this case alone, but this and any similar case where a 3rd party paid a monetary settlement to possibly protect a perpetrator of a possible crime (see Vince McMahon using WWE money to possibly cover up sexual coercion for a similar situation that is currently ongoing and also entirely different).

While I don't disagree with the sentiment as a whole, I do disagree in a way:

The punishment for sexual assault (rape being an extreme case of such) shouldn't be a monetary one.
If we were to associate criminal punishment (or even civil punishment) with monetary values, then we would indeed create a culture where the rich feel, and essentially act, above the law.

The punishment for these types of cases should be that after conviction, the defendant is named and forever associated with having committed the crime.

Settling a case out of court, whether it be the defendant paying, or anyone else, doesn't do enough justice.

In my opinion, at least.

Is it a punishment, sure. Is it appropriate for the severity, no. Not in my mind at least.

Sure, there is the criminal route where the punishment is potential jail time, but the threshold for criminal conviction is much higher than in a civil suit, so in cases of sexual assault, the likelyhood of getting a conviction are much smaller than the same trial in a civil suit.

 

[red devil]