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

[Bevans]

Some players outright say they weren't in the room or weren't even at the event, but the wording of some of those other statements sound a bit more lawyer-speak than "I wasn't involved in the incident". A lot of talk about cooperating with police and denials of wrongdoing, but no outright "I wasn't in that room or involved in it"

Obviously if a bunch of kids thought it was a good idea to do this, they thought it was a good idea to talk about it with their friends too.

I'm sure everyone on the team was aware to some degree

 

[wetcoast]

Is that the same Sebastien Lemire who took a naked picture of an opposition MP?

Bloc MP apologizes for taking photo of Liberal MP caught naked during video call | Globalnews.ca

Liberal MP William Amos was caught nude during a virtual meeting of Parliament last week.

globalnews.ca

He did apologize after it was leaked that he had done so, glass houses eh?

 

[Static]

Is that the same Sebastien Lemire who took a naked picture of an opposition MP?

Bloc MP apologizes for taking photo of Liberal MP caught naked during video call | Globalnews.ca

Liberal MP William Amos was caught nude during a virtual meeting of Parliament last week.

globalnews.ca

He did apologize after it was leaked that he had done so, glass houses eh?

What's your point?

 

[PostBradMalone]

Sure it would be exactly like that except it wouldn't.

What do you mean? That's exactly what happened. HC could've hired a thousand firms but that's the one they chose. I highly doubt that was an accident.

I get that people , or at least some of them don't like certain criminal defense firms but in our justice systems the innocent are innocent until proven guilty and their are entitled to a legal defense.

Also in the article I read about the recent Supreme court ruling it is obviously going to lead to a lot of legal wrangling over time and has it's own issues as well and I'm not a lawyer and it's clear to see that the lawyers can and will (and should under our system) challenge it.

Defendants are entitled to a healthy defense within the bounds of the law. Henein Hutchison, among others, pushed the envelope too far on a number of occasions and got a deserved (legal) smackdown. That also is clear, because otherwise why would the Supreme Court ever have needed to intervene?

It might not be the perfect system but all legal systems are relative as they are run by humans and I think there are very few countries one would want to be criminally charged in other than Canada from a legal perspective.

The system is obviously better than the court of public opinion, anyways saying otherwise needs to check their motives and reasoning.

Just because the system is better than some does not mean it cannot be improved. That's a cop-out.

 

[wetcoast]

Definitely not, nearly every organization hit with a scandal like this in the Me Too era has at some point retained an external firm to conduct their own investigation. You can view that with skepticism (they want to craft their own narrative, they want to limit culpability/liability, they want to assign blame to the fewest/lowest persons possible) or optimism (they do genuinely want to reform their practices) but it's not at all uncommon.

Maybe my post wasn't clear as I agree with what you are saying here, they leave the police investigation to the police and do the internal thing to protect their brand.

Admittedly I'm a bit jaded as far as police goes as Ottawa police have had several controversial situations regarding unarmed people in custody being hurt or killed, but I just have a hard time giving credibility to any investigation being done by the overseeing body that never stands to gain anything positive by uncovering the truth. This is especially true in this scenario where HC only became more transparent after the public outrage.

Maybe I'm cynical but most firms and people try to minimize damage and don't readily offer up anything to hurt their brand.

 

[kellmuff96]

think it's a matter of time until they name who it was? Or is that going to be protected?

 

[wetcoast]

What's your point?

Are you being serious?

But maybe you don't understand politics.

 

[MXD]

think it's a matter of time until they name who it was? Or is that going to be protected?

Hockey Canada can waive any privilege.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Are you being serious?

But maybe you don't understand politics.

No politics!

 

[MXD]

Are you being serious?

But maybe you don't understand politics.

Parties seems to speak of one voice on the HC issue, so, yeah, I'm not sure what you were trying to do regarding Sebastien Lemire other than putting his character into question.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Are you being serious?

But maybe you don't understand politics.

Don't care who from the committee makes this request of hockey canada - its a request that should be made and i'm happy it looks like it will be.

 

[Paper]

According to this Toronto Star article 13 players have denied it either with a statement from them personally or by their representatives. There were 3 players not at the event. The following players have denied it or weren't there.

More players step forward in Hockey Canada sex assault investigation

Coyotes defenceman Connor Timmins is the 14th player from Canada’s 2018 world junior team of 22 to comment publicly. Some have proclaimed innocence. Most have promised co-operation.

www.thestar.com

Timmins
Dube
Clague
Bean
Hart
Point
Kyrou
Raddysh
Mete
Makar
Fabbro
Gladjovich
Foote

Edit: a 14th player had a statement released but didn't have a denial

Has Dube released a different statement?

Dube’s agent said he was not involved in wrongdoing…and that all players were cleared of wrongdoing. Ergo no player was involved in wrongdoing.

Pretty much a statement you make if you were in the room.

 

[UrbanImpact]

think it's a matter of time until they name who it was? Or is that going to be protected?

All 8 names will be names, its not matter of IF but When..

NHL will come down hard on those players...

 

[Static]

Are you being serious?

But maybe you don't understand politics.

The reasoning behind asking the question is not as important as asking the question. So, again, what's your point?

 

[DaveMatthew]

Just because the system is better than some does not mean it cannot be improved. That's a cop-out.

No doubt. The system needs to be improved. For example:

1. The current process of reporting a sexual assault to law enforcement is incredibly daunting and can often be as tramautic and demeaning as the assault itself. The majority of victims don't report because they lack faith in the system and don't want to relive what they went through. Reporting a sexual assault should be a process that involves both law enforcement and sexual violence counsellors, so the police can get the facts they need while the victim receives incredibly necessary support.

2. There needs to be a standardized, 3rd party reporting and investigation process for all federally funded organization to look into any and all of sexual abuse and assault claims.

With that said, it is not the role of Federal MPs to dig into and dwell on this specific case. That is the job of law enforcement and the crown. They need to decide whether to reopen the investigation and press charges, and that shouldn't be influenced by public opinion or sentiment.

Politicians need to be focused on making structural changes to the entire system. Because as ugly as this all is, everything was done within the constraints of the current system. It was all by the book.

 

[wetcoast]

What do you mean? That's exactly what happened. HC could've hired a thousand firms but that's the one they chose. I highly doubt that was an accident.

No it probably wasn't an accident as their brand was involved and that firm does "good" work on behalf of their clients.

The legal firm was qualified, the Vick comparison didn't add anything to the conversation.

Defendants are entitled to a healthy defense within the bounds of the law. Henein Hutchison, among others, pushed the envelope too far on a number of occasions and got a deserved (legal) smackdown. That also is clear, because otherwise why would the Supreme Court ever have needed to intervene?

Healthy defense?

Within the bounds of the law, was that firm ever charged, was there even a hint of it?

The Supreme court ruling has valid legal problems as cited in the original article in this thread even if one thinks the ruling was a good one overall.

Just because the system is better than some does not mean it cannot be improved. That's a cop-out.

Then feel free to name some improvements, I have done so in regards to what needs to be done involving young people (strangers) and alcohol among other factors.

 

[inthewings]

Based on everything that's come out, it seems very clear that a group of players acted in an abusive way towards this young woman. I think fans have a right to know who was involved - I have no interest in watching these people play hockey.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Based on everything that's come out, it seems very clear that a group of players acted in an abusive way towards this young woman. I think fans have a right to know who was involved - I have no interest in watching these people play hockey.

Unless there are criminal charges brought, the public (fans of the NHL or not), do not have a right to know the names of the accused.

Now, you can make your own decisions based on the rumours out there. You can choose to no longer watch games that involve players that we can "assume" were involved. That's up to you.

But you don't have a right to know.

 

[Static]

I can't say enough how stupid it is to defend a faulty system because people don't know how to improve it.

People with schizophrenia used to be burned at the stake in a faulty system. Just because people didn't understand mental health for another 200 years doesn't mean that system was good and people weren't right to point that out.

 

[inthewings]

Unless there are criminal charges brought, the public (fans of the NHL or not), do not have a right to know the names

Now, you can make your own decisions based on the rumours out there. You can choose to no longer watch games that involve players that we can "assume" were involved. That's up to you.

But you don't have a right to know.

Legally, you're correct. But we're only in this situation because Hockey Canada went to bat for the players, which I don't think ever should have happened in the first place.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Unless there are criminal charges brought, the public (fans of the NHL or not), do not have a right to know the names.

Now, you can make your own decisions based on the rumours out there. You can choose to no longer watch games that involve players that we can "assume" were involved. That's up to you.

But you don't have a right to know.

I think its fair to say that statement "have a right to know" is used a little more arbitrarily than actually considering legal rights.

While I don't have a right to know - i would hope Hockey Canada's reopened, or the NHL's ongoing investigation will provide sufficient details that allow fans to come to their own conclusions. Doesn't mean that will happen, but I think it would be in the best interest of both organizations.

 

[DaveMatthew]

I can't say enough how stupid it is to defend a faulty system because people don't know how to improve it.

People with schizophrenia burned at the stake in a faulty system. Just because people didn't understand mental heth for another 200 years doesn't mean that system was good and people weren't right to point that out.

There is a difference between demanding to make improvements to the system vs. demanding to know the names of the accused.

There's a big-picture conversation that needs to be had.

But assessing the culpability and guilt of the individuals involved in this specific case? That's the job of law enforcement and the crown attorney. Not federal MPs, media members or fans.

 

[Masked]

Why did the plaintiff not name the players in the case and instead just referred to them all as John Does? Did she not know who any of them were or was there another reason for it?

Assen na yo!

 

[Static]

There is a difference between demanding to make improvements to the system vs. demanding to know the names of the accused.

There's a big-picture conversation that needs to be had.

But assessing the culpability and guilt of the individuals involved in this specific case? That's the job of law enforcement and the crown attorney. Not federal MPs, media members or fans.

We aren't talking about the same thing.

The problem with your second paragraph is the governing body that could have done more here (Hockey Canada) is only doing "more" now because they have been found out publicly. That they have a slush fund for exactly this type of behavior is a problem and also needed to be called out publicly.

 

[Bevans]

Unless there are criminal charges brought, the public (fans of the NHL or not), do not have a right to know the names of the accused.

Now, you can make your own decisions based on the rumours out there. You can choose to no longer watch games that involve players that we can "assume" were involved. That's up to you.

But you don't have a right to know.

Do you think the players have a right for us not to know?

And what is this right you speak of if there are criminal charges? Sometimes criminal charges come with a publication ban.