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

[PostBradMalone]

Not denying publicly is worth noting, disabling Instagram comments when he's probably getting a slew of negative and hateful comments despite no confirmation of his involvement is not.

Well if he wasn't involved, he could just do what everyone else who claims not to have been there/witnessed it has done and just... say that.

 

[DaveMatthew]

We should just allow rapists who have money to just get away with it then.

Rapists with money can still be criminally charged and prosecuted even after settling a civil case. In Canada, a victim doesn't have to "press charges". If there's enough evidence of a crime, the crown can move forward with the case. Based on the public focus, we might actually end up seeing that here.

Now obviously, it makes it a lot harder if the victim doesn't want to cooperate. So there should definitely be a big conversation about why our existing legal system is so daunting and intimidating when it comes to sexual assault.

 

[1specter]

Is this supposed to be evidence of guilt or something?

Nah, just thought it was interesting as it's been radio silent from his camp as well.

 

[Hale The Villain]

We should just allow rapists who have money to just get away with it then.

Do you really think that's what DaveMatthew was saying?

 

[Korpse]

Well if he wasn't involved, he could just do what everyone else who claims not to have been there/witnessed it has done and just... say that.

I think we all have our suspicions on what we believe to be true but it's not helpful to speculate. Especially when the burden off proof is disabling social media comments or a lack of communication. Just yesterday, some where ready to point the finger at Robert Thomas, today he made a statement. Let the situation play out, the names are likely going to come out.

 

[HersheyBob27]

I wonder if Chris Bittle understands that the Liberal Party of Canada would also have a fund available to settle potential claims, including those of sexual assault, that wouldn't be otherwise covered by insurance? And that fund would be stocked by donations from the public, which is their primary source of revenue?

Journalists need to focus on the right thing here. Hockey Canada is not proactively going out to alleged victims and paying them to keep quiet. They're settling lawsuits that have been brought against them and are on the public record. These are two very different things.

There should be no outrage about settling a lawsuit that was brought against them.

There should be outrage about their inaction, in terms of trying to prevent future situations or disciplining the players involved, after the lawsuit was settled.

You are in the small minority if you are cool with minor hockey fees being used in this manner

 

[KitchenSink]

They had a third option: conduct an actual, professional investigation into what occurred that didn't involve a firm well-known to engage in hatchet law, and then punish anyone found to have broken the HC CoC if not Criminal Code. Instead, they paid the victim to shut them up, and then forgot it ever happened.

But isn't that what he is also saying? Hockey Canada should be criticized for not holding the players accountable and not doing a thorough investigation. But not necessarily for settling the lawsuit.

Your "third option" doesn't actually address the lawsuit. Which the poster you are responding to outlines there are only two options. Settle the lawsuit or take it to court. Settling is probably best for both parties in this situation.

This was not a criminal trial so all the plaintiff was going to get was financial compensatory damages if they went to trial. The plaintiff was compensated financially without having to go to trial through the settlement.

Hockey Canada settled it because they were liable because it happened as a result of a Hockey Canada event.

It probably should have been a criminal case but based on the texts that were released today if seems like the alleged perpetrator coersed the victim into not going through with the criminal charges.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

I wonder if Chris Bittle understands that the Liberal Party of Canada would also have a fund available to settle potential claims, including those of sexual assault, that wouldn't be otherwise covered by insurance? And that fund would be stocked by donations from the public, which is their primary source of revenue?

Journalists need to focus on the right thing here. Hockey Canada is not proactively going out to alleged victims and paying them to keep quiet. They're settling lawsuits that have been brought against them and are on the public record. These are two very different things.

There should be no outrage about settling a lawsuit that was brought against them.

There should be outrage about their inaction, in terms of trying to prevent future situations or disciplining the players involved, after the lawsuit was settled.

What is the motive for hockey Canada to do the right thing and discipline players or prevent these situations if they are allowed to settle with public's money? We should be outraged by both because they are completely tied to each other.

 

[99ovr]

Well if he wasn't involved, he could just do what everyone else who claims not to have been there/witnessed it has done and just... say that.

bruh denying you were involved doesn't actually mean you weren't involved

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

bruh denying you were involved doesn't actually mean you weren't involved

It doesn't, but one would assume if you weren't involved you would come out and say so publically to avoid being lumped in with alleged rapists.

If we get to a point where all the players have released statements, clearly some people have lied. Given the players who were in the room all have the same lawyer apparently, it wouldn't be shocking if they told them to shut up/not comment publically.

 

[TopC0rner]

Not going to reply to every post, but looking at what many said, it's easy to understand why the victim, in this case, wants to stay anonymous (and doesn't want to put a complaint to the police).

Notoriously, the micro analyzing of what she said or texted. Victims that suffer trauma aren't necessarily angry and their own brains may try to process what happened as normal, for their own sake, even though they were abused. People, in reality, react a different number of ways, not how it's shown on tv or how one individual (such as yourself) would react in the same situation.

Going public would mean she would be associated and criticized for a long time for that.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

I don't understand comments like "X player should have denied it if they weren't guilty".

Who is to say an actual guilty player wouldn't simply lie about it?

 

[pcruz]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the cost for attorney fees, time, effort and abundance of other things outweigh the settlement, wouldn’t it just be logical to settle?

I’m not speaking in absolutes either way or implying that this is the case, but I would much rather just pay my 105$ speeding fine than to hire a 500$ lawyer to fight it.

At the topic though, settlements should not be seen as admission of guilt in the eyes of the law. Completely different however in the court of public opinion, and sometimes that it is warranted. In this situation, I think that it is.

This is one of the 2 reasons cases get settled:

1) the costs of trial outweigh potential award. What people forget about legal cases is that they have a million steps along the way - claim, discovery, mediation, pre-trial, trial. Some of those are long and expensive, and the others are even more expensive!

2) the lawyers on the case convince their client to settle because they aren't sure of winning the case

You're still going? I really hope you're not a lawyer.

The settlement ENDED the lawsuit without requiring anyone to ADMIT liability in exchange for MONEY

This is commonly referred to as hush money.

Quit quibbling over nothing and inventing laws and constitutional rights.

See here is the thing.

If you accuse me of doing harm to you, I have the right to defend myself in court.

If we settle, you give up the right to continue accusing me of that same harm because I have lost the ability to defend myself through the courts...other than starting a claim against you for defamation.

If you wanted to make sure that your accusation stuck and have me convicted, then you shouldn't have settled.

As for everyone else, unless they have intimate knowledge of the case and were not part of the initial claim, they don't have much to grasp in regards to guilt or innocence.

Yes, that's why settlements are so common, and why settlements aren't admissions of guilt.

A settlement was almost certainly the desired outcome for the victim and the accused (Hockey Canada). That's why it happened.

In this type of case, it's rare that the victims want to settle.

Their camp may want to settle, but normally the victims want justice without having to re-live the trauma.

Now, since Justice means being involved in and participating in the trial, it generally becomes unwelcome to the victims.

That's where the lawyers for the plaintiffs get involved in settlement talks.

Defense lawyers always want to settle for any case that can be ugly or a potential loss - settlements always come with non-disclosure agreements and without admission of guilt.
They also prevent re-opening the case due to double jeopardy laws, unless new information is unearthed that was unknown to either party at the time of judgement.


It's why I don't think settlement should be a thing for this kind of case.
We need justice to be the main goal, not some payment to shut people up.

Also, side note:

Hush payment is when you offer someone money to keep them from starting a claim or participating in one.

Once there is a complaint, a settlement is a mutually agreed upon resolution to the claim.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

I don't understand comments like "X player should have denied it if they weren't guilty".

Who is to say an actual guilty player wouldn't simply lie about it?

I don't see the connection. We all know a guilty person can lie about it. That doesn't erase the suspicions of somebody who has not commented at all.

 

[DaveMatthew]

What is the motive for hockey Canada to do the right thing and discipline players or prevent these situations if they are allowed to settle with public's money? We should be outraged by both because they are completely tied to each other.

If allegations like this are credible, Hockey Canada should 100% discipline the players involved. Those players should be banned from the program. And to determine whether they're credible, Hockey Canada needs to have a mechanism in place that ensures an unbiased, reputable, 3rd party investigates any and all claims.

But even if the above two things were to be true, it would not guarantee that sexual assaults wouldn't take place at their sanctioned events. So Hockey Canada would still need to have money available to pay damages if such things occurred.

 

[pcruz]

Sorry but women's rights and basic human decency trumps the short-term first problems of a handful of priviledged kids who "need a bit of exposure".

The best way to make impactful changes on the long term is for Hockey Canada to suffer consequences. You're not going to see durable, significant changes without indisposing some people, though.

At this point, we should be focused on what is wrong and how HC is enabling an environment that shelters sexual abusers and rapists. Not on whether a few athletes will miss a tournament or two.

What you have forgotten is that we are all assumed not guilty until proven guilty.

It is not the responsibility of the defendants to prove themselves guilty, but that of the plaintiff.

Women's rights, decency. How about human rights protected by your Charter?

Forgot those?

 

[Tak7]

The dam is about to break regarding this story, and it can't happen soon enough.

Hockey's toxic culture has needed a reckoning for an extremely long time, and as disgusting & heartbreaking as these stories are, it helps push things in a direction that the sport needed to go eons ago.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

I don't see the connection. We all know a guilty person can lie about it. That doesn't erase the suspicions of somebody who has not commented at all.

Exactly this.

If you're not involved - there is not much reason to stay silent - all it does it get you lumped in as a potential rapist.

If you are involved - there is a potential reason to stay silent/legal counsel may be advising you to.

Nobody who makes a statement is 100% innocent, but those who haven't made one yet - despite the growing public pressure - are curious cases.

 

[PostBradMalone]

Also, side note:

Hush payment is when you offer someone money to keep them from starting a claim or participating in one.

Source?

 

[Tak7]

If allegations like this are credible, Hockey Canada should 100% discipline the players involved. Those players should be banned from the program. And to determine whether they're credible, Hockey Canada needs to have a mechanism in place that ensures an unbiased, reputable, 3rd party investigates any and all claims.

But even if the above two things were to be true, it would not guarantee that sexual assaults wouldn't take place at their sanctioned events. So Hockey Canada would still need to have money available to pay damages if such things occurred.

Hockey Canada made a $3.55m settlement towards the victim. I'm no lawyer, but would assume there was some credibility attached to the allegations which would have necessitated them parting ways with a significant sum of money.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Hockey Canada made a $3.55m settlement towards the victim. I'm no lawyer, but would assume there was some credibility attached to the allegations which would have necessitated them parting ways with a significant sum of money.

$3.55m what was asked for. The actual settlement number has never been made public.

 

[Jeune Poulet]

What you have forgotten is that we are all assumed not guilty until proven guilty.

It is not the responsibility of the defendants to prove themselves guilty, but that of the plaintiff.

Women's rights, decency. How about human rights protected by your Charter?

Forgot those?

Do you even know what post you replied to? Are you keeping up with this thread?

The human charter of rights and the court system has little to do with whether the IIHF should allow a demonstrably scummy organization like Hockey Canada to ice a hockey team this august.

 

[WaW]

In my opinion this is the most logical solution where everyone wins.

The 8 players involved are still allowed to play hockey but they're forced to pay 25% of their earnings to the victim and 25% to charitable foundations related to SA for the next 6-7 years, thus they will forfeit 50% of their earnings until the age of 30.

If the players are of high calibre, over the span of 6-7 years the victim will receive close to 20m and likewise will the foundations.

This should appease the public as if people truly care about the victim, they would happily be receptive to the idea of her becoming $20m richer and her and her family for the generations to come will never have to work again. If the players are permanently banned, she nor the foundations will receive money that is literally life changing.

I'm sure the players will jump at this opportunity as the alternative is a lifetime ban from the NHL and/or jail time.

This way the teams aren't punished for something they had no part of, the players receive public disgrace everywhere they go, they lose half of their income, the victim is more than set for life.

This is the one, this one right here. In all my years on HFBoards, I've been searching for the "most HFBoards take of all time", and I think I've finally found it.

It just hits every single nail perfectly on the head. If this were an F1 qualifying lap, you'd have gone purple in all 3 sectors here.

You got off to a perfect start with the full fledged plan to solve moral injustice for good. Look at you, thinking 6, maybe 7 years ahead with this full on plan to guarantee that "everybody wins". Then at the end of that paragraph, one could only read this and imagine the brilliant scene where at the age of 30, the victim, the hockey players who sexually assaulted her, and all of these ever so greatful heads of charities all get together for a beer at the local Applebee's, reminisce about the "good ol' days", and laugh off that "one crazy night" that landed them all in one big misunderstanding. Boys will be boys and all that!

Oh, then there's the sheer confidence in your mathematical breakdown of exactly how much every perpetrator should pay, as well as to who within society gets which portion of that breakdown and their scheduled annual installments. I absolutely dig the confidence here. A level of energy here that no one has seen since Babe Ruth called the direction of his Home Run a century ago. Absolutely stunning.

But it's the last point that really takes the cake. The first two made this an A-tier HFBoards take, but it's the obvious reveal of your agenda, the part where you practically admit to everyone that the only think you truly care about here, is "the teams" (which I can only reasonably assume includes the team that you happen to support), not "getting screwed over" for having drafted or traded for players they didn't know participated in a gang rape. Those poor teams, the real victims in all of this! That right there brought this right to the top of the S tier. An all-time post I hope is forever saved for the world to look back upon. I can finally say that my time here on HFB, from when I joined I don't know how many years ago, is now worth it.

Thank you, just...thank you.

 

[BadgerBruce]

As far as I understand, the 8 John Does were not named defendants in the civil complaint. Only Hockey Canada was. Otherwise, it couldn't have been settled without their knowledge.

The John Does lawyers have taken issue with it because they feel that the settlement "implies", in the eyes of the public, that the players are guilty.

That’s not correct. The CHL was a named defendant in the suit and the Heritage Committee has subpoenaed CHL executives to appear before the committee next week.

Here’s what Dan Mackenzie told The Athletic:

CHL president Dan MacKenzie wrote in a statement to TSN that the league was “deeply troubled by the allegations.”

“We have been advised by Hockey Canada that they have settled the matter and we will not be providing further comment,” MacKenzie said. According to TSN, MacKenzie said the CHL was notified of the allegations in May.

NHL investigating lawsuit against Hockey Canada, CHL

The lawsuit alleges that eight hockey players, including some members of Hockey Canada’s World Junior Team, sexually assaulted a young woman in 2018.

theathletic.com

 

[Golden_Jet]

Perhaps you are right.

But don’t lose sight of this: Hockey Canada settled the suit on behalf of 9 other parties (CHL and 8 John Does), apparently without informing them. To my mind, that’s significant because one defendant (Hockey Canada) claims to have liquidated investments to fund the settlement, and the other 9 defendants paid zip.

9
Now I’ve heard 7 and 8 this is the first time 9.