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

[Mingus Dew]

When a woman says she was fed drinks all night, carried to a bedroom, then surrounded by 8 men who took turns sexually assaulting her, I choose to believe her. You seem to have chosen to believe the players, including ones who have not made a statement yet (strange?). If her story is corroborated, then yes, she was raped, even if she didn't say no.

And if no one corraborates that she was unable to consent or intimidated, I still question the ethics of what happened in that room, even if it can't be proven from a criminal standpoint. The fact that there was a settlement and an apology from Hockey Canada is not a great start for those with your belief.

You are taking our belief in the victim's statements (and the settlement+apology) and conflating it with us saying they should be tarred and feathered and thrown in jail with no due process....you are creating a stance for us so you can be outraged, and it simply doesn't reflect reality.

It really is a simple question isn't it?

All else equal, if a woman accuses a man of raping her then who do you believe? Assume you have no real evidence or knowledge of the event in question. You just know that Woman A said that Man B raped her.

When you look at it through that very simple lens "we need to wait and see" is not a satisfactory answer. Maybe "innocent until proven guilty" isn't always the right standard? Maybe that standard reinforces certain power dynamics that are designed to perpetuate themselves?

And I'm a lawyer...

 

[wetcoast]

Of course their reputations will be soiled. Actions have consequences. You seem to be more worried about the reputation of the 8 players who gang banged a woman, than the woman who was assaulted.

Instead of speculating about my worries read back to where I posted that EVERYONE needs to take action about having these types of interactions not take place in the first place.

Internet or mob reactions without a discussion of facts leads to threads like this with a lot of garbage thrown around and no progress towards my first sentence.

I'm also concerned that people either don't care or don't seem to understand what the rule of law means but heck it's a hockey forum so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Instead of speculating about my worries read back to where I posted that EVERYONE needs to take action about having these types of interactions not take place in the first place.

Internet or mob reactions without a discussion of facts leads to threads like this with a lot of garbage thrown around and no progress towards my first sentence.

I'm also concerned that people either don't care or don't seem to understand what the rule of law means but heck it's a hockey forum so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The presumption of innocence isn't really the same thing as the rule of law.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Instead of speculating about my worries read back to where I posted that EVERYONE needs to take action about having these types of interactions not take place in the first place.

Internet or mob reactions without a discussion of facts leads to threads like this with a lot of garbage thrown around and no progress towards my first sentence.

I'm also concerned that people either don't care or don't seem to understand what the rule of law means but heck it's a hockey forum so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

How’s the cross up there?

You never talk about the victim. You just paint everyone who doesn’t agree with your outdated takes as being part of the woke mob. Which is hypocritical considering you know, you accuse others of doing that.

 

[Deuce22]

It really is a simple question isn't it?

All else equal, if a woman accuses a man of raping her then who do you believe? Assume you have no real evidence or knowledge of the event in question. You just know that Woman A said that Man B raped her.

When you look at it through that very simple lens "we need to wait and see" is not a satisfactory answer. Maybe "innocent until proven guilty" isn't always the right standard? Maybe that standard reinforces certain power dynamics that are designed to perpetuate themselves?

And I'm a lawyer...

Very interesting idea here. I don't agree that the standard in a case like this should be to always believe the woman. Or to assume guilt on the part of the man/men. However, your point about the power dynamics has validity. This is the kind of post I have been waiting for. Thoughtful expression of ideas instead of mindless name calling and virtue signaling. I see the best solution as changing the power dynamic in the justice system, which has already begun to happen.

 

[wetcoast]

When a woman says she was fed drinks all night, carried to a bedroom, then surrounded by 8 men who took turns sexually assaulting her, I choose to believe her. You seem to have chosen to believe the players, including ones who have not made a statement yet (strange?). If her story is corroborated, then yes, she was raped, even if she didn't say no.

I haven't chosen sides as this isn't how the legal process works.

But then again I'm not a super judgmental person either, I like to see facts maybe use some critical thinking before coming to a conclusion and on this matter I doubt that we will ever get enough facts to come to any conclusion.

And if no one corraborates that she was unable to consent or intimidated, I still question the ethics of what happened in that room, even if it can't be proven from a criminal standpoint. The fact that there was a settlement and an apology from Hockey Canada is not a great start for those with your belief.

We don't know enough about the settlement either to come to a conclusion but I understand that some people will make up their minds without that information.

I also understand that organizations do settle to avoid public shi******s like what has resulted and that the government committee also isn't acting 100% out of public interest either in that it's a political institution and they act potlitically.

You are taking our belief in the victim's statements (and the settlement+apology) and conflating it with us saying they should be tarred and feathered and thrown in jail with no due process....you are creating a stance for us so you can be outraged, and it simply doesn't reflect reality.

No I'm responding to posts as they are posted and if they make conclusions or say things that haven't been verified or plausibly may have problems with logic or the spectrum of reality I point it out, after all this is a discussion board.

People can believe the victim (and the evidence of what the incident was is still not entirely clear) and let the process work out without coming to conclusions but if they choose to disregard the facts or adamantly insert assumptions then they should be prepared to have a discussion about it on a discussion board right?

Furthermore when some posters, instead of having a discussion instead choose to blatantly name called and insert assumption of other posters that don't agree with them then they can expect to be called out.

Also you should read the thread more carefully some people have been calling for things to happen to the players and HC and have come to a conclusion based on very little evidence.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

It really is a simple question isn't it?

All else equal, if a woman accuses a man of raping her then who do you believe? Assume you have no real evidence or knowledge of the event in question. You just know that Woman A said that Man B raped her.

When you look at it through that very simple lens "we need to wait and see" is not a satisfactory answer. Maybe "innocent until proven guilty" isn't always the right standard? Maybe that standard reinforces certain power dynamics that are designed to perpetuate themselves?

And I'm a lawyer...

The inherent cost for the woman - in time, money, potential "shame", having her abuse vividly re imagined in court in front of strangers - is so high that my small reptilian brain believes that she did indeed face trauma of some sort. Otherwise, how do you justify paying those costs? This is not me saying that as of today, all of those players should be stripped of their careers and freedom, and unfortunately, the "wait and see" crowd has created that strawman in an attempt to politicize this.

Whether or not it was criminal depends on the law, and the cases being made. In reading about the Missoula trials, I've learned that this is complicated beyond what any of us layman think from the sidelines.

 

[wetcoast]

The presumption of innocence isn't really the same thing as the rule of law.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm talking about the rule of law in the generic generic sense like having rules and processes to determine outcomes being better than some random people on a hockey forums reading certain articles coming to conclusions.

One avenue is probably better equipped than the other one.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm talking about the rule of law in the generic generic sense like having rules and processes to determine outcomes being better than some random people on a hockey forums reading certain articles coming to conclusions.

One avenue is probably better equipped than the other one.

Yeah and he is.

 

[wetcoast]

How’s the cross up there?

You never talk about the victim. You just paint everyone who doesn’t agree with your outdated takes as being part of the woke mob. Which is hypocritical considering you know, you accuse others of doing that.

I'm quite careful to not use the word woke but since you brought it up maybe it applies to you?

You are right I don't really talk about the victim or the players either (as I don't know them or the actual full details) I'm more concerned about reducing these incidents and actually having a logical process when stuff like this happens instead of a (we don't really know all of the facts but dammit we know the answer).

I have talked about the need to not have these incidents take place in the first place and of course sexual assault is a serious problem not only in hockey but in society in general and we have made strides to be sure but this thread isn't very good at making things better to reduce these incidents happening in the first place.

Maybe you should read my posts a little more carefully as you don't seem to understand what I'm saying?

To sum it up I think all of us would agree that it would be better if these incidents never happened in the first place as we should all work on reducing them right?

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I haven't chosen sides as this isn't how the legal process works.

This discussion isn't a legal process. By only questioning the victim's statements and the validity of the complaints, I would say you have chosen a side.

But then again I'm not a super judgmental person either, I like to see facts maybe use some critical thinking before coming to a conclusion and on this matter I doubt that we will ever get enough facts to come to any conclusion.

You are right, the rest of us are lacking in critical thinking and ignoring the facts by believing the victim.

We don't know enough about the settlement either to come to a conclusion but I understand that some people will make up their minds without that information.

I also understand that organizations do settle to avoid public shi******s like what has resulted and that the government committee also isn't acting 100% out of public interest either in that it's a political institution and they act potlitically.

There is not really a coherent thought here, but I'll try - you are saying HC made the settlement to avoid a public shitstorm, and for political reasons? Can you just confirm that?

No I'm responding to posts as they are posted and if they make conclusions or say things that haven't been verified or plausibly may have problems with logic or the spectrum of reality I point it out, after all this is a discussion board.

That is not what you are doing. You are labelling people as "internet justice mobs" because they read the victim's complaint and have decided to support her, and support a more thorough investigation into what happened.

You've decided that everyone who believes her is part of this "internet justice mob", and from this last post, you seem to also believe that you alone have the critical thinking skills to make any kind of personal opinion on the matter.

People can believe the victim (and the evidence of what the incident was is still not entirely clear) and let the process work out without coming to conclusions but if they choose to disregard the facts or adamantly insert assumptions then they should be prepared to have a discussion about it on a discussion board right?

So essentially you are lumping all of us in with a few people who are overzealous?

This is a cowardly tactic taken straight from the world of politics.

Furthermore when some posters, instead of having a discussion instead choose to blatantly name called and insert assumption of other posters that don't agree with them then they can expect to be called out.

Thank you for posting this. When I think back on where this discussion thread started (you calling people you disagree with the "internet justice mob" or something along those line), I can't help but chuckle at the absuridtiy of the above quote.

 

[Deuce22]

The inherent cost for the woman - in time, money, potential "shame", having her abuse vividly re imagined in court in front of strangers - is so high that my small reptilian brain believes that she did indeed face trauma of some sort. Otherwise, how do you justify paying those costs? This is not me saying that as of today, all of those players should be stripped of their careers and freedom, and unfortunately, the "wait and see" crowd has created that strawman in an attempt to politicize this.

Whether or not it was criminal depends on the law, and the cases being made. In reading about the Missoula trials, I've learned that this is complicated beyond what any of us layman think from the sidelines.

As part of what you call the "wait and see crowd" I feel the need to push back. My wait and see feeling is that posters who are making lists and crossing names off, calling for players to make statements, calling the players "rapists," and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative have crossed the line of civility and rationality. Wait and see doesn't mean I think the players are blameless. Wait and see means not making a rash decision based on a limited amount of information. How many times must we see the folly of making premature judgements, only to need to re-evaluate when the truth finally trickles out?

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah and he is.

So what?

Do you think that that poster would choose the court of public opinion or the court of law for a proceeding which was my point.

 

[Mingus Dew]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm talking about the rule of law in the generic generic sense like having rules and processes to determine outcomes being better than some random people on a hockey forums reading certain articles coming to conclusions.

One avenue is probably better equipped than the other one.

It's a bit philosophical in that the rule of law is mostly about everyone being subject to the law and no one, like the king, being above it or exempt from it.

The presumption of innocence is more about making sure the state, which prosecutes criminal cases, cannot use the law as a means of persecution or subjugation.

The presumption of innocence has become a sort of catch-all for saying that you can't hold someone accountable for an alleged action until they are found culpable in a criminal proceeding. My view is that this is a perversion of the original intent or, more likely, a natural evolution of self-interested power dynamics that shape the legal system and its many tentacles.

But I'm not a juridical scholar. I run redlines and argue about indemnities for a living.

 

[Apex Predator]

There’s a thread on the Reddit page hockey. Someone pulled up picture from the bars Facebook group of the the night it happened. Posted the pictures of the 8 guys that they found on Facebook. I don’t think that proves those were the guys but it’s pretty damn alarming. Not sure if I can post it here but crazy detective work by someone on Reddit.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

As part of what you call the "wait and see crowd" I feel the need to push back. My wait and see feeling is that posters who are making lists and crossing names off, calling for players to make statements, calling the players "rapists," and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative have crossed the line of civility and rationality. Wait and see doesn't mean I think the players are blameless. Wait and see means not making a rash decision based on a limited amount of information. How many times must we see the folly of making premature judgements, only to need to re-evaluate when the truth finally trickles out?

I can't control what information you choose to consume. I think we are all interested in knowing who hasn't made a statement, and my question would be: "Why haven't they?".

However, it is up to you if you want to read and take part in discussions where people are clearly going too far (ie someone questioning if Batherson will go to jail because he's a rapist).

It seems obvious at this point that this woman has experienced trauma. As I mentioned, the costs of continuing to pursue this has enormous costs for her. What I am seeing isn't what you described, it's people using terms like "she regrets it" or "she didn't say no" or "she can't prove it". To me, this is just as poisonous as someone calling players rapists.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

There’s a thread on the Reddit page hockey. Someone pulled up picture from the bars Facebook group of the the night it happened. Posted the pictures of the 8 guys that they found on Facebook. I don’t think that proves those were the guys but it’s pretty damn alarming. Not sure if I can post it here but crazy detective work by someone on Reddit.

I don't see a problem - here is the link to the pics. It's not legal evidence or anything like that. None of these people are guilty of anything for being in these pics, they are just celebrating in a bar. I have similar pictures partying in Ottawa with a few players but I didn't post them publically because I may or may not have been legally allowed in a bar at that point....

From the reddit thread:

The players I recognize are: Drake Batherson, Jake Bean, Brett Howden, Maxime Comtois, Jonah Gadjovich, Dante Fabbro, Dillon Dubé, Michael McLeod, and Colton Point​

 

[Korpse]

There’s a thread on the Reddit page hockey. Someone pulled up picture from the bars Facebook group of the the night it happened. Posted the pictures of the 8 guys that they found on Facebook. I don’t think that proves those were the guys but it’s pretty damn alarming. Not sure if I can post it here but crazy detective work by someone on Reddit.

Yes Reddit, famously known for their good work.

 

[Deuce22]

I can't control what information you choose to consume. I think we are all interested in knowing who hasn't made a statement, and my question would be: "Why haven't they?".

However, it is up to you if you want to read and take part in discussions where people are clearly going too far (ie someone questioning if Batherson will go to jail because he's a rapist).

It seems obvious at this point that this woman has experienced trauma. As I mentioned, the costs of continuing to persue this has enomous costs for her. What I am seeing isn't what you described, it's people using terms like "she regrets it". To me, this is just as poisonous as someone calling players rapists.

I have very little regard for the statements. They are vague for the most part, and very unconvincing. I think you are correct that the woman had a horrible experience. Where I am unwilling to go is making judgements based on very limited information.

 

[TheDoldrums]

There’s a thread on the Reddit page hockey. Someone pulled up picture from the bars Facebook group of the the night it happened. Posted the pictures of the 8 guys that they found on Facebook. I don’t think that proves those were the guys but it’s pretty damn alarming. Not sure if I can post it here but crazy detective work by someone on Reddit.

I remember some Reddit detectives accusing the wrong person of bombing the Boston Marathon, gotta be careful.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I remember some Reddit detectives accusing the wrong person of bombing the Boston Marathon, gotta be careful.

Man I remember watching that unfold live, it was insane.

I think there is a documentary about it somewhere. One of the guys they targetted had his life ruined.

 

[Deuce22]

There’s a thread on the Reddit page hockey. Someone pulled up picture from the bars Facebook group of the the night it happened. Posted the pictures of the 8 guys that they found on Facebook. I don’t think that proves those were the guys but it’s pretty damn alarming. Not sure if I can post it here but crazy detective work by someone on Reddit.

Case closed

 

[Pink Mist]

I don't see a problem - here is the link to the pics. It's not legal evidence or anything like that. None of these people are guilty of anything for being in these pics, they are just celebrating in a bar. I have similar pictures partying in Ottawa with a few players but I didn't post them publically because I may or may not have been legally allowed in a bar at that point....

From the reddit thread:

The players I recognize are: Drake Batherson, Jake Bean, Brett Howden, Maxime Comtois, Jonah Gadjovich, Dante Fabbro, Dillon Dubé, Michael McLeod, and Colton Point​

Ryan McLeod is actually in one of the pictures. May provide some info for why they say it wasn't exclusively world junior players

EDIT: obviously by no means definitive proof

 

[Apex Predator]

I remember some Reddit detectives accusing the wrong person of bombing the Boston Marathon, gotta be careful.

I know it’s not proof just thought it was interesting.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

The Athletic spoke to another woman who was at the bar the same night who says she made out with a player (not confirmed to be one of the John Does) who then tried to get his friends to kiss her and tried multiple times to pressure her to go back to the hotel with them, collectively.

Also, alcohol was served at the gala event including to underage players, and players were apparently drinking heavily.

So I guess this tactic was experienced by another woman at the bar.