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

[Deuce22]

25 out of every 1,000 sexual assault cases lead to jail time. There is a reason women don't come forward and it's because the justice system fails them time and time again.

The system is not set up to protect the weak, far from it, it is set up to protect those who set it up in the first place.

The Criminal Justice System: Statistics | RAINN

The majority of perpetrators of sexual assault will not go to prison.

www.rainn.org

Horrible. The influence of money and corruption in our legal and political systems is ridiculous. But is the solution to automatically assume guilt on anyone in a position of power accused of sexual assault? To be clear, I'm not saying you would advocate for that. I'm just searching for a middle ground between women being taken advantage of sexually and maintaining the rights of the accused.

You didn't it appears that he came to that conclusion for you.

Because anything less than total agreement makes you the adversary.

 

[Caje]

Hockey Canada's absolute incompetence at "investigating" gang rape allegations is beyond belief.

Millions of dollars and third party "investigators" (hatchet persons) at their disposal, and they scooped by Westhead.

They couldn't maintain a greater cone of silence on these things if they were actively trying to hush it up.

Hockey Canada isn't investigating anything, nor should they. That's a job for both the police and an independent third party, which in this case is a well-respected law firm. Calling them "hatchet persons" is ignorant, like many of your posts in this thread.

 

[wetcoast]

the "wait for the facts" crowd is all too eager to wildly speculate on the victim's motives or character with absolutely zero basis behind that. I guess for some, only hockey boys are entitled to not have any judgment passed on them until every single bit of detail is known (and often by that point, the talking point has shifted to "you're still talking about this? move on already!")

the "wait for the facts" crowd (not that I speak for them but) are probably doing just that waiting for the facts.

Other people haven't waited and have made assumptions about the victims actions (ie she didn't go to the police because...)

The simple problem here is that we really have no idea if something criminal happened here or not.

And when facts are presented and others that you just happen to agree with make speculative analysis and then you talk about the "wait for the facts" crowd?

Seems to be a bit of a double standard going on here, how about we actually wait for the facts before coming to conclusions?

 

[Svechhammer]

Oh boy, the blindfolds are really coming off.

Good

Its long past time this all comes to light and changes are forced to occur.

 

[c3z4r]

Taken from reddit from the comments of the Katie Strang Athletic article

DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION BELOW MEANS NOTHING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF A CRIME

So they listed the name of the bar they were at and the date in this article… sure enough that bar still had pictures up on Facebook from that night, and I grabbed the ones that had players from the WJC team

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

One night in London: Allegations of sexual assault and a reckoning for Hockey Canada

The Parliament of Canada is scrutinizing what the organization did and didn't do upon learning of the allegations.

theathletic.com

 

[Idionym]

Who's a bigger friend to rapists than those who sit on the sideline clamoring for a smoking gun before "making a decision?"

Keep waiting on the sidelines until you see a text from a rapist saying "had a great time raping X last night!" Wait until you find a voice recording of someone asking someone else to stop but they keep going. Wait until there's multiple witnesses in the room who observe each action with 100% clarity and all come to the same conclusion. Wait until you find the absolutely perfect, one in a million case. Wait until the sun goes dark and Hell freezes over.

I hope you drown in the tears of the hundreds of thousands of rape victims that you ignore with your willingly ignorant attitude. Disgusting.

 

[Svechhammer]

the "wait for the facts" crowd (not that I speak for them but) are probably doing just that waiting for the facts.

Other people haven't waited and have made assumptions about the victims actions (ie she didn't go to the police because...)

The simple problem here is that we really have no idea if something criminal happened here or not.

And when facts are presented and others that you just happen to agree with make speculative analysis and then you talk about the "wait for the facts" crowd?

Seems to be a bit of a double standard going on here, how about we actually wait for the facts before coming to conclusions?

Meh

There were (and probably still are, I have no idea, I have no desire to look into it after seeing them) people in the Katz thread trying to advocate for getting into the mindset of the 16 year old girl in order to excuse the actions of the 53 year old man. There are no shortage of batshit insane people on these forums who will turn a blind eye to anything just so long as they don't have to question their own fandom.

 

[I am toxic]

Pandora's box has been opened. It's great that these things come out for a full fledged reform and drastic changes.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Hockey Canada isn't investigating anything, nor should they. That's a job for both the police and an independent third party, which in this case is a well-respected law firm. Calling them "hatchet persons" is ignorant, like many of your posts in this thread.

This whole thing was a hatchet job by them.

@I am toxic is not the problem here, the players and system are.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

the "wait for the facts" crowd (not that I speak for them but) are probably doing just that waiting for the facts.

Other people haven't waited and have made assumptions about the victims actions (ie she didn't go to the police because...)

The simple problem here is that we really have no idea if something criminal happened here or not.

And when facts are presented and others that you just happen to agree with make speculative analysis and then you talk about the "wait for the facts" crowd?

Seems to be a bit of a double standard going on here, how about we actually wait for the facts before coming to conclusions?

The victim said there wasn't consent. I choose to believe her because there isn't going to be a "fact" that likely comes out in a case like this - its going to be someone's word versus another's.

What "fact" are you waiting for exactly? An admission of guilt from someone?

 

[Off Sides]

How does one hire an investigation law firm to look into something, and then not even get a report back?

Seems like a safe assumption that they paid them, so without a report, how do they know the firm did anything other than cash the check?

 

[Caje]

How does one hire an investigation law firm to look into something, and then not even get a report back?

Seems like a safe assumption that they paid them, so without a report, how do they know the firm did anything other than cash the check?

"Henein-Hutchison said it did not complete its report because the complainant would not speak to them at the time."

Players’ lawyers criticize Hockey Canada’s handling of settlement over alleged sexual assault

Lawyers of seven members of the 2018 world junior hockey team say clients should have been given chance to counter allegations of sexual assault

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

How does one hire an investigation law firm to look into something, and then not even get a report back?

Seems like a safe assumption that they paid them, so without a report, how do they know the firm did anything other than cash the check?

It seems pretty clear that Hockey Canada has been operating with the mantra of, "It it's not criminal, it's not our problem." As soon as London Police closed the criminal investigation, Hockey Canada moved on.

The victim, seemingly, did as well, since she didn't pursue the case for 4 years. But when she filed the civil claim a few weeks ago, they probably said, "Oh shit... let's settle this quickly and not make a big deal of it."

The issue is that it is a pretty big deal and HC's standards should be significantly higher than, "Don't be a convicted felon."

 

[I am toxic]

Hockey Canada isn't investigating anything, nor should they. That's a job for both the police and an independent third party, which in this case is a well-respected law firm. Calling them "hatchet persons" is ignorant, like many of your posts in this thread.

Bullshit.

The third party is not independent, they are selected by Hockey Canada, they report to Hockey Canada, they are engaged on Hockey Canada's terms, and if they actually do prepare a report it is only shared at the discretion of Hockey Canada - unless public pressure, government pressure, and sponsor withdrawals force them to.

There are many many ignorant posts in this thread. Any ignorance found in my posts are the parts where I am quoting others.


edited to add:

But I agree Hockey Canada should not be leading any investigations, other than when they conduct their own to protect their own interests when they are named in a suit. They should simply be instantly reporting, fully (respecting confidentiality of identities) and publicly.

A truly independent outside party who does not answer to Hockey Canada should be doing the investigating. That's a conclusion based on decades-long study of the available evidence looking at dozens of industries and institutions.

I know, right? It's a conclusion that isn't based on a criminal conviction where it was unanimously decided by a dozen people beyond a reasonable doubt. I 'm a monster!

 

[wetcoast]

What’s the conversation wetcoast?

You putting your head into the ground denying anything wrong with hockey culture?

Playing devils advocate for the players?

Telling everyone who don’t agree as some internet mob?

Not giving a single shit for the victim?

This isn’t a thread about the due process of the legal system. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it so. If you can’t handle that, maybe take a hike.

You are right, this thread, at least to you seems to making things up about what others think and say and disregarding the legal process or facts like they don't even matter.

I never denied that there isn't anything wrong with hockey culture but it's really a male culture thing.

I'm not playing devils advocate for the players as I have no horse in the "race" other than wanting to minimize these events from happening .

Once again I don't tell everyone I don't agree with 100% that they are the mob only the ones who are acting the part.

As for your view on how I feel about the victim, I'm not even going to respond to your absurd assertion.

but your last sentence is the most telling some people don't want the "truth" they have their own narrative and facts and process simply don't matter.

Exhibit A is your post here.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Meanwhile, John Tortorella goes on a rant.

"Tony DeAngelo's a hell of a player, Tony DeAngelo has personality. Is he going to say and do some stupid stuff? You're damn right he is. But I'd rather have a guy doing stupid stuff than having a choir boy here just going about your business. You don't win that way, you don't win championships, you don't build a team without any personality. Tony's going to bring that and, plus, he's a hell of a player.

I get defending a player on your team, but yeesh. Pick your spots John. Read the room.

 

[Off Sides]

"Henein-Hutchison said it did not complete its report because the complainant would not speak to them at the time."

Players’ lawyers criticize Hockey Canada’s handling of settlement over alleged sexual assault

Lawyers of seven members of the 2018 world junior hockey team say clients should have been given chance to counter allegations of sexual assault

www.theglobeandmail.com

Mr. Peter Julian:

I would question you on the delay in responding or advising the police, but you also mentioned earlier in your testimony that you don't know ultimately the number of players that co-operated with the investigation that Henein Hutchison coordinated. To this day, you don't know how many players co-operated and how many players did not. Is that true?

[Expand]

Mr. Tom Renney:
I would tell you that's true. We have not received a complete report as yet, and with that being said, I can't tell you that we've confirmed a number of players who identified and communicated with the investigation. I don't know that number specifically. I'm going to give you an opportunity to hear a guess, which is that it might have been four to six, and I apologize for not being more succinct.





Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
Out of a concern for transparency, I would ask you please to provide the committee with the report that you asked the Henein Hutchison firm to prepare. Did you submit it to the police too?
What were its findings?

Mr. Scott Smith:
I don't believe that the police asked our third party investigator for the report. The advice we received from our independent investigator was related to our code of conduct, which at the time covered only.... It was broad enough only to cover on-ice hockey events, so tournaments and camps—

—and we've broadened that. We've increased our education on that, and we continue to do so.

As I mentioned earlier to one of your colleagues, I also identified that we have adjusted and modified some additional requirements on alcohol service at fundraising events.
Thank you.

Evidence - CHPC (44-1) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canada

Evidence - CHPC (44-1) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

My take from that, HC did not get back any completed report, and they seem to have hired this investigation firm to not look into what happened, yet instead hired them apparently to give recommendations on improving their code of conduct.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

You are right, this thread, at least to you seems to making things up about what others think and say and disregarding the legal process or facts like they don't even matter.

I never denied that there isn't anything wrong with hockey culture but it's really a male culture thing.

I'm not playing devils advocate for the players as I have no horse in the "race" other than wanting to minimize these events from happening .

Once again I don't tell everyone I don't agree with 100% that they are the mob only the ones who are acting the part.

As for your view on how I feel about the victim, I'm not even going to respond to your absurd assertion.

but your last sentence is the most telling some people don't want the "truth" they have their own narrative and facts and process simply don't matter.

Exhibit A is your post here.

Let's just get to the bottom of this - do you believe the victim? and if not, what would it take?

 

[wetcoast]

Neither option is better than the other. Both are important.

Option A has such a high threshold of proof required that option B is often necessary to enact the societal change required to stop these things from happening.

Neither option is adding to the elimination of the problem, I was talking strictly to this direct situation and how it is being dealt with in this thread and even on a more general level the court of public opinion just isn't a good option is a situation as charged as this.

 

[pcruz]

The victim said there wasn't consent. I choose to believe her because there isn't going to be a "fact" that likely comes out in a case like this - its going to be someone's word versus another's.

What "fact" are you waiting for exactly? An admission of guilt from someone?

She said this in a court of law, under penalty of perjury?
When, why hasn't this been made public knowledge?

It seems like such an event would make settling this kind of case really counter-intuitive on the part of the people who were supposed to be representing her.

Believing one person a priori while dismissing another person's claim (if it even exists) is wrong in criminal cases.
Dismissing the allegations is just as wrong as assuming their complete legitimacy.

That's the reason investigative bodies exist: to investigate alleged criminal activity, without prejudice, in order to come to a more complete and truthful understanding of the events alleged. If criminal activity occurred, they are to make such recommendations to the judicial system.

The fact that some people are perfectly willing to forego due process and to jump to conclusions is appalling.

What those people should be incensed at is that such a potentially damning event could have been settled out of court in the first place. There shouldn't be an option for settlements out of court for sexual assault complaints.

At the same time, the stigma (real or perceived) of someone having been the victim of a sexual assault, has to go away completely.
Only when we take away all of the limiting factors, will victims of such abuse come forward with more frequency and immediacy.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

You are right, this thread, at least to you seems to making things up about what others think and say and disregarding the legal process or facts like they don't even matter.

I never denied that there isn't anything wrong with hockey culture but it's really a male culture thing.

I'm not playing devils advocate for the players as I have no horse in the "race" other than wanting to minimize these events from happening .

Once again I don't tell everyone I don't agree with 100% that they are the mob only the ones who are acting the part.

As for your view on how I feel about the victim, I'm not even going to respond to your absurd assertion.

but your last sentence is the most telling some people don't want the "truth" they have their own narrative and facts and process simply don't matter.

Exhibit A is your post here.

Girl said she was sexually assaulted. There are plenty of articles. You ignore this “proof”.

Well, of course you’re not going to respond. Your posts show absolutely no regard for the victim but more concerned for some good ol boys having their reputation tarnished. That’s f***ed.

Every person that disagrees with you, you lump them into the mob. Don’t act like you don’t.

What’s your purpose here? I’m not making shit up. It’s your words. Not mine. You don’t like being called out on it.

 

[Caje]

Bullshit.

The third party in not independent, they are selected by Hockey Canada, they report to Hockey Canada, they are engaged on Hockey Canada's terms, and if they actually do prepare a report it only shared at the discretion of Hockey Canada - unless public pressure, government pressure, and sponsor withdrawals force them to.

There are many many ignorant posts in this thread. Any ignorance found in my posts are the parts where I am quoting others.

You've made a number of posts now where you've shown that you have no idea how large organizations like Hockey Canada actually operate.

If hiring a law-firm to conduct an investigation is not independent enough for you, what would be? This is what every single large organization does when faced with these issues.

And how exactly do you think the law firm should prepare a report when the complainant refused to talk to them and several of the players refused to co-operate as well? They have no power to compel statements from anyone.

 

[robertmac43]

This sport has a long, long way to go at this point. Hard to cheer for it when so many shitty things happen behind the scenes.

 

[PostBradMalone]

You've made a number of posts now where you've shown that you have no idea how large organizations like Hockey Canada actually operate.

If hiring a law-firm to conduct an investigation is not independent enough for you, what would be? This is what every single large organization does when faced with these issues.

Not every single organization facing a sexual assault allegation hires the law firm that forced the Supreme Court of Canada to issue a ruling defending the constitutionality of rape shield laws. That’s like hiring a fox to investigate a scandal in the hen house.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Let's just get to the bottom of this - do you believe the victim? and if not, what would it take?

I think it's very possible that:

1) The victim is telling the absolute truth. While she consented to being with John Doe 1, she did not consent to the events that escalated later in the room. She no doubt felt violated and taken advantage of.
2) The players in the room, at the time, believed she was having a good time and was up for whatever was happening. They didn't enter the room with rape on their mind.

Both can be true. It's reasonable to believe, IMO, that a sexual assault occurred without the players realizing that sexual assault was occurring. Her claim infers that, as well. She did not say "no" because she felt she couldn't say "no".

That doesn't absolve any of them, and it in no way should, but that's a very common circumstance when it comes to these types of cases. Especially in situations where you have people in their late-teens heavily drinking.

Whether there's enough to prosecute them criminally? That's a different conversation.

But I do hope we see at least a little bit of self-awareness from these players. "At the time, while I interpreted the events as consensual, I now realize that the victim felt uncomfortable and taken advantage of..."

Accept the professional consequences and be a better person.