Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Bettman is getting testy with a journalist

Gary: "An informed journalist is asking me questions about something I want to keep hush hush? Let's move on to the next reporter so I can talk about how much fans love the digital ads on boards."

 

[T REX]

Funny you said im attacking you when you said im part of the problem and contributing to the circle of silence in a previous post. Lol. Im not attacking just as much saying you cant attck and ban these people and expect it to effe t anything. Regardless of what he was thinking, banning pizza guy isnt gonna change anything. Whenever another incident happens again, that teen that sees something is gonna be in shock and processing wth happened, not about what happened to pizza guy. Organizations that have training on how to deal with reports should be held more accountable but leople shocked in the moment dont deserve to be cancelled, eslecially if they are coming forqard and cooperating later.

And the afghan situation while different is same conceot about how humans react to shock and traumtic events.

I should have qualified not as YOU(personally) but the do nothing crowd is part of the problem. Those include the boys will be boys and puck bunny dbags. Has an anonymous tipline been set up yet? Every other corporate organization has one in place for a variety of reasons including sexual harrassment. Has this been done? Because that is at the bare minimum, a requirement.

EDIT: Could it be pizza boy has enormous guilt now because he froze? Or possibly he may not have broken the law but did not fulfill his basic duty as a good human being? Or maybe he forgot about it and now is cooperating because he remembered that gang bang he forgot about? I'm going to wager it's somewhere in the middle and he is going to look bad. He probably won't be welcome back to whatever team he is on. JMHO.

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

Maybe they did, but one journo didn't get the memo (or ignored it and brought the case up anyway).

Good, though. The NHL can't hide from this anymore.

Can't pretend everything's just sunshine and rainbows when it comes to pro hockey, with shit like that going on at the same time.

The clip started with statement from Bettman before any questions were taken.

I agree with you (re: sunshine and rainbows). I'm just surprised that a crisis manager (which I assume they have) didn't catch that.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

What an embarrassing look for the NHL. Again. I'm honestly a bit ashamed to continue to support the league, knowing they'd rather just bury stories and move on. That is and always has been the biggest problem with SA in general, and here they are perpetuating it.

I have slammed Melnyk as much as any Ottawa fans, but if there's truth to the idea that Anna and Olivia stepped in on Formenton, good for them, big time.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I remember my wife and I discussing these style of consent rules and for fun we tried and it was outright laughable how they expect couples to be intimate. I am sure we may have overdone it on consent requests but we followed the law to the letter and its silly.
It removed all intimacy and turned something erotic into a tit for tat clinical exercise

Sure but that's also you and your wife. I think there needs to be a societal reframing of these situations as we teach our kids about consent.

If you're about to put your penis in someone who is basically a stranger, make sure that you both are on the same page as to what's about to happen. If there's alcohol involved, make DAMN sure everyone is on the same page. There needs to be a conversation about birth control/STD protection before things really get going anyway.

It may not be the sexiest thing but if a person is that uncomfortable discussing sexual matters with the person they're about to have sex with, maybe they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

[BE Friend]

Can five separate trials be done? Yes. Defence would have to ask for severance, for 2 or more separate trials. The Crown will point out how it's easier to have only 1 trial since the complainant and all other witnesses only have to testify once. The person asking for severance would have to show why having 1 big trial would be unfair. The experts asked by Westhead seemed to think severance is unlikely.

Can one opt for a non-jury trial? Each Accused will be given three choices - trial in lower court, trial in higher court with a judge alone, and trial in higher court with judge and jury. The thing is - the highest election wins. If only 1 elects judge and jury, then they all go judge and jury. That being said defence will all talk about it behind closed doors. The traditional thinking was a jury is the better election on sexual assaults, but that may have changed.

Do remember all five Accuseds get to decide whether to testify or not. If they don't testify, the Crown can't cross-examine them. And even then - typically in cross-examination you only want to ask questions you already know the answer to, so those might not in fact be great questions.

Think more like:

Q. You took this video?
Q. On your own phone?
Q. Of the girl you just had sex with?
Q. You asked her to confirm the sex was consensual?
Q. That's because you were worried she would say it wasn't consensual, right?
Q. You were worried she would say it wasn't consensual because of how drunk she was, right?

Yes. Lead the questions down the path to box them in. Thats why you are the HF in-house counsel.
Can't recall if Ghomeshi took the stand. I suspect were in low % territory for these guy to testify. To many minefields to navigate. The relationship status of each in 2018 and later might come into play also, or they better hope to have some that is positive. Defense is going to need every part of this 18-24 mths to search for good news.

CBC Fifth had a player in the dark and voice disguised saying this isn't one-off stuff. There is a playbook that many know about,

I wonder if that famous quote of a well known orange hued conman will get a canadian airing?
".....And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,"

 

[theVladiator]

I remember my wife and I discussing these style of consent rules and for fun we tried and it was outright laughable how they expect couples to be intimate. I am sure we may have overdone it on consent requests but we followed the law to the letter and its silly.
It removed all intimacy and turned something erotic into a tit for tat clinical exercise

I do not think these "rules" are meant to be the guide on how to have sex. I would even go as far as saying they add anything new. You just need to make sure that what's erotic for you is also erotic for the other person, and you should be fine.

The rules are there to draw a clear line to determine when the rape has occurred. You only need to worry about them if you think you are getting close to crossing that line. Needless to say, in that case losing that erotic feeling is the least of your problems.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Yes. Yes it does.

If at any time, something novel happens or something changes throughout an ongoing process, consent needs to be had. If there is any bit of apprehension or hesitation, or not clear "yes, I agree to this new act/change/action", then consent is not had.



That is not consent and you would be interpreting it wrong.

No, the law would not consider that consent in this case either.



You clearly have a very very very poor understanding of what consent means. I would recommend you read up on it and ethics/law behind it because you seem to have an offputting and disturbing level of misunderstanding on this.

Source: health care professional who has to get consent in three different ways before treatment/assement and during for whichever new method/action is introduced.

Any person who works in healthcare, law, or generally common-sense individual should understand this at a purely human and ethical level.

In the above example I am not administering medicine to someone or touching their person.

I am not entering their bedroom. I was invited to a hotel room and there is a gangbang going on in front of me.

You are confusing consent in a professional sense and in a sexual sense vs a social sense. No one in a social setting asks "is it ok that I'm here" after being invited. Its ridiculous. You are being ridiculous.

And considering the kid left after 10 minutes, he probably felt like he wasn't OK being there and did nothing wrong, without ever asking the question.

 

[Frank Drebin]

If she was stone cold sober, acknowledging one's presence is not consent to sex, gang bang or otherwise. Like wtf?

You are the one that said the pizza player didn't receive consent.

He didn't touch the victim, so what exactly did he need consent for other than existing in the room?

 

[OG Eberle]

I remember my wife and I discussing these style of consent rules and for fun we tried and it was outright laughable how they expect couples to be intimate. I am sure we may have overdone it on consent requests but we followed the law to the letter and its silly.
It removed all intimacy and turned something erotic into a tit for tat clinical exercise

While I think part of this is tongue-in-cheek and playing fun at how overt consent is made out to be these days, it's really not that hard.

I'm not going to go into the intracicies of this specific instance as I have minimal info outside of what was reported. But happy to give a crash course here:

Implied Consent: weakest form of consent. As it sounds, partaking in an act or event with enthusiasm and encouraging it would be forms of "implied consent". This is the area where people get into trouble all the time, especially when there wasn't at least one of verbal or written consent given. Implied consent is often only really considered consent if it follows verbal/written consent immediately after.

Verbal Consent: much stronger. Someone says outloud, very clearly, that they want and welcome whatever is being offered (i.e. yes, let's go have sex together). Probably one of the most common forms of consent, but still leads to issues.

Written Consent: the strongest. In writing, someone welcomes whatever act/action is being proposed to them. For professional settings, this has the risks and associations that can occur as well in which better informs the participant of what could possibly occur. Socially, this could be a text/email just confirming consent to the act. This would STILL need to be confirmed verbally and implicitly with active participation when in person before beginning regardless, as per "ongoing consent". This is the strongest form and what those "consent forms" you sign prior to any medical appointment is for. Easiest to defend in court.

The issues become with "implied consent" mainly and "verbal consent". For example, with sex, just because someone says they want to have sex with you, that doesn't mean they consent to all forms that another person may offer (i.e. other partners, foreign objects, aggression, video tapes, etc). The consent to sex originally does not cover or carry over to those other novel introductions to the act. Hence, one would have to ask "hey, do you want to record this?" or "how do you feel about my friends coming over to join in with us?". If it is not a very clear YES (i.e. hesitation, you pressure them into it, they aren't willing, OR they say yes and chose to stop at anytime or become an unwilling participant), you DO NOT have consent to continue and are at risk of whatever consequences may come from that (i.e. legal, emotional, mental, court of public opinion, etc).

If someone is inebriated/incapacitated, their ability to give informed consent is impaired and will not hold up in court if it comes to that. This also includes if they were sober, gave consent then, and then during the act were inebriated. Yeah... scary thought. But that's the reality of it. You need to make sure you both understand what is happening at all times in order for consent to be informed and valid. This carries over for all 3 forms of consent.

Rule of thumb: if you're doing something that is involving another person, especially a stranger, you better be very clear in what you both want. You're liable for your actions. It doesn't take away from the passion or moment either unless you have zero-interpersonal communication skills in person (which unfortunately, is very prevelant these days thanks to technology).

Communication is key for all this. And unfortuantely, thats what 99% of the human race sucks at. Hence why we have so many issues with this these days.

 

[Yukon Joe]

So what the heck - let me give a (hopefully) quick explanation of what consent means - in terms of a Canadian criminal trial.

First is the matter of actual consent. The Crown needs to prove that the victim did not consent to the sexual act. Often times that can be pretty easy - the victim just says "I did not consent" in court. But this is where those videos come up. If the court finds that there is a reasonable doubt about the victim's lack of consent, then the trial is over.

But if the court finds (as a fact) the victim did not consent, then we move to the defence of "honest but mistaken belief in consent".

The law doesn't expect signed consent forms from everyone - that's not the world we live in. But if you thought your partner consented - was that an honest and reasonable belief?

But this is a defence - so the Accused's would need to take the stand and testify "I honestly thought she was consenting".

And this is where the entire circumstances come up. Those players would have to convince the justice that getting a text from a buddy saying to come up and have sex with this girl equals consent.


Now consent means a lot of things in different circumstances. BUt this is how the court will look at it.

 

[OG Eberle]

In the above example I am not administering medicine to someone or touching their person.

I am not entering their bedroom. I was invited to a hotel room and there is a gangbang going on in front of me.

You are confusing consent in a professional sense and in a sexual sense vs a social sense. No one in a social setting asks "is it ok that I'm here" after being invited. Its ridiculous. You are being ridiculous.

And considering the kid left after 10 minutes, he probably felt like he wasn't OK being there and did nothing wrong, without ever asking the question.

I highly recommend you read what I just wrote in the post above this. Consent in a professional setting vs a social/sexual sense is the exact same thing. Are you arguing that anything I wrote above is not what you would expect as "normal social communications" for how to engage in a sexual act?

You are being ridiculous.

And once again, you have a very disturbingly poor understanding of consent.

Put the shovel down and stop doubling down on your terribly misinformed and poor takes.

 

[Yukon Joe]

While I think part of this is tongue-in-cheek and playing fun at how overt consent is made out to be these days, it's really not that hard.

I'm not going to go into the intracicies of this specific instance as I have minimal info outside of what was reported. But happy to give a crash course here:

Implied Consent: weakest form of consent. As it sounds, partaking in an act or event with enthusiasm and encouraging it would be forms of "implied consent". This is the area where people get into trouble all the time, especially when there wasn't at least one of verbal or written consent given. Implied consent is often only really considered consent if it follows verbal/written consent immediately after.

I just wanted to say - "Implied consent" is a term lay people use, but it would not be used in a Canadian Criminal courtroom. Either the victim consented or she did not.

If she didn't consent, did the Accused have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.



To pick a really ridiculous and extreme example - you could run to a woman, drag her to the bushes, tear her clothes off and have sex with her in a back alley - but if she's into that and she actually wants it to happen (even without ever having spoken to you) - then it's not sexual assault.

That being said - don't ever do that.

And the flip side is - someone can say "hey come over to my house and we'll have sex". Heck they can send a notarized letter to that effect. But if once you get there the victim no longer wants to have sex, then there's no consent - and you're back to "honest but mistaken belief in consent" defence.

 

[Czechboy]

Bettman conviently 'just' completed the in house investigation and they were 'just' discussing how to move forward when the 5 were summoned.

OOOOOOKKKKKK. Right then

Also... No one in the NHL had any idea who was involved.lol.

 

[Czechboy]

So can they play elsewhere? kHL, NLA?

What if they turn up innocent in 2 years? That is a lot of lost opportunity and potential money for them.

Eg. Hart is UFA and makes 4 million. He was going to get a raise and bigger contract for sure. Does he get paid till end of year and then what? Sit and wait for 2 years? Play in KHL? Backyard rink?
If he's proven guilty.. good. However, if he's found not guilty...

 

[OG Eberle]

I just wanted to say - "Implied consent" is a term lay people use, but it would not be used in a Canadian Criminal courtroom. Either the victim consented or she did not.

If she didn't consent, did the Accused have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.



To pick a really ridiculous and extreme example - you could run to a woman, drag her to the bushes, tear her clothes off and have sex with her in a back alley - but if she's into that and she actually wants it to happen (even without ever having spoken to you) - then it's not sexual assault.

That being said - don't ever do that.

And the flip side is - someone can say "hey come over to my house and we'll have sex". Heck they can send a notarized letter to that effect. But if once you get there the victim no longer wants to have sex, then there's no consent - and you're back to "honest but mistaken belief in consent" defence.

Yeah I agree. I think I danced around it a bit as "implied consent" is more so the ongoing actions that accompany the original consent that note it's still okay. Again, this is why it isn't necesarily used in court to prove it one way or another due to subjective nature of it, as you alluded to.

So can they play elsewhere? kHL, NLA?

What if they turn up innocent in 2 years? That is a lot of lost opportunity and potential money for them.

Eg. Hart is UFA and makes 4 million. He was going to get a raise and bigger contract for sure. Does he get paid till end of year and then what? Sit and wait for 2 years? Play in KHL? Backyard rink?
If he's proven guilty.. good. However, if he's found not guilty...

Important to note "not guilty" =/= "innocent"

OJ Simpson is the best example of that.

If they were truly innocent and this was witch-hunt level stuff, in order to recoup lost wages/income, they would have to countersue civilly to any and all parties who they feel caused that.

Our systems aren't perfect. All you can say about these things.

 

[Golden_Jet]

If someone is inebriated/incapacitated, their ability to give informed consent is impaired and will not hold up in court if it comes to that. This also includes if they were sober, gave consent then, and then during the act were inebriated.

Normally I’d agree with that, however, there are examples when not true, I learned.

Supreme Court of Canada upholds acquittal in sex assault case revolving around consent - The Globe and Mail

A key piece of evidence in the trial was a video recording of the complainant saying she consented to the sex

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Frank Drebin]

I highly recommend you read what I just wrote in the post above this. Consent in a professional setting vs a social/sexual sense is the exact same thing. Are you arguing that anything I wrote above is not what you would expect as "normal social communications" for how to engage in a sexual act?

You are being ridiculous.

And once again, you have a very disturbingly poor understanding of consent.

Put the shovel down and stop doubling down on your terribly misinformed and poor takes.

I feel you're trying to win an argument at the expense of missing my point.

Which is fine with me. I'll be moving on from this discussion

 

[Golden_Jet]

I highly recommend you read what I just wrote in the post above this. Consent in a professional setting vs a social/sexual sense is the exact same thing. Are you arguing that anything I wrote above is not what you would expect as "normal social communications" for how to engage in a sexual act?

You are being ridiculous.

And once again, you have a very disturbingly poor understanding of consent.

Put the shovel down and stop doubling down on your terribly misinformed and poor takes.

Getting asked 3-4 times by nurses and doctors who you are, and what you are here for is protocol, so they don’t amputate a leg, remove kidney, etc , on the wrong person. It is a mandated check list, thankfully. You missed the other poster point it seems.

They are not the same thing as sexual consent.

 

[LakeLivin]

I remember my wife and I discussing these style of consent rules and for fun we tried and it was outright laughable how they expect couples to be intimate. I am sure we may have overdone it on consent requests but we followed the law to the letter and its silly.
It removed all intimacy and turned something erotic into a tit for tat clinical exercise

He said tit!​

 

[Gregor Samsa]

So what if in the middle of the 4 other players joining in, the spitting, all that stuff, she says to stop and they do stop?

 

[jamo27]

So what if in the middle of the 4 other players joining in, the spitting, all that stuff, she says to stop and they do stop?

It really depends if she said “go” in the first place.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

It really depends if she said “go” in the first place.

Let’s say it was a reluctant yes because it was 5+ guys and just her. Does the whole under duress thing go away if she said stop during it and they stopped? They could claim she could have said no from the start

 

[OG Eberle]

Getting asked 3-4 times by nurses and doctors who you are, and what you are here for is protocol, so they don’t amputate a leg, remove kidney, etc , on the wrong person. It is a mandated check list, thankfully. You missed the other poster point it seems.

They are not the same thing as sexual consent.

That's cool. I'm not implying you ask 3-4 times by your partner if the sex is still consensual like a doctor or nurse. I've been pretty clear on what is and what isn't consent under the context of sex. You implying that I am is either moving the goal posts or you're intentionally being literal to stoke a fire.

If you want to purposefully muddy what I said to be a contrarion, have at it. But it will be without me.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's cool. I'm not implying you ask 3-4 times by your partner if the sex is still consensual like a doctor or nurse. I've been pretty clear on what is and what isn't consent under the context of sex. You implying that I am is either moving the goal posts or you're intentionally being literal to stoke a fire.

If you want to purposefully muddy what I said to be a contrarion, have it. But it will be without me.

Cool, did you read the article I posted on consent, where I quoted you on the previous page, post 4898.