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

[famicommander]

To many a young man familiar with anything from the Duke Lacrosse case to the modern kangaroo courts around campus sexual assaults hearings, and yes I say "man" because a gender bias can be found as high up as Duke's Dean Wasiolek's given testimony, it wouldn't be weird at all.

People's fears absolutely don't need to align with statistical reality. Why are people more scared of sharks than pigs, when it's pigs that kill far more people? So no, I'm not surprised at all at the idea of young men (especially in a prominent position) having a statistically-out-of-line fear of a false accusation.

If they're really that paranoid about it all the time they probably wouldn't be gang-banging strangers in the first place. That line of reasoning doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

View attachment 809547

Give me back my liking privileges so I can like your funny posts

 

[Koivu11]

 

[snag]

Legally in Canada you have to be sober to give consent, police statement, etc. If she wasnt sober she couldnt give consent.

It certainly is interesting how it works with alcohol....when you are protected against yourself and when "you should have known better".

 

[abax44]

What? Care to elaborate on that law or what you mean. I imagine quite a large percentage of sex is preceded by drinking alcohol

I found an article from CBC in 2017 that had this. I'm not sure if laws have changed since then, though:

What about intoxication and consent?​

Intoxication is also considered a factor that affects a complainant's capacity to consent to sexual activity.

But in practice, Benedet said, the threshold of intoxication at which point someone is deemed incapable of consent varies depending on the circumstances.

Where a complainant becomes intoxicated involuntarily, for instance, by being drugged, "courts [tend] to be very generous in terms of what level of intoxication would be sufficient to amount to incapacity."

If a complainant consumes drugs or alcohol by choice, courts have "a very high threshold for incapacity, much higher than they would have applied in those involuntary intoxication cases."

'Clearly, a drunk can consent'​

While Lenehan's comment has sparked outrage in much of the public, he's not incorrect according to Canadian case law.

"You can find many criminal decisions that use the line 'a drunken consent is still a consent,' and I do think … Canadian law is reluctant, and in my view too reluctant, to find that intoxication can vitiate consent," said Benedet.

 

[ERYX]

In another thread, a poster raised a question which made me realized there's another layer to this with respect to publication bans and why these players aren't being named by anyone.

If any of the players in question were under 18 at the time of the allegations, their names could not be reported by operation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. No accused young person can ever be named. From said Youth Criminal Justice Act:

• 110 (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
• (2) Subsection (1) does not apply
  
  • (a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence; or
  • (b) [Repealed, 2019, c. 25, s. 379]
  • (c) in a case where the publication of information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Give me back my liking privileges so I can like your funny posts

This is a contract now.

 

[mr figgles]

Think the NHL is sweating this, or moreso relieved that all the "Indefinite leave of absence" players (Not Offenders! This is NOT speculation!) are scrubs?

I feel like as much as they hate the negative PR, they're happy it wasn't a star player. Like, imagine if there were a star in the league named Fail Shakar (This is not a real person. I am NOT speculating!) that had been involved in this. They'd be shitting themselves.

One of them most certainly is not a scrub. He‘d probably be one of the top players at his position if this wasn’t eating away at him from the inside.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

This conversation comes up every time this topic does. We need to draw a distinction between those actually trying to blame the victim and those trying to learn from the incident.

It's just that these conversations about learning from the incident seem to only involve things the victim should've done differently and not the people that allegedly assaulted her.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Good to have a concrete date. I guess it’s the final day that the players have to surrender themselves or get a warrant out

 

[Sasha Orlov]

This is a contract now.

Offer, acceptance, consideration, and clear terms

Checks out

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I've seen some details mentioned that I hadn't read before. Does anyone have a link to a good DETAILED story on the whole subject? Thanks.

 

[LOFIN]

I guess one can SPECULATE that the five players thus have until Feb. 4th to turn themselves in, and then they will be charged.

 

[93LEAFS]

In another thread, a poster raised a question which made me realized there's another layer to this with respect to publication bans and why these players aren't being named by anyone.

If any of the players in question were under 18 at the time of the allegations, their names could not be reported by operation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. No accused young person can ever be named. From said Youth Criminal Justice Act:

• 110 (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
• (2) Subsection (1) does not apply
  • (a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence; or
  • (b) [Repealed, 2019, c. 25, s. 379]
  • (c) in a case where the publication of information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community.

No player on that world junior team would have been under 18 at the date of the alleged incident. Just look at the roster.

The roster's youngest players were all born in 1999, which would make them 18 or 19 by summer of 2018.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Drinking doesn’t mean you’re intoxicated

Stick to the moderating

Consent requires the capacity to understand: (1) the physical act; (2) that the act is sexual in nature; (3) the identity a sexual partner or partners; and (4) the choice to refuse to participate in the sexual activity.

A court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of these four things was absent to conclude that a person was incapable of consenting to sex.

In many cases, the Crown (prosecutor) relies on blood-alcohol measurements or estimates to determine how intoxicated a person was at a particular time. This evidence is called toxicology. But scientific evidence is often unavailable. In these situations, the Crown may introduce other indicators of incapacity. Such indicators might include but are not limited to:

• significantly slurred speech
• non-responsiveness
• impaired balance
• vomiting
• loss of bladder or bowel control
• immobility
• memory loss or blackout

 

[Drake1588]

I was mainly looking at "Users Who Are Viewing This Thread" and it's impressive at how many staff alumni are here watching us try to keep this under control.

I moderated for like two months 20+ years ago and still have the scars. What a thankless slog that was... the mods here are saints. Or foolish. It might be a little of column A and column B.

 

[Qward]

Gotta give some players a chance to fly back from Europe I guess.

 

[AlphaLackey]

You aren't missing anything - they are just wrong about the law.

And far too many believe that in such cases -- mutually comparable levels of intoxication, ostensibly consenting -- that in the case of a heterosexual encounter, only the man needs secure consent from the woman and not the other way around; after all, by the standard being suggested, he couldn't consent to sex either, right?

This poster did the rounds in Coastal Carolina University for a few months around 2009. Even though complaints led to its removal, I assure you the attitude hasn't died down much at all in 15 years.

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

Ah, time for the good ole HF Boards automatic guilty verdict.

I'm so jealous of these crystal ball holding posters!

 

[izlez]

I found an article from CBC in 2017 that had this. I'm not sure if laws have changed since then, though:

What about intoxication and consent?​

Intoxication is also considered a factor that affects a complainant's capacity to consent to sexual activity.

But in practice, Benedet said, the threshold of intoxication at which point someone is deemed incapable of consent varies depending on the circumstances.

Where a complainant becomes intoxicated involuntarily, for instance, by being drugged, "courts [tend] to be very generous in terms of what level of intoxication would be sufficient to amount to incapacity."

If a complainant consumes drugs or alcohol by choice, courts have "a very high threshold for incapacity, much higher than they would have applied in those involuntary intoxication cases."

'Clearly, a drunk can consent'​

While Lenehan's comment has sparked outrage in much of the public, he's not incorrect according to Canadian case law.

"You can find many criminal decisions that use the line 'a drunken consent is still a consent,' and I do think … Canadian law is reluctant, and in my view too reluctant, to find that intoxication can vitiate consent," said Benedet.

Yeah, ok... this makes sense.

It's just certainly a far way away from the original comment of "she couldn't have [consented] if she had been drinking" that confused me.

 

[CornKicker]

players aside, i hope every person in hockey canada who tried to cover this up and hide it before it came out are held accountable for that.

 

[King'sPawn]

Sorry, bad legal takes on here are maybe the only thing that genuinely annoys me lol

All good! Wasn't the first and won't be the last time one of my jokes misfires. You were still kind in your response, which says a lot.

 

[Squiffy]

Given until 9am Monday Feb. 5th to surrender extrapolating?

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

This is more drawn out than Hell's Kitchen.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

I moderated for like two months 20+ years ago and still have the scars. What a thankless slog that was... the mods here are saints. Or foolish. It might be a little of column A and column B.

I second this. I was also a mod for a few months… Never again.