Habs VP of Communications defends Mailloux

[SlafCaufield]

generally i love the Habs and everything that they do,, but stuff like this is embarasing

especially on a day where Ian Cole is accused of terrible things, the Oilers fire a minor league coach for having charges related to assaulting minors, and with all of the hockey canada sexual assault things going on

she quickly deleted her tweet but here it is

Click to read more...

 

[Empoleon8771]

She would fit in well here in the thread where people were arguing Cole wasn't a pedophile because "you need to be attracted to pre-pubescent people to be a pedophile!"

He's not that piece of shit, he's just another piece of shit that I'm arguing purely for semantics.

 

[Koivu11]

For context, this is the tweet she was responding to.

She’s not defending his actions but rather clarifying what he was convicted for in Sweden.

 

[Noble]

Setting the record straight with facts and with the truth is embarrassing? What did Chantal say in that tweet that was wrong, or even remotely embarrassing?

Some mouth breather on twitter calling for the protest of someones career was spewing libel about a Canadiens player by saying he was convicted of something that he was not. She set the record straight about an employee of the organization by spelling out exactly what the charges against him were.

But yes, let's continue to forgo facts and truth in favour of people's misguided feelings.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Machabee was being pedantic but she wasn't wrong. I wouldn't even call that defending him.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Setting the record straight with facts and with the truth is embarrassing? What did Chantal say in that tweet that was wrong, or even remotely embarrassing?

Some mouth breather on twitter was spewing libel about a Canadiens player by saying he was a sex offender, which is factually incorrect. She set the record straight about an employee of the organization by spelling out exactly what the charges against him were.

But yes, let's continue to forgo facts and truth in favour of people's misguided "feelings".

It's embarrassing to respond to "he was accused of sexual misconduct by photographing a women naked without her consent" with "he wasn't charged with sexual misconduct".

It's defending a player who did some messed up stuff based on semantics. It does nothing to actually change what happened and instead tries to play semantics to defend a player.

 

[Noble]

It's embarrassing to respond to "he was accused of sexual misconduct by photographing a women naked without her consent" with "he wasn't charged with sexual misconduct".

It's defending a player who did some messed up stuff based on semantics. It does nothing to actually change what happened and instead tries to play semantics to defend a player.

She was setting the record straight regarding a player under contract within the organization. When people actively attempt to drag your organization into a completely unrelated incident, it's part of her job to deflect such an outlandish comparison. She was doing her job as VP of communication.

Her tweet was hardly a defense of Mailloux's actions. She never said what he did was okay, acceptable, or justifiable. All she did was deny the false accusation that he was convicted of sexual misconduct and outlined exactly what he was convicted of.

You're totally out of your element here attempting to paint a picture in which denying false claims by providing accurate information is somehow wrong or "embarassing".

 

[Weztex]

I don't see that as defending him to be honest. I think it's a shortcut to do so. I've read a lot of people publicly commenting about the Mailloux case in the last week without really being aware of the story. I feel that she clumsily tried to set the record straight since those kind of ''not-exactly-factual'' comments spinning around and being spun by the medias may have some kind of implications. I don't feel she condoned the actual act Mailloux was found guilty of. Machabée was even pretty hard on the guy when he was drafted, granted she didn't work for the Habs yet.

What I find an enormous lack of tact here is to post that among people responding to a girl who just probably did the hardest thing of her life, in the public eye. That was not the place nor the time. I'm sure some fans would have posted the precision anyway.

Yeah it's probably pedantic, but a part of me think that if we wanna put those problematic actions to light and eventually change this whole culture, being clear about them is probably a faster way to get there than lumping everything together. It doesn't need to legally be sexual misconduct to be problematic and reprehensible.

 

[PostBradMalone]

She was setting the record straight regarding a player under contract within the organization. When people actively attempt to drag your organization into a completely unrelated incident, it's part of her job to deflect such an outlandish comparison. She was doing her job as VP of communication.

Her tweet was hardly a defense of Mailloux's actions. She never said what he did was okay, acceptable, or justifiable. All she did was deny the false accusation that he was convicted of sexual misconduct and outlined exactly what he was convicted of.

You're totally out of your element here attempting to paint a picture in which denying false claims by providing accurate information is somehow wrong or "embarassing".

You do understand the point of public relations is to make people think more positively of your business/organization and not less, right? Splitting hairs like this does the Habs no favours with anyone anywhere except the young perv they inexplicably drafted.

 

[Noble]

You do understand the point of public relations is to make people think more positively of your business/organization and not less, right? Splitting hairs like this does the Habs no favours with anyone anywhere except the young perv they inexplicably drafted.

Yes, I do understand the pupose of public relations, which is why it makes complete sense to deny false statements about your organization's player. Especially those false statements that are made in an attempt to connect one's organization to a completely unrelated incident by a player belonging to another organization.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that she shouldn't have stepped in to set the record straight when someone tried grouping Mailloux and the Canadiens in with Ian Cole's alleged sexual assault and pedophilia? They directly linked the Habs and Mailloux's twitter handles to this incident. You do understand the context of the situation, right?

 

[PostBradMalone]

Yes, I do understand the pupose of public relations, which is why it makes complete sense to deny false statements about your organization's player. Especially those false statements that are made in an attempt to connect one's organization to a completely unrelated incident by a player belonging to another organization.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that she shouldn't have stepped in to set the record straight when someone tried grouping Mailloux and the Canadiens in with Ian Cole's alleged sexual assault and pedophilia? They directly linked the Habs and Mailloux's twitter handles to this incident. You do understand the context of the situation, right?

Again, who does it help but Mailloux to say anything more than “No, he was not charged/convicted of X”?

 

[Noble]

Again, who does it help but Mailloux to say anything more than “No, he was not charged/convicted of X”?

Uh...the organization and its public image..? Which, again, is her job. I'm sure the Canadiens would rather not be connected to Ian Cole and the allegations of sexual assault and pedophilia for absolutely no justifiable reason.

If that person didn't link Chantal, Mailloux, and the Canadiens directly to Cole's allegations, there would have been no need for a "defense", and no need to even respond.

You think she said that to defend or "help" Mailloux? No. She said that to distance the Canadiens from Cole's allegations. That's it. Nothing else.

 

[Canadienna]

It's embarrassing to respond to "he was accused of sexual misconduct by photographing a women naked without her consent" with "he wasn't charged with sexual misconduct".

Hold on. Is this what you think happened?

Might want to read up on what happened.

It's also not what she was responding to, as evidenced in the tweet pic.

Weird use of quotes for something no one said but you.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

For context, this is the tweet she was responding to.

She’s not defending his actions but rather clarifying what he was convicted for in Sweden.

It's kinda bizarre why @B_Real_The6ix brought up the Mailloux incident, which is nowhere near as bad as what Ian Cole allegedly did, instead of the issue with Hockey Canada.

ah

 

[PostBradMalone]

Uh...the organization and its public image..? Which, again, is her job. I'm sure the Canadiens would rather not be connected to Ian Cole and the allegations of sexual assault and pedophilia for absolutely no justifiable reason.

If that person didn't link Chantal, Mailloux, and the Canadiens directly to Cole's allegations, there would have been no need for a "defense", and no need to even respond.

You think she said that to defend or "help" Mailloux? No. She said that to distance the Canadiens from Cole's allegations. That's it. Nothing else.

So if this was the correct response above every other available option, why did she delete it?

 

[Gurglesons]

Hold on. Is this what you think happened?

Might want to read up on what happened.

It's also not what she was responding to, as evidenced in the tweet pic.

Weird use of quotes for something no one said but you.

Multiple NHL teams have placed draft prospect Logan Mailloux on their "do not draft" lists after he was charged in Sweden for allegedly "taking and distributing an offensive photo without consent during a consensual sexual encounter," according to Frank Seravalli of Daily Faceoff.

According to a 48-page investigation report from Sweden’s North Region Polisen, which was obtained by Daily Faceoff, Mailloux secretly photographed the victim without her consent or knowledge while engaging in sex.

 

[Divine]

Multiple NHL teams have placed draft prospect Logan Mailloux on their "do not draft" lists after he was charged in Sweden for allegedly "taking and distributing an offensive photo without consent during a consensual sexual encounter," according to Frank Seravalli of Daily Faceoff.

According to a 48-page investigation report from Sweden’s North Region Polisen, which was obtained by Daily Faceoff, Mailloux secretly photographed the victim without her consent or knowledge while engaging in sex.

@Canadienna

I think you might want to read up on what happened.

 

[Sugi21]

Idk sounds like she’s getting the facts straight for people who might not know

 

[Divine]

Idk sounds like she’s getting the facts straight for people who might not know

That doesn't even make sense. How is secretly photographing a sexual encounter and sharing it with teammates with her personal information not sexual misconduct?

 

[PeteWorrell]

That doesn't even make sense. How is secretly photographing a sexual encounter and sharing it with teammates without her personal information and picture without her consent not sexual misconduct?

Because you don't just decide what to charge people with no matter how you feel about something.

 

[Divine]

Because you don't just decide what to charge people with no matter how you feel about something.

I'm not charging him with anything. It was sexual misconduct.

Sexual misconduct is a broad category. What he did was absolutely sexual misconduct, even if his exact plea agreement was semantically something else.

Just like if you kill someone, and you're charged with manslaughter - someone calling you a "murderer" isn't inaccurate.

 

[Xirik]

Setting the record straight with facts and with the truth is embarrassing? What did Chantal say in that tweet that was wrong, or even remotely embarrassing?

Some mouth breather on twitter calling for the protest of someones career was spewing libel about a Canadiens player by saying he was convicted of something that he was not. She set the record straight about an employee of the organization by spelling out exactly what the charges against him were.

But yes, let's continue to forgo facts and truth in favour of people's misguided feelings.

Trying to stop a stampede of keyboard warriors is not an advisable or smart thing to do though.

 

[PeteWorrell]

I'm not charging him with anything. It was sexual misconduct.

Sexual misconduct is a broad category. What he did was absolutely sexual misconduct, even if his exact agreement specified something else semantically.

Like i said, the law does not work that way. You can feel that it is sexual misconduct and that it is "semantics", but this is a good example of why people like you are not involved in the legal system.

 

[Divine]

Like i said, the law does not work that way. You can feel that it is sexual misconduct and that it is "semantics", but this is a good example of why people like you are not involved in the legal system.

It is sexual misconduct.

Just like how killing someone and being charged with manslaughter does not make you not a "murderer" because you're not charged with first degree murder.

The legal system does not always represent the truth, just what can be proven or bargained down to.

 

[PeteWorrell]

It is sexual misconduct.

Just like how killing someone and being charged with manslaughter does not make you not a "murderer" because you're not charged with first degree murder.

The reason there are distinct terms, is so we don't lump rapists and people that share pictures of a consensual sexual encounter like people like you do. Thankfully, you have no sway on the legal system.