Habs VP of Communications defends Mailloux

[Divine]

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.

The legal system is different from the truth.

The legal system is what can be proven, or what your money can get you away with.

Also, you saying thankfully me having no sway in the legal system makes no sense - why am I not allowed in a jury according to you?

 

[Gurglesons]

I’m not sure how you can say it is not sexual misconduct. The individual was charged with taking photos of someone without their knowledge in a sexual encounter. What else would you call that?

It’s misconduct that was sexual in nature.

If you were to call him someone that committed sexual assault I can see the argument.

 

[PeteWorrell]

The legal system is different from the truth.

The legal system is what can be proven, or what your money can get you away with.

Also, you saying thankfully me having no sway in the legal system makes no sense - why am I not allowed in a jury according to you?

You would be immediately barred from a jury because of your clear bias. Not surprised you don't know about the vetting process.

 

[Divine]

You would be immediately barred from a jury because of your clear bias. Not surprised you don't know about the vetting process.

Thankfully, you're wrong and you're on HFBoards and not running the legal system.

I’m not sure how you can say it is not sexual misconduct. The individual was charged with taking photos of someone without their knowledge in a sexual encounter. What else would you call that?

It’s misconduct that was sexual in nature.

Yes, that's why I said it's semantics.

People like @PeteWorrell would say that you can only call it "taking photos of someone without their consent" but to say sexual misconduct is reaching.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Thankfully, you're wrong and you're on HFBoards and not running the legal system.



Yes, that's why I said it's semantics.

People like @PeteWorrell would say that you can only call it "taking photos of someone without their consent" but to say sexual misconduct is reaching.

At least i respect the process so i can accept that Mailloux was tried, served his punishment and that he is allowed to move on instead of lumping him up with someone that allegedly did something much worse.

 

[Divine]

At least i respect the process so i can accept that Mailloux was tried, served his punishment and that he is allowed to move on instead of lumping him up with someone that allegedly did something much worse.

Let me guess, a big Habs fan? Why are you getting so offended that people believe what he did was sexual misconduct?

I get it, you're a big Habs fan - you can pretend it never happened and move on. Unfortunately, the victim can't and people that support the victim can't.

 

[Canadienna]

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.

I did.

It does not say he took nude photos of her as the post I quoted specifically stated?

@Divine

 

[Divine]

I did.

It does not say he took nude photos of her as the post I quoted specifically stated?

@Divine

Oh, you're questioning if she was naked?

I didn't realize that was the breaking point for you. My mistake, I thought you were questioning whether he secretly took a sexually explicit image of a female without her consent.

I'm not sure if we'll ever know if she was naked or not, because I don't think either the victim or him would want to specify if she was naked in the pictures because it doesn't change anything.

Either way though, the point stands. You can't tell someone to read up on something because you don't know that she wasn't naked. You implying he's wrong for thinking what he did means that you know for a fact she wasn't naked then - how? Source?

Also, ironically:

Canadiens' sponsors satisfied with owner's apology after Mailloux pick

Rotisserie chicken company Groupe St-Hubert and financial services firm Desjardins Group said on Thursday they are satisfied with an apology issued a day earlier by team owner Geoff Molson.

www.sportsnet.ca

Molson's statement said Mailloux's actions "do not reflect the values" of the team, adding that the Canadiens had no intention of harming the victim when they selected him, and they are committed to educating people about sexual consent. He said Mailloux would not take part in rookie and training camps this year.


Groupe St-Hubert said in a statement the company is confident the Canadiens organization will take action to raise awareness about sexual misconduct.

Are you going to specify to them that they shouldn't because he wasn't convicted of sexual misconduct @PeteWorrell or should the Habs VP of communications?

 

[JianYang]

I need to see what she is responding to for full context, but on the surface, it's doesn't exactly sound like she is defending Logan's actions.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Oh, you're questioning if she was naked?

I didn't realize that was the breaking point for you. My mistake, I thought you were questioning whether he secretly took a sexually explicit image of a female without her consent.

I'm not sure if we'll ever know if she was naked or not, because I don't think either the victim or him would want to specify if she was naked in the pictures because it doesn't change anything.

Either way though, the point stands. You can't tell someone to read up on something because you don't know that she wasn't naked. You implying he's wrong for thinking what he did means that you know for a fact she wasn't naked then - how? Source?

Also, ironically:

Canadiens' sponsors satisfied with owner's apology after Mailloux pick

Rotisserie chicken company Groupe St-Hubert and financial services firm Desjardins Group said on Thursday they are satisfied with an apology issued a day earlier by team owner Geoff Molson.

www.sportsnet.ca

Are you going to specify to them that they shouldn't because he wasn't convicted of sexual misconduct @PeteWorrell or should the Habs VP of communications?

Sponsors have a right to their opinion but that still does not make them right. But sure, keep grasping at straws.

 

[NewEraGM]

What a dumb post….not by Chantal. But by YOU!

She was just clarifying….she was not defending. This is the woke and cancel culture that can’t seem to let go.

You’re straight up exaggerating and almost lying to get a reaction. It’s pretty disgusting actually…

 

[NewEraGM]

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?

Well because he wasn’t charged with misconduct… he was charged with defamation . Please get your facts right instead of just saying what you think are the facts.

You can want it to be misconduct , but that’s not what happened.

 

[Reality Czech]

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.

Well said. Lots of people get attacked these days for speaking truth because it's not what people wanna hear. Most people have no control over their own feelings and emotions.

 

[Lshap]

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.

It is not sexual misconduct. Mailloux was charged and convicted under an entirely different section of Sweden's Criminal Code – the equivalent of defamation or invasion of privacy. You can't just say, "That's semantics". Law is built on semantics. Sex crimes are a very specific branch of law that carry very specific consequences. Inventing our own definitions confuses the story and creates the misinformed conversations we see on social media.

For context: If you have sex with someone and they steal your wallet, it's theft. If you have sex with someone and they threaten to tell your wife unless you pay them money, it's extortion.

Both involve sex. Neither is a sex crime.

 

[Albatros]

It is not sexual misconduct. Mailloux was charged and convicted under an entirely different section of Sweden's Criminal Code – the equivalent of defamation or invasion of privacy. The law is all about definition. Sex crimes are a very specific branch of law that carry very specific consequences. Inventing our own definitions confuses the story and creates the misinformed conversations we see on social media.

For context: If you have sex with someone and they steal your wallet, it's theft. If you have sex with someone and they threaten to tell your wife unless you pay them money, it's extortion.

Both involve sex. Neither is a sex crime.

The fact that intrusive photography is listed under offences against liberty and peace does not remove the sexual nature of the particular criminal act.

 

[MXD]

Law is semantics. So of course Chantale is using semantics.

Lots of people are being really selective in what they're fighting against.

 

[Lshap]

The fact that intrusive photography is listed under offences against liberty and peace does not remove the sexual nature of the particular criminal act.

The actual sex was not the crime.

 

[Albatros]

The actual sex was not the crime.

Clandestine photography was a part of that sexual act.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

The actual sex was not the crime.

According to Swedish law, sure.

According to morality, it kinda was sexual in nature. Taking a picture of someone performing a sexual act and THEN sharing it to his friends to brag.

 

[grentthealien]

I can't stand how this board is turning into reddit.

Reddit is still worse. I talked to someone on the hockey parts there the other day that suggested McJesus should be investigated too for his Hockey Canada comments as if it was some smoking gun kind of argument?

Basically the argument they gave was that he gave a lukewarm response so he obviously has skeletons in his closet too so he should be investigated based on a feeling they have lol I wish I was making it up but I’m not, human communication is on its deathbed presently.

 

[HaNotsri]

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?

It is according to swedish law and now some Habs-superfan will show up with a 24 year old translation of the swedish penal system (that has changed since then believe it or not!).

It goes in the same category of sex crime as being a peeping tom pretty much. There are non-sex crime sub-categories of the crime Mailloux commit as well.

 

[Lshap]

Clandestine photography was a part of that sexual act.

Just like stealing money from your pants can be part of a sexual act. Or blackmailing you after sex is part of the sexual act. These aren't sex crimes, even though sex is part of the story.

Please don't confuse this issue with incorrect and misleading legal definitions. Mailloux committed a crime and was justly punished. Either stick to the facts or don't comment.

 

[JoVel]

Regardless of what I think of her arguing the semantics of it... why on earth is she arguing with strangers on Twitter in the first place? You'd think a person in her position would have gone through enough PR training to know not to.

 

[Lshap]

According to Swedish law, sure.

According to morality, it kinda was sexual in nature. Taking a picture of someone performing a sexual act and THEN sharing it to his friends to brag.

Sure, obviously it involved sex. However, the reason it wasn't a sex crime is because sex crimes carry much more severe punishments, as well as permanent social stigmas – as they should. Calling something a 'sex crime' and Mailloux a 'sex offender' is not only factually wrong, it dilutes real sex crimes, it lumps him in with real sex offenders, and it lowers the bar even further (if that's possible) on social media chatter.

 

[Lshap]

Regardless of what I think of her arguing the semantics of it... why on earth is she arguing with strangers on Twitter in the first place? You'd think a person in her position would have gone through enough PR training to know not to.

This is a good point. Saying nothing is often the best recourse.