They are not the same. But they are absolutely in the same basket.
How expansive is your basket then? Are using grotesque slurs towards women (which is undoubtedly unacceptable) in the same basket as a violent assault? Are taking and sharing pictures really even remotely comparable to these other things? The law indicates absolutely not - socially and morally of course you are open to your own interpretation.
I think ultimately -
as a Habs fan who did not want Mailloux - there is a delicate line that people both "pro" and "anti" Mailloux must address. If he were to have hurt your daughter or sister, you would understandably want his entire life ruined; his inexplicable choices, and selfish behaviour, ultimately led to trauma for another person that was sexual in nature.
However, if he were your son, or your brother, you would want a singular moment at 17 years old to define the rest of his life. Regardless of what people are willing to admit, good people can do terrible things (similarly, terrible people sometimes do great things) ... the ultimate response is that the kid should be given the chance to right his wrongs and improve himself. He should not be coddled, what he did should not be forgotten, and his character should be in question for the foreseeable future until he undoubtedly proves that he has learned from this event. However, he is 17, and what he did, while reprehensible, is not violent in nature, and would not even be considered a punishable crime by law in North America- it would be a simple misdemeanor.
I'd be asking my daughter what the ......... was she doing giving ........... to a 17 yr old stranger.
I vehemently disagree with blaming the victim. In no way does this hold Mailloux accountable at all, and it does nothing to defend his character or his ability to change - it simply just shifts blame from him to the girl for no appropriate reason.
It can be insensitive to correct minor errors in someone's justified anger at a serious situation.
I would agree to this - I do believe Chantal's choice was
insensitive but not inappropriate or wrong. A big detail that some people use as a "gotcha" but is something very much worth understanding is that
had this been something that happened, and was prosecuted in the country of Canada, none of us would have heard a single word about it. Mailloux would have been drafted and heralded as a great young player, and nobody would have batted an eye; his record would have been sealed as a minor, and because this is not something that leads to any corporal punishment, it would have been like it never happened.
In no way does this make anything better - but there is a severe misunderstanding that somehow because he was charged with something, that he is suddenly inexplicably guilty of a severe crime. In Canada, this would have been a sealed misdemeanor of a minor; he would have gotten a verbal reprimand, maybe some community service, and released to live the rest of his life without any further issue.
While as I said previously it does not EXCUSE his behaviour - however it should help guide whether or not we allow this individual the opportunity to prove themselves and reintegrate into our community (hockey) - this is not a case like Voynov, Ribeiro, or even what Cole is being accused of - not even REMOTELY on the same plane of behaviour. Hell, I'd argue that what Virtanen and Evander Kane have been accused of is significantly worse than what Mailloux was found guilty of doing. In terms of the way this action is looked at in the eyes of our laws, it would be more akin to stealing from a store or getting into a big street brawl. I would argue this is closer to being caught using racist language than it is to sexual assault or grooming minors. It is still absolutely without a doubt a problematic behaviour, but it is something that is more than correctable and it can be an important learning moment for all parties.
