5d ago

Canada’s hockey case raised questions about toxic culture – so why did the accuser end up on trial?

www.theguardian.com

21 comments

Because you can't prove what's inside your mind, and that's what a lot of sexual assault cases come down to.
She said and acted one way, but is saying after the fact that in her head she believed something else.
You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in that case.
- There's a reasonable possibility she wasn't in a state of consent, but it might not rise to the "more likely than not" standard you see in civil trials, even.
  They might be toxic hockey bros, but they dotted their i's and crossed their t's very thoroughly. Like more than in almost every other sexual encounter that happens.
- There is video of her "consenting" but you could hear the men in the background telling her "say it, say it". A woman in a room of at least 5 large men intimidating her to consent is not consent, that is coercion. And that is not in her head, that is video evidence.
  
  The problem with your statement is here:
  'a woman in a room of at least 5 large men intimidating her to consent is not consent"
  You assume it isn't, but it 100% can be. Your bias doesn't make you right.
  There are plenty of completely consensual videos of this exact situation online if you'd like to check. Both professional and amateur.
- But with cars passing the courthouse after the verdict honking in support of the players, and with the union for professional hockey players now advocating for the men’s return, what appears more likely, at least for now, is for the story that threatened to shake the foundations of a sport being forgotten as quickly as possible.
  This is what happens all the time. This is why #metoo happened. And your take is why it won't stop any time soon.
  Fuck the "boys will be boys" shit and start teaching them how to have self-control instead.
  
  What part of any of this was boys will be boys?
  What part of any of this was hockey related?
  It's a problem with sex and consent and how consent is an impossible legal concept to prosecute except in obvious situations where it is actively revoked.
  It's currently impossible for anyone to know they have the consent of their partner if the partner can always revoke it while saying nothing, or even while their partner is actively saying yes and then claiming duress later. If consent is impossible to know for sure, having sex is a huge legal liability for everyone participating.
  That just isn't legally tenable as a situation unless the goal is literally to prevent everyone from having sex. That's a terrible idea, so the better options is to pick a different method of defining consent.
  It may not be what some people want, but unless we want to change our legal system's requirement for "beyond a reasonable doubt" I don't see a better option.
  
  That's not self control. That's just not being a complete asshole in every single way. As someone who worked in a huge hockey city in arenas I can tell you hockey is a blight on this country that will eventually enable us to be become just like 'murica. We've already adopted the sport celebrity culture fully and people will literally fight you over hockey.
  I've had people punch me and spit on me, I've had to call the cops numerous times over threats of physical violence against me or someone else, had my life and vehicle threatened with damage, I've had a player jump over the boards and try fight me because I asked him to leave the ice surface after his allotted time was up. I had a guy even try pull me off the ice resurfacer because he was pissed he couldn't skate longer.
  They're fucking worse than Neanderthals and they are taught that every day, year round from the time they can strap blades on their feet and praised for it. They call it "the Canadian game". We give them millions of dollars to.play a fucking kids game and never ever ask them to grow up. I've seen junior players who's dad's still tie their fucking skates.
Because of toxic culture? It's right there in the headline, their behaviour is toxic and it is protected because they're all just a bunch of good ol boys. This happens every time, in all walks of life.
- Boys just being boys. I fucking hate that excuse like we are animals who can't control themselves.
  
  I agree. I'm not validating it, just telling it like it is. Shouldn't be some great mystery?!
This case has been on my mind a lot lately.
It's possible that (a) they absolutely committed sexual crimes, and (b) they shouldn't be convicted.
It is the law's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that the accusers in any case have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt - which unfortunately means getting grilled mercilessly.
It's imperfect - it's a flawed system that lets guilty people go free. HOWEVER, better to let the guilty go free than imprison the innocent. And the thing is, as long as there isn't a perfect record of all actions and intentions, it's always going to be imperfect.
My feeling is that they five are dirtbags who at the VERY least, took gross advantage of a woman who didn't know what she was getting in to; and are almost certainly guilty in a non-legal sense of rape. But generally speaking, if the judge says there isn't enough evidence to convict them, then I'm inclined to believe the judge.
Now the real question is whether the NHL opens their arms to these shitheads, or whether they say "no, we'd rather not." Except that it's not a question - the NHL, like any sports league, will come up with an excuse to allow at least the good ones in without consequence.
- You seem to be conveniently forgetting the whole part about the judge completely ignoring the 5 men and focusing on accusing the victim of lying. That has nothing to do with proving or not the guilt of the accused.
  
  We are talking about a criminal trial, aren't we? The express purpose is finding the guilt of the accused.
I've played with enough hockey players to know that our collective way of teaching our sons how to respect women is broken. It is absolutely a culture problem.

21 comments