Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Canada Tonight and former Marketplace host Travis Dhanraj just resigned (involuntarily, according to him) from his position at CBC, stating that the broadcaster would only allow him to bring on left-leaning guests and supporters of the current government to his show. He is stating that he was forced out for questioning the "lack of editorial balance", "tokenism masquerading as diversity", and "problematic political coverage protocols and the erosion of editorial independence". He has stated online that there are many shady behind-the-scenes goings-on at CBC that he intends to "pull the curtain back" on. His lawyer has stated that he is suing the broadcaster and will he making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission

Prior to that, the federal government passed a digital rights law that caused Canadians to (temporarily) lose access to most mainstream online news (CBC being a notable exception).

Given Dhanraj's claims, it is reasonable to explore whether an agency funded by the government (and which the opposition threatened to de-fund if elected) is truly independent, rather than being a propaganda tool (even if unintentionally) for the government.
I

His lawyer is also a grandstander associated with Rebel News, for what it’s worth.

CBC was also not exempt from the digital rights law (which impacted access through platforms like Meta, not access period). If you go to the Wilkipedia page on the topic the screenshot showing blocked access on Instagram is, as you might be surprised, of blocked access to CBC.

Maybe if we’re preparing to ask big questions and make big accusations about reporting independence and propaganda we could get the basic facts straight first.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Canada Tonight and former Marketplace host Travis Dhanraj just resigned (involuntarily, according to him) from his position at CBC, stating that the broadcaster would only allow him to bring on left-leaning guests and supporters of the current government to his show. He is stating that he was forced out for questioning the "lack of editorial balance", "tokenism masquerading as diversity", and "problematic political coverage protocols and the erosion of editorial independence". He has stated online that there are many shady behind-the-scenes goings-on at CBC that he intends to "pull the curtain back" on. His lawyer has stated that he is suing the broadcaster and will he making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission

Prior to that, the federal government passed a digital rights law that caused Canadians to (temporarily) lose access to most mainstream online news (CBC being a notable exception).

Given Dhanraj's claims, it is reasonable to explore whether an agency funded by the government (and which the opposition threatened to de-fund if elected) is truly independent, rather than being a propaganda tool (even if unintentionally) for the government.
I

None of which has anything to do with Trudeau acting like a dictator and forcing the CBC to a propaganda tool for himself since what happened with Dhanraj occurred while Carney was Prime Minister.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Where did he state that they would only allow him to bring on left leaning guests?
I haven't seen those quotes.

Nearly every CBC political panel I’ve seen brings on a pundit from each party. This does not happen on Rebel, QR77, National Post etc.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Care to explain how the Jagr or Ansari examples fit the discussion… at all? One was a a blackmail attempt from a random person that had nothing to do with the woman in question and no accusations of abuse of any kind, and the other was a true story the person in question admitted to and felt sorry about. Neither of them are examples that fit.

Do you even know the Bauer story? How is the second article relevant? It touches on exactly what I’m talking about with Bauer, these are two different accusations, two of several against him on top of accusations of online abuse of women as well.

I am not sure if you are just trolling me for fun but this will be my last response.

1) Your own words - "One was a a blackmail attempt from a random person" original question "Blackmail attempts ect or purposely vindictive false accusations to ruin a career." Please provide 3

He asked for examples of blackmail attempts, you state that it is a blackmail attempt, then ask me to explain why I used it as an example of a blackmail attempt. Like WTF?

2) Aziz - yes there is more context and subtelty to this you are correct. I leaned into the ruining of a career. The timing of it was vindictive - in the article she even says she did it because watching him win an award while being an advocate pissed her off:

Here is the quote from her own article:
For Grace, the Golden Globes brought the events back to the forefront of her mind. “It was actually painful to watch him win and accept an award,” she said. “And absolutely cringeworthy that he was wearing the Time’s Up pin. I think that started a new fire, and it kind of made it more real.”

While we can assume that her story is correct it is her interpretation of the evening. Aziz does not admit to sexual misconduct his statement is as follows:

“In September of last year, I met a woman at a party. We exchanged numbers. We texted back and forth and eventually went on a date. We went out to dinner, and afterwards we ended up engaging in sexual activity, which by all indications was completely consensual.

“The next day, I got a text from her saying that although ‘it may have seemed okay,’ upon further reflection, she felt uncomfortable. It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned. I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said.

“I continue to support the movement that is happening in our culture. It is necessary and long overdue.” – Aziz Ansari

Trevor Bauer had his career ruined over false allegations this is EXACTLY what was requested. Here are exerpts of Lindsey Hill texting with her friend: Please note in the texts below "Next victim" implying she has done this before and as it has not come out publically you can assume that she received payments.

https://www.foxla.com/news/trevor-ba...or-anyone-else

"'Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers,' a text Lindsay Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me," Trevor Bauer explained. "'What should I steal?' She asked another in reference to visiting my house for the first time. The answer? ‘Take his money.’ So how might that work? 'I'm going to his house Wednesday,' she said. ‘I already have my hooks in. You know how I roll.’ Then after the first time we met. ‘Net worth is 51 [million]’, she said. ‘B*tch, you better secure the bag.’ Was a response."

"But how is she going to do that? ‘Need Daddy to choke me out, she said, being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million,' read another text. Then after the second time we met, former Padres pitcher Jacob Nicks told her, ‘You got to get this bag.’ 'I'll give you 50,000,' Lindsay replied. Her sponsor asked her at one point, ‘Do you feel a tiny bit guilty?’ ‘Not really,’ she replied," Bauer continued.

The other girl was charged with fraud. Two examples of blackmail or vindictive allegations no?

I am sorry that you didn't like the examples that I provided.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

I am not sure if you are just trolling me for fun but this will be my last response.

1) Your own words - "One was a a blackmail attempt from a random person" original question "Blackmail attempts ect or purposely vindictive false accusations to ruin a career." Please provide 3

He asked for examples of blackmail attempts, you state that it is a blackmail attempt, then ask me to explain why I used it as an example of a blackmail attempt. Like WTF?

2) Aziz - yes there is more context and subtelty to this you are correct. I leaned into the ruining of a career. The timing of it was vindictive - in the article she even says she did it because watching him win an award while being an advocate pissed her off:

Here is the quote from her own article:
For Grace, the Golden Globes brought the events back to the forefront of her mind. “It was actually painful to watch him win and accept an award,” she said. “And absolutely cringeworthy that he was wearing the Time’s Up pin. I think that started a new fire, and it kind of made it more real.”

While we can assume that her story is correct it is her interpretation of the evening. Aziz does not admit to sexual misconduct his statement is as follows:

“In September of last year, I met a woman at a party. We exchanged numbers. We texted back and forth and eventually went on a date. We went out to dinner, and afterwards we ended up engaging in sexual activity, which by all indications was completely consensual.

“The next day, I got a text from her saying that although ‘it may have seemed okay,’ upon further reflection, she felt uncomfortable. It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned. I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said.

“I continue to support the movement that is happening in our culture. It is necessary and long overdue.” – Aziz Ansari

Trevor Bauer had his career ruined over false allegations this is EXACTLY what was requested. Here are exerpts of Lindsey Hill texting with her friend: Please note in the texts below "Next victim" implying she has done this before and as it has not come out publically you can assume that she received payments.

https://www.foxla.com/news/trevor-ba...or-anyone-else

"'Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers,' a text Lindsay Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me," Trevor Bauer explained. "'What should I steal?' She asked another in reference to visiting my house for the first time. The answer? ‘Take his money.’ So how might that work? 'I'm going to his house Wednesday,' she said. ‘I already have my hooks in. You know how I roll.’ Then after the first time we met. ‘Net worth is 51 [million]’, she said. ‘B*tch, you better secure the bag.’ Was a response."

"But how is she going to do that? ‘Need Daddy to choke me out, she said, being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million,' read another text. Then after the second time we met, former Padres pitcher Jacob Nicks told her, ‘You got to get this bag.’ 'I'll give you 50,000,' Lindsay replied. Her sponsor asked her at one point, ‘Do you feel a tiny bit guilty?’ ‘Not really,’ she replied," Bauer continued.

The other girl was charged with fraud. Two examples of blackmail or vindictive allegations no?

I am sorry that you didn't like the examples that I provided.

I think it’s pretty clear blackmail is being referred to in relation to these types of cases. Gio was not asking for just any examples of anyone being blackmailed ever, I think we all know blackmail exists.

Have you heard Hill’s side of the Bauer story and her response to his video? If you’re not willing to take his alleged victim’s version of events and interpretation as true, why are you willing to take Bauer’s?

It’s not that I don’t like your examples. I’m pointing out that even these examples (for the few that actually relate and could even be considered examples) you’re talking about guys whose innocence is extremely unclear, but you believe they’re innocent because lawsuits were dropped and they said so, ignoring other accusations and the fact that other people involved in one of these situations one of them was included in went to jail! lol. The Duke situation is your one good example. Bauer is an example of it, maybe, but even the most recent one isn’t settled. But I don’t think anyone could actually believe he hasn’t abused anybody.

Think about it. Do you honestly think Bauer has been accused by 6+ women of different kinds of abuse because they’re out to get him? Like this man alone is responsible for a wildly disproportionate number of false accusations because he said so? That’s a bit of a leap.

4 women testified in the MLBs investigation, leading to the longest suspension ever for a player who allegedly engaged in this kind of conduct. You honestly believe the MLB was just yucking it up and threw out a random number based on nothing? Do you think it’s a coincidence that Bauer sued Hill first, and then when she counter sued for assault and sexual battery, he settled?

Regardless, this is straying into another realm entirely. The point remains, it’s so exceedingly rare that even the examples you can think of you have trouble arguing are examples at all. There’s a good reason why there’s a ton of legal trouble surrounding two of the guys you mentioned and why, for the vast majority of players/celebrities/etc there’s nothing of the sort. Maybe it has something to do with them.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Where did he state that they would only allow him to bring on left leaning guests?
I haven't seen those quotes.

According to his lawyer he was told to not book guests with "conservative views". Best to read the whole story here.

Sounds like a case of constructive dismissal when the CBC discovered that his actual editorial leanings did not match what they expected based on his ethnicity, and he wasn't willing to just follow the CBC's expected editorial direction.

But I won't comment on this further in this thread, as it is getting rather off topic.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree. As much as this is awful for EM and regardless of what actually happened that night, this will likely spur some kind of change in the behaviour of athletes (or potentially men in general). These guys aren't going to jail, but the consequences of their behaviour has been disastrous for their careers.

Michael McLeod and Hart have some chance at working their way back to the NHL, but I'd be shocked if any of the rest do.

The results of this case are not going to spur any behaviour change in men. The kind of men that do these things don't care, or think she was asking for it, or think they deserve sex because they bought her dinner or she smiled at them or kissed them or changed her mind after expressing interest, or whatever.

The men that do these kinds of things aren't now thinking they should stop. They are feeling vindicated that she was asking for it / wanted it and only changed her mind when her boyfriend/ mother got upset or she thought she could get some money out of it. To them, the court decision proves that women are manipulative bitches who are out to destroy men's lives.

I don't even think the men involved will "behave better" now. Maybe they learned a lesson and they will or maybe they will blame EM and all women for "ruining their lives."

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His lawyer is also a grandstander associated with Rebel News, for what it’s worth.

CBC was also not exempt from the digital rights law (which impacted access through platforms like Meta, not access period). If you go to the Wilkipedia page on the topic the screenshot showing blocked access on Instagram is, as you might be surprised, of blocked access to CBC.

Maybe if we’re preparing to ask big questions and make big accusations about reporting independence and propaganda we could get the basic facts straight first.

Why you gotta spoil a nice rage-inducing narrative with easily verifiable facts?

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

The results of this case are not going to spur any behaviour change in men. The kind of men that do these things don't care, or think she was asking for it, or think they deserve sex because they bought her dinner or she smiled at them or kissed them or changed her mind after expressing interest, or whatever.

The men that do these kinds of things aren't now thinking they should stop. They are feeling vindicated that she was asking for it / wanted it and only changed her mind when her boyfriend/ mother got upset or she thought she could get some money out of it. To them, the court decision proves that women are manipulative bitches who are out to destroy men's lives.

I don't even think the men involved will "behave better" now. Maybe they learned a lesson and they will or maybe they will blame EM and all women for "ruining their lives."

So they should have just been found guilty even though the evidence didn’t support it in the eye of the judge? I see that creating a much different problem.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His lawyer is also a grandstander associated with Rebel News, for what it’s worth.

CBC was also not exempt from the digital rights law (which impacted access through platforms like Meta, not access period). If you go to the Wilkipedia page on the topic the screenshot showing blocked access on Instagram is, as you might be surprised, of blocked access to CBC.

Maybe if we’re preparing to ask big questions and make big accusations about reporting independence and propaganda we could get the basic facts straight first.

FWIW, I'm not the one who made the accusations of editorial bias at CBC Dhanraj is. A journalist with 20 years of experience with various major news outlets. Regardless of who his lawyer is. As to the DRA and CBC, I don't recall having any trouble accessing CBC via Meta, although I was unable to access CTV, Global, and CNN when it was first implemented. Obviously, that's just an anecdotal account and has little to no value, and implementation may have initially been inconsistent, so your point is well taken.

In any case, this is now very tangential to the thread topic, so I will leave it at that. We will see if anything comes of it going forward.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

So they should have just been found guilty even though the evidence didn’t support it in the eye of the judge? I see that creating a much different problem.

No, I said the case won't change anyone's behaviour. At least on an individual level. Possibly Hockey Canada and similar organizations will police their players a bit better, but that's really only during the events themselves.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Care to explain how the Jagr or Ansari examples fit the discussion… at all? One was a a blackmail attempt from a random person that had nothing to do with the woman in question and no accusations of abuse of any kind, and the other was a true story the person in question admitted to and felt sorry about. Neither of them are examples that fit.

Do you even know the Bauer story? How is the second article relevant? It touches on exactly what I’m talking about with Bauer, these are two different accusations, two of several against him on top of accusations of online abuse of women as well.

Bauer was never even charged. Everything the woman accused him of was either faked or requested by her (hundreds of text messages from her asking him to come over and do to her). She even tried the same thing in San Diego Padre players. In fact the only person criminally charged in the whole thing was the woman.

Bauer sued her for defamation and they both agreed to drop the civil cases because she had no money to pay him. Whether baseball suspended him has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The decision was made by the same idiot that found cheating by Houston to win the WS and didn't punish anyone, oh except the owner paying a fine for what the players and coaches did.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by OmegaV4

With how much of a grey area "consent videos", people may have to resort to operating like adult film stars if you want to have sex with someone.

I think an actor went on a podcast, and talked about everything that they do prior to a scene...it's along the lines of everything that the participants are comfortable with, what they aren't. And then forms are signed, like legal contracts.

Thanks for that, now I’ve imagined Sheldon Cooper and Amy Farrah Fowler having sex.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

According to his lawyer he was told to not book guests with "conservative views". Best to read the whole story here.

Sounds like a case of constructive dismissal when the CBC discovered that his actual editorial leanings did not match what they expected based on his ethnicity, and he wasn't willing to just follow the CBC's expected editorial direction.

But I won't comment on this further in this thread, as it is getting rather off topic.

I bet he was allowed conservative guests, just not serial defamation artists like Ezra Levant.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

According to his lawyer he was told to not book guests with "conservative views". Best to read the whole story here.

Sounds like a case of constructive dismissal when the CBC discovered that his actual editorial leanings did not match what they expected based on his ethnicity, and he wasn't willing to just follow the CBC's expected editorial direction.

But I won't comment on this further in this thread, as it is getting rather off topic.

Except he wasn't fired? And still hasn't been fired? He says he quit... except he still hasn't done that either.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bubba17

Bauer was never even charged. Everything the woman accused him of was either faked or requested by her (hundreds of text messages from her asking him to come over and do to her). She even tried the same thing in San Diego Padre players. In fact the only person criminally charged in the whole thing was the woman.

Bauer sued her for defamation and they both agreed to drop the civil cases because she had no money to pay him. Whether baseball suspended him has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The decision was made by the same idiot that found cheating by Houston to win the WS and didn't punish anyone, oh except the owner paying a fine for what the players and coaches did.

lol you’re confusing and combining at least two different situations or possibly just totally making things up about Hill, as I don’t think a single thing you said is accurate. Maybe circle back and educate yourself on it a bit, because that’s a borderline nonsensical recounting of what happened.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

FWIW, I'm not the one who made the accusations of editorial bias at CBC Dhanraj is. A journalist with 20 years of experience with various major news outlets. Regardless of who his lawyer is. As to the DRA and CBC, I don't recall having any trouble accessing CBC via Meta, although I was unable to access CTV, Global, and CNN when it was first implemented. Obviously, that's just an anecdotal account and has little to no value, and implementation may have initially been inconsistent, so your point is well taken.

In any case, this is now very tangential to the thread topic, so I will leave it at that. We will see if anything comes of it going forward.

I'm really impressed that you seem to digest your news through Meta and managed to maintain such level headed and totally sane takes

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

1) Jaromir Jagr - https://thehockeynews.com/news/news/...-less-about-it
2) Aziz Ansari - https://www.npr.org/2018/01/16/57842...on-aziz-ansari
3) Matt Arizia - https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...araiza-dropped
4) Trevor Bauer - https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...-fraud-arizona
5) Duke Lacrosse team - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/duke-la...rystal-mangum/

Here are 5 of them.

The woman Jagr slept with didn't try to blackmail him. Some rando did.

Aziz Ansari was a he said/she said and there's no evidence anyone was trying to blackmail or end a career. And there was never any kind of finding the accusations were false.

Bauer's case was also never proven to be false. He sued for defamation, got sued for assault and settled for zero dollars either way. Then he sued the publications and lost. And even the last one who he had charged with fraud has sued him for assault and none of that has reached a court yet.

Duke? Congrats, you found a 20 year old example (and even there it was a mentally disturbed woman and the motivation is extremely unclear).

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Given the entitlement young hockey players seem to have, I wonder how many NHL players remember shady sexual experiences with young women they were involved with and are relieved that the players were not found guilty.

I agree 100%.

[heep223]

I hope that due to this case young hockey players will think twice about how to treat women and that they can avoid these complicated situations by acting like an adult.

But my gut tells me it’s a fool’s hope