Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Even so, people should still just shut the #### up.

Some are insinuating that he might be guilty of a disgusting crime because of the way that statement is worded.

Maybe let's wait to see what the re-opened investigation uncovers before we go witch hunting on here?

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to say his agent’s statement left a lot to be desired and has huge holes in it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Has anyone said anything anywhere close to that in this thread?

OptimalTates said there was only one reason why Dube's agent would make the statement he did, and then slyly invoked Occam's razor while refusing to actually state what the reason was. I told him he was calling Dube guilty without using the word ‘guilty’, and he did not dispute it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Bill Cosby not selling out comedy tours isn't a lynching. He's as innocent as the 8 John Does.

I do appreciate you were honest with that thought. I have a feeling a lot of fans of the 8 players will keep moving goalposts.

My goalposts are absolutely clear and have not moved an inch. Rapists should be punished by the law. People who merely associated with persons later discovered to be rapists should not be punished by public shaming and the loss of their careers.

You're pretty much just saying that you don't care who the 8 are and what they are alleged to have done because there won't be a criminal charge so keep them all on the teams. That's fine, I disagree.

Whom are you responding to with this?

In case it was me:

I'm saying that if the 8 did what they are alleged to have done, they should be punished by due process of law, not by us. If the victim is satisfied to keep it on the level of a civil complaint and accept damages instead, that's her choice and we have no right to demand further punishment. Still less do we have any right to punish everyone who might have been involved.

None of this has anything to do with the despicable accusation you made in the last passage I quoted above.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by chedder

Glad Dube finally made a statement through his lawyer. It, of course, is carefully worded but says he wasn't part of the actual vile acts. If he was in the room that's awful, especially since he was the captain. Hoping he wasn't.

It doesn’t go quite that far. It says he wasn’t part of any wrongdoing. The fact the police didn’t pursue any charges gives some room to make that statement no matter what his involvement was. IOW there was never any wrongdoing to be part of.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

My goalposts are absolutely clear and have not moved an inch. Rapists should be punished by the law. People who merely associated with rapists shouldn't be punished by public shaming and the loss of their careers.



Whom are you responding to with this?

In case it was me:

I'm saying that if the 8 did what they are alleged to have done, they should be punished by due process of law, not by us. If the victim is satisfied to keep it on the level of a civil complaint and accept damages instead, that's her choice and we have no right to demand further punishment. Still less do we have any right to punish everyone who might have been involved.

None of this has anything to do with the despicable accusation you made in the last passage I quoted above.

The CBA disagrees.

Also, those “associating” are, to the extent they were not honest about the acts, are also guilty.

Finally, the criminal process is woefully inadequate to deal with this kind of situation. It’s not infallible, and in fact is weighed heavily against the truth in these cases.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The CBA disagrees.

The CBA disagrees with what exactly? That people shouldn't lose their livelihoods because they associated with other people who committed a crime?

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ttlement-over/

The 8 guys say it was consensual. Also say some of the guys participated in consensual sex and some of the guys were just hanging out. My wife told me that she has never heard of any of her friends participating in a consensual 9 person sexual act, but maybe all her girlfriends and all the gossip she and they have heard over 30+ years are just women that do not willingly participate in such activities. Or maybe these guys are full of ####.

Being part of group sex is a very private thing, particularly for women who are stigmatized for them. Also, just because it isn't something that your wife doesn't mean it isn't something others are, even her friends. They may not feel comfortable and that it is a safe space to talk about their sex life. While I don't know anyone that's been in a nine-some, I do know girls (consensual) in foursome and fivesome; also, orgies due exist that girls are in.

Due to the sensitive nature of group sex and stigmas, I could see a situation where it comes out, and someone lies to save face saying it wasn't consensual. I'm not saying that the complainant or anyone is lying in this situation.

Our societies opinion on sex is very imature and causes a lot of problems because we don't accept people for who they are.




Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

Being part of group sex is a very private thing, particularly for women who are stigmatized for them. Also, just because it isn't something that your wife doesn't mean it isn't something others are, even her friends. They may not feel comfortable and that it is a safe space to talk about their sex life. While I don't know anyone that's been in a nine-some, I do know girls (consensual) in foursome and fivesome; also, orgies due exist that girls are in.

Due to the sensitive nature of group sex and stigmas, I could see a situation where it comes out, and someone lies to save face saying it wasn't consensual. I'm not saying that the complainant or anyone is lying in this situation.

Our societies opinion on sex is very imature and causes a lot of problems because we don't accept people for who they are.




Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

This girl wasn’t comfortable with it.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm saying that if the 8 did what they are alleged to have done, they should be punished by due process of law, not by us.

So presumably you think it was wrong to have Kevin Spacey fired from House of Cards due to his allegations?

No one is asking anyone to lock these guys up without due process. But legal consequences aren't the only consequences that should occur.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Charles Lynch, however, is known to have used the term ‘Lynch law’ himself as early as 1782, and we are not talking about actually hanging anybody in this instance. The trees are immaterial.

Trees are immaterial? The post I quoted (and you liked) said

I get you wanna sling someone up on a tree branch

I then pointed out that that was a technique used by white supremacists to kill black people. You then brought up Charles Lynch, which has nothing to do with slinging someone up on a tree branch. I then said you had the wrong Lynch, as Charles Lynch did not sling anyone up on tree branches but notorious white supremacist William Lynch did. Now you say trees are immaterial because Charles Lynch did not use trees but white supremacists did and that is just an awkward fact.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Also, those “associating” are, to the extent they were not honest about the acts, are also guilty.

They are not guilty of rape. At the very worst, they may be accessories after the fact, and not all of them may even be that. Do you think the perpetrators went out and tracked down all their teammates from the tournament to brag about what they did?

Finally, the criminal process is woefully inadequate to deal with this kind of situation. It’s not infallible, and in fact is weighed heavily against the truth in these cases.

So indiscriminately punishing everyone on the team is better?

The criminal process may be inadequate, but it's the best thing we have. I ought to be shocked, but am not, to hear a lawyer advocate bypassing it in favour of public shaming and indiscriminate punishment of every possible suspect.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So indiscriminately punishing everyone on the team is better?

No, just the 8 John Does named (errh not named) in the lawsuit.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Trees are immaterial? The post I quoted (and you liked) said

I then pointed out that that was a technique used by white supremacists to kill black people. You then brought up Charles Lynch, which has nothing to do with slinging someone up on a tree branch. I then said you had the wrong Lynch, as Charles Lynch did not sling anyone up on tree branches but notorious white supremacist William Lynch did. Now you say trees are immaterial because Charles Lynch did not use trees but white supremacists did.

Right. I was talking about the origin of the term ‘lynching’, after pointing out that the actual practice is found in every society and in all periods of human history.

Do you seriously believe that William Lynch was the first person to head up a mob to kill someone?

I consider Charles Lynch more relevant in this case because we are not talking about literal hangings. He had no right or authority to do what he did, but justified it on the grounds of wartime necessity. I ask again, not expecting any answer: What justification do YOU have for wanting all the suspects in this case to be punished indiscriminately before the facts are known?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

No, just the 8 John Does named (errh not named) in the lawsuit.

That's the thing. They were not named. You don't know who they were, but you want to hound Dillon Dube out of the NHL because you suspect he may have been one of them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The CBA disagrees with what exactly? That people shouldn't lose their livelihoods because they associated with other people who committed a crime?

The CBA allows termination for conduct. And aiding and abetting would be such conduct.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's the thing. They were not named. You don't know who they were, but you want to hound Dillon Dube out of the NHL because you suspect he may have been one of them.

When have said I want him out of the NHL unconditionally? Post it please. I'm sure you'll have no issue finding that.

Or actually you will. I want the 8 players listed as John Doe out of the league (though preferably by their individual teams taking action and not league-sanctioned punishment).

To be clear, you said you don't care if he was named as the 8 because there's no legal action to be taken, right?

[OptimalTates]

I'd be curious if you would answer the Kevin Spacey question.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This girl wasn’t comfortable with it.

And what does that have to do with my post? Yes, that is her claim, and her claim should be investigated; which imo it seems like it wasn't properly investigated.

My post was about the claim that women can't be in a large group sex situation and it be consensual.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

And what does that have to do with my post? Yes, that is her claim, and her claim should be investigated; which imo it seems like it wasn't properly investigated.

My post was about the claim that women can't be in a large group sex situation and it be consensual.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Well, that’s not the case here. She filed criminal and civil complaints. The criminal one was never pursued.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Right. I was talking about the origin of the term ‘lynching’, after pointing out that the actual practice is found in every society and in all periods of human history.

Do you seriously believe that William Lynch was the first person to head up a mob to kill someone?

I consider Charles Lynch more relevant in this case because we are not talking about literal hangings. He had no right or authority to do what he did, but justified it on the grounds of wartime necessity. I ask again, not expecting any answer: What justification do YOU have for wanting all the suspects in this case to be punished indiscriminately before the facts are known?

I am not the one who said (or thanked) a post that talked about slinging someone up on a tree. That has a very specific black and white meaning, always has, and is a meaning almost nobody would deny. But the trip down the Lynch family history was entertaining.

I do not think there has been a single post in this thread that says they should be punished indiscriminately. Happy to be corrected if you can find a post like that though.