[News] Jake Virtanen on leave from the Canucks after sexual misconduct allegation

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Most can agree that the law is ill-equipped to resolve a lot of these situations. There's no obvious way to fix that; so it is what it is.

Then there is the rumour/gossip side of things, which has become a lot more public. In the absence of better justice, it's a reasonable recourse IMO.

Defamation law is also a thing; perhaps also somewhat ill-equipped, but it is what it is, too.




Twitter mobs don't have firing power, bosses do. If you incite a twitter mob and your boss doesn't think you're worth the trouble to keep around, then tough titties.

You'll need to provide some more details of your so-called examples. I suspect you are euphimizing 'politics' in place of hateful behaviour.




As I said, courts may be ill-equipped to resolve these issues.

Is mob justice any better or worse? I don't know, but in a world full of injustices, I have a harder time mustering sympathy for guys who get raked over the coals when there is only 'smoke' of their behaviour, and not a fire proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

A few totally innocent people may suffer. The world isn't fair. Character can be proven in the face of adversity. Some people may still hate you. That's life.

Your smoke comment is spot on. Don’t be disrespectful and a ####ty person and you never have to worry about things like this.

[FlamesAddiction]

These conversations are always tricky. It's very difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward and you never want to discourage that. But our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty. By that nature, there has to be the assumption that the allegations are false until proven otherwise.

Of course, that only applies to the justice system. Everyone is free to judge him based on intuition. Based on what people are saying about him, it sounds like he is a jerk and I wouldn't be shocked if the allegations are true.

Is saying he is innocent until proven otherwise the same thing as suggesting his accuser is a liar? I don't think it is, but some people seem to get really offended by stating something that is an intrinsic part of our justice system.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

These conversations are always tricky. It's very difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward and you never want to discourage that. But our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty. By that nature, there has to be the assumption that the allegations are false until proven otherwise.

Of course, that only applies to the justice system. Everyone is free to judge him based on intuition. Based on what people are saying about him, it sounds like he is a jerk and I wouldn't be shocked if the allegations are true.

Is saying he is innocent until proven otherwise the same thing as suggesting his accuser is a liar? I don't think it is, but some people seem to get really offended by stating something that is an intrinsic part of our justice system.

I don't understand why people can't just stay neutral and let things play out.
None of us have any idea if the allegations are true and therefore we don't have to choose a verdict.

The accuser has the right to be heard.
Heard fully, with open ears and an unbiased legal system.
Heard without people digging up her past, assessing her personality or how she dresses or any of that sort of stuff.

The accused also has the right to a defence.
Without being treated as guilty, without people saying he did this or that in high school so must be guilty or he goes to clubs so must be guilty or I hear he's a jerk so must be guilty.

I guess people have a nature to take a position, but any position here is from a clear bias and not from knowledge of anything.
I don't think "he's a jerk so must be guilty" is much better than "she's a s*ut so must be lying".

[Plaedo]

Like some have posted about the optics for the girl not being ideal, the inverse is true for Virtanen. Why are there not the same accusations of all sorts of other professional athletes? Is there an example of a broadly liked, kind, nice athlete being accused of rape? Maybe someone like Stajan? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that generally these types of accusations are accompanied by someone who's kind of known to be a jerk/Dbag. The optics for Virtanen are also not good, and do not support his case that the girl is a predatory accuser and fraud.

With that said, I find a lot of people here go extreme with their opinions pretty quickly. There are dirtbag men and dirtbag women out there, and predators of all shapes and sizes. It's possible the facts support any which way, but I honestly doubt we'll ever truly know in this case. Maybe we would have had to have been a fly on the wall to resolve something like this. However, I can be hopeful that the investigations bring forth justice.

I also want to echo that all potential victims should be heard and should not have fear to come forward.

[combustiblefuel]

Wow. I know never read the comments on the internet but yikes... under the global news peice is horrendous.

[Northendzone]

I think if you are a single pro athlete and you want to hookup it is likely best just to go with a professional and really reduce your chances of getting into a situation where you could be accused of something.

However, even hiring a pro still means there are boundaries and consent; however, at least on the surface you know why you are both there.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I think if you are a single pro athlete and you want to hookup it is likely best just to go with a professional and really reduce your chances of getting into a situation where you could be accused of something.

However, even hiring a pro still means there are boundaries and consent; however, at least on the surface you know why you are both there.

Hookers! An old friend ordered one up in Kamloops one night. She stole my deodorant while her pimp watched me read the Globe and Mail at a picnic table at 5 am.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Hookers! An old friend ordered one up in Kamloops one night. She stole my deodorant while her pimp watched me read the Globe and Mail at a picnic table at 5 am.

Hahaha! What a story! Lol awesome

[memphusk]

He drove a rusty old purple dodge intrepid. You can't make #### like that up.

[N-E-B]

This isn’t cancel culture. Cancel culture applies to things like tweeting a bad joke when you’re 15 years old, not sexually assaulting people.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Hookers! An old friend ordered one up in Kamloops one night. She stole my deodorant while her pimp watched me read the Globe and Mail at a picnic table at 5 am.

Right. An “old friend”...

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Right. An “old friend”...

Yep. An old friend. If it was me I would just tell you.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I think if you are a single pro athlete and you want to hookup it is likely best just to go with a professional and really reduce your chances of getting into a situation where you could be accused of something.

However, even hiring a pro still means there are boundaries and consent; however, at least on the surface you know why you are both there.

Or, you know, just be a decent human being like everyone else.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I've seen plenty of people get cancelled who were neither celebrities nor rich. The ones who suffer most are those who haven't got big bucks to spend on lawyers and PR firms. People have spent decades building a career only to see it go *poof* because, as I said above, someone thought they should be punished for their politics.

Right, but this is about sexual misconduct.

Virtanen wasn’t suspended because he likes Trump or said something about trans kids playing sports.

His club team took steps to remove him from the rest of the group. They know something.

Wait and see, but you can’t cancel someone who forced themselves on a woman - it’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

As I said, courts may be ill-equipped to resolve these issues.

Is mob justice any better or worse? I don't know, but in a world full of injustices, I have a harder time mustering sympathy for guys who get raked over the coals when there is only 'smoke' of their behaviour, and not a fire proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

A few totally innocent people may suffer. The world isn't fair. Character can be proven in the face of adversity. Some people may still hate you. That's life.

The historical record of societies that shunt aside due process and the presumption of innocence is not encouraging. Human nature being what is, accusations become weaponized to settle vendettas, destroy political rivals, and for personal gain. In East Germany people would be targeted with charges of treasonous behaviour by neighbours who simply wanted their apartment.

Margaret Atwood makes the case far better than I could.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37591823/

[Manhattanboy]

Notarized consents in writing seem to be the only way to go.

Either that or tape the whole thing. With consent of course.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The historical record of societies that shunt aside due process and the presumption of innocence is not encouraging. Human nature being what is, accusations become weaponized to settle vendettas, destroy political rivals, and for personal gain. In East Germany people would be targeted with charges of treasonous behaviour by neighbours who simply wanted their apartment.

Margaret Atwood makes the case far better than I could.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37591823/

What do you think should be happening differently?

Am I arguing for vigilante justice? Or merely for individuals to make actions/express themselves by their own free will? What is wrong with free-enterprise factoring those expressions into their decisions?

Defamation law is a [flawed] safety net that protects people from unjust accusation. Employment law protects people from unjust termination. Flawed as those legal systems may be, there is a strong argument that they are still more effective in protecting individuals from injustice than our criminal justice system is at protecting vulnerable populations (women, POC, etc.) from even more significant harms/injustices...

I'm not sure anybody [here at least] is arguing for criminal justice, or general governance by tweet/twitter mob.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

These conversations are always tricky. It's very difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward and you never want to discourage that. But our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty. By that nature, there has to be the assumption that the allegations are false until proven otherwise.

No, that's not what innocent until proven guilty means. We don't assume that the allegations are false. That's total garbage. Your phrase may have been poorly worded but it sounds like you're assuming they're lying about the allegations or act like they never happened.

When someone makes allegations and charges are filed we should believe that they are acting in good faith until proven otherwise in a court of law. I'm not saying to ignore red flags but the court is literally the place where the evidence will be heard and a determination of guilt is made. All this nonsense about "she's out to make money" or "she's lying for attention" that arises when someone famous has allegations made about them is perpetuating rape culture and declaring the victim as guilty before the allegations are even heard in court and it is disgusting (not saying that's what you have said). If a man were to bring allegations about being sexually assaulted against anyone I'm sure they would wish to be taken seriously and not summarily dismissed as a gold digger. Let's afford everyone the same courtesy.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Twitter mobs don't have firing power, bosses do. If you incite a twitter mob and your boss doesn't think you're worth the trouble to keep around, then tough titties.

You'll need to provide some more details of your so-called examples. I suspect you are euphimizing 'politics' in place of hateful behaviour.

I'm talking about the publishing industry, where commercially successful writers are regularly dropped by their publishers (and blacklisted by the Big Five cartel that controls most bookstore distribution) for being (a) Republican, (b) Christian, (c) seriously practising any other established religion, (d) politically neutral, (e) insufficiently enthusiastic Democrats, (f) using a plain English word instead of a ‘woke’ euphemism, (g) using last year's euphemism instead of this year's euphemism, (h) not au courant with the trendy left-wing cause of the hour. Of course, all these things can be and are labelled as ‘hateful behaviour’, which is all the excuse the Twitter mobs need. You sound like just the sort of person who would do that, since you trotted out the ‘hateful behaviour’ excuse for a situation you know nothing about.

The point is that bosses themselves are afraid of being fired, cancelled, or boycotted, and few of them, especially in the arts and entertainment fields, have the guts to defy a Twitter mob, or the horse sense to ignore it until the storm blows over and the mob finds a new target. With publishers, what it amounts to is that they are looking for excuses to break their contracts with authors who are making money, and believe they can get the same level of net profit by replacing them with unknown writers who will earn the publishers diversity points while being paid a pittance for their work.

It doesn't work, of course, which is why the Big Five publishers (formerly Big Six, soon to be Big Four) are slowly going down the tubes. Only a constant stream of mergers and acquisitions keeps their sales roughly flat; they buy up new businesses to compensate for destroying the old ones. But that's another story.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Right, but this is about sexual misconduct.

Virtanen wasn’t suspended because he likes Trump or said something about trans kids playing sports.

His club team took steps to remove him from the rest of the group. They know something.

Wait and see, but you can’t cancel someone who forced themselves on a woman - it’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

I said very clearly and specifically that ‘cancel culture’ is not related to the Virtanen case. I was responding to someone who denied that it exists at all and wants the phrase abolished.