Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police

[bazokajoe]

What I hate about this case are the guys have been falsely accused and their name and picture is everywhere, mean while the women is protected even after it's been proven she made false claims.
Her name and picture should be made public as well.

 

[bobbywings]

its fucked from all sides
pretty much there was pressure from social justice groups to prosecute and make the accused guilty from day one.
Canada still has due process, and from the beginning it was important to let it all play out.
There's always 3 sides to a story, theirs, hers, and the truth. We will probably never get the real story of whatever happened.

 

[mellowjello]

It was her choice to go to trial though..Which is weird because when the investigation was reopened after the Hockey Canada payout E.M. was reluctant to cooperate when they came to he door.

The Crown told her that they didn't have a strong case and advised against going forward but said they would leave it her as to whether to proceed.

She made the decision take this to trial...Now she would have been well coached by her civil attorneys previously and probably had many discussions with victims advocacy groups. So perhaps she looked at this trial as a platform to redeem herself as she wrestles with what she did that night.

I think once the cat was out of the bag, she did what she thought was the only thing she could do to save her relationship with her boyfriend.

 

[mellowjello]

The judge said that her memory was faulty and she filled in the gaps. Big difference.

Not really, just semantics to bolster a narrative.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

No it does not mean that, but I don't see any evidence where she said stop I am leaving. Enthusiastic and continuous? How do you define that? Do you get that if your are client #12 with an SP? I think Consent must be clear at the outset, and it was, and if the situation evolves that withdrawal must also be clear. Sex is not a binary act, its a very broad description of acts. If you are receiving a blowjob and actually cum in a girls mouth are you now a rapist if you cannot present your signed form D-17/CIM?

No consent isn't just given once.
Consent is enthusiastic and continuous.
This is true with providers as well.
If a provider tells you to stop doing something, you stop immediately.
Similarly, if a provider is showing signs of physical distress or discomfort, you should stop and ask if she is doing okay.
Even with consent being provided at the outset, it needs to be enthusiastic.
Example:
Him: Lets invite 4 of my friends and lets have a gang bang.
Her: Ummm...I dont know. Maybe...
Him: C'mon! it will be fun!
Her: Okay fine...
Even tough she is saying okay fine in the example above, it is obtained via peer pressure. That isn't enthusiastic consent.
Your negotiation should allow room for the person to say no and you need to put it across in a way where the person is clear you are not pressuring them.
So the right way to negotiate would have been as below:
Him: Hey, do you want to play with some of my friends? I can invite them if you are okay. No pressure though if you are not comfortable.
Her: Okay fine I guess....
Him: Are you sure? We can discuss limits and safe words etc, but no pressure, just asking.
.....you get the idea.
The fact that these guys made a video AFTER the event, leads me to believe things kinda got a bit rough etc., and he was just covering his ass.

 

[mellowjello]

Maybe she was actually raped and wanted justice....

More conjecture after the fact.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

....even after it's been proven she made false claims.

That hasn't been proven.

 

[mellowjello]

The fact that these guys made a video AFTER the event, leads me to believe things kinda got a bit rough etc., and he was just covering his ass.

So, if they don't get get concrete, verifiable consent, they're automatically guilty of a crime.
If they get concrete, verifiable consent, they're covering their asses for a crime they've committed.
Is that what you're saying?

 

[mellowjello]

That hasn't been proven.

And at the very, very least, it wasn't proven that her allegations were true.
Where does the burden lie?

 

[nottyboi]

No consent isn't just given once.
Consent is enthusiastic and continuous.
This is true with providers as well.
If a provider tells you to stop doing something, you stop immediately.
Similarly, if a provider is showing signs of physical distress or discomfort, you should stop and ask if she is doing okay.
Even with consent being provided at the outset, it needs to be enthusiastic.
Example:
Him: Lets invite 4 of my friends and lets have a gang bang.
Her: Ummm...I dont know. Maybe...
Him: C'mon! it will be fun!
Her: Okay fine...
Even tough she is saying okay fine in the example above, it is obtained via peer pressure. That isn't enthusiastic consent.
Your negotiation should allow room for the person to say no and you need to put it across in a way where the person is clear you are not pressuring them.
So the right way to negotiate would have been as below:
Him: Hey, do you want to play with some of my friends? I can invite them if you are okay. No pressure though if you are not comfortable.
Her: Okay fine I guess....
Him: Are you sure? We can discuss limits and safe words etc, but no pressure, just asking.
.....you get the idea.
The fact that these guys made a video AFTER the event, leads me to believe things kinda got a bit rough etc., and he was just covering his ass.

For you or me that may not be ok, but what does the law say, and you are talking about people that also have been drinking. Sex often include pressure, thats a reality, And since men are expected to initiate things, the onus always fall on them. To think things will evolve in that manner in the heat of the moment is not realistic. Women also have the responsibility to assert themselves. There was no threat of violence here etc. Its too complex an interaction and I think the law should focus on defining withdrawal of consent. You have to realize, that on the list of reasons women have sex, sexual desire is quite far down the list.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

So, if they don't get get concrete, verifiable consent, they're automatically guilty of a crime.
If they get concrete, verifiable consent, they're covering their asses for a crime they've committed.
Is that what you're saying?

I am saying, that consent doesn't need to be on camera if it was obtained properly and the fact that they asked if everything was okay after the event, begs the question, why they did so.

 

[mellowjello]

I think I missed something in all of this.
How did the event come to the attention of her family and boyfriend?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

And at the very, very least, it wasn't proven that her allegations were true.
Where does the burden lie?

The burden of proof lies with her alright.
But even the judge said:
“I do not find the complainant was dishonest or fabricated her evidence.”
Therefore, she did not make false accusations or in other words wasn't proven to have made false accusations.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Sex often include pressure, thats a reality, And since men are expected to initiate things, the onus always fall on them. To think things will evolve in that manner in the heat of the moment is not realistic. Women also have the responsibility to assert themselves.

No sex does not include pressure. Whoever told you that?
Sex under pressure is coercion and that would be non-consensual in nature, by its very definition.
You are basically saying all sex is non-consensual to a certain extent.
Which is ridiculous.
Women are also vulnerable in a sexual situation especially with 5 strong drunk young hockey player dudes going at it.
So to expect her to be assertive in that situation especially when she is likely to have been impaired, is not realistic.
Bottomline is that it is likely consent wasn't provided in an informed and enthusiastic manner and the guy did not follow the necessary steps to establish proper consent.
They ran a train on her.
Then made a video after the fact to cover their asses.
Now she may be a slut or an airhead, but that doesn't mean she should be subject to such treatment.

 

[mellowjello]

The burden of proof lies with her alright.
But even the judge said:
“I do not find the complainant was dishonest or fabricated her evidence.”
Therefore, she did not make false accusations or was proven to have made false accusations.

On the other hand, her testimony was found to be unreliable and inconsistent which gave no credence to the accusations.
The judges statement IMO, was made to protect her from any future litigation for damages and you want to twist it to discredit the defendants.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

On the other hand, her testimony was found to be unreliable and inconsistent which gave no credence to the accusations.
The judges statement IMO, was made to protect her from any future litigation for damages and you want to twist it to discredit the defendants.

Sure, a statement can both be honest (aka not a fabricated event), but inconsistent/unreliable due to memory lapses etc.,

 

[mellowjello]

Bottomline is that it is likely consent wasn't provided in an informed and enthusiastic manner and the guy did not follow the necessary steps to establish proper consent.

Almost 100% of all sexual activity would qualify as rape or sexual abuse if you wanted to adhere to the absolute strictest guidelines.
Open and shut cases, all of them.
The judge acted with great prudence with all the testimony and evidence provided, to come to a fair verdict while
making provisions to ensure E.M. wouldn't be subjected to future litigation.
That's just not good enough for some people.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Almost 100% of all sexual activity would qualify as rape or sexual abuse if you wanted to adhere to the absolute strictest guidelines.

No I don't think so.
Most sexual activity does not involve a gang bang with random dudes in an impaired state.

 

[mandrill]

More conjecture after the fact.

That was actually the Crown case, right?????

 

[mandrill]

Almost 100% of all sexual activity would qualify as rape or sexual abuse if you wanted to adhere to the absolute strictest guidelines.

Dude, no.