I listened to a CBC call-in show about the London sexual assault trial of five former Hockey Canada players. All the callers were either on one side or another. I think there's a middle path.
The gist of the case: Back in June 2018, a woman known as "E.M." was drinking at a bar where the hockey team was celebrating a big win. She consented to go back to a hotel room with one of the team members. A little later, he texted others to come up for a three-some, and up to ten guys were in the room at one point. Allegedly, five of the guys, all between 18 and 20, either had sex with her or had sexually assaulted her. Afterwards she called a friend, crying, saying she was upset at herself for what had happened. All men were acquitted because E.M.'s testimony wasn't seen as credible. A possible reason for this is that she filed a civil suit in 2020, and, if any of her testimony was different between then and now, that brings her credibility into question. Typically a criminal case is filed before a civil case, and she had started a criminal case soon after the event, but that was put on pause, at which time she moved to a civil case. That civil case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
First of all, how many of us describe an event exactly the same way after five years? Our brain changes our memories slightly whenever we re-remember an event. It's a very high bar to meet to have explain every detail exactly the same way.
Yet I don't disagree with the verdict because, as far as I've heard or read, at no time did she indicate she didn't want to be there either verbally or gesturally. They taped her giving consent. If it seemed like enthusiastic consent, then can we really convict the guys? However, if that video tape was coerced, and she was threatened in some way to make the video, that would be a different story.
I also believe she didn't want to be there, for sure. And it's possible she was so afraid and distraught that she was going along with it to survive the evening, pretending things were okay, letting on that she was cool with it all (if that was, in fact, the case - I don't have all the details). One caller said, if she didn't like it, she should have just walked out. "Nobody was holding her down." However, all sorts of things may have been pinning her to the spot. Fear can lead us to do things that don't always seem to make sense in the light of day. She did what she needed to do to get through it all. I can imagine a brief thought flashing through her mind like, "If I bolt, will they grab me and get really violent?"
She also had been drinking, but apparently not enough for it to be counted as being taken advantage of.
Another caller to the radio show found the whole act morally reprehensible and wondered how any of the guys could take part. If he had walked in, he said, he would have immediately walked back out. But I wonder if he would have, at 18, as part of a strongly cohesive sports team. Groupthink is powerful stuff. On top of that is a whole lot of porn that depicts women appearing to love to be tag-teamed. Too many boys and men are learning sexual dynamics from depraved media.
From a legal standpoint, I'm not outraged by the verdict since it seems like there was consent. But I do worry that those men and many others will look at the verdict to mean they did nothing wrong, which isn't the case at all. I worry the verdict gives men a sense of permission to do more of the same. From a moral standpoint, I also find it reprehensible. I mean, I have nothing against sexual adventures, but we'd do well to remember we're with another human being who, regardless any signals or even requests given to the contrary, deserves to be treated with care and respect merely by being another person, not an object to be used.
If someone asks to be punched in the face, and films the consent, it might not be legally considered assault (I have no idea, really), but it's still wrong to harm another person. Right!? Even if they ask to be harmed. Even if they don't duck or otherwise try to stop the harm. Even if they seem to enjoy it. Even if they just stand there and take it, it's still wrong to do it. A person's apparent tolerance of abuse doesn't negate the agency of the abuser. It's why in boxing and wrestling there are rules and a referee to prevent crossing that line. Even if they don't tap out, the ref will stop the fight once they're down.
Nobody was there to stop things when they got out of hand. And I understand how much it takes to go against the group, but we need to help people be that person who's willing to say, "Guys, this is really fucked up."
Something like that. This is a complex case, but overall it just makes me really sad for them all and worried about the perceived implications of the verdict.
ETA: Rachel Gilmore discussing an article about the effect of the manosphere on boys in the classroom:
No comments:
Post a Comment