2021 NHL Entry Draft

[Bullfrog]

Perhaps I don't know all the facts, but are people actually attacking the victim as Laraque claims? i.e. are people (e.g. the Canadiens or Mailloux) claiming that she shouldn't have put herself in that situation? That she should have known better? I understand that there will be jackasses saying that, but I haven't heard the PR team or others doing that or encouraging it.

Secondly, has he been convicted of a crime? (and yes, of course, I'm siding with and believing the victim.) But I'm just asking, factually, is he a sex offender? Speaking of which, while I am not in any way downplaying the seriousness of what he's done, I think we do need to put things in context. He didn't sexually assault or rape anyone. He was either 17 or 18 and likely didn't think of the consequences of what he did. He's harmed this young woman, but is there not a chance for redemption while still respecting the victim?

Non-consensually sharing private photos is often done as "revenge porn." That is, to harm someone, to extort them, and so on. It sounds like he just shared them with his buddies; like he was showing off. Still, a terrible (and illegal) thing to do, but not a malicious act. But again, I don't know all the facts.

 

[herman]

Perhaps I don't know all the facts, but are people actually attacking the victim as Laraque claims? i.e. are people (e.g. the Canadiens or Mailloux) claiming that she shouldn't have put herself in that situation? That she should have known better? I understand that there will be jackasses saying that, but I haven't heard the PR team or others doing that or encouraging it.

Secondly, has he been convicted of a crime? (and yes, of course, I'm siding with and believing the victim.) But I'm just asking, factually, is he a sex offender? Speaking of which, while I am not in any way downplaying the seriousness of what he's done, I think we do need to put things in context. He didn't sexually assault or rape anyone. He was either 17 or 18 and likely didn't think of the consequences of what he did. He's harmed this young woman, but is there not a chance for redemption while still respecting the victim?

Non-consensually sharing private photos is often done as "revenge porn." That is, to harm someone, to extort them, and so on. It sounds like he just shared them with his buddies; like he was showing off. Still, a terrible (and illegal) thing to do, but not a malicious act. But again, I don't know all the facts.

Have you read the articles linked at the beginning of the thread? Because most of your questions are answered there.

 

[Kin]

Secondly, has he been convicted of a crime? (and yes, of course, I'm siding with and believing the victim.) But I'm just asking, factually, is he a sex offender?

The answer to that question is a little complicated as this is an issue where laws have struggled at times to keep up with technology and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To my knowledge he was fined in Sweden as what he did isn't a criminal offense there while in Canada it is(The law is here C-46 if you're interested). So he did commit what we in Canada consider to be a criminal offense. I don't know if that technically would make him a "sex offender" by means of having to be part of a registry or what have you but I feel like if it's an issue where there's no real question about what happened(Mailloux has admitted it) and it's considered a serious crime in Canada then needing a criminal conviction to consider him a criminal is maybe a little too hair-splittery concerning the general point.

He's harmed this young woman, but is there not a chance for redemption while still respecting the victim?

I've said this before but I think the issue here isn't whether or not there's a chance for redemption but whether or not redemption can be immediate. Mailloux could have gone to school, educated himself on the manner, proved and established his contrition through actual work and still attempted to make the NHL a few years down the line. If he had done all that and still people protested his being signed by a team then, sure, you could more credibly ask if we consider a man's soul forever blackened by the misdeeds of his youth but what people object to is that there was no redemptive arc or meaningful opportunities missed by Mailloux. He just apologized and everything, at least from the hockey world, was immediately forgiven.

Non-consensually sharing private photos is often done as "revenge porn." That is, to harm someone, to extort them, and so on. It sounds like he just shared them with his buddies; like he was showing off. Still, a terrible (and illegal) thing to do, but not a malicious act.

For what it's worth, in the law above you'll notice that there's really no mention whatsoever about motive and whether a lack of malicious intent makes for a lesser offense. While that would certainly be considered for sentencing(and indeed the decision to charge in the first place) the law, I think rightly, says that it's largely immaterial and the focus should be on the harm to the victim rather than the offender's intentions.

 

[ZBBM]

He asked not to be drafted; Montreal didn't respect that.  If his request was genuine, could he not now simply issue a statement saying he refuses Montreal's action and will not participate with them in any way?  Sure, this leaves a bunch of league-ish questions about whether Montreal holds on to his rights until such time as he wants to make himself available (or whether, in so doing, he forfeits the opportunity to be drafted into this league at all), but if he really meant what he said, he ought to try to do something to actually make it come about.

 

[Deebo]

He asked not to be drafted; Montreal didn't respect that.  If his request was genuine, could he not now simply issue a statement saying he refuses Montreal's action and will not participate with them in any way?  Sure, this leaves a bunch of league-ish questions about whether Montreal holds on to his rights until such time as he wants to make himself available (or whether, in so doing, he forfeits the opportunity to be drafted into this league at all), but if he really meant what he said, he ought to try to do something to actually make it come about.

I believe he would go back into the draft in 2023 if he refuses to sign.

Edit: A couple ex-leafs were drafted twice, 2 years apart. Andersen and Tim Brent.

 

[ZBBM]

Thanks Deebo.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[Bullfrog]

Thanks for the response, Nik. I appreciate your take on it.

My only real issue with "sex offender" as used in the media is the implication his crime is on a level of a rapist or someone who's committed sexual assault. Her suffering will be real, I'm not trying to downplay that all, but he's a young man who's committed a non-violent crime.

 

[Bullfrog]

He asked not to be drafted; Montreal didn't respect that.  If his request was genuine, could he not now simply issue a statement saying he refuses Montreal's action and will not participate with them in any way?  Sure, this leaves a bunch of league-ish questions about whether Montreal holds on to his rights until such time as he wants to make himself available (or whether, in so doing, he forfeits the opportunity to be drafted into this league at all), but if he really meant what he said, he ought to try to do something to actually make it come about.

Ya, I agree. I have no problem with him being drafted....eventually. Drafting him after he specifically asked not to, that's just bad taste.

 

[LeafsDownUnder]

Perhaps I don't know all the facts, but are people actually attacking the victim as Laraque claims? i.e. are people (e.g. the Canadiens or Mailloux) claiming that she shouldn't have put herself in that situation? That she should have known better? I understand that there will be jackasses saying that, but I haven't heard the PR team or others doing that or encouraging it.

Secondly, has he been convicted of a crime? (and yes, of course, I'm siding with and believing the victim.) But I'm just asking, factually, is he a sex offender? Speaking of which, while I am not in any way downplaying the seriousness of what he's done, I think we do need to put things in context. He didn't sexually assault or rape anyone. He was either 17 or 18 and likely didn't think of the consequences of what he did. He's harmed this young woman, but is there not a chance for redemption while still respecting the victim?

Non-consensually sharing private photos is often done as "revenge porn." That is, to harm someone, to extort them, and so on. It sounds like he just shared them with his buddies; like he was showing off. Still, a terrible (and illegal) thing to do, but not a malicious act. But again, I don't know all the facts.

Not malicious? Turn it up. This is a sex offense.

 

[Kin]

My only real issue with "sex offender" as used in the media is the implication his crime is on a level of a rapist or someone who's committed sexual assault.

I'm not sure I agree that "sex offender" necessarily carries the implication of violence or that equivalency but I guess that's not the larger issue.

Her suffering will be real, I'm not trying to downplay that all, but he's a young man who's committed a non-violent crime.

But, like, you are kind of trying to downplay it, right? I'm not trying to say this in a confrontational way but your whole point here, unless I'm mistaken, is that you think people are saying that what he did was of a certain seriousness and you're saying that, in your opinion, they are overstating the seriousness of what he did. Which is, as far as I know, sort of the textbook definition of downplaying something.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong or bad for saying that just that if you're not saying that then I'm less sure of what point you're making. The way I'm reading your posts is you think people are presenting this offense at, like, a 9 and you think it's more of a 6. That, in your opinion, what he did is less bad than, say, another thing he might have done.

Which, you know, is a thing you can think and what have you and it's not even something I'm inclined to disagree about within this discussion. I've never had that happen to me and I don't know the severity of damage it might cause(and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject) and in a strict legal sense, I guess, you're correct that other offenses are seen as more severe crimes with harsher sentences. If you think that the people criticizing Mailloux and the Canadiens are not drawing a clear enough demarcation between what he did and violent rape and what the consequences should be for each then that is a point of view to contribute and everything.

I suppose I just haven't really seen the severity of what he did as the real issue and I think Laraques is mostly correct in how he describes the situation. That being drafted gives the impression that the NHL doesn't care at all about what Mailloux did and that even criminal acts are secondary to hockey playing ability for this league when they would probably be a red flag at most normal jobs. Which, again, gives the impression that being good at hockey matters more than "character" despite the league wanting so hard to convince us otherwise throughout the year(but especially on draft night).

Again, this isn't a guy who paid a harsh penalty, worked to redeem himself and found no forgiveness, this is a guy who committed a crime and ended up getting drafted more or less when and where he would have if he hadn't. There was, in the hockey world at least, seemingly no price paid for his behaviour whatsoever.

 

[Bullfrog]

Firstly, I have to say that I did have one important fact incorrect: I thought the photo was consensual. I re-read the articles and now understand the photo itself was taken secretly. That does change my opinion somewhat.

2ndly, you're essentially getting what I'm saying correct.

Part of our difference is that I do think the "sex offender" label does carry that implication of a very serious crime. It does to me at least. I'm not disagreeing with those that do call it a sex crime, though there are obviously degrees to everything.

If people are equating this to a "9", then yes, I would be downplaying it because to see it like that would be "up-playing" it as it were. But that view probably ties into my point from above about the label.

For the record, I also generally agree with what Laroque says. Perhaps ignorance on my part (I don't read twitter or much sports media at all), but I haven't seen Mailloux try to reverse the victim as he states it. He's confessed; he asked to not be drafted. I would imagine if there are people trying to minimize it, it would be his agent or other media sympathizers. I suppose I see the part of Mailloux saying that he was "just trying to impress the guys" less as him trying to reverse the victim (has he denied the young woman is the real victim?) and more of him admitting that he's a foolish, careless, young man. While I agree this is emblematic of hockey culture (though this isn't unique to hockey), it's also emblematic of young, immature men in general. While I'm certainly not an expert, it's well established that the prefrontal cortex in teenagers is still developing and this contributes to bad decision making due to a lack of appreciation for consequences and impact on others.

There's a lot of angles to this story: the victim's trauma, the players' actions/remorse/culpability, the media's reaction, toxic masculinity and sports culture, the seriousness of the crime, legal issues (e.g. Canadian vs. Swedish laws), the Canadiens' terrible decision and PR mess, etc.

One other angle: can we feel bad for the player while also respecting the victim? I say yes. I understand and respect that many will feel "no".

Lastly, thank you again for your thoughtful response and for challenging me. I'm comfortable with that. I embrace it. I don't take hard lines in these types of topics. I try to learn and to grow. I've made mistakes in the past (not to the level of Mailloux's) and I've learned from them. I try to be as flexible and objective as possible in my thinking. So, if I learn new facts or hear persuasive arguments, I'll change my opinion...even if it's uncomfortable.

...anyway, getting off-topic.

 

[Bullfrog]

Not malicious? Turn it up. This is a sex offense.

I used the term malicious in its literal meaning: intent to act with malice or to harm. I don't think that was his intent.

 

[Kin]

I think we effectively get where each other is coming from, even if we still disagree on some things. A few things though:

Part of our difference is that I do think the "sex offender" label does carry that implication of a very serious crime. It does to me at least. I'm not disagreeing with those that do call it a sex crime, though there are obviously degrees to everything.

I'm not sure that is the difference. I agree that it carries the implication of a very serious crime. What Mailloux did is considered a very serious crime in this country, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Maybe this is just a semantic difference at this point but I think that anything that carries with it that sort of carceral sentence is pretty freakin' serious.

The difference, it seems to me, is that you seem to think that the term sex offender necessarily implies the most serious offences someone can commit short of, like, murder.

One other angle: can we feel bad for the player while also respecting the victim? I say yes. I understand and respect that many will feel "no".

But feel bad for him why? Like I said, it sure looks like he faced no appreciable consequences for what he did. It doesn't look like there are going to be any additional barriers to him achieving success as a hockey player. Like, if he was facing 5 years and the end of his hockey career I could get saying "Ah, what a waste" if you were inclined but none of that is happening.

I kind of feel like if you(the royal you, us) had real compassion for Mailloux you'd want him to face real consequences for his actions because that tends to be the best way to appreciate the gravity of what he did which seems necessary for him to take the steps to really rehabilitate himself. 

 

[Arn]

So we had a very similar incident here in the national soccer league about a year ago.

We had a guy playing for a team, Cliftonville, who did pretty much the same thing - took a photo of a girl (who was also underage) and shared the photo with friends which then went off round snapchat and whatsapp groups.

A couple of things happened:

He was charged in court on a Friday but his club played him in their game the following Saturday. There was quite a backlash against that by Cliftonville's own fans.

They then stood by him all through the trial, but once he was found guilty he was sacked.

He then did some prison time.

On his release from prison one of the clubs across the city decided to sign him. They also immediately loaned him out to another club "to build his fitness back up" except it was really an attempt to let the media storm blow over then sneak him back into the main squad quietly once attention had moved on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54189123

The club who had tried to loan him cancelled the deal when they realised the media storm it was bringing to them.

A lot of fans threatened to boycott games due to the signing. Unfortunately we don't know if that happened cos all the games ended up being played behind closed doors. But certainly the feeling among the fanbase was that the guy shouldn't have been given a contract.

The club who signed him gambled that the media storm would eventually blow over and they'd have a top quality player. That pretty much is how it played out.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If the NHL were serious about these issues (which they aren't), here's a straightforward solution: if you are convicted in court of abuse of any kind, you're banned from the league for life.  No exceptions.  That'll do more to get rid of toxic masculinity in elite competitive hockey at all levels than all this hand-waving "concern."

It's not a perfect solution.  If you can manage to settle a case with a victim (looking at our very own #34 here) to avoid a conviction, then you can wiggle out of it.

Of course it will never happen.

I'm not sure how a sport can be expected to completely write a person off when the very legal system we live in doesn't cancel people for the rest of their lives for similar offences.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/EPRinkside/status/1422976879049412608

 

[dappleganger]

https://twitter.com/EPRinkside/status/1422976879049412608

I also remember when Dale Mitchell was awesome. Shiny new toy.

I hope he works out.

 

[ZBBM]

If the NHL were serious about these issues (which they aren't), here's a straightforward solution: if you are convicted in court of abuse of any kind, you're banned from the league for life.  No exceptions.  That'll do more to get rid of toxic masculinity in elite competitive hockey at all levels than all this hand-waving "concern."

It's not a perfect solution.  If you can manage to settle a case with a victim (looking at our very own #34 here) to avoid a conviction, then you can wiggle out of it.

Of course it will never happen.

I'm not sure how a sport can be expected to completely write a person off when the very legal system we live in doesn't cancel people for the rest of their lives for similar offences.

They ban players/personnel for gambling on games.  This is far more serious.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/EPRinkside/status/1422976879049412608

https://twitter.com/racheldoerrie/status/1423022506475151372