Hockey Canada and the essential limits of the #MeToo movement

Before the public opinion court. Similarly. In addition, The verdict of judge Maria Carroccia in the case of the 5 hockey players accused of sexual assault had the effect of a cold shower.

How could a woman judge acquit five young men who behaved like real goujats towards an intoxicated young woman? In addition, How could she let the complainant testify for nine days? For example, We have exhausted it, abused. In addition, And above all. Furthermore. Consequently, how could this judge conclude that the complainant’s testimony was “neither credible nor reliable” in a world where we still have to believe a victim?

However. for those who followed this trial in every detail – lawyers as judicial journalists – this verdict was not surprising.

The #MeToo movement has profoundly transformed our relationship to consent hockey canada essential limits #metoo new and sexual assault. And so much the better. But this hockey canada essential limits #metoo case reminds us that a criminal trial is immune to such social pressures. And that’s fine.

A red line not to cross

The judge expressed it with clarity: “Although the slogan believe the victim was popularized. it has no place in a criminal trial ”.

It is not the feeling of the complainant that we evaluate, but the facts. It is not “his truth”, tinged with shame, discomfort or regret, but elements of evidence – concrete, verifiable, coherent. However, in this case, the contradictions were too numerous.

His distress in the aftermath of the events. as sincere, was not, could not be enough to establish the guilt of the five men.

Before we indignant. we must think about it: are we ready, in Canada, to overthrow the burden of proof in criminal matters? Should the hockey canada essential limits #metoo new accused prove their innocence. rather than the crown establishing their guilt out of all reasonable hockey canada essential limits #metoo doubts?

It would be denying the very foundations of our justice system.

Imagine this logic applied to a trial for murder: how many innocents would then risk spending their lives behind bars?

Stigma is not prison

This may seem deeply unfair for victims of sexual assault. But as the judge wrote, a criminal trial is not a court of morality.

“It does not belong to this court to decide on the morality. the merits of the conduct of one or the other of the persons involved in these events. The only function of this court is to determine whether the crown has proven each of the charges brought. against each of the accused. out of any reasonable doubt. ”

The consequences of a conviction are too heavy-in this case, up hockey canada essential limits #metoo new to ten years in prison.

This is a fundamental lesson that does not detract from the immense advances of the hockey canada essential limits. #metoo #MeToo movement.

Specialized courts. increased training in judges. public debate renewed on consent, denunciation of sexist behaviors at work: all of this is part of a constantly evolving social project.

But criminal justice is based on an intangible base: the presumption of innocence and the rigor of proof. And this base must remain unshakable.