What could go wrong, did

Opinion

The jury has been dismissed in the shocking and sordid junior hockey players’ trial in London, Ont. The trial will, however, continue as judge-alone.

It has been an eye-opener for anyone associated with hockey.

We now know why sexual assault victims are reluctant to proceed with criminal charges. Protected by the presumption of innocence, defendants do not have to testify while the complainant gets mercilessly grilled by defence lawyers in cross examinations.

But regardless of the verdict, what happened at the Delta Armouries Hotel was wrong. Why didn’t those players charged or testifying speak out against the toxic display of masculinity that they witnessed?

These men (not boys) knew the difference between right and wrong. As junior hockey player representatives for Canada they had an obligation to conduct themselves in an honourable manner, consistent with their team’s code of conduct. Respect is paramount in a code of conduct.

How different might the outcome of this scenario have been if one of the players had said “This is not right, it must stop. What we are doing is not who we are or who we are supposed to be as Canadian junior hockey players”?

By July 27, 2022, Hockey Canada had settled 21 sexual misconduct cases, paying out $8.9 million in compensation.

Clearly this isn’t an isolated problem. Foresight, the ability to anticipate what might happen in the future, is an important attribute of anyone in a leadership position. Where was the foresight on the part of Hockey Canada when they hosted the junior hockey players with a ring ceremony and an open bar?

And what about the parents of these hockey players? As a course conductor for Hockey Canada’s “Speak Out” program, I’ve interacted with parents of high-level hockey players.

These parents trusted their children and their teammates. They would often say that they were “good kids who come from good homes.”

At the end of a long competitive season, they stated that their players were entitled to have a celebratory season-ending blow-out party without adult supervision. They had earned it. It was what kids do.

Besides what could go wrong?

What happened in London, Ont., is an example of what could and did go wrong.

Yes, individually, these hockey players may be fine young men, but put them together under the influence of excessive alcohol consumption, the proximity of the opposite sex and changes occur.

One significant change that can occur is the peer pressure related to the objectification of women as sexual objects and men as material objects.

What many of these parents were also not aware of was how the prevalence of the pornography industry has affected young men and women. It has exacerbated the dehumanization of women.

Close to 90 per cent of popular porn downloads now contain scenes of violence against women.

Pornography is no longer about erotica. It is violent, demeaning, debased and involves group sex, slapping, pulling hair and coerced sexual acts. Women are used, abused and considered to be subordinate to men.

What are the odds that one or more of these “good kids” have been exposed to and negatively influenced by pornography?

And what is the ethos that characterizes the hockey culture? Is it do the right thing or the code of silence? “Don’t say anything” has been the response from hockey authorities.

It is true that five players are charged with a sexual assault that allegedly occurred seven years ago. But those other players who remain silent or “can’t remember” are also complicit in what happened.

For too long, the hockey culture vis-à-vis women has been problematic. It needs to change in the direction of being part of the solution regarding the evolving story of violence against women.

Indeed, it is time for hockey organizations to advance a new type of masculinity, one that promotes respect, integrity, consideration for others and doing what is right.

Mac Horsburgh played competitive hockey into his fifties.