For some, it's #MeToo vs. #HimToo at the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 3 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Outside the London, Ont., courthouse where five former world junior hockey players are on trial on sexual assault charges, supporters of the complainant — carrying signs reading, "I believe you E.M." and "We Believe Survivors" — have been confronted by #HimToo movement backers with signs of their own: "5 careers ruined" and "E.M. cheated."

"Inviting guys for a three-way with a woman might not be the right thing. It might not be something you want your sister to partake in," said the man, giving his take on a text message entered as evidence. "However, it is not illegal when a girl is consenting to this. It is not criminal when a girl consented to this. Michael McLeod has had his career ruined. Hopefully, [McLeod's lawyer] David Humphrey can go and exploit what this girl's lies are."

(McLeod has pleaded not guilty to a second charge, of being a party to the offence for allegedly inviting players to his hotel room to engage in sex.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Dtules@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

I don't know that I agree that social definitions always have to match legal definitions.

Legal systems tend to be conservative and it's social progressive groups that push the public consciousness enough to eventually shift the legal system.

Until 1983, marital rape wasn't legally considered rape in Canada. The social understanding that you could rape a spouse needed to exist before the laws could follow.

I agree that it's nuanced and people need to be educated on the difference between legal definitions and social definitions, but I don't think what you're proposing is the only way.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

I 100% get where you're coming from. That makes total sense. I guess I was thinking of one specific context and over generalized. There is definitely room for nuance and to expand definitions of crimes through social efforts.

I think I was focused on the idea that we should be careful with strong language like rape, genocide, fascism, etc. Using them too liberally, or in ways that don't match their severity undermines the position of victims like rape victims, Palestine, or whatever the fuck is happening to immigrants in the US right now.

It's definitely a step too far to say that the only valid definition is the legal definition.