A valid point raised in the video as well. These 19 something year old players allege that the complainant was begging for sex, and everyone felt awkward. No one films to document this remarkable scene that sounds like a porn video.

But, they definitely had time to record a consent video.

What’s wrong with exploring the details of a high profile case involving Hockey players sexually assaulting a woman? I think the videos are well researched, and together form up 3 hours of well thought out detail.

I point out that this is a deep dive into the issue, and you roll up with a BBC article that probably takes 5 minutes to read.

Also, I watched the videos, and there’s discussion about how badly the case was handled from all fronts; and, there’s treatment on how netizens have some consensus that there was very little likelihood that the charges would result in convictions because of how the laws are.

I won’t go over all the highlights. A few points raised for me were:

Criminal law standards vs morality standards - I felt that the video also distinguished the issue of the court’s formal finding of guilt or innocence based on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. They even went over the moral issues that arose when exploring the culture of sexism in the Hockey players online “bible”, consent, and even the pinch points on evidence that were in favour of either the Hockey players and the complainant.

What’s society comfortable with issues of team sports and toxic behaviour? We’re being reminded about the ugly side of Hockey culture and whether we want these players to be flaunting their wealth and power around in this way. Or should they pay a price? Who should trust these roving packs of guys, travelling from town to town, grabbing at booze and women, then rushing home to their well compensated handlers at the first sign of trouble?

What credibility does Hockey Canada have? An organization that’s supposed to be hand holding these guys, and upholding some semblance of a honour/conduct system? There’s clips of the players making alleged statements to Hockey Canada for conduct over the allegations of sexual assault, and their statements are not even consistent with what ends up out during the criminal proceedings.

For all intents and purposes, the numbers lay out that the Justice system, despite its lofty aspirations, is also clearly a racist one. One can accept both these points. But, I think the main point remains clear: programming and funding for social safety nets must be explored and protected.

Also, I think the suggestion that this translates simply to “reduced sentencing” is disingenuous. Courts still have to consider the background circumstances of accused persons before striking a balance between rehabilitation and deterrence. Anyone would agree that a blanket policy to reduce a sentence by virtue of one’s heritage or upbringing is wrong.

But you’re still raising your own problems with court sentencing as opposed to addressing the point raised which is the social safety nets are getting cut. These programs were already underfunded to begin with, and they were intended to help these over-represented populations get the leg up they actually need to even match up with “average” folks.

Most people in developed countries would be shocked to know that Canada continues to underfund and under support First Nations peoples. Some reserves don’t even have running water in 2025, and are forced to truck water for cisterns or melt snow when available. For decades in the past, people who lived on reserve could not leave freely, subjected to check stops like they were in some WWII ghetto. They can’t get services out to remote areas where they live due to chronically underfunded roads, the conditions are poor, and they’re constantly held back or down because of this. You want to treat First Nations and Indigenous Peoples as equals under the law? You can start by understanding how the government and society abused these communities from the start, then tucked away to be forgotten, only to be punished when they show up in public areas because they’re different.

Justice did not create these considerations. These are considerations Canadian society created through history, a karmic load. You just don’t want to pay it publicly.

OP’s point remains valid as First Nations and Metis peoples are over-represented in prisons. Even if the Justice system aspires to ideals of fairness and impartiality, it’s a human driven system. Despite courts even trying under the barest minimums to recognize these societal challenges, they REMAIN overrepresented in prison. Even the Justice System itself acknowledges this as a challenge even as its own existing staff and members continue operations.

TL;DR Courts try to recognize government and society’s role in harming First Nations and Metis Peoples over DECADES, and STILL end up incarcerating these people MORE than ANYONE ELSE.

Also, I suggest for any system that aspires for impartiality and fairness to be visibly biased is human. I believe that there needs to be some margin here - probably generous at this rate - to permit lessons to be learned by the Justice System, and by society. But, I believe such errors by the system end up being a force multiplier for frustration against reconciliation.

I’ll acknowledge that this is probably a conspiracy I come back to and it goes along these lines:

Crypto has mostly replaced drugs as the primary core for money laundering.

In my opinion, bitcoin didn’t really hit the scene until around 2012 when miners were moving from their home built GPU rigs to specialized ASICs.

The UCP is short-circuiting democracy. They’re supposed to be elected to represent the people. Their role is to carry the constitution and the legal protections afforded within. But here, the government is acting in bad faith.

They’re not negotiating with the teachers. There may even be good grounds to suggest that the government never intended to negotiate in good faith because they contemplated the use of the NWC.

By invoking the NWC, as you say, the UCP are not pushing parties to further negotiations or arbitration. They’re just telling the teachers and the students that you have no rights, you have no other choice, and there’s no option to go to court.

The UCP have committed an affront to freedom of expression, and collective bargaining across the country. There may not be any other logical choice but to strike.