Hopefully, the minster’s audit will shine a little light into the dark corners of hockey’s dirty, little secrets.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 18, 2022.

OTTAWA—Hockey is us.

When Canada’s minister of sport announces plans to get tough with hockey harassment, follow the money.

Federal Sport Minister Pascale St-Onge ordered a forensic audit into Hockey Canada last month after it was revealed the organization settled a lawsuit with a woman claiming sexual assault by eight members of the 2018 world junior hockey team.

The audit was intended to uncover whether any federal money was used in the settlement which the minister characterized as a “cover up.”

The audit must have hit a nerve because on July 14, Hockey Canada announced it was reopening the investigation. It issued an open letter promising a new inquiry into the allegations, to be led by an unnamed independent third party.

Hockey Canada also said it would require all players, team staff and volunteers to participate in mandatory sexual violence and consent training.

Consent training? Even the inclusion of that phrase should raise eyebrows.

This is not the first time that hockey has been asked to clean up its act. But with millions of dollars of federal subsidies on the line, apparently the motivation is more robust.

With assets of more than $150-million, Hockey Canada received $14-million in federal funding in the past two years, the CBC revealed recently. While booking a $13.2-million surplus, the not-for-profit organization’s federal support included $3.4-million in emergency COVID subsidies.

During the same period, the CFL was denied a COVID loan, which forced it to cancel the 2020 Grey Cup.

To put the inequity into perspective, according to Sport Canada’s website, minor football was funded to the tune of $605,800 in the last fiscal year.

That’s $14-million versus $605,800.

More than 20 years ago, as federal sport minister, I introduced a requirement for all national sport organizations to establish gender-equity standards for women in sport. Failure to do so came with financial penalties.

So why should Canada still be struggling with the issue of sexual harassment in sport, with a special emphasis on hockey?

Perhaps hockey is in a league of its own.

It is Canada’s nationally designated winter sport. Canada’s national summer sport is lacrosse.

Suffice to say that when it comes to self-image, hockey is the game we all love to play.

Except if you are gay or Black.

Current statistics in the NHL show that there are more than 2,000 professional players in the NHL.

Almost half of them are Canadian, but the number of racialized players is less than five per cent.

According to an article in USA TODAY, there are only 26 Black players in that group. Of that number, 20 are Canadian and six are American.

When it comes to gay players, the numbers are even more pathetic.

The first ever openly gay NHL prospect came out last year.

Luke Prokop became the first player under contract with the NHL to openly speak out about his sexual preference in a social media post, “today I am proud to tell everyone that I am gay. … From a young age I have dreamed of being an NHL player, and I believe that living my authentic life will allow me to bring my whole self and improve my chances of fulfilling my dreams.”

His announcement was met with huge support from head office, with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stating that “anybody who is connected to the NHL … we want everybody to know that whoever you are, you have a place in our family.”

But Prokop’s courageous revelation was not followed by a stampede of others. He currently plays with the Edmonton Oil Kings, the junior partner to the Edmonton Oilers, and there have been no more revelations by NHLers.

The NHL does host Pride parties, in support of the LGBTQ community. But why has it been so hard to find a single NHL gay player among more than 2,000 on respective team rosters?

Is this who we truly are as Canadians? Why are we so complacent when it comes to the lack of diversity in our national sport?

In reality, the NHL is no longer only Canada’s game. Even though almost half the professional players hail from our home, the television audience and team distribution is clearly American.

Why does hockey still get top billing when it comes to government financial support, while the CFL was spurned when it came to Canada’s longest-running sporting event, the Grey Cup?

Hopefully, the minster’s audit will shine a little light into the dark corners of hockey’s dirty, little secrets.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet has vigorously denied the allegations and challenged his accuser to go to the police so charges can be tested in a court of law.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 20, 2020.

OTTAWA—Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet is the latest victim of social media internet justice.

Twenty-one-year-old anonymous allegations surfaced last week against Blanchet, accusing him of “sexual misconduct” in 1999 in a biker bar bathroom in Montreal, at an after-party for a rock group he managed.

Blanchet has vigorously denied the allegations and challenged his accuser to go to the police so charges can be tested in a court of law.

But the court of public opinion has already weighed in on Twitter and in the mainstream media with a vicious tone that is the flavour of the month.

Blanchet’s accuser posted her claim on a website set up to give victims a voice. The allegation topped a roller-coaster week of accusations against Quebec entertainers and media elites.

Even the premier’s wife, Isabelle Brais, got into the act, posting on Instagram in French, exhorting “knights, princes and gentlemen” to challenge those she describes as their “deviant brothers” who “stain your reputation and put you into their boat of s–t.”

She finished by asking everyone to let her know what they think.

The whole of Quebec is weighing in on the debate.

With Blanchet facing an anonymous accuser, more unproven allegations will likely follow.

What is truly bizarre is that mainstream media is stoking the flames with its own sensational coverage.

In the case of the Montreal Gazette, the anonymous accuser was interviewed and said she thought her attacker was bald and that his last name was François. Before the arrival of social media accusations, newspapers would never have printed the allegations, unless they were corroborated by another credible witness.

But all the old rules have gone out the window and the traditional media is forced to chase the tail of the social media dog.

Brais posted her Instagram comments before the allegations against Blanchet had surfaced but her call to Quebecers to let her know what they think will not go unheard.

The high-level shout-out to speak up could become a slippery slope of more social media justice.

Allegations should always be taken seriously, but Blanchet is right. The best place to deal with these allegations is by filing a complaint with the police.

In the current climate, reported allegations have to be taken seriously. But it will also be very hard to prove a 21-year-old claim without any witnesses.

But simply throwing out the accusation in the social media world does nothing to secure justice and simply besmirches the reputation of the accused, who has little power over anonymous allegations.

Unfortunately, like it or not, some of the dirt is going to stick.

And that is why direct accusations of this nature need to be raised in a court of law, not in a social media setting.

As long as anonymous complaints are given credibility by coverage in the mainstream media, we do a disservice to those who should face their accusers in a court of law.

The justice system used to be tipped against complainants who alleged sexual misconduct, assault, and improprieties.

Now it appears the pendulum has swung the opposite way. You are guilty until proven innocent.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on September 24, 2018.

OTTAWA—Is #MeToo in danger of becoming the new McCarthyism?

The editor of The New York Review of Books exited last week after publishing an essay by Jian Ghomeshi entitled, “Reflections from a Hashtag.”

It is unclear whether he quit or was fired, but editor Ian Buruma was widely attacked for his editorial decision to offer a platform to the disgraced Canadian media star.

In an interview, Buruma defended his decision. “I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. … All I know is that in a court of law he was acquitted and there is no proof he committed a crime.”

In the same week, Maclean’s journalist Paul Wells levelled a question to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about an alleged groping incident 18 years ago that was widely covered in the dog days of summer.

The bottom line is that the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter and has no interest in giving media interviews on the subject.

But some media won’t take no for an answer. Rebel Media has a YouTube video featuring the Kokanee Groper, a.k.a. the prime minister. The Wells interview prompted more mainstream media coverage on a #MeToo story without a complainant.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the fate of a Supreme Court nomination hangs in the balance of another #MeToo allegation.

By all accounts, the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh would definitely tilt the court composition further to the right. In a recent dissenting voice, the judge opposed a majority decision to allow an undocumented immigrant to get an abortion.

Criticism of his political leanings are fair game in American politics. In their system, most judges are elected, not appointed. There are many reasons to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, including his socially conservative views and refusal to support electoral financing reform.

But the main event dominating the Washington confirmation drama was an alleged 37-year-old sexual attack.

Democratic spokespeople were vociferously attacking the “old, white men” in Congress for ramming through the nomination.

With mid-term elections only weeks away, Republicans understandably want to move forward while seat numbers are still in their favour. There is a chance that, after the election, the magic simple majority required for confirmation will be lost.

But when the accuser waffled on a congressional invitation to testify, the tide seemed to be turning in favour of the nominee.

In a different field, that of sport, tennis dynamo Serena Williams recently launched her own version of #MeToo when she characterized unsportsmanlike bullying of a referee at the U.S Open as a fight for sexual equality.

Many observers piled in behind Williams’ claim, decrying the state of sexism in sport as the rational for her racquet-breaking on-court temper tantrum.

Elizabeth Renzetti, a Globe and Mail columnist and staunch feminist penned, “Ms. Williams was right; she was being unfairly penalized by a sport that is ridiculously old-fashioned, sexist and overwhelmingly white.”

American tennis icon Billie Jean King tweeted: “When a woman is emotional, she’s ‘hysterical’ and she’s penalized for it. When a man does the same, he’s outspoken & and there are no repercussions. Thank you, @serenawilliams, for calling out this double standard. More voices are needed to do the same.”

While King’s statements are all true, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Williams’ outrageous behaviour during the final.

The stunt she pulled off was nothing short of professional bullying, reminiscent of her previous threat to kill a female Asian line referee for calling a foot fault.

Williams’ off-court aggression was no match for the on-court power of baseline hitter 20-year-old Naomi Osaka, who won the first set 6-2.

In set two, Williams broke Osaka, but the Japanese player promptly returned the favour. Then Williams erupted, breaking her racquet and receiving an automatic point penalty. That was the beginning of the end.

Williams kept looking furtively at her box. Her coach was televised sending illegal signals.

When warned, Williams went berserk, screaming and pointing her finger at the umpire, as the supportive audience booed. Two USTA officials came on court, but her volume merely increased.

Williams caused such a ruckus that winner Osaka, a biracial woman who was making history, was booed during the awards ceremony.

The post-game sexism storyline was absurd. But it got plenty of traction, as an example of women finally speaking up. Very few weighed in to decry Williams’s unsportsmanlike behaviour.

As the world’s greatest female athlete, the tennis icon ought to know better.

But in a one-sided stampede, it is simply easier to claim #MeToo.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, November 20, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The swamp runneth over. By all accounts, an Alabama senatorial candidate facing multiple harassment allegations, is successfully staring down opponents, even within his own party.

Judge Roy Moore is casting the fight as one of hometown supporters versus the Washington elite, including Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell, who has asked him to step aside.

In the midst of multiple reports of sexual harassment of a minor, polls have the judge running 10 points ahead of his Democratic opponent. Thirty-seven per cent of Christian evangelicals said they were more likely to vote for him because of the scandal.

The fact that Moore could even be considered a viable candidate is astonishing. His history as a conspiracy theorist and promoter of the far right is widely known. Moore was removed from office twice as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. His first dismissal was prompted after he ignored a Federal Court order to remove a Ten Commandments’ religious monument he commissioned for the Alabama Judicial Building.

He was re-elected again as chief justice in 2013 and then suspended for enforcing an unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The judge, with ties to white supremacy and neo-Confederate groups, was a key proponent of the birther conspiracy, a bizarre claim that former president Barack Obama was born outside the United States.

Moore is anti-gay, anti-Muslim, and pro-Christianity, believing that his religion should order public policy.

He founded an organization known as the Foundation for Moral Law, and weathered another controversy for refusing to declare $1-million it paid to family members.

None of these facts seem to influence local Alabamian supporters who truly believe their candidate is the victim of a Washington conspiracy headed by their own party.

The Hollywood harassment snare that started with Harvey Weinstein continues to widen its reach into politics.

Democratic Senator Al Franken is now being accused of sexual harassment for taking inappropriate photos and forcing a kiss on a fellow performer while he was on an Armed Forces comedy tour before his election to the Senate.

When the story broke Thursday, Franken acknowledged his actions, apologized and called for an ethics committee investigation into his own behaviour. Time will tell whether this proactive approach will staunch his political bloodletting. State legislatures have not been immune to similar claims.

On Capitol Hill, an unnamed Republican has been cited. Some legislators are proposing mandatory sexual harassment training for all staff and lawmakers.

But at the end of the day, the multiple allegations at different levels of government do not seem to have much effect on American voter intentions.

U.S. President Donald Trump was exposed on tape claiming that because he was a “star,” he could grab any woman “by the pussy.” The recorded comments were supposed to have doomed his presidential ambitions, but did not. For the most part, voters appear to discount sexual harassment as a factor in election decisions.

It remains to be seen whether the Senate race next month will be influenced by the allegations.

On first blush, key evangelical supporters are unwavering, while Moore’s strategy is to discredit those making the allegations.

If you ever wondered what makes Canada so different from the United States, just take a look at the legal harassment protections launched earlier this month by Canada’s minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

Shortly after a series of high-profile Canadian entertainers were outed for sexual harassment, Canada’s federal Labour Minister Patty Hajdu announced the government’s proposed framework to eliminate harassment and violence from all federal workplaces.

The proposed measures cover all private and public-sector workplaces regulated by federal law.

Hajdu, well-briefed on the issues during her stint as status of women minister, constructed a wide-ranging package tackling harassment head-on in all federal workplaces.

For the first time in history, the law will cover the Parliamentary Precinct, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the Parliamentary Protective Service.

The proposed legislation requires employers to take specific action to prevent and protect employees and to respond effectively to incidents when they occur.

The law will also provide complainants with the choice of information resolution processes or neutral, third-party investigations. Complainants will be protected from retaliation and supported throughout the complaints process.

South of the border, the controversies continue, with no legal remedies in sight.

Speaking about Franken, Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, called for cultural and institutional change, saying “it [harassment] has been going on for way too long.”

She is right.

But it doesn’t appear that the American voters are listening.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.