Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Beyond the Verdict: The Hockey Canada Trial - Episode 2
0 Plays2 seconds ago
In this episode, forensic nurse practitioner Hannah Varto speaks with Christie Paschakis, founder of SOAR Initiative Canada and Ontario Says NO MORE, to examine the key nuances and implications emerging from the Hockey Canada trial.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Forensic Nursing in Canada
00:00:08
Speaker
This is not just another medical podcast or a true crime series. This is the voice of forensic nursing in Canada. This is Beyond the Rape Kit, Canada's Forensic Frontline.
00:00:24
Speaker
We're the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association, and we're pulling back the curtain on what really happens when trauma meets healthcare, when survivors seek justice, and when nurses stand at the front lines of both.
00:00:37
Speaker
Follow us on Spotify, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Blue Sky, or check us out on the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association website.
Stories Behind Headlines: Hockey Canada Trial
00:00:51
Speaker
Welcome to Beyond the Rape Kit, Canada's Forensic Frontline, a podcast hosted by the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association, CFNA. Today, we call our episode Beyond the Verdict. where we unpack the stories behind the headlines and explore how systems shape and sometimes silence survivors of violence.
00:01:10
Speaker
I'm Hannah Varto, forensic nurse practitioner, and today we explore beyond the courtroom and the locker room, examining the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial and what it reveals about sports culture, legal language, and the burden placed on victims.
00:01:26
Speaker
In July 2025, five former members of Canada's 2018 World Junior Hockey Team were acquitted of sexual assault charges stemming from a 2018 incident in London, Ontario.
00:01:38
Speaker
The trial drew national attention, not just for the high-profile defendants, but for the language used in the court, the treatment of the complainant, and the broader implications for survivors navigating the justice system.
00:01:51
Speaker
Joining me today is Christy Peshakis. Thank you so much for being here, k Christy. Thank you so much for having me, Hannah.
Introducing the SOAR Initiative Canada
00:01:59
Speaker
Kristy Peshackis, you're the founder and director of Ontario Says No More and SOAR Initiative. Maybe you could give us a bit of a background about what those are.
00:02:10
Speaker
Well, SOAR Initiative Canada is a very small nonprofit that opened in 2023. And it is a organization that focuses on empowering survivors of sexual violence, domestic violence and child abuse and their long term healing.
00:02:25
Speaker
And we focus a lot on our advocacy work. And one of our main projects right now is the Change the Language campaign.
Changing the Language Around Sexual Violence
00:02:33
Speaker
The Change the Language campaign really wants to focus on shifting how we speak about survivors and about the crimes of sexual violence, domestic violence and child abuse. So we often hear things like, well why didn't she leave?
00:02:47
Speaker
As opposed to, well, why was he abusing her? You know, we hear um she was raped instead of he raped her.
00:02:58
Speaker
So we're we're always putting the onus on the survivor or on the victim as opposed to on the perpetrator. And it really is about shifting the blame off of the survivor onto the perpetrator who it belongs to. So that's what we are really focusing on with the change of language campaign. It's just changing that everyday, unfortunate everyday language that still permeates our society.
00:03:22
Speaker
next So that's SOAR Initiative Canada's sort of main main goal at the moment is this advocacy work. And on top of this, we are also leading the new chapter for the No More organization, which is based out of New Jersey, and it's called Ontario Says No More. So they have chapters all across the globe. And a lot of this work is just to really collaborate with other nonprofits, for-profits, grassroots, any you know ambassadors, everyday people who want to join in the movement to eradicate sexual violence, domestic violence in the future. And it really is about working together and kind of coming together under one symbol.
00:04:04
Speaker
So that's that's where we are right now. I love that. I'll have to look more into that. It's got my curiosity peaked.
Language and Credibility in Court
00:04:15
Speaker
But you did talk about language.
00:04:17
Speaker
And that's, I think, a little bit of what what we're going to talk about here today when we talk about the Hockey Canada trial, the language and the power in the courtroom, especially in Canada. Looking at the hockey trial verdict and the transcript, what stood out to you in how the courts described the complainant, the events, the defendants?
00:04:39
Speaker
What are your thoughts on that? It was a very angering trial, if I'm going to be perfectly honest. So um just from what we were seeing from the reports coming from the journalists, obviously, throughout the trial, as well as what was released in the verdict from Justice Maria Corosia. And then obviously, i i actually have access. I have the transcripts of the the closing arguments for the crown and that one I'm still going through because there's a lot of pages to it. But I'm also seeing things in there as well that are sort of being a bit of a red flag for me in terms of language and and understanding
00:05:22
Speaker
victims and how they respond to trauma, lack of understanding of how they respond to trauma, lack of understanding for consent. So a lot of this is sort of coming through. But I would say that the verdict was probably one of the things that angered me the most. And that was because It wasn't so much that the justice was focusing on the fact that they felt the Crown did not provide sufficient evidence or they didn't um meet their criteria for the burden of proof.
00:05:55
Speaker
It seems like the justice was really taking issue with the complaint and witness. And that was where... the language was coming in, like did not find her credible, did not find her reliable, did not see that she had any issues with her walking. She was fine to go back to the hotel room, which she never said she wasn't. It was all of those little rape myths that really permeated this case that just really came out in the verdict. And the crown you mentioned, that's quite interesting because the crown, although doesn't represent the victim per se, you would think might address some of those things, but it sounds like perhaps the crown played into some of those rape myths. How did you see that in their transcript?
00:06:45
Speaker
So the transcripts from the Crown, it seemed, i had heard, the reason I wanted to get access is because I've heard from some of the journalists that were at the trial that the the justice seemed to be giving the Crown a hard time during the closing arguments. So really pushing back on a lot of what they were saying and then not doing any of that with the defense team.
00:07:08
Speaker
So it seemed as though the the the justice almost had an idea of where this was going. So for many of the journalists, they weren't shocked with the trial verdict based off of what was happening with the closing argument. So that's why I really wanted to see that and get a better understanding, because it seemed the Crown was really trying to push forward the understanding that trauma is affects the ah victims in in a multitude of ways. But the justice kept focusing on certain
Consent and Text Messages: A Case Analysis
00:07:40
Speaker
aspects of things. So they had this back and forth ah regarding the text messages. And this was between McLeod and the victim, EM, m in the aftermath.
00:07:50
Speaker
And the victim very clearly stating, I had no issue going back with you, but I wasn't with everything else that happened after with everybody else coming in. And I felt I was being laughed at and that, um you know, that you were taking advantage And the fact that he skipped over that and just said, well, I can understand you are embarrassed. I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the actual like physically in front of me, but that's sort of what the gist of it was. And the Crown was trying to say, you have to focus on the fact that she said that she felt she was taking advantage of and that she...
00:08:27
Speaker
was fine going back to the hotel with him, but not everybody else. And the the justice kept pivoting and saying, well, then am I not supposed to listen to anything else she said in the text? So it was very combative. And you could see that in some of the transcript.
00:08:43
Speaker
And that's where it was it's becoming... Again, this idea of she was okay going back to the room with one person. She wasn't okay with what happened after. And I think that this, again, falls into what happens with victims in any sort of sexual assault trial, that they may be fine with one sexual act, but they're not fine with another sexual act.
00:09:06
Speaker
Or maybe they're fine with the lead-up to the sexual acts, but not the sexual acts themselves. So by focusing on the fact that she was fine to go back,
00:09:17
Speaker
at that time as... the the main focus is is part of the problem. And it really shows in how others outside of the trial have been responding to the trial to say, well, she was fine to cheat on her boyfriend. Well, we don't even know that McLeod didn't have a girlfriend. And it doesn't seem to be any issue with potentially him cheating on his girlfriend with a random girl he picked up in a bar. It's only focusing on her and what she decided to do, which she has never said she wasn't
00:09:48
Speaker
She never had a problem with going back to the hotel room with him. If she regretted her actions because she had a boyfriend, that's separate. But she never saw the initial consensual sex that she had with him as sexual assault. It was everything that happened after. So it's its you see it in those transcripts. So it's it's leading into a lot of the justice seemingly to agree with a lot of what the the defense has put forward throughout the trial. It's a very long way of getting...
00:10:18
Speaker
your question.
Gender Bias in the Justice System
00:10:19
Speaker
Well, do you think, Christy, it just popped into my head, though, that this was a female justice. And I wonder, I think in some ways, females can be the biggest critics of each other, you know, calling each other sluts or whatever, for even just going back to a hotel room with a man, even if it's consensual. I'm wondering if there is a parallel here or maybe something to do with a gender bias within our own gender. of the justice being female and saying, well, that's not how women act. That's not how women should be. Good girls don't go back to hotel rooms with boys. No wonder this happened, Jug. Do you think there's anything like that that plays into this? i A hundred percent.
00:11:04
Speaker
I think that there's, that absolutely happens. We are, as you said, we're our own worst critics. And I think there's a reason for that, that We as women, and and I mean, it happens with everybody, but we will focus on it being on women right now.
00:11:22
Speaker
I think there's a need of trying to separate yourself from a victim. And that's for you to protect yourself, right? Or to put yourself in this bubble that, well, if I don't do any of these things, it won't happen to me. So she must have done something wrong for it to happen to her. It's a way of sort of protecting yourself, isn't it? It's trying to say,
00:11:43
Speaker
It can't happen to me unless I do this, this, this, this. So she went back to a hotel room with a random stranger that she met at the bar. So if I don't do it, that's not going to happen to me. So it's sort of a way of...
00:11:56
Speaker
trying to put the the separation from yourself and the victim or the survivor, as opposed to recognizing that the only person that's to blame for sexual assault is the perpetrator.
00:12:10
Speaker
The justice was also a previous defense attorney. So I think that in in many ways, um I'm not sure if it's as much for her that it it's her holding women to a higher standard as I think that she's seeing it from a defense lens I think that's the the major thing and it doesn't help that she you know being a female judge that's what a lot of uh people especially men in comments are using it's like well the female judge said it so if the female judge says it it's obviously right or believe women until it's a female judge it's like
00:12:45
Speaker
But it's funny when there's other female judges who call out or or will go the other way, suddenly it's it's vindictive, right? So it's it's using the fact that it's a female judge to the advantage of your argument, really.
00:13:01
Speaker
I wonder here, Christy, if there is grounds for appeal on some of this, at least what you've looked at as potentially biased and potentially focused very much on specifically one witness rather than the Crown's entire argument. Have you heard anything about the potential for appeal?
Potential Appeal and Trial Types
00:13:23
Speaker
So as far as I know, that the appeal was not going ahead from the Attorney General. I do think, though, that, and this is where I would need some some legal advice and speaking to to those who are in the field, because obviously this is a judge-only trial, which is very different from a trial by jury. So with a trial by jury, you're not going to be having the the jurors responding to the closing arguments and putting in you know, um commentary, so to speak. So it's very different with ah a trial by judge. So I would like a little bit more information on that. But I do think that there is a potential to bring this forward as a bias in terms of going to the Ontario Judicial Council and saying that it seems like there was some bias. But that would be a whole different way of of ah approaching that. And I don't know if any from the Crown would be willing to do that or if it would be just anybody else that would maybe even EM's own lawyer. But I do think that there might be grounds to actually say this seems pretty biased. But again, I would i would need more legal advice before i would want to undertake something like that.
00:14:34
Speaker
Yeah. Earlier, you were telling me a little bit about r versus Hogart and how that case may have played into this. Now, I don't know a lot about that. Can you Just talk a little bit about that and then how it applies here.
00:14:49
Speaker
Sure. So Hoggart, as some may know, was the front lineman for the band Headley. He was charged with um sexual assault and he had a trial where he was found guilty. This was one in Toronto. I think the other one um he was not, he was found, he was acquitted, but he had appealed the the first one where he was found guilty.
00:15:13
Speaker
And they had put in a number of motions of why they feel that it needed to be appealed. It was ultimately dismissed. However, one section of the appeal, the Ontario Appeals Court did agree that the trial judge erred in their judgment. And that was by allowing expert witness for trauma responses.
00:15:38
Speaker
And I found that really interesting. Yeah. So they felt that even though the trauma informed, the trauma response expert was explaining this in general ways, was not um linking it directly to the complaint and witness or to the acts that were occurring. They were speaking generally in what somebody may do in terms of being in a situation where they are being sexually assaulted and how they may react.
00:16:07
Speaker
the the The appeals court found that this wasn't necessary because they already are putting in strict guidelines on how not ah utilizing rape myths in courts in order to justify how somebody reacted. That's interesting because it happened in both trials where they were utilizing multiple rape myths. including in in the case of EM, the the shoes that she was wearing. And well, when she left, she wasn't wearing the shoes. And that means that she really wasn't, you know, trying to escape or she wasn't really trying to leave. And, you know, she wasn't falling down drunk. So she wasn't really drunk.
00:16:49
Speaker
I can speak from my own personal experience as someone who went out clubbing a lot in my 20s and I wore those really, really high heels that I can't wear as much anymore. But I can tell you that when I was, you know, well beyond tipsy, I walked like a star in those heels.
00:17:07
Speaker
And it was only when I was flat footed that I couldn't do anything. But, um you know, so it's it's taking these myths of what you know What was she wearing? Now they're putting it on, you know but what size was her shoes? Or how easy were her shoes to ah to to zip up or undo or anything? like it was It was wild, some of these accusations. One of the ones about her saying, um referring to them as men,
00:17:34
Speaker
and not boys. And, you know, now you're changing it and saying that they're men and they weren't, they weren't boys and they were 18 years old. But because at the time when she first put in the complaint back in 2018, it was, she referred to them as boys.
00:17:50
Speaker
And so now they're trying to say, well, you're, you're trying to make them more mature than they were. like like it's It's that whole boys will be boys and girls mature faster than boys. And like just putting in these random myths just to try to justify. And they're doing it very cleverly. And I think that's sort of where these um appeals court and that decision is really harmful.
00:18:16
Speaker
Because even the justices aren't really understanding trauma and understanding how... somebody may react and the especially for fawning, which we know is a trauma response. And that happens to a lot of people. And it's the idea of doing what, what you think they want you to do.
00:18:35
Speaker
in order to get out safely. um And that's that's a trauma response that not a lot of people know about, and it's not widely talked about. And so removing an expert from that decision, from that trial, whether it be trial by jury or trial by judge, you're removing a vital piece of evidence that is necessary to understand why the complaining witness did what they did or potentially did what they did, so.
00:19:04
Speaker
Yeah, it's very harmful. It sets it back. It's really setting back all of these things that they say are moving forward in terms of justice for rape victims and justice for sexual assault victims and domestic violence victims. It's it's setting it back by acting as though the language surrounding not in not including rape myths into the justice system is
Victim Experiences with Legal System
00:19:27
Speaker
sufficient. I think it's almost like we've not included blatant rape myths into the justice system, but you've also got me thinking about, you know, clubbing in high heel shoes. I suspect that if the justice may have been a male, they may not have even sort of taken that, right? And yet, you know, as ah as a female, I think we've all worn high heels and depending on your experience in that, your feet either get sore at the end of the night Or like you said you walk like a trooper no matter what, because you're so used to wearing those kinds of shoes. And it's so apart from whether you say yes or no to sexual activity, whether you're wearing these shoes or not. and I think the rape myths from what you're saying here, Christy, sound like they've become almost hidden and interwoven rather than being blunt. Like, why were you wearing a short skirt? Well, instead of saying that, now we're like, you must've been okay. Cause your shoes were tall and high and you were walking fine, even though you said you were drunk. Like that is no different. It's just wrapped up in a little pretty bow that makes it sound different.
00:20:35
Speaker
That's, oh, I'm so angry. that when you say oh i know. And that's the thing. Cause it was, it was based off of like the security footage that the justice that was entered into evidence of her coming back to the hotel and walking. and like, well, you seem like you're walking fine. It's like,
00:20:51
Speaker
That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything. People can walk fine when they are intoxicated. Some people can walk fine, some people cannot. It's very individualistic. And like i said, I used to walk like a trooper. I could do it entirely. And and I had friends that could not. It's just dependent on each person. So to make a judgment based off of a three to four second video of her entering the hotel, which she did consensually, and she stated that that was consensual.
00:21:23
Speaker
It's what happened after that was the problem. and And that's, again, it's it's always going to fall on the, obviously we know the the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution in the States, the Crown here in Canada. We know that that's the case. But...
00:21:43
Speaker
we What the shame of our system is, is that every single detail, every single memory lapse, every single, you know, something that doesn't quite match with exactly what you said five years ago is held against the complaining witness, but never against the defendants because they never have to take the stand.
00:22:07
Speaker
They don't have to take the stand. They can just sit there and never have to justify the fact that what McLeod told the police officer doesn't match with what he told the court or what was the his defense team was telling the courts.
00:22:25
Speaker
This idea that. he he He told the police officer, this was entered into evidence in their in the meeting, that he doesn't know how any of these guys came in. It's a mystery to him how any of these other players just happened to walk into the room that he was in with the with the victim. But, you know, we see that from the text that, yes, we do know because you texted them. You asked them to come in. So that wasn't really...
00:22:55
Speaker
looked at, apparently. That wasn't seen as a ah lapse and in his memory or you know seen as him lying or anything like that because he never had to take the stand. He never had to justify it.
00:23:08
Speaker
And they're always... That's one of the major things that I can't stand about the justice system is that the victim is held to a higher standard and the victim is put on trial as opposed to the defendants being put on trial. It becomes...
00:23:23
Speaker
they're the ones that are questioned more so. And it's usually only in these types of cases, as opposed to it being in any other criminal case.
00:23:35
Speaker
So it's very upsetting in that way. And if you're going to continue to treat the victims and the complaining witnesses as defendants, then they should be afforded all of the protections that defendants have.
00:23:50
Speaker
So, You've brought up something that that twigged me from a conference I attended where they were talking about language and the language that we use. And I understand a lot of victim service organizations have started using legal system and saying justice system yeah with the argument that it's not really a justice system. We've strayed far, far away from justice and it really is just a legal system.
00:24:15
Speaker
What reforms, legal, cultural, institutional, do you think? need to be made. And then I guess the harder part of that is how do we take those steps forward?
Need for Systemic Reforms for Victims
00:24:29
Speaker
Yeah, so we do have a Victims Bill of Rights, but the issue with that is that it's not, it's difficult to enforce. So there are things, there are steps that are being taken to try to give victims more access to resources and more access to I guess what they would consider is more justice in in terms of whether it be financial, whether it be that they're able to obtain the transcripts in a better way, getting out of, you know, the publication bans and and stuff. So there's a whole slew of things that are that are sort of circling that can happen, but it's difficult to enforce. And I think the reason for that is, you know, um
00:25:17
Speaker
Martha Goddard, that you know is a credited with the first rape kit, designing the first rape kit, she had done an interview, I believe it was back in 2002 or 2003, and she had stated that it's not called the victim justice system, it's called the criminal justice system.
00:25:34
Speaker
And it's because it's one of the most lucrative businesses and it still remains that way. When you look at all the supports and resources available to those within the criminal justice system and you compare that to what's available for victims and survivors,
00:25:50
Speaker
it's a drop in the bucket. for vi they It's nowhere near what what they need. And I think that that's something that really needs to come about, that we need to be focusing on victims and their resources because it's not...
00:26:07
Speaker
The criminal justice system, as you said, like they're changing it now to ah ah to different terms because it's not a justice system. It's not. It never, I don't believe it ever really was. It was designed in order to protect the perpetrators. And I thoroughly still believe that it does. The amounts of of the amount of rights that are given to perpetrators or defendants is...
00:26:33
Speaker
far superior to what is given to those who are the complaining witnesses. And again, the complaining witness is not their own voice. They do not have their own lawyer speaking for them. It's they are a witness to the crown.
00:26:49
Speaker
They are there being led by the crown. They don't have their own legal voice in the system. They have it in the civil system, but not in the criminal system. And I think that that's something that needs to change.
00:27:04
Speaker
And if they want to come forward, if they want to have this trial, then they need to have more access. But these are so things that are going to be so difficult to change because, as we know, changing anything with the criminal code or changing anything with with the way that they're looking at it in terms of torts and all these sort of legal standards,
00:27:25
Speaker
standards is really difficult and takes a long time. So I think that strengthening the access to the Victims' Bill of Rights and ensuring that it's enforceable is probably the best thing that we can do.
00:27:40
Speaker
But I think that that's going to take some time. How do you think this trial has impacted other women who may have experienced, let's say, sexual violence?
00:27:56
Speaker
and their thoughts on even reporting to police. I can't imagine telling somebody to go report to police because they'll believe you and you know and if it goes to court, it's because they've got evidence and they've got a good case. like i How do you actually look at this for the future of our survivors of sexual violence?
00:28:23
Speaker
I think, and this is the thing that's sort of, I'm getting emotional as you're talking about it because I think the the more, the police have always been someone that survivors have never really trusted.
00:28:35
Speaker
um You know, and it's great to have, as we know, like we have TV shows where we show and movies where we show the the victims and survivors that are being believed. And that's and it's amazing to see that because we know that that's not the reality. And we've seen it even just from the way this trial had come about and these charges. that when she first when they were approached in 2018, they dropped it as unfounded. And then because of the evidence that came out from Hockey Canada with the payouts and the reporting on that, they reopened the the case to look at it as well as other ones and realized, okay, yes, we we are pressing charges. five years later.
00:29:13
Speaker
So it's like you already are setting a standard that who's going to remember exactly everything detail by detail from five years ago. And even lawyers that were coming out for the defendants use that in their opening statements or sorry, their statements um once the charges were laid were to say, well, you know, something that happened five years ago.
00:29:32
Speaker
And so they knew they were already setting it that no one's going to remember exactly what happened and they were relying on that. But, um, I think my my what I've seen, which is the real shame of this, is that survivors don't even want to tell their own family and their own friends and people around them because of how they've seen the responses from those people to this trial and how they have responded using these rape myths.
00:30:03
Speaker
um And being that we're such a hockey culture, you know, I'm a hockey fan. i've been ah I've been a Leaf fan since I was three because apparently I'm a glutton for punishment, but I've been a hockey fan since I was three. It was the Leafs and and the Red Wings for me all the way.
00:30:21
Speaker
and we're so enveloped in hockey culture that no one wants to believe they can do anything wrong. and we hold them to such a high pedestal.
00:30:34
Speaker
And it doesn't matter if you're in a major city or a small town, small towns will experience it more, but it is, it's, it's a very hard thing to come out against someone who's in, in hockey, especially if they are,
00:30:51
Speaker
you know, really good and have a potential to get into the NHL. And in that case, when you see your own family and friends defending this behavior and using these rape myths,
00:31:05
Speaker
why would you ever want to say something? And I think that's what this trial and what the judge's verdict has really done in terms of the impact on survivors, that those who were waiting or those who have been experiencing or have experienced it since don't, it's not about reporting it to the police.
00:31:26
Speaker
They just don't want to report it period to anybody. They don't trust that anyone is ever going to believe them. And that's such a, it's so heartbreaking. It really, like it really breaks my heart. I've had, I'm a ah rape crisis counselor on ah on the Toronto rape crisis line.
00:31:42
Speaker
And the thing like this, this seems to be, we have upticks in calls following the the verdict. It's just people just being so affected by it in so many multitude of ways.
00:31:55
Speaker
It's upsetting. It's interesting. We had the Me Too movement or around 10, 15 years ago, something
Impact of Cultural Shifts on Survivors
00:32:02
Speaker
like that. And it it created the reverse where all of a sudden we had this influx of people who felt believed and heard and they came forward. And it feels like we've taken a big leap backwards after this. And I appreciate you pointing out that This case in Canada, specifically being related to hockey, also created a culture shift.
00:32:25
Speaker
Like you said, people then say, well, if the court said it so, it must be so, which I think we have to use caution for. and also being a sucker for punishment as a Vancouver Canucks fan. and Recently, Willie Mitchell actually was accused of sex assault. And he was one of my favorite players when he was here in Vancouver. He's one of my favorite defensemen. I actually met him in person at the Children's Hospital once. And when I heard it on the radio, I thought, no, not Willie. like as if I knew him, i obviously don't.
00:33:01
Speaker
um And I instantly as a human said, no, she's got to be lying. It can't be Willie Mitchell. He's amazing. He's such a great hockey player. And I had to take three steps back and go, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on. You have no idea who he is as a human being. And i and this is the work I do.
00:33:23
Speaker
And these are the people that I work with. And I got trapped in that and had to take a big critical step back and rethink my initial opinion.
00:33:35
Speaker
I can see how this might be so powerful for people who don't work in this field and don't see survivors every day. I want to know how do we support survivors in challenging the social myths now, not just the rape myths in court, but how do we so challenge this in our communities? Where where do we start?
Redefining Perpetrator and Victim Stereotypes
00:33:56
Speaker
I think it's it comes down to, as I said, it's it's about changing the language and how we speak about it. But it's also really trying to counter this idea of what an ideal victim is, but also what the ideal perpetrator is. And I think you really hit the nail on the head with this because how many, whether it be a celebrity or someone that you may know where people say, but he's never done anything to me.
00:34:24
Speaker
Oh, I don't understand. Why would he do that? Well, not every serial killer, like the serial killers don't kill every single person they come into contact with. Like it's it's wild to me how we how we do this and we do it ourselves as well. It's like, no, but he never did that to me or he never he never showed that side of me or he's such an upstanding citizen.
00:34:44
Speaker
Because when we look at perpetrators, and I think in some ways we are trying to shift away and the courts are trying to shift away from what the ideal victim is, but they're still not shifting away from what this ideal predator is. What does a predator of sexual violence or domestic violence look like and how do they act and we still see them as these absolute horrific monsters right the one and we still see it as strangers who do this as opposed to people that you know whether intimately or familially or just
00:35:19
Speaker
day-to-day life. So they don't want to focus on that. And that helps with not getting the convictions and not getting the guilty verdicts because they don't tick all the boxes of what a perpetrator looks like or what they sound like.
00:35:37
Speaker
And that is the unfortunate case. So we see it with the victims, but we also see it with the perpetrators. And the more we put people in boxes, the harder it is to find justice for victims because they either don't match what we think a victim should be or how they should act or how a perpetrator is supposed to look or act. And we know that not all perpetrators are the same.
00:36:02
Speaker
We can't say that all perpetrators are these evil monsters. We have some that absolutely are, but not everyone is. Some of them do have this very flawed understanding of what seduction is versus consent. And that's like a whole other topic because we know that seduction is basically trying to change someone's mind from a no to a yes by wooing them. And where does that line cross into consent and and not listening to somebody saying no and meaning no and it's very um again that permeates the culture and how many of them were raised to believe this i remember seeing it in my own in new magazines growing up you know the idea of women making sure you know it's the thrill of the chase and don't give it up too easily but at the same time like
00:36:56
Speaker
Don't hold back, otherwise you're going to lose his interest. Like, it's all of these, like, very fine lines that people have to cross that you have to sort of take in. And where is consent? Where do you not want to say no because then you're going to be seen as a prude or you're going to lose his interest? But then why would you want to keep somebody's interest who is only interested in you saying yes? So it's like, it's a whole...
00:37:19
Speaker
cultural shift that we have to do. And I think it starts with changing what we see as an ideal predator. Because as I said, not all serial killers go around killing every single person they come into contact with.
00:37:32
Speaker
they They do have victims, though. So it's how how you wouldn't look at someone and say, well, but, you know, he's done all of these things that we can see it. We see all the evidence. But, you know, he's never done it to me. Like we had a nice conversation at the cafe. It's like, no, that's not how it works. And the same thing has to be said when it comes to.
00:37:51
Speaker
those who are accused of sexual assault and domestic violence and child abuse. it's It's not about how they treated you. It doesn't mean anything in that way. It's are they capable of doing what this person has stated? And does the evidence show that?
00:38:08
Speaker
You know, it's it's taking away. You have to remove your personal... Feelings on this person, whether they be your neighbor, your family member, or a celebrity or an athlete that you admire. It doesn't matter. your person You personally, it has nothing to do with you personally. It's whether the person coming forward has the evidence that to support what they're
Role of Forensic Exams in Trials
00:38:34
Speaker
saying.
00:38:34
Speaker
And the issue with that is most times they're not even being able to access the evidence to to collect the evidence that they need. As we know with the rape kits, if they're not available everywhere, somebody may not go to get a rape kit done. But the first thing somebody will say is, well, did you get the evidence?
00:38:53
Speaker
did you Did you go to a hospital and get a kit done? Even if they know who their perpetrator is, they can't collect the evidence because they they can't get to a place that has it. So we put such a high burden on the victim to provide the evidence while giving every possible escape for the perpetrator, including, well, he's he's a good guy. He's a nice guy. I like him.
00:39:18
Speaker
Look how many points he scored. Like, it's... It's a shame. Again, I'm doing these long roundabout ways of getting to answer your question. No, it actually got me thinking, did EM in this trial, did she have a forensic exam?
00:39:32
Speaker
I believe she did go to the hospital. Now, I don't know if she had the full kit done, but she did have an exam done. She did see did go to get medical advice, yeah. Yeah, because you know we are talking about from the perspective of forensic nurse examiners,
00:39:49
Speaker
And I wonder if it would have made a difference or not. um I suspect not because these guys were saying, yes, I had sex with her, but she said yes. In which case, frankly, DNA means nothing.
00:40:02
Speaker
If he says she said yes, you can find my DNA there. What's the point of doing a sexual assault exam at that point? um but perhaps it's seen as more legitimate. i don't I don't know that the fact that you just went through all of that, who would go through that if it wasn't true?
00:40:20
Speaker
so Which again is another myth, I think. Yeah. And also, like and and it's not just about DNA, as you know, it's about the other evidence that you could collect. It's the photographs. It's the the the statement that's usually given by the victim to the same nurse in in the aftermath or what's happened and explaining what's happened. And it's so much within the kit. It's not just about the DNA, but there are things that you could see as potential evidence to that that something happened, potentially happened. But ultimately, even in in cases where the rape kit is done, it's up to the judge on whether it's admitted into evidence or not. So it it does come down to that, but it's just,
00:41:05
Speaker
yeah From my perspective, it's it's funny how we always say to them, well, did you get the evidence, including the police, when they know who the assailant is. They say, like, it wasn't a stranger. i know who it was. Well, did did you go to the hospital? Did you get a kit done?
00:41:20
Speaker
Well, no, because I know who it was. Or, you know, I can get get to one. But that's the first thing they always ask. Well, do you have any evidence? Yeah. I also think it's interesting because there's this assumption that beyond DNA, we should be finding more like bruises and a black eye or genital injuries. And as forensic nurses know, very rarely in a lot of sexual assault cases, do we see significant injury? There's almost nothing to find. Especially like you say, Christy, if you freeze or fawn,
00:41:55
Speaker
nobody's fighting you and holding you down. Significant number of sexual assaults occur without the victim fighting in order to protect themselves. And yeah therefore the perpetrator doesn't need to get physically violent per se.
00:42:10
Speaker
And I think there's, again, that rape myth coming into our court system and our legal system about the purpose of a forensic medical exam and and what it can tell
Exclusion of Expert Witnesses in Trials
00:42:21
Speaker
us. And I know that in my work, I often have police saying, well, did you find proof?
00:42:28
Speaker
Like, well, i I don't know. Does a bruise on her arm mean proof? Or did she bump her arm on like on the doorway? Does it prove she consented or not? No. Finding DNA that the guy says she said yes, that doesn't prove it was consensual or non-consensual. um and And what we're seeing, I think, in Canada is a shift away from calling forensic nurses to as expert witnesses to talk about that level of detail and the importance of how we interpret what we think of as evidence and what we think we should see in a sexual assault case. um
00:43:10
Speaker
I don't know. I think that that's a really complicated issue and it's got me concerned that we're not bringing forward experts to talk about these things. And that's exactly what it is. So if you're asking for evidence, but you know you're not going to take into account, because as you said, it's so complex. And forensic evidence is usually a lot more powerful when you don't know who your assailant is. um you know In that case, it's putting their their DNA in the database and if seeing if there's other matches. like That's something...
00:43:43
Speaker
entirely different and usually is more, it usually works more in those contexts. But if you're asking them for evidence and then they're unable to obtain that physical evidence for a multitude of reasons, as you said, like they fawned, maybe it wasn't there or they can't get access to getting a kit done or an exam done.
00:44:03
Speaker
but then you're also taking away how people respond to trauma in that way, you're taking away that expert evidence as well in the trial, then you're really kneecapping the victims because you're really taking away every single sense of how of their burden of proof.
00:44:24
Speaker
What proof can they provide? You're not allowing them to testify um with their own voice, so to speak, or their own legal representative to question the the defendants. You're not putting the defendants on trial to to question their views.
00:44:39
Speaker
ah the validity of their statements and anything that they may have said that's misconstrued or doesn't match up. You're also taking away expert evidence on how someone responds to sexual assaults, domestic violence in those in those moments.
00:44:57
Speaker
So what's left for them? you're You're not giving them anything except to to use their word. And even that whole phrase of he said, she said,
00:45:09
Speaker
the I ah go bonkers with that one because who do we say that in any other case, in any other criminal case? It's always this side versus this side. we We don't look at an attempted murder case and say, well, it's he said, he said. Who says that? It's only in cases where the victims or the survivors are majority women.
00:45:32
Speaker
And it's made to say that he said is at a higher standard than she said. And that's what it, that's the language that needs to change because you're, you're putting so much on the complaining witness to prove things, but you're also taking away all of their accessibility to prove why they did what, why they may have reacted in the way that they did in that room or,
00:45:57
Speaker
to the person who was assaulting them. So it's it's a mess in a lot of ways. from From the bottom up, it's so complex. That's why it's it's not a one-size-fits-all. But I think the language change is is ultimately what may be able to assist because it starts at home.
00:46:16
Speaker
It starts with us individually to be able to move up we can change the courts and we can change this, but if the regular everyday people are still using the exact same language and the exact same myths, it's just gonna continue getting, it's just gonna continue permeating the systems.
00:46:33
Speaker
It feels like we've gone so far ahead in so many ways and yet so far backwards in so many ways. Christy, I really appreciate your insights and helping myself and our listeners understand beyond the Hockey Canada verdict.
00:46:51
Speaker
It's been a high profile case. It's caused a lot of conversation and discussion, which is
Conclusion and Call to Action
00:46:57
Speaker
good. Is there anything you want to sort of say as we wrap up? Yeah, I will kind of give a bit of a plug on what I'm doing under Ontario Says No More. So we have started a petition back in May on ah petitioning the NHL and the NHLPA to have a joint league-specific policy on sexual violence, domestic violence, and child abuse. And from there, we also released an open letter, so to speak. We never actually had to release it because I ended up having a meeting with the NHL and the NHLPA. But we were looking for endorsements from organizations, and nonprofits, for-profits, grassroots, local businesses, anybody who feels very strongly that the and NHL and the NHLPA are being the only major league in North America that doesn't have a joint league-specific policy on these issues, that we want to push for that and have them actually have this or at least have more transparency.
00:47:58
Speaker
ah We have had some major signar signers recently. So we had CUPE Ontario that just signed on. We had the Ontario Federation of Labour that signed on and the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, as well as Safe Bay from the States. Some amazing organizations that have signed on, which is fantastic. So we want to keep the pressure on the NHL and NHLPA. I have had a meeting with the NHL and one with the NHLPA.
00:48:28
Speaker
It was an introductory meeting. It seemed to go well in terms of keeping communication open and seeing what what can be done to sort of fix the culture right now that's sort of taking a major hit. And I did express, especially to the NHLPA, that it feels a certain way when you're a fan and you see that the the organization, the players, the the people that you really admire,
00:48:56
Speaker
just don't seem to really be stepping up for support for survivors of sexual violence or domestic violence or child abuse. So I think it's important to keep the pressure on. So if anyone is interested, please um go to www.soarinitiative.org and you can click on the link there to sign on to the petition or onto the organizational endorsement letter.
00:49:20
Speaker
So that's my plug. Thank you so much, Christy. I think I'll be going there in a moment to check that out and provide some endorsement as well. We have a lot of work to do and we do this work together and collaboratively, which is part of what Canadian Forensic Nurses Association is is there for, is to try to collaborate and work towards positive change, both legal, medical, forensic and cultural, I think.
00:49:52
Speaker
So I'd like to thank Christy Pachakis, founder and director of Ontario Says No More and the SOAR initiative for providing some really important insights and conversation beyond the verdict of the Hockey Canada trial today.
00:50:05
Speaker
If you feel that you've been impacted by today's content or conversation, please know you're not alone. Support is available and change is possible. Please reach out to your local crisis support centre for help if you need to talk further.
00:50:22
Speaker
You've been listening to Beyond the Rape Kit, Canada's forensic frontline. Subscribe, share and stay tuned for more conversations that challenge systems and centre survivors. Until next time, take care.