Trigger Warning: This article discusses sexual violence and may be triggering for some readers. The Journal uses “Survivor” to refer to those who have experienced sexual assault. We acknowledge this term is not universal.
The moment we treat consent as a legal checkbox, we’ve already compromised justice.
If the first two and a half weeks of the ongoing sexual assault trial of five former of Canada’s 2018 world junior team has shown us anything, it’s that the legal system needs to prioritize creating safe spaces for women, rather than obsessing over the minutiae of consent.
The ongoing trial has revealed yet another detail: the players had a group chat to plan their response to the allegations. On May 23, the judge overseeing the trial ruled that text messages sent by Brett Howden are inissible.
The alleged assault took place in 2018, when the complainant met Michael McLeod at a bar in London, Ont. The complainant testified that she returned with McLeod to his hotel room, where she was pressured into a variety of sexual acts by McLeod and his teammates. In a series of videos taken between 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., the complainant is seen stating that what took place that night was consensual.
A clumsy attempt at concealing liability, the videos and the now dismissed group chat reveal how the defendants deliberately plotted to dodge legal ability.
Regardless of any schemes to circumvent liability, the courts should recognize that consent is more than a mere checklist to avoid blame—it’s a fundamental measure of respect and autonomy. Rather, what should be considered is the reality of the situation—five allegedly intoxicated men engaged in repeated sexual acts with an intoxicated woman. These circumstances represent a deeply troubling power dynamic, reflecting a profound abuse of power and disregard for the woman’s capacity to give meaningful, informed consent.
Hockey culture in Canada tends to glorify its athletes, suggesting they can get away with actions as serious as sexual assault—ed by Hockey Canada’s long history of sweeping situations similar to this one under the rug, with an established fund to settle sexual assault claims.
Unfortunately, this mentality extends far beyond the rink and can’t be classified just as a ‘hockey problem’. There are approximately 30,000 sexual assault claims in Canada each year, the majority of claimants being women. The legal battle centering consent isn’t the issue here; sexual violence is.
The details of the ongoing trial risk sending the wrong message—that consent is a series of hoops you need to jump through, rather than maintaining safe and respectful dialogue with a sexual partner.
Only in its second week, the trial has seen an aggressive defence and two dismissed juries. However, the complex process of parsing out what counts as consent isn’t what should be highlighted.
Onlookers should consider what took place in the hotel room and understand why the complainant was unable to provide consent. Coercion is often an element of sexual assault cases and should be seen as a serious violation of autonomy.
What’s most disappointing about this trial is the divided public response, one that reveals how far we still have to go in understanding consent and ability.
Some individuals have taken to X, stating that the trial is “rigged” and the defendants are “going to get screwed.” In the post MeTooera, there’s an observable tension between the civic value of innocent until proven guilty and a desire to believe the victim. These blurred lines mimic the complexity of the debate around what counts as consent.
The bottom line is that consent and for victims of sexual violence isn’t an istrative task that can be ed for by video recordings, group chats, and legal settlements.
We need to acknowledge that many sexual assaults involve manipulation and coercion, and work to create safe spaces for women and others who face higher risks. It’s not only women who face sexual violence—we need to foster an open dialogue regarding consent regardless of gender or circumstance.
—Journal Editorial Board
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].