For some, it’s #MeToo vs. #HimToo at the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial
The trial of five former world junior hockey players on sexual assault charges in London, Ont., has sparked a contentious debate both inside and outside the courtroom. Supporters of the complainant, identified as E.M., have clashed with #HimToo movement backers, each holding signs with conflicting messages.
The trial, which began in late April, has seen intense testimony from E.M., who alleges she was pressured into performing sexual acts she did not agree to by the players in a hotel room in June 2018. The players — Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote — have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The issue of consent has been central to the case, with witnesses providing conflicting accounts of whether E.M. willingly participated in the sexual acts. E.M. has testified that she only consented to sex with McLeod, while the defendants claim she was an active participant and instigator of the encounters.
Outside the courthouse, heated discussions have taken place between supporters of E.M. and #HimToo movement backers, with differing views on consent, victim-blaming, and false allegations. Landon Kenney, a male allyship educator at the Sexual Assault Centre of Waterloo, has been at the courthouse to support E.M. and challenge rape myths perpetuated by the #HimToo movement.
Kenney believes that educating young people on consent, healthy masculinity, and bystander intervention is key to combating rape culture. He dismisses claims of false allegations, citing statistics that show most sexual assaults in Canada are not reported to police.
Opinions on the case have been divided on social media, with some questioning the evidence presented and the motives behind the charges. Steven Janowicz, a hockey player adviser, believes that the players were not the instigators and questions why charges were laid with limited evidence.
The trial has also raised questions about the initial police investigation, which was closed in early 2019 due to a lack of evidence. A second investigation was launched after a settlement with E.M. by Hockey Canada became public in 2022, ultimately leading to the charges.
As closing arguments begin, the outcome of the trial remains uncertain, with strong emotions and conflicting narratives continuing to fuel the debate both in person and online. The case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and challenges surrounding sexual assault allegations and the importance of supporting survivors in seeking justice.
