The choice of Logan Maillouxs adds to the evidence that hockey is not for everyone

Content Warning: This story contains details about crimes that are sexual in nature.

It would have been remarkably easy for the Montreal Canadiens not to take Logan Mailloux.

Not only would it have been very easy not to receive him, it should have been an obvious decision for every team in the league. All teams should have avoided a player convicted of a sexual offense who gave up the draft and asked him not to be selected.

But when the Canadiens were on the clock in their first round on Friday night, Marc Bergevin proudly chose Mailloux for the organization, completely ignoring the Mailloux victim, all the victims in front of him and all the victims who come after him in one fell swoop.

Choosing players like Mailloux is a problem that goes much deeper than just the Montreal Canadiens. Forgetting the history of players committing these types of crimes doesn’t send a noble second chance at redemption that teams and leagues seem to think they do, but rather sends a message to everyone who listens that even if they commit these crimes, the league doesn’t think they’re serious enough to block entry to the NHL.

Except that this message was sent loud and clear with Maillouxs proud Friday night, but was repeated on Satuday morning when Trevor Timmins, Canadiens Deputy awesome 22 second silence when you ask Sportys Marc-Antoine Godin, why the organization believes that Mailloux deserved drafting when he himself did not.

In that 22-second silence is decades of NHL abuse, cover-up, and reluctance to engage in this type of behavior, which, thanks in part to Mailloux’s choice, is likely to continue for years to come.

Being a professional athlete, regardless of sport, is a privilege. Strong athletic ability, hours of training, and financial opportunities to get into the best coaches, facilities, and schools do not entitle a person to play in the top ranks.

These high heights should be reserved for the most deserved and respected, because playing in leagues like the NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB puts athletes on a pedestal, makes them a role model for someone, somewhere and gives them a lifelong platform. These forums should be reserved for those who have proved their humanity enough to deserve them.

So many kids around the world dream of growing up for one day to play in the NHL and their favorite teams to receive him when they turn 18. The NHL, its teams, and each individual player are lucky to be considered the golden standard for hockey, and there is an added responsibility to act as role models for the little eyes that look at them. NHL players, through their actions, have the ability to teach these children that everyone deserves treatment with dignity and respect, and that if they treat everyone they face the same way they treat everyone, then maybe one day their dreams will be achieved.

Just because someone knows hockey, it shouldn’t undo any crimes they commit. If the NHL wants to continue to keep hockey as the golden standard, they need to make sure their employees are indeed a golden example of the nature and class they claim to be.

In dealing with this case, it does not take long to look for those who defend Mailloux’s actions, who support the Canadiens in his choice, and who believe he deserves a second chance. When you look at the comment section of any tweet, article, or post that discusses election, it becomes quite clear: these crimes, this treatment of people less than people, and the overwhelming number of people who defend and excuses for action are not limited to hockey. It is a social epidemic that must be actively pursued.

Even the language used in the comments defending Mailloux constitutes a society in which these crimes against women are normalized. He was only 17 years old a few months ago when the crime was committed. He made a mistake. He deserves a second chance. Should he really destroy his life from this? And they are all incredibly dangerous.

While 17 may be young people in a great system, it is certainly not too young to know that sharing the private content of a person in a sexual situation without their consent is a crime. And crimes have consequences.

We expect the average 17-year-old to know what they want to do in their lives, go to school, get a part-time job and be an active member of their community, but somehow there is a popular notion that a 17-year-old (not to mention a crime in the last two years #MeToo movement grew strong) is too scary to know that sharing a sex image without consent is wrong?

We cannot normalize 17-year-olds to do such acts because they are too young to know anything better. It’s wrong and sends the message that teenagers (and young hockey players watching the situation) can do it freely because we don’t even change their hockey career path.

Using an error to describe these types of situations also creates a dangerous precedent. The mistake is to forget to study for a math test, not to commit crimes. No blame the victim for your situation when you refuse to forget it. It was not a mistake to commit this crime, and the Swedish court agreed.

While it may be true that the ultimate goal of the legal system is usually to reform the perpetrators and give a second chance, the belief that hockey players committing this type of crime should be given a second chance to play hockey at the highest level and getting an international forum is frankly strange. Mailloux, who has not been elected, would not have refused to give him a second chance, it would have refused to place him on a pedestal among the best in the world.

His second chance was free to give his victim a meaningful apology and make reparations to his satisfaction, continue to live his life, play sports and decide to be a better person going forward, without perhaps announcing his name a few places later than it would have been at one of the world’s top sports league celebrations.

Of all the arguments in these situations, however, the most confusing (and arguably the most popular) is that everyone does it. He just happened to be caught. After all, the dressing room speech, am I right? If your defense is, congratulations! Now you know where to start fighting hockey abuse.

All hockey players and fans know what hockey culture is like and what dressing room culture is like, so why don’t everyone fight every day to change it? As hockey grows around the world and becomes more and more popular, children will be skating at the age of two. Is this culture really the one you want the next generation of hockey players to grow? One where they degrade people and it gets them into locker rooms from points with their teammates?

By refusing to deal with crimes and simply shifting the causes to hockey culture, you use boys ’equivalence as boys to defend the defenseless. It is this way of thinking that leads Mailloux to think that hell has no effect on obvious inappropriate behavior. When it continues for so long and rises to the top, it leads to a gut-like fiasco like the Brad Aldrich where the Chicago Blackhawks are at the moment, or countless other stories of players doing things that deserve severe punishment. which you hear only in silent whispers. This culture and attitude has been so significant in hockey for so long that former players and coaches have covered up such crimes for years.

Whenever there is a new situation in a sport like this where we hear more heartbreaking claims where bolder victims come up to tell stories in an attempt to add a little responsibility to a completely broken system that refuses to acknowledge how broken it is, hockey fans find themselves asking, how could we have allowed this to happen? What can we do to prevent this from continuing?

The answer is simple: There must be zero tolerance for any kind of abuse in sport. Because the NHL does not actively deprive players who have committed these crimes of the benefit of joining an NHL team, ensuring that these players give them a second chance on their first shot, the NHL sends a clear message: in an effort to lay hands on the Stanley Cup, victims of abuse, primarily women, but not exclusively women. , as the situation in Chicago shows, is considered to be simply an acceptable form of security in the event of an intolerable league.