UBC track sexual assault allegations

glass houses wrote:

Old thread discussing this got deleted, but seems there is some evidence to it now. Important to discus, but please be respectful of the victim.

https://vancouversun.com/news/ubc-athlete-sues-coach-and-university-over-sexual-assault-allegations

Sexual assault is almost as bad as racism. Well, not quite but the penalty should be the same.

Seems non-contentious to state any assertion of improper physical contact irrevocably “clouds” the reputation and career of the accused - even should that not be conclusively proven. It’s also obvious and acknowledged some accused are guilty. Neither statement takes a position in this case or in general, but notes that given serious consequence, due process needs to be respected and zeal to support the accuser should not entail rush to judgement or trampling rights of the accused - which UBC has been found to have done in a not-dissimilar case. Now how in blazes do you interpret that as a call to public shaming of the accuser ? That’s some Cirque du Soliel act. Basis for concluding guilt is the accused was said to be in a room with a practitioner ? Is this mot usual? Activist internet mobs take it too far, sometimes. The now-disgraced head of the BC Civil Liberties Association is calling for widespread burning of churches. Cool heads are in short supply.

not ernest wrote:

So according to you, we should collectively shame the woman coming forward? Because she has “clouded” the accused reputation? The victim is suing UBC for negligence, so I don’t think that the school did much for the victim. It’s already been proven that the victim was alone with the accused in a treatment room. This is enough to warrant real concern.

Ernest said-

“Neither statement takes a position in this case or in general, but notes that given serious consequence, due process needs to be respected and zeal to support the accuser should not entail rush to judgement or trampling rights of the accused“

Fact-due process not respected for survivor by team

Fact-many rushed to judge survivor due to the zoom call where select and misleading parts of a confidential document were shown to over 40 athletes and some parents. This call isolated survivor from members of team and “trampled their rights” by violating their privacy

Fact-the right to a safe place to learn and train was stripped from the survivor who then had to switch institutions

Fact-there have been devastating consequences to all aspects of the survivor’s life

Etc.etc.

Ernest said-

“Basis for concluding guilt is the accused was said to be in a room with a practitioner ? Is this mot usual?”

Fact-survivor was in a room alone with their coach- not usual. Against policies and better judgement.

TL;DR - Big sentences to avoid responding to how independent reviewer stated the coach breached consent and how coach doing a solo massage with athlete is a serious breach

Survivor...of a massage?

To all the women who are actual survivors of sexual assault this minimizes their trauma.

speedy Gonzalez222 wrote:

Survivor...of a massage?

To all the women who are actual survivors of sexual assault this minimizes their trauma.

Hey team refer to bullet point 4 in the link-

speedy Gonzalez222 wrote:

Survivor...of a massage?

To all the women who are actual survivors of sexual assault this minimizes their trauma.

It does not.

What’s your source for this claim about SG?

Ernest wrote:

The UBC professor is now working as a pool cleaner.

To all Canadian runners, avoid UBC at all costs. This team is poison.

Me too movement is out of control.

slowr wrote:

The investigator concluded that the coach touched the athlete in an intimate area without her consent and without sexual intent. Was this area her glutes? Her upper thigh? The investigator didn’t specify genitals.

The athletes, with their context, appear to be in support of the coach.

Really team. Maybe this will help you.

A quote from Ubyssey article date July 12, 2021 by Paoloma Grren,

“ Toor said going forward, UBC Athletics has identified a few needs around sexual violence prevention, including building awareness of sexualized violence, ensuring a safe environment, training staff and students to be able to support survivors appropriately and committing to a regular review of policies and practices.

The department of athletics and recreation will be providing an update on a “go-forward plan” around sexual violence by mid-August.

In an interview with The Ubyssey, SASC Manager Aashna Josh said that she thinks UBC Athletics should look into implementing the training series.”

Is there a reason for posting anonymously - do these views not deserve accountability and attribution? These points, even if accurate, are incomplete and demonstrate "straw man" logical fallacy. They do not refute anything presented, at least by me. More like emotional outbursts demonstrating strong prejudice, exclusion of a presumption of innocence, and inconsistent with balanced assessment. There's a reason why the Statue of Justice wears a blindfold. Unless you're against due process, that is. In which case I've mistaken Canada for Communist China. Please accept my apologies then and kindly let me know which indoctrination camp to report to for re-education.

"Mr. Galloway launched his lawsuit in October, 2018. He says he has lost all of his writing, speaking and teaching work and is now cleaning pools."https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-details-of-ubc-actions-revealed-through-defamation-suit-brought-by/

Er... wrote:

What’s your source for this claim about SG?

Ernest wrote:

The UBC professor is now working as a pool cleaner.

The Galloway situation is a whole mess, but I don't think it's proving what you think it is. Galloway is suing because of reputational damages, not because he was falsely accused/wrongfully dismissed. He had a relationship with a graduate student, which is not allowed regardless of age by UBC (for reasons made obvious by this case). He does not dispute this. Galloway says the relationship was consensual, the student says otherwise. Either way, it is a violation of UBC policy and his being fired was justified. The dispute is whether UBC should have released his name while the case was ongoing. Presumably, Galloway feels that the extent he has been "cancelled" is not in proportion with his actions, and that UBC releasing his name before it was all settled contributed to this.

I would assume it is for this reason that the accused in the track case remains "anonymous" and why all threads naming them will no doubt be cleaned/deleted.

Thanks. Hadn’t read that one.

Hey “Ernest”,

“ She also says, “I don’t know in good conscience that I would tell women who have been sexually assaulted to come forward.”

This is right at the end of your article!,,,

The 2015 case referred to is not at all related the current issue.

-institution is not naming accused or goIng public about them

-survivor is not naming accused

-survivor had nothing to do with the Vancouver Sun article-reporters access court documents and report directly from the court registry

-a zoom call tarnished the reputation of the survivor which led to their departure from team and institution.

In quizzical disconnect, it was stated earlier a call was made to mass-shame an accuser. Nothing posted remotely suggests that - nor contends accusers aren't truthful or impacted. Nothing posted suggests Galloway or the RMT referred to in this thread are innocent and undeserving of dismissal. What is stated is those accused should be assumed innocent until found otherwise via due process. And that those accused also have rights which need to be respected and protected. Without that, investigations become witch hunts. There seems a view anything less than instant condemnation and harshest possible sanction (of the accused) is victim-blaming/shaming. Supporting accusers does not require corrupting judicial process or stripping basic rights, inconvenient as these seem. The internet can have a lynch-mob mentality. Some of that is shown in cancel culture and here. The point of the Galloway comparison is UBC has already overstepped itself in a sexual misconduct investigation - which resulted in a 1/4 million dollar judgment and 5 million in legal fees, so far. It's important to get this right.

there are wrote:

Hey “Ernest”,

“ She also says, “I don’t know in good conscience that I would tell women who have been sexually assaulted to come forward.”

This is right at the end of your article!,,,

The 2015 case referred to is not at all related the current issue.

-institution is not naming accused or goIng public about them

-survivor is not naming accused

-survivor had nothing to do with the Vancouver Sun article-reporters access court documents and report directly from the court registry

-a zoom call tarnished the reputation of the survivor which led to their departure from team and institution.

there are wrote:

-a zoom call tarnished the reputation of the survivor which led to their departure from team and institution.

I think this point has been overlooked in this thread. If the accused is not named under the pretense of a "fair trial" and not getting "cancelled" unduly in the court of public opinion before the matter is settled, then they should afford the same opportunity to the victim. Why should we owe this person privacy when they clearly had no respect for the victim's right to a due process? Disgusting, but perhaps not unexpected.

All seems such a load of BS. BS I tell ya BS.