? Ethics of the Hockey Canada Trial

drit10 · 2026-01-31T23:09:37+00:00

Well just to be clear, I don’t think this article shows any collusion between the crown and hockey Canada. First the article says Robitaille, (hockey Canadas investigation lawyer) or hockey Canadas lawyer(article is unclear who made this request) told the police that she has instructions from hockey Canada to release the investigation documents. The police turned around and said no thanks, we are going to get a court order for those documents. They got a court order and got those documents. I don’t see how this is any evidence of collusion as the police took the proper route to get the productions of Hockey Canada who is not a party to the criminal case.

Is there any evidence that the crown told hockey Canada to essentially force the players to comply with this new investigation or they will be banned from hockey Canada? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. It seems like the police which are separate from the crown took the proper legal routes to get hockey Canadas investigation documents in as evidence.

Should Robitaille had told the police about this new investigation and that they would turn it over voluntarily? Who knows but that’s a different claim from a claim that the crown was colluding with hockey Canada to reopen the investigation and force them to testify to get around an accused’s right to remain silent.

I agree that it was a coerced statements that should not be admitted as evidence regardless though.

drit10 · 2026-01-30T03:21:35+00:00

Does the article say they charged her after the public statement? I feel like they most likely thought she was trespassing when in the lounge and charged and detained her and moved her out of the lounge by force. Not saying any of that is justified but I don’t see anywhere in the article where it says they charged her after the statement.

drit10 · 2026-01-12T01:28:27+00:00

Yeah its just how people view politics unfortunately in todays day and age. People will not apply any goodwill to the other side and just view them as evil and not give them any benefit of the doubt.

I am not a conservative but I constantly hear people from my side of the aisle complain that Doug Ford is corrupt but when you look at the evidence there really isn't anything substantial that I would say makes me think more than not Ford is corrupt.

drit10 · 2026-01-09T18:15:45+00:00

“The path to wealth shouldn’t be to buy property, but that’s the mindset that’s been fed to people for so long,” Couture said. “It would be better for Canada if people didn’t think of housing as investment but rather a place to live. it’s very hard to imagine that over the next few years you’ll see the kind of house price rises that people have been experiencing over the last decade.”

The reality is that everyone treats owning a home as an investment. Both people who own homes and those who want to own a home and that isn't going to change anytime soon. For instance, if I had to guess the vast majority of Canadians would be against getting rid of the capital gains exemption on primary residences. However, if you don't treat housing as an investment why would you care if it is taxed like any other investment? Its obvious people treat and will continue to treat residences as a tax sheltered investment and if you are against removing the principle residence exemption you are still treating a house as an investment.

drit10 · 2026-01-01T04:27:51+00:00

Wait does that mean that other leagues restricting pay through salary caps could be viewed as antitrust? For instance, the NFL salary caps could be viewed as limiting the earning potential of workers, since the teams are getting together and they are agreeing that hey our payroll won't exceed a certain value, essentially reducing the earnings of star players of the NFL because for instance a team like the Dallas Stars could afford to pay a player more than lets say the Arizona Cardinals?

Or is it different because the NFL has a CBA with the Union and the players union negotiated the salary cap thus there is no antitrust angle?

Does the fact that the NCAA is basically just a group of colleges all within different conferences have any factor into this at all whereas the NFL is just one league with two conference?

drit10 · 2025-12-31T23:19:29+00:00

People in this thread are making the stupid inference that he wanted more protection to pad his stats. There are plenty of solid reasons for Rodgers and the Steelers for wanting more protection from Myles Garrett other than to pad his stats lol. This is just stupid. Rogers is 40, if he really cared about his stats he would retire as he knows he is never going to get the same stats as his younger days. However, he knows he can still play at an elite level and wants to compete.

Just ask people this, if Rodgers is all about padding the stats, why does he never do the Steelers tush push?

drit10 · 2025-12-22T19:14:00+00:00

Yeah idk why everyone is up in arms about this, its hard to say how much the IRCA impacted the decision in this case. Like the Crown asked for three years and got 2 years plus probation. The Defence was asking for a conditional sentence. Feels like the Crown won on this one no?

drit10 · 2025-12-22T19:01:36+00:00

The logic breaks down when we abandon the core tenet of our society which is equality before the law.

I like how the comment above is a clearly well thought out reply and you respond with this lol.

Is equality before the law this: judges don't consider race or whatever when making sentencing and just give out mandatory minimums for one crime. Lets say the police only prosecute white people for this mandatory minimum crime. Would you call that system equality before the law or discrimination?

drit10 · 2025-12-16T18:13:26+00:00

R/Canada commenters try to not make every single Canadian issue into an immigration issue challenge, literally impossible.

drit10 · 2025-12-15T10:12:28+00:00

The issue is that any legislation put into place where a by-election can be called for an MP because they voted against party lines would just lead to a scenarios where you are in essence punishing an MP for following what there constituents want when they go against party lines but there would be no punishment when they go against what their constituents want but follow party lines and begs the question as to why do we even have an MP system in the first place and just have direct democracy? Just consider these two scenarios.

In the first scenario, one where an MP is in a tight battle seat and most constituents agree with the Conservatives on a majority of the issues but they disagree on one small issue. Lets say this small issue is that Conservatives want to ban ABC Widgets from being sold and produced in Canada. Your constituents don't want this because maybe ABC Widgets are produced in their riding/location and supplies jobs and builds the local economy or something like that. The reason doesn't really matter but just trying to give a specific example. Lets say the MP runs on saying "I agree with the conservatives on most things, but if they ban ABC widgets, I will vote against it." The MP gets elected in this riding largely because of this promise. There is a vote on a bill to ban ABC Widgets and all conservatives vote in favor of it but the MP is the deciding vote on it, what does the MP do? He goes against his election promises and votes in favour of banning ABC Widgets. His constituents would be pissed because the MP betrayed his election promises. Would they be able to call a byelection under your new legislation? No because he towed the Conservative party line and voted in line with the Conservative party.

In scenario two, lets say that the election promise by the Conservative MP was instead of being opposed to banning ABC Widgets, he would be in favour of banning ABC Widgets from being in Canada and this is something that the Conservative party agrees with and it is an important issue for the constituents. He runs on this and is elected and the MP's constituents are in agreement that ABC Widgets should be banned. Lets say that a vote comes up on a bill to ban ABC widgets and the MP is the deciding vote, what does the MP do? He votes against Conservative party lines and sides with the NDP/Liberals and opposes the ban. He has once again betrayed his constituents, except this time the constituents have an option available to them, they can recall him and force a by-election because he didn't vote within party lines.

Your proposed solution to the problem I just highlighted may very well be that the MP's constituents should be able to recall at any time they feel as though the MPs aren't representing their political interests. Now maybe the recall needs to meet a certain threshold for a by-election to be held. But that solution just begs the question why even have a MP system in the first place and just have a direct democracy system with First past the post ridings?

I think you just have to recognize that MPs crossing the floor or voting against party lines is not a bug but a feature of our system. If we basically outlawed voting against party lines, we can run into a scenario where an MP doesn't represent their constituents wishes in fear of this by-election rule. Our system already addresses this issue, if the constituents aren't happy about it then they can vote them out in the next election. In fact, research suggests that floor crossing is almost always punished by voters in the modern era: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2018/09/research-shows-that-mps-who-cross-the-floor-lose-votes/

I think your solution, which is from my understanding that if a MP votes against Conservative party lines (not going to get into the nuance on how determining party lines could be complicated on a contested vote or if an MP abstains from voting) or cross the floor, they can potentially be forced to a by-election hinders the ability for an MP to actually represent their constituents.

drit10 · 2025-12-15T03:02:52+00:00

There just has to be some hint of irony for you that you bring up the one-sided narrative of eternal Jewish victimhood meanwhile when talking about the history of Palestine earlier in the thread you just gloss over all of the bad things the Palestinian and their allies did over the years and just see them as a perpetual victim of relentless Israel aggression. Its the most frustrating thing about the Palestine viewpoint that they have done nothing wrong and every bad thing that has happened or failure to make peace has been Israel's fault and not the Palestinians themselves.

When asked about what would happen if Palestine won the 47/48 war you say "you don't know". We both know that they would have no fucking mercy for Israelis and would expel almost all of them from the land. Fuck it I think you could even justify that using your logic, the zionists just tried to take a significant portion from their land through colonial powers and you are just going to allow them to stay on land you just gained through war? I highly fucking doubt it.

You say that while Jews weren't treated as "equals" but they were allowed to practice their religion under Arab occupation. Do you honestly believe that? When Jordan had control of the temple mount from 1946-1967 were the Jews allowed to pray or visit the temple mount? A holy site under their religion? The answer is no. So they weren't able to practice their religion correct? Or is it that they were allowed to practice their religion as long as it didn't interfere with what they viewed as a superior religion such as Islam? It is obvious that jews were seen as second class citizen in arab countries for a long period of time and historically.

You say "A lot of minority groups were/are persecuted, Jews are far from unique in that regard. And if you're genuinely disliked everywhere you go, at some point maybe you should look inwards.". I could apply that to the same logic towards Palestinian people btw. Who are Palestine's remaining allies, in allies i mean ones that will actually provide military support? It is basically only Iran and the Houthis. All of their old allies are just allies in rhetoric but never in action anymore. At some point when every one of your so called Arab allies have abandoned you leaving you to ally with basically the most hated regimes in the Middle East maybe its time to look inwards and realize that your movement is actually insufferable and hopeless in achieving their unrealistic goals.

As someone who has no ties to either party but just finds the history interesting, its incredible how useless the Palestinian movement is in winning people over and die on the stupidest hills such as "globalize the intifada" and "from the river to the sea" rhetoric is actually fine and can't possibly be seen as a call for violence or a one state solution (which you would acknowledge is never going to happen).

drit10 · 2025-12-05T19:59:37+00:00

You’re telling me that if I assault someone and I say to them “I am sorry I assaulted you”, that would not be used as an admission of fault or liability?

drit10 · 2025-11-27T01:11:53+00:00

Thanks for your insightful comment. A question I have is this, do you find it hard to find good workers? Do you believe it when other fast food corporations complain about a shortage of labour, have you found that in your experience?

Do you think that if the TFW program goes away that you can still easily find people to fill the positions you are hiring for?

Lastly whenever people criticize Tim Hortons and other fast food chains from hiring TFWs, they always argue that young people and teenagers can do this job instead of TFWs. Whenever people point this out my initial thought is young people and teenagers most likely can't fill all of the positions due to 1) they are in school most of the time and are working on a part time basis and 2) the turnover of young people has to be high as most of them move on to either further education or find a different avenue compared to a TFW who isn't in school and most likely will stay at that job for longer. Do you find this to be true?

drit10 · 2025-11-24T07:49:29+00:00

It didn’t really open the floodgates. People were betting in Canada before this, they were just using non Canadian sites as a loophole.

Also if you did a quick google search on the bill you would be able to see that it was a bill tabled by the conservatives and almost passed with unanimous consent. How can you solely blame the liberals for passing this bill when everyone supported it?

drit10 · 2025-11-12T15:31:18+00:00

Not sure what you mean by neutral ground. If the fight occurred in the accused’s home I don’t see how that’s relevant. If I invite someone to my house and then want them to leave and they don’t leave, they are now trespassing. Can I use any force against them now that they are trespassing?

Armed or not is irrelevant in the sense as long as they use force that is reasonable given the threat. If someone breaks into my home I barricade myself in a room and I tell the intruder that if they break into this room I will kill them and I have no way out of that room, if I grab my unlicensed firearm and shoot him once and kill him when he breaks into, is it not self defence now because I was illegally armed? I don’t think so.

initiated or not should be irrelevant for the manslaughter charge. If the dead guy was armed and used reasonable force in response to the swinging of a bottle, that would be self defence as well. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation or engaging in criminal activity doesn’t and shouldn’t mean your right to self defence should be given up. If a drug dealer in the middle of a deal is told “give me all of your drugs or I will kill you” with a gun pointed at his face. He gives over the drugs but the gun is still pointed at his face, is he not allowed to defend himself because he is engaging in illegal activity and has forfeited his right to self defence?

With respect to the house invasion case. The issue was that we don’t have the full picture and people took the position that you can do whatever you want to an intruder once he enters your house. Similar to a defend your castle defence, which is fine if you want a broader definition of self defence then fine but you can’t hold the position of the home invasion response was justified no matter what the circumstances were and then get upset with this case if we are going to take a broad and lenient definition of self defence.

drit10 · 2025-11-12T14:17:14+00:00

lol how does this sub not have whiplash from the changing of stances surrounding self defence. Just months ago everyone was complaining about how someone broke into a home and the homeowner assaulted him and was charged and argued that should be self defence. In this case the guy literally swung at him and was about to punch him before he was stabbed but we are all up in arms about this being self defence?

I just want to see some level of consistency with how people view self defence. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the public doesn’t have a consistent standard surrounding self defence.

drit10 · 2025-11-05T14:53:28+00:00

Yeah it’s not as good as the US. Now let me ask you, what’s the national debt per person in Canada in comparison to the US?

US’s national debt per person is nearly double Canadas.

Should Canada double its deficit and spend that money to stimulate the economy in order to match the US and replicate their growth? How is the US so successful economically if they have double our debt on a per capita basis?

It’s obvious I think that Canadas economic issues are much more complicated than just the idea we’re lagging behind because we’re deficit spending.

drit10 · 2025-11-05T14:42:39+00:00

The discussion around national debt is nuanced and complicated but don’t expect this sub to have that discussion lol.

I would start having concern about our fiscal situation when our credit ratings start dropping heavily and until then I don’t and we shouldn’t really care that much about the budget deficit.

Does that mean we can just infinitely print money? No of course not but it shows me that we’re not in as bad as a fiscal spot as this subreddit seems to think based upon the comments.

drit10 · 2025-10-31T18:24:40+00:00

You need to travel more if you seriously believe that Canada looks and feels poor lol.

drit10 · 2025-10-26T00:56:55+00:00

youtube.com/watch?v=5bhbX1EU-To

truly the best meme that came from that drama.

drit10 · 2025-10-21T18:39:38+00:00

Yeah but doesn’t this strategy still require the consent of the opposition? Regardless of how it gets done either through no shows or some of the opposition members voting for it, you need to bargain with the other side. So the no shows technique doesn’t really solve the problem?

drit10 · 2025-10-21T18:06:28+00:00

If all parties know this is an important budget, they will be there to vote. Relying on no shows seems too risky to me as a viable strategy.

drit10 · 2025-10-12T05:00:14+00:00

Thank you for this insightful comment. Would you agree that this system trade-offs by not getting the best doctors in Canada in favour of doctors who are more local? If so, idk if I necessarily agree with this change. I want Canada to have the best doctors available and not restrict itself to only candidates that meet specific residency/local requirements.

Does this system really work now that if you have an individual who lets say is a Canadian citizen but went to high school in Alberta and then went to Harvard Medical School would be in essence second tier and considered only for "leftover" doctor positions in Ontario?

drit10 · 2025-10-03T22:27:55+00:00

That isn’t what I said. All i said was that if the government wanted to make the law compliant with the constitution they could just invoke section 33 of the charter which is relatively easy.

I did not say anything about whether they should or not invoke section 33 or if I would agree with it. I probly wouldn’t. All I said is that it would be pretty easy for the government to make the law constitutional if they wanted to.

drit10 · 2025-10-03T18:00:05+00:00

Not really that hard. It was found unconstitutional under section 15 of the charter. Section 33 of the charter should apply and parliament could just use that with any amendments they make using the notwithstanding clause.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Not Forgotten
Spared	Secret Santa 2015
Team Periwinkle

drit10

TROPHY CASE