London Grapples with Consent, Culture, and the Hockey Trial's Aftermath

Following the verdict in the sexual assault trial of five former members of Canada’s world junior hockey team, a thunderstorm descended upon London, Ontario. Despite the weather, the atmosphere in the bar district near the courthouse remained lively. Young men and women moved between bars along Richmond Street, socializing and vaping, seemingly unfazed by the rain.

The news of the not-guilty verdict had begun to circulate. The events that led to the trial originated at a bar called Jack's, where one of the players met the complainant and later took her to a nearby hotel. The events within that hotel room sparked a national discussion, raising questions about power dynamics, hockey culture, and the definition of sexual consent.

The Globe and Mail spent time on the street, gathering opinions on the verdict. Some expressed disappointment. One woman, a 31-year-old insurance sales representative, felt that the verdict undermined the voices of women. She stated her belief in the complainant, despite the judge's assessment of her credibility. The judge had declared the players not guilty of sexual assault, citing a lack of credible or reliable evidence from the complainant.

Another woman, a marketing professional, had a different perspective. She believed the complainant had opportunities to leave the hotel room and that she was drawn to the hockey players. She felt the case could harm women who have experienced domestic violence or abuse by potentially discrediting them. A criminology student agreed that false accusations of sexual assault could make it difficult to believe genuine cases.

A realtor, understood the judge's decision but also sympathized with the complainant's situation. She believed consent had not been given. A mechanical engineer, was handing out Bible quotes and expressed his view that the case highlighted a failure of hockey leaders to teach players proper conduct. He believed the players should have exercised better judgment, regardless of the legal definition of their actions.