Pat Hickey's Mouth

[Colin]

My response:

http://aconcernedfan.com/?p=55

Hickey's original post:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Fleury+poster+fighting+abuse/5849699/story.html

After the outcry, his response post:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/been+accused+blaming+victim+Hickey/5853758/story.html

[Habsy]

When I see Fleury on TV, I change the channel. I think James should be in prison for a mighty long time, but I can't watch anymore. November was a sickening month.

[BTH]

My response:

http://aconcernedfan.com/?p=55

Hickey's original post:

http://www.montrealg...9699/story.html

After the outcry, his response post:

http://www.montrealg...3758/story.html

First time I read that article but I think you misunderstood his point.

"Nobody should question Fleury's decision to remain silent. What should be questioned is Fleury's continuing role in James's life. At the time of Kennedy's revelations, James was the coach of the Calgary Hitmen. He was one of the co-owners of the junior team in the Western Hockey League. One of the other owners was Theoren Fleury. Here was someone who had suffered abuse at the hands of Graham James. Here was someone who knew that James had abused other players. Here was someone who was exposing other children to the same sexual predator."

He isn't blaming Fleury for keeping silent for so many years (see: the 1st sentence). He's blaming Fleury for exposing other children to somebody he knew was dangerous for them to be around (see: the rest of the paragraph).

The question then is: Is trauma from past abuse an acceptable excuse for putting others in a situation where there is above average potential to be abused, when you alone possess the ability to protect them from that threat?

I don't think "Not really" is such an inflammatory answer. (But then again I don't really ever get "outraged" by supposedly offensive stuff people say.) Seems like a non-issue to me unless you misinterpret what he said.

[Colin]

The question then is: Is trauma from past abuse an acceptable excuse for putting others in a situation where there is above average potential to be abused, when you alone possess the ability to protect them from that threat?

I don't think "Not really" is such an inflammatory answer. (But then again I don't really ever get "outraged" by supposedly offensive stuff people say.) Seems like a non-issue to me unless you misinterpret what he said.

Ah youth. You like to make everything seem so simple.

[Commandant]

Your link isn't working for me for some reason. So I can't comment on it.

However I'll bring up someone else's blog post... one I'm in 100% agreement with. http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2011/12/14/2636227/hickey-doesnt-get-it

I find everything that Hickey has said and done in this case to be utterly repugnant and despicable.

We shouldn't critique Fleury because he stayed silent for so long. The victim/abuser relationship is a complex one.

Fleury as 1/18th owner of the Hitmen (of with James himself, and Sheldon Kennedy were also part owners), had little if any role in hiring James. Lets remember Fleury was an NHL player at the time, was massively messed up on drugs at the time, was an emotional and psychological wreck, and was totally and utterly dependant on James and fearful of him. He was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Stockholm Syndrome. I don't think we can really blame him for the silence.

Meanwhile Fleury is the minority owner of the team. The team decides to hire another minority owner as its coach. Here is what James' resume was at the time.

- coached NHL superstars Joe Sakic and Theo Fleury.

- CHL coach of the year

- Memorial Cup Champion.

- took the Swift Current Broncos and took them on one of the greatest stories in the history of the CHL. A last place club that had a major bus accident, watched 4 players on the team die, and just two years later were Memorial Cup Champions with the brother of one of the deceased as their MVP. It was a touching story of heartbreak and triumph. James was damn near a hero before the allegations came out.

So really the only way for Fleury to stop the James hire was for him to speak up and accuse him of abuse. Sheldon Kennedy, and all the other players who James abused were also keeping silent at the time of the hire 1995. It was not til 1997 that Kennedy came forward and James was charged and relieved of his duties.

Any former abuse victim, owner or not, who came forward would have stopped James. And so if we want to blame Fleury and call him a hypocrit, then we have to say that every single victim of abuse who does not come forward immediately is responsible for any future abuse victims.

Abuse is such a huge impact on a child psychologically... it messes up their mind... you can't think rationally. I dont' blame any victim who is silent and takes years to accept and deal with the abuse before they are comfortable talking about it. These predators prey on the weakest of the weak... the kids (like Fleury and Kennedy) who come from broken homes and can't defend themselves. They are despicable human beings, and I have a hard time criticizing Fleury in any way for the years it took him to finally speak up. He was obviously a mentally damaged individual.

Hickey wants to draw parallels between Fleury and Penn State. I'm sorry, that doesn't work. Fleury is a silent victim... the silent victim should never be seen as an enabler. Joe Paterno and the President of Penn State are rational adults who knew abuse was happening and allowed it to continue. Sandusky did not have power or control over them, like James did with Fleury. The psychological damage isn't there... these are just adults who were more concerned with winning at football and the schools reputation than reporting a pedofile. Thats a huge problem. Fleury is much, much different.

[BTH]

Ah youth. You like to make everything seem so simple.

If by that you mean that I tend not to muddy logical issues with emotion and bias (relatively), then I agree with you.

As for the question I posed, I don't really have an opinion. It's a complicated moral dilemma. If anything is oversimple, it's to say that abuse victims have no further moral responsibilities because they're in a fragile state. If it comes to a point where their silence is endangering others, I can understand an argument stating that they're morally accountable to act. That being said, we simultaneously need to alter our standards and expectations of their behavior and reasoning abilities. Presumably, there is some line there that can be crossed there. I could see how Hickey's argument could be defended even if I'm not necessarily a supporter of his viewpoint. For one thing, as that blog Commandant quoted pointed out, it doesn't seem like Fleury was that involved in hiring Kennedy.

This article makes me like Hickey a little bit more. It's one of the first times I've seen him have an actual opinion on something. Typically, he just says what everyone else is saying.