Good post. The fire Hickey bandwagon is a pure joke.
I think Fleury is seen as an opportunist regarding his past. I know I always have.
Being sexually abused is a terrible thing, and Hickey acknowledged that.
But Fleury comes across as needing the spot-light, and leveraging all his life experiences in a bid for $ympathy and $elf-promotion.
Frankly, we live in a world of victims, and Fleury is simply a man who falls in one of these categories. The fact that a journalist can not publish a critical article on a man that devote his life to be as much in the public spotlight as possible, is plenty hypocritical in itself.
Again, I'm not saying it's his fault that he was abused. So don't go there.
Well said. Hickey is a fair and balanced writer, I suspect he wrote this to gently expose Fleury's use of victim science to earn a living.
No one's saying Hickey doesn't have a right to write what he he wants.
We're saying what he wrote is ****ing retarded.
"Free speech" doesn't mean people have to accept what everyone else says. Give your head a shake
Free speech needs to be tempered with a little common sense. No one can go around saying anything they want especially in the media who must meet higher standards of law than hfboard users. What Pat Hickey did was tantamount to declaring Fleury an accomplice in James' further acts...that isn't free speech, that is slander. He could have put the gist of his idea in a different light. The way it is now leaves all the blame on the victim for not "dealing" with "it" properly.
And before anyone jumps on me for being "anti" free-speech, keep in mind I've spent 19 years (and counting) in Canada's military.
No one's saying Hickey doesn't have a right to write what he he wants.
We're saying what he wrote is ****ing retarded.
"Free speech" doesn't mean people have to accept what everyone else says. Give your head a shake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifaxhab
Free speech needs to be tempered with a little common sense. No one can go around saying anything they want especially in the media who must meet higher standards of law than hfboard users. What Pat Hickey did was tantamount to declaring Fleury an accomplice in James' further acts...that isn't free speech, that is slander. He could have put the gist of his idea in a different light. The way it is now leaves all the blame on the victim for not "dealing" with "it" properly.
And before anyone jumps on me for being "anti" free-speech, keep in mind I've spent 19 years (and counting) in Canada's military.
But what is Hickey saying wrong? He acknowledges the difficulties of living with being abused. The only thing he says that can be argued is Fleury a hypocrite or not? Well how can you say the justice system is flawed because it grants him months free when Fleury himself granted him years of freedom by not speaking up.
I understand the difficulties of speaking up, I will never argue that someone who has been hurt yesterday will be willing to talk about it today. But Fleury should realize that he himself left Graham free by not speaking up, especially in 97 when the case was before court because of Kennedy. I won't go into the whole publicity thing (in todays age any exposure seems to be good exposure). I just don't believe Fleury has the right to criticize the justice system when he himself had an opportunity to aid the justice system almost 15 years ago and didn't. Yes it may of been hard, and as Hickey alludes to he was more then a fringe NHL player but in the end you should criticize yourself before others. Could I of done more? If the answer is yes, well you should keep your comments to yourself and live with the decision you take.
Hickey has every right to discuss Fleury and his actions that he takes in a public medium. Hickey simply called him a hypocrite for saying the justice system is flawed because Graham gets to walk free. If Fleury spoke up years ago, who knows the situation would be like today? (I agree with Fleury being a hypocrite in the situation of today. Do I think it was easy for him then, or even now to talk about what happened? Of course not, but this isn't the issue with the article)
Free speech needs to be tempered with a little common sense. No one can go around saying anything they want especially in the media who must meet higher standards of law than hfboard users. What Pat Hickey did was tantamount to declaring Fleury an accomplice in James' further acts...that isn't free speech, that is slander. He could have put the gist of his idea in a different light. The way it is now leaves all the blame on the victim for not "dealing" with "it" properly.
And before anyone jumps on me for being "anti" free-speech, keep in mind I've spent 19 years (and counting) in Canada's military.
In fact, outside of hate speech, Canadians can say anything they want, especially if it's true. Our legal system builds in possible consequences for people who speak and write untruths.
On your use of the word slander, Hickey didn't declare Fleury an accomplice in James further acts, rather a hypocrit for blaming officials for giving James freedoms that Fleury only recently has shown concern about. There is nothing untrue there, just opinion and proven facts.
It's a true article , it's a fair article. The poster you responded to was not lecturing us on free speech, just wondering as I did what basis anyone has for demanding someone be fired when they write the truth.
But what is Hickey saying wrong? He acknowledges the difficulties of living with being abused. The only thing he says that can be argued is Fleury a hypocrite or not? Well how can you say the justice system is flawed because it grants him months free when Fleury himself granted him years of freedom by not speaking up.
I understand the difficulties of speaking up, I will never argue that someone who has been hurt yesterday will be willing to talk about it today. But Fleury should realize that he himself left Graham free by not speaking up, especially in 97 when the case was before court because of Kennedy. I won't go into the whole publicity thing (in todays age any exposure seems to be good exposure). I just don't believe Fleury has the right to criticize the justice system when he himself had an opportunity to aid the justice system almost 15 years ago and didn't. Yes it may of been hard, and as Hickey alludes to he was more then a fringe NHL player but in the end you should criticize yourself before others. Could I of done more? If the answer is yes, well you should keep your comments to yourself and live with the decision you take.
Hickey has every right to discuss Fleury and his actions that he takes in a public medium. Hickey simply called him a hypocrite for saying the justice system is flawed because Graham gets to walk free. If Fleury spoke up years ago, who knows the situation would be like today? (I agree with Fleury being a hypocrite in the situation of today. Do I think it was easy for him then, or even now to talk about what happened? Of course not, but this isn't the issue with the article)
My issue with Hickey's article, and I believe many people's as well, is that while Hickey acknowledges the difficulty a victim faces when trying speak up, he fails completely in understanding the extent of that difficulty. I've worked with victim's of abuse briefly, this hardly makes me an expert, but I learned enough to realise that the extent of the psychological trauma is gigantic. This is something that happens to kids, and they go through adolescence living with it. Adolescence is when you develop a sense of self, and having that corrupted by abuse is damaging to the highest degree. Ghost's post articulates this very well.
It's not just extremely difficult for a victim to speak up, sometimes it's downright impossible, even regardless of courage.
So Hickey declaring Fleury a hypocrite because 'he could have spoken up sooner' just flaunts his ignorance on the subject. A journalist shouldn't denounce a person pubically based on facts made up in their mind.
Edit: Sorry, I don't mean this post to look like I'm picking on you or anything! You're just the person that happened to have replied to me. I'm just trying to explain to some people that it's not a question of speaking up 'being hard' or a question of 'cougrage' or 'mental strength' or 'fortitude' or any other term like that. It's like saying a depressed person is depressed because they're weak. Mental illness is just that, and illness and has little to do with strength of character.
Political correctness is nothing more than a form of modern oppression that keeps you from feeling/saying what you really feel/think. We all have to feel and think the same things you know.. we have a SOCIETY to maintain after all.. we all have ROLES to play...A victim has a role to play as does a predator. We know that questioning a victim is not acceptable. As a society we MUST cast blame on the DESERVING as judged by the norms and modes of our SOCIETY. WE cannot discuss freely and openly in public forums as this goes against our common goal of political correctness and not saying anything that will get a person thinking outside of the norm.. look.. its even called THE NORM.. NORM.. NORMAL.. go outside the norm.. you're a FREAK and must be CONDEMNED.
Some posts in this thread are kind of scary... How can anyone defend Hickey?
Because he makes some good points, even though they are unpopular ones? I actually don't care for his articles, never have, but he brings up some good points about Fleury.
Some posts in this thread are kind of scary... How can anyone defend Hickey?
I think that's kind of going to the other extreme. There have been sensible posts from people having both opinions. It's not as if Hickey flat out said Fleury is a coward and Kennedy is better and screw Fleury, etc. He was telling a story that many find compelling, but have issue with the "hypocrite" part. Although I was leaning towards understanding what Hickey was saying, it's by no means clear cut in my mind and many posts have made me really think about the situation. I don't think any of us blame Fleury, at the most, it's an issue with the hiring, which can be debated. Either way it is a gray area and really I think a lot of us just wish Hickey had made his point better, since it's not an insignificant subject. The stockholm syndrome thing, you can either accept it as that's what he was going through or have your own opinion of what Fleury should have done (it's simply assumed that he had no mental will at the time of the hiring, but it may not be the case, we don't know). Hopefully a clarification will come out of this, but seriously, Pat Hickey is not Glenn Beck or even Jack Todd FTM. Calling for his firing isn't really warranted. Messy piece, yes, but worthy of him being fired, no way. There are way more offensive things being said in public, by public officials and in other newspapers. This is just a touchy subject and can be remedied by a follow up.
Has anyone in here been sexually abused as a child?
If not I don't think you can go around blasting Fleury for the way he handled things earlier in his life. I can't even imagine the toll that takes on someones state of mind.
Because he makes some good points, even though they are unpopular ones? I actually don't care for his articles, never have, but he brings up some good points about Fleury.
For me I could care less what either of them said. What bothers me is how people react.. they don't see for themselves.. they hear "child molestation" cover their mouths in disgust and don't even think about what's actually happened. To truly imagine something like that stirs deep sickening emotions. Most people tend to numb those out so when it comes to subjects like these they go with the common feeling, not their own.
This is a hockey board yes, but this is sociological condition of our world that has to change. Where has the feeling gone? Are we all really so numbed out by our TVs and Ipads we can't feel anything real anymore?
Both Fleury and Hickey wanted to get a little something for themselves from this.. that's what's actually disgusting. Fleury's pride in overcoming this.. no.. Fleury, if you ever want to get over this you wouldn't have any pride at all.. pride is nothing more than a warped form of guilt.. it has the same features, it's just a different perspective of the same thing. We all take so much pride in our opinions, our suffering.. why?
In fact, outside of hate speech, Canadians can say anything they want, especially if it's true. Our legal system builds in possible consequences for people who speak and write untruths.
On your use of the word slander, Hickey didn't declare Fleury an accomplice in James further acts, rather a hypocrit for blaming officials for giving James freedoms that Fleury only recently has shown concern about. There is nothing untrue there, just opinion and proven facts.
It's a true article , it's a fair article. The poster you responded to was not lecturing us on free speech, just wondering as I did what basis anyone has for demanding someone be fired when they write the truth.
Canadians can say anything they want...to a certain limit (see Human Rights Tribunal). A journalist cannot, due to those "consequences" you mentioned.
Some may question Fleury's motives...but how many feel the justice system is in need of some changes when it comes to punishments (I know my brother who is a cop wants harsher terms for these parasites).
And there are better ways to question his motives.
Also, if he's calling Fleury a hypocrite than I guess that Joe Sakic and every other player on James’ teams that have never come forth with an ounce of nerve are also hypocrites.
Edit: Agnostic, I do appreciate your discussion on this as well as being very much on point and respectful...a rareity in this day and age
Has anyone in here been sexually abused as a child?
If not I don't think you can go around blasting Fleury for the way he handled things earlier in his life. I can't even imagine the toll that takes on someones state of mind.
I never was, but I myself experienced a level of childhood oppression that taught me many many things, all of which make me stronger today. When I witness people going on about their weakness it upsets me because that's how you give power to predators everywhere.. you have to forgive yourself, stand up and move on or forever be oppressed by it.
Has anyone in here been sexually abused as a child?
If not I don't think you can go around blasting Fleury for the way he handled things earlier in his life. I can't even imagine the toll that takes on someones state of mind.
No, but I've lost loved ones to drunk driving and I haven't initiated a class action suit against HNIC for having Crown Royal sponsor every segment possible. I can deal with people having a different opinion, even that tool Hickey. He isn't supporting James, just questioning Fleury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Pilkington
For me I could care less what either of them said. What bothers me is how people react.. they don't see for themselves.. they hear "child molestation" cover their mouths in disgust and don't even think about what's actually happened. To truly imagine something like that stirs deep sickening emotions. Most people tend to numb those out so when it comes to subjects like these they go with the common feeling, not their own.
My issue with Hickey's article, and I believe many people's as well, is that while Hickey acknowledges the difficulty a victim faces when trying speak up, he fails completely in understanding the extent of that difficulty. I've worked with victim's of abuse briefly, this hardly makes me an expert, but I learned enough to realise that the extent of the psychological trauma is gigantic. This is something that happens to kids, and they go through adolescence living with it. Adolescence is when you develop a sense of self, and having that corrupted by abuse is damaging to the highest degree. Ghost's post articulates this very well.
It's not just extremely difficult for a victim to speak up, sometimes it's downright impossible, even regardless of courage.
So Hickey declaring Fleury a hypocrite because 'he could have spoken up sooner' just flaunts his ignorance on the subject. A journalist shouldn't denounce a person pubically based on facts made up in their mind.
Edit: Sorry, I don't mean this post to look like I'm picking on you or anything! You're just the person that happened to have replied to me. I'm just trying to explain to some people that it's not a question of speaking up 'being hard' or a question of 'cougrage' or 'mental strength' or 'fortitude' or any other term like that. It's like saying a depressed person is depressed because they're weak. Mental illness is just that, and illness and has little to do with strength of character.
No worries, a discussion amongst peers is something we can all appreciate.
I agree with you. No way do I believe it is easy for anyone who is a victim of a traumatic experience to be able to speak up a day, a month, a year later. If someone confided in me something like this, I would never pressure them to go to the police although I may suggest it. Going to the police can be very difficult considering they will have to re-live the moment when they have to describe in detail the event.
However this doesn't absolve the issue of the article. Is Fleury a hypocrite for announcing that the Canadian Justice System is at fault for giving Graham more free time? I could agree if anyone but Fleury said it. But this isn't the issue. The issue is Fleury himself said it. The man who could of helped put Graham away years ago, who choose to be silent. (yes I understand why) In my mind he can not call out the justice system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze
Some posts in this thread are kind of scary... How can anyone defend Hickey?
Hickey is part of the problem by the way. Was anyone listening or writing hundreds of stories when Kennedy came forward, did anyone really care all that much.
The media blew up when a big name player like Fleury came forward. How many people pay attention when a doctor messes up and someone ends up dying, how about when that person is Micheal Jackson.
Hickey is part of the problem by the way. Was anyone listening or writing hundreds of stories when Kennedy came forward, did anyone really care all that much.
The media blew up when a big name player like Fleury came forward. How many people pay attention when a doctor messes up and someone ends up dying, how about when that person is Micheal Jackson.
Hickey is part of the problem by the way. Was anyone listening or writing hundreds of stories when Kennedy came forward, did anyone really care all that much.
The media blew up when a big name player like Fleury came forward. How many people pay attention when a doctor messes up and someone ends up dying, how about when that person is Micheal Jackson.
Yes because no one cares about joe shmo, this is Hickey's FAULT...
I am no Hickey apologist, I never even liked his articles. The man has a point. I am not sure if it's because some don't know how to identify the true nature of an article, but this is scary. All he does he say that Fleury had a chance to help the justice system and didn't. How can he criticize now when the justice system depends on the victims to come forward? I just don't agree that everyone can jump on Hickey for calling him a hypocrite, because I agree that he is.
Hickey is a moron... but I didn't like Fleury's comment on Twitter saying it wasn't surprising considering Hickey came from the province of Quebec, where there are more child sexual abuse than anywhere else in the country...
I'm not calling for Hickey's job, I'm just not sure it's in good taste to call someone who's afraid of talking about being abused as a child a hypocrite. His article should be praising Kennedy, not damning Fleury.
I don't get Fleury's latest comments, what the hell is that supposed to prove? EDIT: That was not Fleury that tweeted that, but he retweeted someone else or whatever.
My mistake, he didn't say it himself but he 'retweeted' it. Why retweet something as stupid as this?
aljackthedj Aljack
Funny the only person to attack u about this happens to b a writer from QC, the province with the highest child sex abuse rate @TheoFleury14
11 hours ago
Retweeted by TheoFleury14
