Show Notes
The Hockey Canada trial has been going on for two months now. And during that time, the Canadian media has meticulously covered every twist and turn that’s taken place in the London, Ontario courthouse. Five men — Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote and Carter Hart — have been accused of sexually assaulting a twenty-year-old woman, who is only being identified as E.M., after a Hockey Canada gala in 2018. All of them have pled not guilty and the judge is set to render a verdict on July 24. And while I’ve been following the trial closely, I’ve been especially interested in how the media has been covering the story, and the way that the public has been reacting to it all. Two years ago, Jordan and I made a series at Canadaland that focused specifically on the deep, systemic issues with hockey culture. And what became incredibly clear to us is that most of the media and the powers-that-be in the hockey world don’t understand or are unwilling to acknowledge what’s going on in the sport. During this trial, that’s become even more obvious. Because hockey doesn’t just have a problem with sexual violence. It has a problem with gang rape. Between 1989 and 2018, there was, on average, one alleged case of gang rape by professional hockey players every two years. And those are just the accusations that went public. And yet, every time this happens, the hockey world acts like it’s the first time. And the media tends to go along with it. Even when the press talks about the problem of sexual violence in hockey, they refuse to acknowledge the specificity. A handful of journalists and researchers — foremost amongst them Laura Robinson, who has been covering this for years, — have tried to explain what’s really happening. The truth is that, from a young age, many junior hockey players are hazed, beaten and sexually abused. And then are groomed by older players into engaging in group sex with their teammates. Sometimes these encounters are consensual for the girls and women involved. But too often, they’re not. All of this broader context has been missing from much of the coverage around the Hockey Canada trial. And that’s why I was relieved when I read a piece in The Globe and Mail by Andrea Werhun on this topic. Werhun is a writer and performer, best known for her memoir Modern W***e, which details her experience working as an escort and stripper. She was also a consultant on the most recent Academy Award Best Picture winner, Anora. And Werhun’s piece digs into all of this necessary context. And she also focuses in specifically on one piece of testimony from the complainant, in which she describes taking on a “porn star persona” during that night in the hotel room, as a coping mechanism. That quote became a cornerstone in the defence’s narrative disputing the allegations. And something that I’ve seen constantly brought up again and again in online comments that accuse EM of being a liar. My conversation with Werhun isn’t about trying to evaluate the criminal guilt or innocence of the men who are on trial. We won’t be digging into the conflicting stories or analyzing the specific evidence. This is about trying to understand the broader cycles of violence within men’s hockey. Featured in this episode: Andrea Werhun To learn more: “Porn isn’t to blame for sexual assault” by Andrea Werhun in The Globe and Mail “The Problem Hockey Won’t Name” from Canadaland COMMONS “Anatomy of a scandal” by CBC’s The Fifth Estate “Legal decision for the ‘Hockey Canada 5’ won’t come for weeks, but judgment can be rendered” by Dan Robson and Katie Strang in The Athletic Support us at hatchetmedia.substack.com The Hatchet is a podcast and newsletter dedicated to exposing power and money in Canada. We deliver important, original and fascinating journalism about how this country actually works. Music: I dunno by grapes (c) copyright 2008 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. Ft: J Lang, Morusque
This is a public episode. If you
More from The Hatchet
So today is the day of the Alberta referendum. And we just wanted to share with you some more of my conversation with Jeremy Appel. Here we dig into Danielle Smith’s origins as a media personality, and what that can teach us about her as a political figure. And specifically we take a look at some of the columns she wrote early on in her career where she espouses ideas like….how smoking can actually reduce your risk of cancer. It’s a really interesting lens through which to understand Danielle Smith and I had a lot of fun talking to Jeremy about it. Featured in this episode: Jeremy Appel To Learn More: Dark Phoenix: The Rise, Fall and Re-emergence of Danielle Smith by Jeremy Appel "Danielle Smith Claimed Smoking Cigarettes Had Positive Health Benefits" by Stephen Magusiak in Press Progress
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit hatchetmedia.ca
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit hatchetmedia.ca
There’s something that I’ve noticed lately when it comes to how we talk about whatever is happening in Canada these days. Every announcement from the government, every hot take from the newspaper columnists and the talking heads on the nightly news comes with a caveat: WE ARE IN A TRADE WAR. And that means that any investment in Canada right now is viewed as a great investment. Just don’t look too hard at the fine print. And for the most part, Canadians have been willing to go along on this ride. That is until last month, when Prime Minister Mark Carney hung up a “For Sale” sign on Canada’s four largest airports to a room filled with the world’s richest investors. This time, there has actually been some pushback. And I think that’s because it’s less clear who this is supposed to benefit. It’s hard not to think that Mark Carney’s Liberal’s have secured bottomless latitude to extract value out of Canada wherever they see fit — as long as it’s in the name of capital “I” investment. And if you’ve got a problem with that, well, you’re probably not on Team Canada. Or maybe you just don’t understand it. That’s certainly been the party line when it comes to the airport deal — even when we know that in other countries where they’ve tried the exact same thing the results have been crystal clear: prices go up and services get worse. So when Peter Nowak, Canada’s preeminent competition watcher, called me up last week I knew exactly what was on his mind. If our governing monopoly says it’s open season for big business in Canada, where exactly does that leave the rest of us? Peter and I dig into all of that and do a little cross-country check-in on the state of Canadian competition. NOTE: A version of this conversation also appeared in Do Not Pass Go Featured in the episode: Peter Nowak To learn more: “Watchdog Moves to Block Veggie Merger as Feds Drive Up Price of Competing Imports” by Peter Nowak in Do No Pass Go “Canada, EU Deepen Ties But Diverge on Consumer Protection” by Peter Nowak in Do Not Pass Go “The Anti-Competitive Barriers Holding Canadian Films Back” by Peter Nowak in Do Not Pass Go “Do Not Pass Go Hits One Year Thanks to Your Support! Here’s What’s Next” by Peter Nowak in Do Not Pass Go “Actually, privatizing Canada’s airports is a bad thing” by Arshy Mann in The Hatchet Support us at Hatchetmedia.ca The Hatchet is a podcast and newsletter dedicated to exposing power and money in Canada. We deliver important original and fascinating journalism about how this country actually works. Music: I dunno by grapes (c) copyright 2008 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. Ft: J Lang, Morusque To hear more, visit Hatchetmedia.ca
Allowing big, private money to buy up chunks of our airports has been a long-held neo-liberal dream in Canada. Kim Campbell proposed it during her short-lived government, as did Justin Trudeau in 2017. They were both hoping to follow in the example of Margaret Thatcher’s UK, which became the first western nation to fully privatize their existing major airports back in 1987. Since then, many European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have followed suit, with massive pension funds often purchasing the airports outright or buying up long-term concessions to run them. But the idea has never really caught on in Canada, for one very good reason — Canadians hate it. A recent Nanos poll found that over 50% of Canadians oppose the plan and with only a little over 30% in favour. And that’s because Canadians clearly have an intuitive understanding that airports aren’t the kind of asset that it makes sense for governments to completely sell-off. They are, after all, natural monopolies, giving them enormous power to charge what they want. So why does Carney want to do this? Because it’s not about what’s best for Canadians. Instead, this is a proposal that works for the benefit of major asset managers and pension funds. These giant pools of money are on a desperate search for increased returns, wherever they can be found. And vital infrastructure is a great place for them to do it. Because they know that they can gauge consumers with no consequences. Everyone knows that’s how these kinds of deals work. So it’s especially galling that the government still frames this proposal as a way to lower costs for consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth.