Seeing James around the Hitmen players in 1995-96 so bothered Sheldon Kennedy that it was a major reason that Kennedy went to the police. Hickey seems to feel that because Fleury did not also go to the police, that his inactions make Fleury an "enabler".
Fleury's response to Hickey's column was to call for Hickey to be fired. Other voices have joined in on that call, and I understand that Hickey and the Gazette have been deluged with letters, e-mails, and comments, not much of it in support of Hickey.
I certainly understand Hickey's sentiments. It is difficult to understand why any right-thinking person in Fleury's position would do nothing and allow James to remain in charge of teenage boys when he KNOWS what James does to some teenage boys. But here's the catch: Fleury was a sexual abuse victim with the serious emotional turmoil in his life that often comes with that victimization. While it's easy for me (or Hickey) to say that Fleury should not have allowed James to be involved with the Hitmen, we are not sexual abuse victims. We do not have the slightest clue how Fleury felt, or why he did or didn't do anything back then. I think Fleury is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
To put this another way, think of the cases of the men who were sexually abused as boys by members of the Catholic Church but who didn't come forward for many years. Are those men "enablers" for doing nothing for years while new victims were being abused? Or is someone who was abused by a schoolteacher an "enabler" if they wait 20 years to come forward while their abuser keeps teaching children? I wonder if Hickey would write an article calling these people "enablers" as well? I doubt it.
Should Hickey be fired for his column, as some people (including Fleury) have suggested? No, of course not. Should he retract his "enabler" statement and apologize? Absolutely.
Your thoughts?
6 comments:
Retraction yes, don't think anyone understands until you live in those shoes, therefore, remain quiet.
Thanks Alan, I agree with your statements and thought the same thing when I read that article yesterday. I'm glad you have the ability to put your thoughts out there easier than I can with your blog.
I thought it was shameful of Pat Hickey to write that garbage article.
Can you even imagine the horrorible mental state an abuse victim is in? how insanely embarassing would that be for a young man in his teens to come out and say " this is what I was forced to do" and then live with that amongst his peers and especially when you have complete idiots like Hickey that write complete crap like that.......it almost makes one wish that something horrible would happen to Mr Hickey, something so painful and embarassing that he would be able to feel what a MINOR would feel like, these aren't men they are boys Mr Hickey and you should remove yourself from the press and never write another word unless it's an apology......then please go away forever.
Seems the question about being an enabler is not about just standing by while James coached that team but rather about being part of the ownership group and allowing it. I tend to think that he should not lose his job or have to print a retraction. His opinion is just that an opinion, probably shared by some. Fleury hasn't been shy about saying some less than politically correct things in his time, I have never heard him apologise. Whats good for the goose.
THE FACT HE PARTNERED WITH HIM TO SOME DEGREE HE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. IF HE REMAINED SILENT AND AND AVOIDED CONTACT THEN "NO".
GIVEN THE ORDINARY PERSON TEST GIVEN THE KNOWLEGE THAT FLUERY INDEED HAVE, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT JAMES IN CHARGE OF YOUNG MEN.IF YOU KNOW A SITUATION IS DANDEROUS AND DO NOTHING THEN YOU SHOULD ASSUME SOME RESPONSIBILITY.
Many forget just how great of a con man James was. He had an entire community in Swift fooled and an entire ownership group fooled in Calgary. Heck he had the entire hockey world fooled when he was named Hockey News Man of the Year. Come on people you can't point the finger at Fleury today and say he enabled James.
If Fleury was clean, sober and mentally stable enough at that time the other owners would have laughed in his face and bought him out. James would have denied the charges and destroyed any reputation Fleury had.
To say Fleury should have done something at a time before Kennedy even came forward is absolutely ludicrous.
And for the record all charges brought against James have yet to include any complaints from his time in Calgary. That's not excusing him, he's still the biggest piece of crap to ever live in these parts.
As for Hickey its his uneducated opinion. I'm sure now that he has heard the public opinion and received a lot more information his next column should reflect his enlightened awareness of the situation. That's what a column is, an opinion to illicit conversation. If Hickey really cared he would have contacted Fleury. Theo is not hard to find and is very accommodating to questions via Twitter.
Post a Comment