Hockey. Baseball. Basketball. Soccer. Ski. Despite a visual disability in his right eye, Gabriel* has always played sports. During the pandemic, he took on a new challenge.
Updated yesterday at 7:45 a.m.
Become an archer.
Not easy. “I have to shoot from the left, even though I’m a natural right-hander. » It quickly became his new passion. “Shooting is a moment of pleasure. It’s a change from the routine. I forget everyday life, the problems of life. »
In the summer, the 39-year-old is at the shooting range six days a week. He gets involved as a volunteer. He develops the land and wildlife trails, in addition to maintaining the plants and trees. In the winter, he attends all gym training, except for a few Saturdays, when he works.
“The club is the heart of my social life. »
Gabriel found happiness there.
Until he felt a hand on his butt.
* * *
This hand is that of a woman older than him, who holds an administrative position within the club. Each of the six times he asked her to stop. She would have continued. “You’re in for a slap in the face,” he told him.
One day in the summer of 2023, the lady allegedly inserted her finger through a hole in his pants to touch his buttocks. It was one time too many. In the fall, Gabriel sent him a formal notice. At the same time, he filed a sexual harassment complaint with the government body responsible for handling disputes in sport, the Complaints Officer.
The Complaints Officer accepted the request. He forwarded it to the Committee for the Protection of Integrity in Sports (CPI). It’s what ? A committee of three independent experts, who are responsible for investigating. Its significance is not only symbolic. Its recommendations must be respected by the sports federations participating in the program.
When they became aware of the allegations, club management asked the respondent to no longer show up for training. “An honorable solution that seemed to suit everyone, because it is not necessary that [la dame] is present to exercise her duties as treasurer,” notes the CPI. You should know that Gabriel and the co-complainant in this case – who is a witness, and not a victim – were not opposed to the lady retaining her administrative tasks. Despite everything, only a week later, the woman returned to the shooting center. The Federation then excluded her from all its activities, as provided for in the procedure when the complaint heard before the ICC is of a sexual nature.
Obviously, the respondent and the victim presented contradictory versions. The ICC described the lady’s testimony as “changing” and “sewn with white thread”.
“The Committee considers that it has been clearly demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that [la femme] engaged in unsolicited and unwanted behavior with a sexual connotation, which had harmful consequences on the complainant, and that the inappropriate actions were repeated. »
Verdict: “the Committee concludes that [la dame] committed sexual harassment.”
A victory for Gabriel.
* * *
If the story had stopped there, it might have been a brief story. After all, neither the respondent nor the victim are figures known to the general public. And then, unlike court decisions, those of the ICC are not published anywhere.
So what sets this story apart from other cases of sexual touching?
The ICC’s sweet sentence.
· The exclusion of the respondent “for more than a month, the filing of complaints and the complaints handling process, including a hearing, [doivent être] recognized as a sufficient sanction for her to understand the importance and inappropriate nature of the actions she took.”
· The exclusion of the lady from club and federation activities is therefore lifted.
· The Club must “do what is necessary so that [la trésorière] avoids finding himself at the training site when his presence is not required, particularly when [le plaignant] is present “.
So Gabriel won, but…
But the ICC ruled that the one-month exclusion was a “sufficient sanction”. Words that surprised Gabriel. “I expected it to be more severe. »
I will go further than him: it is incomprehensible.
Let’s reverse the roles for a moment. If a man in his sixties had touched the buttocks of a 39-year-old archer six times in a year, would he have been reinstated so easily?
Non.
He probably would have been banned. With reason.
How, after having recognized this case of sexual harassmentl, can the ICC come up with such a weak decision? And so confused? Yes, confused, because his recommendations quickly became a logistical nightmare for everyone.
Since the exclusion is lifted, what will happen if the woman wants to go archery? Considering his many tasks within the club, when may his presence be required?
These are not just theoretical questions.
When Gabriel and the co-plaintiff returned to the gym, after the ICC’s decision, they felt hostility towards them from other members. The two first went to training on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, as Gabriel was working on the weekend. One Saturday, they went to morning practice. Who did they meet there?
The Lady.
” She stayed. She sat down on a bench, along the wall, and she stared at me,” Gabriel says. The co-complainant, who was on site, supports his version of the facts. The next two weeks, they skipped their turn. Since their return, the club treasurer also showed up on the premises on a Thursday evening.
The Quebec Archery Federation, caught in the hot potato situation, intervened. “Our problem,” director Gabriela Cosovan explained to me, “is that depending on the decision we had, we have to be able to integrate the two [personnes]. [La dame] is a member in good standing. She has full rights. »
Ms Cosovan asked Gabriel if he could now only train on Tuesdays and Thursdays, to allow the Respondent to go to the club on Saturdays. “We can’t block out every day,” she wrote to him by email.
Nonsense.
If Gabriel hadn’t gotten his butt touched, no one would be asking him to give up training. Or to be held accountable. Whereas there, to accommodate the respondent, he was asked for “the precise dates as well as the time slots during which” he intended to be present.
Unable to satisfy both parties, the Federation wrote to the club asking it to no longer let the lady show up for training “until discussions resume”. In the circumstances, this is the best decision, because it takes into account the interests of the victim. Afterwards, what’s next? It’s a total imbroglio. The Federation is talking about a return to the ICC. There is also a possibility that the matter could end up in court.
I contacted the club leaders for an interview. My request was also addressed to the respondent, who is part of the management team and who is related to the president of the club. They refused. Instead, the club sent me this written statement.
“Any file submitted to the Complaints Officer and heard by an Integrity Protection Committee is confidential and must remain so, under the terms of the Integrity Policy. Therefore [le Club] and its managers will not comment on a decision rendered or on any other element related to a complaint brought before the Complaints Officer. Furthermore, and always by virtue of the Integrity policy, Please be assured that the Club will comply with any recommendation made by the Integrity Committee. »
Recommendations which, judging by the confusion that reigns, have missed their target.
*The victim’s first name has been changed to preserve confidentiality. This is also the reason why I didn’t name his club.
2024-03-19 05:02:40
#decision #misses #target
