How Victim-Blaming Language Skews the Conversation Around the Hockey Canada Trial
Introduction
In small-town rinks and coffee shops across Northern Alberta, the ongoing Hockey Canada sexual assault trial has become a difficult conversation. People here take pride in hockey culture and cherish the young athletes who represent their communities.
But as details of the case emerge, the words we use to talk about it matter. Language can either support a survivor of violence or cast doubt on them. This guide takes a survivor-centric look at the Hockey Canada trial, examining how victim-blaming language can skew public perception. We’ll break down the facts of the case, explore the power of words like “alleged victim” or “boys will be boys”, and offer guidance on shifting our language to support survivors.
Throughout, we’ll touch on Canadian law, trauma-informed approaches, and how hockey’s group loyalty and ideas of masculinity influence reactions to sexual violence. Our goal is to spark reflection and encourage a more supportive, accountable community conversation, one that puts survivors’ safety and dignity first, without demonizing hockey or our hometown pride.
The Power of Language in Shaping Public Perception
When communities confront a sexual assault case – especially one involving local heroes or beloved athletes, the language used in conversation and media coverage can heavily shape public opinion. Research shows that how a story is framed can influence whether people show empathy toward the survivor or cast doubt on them. A University of California Davis study, for instance, analyzed online discussions about sexual assault news and found that certain frames and words in news reports led to more toxic, uncivil reactions on social media. Readers often didn’t wait for a verdict; they jumped in with opinions shaped by the wording of headlines and articles. In many cases, people on social platforms ended up blaming victims and defending the accused, especially if the media narrative was ambiguous or seemed to invite speculation.
Why does this happen? Words carry implied judgments. For example, a news report might refer to the woman in the Hockey Canada case as an “alleged victim.” From a legal standpoint, the word “alleged” is meant to preserve neutrality, no one is officially a victim until the court decides a crime occurred. But to the average reader, phrases like “alleged victim” can subtly plant doubt: it sounds like saying “she might not really be a victim.” If people hear that term over and over, they may become more skeptical of her experience without even realizing it. On the other hand, reports often call the accused players “star athletes” or mention their sports achievements, which can unconsciously sway sympathy towards the men on trial rather than the woman who reported the assault.
Crucially, language can validate or invalidate a survivor’s experience. When friends, family, or commentators use phrases that imply the survivor lied, exaggerated, or somehow caused the assault, it deepens the trauma. Survivors of sexual violence often say that the aftermath, especially facing blame or disbelief, can be as traumatic as the assault itself. Hearing dismissive comments like “it was just a misunderstanding” or “she’s ruining their careers” sends a clear message to not only that survivor but others: your pain is secondary to someone else’s reputation. This effect isn’t just theoretical. One Canadian hockey player, Sam Studnicka, spoke out after enduring taunts about a sexual assault survivor associated with him. He noted that such comments took an “emotional toll” and stated plainly: “Sexual assault is a very serious issue and there is simply no place for blaming sexual assault survivors, ever.” Even within hockey circles, there’s a growing recognition that how we talk about these issues matters profoundly.
In short, our words can either feed into a culture of disbelief and victim-blaming, or they can foster understanding and accountability. The next sections will delve into some common phrases that often come up in conversations about cases like the Hockey Canada trial, and why those phrases can be harmful. By recognizing these patterns, we can start to change them.
Victim-Blaming Phrases and Why They Matter
Victim-blaming language can be blatant or subtle, but all of it shifts blame or scrutiny onto the person who came forward, rather than the actions of those accused. Let’s examine a few common phrases and framings often heard in relation to sexual assault cases, including the Hockey Canada trial, and discuss why they are problematic.
“Alleged Victim”
It’s standard in media reports to use the word “alleged” in describing an accusation, for legal fairness. However, calling someone an “alleged victim” is an awkward and fraught phrase. It suggests there is doubt about whether a victim actually exists. The reality is that E.M., the young woman in this case, is a victim of something, she has clearly experienced trauma and harm, even if a court will determine the criminal culpability of the accused. Referring to her simply as “the complainant” or “the woman who reported the assault” is more neutral. When we default to “alleged victim,” people may subconsciously think “maybe she’s making it up”. This can skew sympathy away from her.
In contrast, notice that media typically do not label the accused as “alleged perpetrators” in every sentence, often they are called “the players” or “the defendants” without constantly underscoring the uncertainty of guilt. The imbalance in using “alleged” mainly before “victim” can implicitly cast more doubt on the accuser than the accused. In Canada, there is a growing push for trauma-informed language in journalism. Some journalists prefer “complainant” (which indicates someone has made a formal complaint) or will make it clear that the allegation is unproven, rather than casting the person herself as “alleged.” The goal is to avoid wording that feels like a veiled accusation towards the reporting individual.
Why is this important? Because believing survivors is crucial to their healing and willingness to come forward. That doesn’t mean presuming the accused guilty; it means treating the person who says they were harmed with respect and empathy. Campaigns in Alberta like #IBelieveYou have emphasized that “The one line a survivor needs to hear [is]: I believe you. [And] it’s not your fault.” Constantly hearing herself described as an “alleged victim” in the news can make a survivor feel the opposite, disbelieved and blamed. While we can’t single-handedly change media terminology, in our personal conversations we can choose validating language. Instead of saying “the alleged victim/survivor”, we can say “the young woman who reported the assault” or simply “the victim/survivor” while acknowledging the trial is ongoing. This small change keeps our focus on the serious claim at hand, rather than linguistically arm’s-length distancing ourselves from her trauma.
“Boys Being Boys”
“Boys will be boys.” “They were just young guys being guys.” These phrases often surface to downplay misconduct, implying that roughhousing, sexual pursuit, or even aggressive behaviour are just natural parts of male youth. In the context of a group sexual assault allegation, calling it “boys being boys” is extremely harmful. It suggests that what happened might just be a bit of “mischief” or hormonal over-exuberance, rather than a violent violation of consent. Dismissing sexual assault as typical boyish behaviour normalizes the crime. It sends a message that we almost expect young men, especially athletes blowing off steam, to cause harm to women.
Research on sports culture has found that this attitude is part of a broader rape culture in locker rooms. One comprehensive open letter from Canadian academics noted that sexual violence in hockey is often swept aside as just something that happens when you have a “‘win at all costs’ sport culture” that normalizes heavy drinking, aggression, sexist “banter,” and the degradation of women, behaviour that is often dismissed as ‘boys being boys.’ In other words, what some call “boys being boys” is precisely the problem: it’s a way to shrug off accountability by treating women’s mistreatment as a trivial by-product of youthful fun.
Using this phrase in discussing the Hockey Canada trial would deeply minimize the survivor’s experience. It would frame an alleged group sexual assault, an extremely serious incident, as if it were a harmless youthful indiscretion. Imagine being the person harmed and hearing community members chalk it up to boys being boys. It would feel like your pain doesn’t matter, that it’s just the cost of hanging around young male athletes.
In reality, sexual assault is not an inevitable rite of passage for boys or something any decent young man would do. Many boys do not do such things, and those who do must be held responsible as individuals. By rejecting the “boys will be boys” excuse, we uphold that our sons, brothers, and friends are capable of respecting consent and are expected to do so. We should hold them to that standard, not give them an “out” for harmful behavior due to age or gender. As Studnicka said after the Nova Scotia hockey brawl incident, “There is no place for such comments in our society… there is simply no place for blaming sexual assault survivors, ever.” Brushing off incidents as boys-being-boys is a form of blaming the survivor – implying she just got mixed up in normal boy antics. It’s neither true nor acceptable.
“He Had a Promising Future”
Whenever a well-known or talented young man is accused of sexual assault, you’ll hear some variation of “it’s a shame, he had such a bright future ahead of him” or “we shouldn’t ruin his promising career over this.” In the Hockey Canada case, all five defendants were high-level hockey players, some already in the NHL or on the cusp of it. It’s natural that their friends, family, or fans might worry about their careers. However, emphasizing the promising future of the accused is a form of linguistic bias that tilts sympathy toward the (alleged) perpetrator and away from the victim. It implies that the real tragedy is the damage to these young men’s reputations and opportunities, rather than the harm done to a young woman’s life.
This kind of framing became infamous in other cases like the 2016 Stanford University rape case, where the attacker Brock Turner was often described in headlines as a star swimmer whose future was derailed, and even a judge showed more concern for Turner’s life prospects than for the survivor’s trauma. Such language is part of what advocates call rape culture* – a society-wide minimization of sexual violence. When a judge or community member suggests a person who choose to sexually assault someone should get leniency because of a bright future, it implies that the perpetrator’s potential is more valuable than the victim’s pain or justice.
In a Canadian context, consider what “promising future” means. For these hockey players, it might mean lucrative contracts, endorsements, maybe a shot at the Olympics or a Stanley Cup. Those are big dreams in communities that love hockey. It’s tempting for supporters to say, “Do we really want to destroy these young men’s lives over something that might have been a mistake or misunderstanding?” But this line of thought is dangerous.
First, it presumes that holding them accountable will “destroy” them, whereas in truth, if they are found not guilty because evidence doesn’t support conviction, their names will be cleared. And if they are found guilty, then they themselves made choices that jeopardized their own futures.
Second, it blatantly disregards the survivor’s future. What about her promising future? E.M. was a 20-year-old with her whole life ahead of her too. Sexual assault can derail a survivor’s education, career, mental health, and relationships in profound ways. When all the sympathy is directed toward the accused athletes, it’s as if the scales of public opinion have weighed his hockey prospects against her trauma, and decided hockey is worth more. That is profoundly skewed and unjust.
Survivors are not just statistics or afterthoughts, they are people with their own dreams, ambitions, and futures that matter. One powerful example is Amanda Nguyen. At the time of her assault, Amanda was a Harvard student and aspiring astronaut with a brilliant career ahead of her. After being sexually assaulted, she encountered a legal system that seemed more willing to forget her case than to protect her rights. She was forced to fight simply to have her assault kit preserved.
Instead of giving up, Amanda drafted and successfully advocated for the passage of the federal Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights in the United States, landmark legislation that established protections for others who would come after her. Her story is a reminder: survivors are capable of extraordinary things when they are believed, supported, and given the chance to heal.
When public sympathy is directed primarily at accused perpetrators and their “lost potential,” it not only devalues the survivor’s pain, it overlooks the survivor’s potential. What might E.M. have gone on to achieve? What dreams might be lost when trauma is met with silence or blame? Survivors deserve to have their futures protected too.
So, while we may acknowledge it’s sad on some level that talented players are facing serious accusations (no community wants their hometown heroes involved in scandal), we must be careful not to frame them as the victims of this situation. They are adults on trial for a serious crime; their athletic talents do not exempt them from accountability. A promising future is no excuse for sexual violence. As a community, our language should reflect that the priority is finding the truth and delivering justice, not protecting reputations.
Other Subtle Blaming Phrases
Beyond the big three examples above, there are many other subtle ways conversations can drift into victim-blaming. Questions like “Why was she out so late?”, “What was she wearing?”, or “Why did she go back to their hotel?” might be whispered (Or even boldly posted in comment sections). We must recognize these as problematic. All such questions implicitly suggest that if the victim had behaved differently, the assault wouldn’t have happened, putting responsibility on her to have somehow predicted or prevented someone else’s violent behaviour. This is backwards. No matter what someone was wearing or whether they’d been drinking or agreed to go to a private space, it does not mean they’ve consented to sexual activity, let alone to violence by multiple people.
Focusing on what the victim did or didn’t do (drinking, going out, etc.) shifts the burden onto the victim/survivor, and off of the perpetrator.” In our discussions, we should catch ourselves if we drift toward scrutinizing the survivor’s choices more than the choices of those who allegedly committed the assault.
Likewise, phrases like “both sides of the story” can be tricky. Of course, fairness and due process demand that we hear the defense. But in casual conversation, insisting on “both sides” too fervently can come across as casting equal doubt on a claim that has some factual basis. In this case, for instance, it’s undisputed that a sexual encounter occurred, the core question is consent and who was involved. “Both sides” in some people’s mouths turns into a coded way of saying they think the victim is lying. It’s entirely possible to acknowledge that the court will decide the facts without disparaging the person who came forward.
In summary, we need to be vigilant about language that, intentionally or not, blames or discredits the survivor. Such language not only affects public perception and the tone of the community conversation, it has real consequences for survivor well-being and justice. If E.M. or any other survivor hears community members using these phrases, they are less likely to feel safe or supported. Others who experience sexual violence might think twice about coming forward, fearing they’ll get the same treatment.
On the societal level, treating sexual assault as “not a big deal” or the victim’s fault means such crimes are not taken as seriously as they should be.
When discussing a case like this, pause and ask yourself: “Does my comment place blame or doubt on the victim, or does it focus on those accused of the harm?”. For example, if you catch yourself saying something like “She shouldn’t have gone with them,” step back and recognize that thought places blame on her. Reframe your thinking to, “They shouldn’t have assaulted her.” By literally shifting the subject of the sentence from the survivor to the perpetrators, you change the focus to where it belongs.
We can all apply that principle. Instead of “she put herself in a risky situation,” say “those players had a responsibility to respect her and they chose not to.” The more we practice this re-framing, the more natural it becomes.
When in doubt about what to say, lead with empathy. Simple supportive phrases go a long way: “I really feel for the person who went through this”, “I can’t imagine how difficult this must be for her”, or “It’s important she’s being heard now.” Even if you are reserving judgment on the legal outcome, you can empathize with the fact that she has had to endure public scrutiny and a tough legal battle.
In high-profile cases, rumors and gossip can run wild. Try to keep conversations fact-based. If someone starts spinning theories (“I heard she was just angry one of them didn’t want to date her” or “I bet the guys are being framed”), bring it back to what is actually known or being examined in court: “We have to be careful with rumors. What we do know is that something very serious was alleged and investigators found enough evidence to charge five individuals – which is not done lightly. It’s now in the court’s hands.” Encouraging patience and fact-finding isn’t anti-anyone; it’s a reasonable stance that also protects against unfairly maligning the victim. When people stick to speculative gossip, it often trends toward blaming the victim (because it imagines motives for them to lie) or exonerating the perpetrator without basis. So, nipping that in the bud by saying “let’s wait for the trial to unfold rather than assume” is actually a pro-survivor move as well as a pro-justice one.
By utilizing these resources and continuing to educate ourselves and others, we can ensure that the conversation around the Hockey Canada trial, and all cases like it, remains respectful, informed, and survivor-centered. Change starts with each of us.