Riders release Messam

[Belize City Lion]

If he is found not guilty could he find his way back to the CFL. I thought we r all innocent until proven guilty. A little to soon rush to judgement IMO. BB

Both the Riders and the league are within their rights to deny Messam a job if they feel he harms their brand. Even if he beats the charge, there is no guarantee the CFL has to let play again. Look at Justin Cox. He was acquitted of the domestic violence charge against him due to lack of evidence, but he is still banned from the CFL.

[Gridiron Ernie]

...I thought we r all innocent until proven guilty. A little to soon rush to judgement IMO. BB

My thoughts also, BB. The court of public opinion is so quick and cruel to assume and judge.

Whatever comes to the light of day will do so via due process, but meantime, at this murky stage, in all such situations, it's best to remember these are allegations. The word "alleged" is a very important word in the statement, pertaining to a very real accused person (in this case J. Messam) who has to continue on in life, come what may.

True personal story: I always, when hasty conclusions are drawn, assumptions made, recall back half a century ago when I was in my teens and in our little village the local clothing store caught fire one night. Me and some buddies where hanging out right next door in the town's little park, and jumped into action, attempting to mitigate the good shopkeeper's smoke damages by some of us hauling as much merchandise as possible into the alley, while others addressed the source of the smoke -- summoning the fire brigade.

Small town scenario: The cops arrived along with the fire brigade, and of course along with a large crowd of townsfolk, where everyone knew everyone. I thinking I'd done a good deed was in fact unceremoniously hauled into the back seat of the police cruiser under suspicion of mischief and theft! In those fateful 10 minutes where I sat and desperately argued my case, the encircling townsfolk had likely already mostly concluded that Pete and Agnes N.'s young lad was surely guilty of something! I know how that coloured many villager's opinion of me ongoing. A bad boy, a black sheep.... even though 10 minutes later I was cleared in the cops' minds and let go.

Not saying I pretend to know about Messam, whether he's guilty of something here or not. He might very well be guilty. Poor sod. Just saying. I empathize with anyone that might in fact be innocent but who's name and reputation has ever been tainted, as so often that stain is indelible, no matter what absolving information comes to light.

[Belize City Lion]

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Pr ... ite_note-2

The presumption of innocence is said to be a "hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law".

The purpose of the presumption is to protect fundamental liberty and human dignity of the accused.[2] The person faces "grave social and personal consequences" from the law and so needs protection.

Criminal Code of Canada

Presumption of innocence
6. (1) Where an enactment creates an offence and authorizes a punishment to be imposed in respect of that offence,

(a) a person shall be deemed not to be guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence; and
(b) a person who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence is not liable to any punishment in respect thereof other than the punishment prescribed by this Act or by the enactment that creates the offence.

We are really heading quickly down the slippery slope where the "presumption of innocence" will be long gone when it comes to anything with sex in it.

The Riders and the CFL are not ousting Messam because he is guilty. That has yet to be proven. He was cut and now blacklisted because he was CHARGED with a criminal offence that is distasteful enough that his continued participation on the Roughriders (or any team in the CFL) would be harmful to the brand and image of the team and league as a whole.

He doesn't need to be found guilty for any team or the CFL to have grounds to prevent him from playing.

Look at Manzeil, he was only ever charged with a single misdemeanour assault charge (which he pled guilty to in exchange for probation and counselling) yet he needed permission from the commissioner before Hamilton could sign him. Why? Because the league has the right to decide whether a person with Manzeil's history of getting into trouble was harmful to the CFL brand and image.

So even if Messam beats this charge the CFL can still ban him. Ask Justin Cox about that. At best all he could do is use the resulting loss of income in a lawsuit against his accuser, if he can prove that he was wrongfully accused. In court, just because you are acquitted doesn't mean you were wrongfully accused. Messam would have to prove that his accuser intended malice against him by bringing charges that she knew were false.

[DanoT]

If police have enough evidence to proceed with a criminal charge and considering that the CFL is involved with a "Stop Violence Against Women" campaign, then I think cutting ties with Messam is the correct action for the CFL.

If Messam is found not guilty, then the CFL can reinstate Messam and Messam can pursue his false accuser for financial restitution in civil court.

[CardiacKid]

The Riders are operating with razor thin numbers in their National ranks. They were pretty much hoping and praying that none of their Nats got injured, much less getting their contract terminated. I wonder how they will deal with this...

Other professions are subject to employers distancing themselves from employees who are criminally charged but not yet proven guilty. Teachers for example, look at getting suspended from work until a determination is made.

I agree with the league taking this kind of action. The laying of charges is not a step taken lightly by police so there is significant weight behind it and with the league taking steps to combat domestic violence and bullying, to NOT do something would make it look hypocritical and vacillating.

[Toppy Vann]

Methinks some have lost sight of the presumption of innocence. This is an allegation of filming something - not someone who attacks someone.

There are times when common sense says there should be consequences but this particular case doesn't suggest that. The allegations about the underage women and the head of the Ont PCs where he had to step down is such a case.

If Messam was pulled off a victim or covered in blood at the scene of an assault that too would be grounds to ban him.

Presumption of innocence is in the Charter and the Criminal Code of Canada precisely so that actions like this aren't wrongly taken.

The legal principle in the law seems lost on some here:

The purpose of the presumption is to protect fundamental liberty and human dignity of the accused. The person faces "grave social and personal consequences" from the law and so needs protection.

[Figaro]

The presumption of innocence is a legal term: rather than having to prove you are not guilty the state has to prove that you are. Imagine if the presumption by the criminal code was you are guilty - it places all responsibility on the defendant instead of the state.

Police don't lay charges without a more than strong likelihood of conviction. The Crown does not like to suffer losses in court and thus are quite careful getting all the evidence necessary for conviction before charges are laid. Often at this point, both parties engage in discussions about a plea to save time and expense.

You are only assumed to be innocent in the criminal justice system - in the court of public opinion, the rules are quite different. If I owned a business and one of my employees is charged with an offense, and keeping that employee - even if suspended during a trial - would hurt my business, then that employee is gone. If you depend on the public for your income and that public's opinion is the person is guilty, then if you want to continue as a viable business enterprise with high standards of moral conduct you must cut ties.

[DanoT]

What Messam allegedly did is a dismiss-able offense and of course in football, having a bad game is a dismiss-able offense.

[maxlion]

When it comes to decisions affecting a person's livelihood, it is best to have a policy that is fair, consistent, and transparent. The CFL's "policy" on players facing criminal charges is none of these. I do suspect there is some payment for being released without just cause going to the players who have been affected.

I expect the CFL to be challenged in court over this at some point (as they should be). Perhaps as a Canadian citizen residing in Canada, Messam will be the one to take this step.

https://www.thespec.com/shopping-story/ ... -a-crime-/

[WestCoastJoe]

There are many issues here ...

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Messam does not have the track record of an innocent choir boy. Some kinds of trouble have tended to follow Messam around.

Charges were filed against Messam. That is not an easy thing for a complainant to do. Unless of course it is revenge for something that became unacceptable. Could the complainant have changed her feelings about Messam, after earlier indicating consent about the taping? We don't know.

Sports leagues and others businesses have "morals clauses" in contracts. Misbehave and you are gone. Is private taping of intimate encounters amongst those clauses? Probably not.

As noted there is the court of public opinion. Charged oftentimes automatically means guilty in peoples' minds.

Public figures are also targets.

Charges are not filed lightly. No one wants the headaches that would go with a poorly conceived case. Evidence. Procedure, et cetera.

I have sympathy for Messam, but video taping an intimate encounter is not to be advised, even in a committed relationship. Consent given? OK, but that could change later. Proof of consent? No consent? Ouch. And there are more issues with even just this part of the situation. Revenge publication on the internet, etc.

As noted he has my sympathy. As does the complainant.

[Lui05]

Methinks some have lost sight of the presumption of innocence. This is an allegation of filming something - not someone who attacks someone.

The legal principle in the law seems lost on some here:

The purpose of the presumption is to protect fundamental liberty and human dignity of the accused. The person faces "grave social and personal consequences" from the law and so needs protection.

Your argument reminds me of one my Father used to use where he'd quote Newton's 3rd law (for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction) pertaining to incidents involving human relationships. I'm no physicist, but I believe it was written regarding the collision of two objects in a vacuum. It has no application outside the realm in which the law was written, and it most certainly does not apply when describing how person B reacts to something done to him by person A.

Similarly, the presumption of innocence is a mandate for the court. It does not apply outside the courtroom. I have seen no posts here, or suggestions by Saskatchewan or the CFL that Messam be locked up in jail immediately and the key thrown away. As such, I don't think anybody here is lost on the principle of the law. The constraints placed on the courts of the presumption of innocence are vital to the operation of our society. However, those constraints do not apply, nor have ever applied to additional restrictions or moral clauses that business chooses to place on its employees. The CFL is perfectly in its right to enforce the clauses its employees agreed to when signing contracts. And as far as the "court of public opinion", in today's social media world, well thought out, reasoned arguments do not translate well to 130 character (or whatever the limit is) sound bites.

Think about Olympic athletes who can't take OTC cold medication that I would take without hesitation so I could breathe. How many of us have taken a drug test as part of getting a new job? With the legalization of weed, how many of these companies are going to follow suit and relax their drug policies to coincide? I guarantee it won't be 100%. And that's OK.

As long as the company discloses ahead of time, the moral values it expects of its employees and what actions constitute a violation of these clauses, the employee has voluntarily agreed to abide by these rules. That is the situation the CFL and Messam were in. A violation of these rules was deemed justification for dismissal. Messam agreed to that on signing his contract.

[Toppy Vann]

.... Lui05, I'm not suggesting that any here feel he should be locked up!!! That's a big stretch of what I said.

It looks like you're posting from the USA and the laws there are different. The case that sets out presumption of innocence and our Charter of Rights is clear on this and outside the courtroom too!!!!

As others have noted here, the CFL is not clear on it's policies at all and there are people falsely accused especially in he said, she said type cases!

Your characterization that the presumption of innocence 'does not apply outside the courtroom" is wrong in Canadian law and jurisprudence and the Charter and legal views of the highest courts in Canada see it differently! R. v Oakes - Supreme Court of Canada the known case on presumption of innocence that rose to our Supreme Court.

Under the former Narcotic Control Act the simple possession of prohibited narcotics enabled the charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking that was challenged as the lower court found it violated the Charter and presumption of innocence which is sacrosanct in Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the lower court got it right and that
"Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violates the right to presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter."

I was in policing in those days when those laws were on the books and we hadn't then had to prove trafficking at all. The amount justified the charge that included trafficking. People went to jail for a baggy of pot until this case.

SCC judgement says in part:

"The presumption of innocence lies at the very heart of the criminal law and is protected expressly by s. 11 (d) of the Charter and inferentially by the s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. This presumption has enjoyed longstanding recognition at common law and has gained widespread acceptance as evidenced from its inclusion in major international human rights documents.

Other western nations have this same presumption BUT in Canada this extends beyond the courtroom.

I do agree that the player could try legal action as our Charter and this case R. v. Oakes is also clear:

Section 1 of the Charter has two functions: First, it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the provisions which follow it; and second, it states explicitly the exclusive justificatory criteria (outside of s. 33 of the Constitutional Act, 1982) against which limitations on those rights and freedoms may be measured.



The onus of proving that a limitation on any Charter right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation. Limits on constitutionally guaranteed rights are clearly exceptions to the general guarantee. The presumption is that Charter rights are guaranteed unless the party invoking s. 1 can bring itself within the exceptional criteria justifying their being limited.

From Wikipedia:

The Court described the exceptional criteria under which rights could be justifiably limited under section 1. The Court identified two main functions of section 1. First, "it guarantees the rights which follow it", and secondly, it "states the criteria against which justifications for limitations on those rights must be measured".

The key values of the Charter come from the phrase "free and democratic society" and should be used as the "ultimate standard" for interpretation of section 1. These include values such as:

respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

[maxlion]

The CFL is perfectly in its right to enforce the clauses its employees agreed to when signing contracts.

...

As long as the company discloses ahead of time, the moral values it expects of its employees and what actions constitute a violation of these clauses, the employee has voluntarily agreed to abide by these rules. That is the situation the CFL and Messam were in. A violation of these rules was deemed justification for dismissal. Messam agreed to that on signing his contract.

I have looked at samples of the standard CFL contract that are available online and have not seen such clauses as you mention.

We know that not all people who are accused or charged are, in fact, guilty of the crime in question. In such a case, would you say that that person was somehow deficient in "moral values"?

How can one agree to abide by a rule that requires you to not be charged with a crime you didn't commit?

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

[Hambone]

If I recall one of the first things the Lions do in one of the very first meetings of each training camp is to lay out to the players the expectations of the organization when it comes to how the players conduct themselves both on and off the field. I presume all clubs do something similar.


I also couldn't find anything in the Standard Player's Contract that would specifically cover conduct of players. However it was well documented only a few short years ago that the Saskatchewan Roughriders developed a Code of Conduct back in 2007 for everybody in the organization. Here's a link to the document last revised in 2015.
https://d3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net/w ... onduct.pdf

[Hambone]

The CFL would be better off to have a fair and consistent policy, such as: any player charged with a crime will be suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Players found not guilty will be reinstated immediately. Players found guilty will have their contracts voided.

I think the problem with that is that in most situations the timeline between an incident occurring, a charge being laid and any trial actually concluding would exceed the length of the contract. Messam's current deal is for one year. Unless his docket is put on top of the pile he contract will expire before anybody knows if he's innocent or guilty. How do you reinstate someone to an expired contract? The CFL certainly couldn't enforce the old deal back on the Riders.