Le combat de Gabriel : entre passion pour le tir à l’arc et lutte contre le harcèlement sexuel

Hockey. Baseball. Basketball. Soccer. Ski. Despite a visual impairment in his right eye, Gabriel* has always been involved in sports. During the pandemic, he took on a new challenge.

Becoming 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 breaks the routine. I forget about daily life, life’s problems.”

In the summer, the 39-year-old man is at the shooting range six days a week. He volunteers, maintaining the terrain and nature trails, as well as taking care of the plants and trees. In winter, he attends all indoor training sessions, except for some Saturdays when he is working.

“The club is the heart of my social life.”

Gabriel found happiness there.

Until he felt a hand on his buttocks.

* * *

This hand belonged to an older woman than him, who held an administrative position within the club. Each of the six times, he asked her to stop. She allegedly continued. “You’re asking for a slap in the face,” he told her.

One day in the summer of 2023, the lady allegedly inserted her finger through a hole in his pants to touch his buttocks. That was the final straw. In the fall, Gabriel sent her a formal notice. At the same time, he filed a complaint for sexual harassment with the government agency responsible for handling disputes in sports, the Officer of Complaints.

The Officer of Complaints accepted the request and forwarded it to the Committee for the Protection of Integrity in Sports (CPI). What is that? It’s a committee of three independent experts tasked with investigating. Its scope is not just symbolic. Its recommendations must be followed by the sports federations participating in the program.

When the club leaders were notified of the allegations, they asked the accused to no longer attend training sessions. “An honorable solution that seemed to suit everyone, as it is unnecessary for [the lady] to be present to carry out her duties as treasurer,” notes the CPI. It should be noted that Gabriel and the co-complainant in this case – who is a witness, not a victim – did not oppose the lady retaining her administrative duties. However, just a week later, the woman returned to the shooting range. The Federation then excluded her from all activities, as per the procedure when a complaint heard before the CPI is of a sexual nature.

Obviously, the accused and the victim presented contradictory versions. The CPI characterized the lady’s testimony as “contradictory” and “full of holes.”

“The Committee considers that it has clearly been proven, on the balance of probabilities, that [the woman] engaged in unsolicited and unwanted sexually charged behavior, which had harmful consequences for the complainant, and that the inappropriate actions were repeated.”

Verdict: “The Committee concludes that [the lady] committed sexual harassment”.

A victory for Gabriel.

* * *

If the story had ended here, it may have been just a brief news item. After all, neither the accused nor the victim are public figures. And unlike court decisions, the CPI’s decisions are not published anywhere.

So, what sets this story apart from other cases of sexual assault?

The lenient punishment by the CPI.

· The exclusion of the accused “for more than a month, the filing of complaints and the complaints processing process, including a hearing, [must be] recognized as a sufficient sanction for her to understand the importance and inappropriate nature of her actions”.

· The exclusion of the lady from the club’s activities and the federation is therefore lifted.

· The Club must “take the necessary steps to ensure that [the treasurer] avoids being on the training site when her presence is not required, especially when [the complainant] is present”.

So Gabriel won, but…

But the CPI found the one-month exclusion to be a “sufficient sanction.” Remarks that surprised Gabriel. “I expected it to be more severe.”

I’ll go further: it’s incomprehensible.

Let’s reverse the roles for a moment. If a man in his sixties had touched the buttocks of a 39-year-old female archer six times in a year, would he have been reintegrated so easily?

No.

He would probably have been banned. Rightly so.

How, after recognizing this case of sexual harassment, can the CPI deliver such a weak and confusing decision? Yes, confusing, because its recommendations quickly became a logistical nightmare for everyone.

Since the exclusion is lifted, what will happen if the woman wants to go back to archery? Considering her many tasks within the club, when can her presence be required?

These are not just theoretical questions.

When Gabriel and the co-complainant returned to the gym after the CPI’s decision, they felt hostility from other members. The two men initially attended Tuesday and Thursday evening sessions, as Gabriel worked weekends. One Saturday, they went to the morning training. Who did they encounter there?

The woman.

“She stayed. She sat on a bench along the wall and stared at me,” says Gabriel. The co-complainant, who was also present, supports his version of events. The following two weeks, they skipped their turn. Since their return, the club’s treasurer has also shown up on a Thursday evening.

The Quebec Archery Federation, caught in a bind, intervened. “Our problem, explained director Gabriela Cosovan to me, is that based on the decision we received, we have to be able to accommodate both [individuals]. [The lady] is a member in good standing. She has full rights.”

Cosovan asked Gabriel if he could now train only on Tuesdays and Thursdays to allow the accused to go to the club on Saturdays. “We can’t block all the days,” she wrote to him in an email.

Nonsense.

If Gabriel hadn’t been touched on the buttocks, no one would ask him to give up training sessions. Or be held accountable. Yet now, to accommodate the accused, he was asked for “specific dates and time slots” when he intended to be present.

Unable to satisfy both parties, the Federation wrote to the club asking them not to allow the accused to attend training sessions “until the resumption of discussions.” Under the circumstances, this is the best decision, as it takes into account the victim’s interests. And then what? It’s total chaos. The Federation mentions a return to the CPI. There is also a possibility that the case will end up in court.

I contacted the club leaders for an interview. My request also targeted the accused, who is part of the management team and has a family relationship with the club president. They refused. The club instead sent me this written statement.

“Any case submitted to the Officer of Complaints and heard by a Committee for the Protection of Integrity is confidential and must remain so, in accordance with the terms of the Integrity Policy. Therefore, [the Club] and its leaders will not comment on a decision rendered or on any other element related to a complaint brought before the Officer of Complaints. Moreover, and always in accordance with the Integrity Policy, be assured that the Club will comply with any recommendation made by the Integrity Committee.”

Recommendations that, judging by the prevailing confusion, have missed their mark.

* The victim’s name has been changed to protect his confidentiality. That is also why I did not name his club.