KSU Suspends Hae-in Lee and Young You

[el henry]

Of course. We've all heard of multiple males in the skating community getting away with actual sexual harassment basically unpunished and the investigation proceedings dragging on for years.

But a teenage girl gives her teenage boyfriend a hickey - bam, 3-year suspension.

So what exactly is your point?

In no way shape or form did I equate this with any other report in the skating world. I said that if an 18 year boy gave his 15 year old "girlfriend" a hickey, and the 15 year old girlfriend reported, my subjective feeling is that responses would not be so protective. I stand by that, since it's my subjective feeling, and not anything I am asserting as a fact,

My point is that Hae-In violated the KFed rules and therefore should face consequences. Would these be the consequences that in a vacuum I would impose? No. That is different than that no issue existed at all.

 

[CoyoteChris]

Well done Haein Lee. It's time for the ISU to get involved, demand an explanation for why they went to extraordinary lengths to destroy a young woman's life, reputation and career, if there is no satisfactory justification then ban these people that issued the suspension for life and suspend the Korean fed.

Considering the court overturned this, it is justification enough to suspend the Korean fed and ban these officials for life. Many people in this sport receive far greater suspensions despite never facing court.

If there is any inkling of the Korean fed punishing Haein Lee by not selecting her or making life difficult for her, suspend the Korean fed for longer. This is outrageous. What other sport would tolerate these people? Maybe the ISU should just automatically give her a place in GPs and at World's.

I certainly dont know Korean Law. But in the US, if an org slandered a person according to the laws of the US, There would be litigation lawyers stumbling over each other to drag KSU into civil court. The best path here for KSU is to cut their losses and say the convictions of drinking and letting /asking a male into the dorm remain in effect but the subject is now on probation for the rest of the ban, as well as downgrade the punishment.

 

[CoyoteChris]

In no way shape or form did I equate this with any other report in the skating world. I said that if an 18 year boy gave his 15 year old "girlfriend" a hickey, and the 15 year old girlfriend reported, my subjective feeling is that responses would not be so protective. I stand by that, since it's my subjective feeling, and not anything I am asserting as a fact,

My point is that Hae-In violated the KFed rules and therefore should face consequences. Would these be the consequences that in a vacuum I would impose? No. That is different than that no issue existed at all.

I agree with your point. Yes, a boy was let in and drinking by some/all happened. And there should be consequences. But dont forget, if this translation is true, the KSU is guilty of at least slander and probably harrassment and there should be consequences for them, also.
"Lee then took the matter to the Seoul court, which ruled on Tuesday that her action with the male skater did not constitute sexual harassment, even though he was under 16 years of age at the time.

"By definition, sexual harassment causes a sense of sexual humiliation and revulsion, and infringes on the victim's sexual freedom," the court said. "Just because an adult performed an act of affection toward someone under the age of 16, it doesn't mean such an act can be regarded as harassment."

 

[Remilia]

In no way shape or form did I equate this with any other report in the skating world. I said that if an 18 year boy gave his 15 year old "girlfriend" a hickey, and the 15 year old girlfriend reported, my subjective feeling is that responses would not be so protective. I stand by that, since it's my subjective feeling, and not anything I am asserting as a fact,

My point is that Hae-In violated the KFed rules and therefore should face consequences. Would these be the consequences that in a vacuum I would impose? No. That is different than that no issue existed at all.

I don't know about on here, but on another site, the initial response was people being disappointed in Haein. People only started defending her and being protective once it became clear that the situation wasn't what it seemed to be. And I don't think anyone's arguing that Haein shouldn't be punished for breaking the Kfed's rules, but her 3 year suspension wasn't for drinking and inviting a boy into her dorm (otherwise Young would also have a 3 year ban), it was for sexual assault. Now, there is plenty of evidence that shows there was no assault, so why should she face consequences for it?

 

[rabidline]

I think two things can be true: there is a lot to unpack about what Haein did, both leading up to the training camp, at the training camp, and after the news broke out, and not all of them are positive and defensible. It's also true that KFed was forced to do something about what she did and may have chosen the harshest possible punishment for reasons we are not privy to.

All I think is that this case got exposed because Haein was dumb enough to do what she did: got drunk at a federation-paid overseas training camp to the point that she thinks there's no issue in leaving a visible hickey on a boy she likes (and likes her back) but is still underaged, when they all still have to train in front of the coaches the next day where they likely can see the hickey. Regardless of their relationship background and history, doing these things have consequences!

But I also can't help but think that if the older skater in the relationship was older and smarter than Haein, knew better to "hide" the relationship with the minor, knew better to not get drunk at a fed-paid training camp, knew better to not leave marks..... we probably wouldn't know anything about it. It's why there's no point in getting too involved in any sides here: we just don't know people.

 

[Arigato]

Would you really have sat by while a narrative characterising you as a sexual predator took hold, if you thought you had proof that showed otherwise?

I would have fought with everything I had. We have but one life, and this isn't a dress rehearsal.

 

[Mathman]

In no way shape or form did I equate this with any other report in the skating world. I said that if an 18 year boy gave his 15 year old "girlfriend" a hickey, and the 15 year old girlfriend reported, my subjective feeling is that responses would not be so protective [of the older partner.]

It is certainly true that society has a different attitude toward boys and girls. Pairs skater John Coughglin (age 23) once put a move on Ashley Wagner (age 17) at a skating after-party. She rebuffed him and that was that. He had a consensual relationship with Caydee Denny (age 16). When it all came down, Coughlin committed suicide rather than face public shame over his actions.

 

[lilimum]

In no way shape or form did I equate this with any other report in the skating world. I said that if an 18 year boy gave his 15 year old "girlfriend" a hickey, and the 15 year old girlfriend reported, my subjective feeling is that responses would not be so protective. I stand by that, since it's my subjective feeling, and not anything I am asserting as a fact,

My point is that Hae-In violated the KFed rules and therefore should face consequences. Would these be the consequences that in a vacuum I would impose? No. That is different than that no issue existed at all.

I think the problem is how the Korean Fed reacted. I see many teenager realtionships where one is over 18 xthe other under 18. That is norma at school and also in sportsclubs. The kids groe up togehter, teenager loves are starting ond one day one of the both reaches 18. And normally nobody cares. If a sexual harrasment happens it is not acceptable - also not if the victime is an adult. So for me it is not the question what age they had, it is more a question was it really sexual harrassment.

 

[Anna K.]

From what I've read, the age of consent in South Korea is 16. There's a Romeo and Juliet law for ages 18 and under, but it doesn't apply once you turn 19.

Thank you, it explains a lot.
So, the "act of affection" was illegal at the moment when it was reported to KSU but the case essentially changed after Haein proved that the two were in a relationship before she turned 19, which showed her "act of affection" in an entirely different light. So, technically, neither KSU nor Haein have violated the law. Good to know.

 

[RUKen]

Pairs skater John Coughlin (age 23) once put a move on Ashley Wagner (age 17) at a skating after-party. She rebuffed him and that was that. He had a consensual relationship with Caydee Denny (age 16). When it all came down, Coughlin committed suicide rather than face public shame over his actions.

?????He didn't merely "put a move on" Ashley Wagner. She had gone to bed after the after-party, and Coughlin entered her room, got into her bed, and began assaulting her. She was quoted in a Christine Brennan article as saying "I was absolutely paralyzed in fear."

He was also accused by former partner Bridget Namiotka of sexual abuse over two years, when she was in her mid-teens.

Coughlin's behavior was much different than Haein Lee's.

 

[Mathman]

Coughlin's behavior was much different than Haein Lee's.

True -- and he paid a mre terrible price for his transgressions. They cost him his life.

 

[throw_triple_flip]

She should (well, strictly speaking she should not have put herself in that position!) have looked for a way to make her case without publicising private messages from a minor. The choices that got her in over her head - and her unquestionably dubious behaviour in getting involved with that minor and blatantly breaking the rules by the drinking - does not mean she is absolved from simple decency, especially as the main fault for her situation is hers because of that dubious behaviour (KSF reacted appallingly, I agree, but there would have been nothing to react to without her actions.) I am tired of the people now hailing her online as a persecuted heroine, she is not.

And with respect to the mod's message, I have severely bowdlerised my response, but will leave it there.

I'm not holding her up as some sort of heroine. Far from it.
You can see from the entire situation that she's immature.
People online were making serious (untrue) accusations which would make even the most level headed mature person panic and want to stop them.


By the way, i don't condone her actions (the age gap makes me wince, no matter their ages when it started), but people online were calling her a rapist, which isn't correct or fair.

 

[Mathman]

Thank you, it explains a lot.

The legal issue that still seems suspicious to me is the quote, attributed to the court hearing the appeal, that the official legal definition of sexual harassment requires a sense of humiliation and revulsion,.."

Surely this can't be right as a matter of the language of the legal codes. If you do something that is against the law, it is your actions that are culpable, not "how you make someone feel."

Is the court saying that victims of sexual harassment cannot bring the case forward unless they are prepared to stand up in court and detail just exactly how humiliated they feel? The law is the law. How the victim of a crime feels can be taken into account in sentencing or, in the case of a civil suit, in the amount of monetary compensation.

What if someone is the victim of a sexual assault and the victim's response is, "Hell no, I don't feel humiliation and shame -- I'm mad as hell." Will the judge throw that case out because the victim is not properly humiliated?

I guess that's why I am not a lawyer.

 

[throw_triple_flip]

The legal issue that still seems suspicious to me is the quote, attributed to the court hearing the appeal, that the official legal definition of sexual harassment requires a sense of humiliation and revulsion,.."

Surely this can't be right as a matter of the language of the legal codes. If you do something that is against the law, it is your actions that are culpable, not "how you make someone feel."

Is the court saying that victims of sexual harassment cannot bring the case forward unless he or she is prepeared to stand up in court and detail just exactly how humiliated they feel? The law is the law. How the victim of a crime feels can be taken into account in sentencing or, in the case of a civil suit, in the amount of monetary compensation.

What if someone is the victim of a sexual assaut and the victim's response is, "Hell no, I don't feel humiliation and shame -- I'm mad as hell" Will the judge throw that case out because the victim is not properly humiliated?

I guess that's why I am not a lawyer.

If you make a threat to kill, a huge bearing on whether it's criminal is whether the person feels threatened (in my country, anyway). An otherwise loving parent jokingly saying they'll murder their kids if they keep misbehaving is very different to a stranger running up to a person in the street and aggressively yelling that they're going to kill them. The perception of the person on the recieving end provides important context as to whether it is a crime or not.

 

[Anna K.]

The legal issue that still seems suspicious to me is the quote

A law is a set of definitions and sub-definitions that explain each other to avoid ambiguity. This quote is taken from a definition but it is unclear it this is full definition or a part of definition, and how/if the terms "humiliation" and "repulsion" are defined elsewhere within the framework of the given law. We'd best need a Korean lawyer here to answer our questions

 

[el henry]

The legal issue that still seems suspicious to me is the quote, attributed to the court hearing the appeal, that the official legal definition of sexual harassment requires a sense of humiliation and revulsion,.."

Surely this can't be right as a matter of the language of the legal codes. If you do something that is against the law, it is your actions that are culpable, not "how you make someone feel."

Is the court saying that victims of sexual harassment cannot bring the case forward unless he or she is prepeared to stand up in court and detail just exactly how humiliated they feel? The law is the law. How the victim of a crime feels can be taken into account in sentencing or, in the case of a civil suit, in the amount of monetary compensation.

What if someone is the victim of a sexual assaut and the victim's response is, "Hell no, I don't feel humiliation and shame -- I'm mad as hell" Will the judge throw that case out because the victim is not properly humiliated?

I guess that's why I am not a lawyer.

No, you should be a lawyer, those are indeed my questions. Unfortunately, I could never be a professor of mathematics.

"how you make someone feel" could equal consent, I suppose. But in many jurisdictions in the US, a 15 year old cannot consent, because they are 15. Even if they are all gooey eyed in love. With "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions. (Of course teenagers grow up together and socialize and do teen things. My parents met when mom was 15 and dad was 18, and ended up married for over 50 years and producing delightful children. That does not influence my opinion here, though)

But in US law, subjective reaction to assault has nothing to do with a finding as to whether assault occurred. This of course is not US law and I would love to know more.

Still, the failure to defer to any contracts or agreement to abide with KFed rules is the biggest difference from US law, and also intriguing to me.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

True -- and he paid a mre terrible price for his transgressions. They cost him his life.

He was the one who decided to pay that price instead of facing the consequences. Neither the victims or USFS were demanding capital punishment.
Namiotka also passed away three years later after dealing with addiction related to the abuse. It's hard to say how things might have turned out differently had he been alive.

 

[Mathman]

...delightful children.

Still, the failure to defer to any contracts or agreement to abide with KFed rules is the biggest difference from US law, and also intriguing to me.

This is a complicated issue, too, I believe. You cannot enforce a contract that deprives people of their first amendment rights or other rights under the law. There are labor laws about firing poeple without "cause," rgardless of the terms of the contract that the employee signed. I would imagine that there are cases where you can sue in civil court for compensation if your employer unduly interferes with your ability to earn money in your profession, even if you signed a contract that says, "from now on I will be your slave." In the case of a sports regulatory organization questions about monopoly might arise. Etc.

 

[CrazyKittenLady]

A relationship between two people cannot be forbidden by some kind of contract. At least that's the case in the part of the world I come from. No sports organization in Europe would ever have any say in the romantic relationships of its members as long as they are within the law.
Frankly, I find it baffling, disturbing even, that that seems to be a possibility in the US.

 

[el henry]

This is a complicated issue, too, I believe. You cannot enforce a contract that deprives people of their first amendment rights or other rights under the law. There are labor aws about firing poeple without "cause," rgardless of the terms of the contract that the employee signed. I would imagine that there are cases where you can sue in civil court for compensation if your employer unduly interfers with your ability to earn money in your profession, even if you signed a contract that says, "from now on I will be your slave." In the case of a sports regulatory organization questions about monopoly might arise, etc.

This is quite true, and part of what we enforced. You cannot contact to work for less than the minimum wage. (at least so far ;( ) If a statute exists, a contract cannot override it.

The difficulty I think may be the framing of the question. Can you fall in love with and marry whoever you darn well please? Of course, no statute prohibits it.

But you do not have a statutory or constitutional right to skate in USFS sanctioned events. You agree to abide by USFS rules in order in to skate in those events.

So, if USFS rules said you cannot eat buy or grow apples to skate in our events, then I agree to do not eat buy or grow apples. Do I have the statutory and constitutional right to do that? Sure. But if I decide, darn it, I want to eat those apples, then I give up my ability to skate in USFS sanctioned events. I can eat all the apples I want.

That is what the Courts will defer to, the right of an organization to enforce its own rules. Skating is not some special right, as far as I know, that the courts would override the USFS.