The Finnish Ice Hockey Federation has hired an external expert to review the high-profile racism case. The result was that the union did not violate the Equality Act and therefore it is considered that it is not justified to pay damages.
Yle Urheilu recently released information that the ice hockey association did not approve the mediation proposal that the discrimination ombudsman put forward in a high-profile case where a junior player in the Pelicans was subjected to racism.
According to the association’s CEO Sami Kauhanen, the case has been carefully investigated, but no evidence has been found of racist insults and that it is words that stand against words.
– If, on the basis of our investigation, it was possible to prove that it happened, we would definitely have taken appropriate measures. After the mediation proposal that the discrimination ombudsman put forward, we have made our own and announced that we are ready to discuss. We therefore hope that the discussions will continue, Säger han till Yle Urheilu.
According to the discrimination ombudsman, the union had breached two sections of the Equality Act. Kauhanen says that the sport’s legal protection board pointed out that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on coach Jukka Sokka did not conflict with the Equality Act.
– We therefore asked external experts to evaluate whether our actions contravened the Equality Act. The experts’ assessment was that the association did not break the law, says Kauhanen.
Sami Kauhanen is CEO of the ice hockey association.
Image: Jaakko Stenroos / AOP
ishockey, Finlands Ishockeyförbund, Finlands ishockey, Åbo, Sami Kauhanen
The association does not consider it to be justified with damages
In the confederation’s mediation proposal, the player apologizes and regrets that there were flaws in the judging of the match. The association is also committed to expanding the training of referees in similar situations and evaluating the development needs of its disciplinary system.
– The biggest difference is that since the ice hockey association did not act in violation of the Equality Act, we believe that it is not justified and fair to pay damages, says Kauhanen.
In the mediation proposal from the discrimination ombudsman, the association would apologize and reimburse the club’s and the coach’s legal expenses. In addition, the association would pay 3,000 euros to the player and 3,000 euros to the coach.
– The Discrimination Ombudsman did not specify what type of apology it would be. Our more detailed proposal includes an apology for the fact that the player was not asked personally when the suspected violation was investigated, says Kauhanen.
Kauhanen believes that the central question is how the Equality Act should be applied and what it requires sports organizations to do.
– The Discrimination Ombudsman and experts have different opinions in this case. Both ice hockey and all other sports certainly want to do the right thing in matters of gender equality. It is important that it is clear to everyone how to act in different situations. A joint discussion is needed, he says.
Kauhanen admits that this case may affect the image of the ice hockey association, but also believes that it has a responsibility to act in accordance with its own rules and ensure the same treatment for everyone in disciplinary matters.
