Wandrille Lefevre

[BCM]

50 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Yeah I agree with you there. It is theoretical far too often.

I know we are getting off topic, but how do we enforce free speech in a case like this? If it is the government's role to enforce free speech, and they deemed his firing (let's call it) as a violation, then is the state overreaching by intervening in the decision of a private business?

I am for the protection of free speech in so far as to prevent individuals from being jailed, for example, but I don't know where I stand when it comes to an example like Lefevre's. Thoughts?

You can say what you want (within reason) without fear of government action, but you cannot say it without any consequences. This has always been the case, and is even more so now in an online environment. Slagging off someone or running your mouth at a pub is one thing, but doing it online could actually have a detrimental impact on the employer. Both could be protected speech (again, free speech has limits - inciting violence, yelling "fire" in a theater, etc) in the eyes of government but not in the private sphere.

I am having to deal with this at this moment - an employee made a comment on facebook in the wake of the latest London attacks, and someone based in the UK has complained to the employer. Before having to deal with this complaint, I must admit to being in the "private life is private" and doesn't effect the employer camp, but I have now changed my mind. The internet is too powerful and real reputational damage can be done, in an instant. So yeah, I now think it's okay for an employer to discipline or sack an employee for things they do outside of work, even if unrelated to the employment.

[Grizzly]

3 hours ago, BCM1555362349 said:

You can say what you want (within reason) without fear of government action, but you cannot say it without any consequences. This has always been the case, and is even more so now in an online environment. Slagging off someone or running your mouth at a pub is one thing, but doing it online could actually have a detrimental impact on the employer. Both could be protected speech (again, free speech has limits - inciting violence, yelling "fire" in a theater, etc) in the eyes of government but not in the private sphere.

I am having to deal with this at this moment - an employee made a comment on facebook in the wake of the latest London attacks, and someone based in the UK has complained to the employer. Before having to deal with this complaint, I must admit to being in the "private life is private" and doesn't effect the employer camp, but I have now changed my mind. The internet is too powerful and real reputational damage can be done, in an instant. So yeah, I now think it's okay for an employer to discipline or sack an employee for things they do outside of work, even if unrelated to the employment.

I am no expert on what the current legal status is, but if we are to have any meaningful freedom of speech, I think there needs to be a high burden of proof on the part of employers if they are taking action against an employee's statements on their private media that this post was detrimental to the company's business or reputation. In Lefevre's case one can argue as a public figure that his social media is not as private as the average employee. Yet I think given that it appears to be a joke and is pretty vague the proper punishment would be an apology/clarification on his part not a suspension.

 

[Grizzly]

Also since we are talking about freedom of speech, it has been my experience having lived in different countries and traveled in many that the amount of freedom of speech is often more tied with how stable and unchangeable a country's political system is than some enlightenment of the system or government about how to treat its citizens. In 150 years of parliament Canada has only ever elected one of two parties that I would argue are largely both controlled by the same interests. We saw that in the last election when a 3rd party got close to winning it changed its policies to mirror those of the other 2 parties and the interests of those who control the other 2 parties. I saw the same thing in Germany when I lived under the Red-Green coalition which should have been a fairly left wing government but was anything but.

In countries I have been to where freedom of speech has been more restricted I also have noticed there was more potential for change or revolution and also more potential for this change or revolution to be funded and controlled by a foreign power (usually us western democracies which breaks any commitment we can claim to supporting democracy and freedom of choice, ie. we only fund those who would serve our own interests not those of the country in question). Don't get me wrong I am happy I can write stuff like this without getting a visit from the secret police but at the same time I am fully aware that there is a very limited possibility of actual change. When those in power don't fear you they let you say what you want, when they do fear you they will try to limit your speech. It is good we have freedom of speech in Canada but we could be a lot less superior and arrogant about criticizing places where it is more limited especially when this criticism is often used as an excuse to invade, sanction or interfere with the political process in those countries.

[shermanator]

Lefevre has posted an apology and his suspension has ended. Release still upcoming?

 

 

[Grizzly]

Good that is how it should be handled and hopefully Lefevre is available for selection tomorrow.

[Moldy9]

Interesting to see the league have the steel to say "Easy there Impact" and drop the suspension. WL got his slap on the wrist. 

Now the question is: Will the Impact or Biello support him by naming him on the 18? We will see. 

Having seen Friolet's RDS post that this matter was just one of a few incidents that brought the ire of the club as of late and knowing the track record of the Impact when it comes to terminating players after public incidents it would not be a surprise should we be seeing a statement shortly by Adam Braz, the "technical director", on "thanking him for his services and wishing him good luck" you know, the standard message copy paste change name. 

I like WL. I am a believer in his abilities, that he has yet to reach his full potential and can have a role on the CMNT. I felt his decision to post Instagram was poorly thought out largely due to how this would effect his career knowing well how the IMFC brass jump and wash their hands of matters. 

Its my belief however he's not playing enough minutes in Montreal and a change of environment can better for his career. I said the same thing about Jackson Hamel. 

[A_Gagne]

Bottom line IMO: if you're a marquee player (e.g. Brek Shea) and you tweak a pic holding a couple of guns, it may go over poorly in the media and you may get a slap on the wrist. If you barely make the game day 18, you may find yourself on Unattached FC. I hope that doesn't happen here, but a seriously stupid move, regardless of what he meant by it.

[farrelld]

On 2017-04-16 at 0:19 AM, A_Gagne said:

Bottom line IMO: if you're a marquee player (e.g. Brek Shea) and you tweak a pic holding a couple of guns, it may go over poorly in the media and you may get a slap on the wrist. If you barely make the game day 18, you may find yourself on Unattached FC. I hope that doesn't happen here, but a seriously stupid move, regardless of what he meant by it.

I think the problem was more the caption underneath the picture and not the picture itself.

 

Lefevre's recent play hasn't earned him a spot in the 18. At this point I think Fisher is a better option for the Impact as an organization. Lefevre definitely needs to be getting more minute so maybe a loan spell somewhere or leaving wouldn't be a bad idea. He isn't young anymore either, I think he is pretty much a finished product in terms of his development. He is an okay 3rd or 4th choice MLS level CB but nothing more IMO.

[badname22]

http://www.ottawafuryfc.com/news_article/show/823508  signed for the fury on loan

[Bison44]

If they can loan out Lefevre, why not Shome?  

[Zem]

37 minutes ago, badname22 said:

http://www.ottawafuryfc.com/news_article/show/823508  signed for the fury on loan

Lol as if we needed more depth at CB. Should be some good minutes for Wandrille at least.

[ChrisinOrleans]

22 minutes ago, Zem said:

Lol as if we needed more depth at CB. Should be some good minutes for Wandrille at least.

After loaning Messoudi and Gagnon-Laparé to the Fury, the Impact cut them both. I'm not sure this bodes well for Lefèvre. 

Still, the Fury need the help. 

[Zem]

4 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

After loaning Messoudi and Gagnon-Laparé to the Fury, the Impact cut them both. I'm not sure this bodes well for Lefèvre. 

Still, the Fury need the help. 

JGL was never cut, he was signed on loan in October as depth for the 2015 playoff run and completed his loan. He played poorly for Ottawa, but he wasn't sent home early. Messoudi was signed for depth and never impressed enough to get any league minutes. Both, moreover, were young and inexperienced players while Lefevre is 27 and has plenty of MLS experience and is a Canadian international to boot, so the comparison with two loans from 2-3 years ago isn't very relevant.

My point was that Ottawa doesn't really need that much help at CB even with McEleney and Obasi out injured, but I doubt Lefevre will have any difficulty breaking into the lineup with Venter, Del Campo, Edward and Meilleur-Giguere as the only competition.

[BrennanFan]

Released by the Impact.

[dbailey62]

17 minutes ago, BrennanFan said:

Released by the Impact.

Hopefully he can rejoin Ottawa. 

[ChrisinOrleans]

25 minutes ago, dbailey62 said:

Hopefully he can rejoin Ottawa. 

Absolument. 

[Blackdude]

He signed for AS Blainville.

[Shortdutchcanuck]

1 hour ago, Blackdude said:

He signed for AS Blainville.

Gets to play in Voyageurs Cup.  Maybe Laval next year?

[toontownman]

Hasn't he spoken out about not wanting to play in the CPL? Hopefully he gets back on track. He looked promising a few years back but completely bombed out since, more due to his mentality than ability imo.

[Grizzly]

22 hours ago, toontownman said:

Hasn't he spoken out about not wanting to play in the CPL? Hopefully he gets back on track. He looked promising a few years back but completely bombed out since, more due to his mentality than ability imo.

Not sure if there is anything wrong with his mentality. He finished his studies with a pretty good degree that he can earn a good salary with and I think he was surprised to make it as far as he did with his soccer career. If I recall correctly he put his other career on hold to play with the Impact and even then was working as an intern in Impact management. At 29 I doubt he is expecting he can play a couple of years in CPL and improve enough to return to MLS or go somewhere at higher level of play and pay than CPL. If a CPL team comes in the Montreal area as rumoured we might see him again. CPL is probably not going to offer him a good enough salary to entice him to move elsewhere and put his other career on hold.