Rush to Judgment: Habit, Tradition or Human Nature?

I’m a little confused about the current situation concerning 46-year-old Randall Hopley, the British Columbia man accused of snatching three-year-old Kienan Hebert from his home in the early-morning hours of Sept. 7, 2011. Thankfully, and surprisingly, the boy was returned to his home, apparently unharmed, four days later, around 3 a.m. When Kienan was returned to his home, his family was, either by coincidence or design, staying at the home of friends nearby, and had left the doors of their own home unlocked; again, apparently. 

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, had previously made a public plea for the abductor to return his son to a safe place, and walk away. The person who took Kienan back home in the middle of the night, to an empty house, no less, left him on the couch in front of the television, then called 911, saying the child was safely home.

I’m confused because Hopley seems already convicted of this crime, but to my knowledge he hasn’t pleaded guilty or innocent, hasn’t had a trial, hasn’t spoken publicly about the situation, and as far as I know police haven’t said publicly what, if anything, Hopley has told them about his alleged role in all of this. Yet, in true Canadian fashion, or perhaps just in keeping with the age-old and unfair ‘rush to judgment’ aspect of human nature, Hopley’s already been tried and convicted in the media, and in the infamous so-called ‘court of public opinion;’ most of whom don’t know any more about the case than I do now as I write this.

In short, do we know for sure that Hopley took Kienan Hebert? Is Hopley necessarily guilty just because he’s been arrested? Many people seem to think so. When he made his first court appearance last week after his arrest, “Outside the courtroom, a small crowd was picketing against Hopley. Their signs called for the death penalty to be brought back for offences against children” (Calgary Herald, Sept. 14, 2011). His lawyer asked for a psychiatric examination, with his next court date, via video link, set for November 9, 2011. According to CTV News Hopley’s charged with kidnapping, abduction of a child under 14, breaking and entering, and two counts of breach of probation” (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110915/randall-hopley-arrest-110915/). 

A Globe and Mail editorial says Hopley’s record includes a 2008 sentence of 18 months in jail and three years’ probation for attempting to kidnap a 10-year-old mentally disabled boy from his bedroom (Sept. 14, 2011). He “had a conviction in 1985 for sexual assault in matters relating to children…So there was reason to suspect a long-term problem with pedophilia” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). And Hopley “had been released from jail just a few weeks ago after serving a two-month sentence for assault” (Toronto Star, Sept. 17, 2011). CBC News claims “in the mid-1980s Hopley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years in federal prison, the National Parole Board confirmed” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/08/bc-kienan-hebert-randall-hopley-amber-alert.html).

Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has blasted the justice system for not keeping closer tabs on Hopley after his previous troubles with the law: “Hopley is [at large] for a reason: because someone didn’t do their job right,” he told the Calgary Herald. “The judges and the system failed us” (Macleans, Sept. 16, 2011). I understand Hebert’s anger, but perhaps he can save some of it for himself and his wife. After all, if they left their doors unlocked the night their son was abducted, did they not fail him by not protecting him and his safety to the fullest extent possible, and for implicitly and potentially putting the boy and their entire family at risk?

When I suggest here Hopley could be not guilty of the charges relating to Kienan Hebert, I’m not being naïve and I don’t have blinders on. I realize he might be guilty as sin. But he also might be not guilty. The public won’t know for sure until he enters a plea, or is found guilty or innocent, or there’s some other kind of resolution to the case. 

I’ve covered court cases, including murder trials, for daily newspapers in my previous life. I’ve seen and heard people profess their innocence and be proven guilty. I saw a 19-year-old boy-man with a criminal background, pimples and a peach-fuzz moustache in northeastern Ontario admit to robbing the night desk clerk of a local hotel; and brag he wanted to go to “the big house.” He got his wish: a two-year sentence in Kingston Penitentiary. But I’m also aware of the many cases, in Canada alone, where many men have been convicted of terrible crimes; only to be vindicated afterwards and eventually proven innocent. So, rushing to judgment, even when the situation seems cut-and-dried, can be grossly unfair and a huge mistake.

If Hopley took Kienan Hebert, maybe he has a penchant for little boys and a need to strike out at and be in control of those he perceives as more-vulnerable than he is. And by most accounts he’s one of society’s more-vulnerable souls: supposedly borderline retarded, according to his lawyer; not much formal education; a criminal past including crimes relating to children; a troubled childhood that saw his father killed in a mine explosion when he was two years old; gravitating toward trouble after his father’s death; and being taken from his mother by child welfare when he was six or seven years old. His mother, 70, has been quoted as saying she “didn’t mind” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011) when he was taken from her because she thought it was best for him but she loves him. “She lost track of his whereabouts and would mostly get second-hand accounts of his problems with the law” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

If Hopley did take Kienan Hebert from his home earlier this month, does his own wretched background justify his actions? No. If he took the boy, could his own background help to explain his actions? Perhaps. If he took Kienan should he be held accountable in some way? Yes. But if he did take the boy, is anyone else inherently complicit in enabling the intruder to enter the Heberts’ home and commit this crime? 

Kienan’s parents discovered him gone around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 7. He was an easy target because of his age. But did Kienan’s parents leave the doors unlocked when they went to bed; in effect potentially putting themselves and their children at risk? If so, they implicitly invited disaster, even or especially in their little town of Sparwood, B. C., population, about 4,000. If this were the case, perhaps any number of people could’ve entered and violated the Heberts’ home: anyone who checked their doors when the house was dark, or who might’ve known the family’s habits in that regard, or who’d been inside the home before and knew its layout; who knew exactly where to find Kienan, if he was the specific target. Perhaps Kienan was just the first child, or the first boy the intruder saw and decided to take, turning the Heberts’ lives upside down in the process by spiriting the boy away while the rest of the family slept.
If the Heberts left their doors unlocked all night, this seems unsafe and defies common sense in this day and age; even in the ‘safest’ communities, especially with precious children in the house. So, if this were the case perhaps Kienan’s parents must accept some responsibility for unwittingly helping to facilitate the crime. In fact, the acting mayor of Sparwood, Sharon Fraser, says this overall situation has taught the town an important lesson: "This is one of the hardest lessons all of us have had to learn, that we can't leave our doors unlocked and we can't let our children just run" (The Huffington Post, Sept. 19, 2011).

Paul Hebert, a self-proclaimed Christian, has even chosen to forgive Hopley for taking his son, even though Hopley hasn’t yet been convicted of or pleaded guilty to anything. Hebert says anger is for those who want to be victims, while compassion allows one to “move on...how can you be angry with someone who needs help as much as he does?...He still had the compassion to bring Kienan back and I can’t forget that…I think his mother needs to know that everything is okay…Hopefully, her son is going to get the help he needs now” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 17, 2011).

At first glance, Hebert’s graciousness is admirable, but on closer inspection it's seriously tarnished and ultimately ineffective. That's because he seems to contradict his faith-based big-heartedness by jumping the gun and forgiving Hopley for something of which he hasn't even been convicted; and of charges to which he hasn't even pleaded guilty or innocent. In this context, Hebert, who wants to appear charitable and presumably different from those who are more narrow-minded than he seems to think he is, actually seems just like everyone else who’s already convicted Randall Hopley--before he’s had his day in court, before he’s entered a plea, before he’s been found guilty or innocent of taking Hebert’s son, or before there’s some other resolution to the case. 

Police say Hopley was the only real suspect, because of his particular criminal history. But my question remains: do we know for sure, yet, that he took Kienan Hebert?

Another Immature Middle-Aged Male Politician?

So now we have, this time in Canada, another middle-aged married male politician—53-year-old Conservative MP Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale)--exhibiting questionable personal conduct on the job with a woman who is also married, and who supposedly is just a friend. Dechert, a parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, sent problematic e-mails to Shi Rong, a reporter for the Xinhua news agency, which we are told is tied to China’s intelligence agencies. 
Critics of Dechert’s lovey-dovey e-mails are concerned Shi Rong is or might be a spy, and was using her ‘friendship’ with him to manipulate him into sharing Canadian government secrets with her. But the Chinese government claims the Dechert “affair” is a private matter and it’s “irresponsible” for the press to imply Beijing had any hand in it (Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2011). This 'private matter' was made public after Shi Rong's husband apparently hacked her e-mail and found Dechert's letters to his wife. 
Dechert's actions allow him to join the pantheon of middle-aged male politicians who’ve demonstrated suspect personal behavior--through electronic communication or otherwise--on the job. Almost all of the male politicians who're known to have carried on these kinds of indiscretions, in recent memory, have been in the United States; the list is too long to include here. Dechert now has the dubious distinction of putting Canada on the map in this regard--but there also could be more politicians in Canada whose indiscretions haven't yet been made public. At least Dechert admitted sending the e-mails to Shi Rong, unlike most of these politicians who typically deny and try to lie their way out of the mess they helped create.
In fairness to Dechert, at first glance the published transcripts of his e-mails to Shi Rong seem more embarrassing to him and potentially hurtful to his family, than harmful to Canada’s federal government and national security. He’s suggested the e-mails are harmless notes to a “friend” he met “while doing Chinese-language media communications. These e-mails are flirtatious, but the friendship remained innocent and simply that – a friendship. I apologize for any harm caused to anyone by this situation.” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Yet, Dechert’s e-mails to Shi Rong suggest a closer relationship than just a harmless flirtation. Or, perhaps his cooing was one-sided and the result of his overactive imagination; wishful thinking, more than anything else. Regardless, published reports say an e-mail sent to her from Dechert’s parliamentary office account on April 17, 2010 states: “You are so beautiful. I really like the picture of you by the water with your cheeks puffed. That look is so cute, I love it when you do that. Now, I miss you even more.” The e-mail was signed, Bob Dechert, MP. The sender account named was decheB9@parl.gc.ca and the recipient was shirong2011@gmail.com, which Ms. Shi has used as an e-mail account (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

In an e-mail from April 20, 2010 Dechert asks Shi Rong to watch CPAC, the Canadian parliamentary TV channel, that night when he would smile for her on-camera. “Dearest Rong…I enjoyed the drive (to Ottawa) by thinking of you…We will be voting at 6:30 p.m. If you have time, watch on TV or on your computer…and I will smile at you. I miss you. Love, Bob,” the e-mail concludes (Globe and Mail, Sept. 9, 2011).

Despite Dechert’s claims that his relationship with Shi Rong is innocent, former CSIS analyst J. Michael Cole says there’s good reason for concern: “A mid-level, middle-aged government official with access to information…He’s married, which creates another entry point for blackmail. What’s key is not so much the position or rank, but rather his access…His lack of judgment, using his government email . . . points to weaknesses that would have been identified by a professional intelligence agency…the Chinese are past masters at this game” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

In this context, The Toronto Star says Dechert, in an e-mail to Shi Rong apparently in 2010, notes “Shi interviewed officials at the Royal Bank of Canada. It’s not clear whether Dechert acted as a go-between to help Shi organize the interviews, but he asks helpfully, “Did you get enough information for your articles?” About three weeks later Xinhua promoted Shi’s article on how the Royal Bank weathered the 2008 financial crisis to emerge stronger, as an “exclusive” based on access to two top senior executives” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011).

Cole says it doesn’t matter that Dechert’s work for Foreign Affairs Minister Baird apparently pertains only to North American matters: “…There’s a lot in that portfolio that the Chinese would like to learn” (Toronto Star, Sept. 13, 2011). In this regard, an editorial in one of Canada's leading daily newspapers insists Dechert must come clean about the entire matter: "Chinese intelligence agents are said to gradually cultivate contacts with mid-level officials, first eliciting routine information, but eventually extorting genuine secrets. If such a process was in the works in this instance, Ms. Shi’s jealous husband may have done Mr. Dechert and Canada a favour by distributing his foolish e-mails...In any case, Mr. Dechert must be completely frank with the Canadian authorities...” (Globe and Mail, Sept. 13, 2011).

Presumably time will tell if Dechert did anything illegal, or put Canada’s security at risk, or committed moral blunders for which he might have to answer to his family and his own conscience, by sending his swooning e-mails to Shi Rong. But the appearance of potential or actual wrongdoing also must be considered. And it remains to be seen whether he resigns voluntarily, or stays in his present job, or is eventually asked or told to quit because of this situation. So far, Foreign Affairs Minister Baird seems unconcerned about Dechert’s e-mail behavior in this situation, even saying concerns about it are ridiculous. A published report attributed to The Canadian Press notes Dechert passed fresh security checks in March, 2011 (Sept. 14, 2011).

I've often thought questionable personal behaviors on the job--such as sending risqué e-mails, photos, and text messages or worse--by middle-aged, usually-married male politicians seem self-destructive: the politician could potentially lose his career, reputation, livelihood, family, and friends if the behavior is discovered; but he does it anyway. And this suggests these particular male politicians might be emotionally immature. Through their questionable or bad personal behaviors on the job they seem naive, unthinking, and/or arrogant; perhaps believing they're invincible and entitled to do what they want with impunity; and not thinking about possible consequences, or thinking they won’t get caught, or wanting to get caught. 

In short, the male politicians who behave in these ways seem like egocentric teenagers. The Free Dictionary, online, defines egocentric, in part, this way: “a self-centered person with little regard for others; regarding everything only in relation to oneself; self-centred; selfish” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egocentric). A key difference between these male politicians and teenagers, however, is teenagers, because of their age and emotional development, are supposed to be and expected to be egocentric. 

Does national politics, for some reason, specifically attract a number of emotionally immature and egocentric men? After some middle-aged, married male politicians get elected at the federal and national level, do they think and believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want because of their perceived power, position, and money?

I realize MP Bob Dechert, through his e-mails to Shi Rong, might be guilty only of non-criminal stupidity, carelessness, unprofessionalism, and indiscretion, such as: 1) not thinking or caring about possible harm to Canada by cozying up to a Chinese reporter who could be a spy—even if she’s not; 2) acting like a love-sick schoolboy instead of a mature responsible politician; 3) disregarding any shame or hurt he might inflict on his family and friends if and when his e-mails became public; and 4) either not thinking about the possible consequences of his behavior, or thinking he'd never get caught, or not caring about any embarrassment, shame or job loss he might potentially incur if he did get caught.

Do Canada’s Members of Parliament get any kind of training and firm advice about how to conduct themselves when communicating electronically with others, male or female, in their professional capacities as MPs? Clearly, some kind of training seems called for since, at least in Dechert’s case, we can’t rely on his common sense and maturity to prevail.

No More '9/11'

Now the dust has begun to settle, so to speak, after the often-riveting memorial ceremonies, newscasts, and human interest stories about the most-infamous day in recent U. S. history that tragically occurred 10 years ago, I think it’s also time to put an end to the well-worn but convenient expression, ‘9/11.’

I realize some people might believe I’m being almost sacrilegious, and committing some kind of grievous sin, by suggesting we do away with this expression that has become so common. One online definition of ‘sacrilege’ says it means “the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrilege). And of course, most reasonable people, with good reason, perceive that terrible day and its aftermath as something sacred, to be remembered, as they cherish forever the memories of friends and loved ones needlessly and brutally murdered that day.

But if many people like the expression ‘9/11’ because it’s so easy to use and because it’s become so common in our lexicon, or vocabulary, that lends credence to my suggestion that the expression should be phased out and discontinued. The expression ‘9/11’ is too easy to use, and also too common, and that’s precisely why it should be discontinued. It runs the risk of becoming trite, just a catchphrase, and somehow meaningless; notwithstanding the powerful and emotional significance of the expression when it first started being used--and of course which it still has.  
I believe that over time, if it hasn’t already begun happening, the continued use of the expression ‘9/11’ will lead many people to forget the specific year in which the ‘9/11’ air attacks occurred in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

For instance, as a rule I have a good memory for names, dates, song lyrics, melodies, and other such things. And while I always know the event to which the expression ‘9/11’ refers, I sometimes have to stop and remind myself of the year in which that awful event occurred. First, I think back to where I was, and the approximate time, when I first learned of the air attacks in New York. As I wrote in a previous blog posting, I was sitting at my computer writing an essay, around 9 a.m. I turned on the ‘Today’ show on T.V. and saw what happened just minutes earlier. ‘Oh, yes,’ I then tell myself, ‘it was 2001 and I was just starting my master’s degree.’
The meaning of the expression ‘9/11’ has even entered dictionaries, such as the online MACMILLAN DICTIONARY: “9/11’ definition: 11 September 2001, when planes flown by terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, damaged the Pentagon, and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing thousands of people” (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/number-9-11). Similarly, The Free Dictionary, also online, states: “9/11 or 9-11: September 11, 2001, the date on which two hijacked airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City and another into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in open land in Pennsylvania” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/9%2F11). 
Notably, both of these dictionary definitions of ‘9/11’ rightly specify the year in which the attacks took place. They would’ve been irresponsible if they'd just stated what happened, without specifying the year. Similarly, I think most people who use the expression ‘9/11’ without specifying the year to which it refers are unwittingly being irresponsible and even seem disrespectful to all of the unfortunate innocent victims, living and dead, of that terrible day. Nobody means to seem trite and disrespectful by omitting the year when they refer to the event, but I think that’s what has implicitly begun happening.  
I’ve often wondered who first used the expression, ‘9/11.’ Was it someone in the media? Or President George Bush? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? In fact, one online source, The Morning Delivery: Feats, Facts, and Historic Firsts About Items in the News (http://www.billlucey.com/2010/09/who-coined-the-term-911.html), concedes it’s hard to remember or to know for sure who first coined the expression ‘9/11.’ 
But the website claims the New York Times “first used the term ``9/11’’ in a headline for a Bill Keller op-ed article on September 12, 2001: ``Correspondent: America’s Emergency Line: 9/11’’ The Morning Delivery says when Jack Rosenthal, President of The New York Times Company Foundation was asked about the origin of the expression ‘9/11,’ he responded by email on his recollection of the day:

``Like just about everyone else in America, I kept asking myself all day, what can we do. That evening, the answer dawned on me: do just what we do every day at The Times Company Foundation, philanthropy. Why don't we start a relief fund?...Let's create a special solicitation of Times readers around the country. That night…I sent e-mails to…our…executives describing the idea and calling it The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund. By morning, everyone had signed on so I did the next natural thing for a former reporter and editor; I wrote it up as a story, as a convenient way to get the information across to the hugely harried Times news department.’’

The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund’s first article appeared on September 13; and according to Rosenthal, the fund raised $62 million with the money distributed within the first 6 months which benefited 30,000 of the neediest families.

                                                           

                                             --Bill Lucey (WPLucey@gmail.com)

                                               

We should also remember the expression ‘9/11’ is a quick and handy way for the media to refer to that day 10 years ago; to make snappy, eye-catching headlines and broadcast ‘sound bites.’ But if ‘9/11’ was first used by the media, partly for convenience because it’s a fast way to mention the tragedy, we should remember that those who don’t work in the media have no need to abbreviate references to what happened that dark day.  

So, to help preserve the memories of that day, we should all start including the year ‘2001’ when referring to the tragedy. In doing so, we could all seem more-respectful to the victims of that massacre, and help ensure we are always able to remember the specific date and year, by simply saying ‘September 11, 2001;’ or even ‘9/11/01.’ 
Neither of these two expressions is too long or cumbersome, and they’re both easy to say once you get used to them.   

NHL 'Enforcers:' Sadly, A Dying Breed

When the ‘sudden and unexpected’ deaths of three National Hockey League (NHL) ‘enforcers’—whose main job was to fight, not score goals--were announced over the past four months, in each case I automatically suspected suicide: Derek Boogaard (May 13, 2011, age 28), Rick Rypien (Aug. 15, 2011, age 27), and Wade Belak (Aug. 31, 2011, age 35). In assuming suicide, I was reminded of what my friend and supervisor—a psychiatric nurse—told me when I worked for the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) for nearly four years in the early-mid 1990s before I returned to school in 1996. She said when we hear or read about someone dying ‘suddenly’ at home or elsewhere, it often—but not always—suggests the person committed suicide. 
Widespread published reports indicate Rypien and Belak hanged themselves; Boogaard died of an accidental overdose of alcohol and oxycodone, according to the medical examiner involved. Regardless of whether we’re hockey fanatics or casual observers we should be concerned about these three tragic deaths, in just four months, of NHL ‘enforcers:’ three young men are dead—by their own hands, yes, either accidentally or intentionally—but they are still dead.

The term ‘enforcer’ seems to be a nice euphemism for ‘thug on skates,’ a tough guy whose main talent and ability seems to be fighting: either because of his size, physical hulk, and willingness and ability to fight; and/or because he doesn’t have the skill to actually play hockey and contribute to his team the old-fashioned way; by getting assists and scoring goals. His key role appears to be protecting his team’s more-talented hockey players by trying to ‘take out’ perceived or actual threats on the opposing team so they don’t hurt the ‘enforcer’s’ more-talented teammates.

• Belak, 6’5” and 223 pounds, was “known more for using his fists than stick-handling…played 549 NHL games, scoring eight goals and 33 points, racking up 1,263 penalty minutes” (Toronto Sun, Sept. 1, 2011). According to the Toronto Star, he “wanted to play the game so he willingly assumed the role of enforcer, taking part in 136 fights, even though he hated what he was hired to do” (Sept. 2, 2011). He recently retired from the NHL and planned a new career, partly in broadcasting.

• Rypien wasn’t a typical NHL ‘enforcer,’ said the New York Times: “He fought often — 39 times in his 119-game N.H.L. career — while scoring only 9 goals and 7 assists…at 5 feet 11 inches and 190 pounds, Rypien fell into the category of the useful, smaller, “character” player, willing to take on anyone. In each of Rypien’s 39 N.H.L. fights, his opponent was taller, according to Dropyourgloves.com…” (Aug. 16, 2011).

• At 6’7” and 260 pounds, Boogaard broke into the NHL “with the Minnesota Wild in 2005-06” (www.foxnews.com/sports), and “quickly gained a reputation as one of the game’s top enforcers,” said the National Post (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/05/13/derek-boogaard-found-dead-in-minneapolis/). He died in May, 2011 of an accidental overdose of alcohol and “oxycodone toxicity. Oxycodone is categorized as a painkiller. The (medical examiner’s) report said the manner of death was accidental and that no other data will be released” (May 20, 2011, www.foxnews.com/sports).

The most-recent of these ‘sudden’ deaths is that of Belak, a Toronto Maple Leaf for many years before ending his hockey career with the Nashville Predators and retiring several months ago. His death also seems the most-shocking to many people since he apparently showed no outward signs of anything amiss in his life or psyche. Yet, his mother, Lorraine Belak, has since confirmed he was suffering from depression: “I think he was taking control of that…He didn’t talk about it all the time or a lot…All I know is that it is still under investigation…The only thing I can tell you is he did not die of natural causes” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). In addition, columnist Dave Feschuk said two unidentified sources claim Belak secretly suffered from depression, for which he was taking medication (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011, http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/1048235--feschuk-belak-silently-suffered-from-depression-sources-say).

Belak’s father, Lionel Aadland, reportedly said his son hadn’t displayed any signs of “distress” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011). Mark Napier, the executive director of the NHL’s alumni association, “which frequently arranges and pays for medical treatment for ex-NHLers” (Toronto Star, Sept. 2, 2011), said he believes Belak never asked the association for assistance.

Notably, Belak has been widely described as always gregarious, loud, fun, upbeat, and as one who never seemed to have a bad day; always kidding around and making jokes. But in hindsight, could he have been trying too hard to be Mr. Personality? When he entertained his friends and colleagues, could he have been mainly acting? Didn’t any of them ever sense he might’ve been trying too hard to be the life of the party?

From my experience, some people who are loud, gregarious, upbeat and ‘on’ all or most of the time eventually reveal, in one way or another, they have low self-esteem, a poor self-image, and generally feel inadequate and inferior to others; they don't really like themselves very much and assume if they're just ‘themselves’ others won’t like them either. So some of these people overcompensate for those perceived flaws by becoming the guy or gal everyone loves having around because they're always good for a laugh, they don’t seem to take anything or themselves seriously, and they can liven up any situation. Did Wade Belak fall into that category?

In a telling moment during an interview with Bruce Arthur of the National Post, Belak revealed something that seems significant and especially poignant about his self-image; which could be related to his apparent suicide. When asked if he ever got special treatment in Toronto, as a Maple Leaf, he said he did at McDonald’s sometimes, but “that’s about it.” He seemed to ruminate momentarily about what his life might be like when he retired from hockey: “I mean, I don’t go throwing around ‘I play for the Leafs’ to get free stuff all the time, because I hate doing that. But I could … I should enjoy it while it lasts. Soon I’ll be a nobody” (http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/08/31/belak-death-an-end-to-a-wretched-summer/, Aug. 31, 2011).

In saying he’d soon be “a nobody,” perhaps Belak was living up to his reputation as a joker, and was kidding; maybe he actually believed he’d be a ‘somebody.’ But in the context of his suicide this week, I suspect his brief remark, above, betrayed what he really was thinking and feeling about himself and his future outside of hockey. And if he really believed he’d be “a nobody” when he retired from pro hockey, he could’ve been consumed by that thought, and it might’ve played a major role in his decision to kill himself; especially if he had low self-esteem and a poor self-image.

If Belak was taking medication for depression, this might help explain why he’s generally described as being always upbeat and outgoing. The medication might’ve affected him that way, depending on the medication and how he and his system reacted to it. But does his ‘sudden’ death suggest he’d been faking his outward sunny disposition? Was his outward happy nature genuine, even if aided by medication? Or was he actually despondent, lonely, sad, and frustrated--personally and/or professionally--much of the time? Did he feel inadequate or inferior compared to players who scored goals and got assists? Had he been planning to kill himself when the moment was ‘right’ for him? Or, was his ‘sudden’ death really sudden; an aberration, utterly out of character—perhaps the result of a split-second thought, feeling or impulse, or something suddenly happening to him, or in his life?

Since their deaths, Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard have all been variously described by family members, friends, and co-workers as great guys, good friends, caring family members, great parent, sons and brothers, and gentle giants: guys who fought on the ice because they had to, but off the ice they were proverbial pussycats and would do anything to help anybody, anytime.

Not surprisingly, nobody seemed to see the deaths coming—even though, in Rypien’s case, he took two leaves of absence from the Canucks for ‘personal reasons’ and apparently his decade-long fight with depression was common knowledge at least among some of those with whom he worked. After playing several years with the Canucks, he recently signed with the Winnipeg Jets for the 2011-2012 season. In a eulogy at his funeral last month, his uncle, Alan Rypien, asked the inevitable question: “Why? How could this happen? He had a great family, great friends and a great job... He fought this disease with everything he had in him…Unfortunately the disease won the battle…” (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/saying-goodbye-to-rypien-128143758.html, Gary Lawless, Aug. 21, 2011).

Interestingly, for all those who knew these three young men, various news sources suggest very few people seemed to know them well at all; how they really felt and what they really thought of being their team’s henchman on blades. By all accounts, none of these men’s family members, friends, or acquaintances knew they felt despondent, lonely, sad, depressed, or whatever feelings and thoughts they had running through their minds and bodies when they decided to end their own lives; either accidentally or intentionally.

If these three men didn’t reach out to anyone for help, this could reflect the nature of their work. Because of the notoriously ‘macho culture’ of the NHL, they might’ve felt or thought they couldn’t let their guard down and show their ‘real selves,’ fears and all, to anyone, including friends or families. Yet presumably these three young men, whose recent and untimely deaths are now being grieved by friends, families, and fans, became an ‘enforcer’ for their NHL team because they chose to do so.

Are these deaths just coincidences or a clear sign of the emotional toll being an ‘enforcer’ can take on a man, regardless of how physically tough and emotionally and mentally well-adjusted he seems to be? One former NHL enforcer, Georges Laraque, now a broadcaster, says these apparent suicides are not just a coincidence; he suggests they go with the territory.
“This job is so hard, physically and mentally. You can go to a movie theatre the night before a game, and you’re thinking of the fight you’re going to get into the next day…You try not to think about it, but you start with the drugs or the alcohol…And when you retire, most of the tough guys aren’t set (for life)," Laraque said. 
"You don’t make a lot of money as a fighter…so they go back to drugs and alcohol. There’s no options…there’s the people who say ‘let’s take fighting out of hockey.’ Are you kidding me? Whoever decides to make that rule (no fighting), then you’re really going to have a problem with these guys. If there’s depression when you retire, how bad do you think it’ll be if you take 75 (fighters’) jobs out of the NHL so they can’t even earn a living? You create a bigger problem by trying to fix the problem.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hockey+enforcer+deaths+coincidence+Laraque/5341512/story.html)

The apparent intentional and accidental suicides of Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard—all since May 2011--led NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr, Executive Director of the NHL Players' Association to say they won’t let the three deaths pass “without examining the events surrounding each one in full…these tragic events cannot be ignored…Our organizations are committed to a thorough evaluation of our existing assistance programs and practices and will make immediate modifications and improvements to the extent they are deemed warranted” (Aug. 31, 2011). 
Time will tell.