5A-1 Discussion Items - Safeplay Framework for the CFC

[Lyle Craver]

This discussion is intended to be an initial introduction of this program which we hope will get a good discussion here and subsequently in the main VM area - it is the Executive's hope that we can reach a consensus and proceed with a vote at the Annual Meeting.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

FIDE recently announced that they were partnering with Safe Sport International to develop a safeguarding framework for FIDE and its member federations. Details of the announcement can be found at the following link:

https://www.fide.com/news/2740

The Safeguarding Framework will cover issues such as sexual harassment and child protection. The framework will follow international standards and guidelines, and aim to create safe and inclusive spaces for chess players, coaches, arbiters and other participants. While we wait for the results of this initiative we are not operating in a vacuum as we can look to the experiences of other sports in coming up with policies for Chess in Canada carried out under the auspices of the CFC.

The Canadian government and the Canadian Olympic Committee has led efforts in this area:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...or-canada.html

https://preprod.olympic.ca/canadian-...ce/safe-sport/

I have attended a number of presentations on Safe Sports in the context of sport tourism conferences along with presentations by the Canadian Olympic Committee which has held a series of meetings on the topic the most recent having taken place a little over a week ago.

The following framework could be a useful starting point in developing a similar framework for chess in Canada and elsewhere.

https://sportintegritycommissioner.c...d-UCCMS-EN.pdfUCCMS-v6.0-20220531.pdf

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I put together a draft by adapting the USCF Safe Play Guidelines. Comments are welcome. It's a work in progress and will be subject to changes and edits by the board.
Safe Play Guidelines for Chess Federation of Canada Events
These guidelines apply to all National Chess Events in Canada, including, but not limited to, events the Canadian Chess Federation assigns to third-party organizers via the event bidding process.
Chess Federation of Canada strictly prohibits the following:
1. Sexual misconduct
• Sexual conduct without consent
• sexual harassment
• intimate relationships involving a person in a position of Power where a power imbalance exists
• Sexual misconduct involving minors (where the age difference is 3 or more years)
• Child sexual abuse
• Criminal disposition (the individual who lodges a complaint is themselves culpable of engaging in sexual misconduct, including involving a minor).

2. Bullying
The repeated, intentional, and harmful behavior directed towards an individual or group.
• Physical, e.g. hitting, punching, slapping, spitting at another person.
• Verbal, e.g. teasing, taunting, name-calling, intimidating, or threatening to cause someone harm.
• Social, e.g. using rumors or false statements about someone to diminish that person’s reputation.
• Sexual, e.g. ridiculing someone based on gender or sexual orientation.
*It is NOT Bullying if it involves an isolated incident, i.e. someone is rude (unintentionally expressing or engaging in actions that may cause harm or hurt), mean (deliberately doing or saying something hurtful, but without a consistent pattern of such behavior), conflict (conflict between individuals without a noticeable imbalance of power, where both parties believe their goals are incompatible).

3. Harassment
Persistently and undesirably disturbing, intimidating, or causing distress to an individual or a group through unwanted actions, comments, or behaviors.
• Discriminatory harassment: attempts to establish dominance, superiority, or power over an individual or group based on age, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, national origin, or mental or physical disability
• Stalking: 1) following a person; 2) appearing at a person’s home, class or work; 3) frequent phone calls, emails, or text messages; 4) continuing to contact a person after receiving requests to stop; 5) vandalizing a person’s property; 6) threatening, intimidating, or intrusive behavior; and, 7) violating a lawful order preventing contact with a person.
• Sexual Harassment: sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical behaviors of a sexual nature.

4. Emotional misconduct
Includes repeated actions intended to cause emotional distress and harm.
• Verbal: repeatedly attacking someone personally (e.g., calling a person worthless or fat); repeatedly and excessively yelling at a particular athlete or other participant in a manner that serves no productive training or motivational purpose.
• Physical: physically aggressive behaviors, such as throwing equipment, water bottles or chairs at or in the presence of others; punching walls, windows, or other objects.
• Criminal, i.e. psychological abuse, emotional abuse, mental abuse, child abuse.

*Exception: emotional misconduct does not include professionally accepted and age-appropriate coaching methods for skill and performance enhancement or appropriate discipline.

5. Physical Misconduct
Behaviours that cause or threaten to cause physical harm to another person.
• Contact violations: punching, beating, biting, striking, choking, or slapping another person; or, intentionally hitting another person with objects (e.g., throwing chess pieces or a chess clock at someone).
• Non-contact violations: isolating a person in a confined space, such as: 1) locking someone in a small space; 2) denying adequate food, water, medical attention, or sleep; 3) providing alcohol to a person under the applicable legal drinking age; or, 4) providing illegal drugs to another person.
• Criminal Conduct: physical abuse under applicable federal law (e.g. child abuse, child neglect, assault).

*Exception: physical misconduct does not include professionally accepted coaching methods or appropriate discipline.

In an effort to prioritize the safety of all participants, we recommend that:
a) Interactions between members of the opposite gender should occur in an open and observable setting.
b) Adults should strive to avoid being alone with a Minor. IP cameras, open and visible spaces, and a minimum of three people presence are recommended to prevent any kind of misconduct during chess tournaments and events.
c) Placing an authorized person outside the restroom during the youth chess tournaments.
What to do when you have an incident on site:
1) Control the Situation. The principal organizers shall take charge in protecting the victim and ensuring they are safe from further possible abuse.
2) Call 911.
3) Report the incident to Chess Federation of Canada using Safe Play Report Form.

The above is from the work that Olga has done on this file.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Veronica has also sent me a very thoughtful email on this subject along with the Canadian Sailing Association policy on this subject which I would welcome her to cut and paste into the forum to help kick off the discussion.

[Veronica Hitchlock]

Veronica has also sent me a very thoughtful email on this subject along with the Canadian Sailing Association policy on this subject which I would welcome her to cut and paste into the forum to help kick off the discussion.

My Initial Email Summarizing the Meeting with Emilia
This morning I met with Emilia Castelao, the Founder of the Women in Chess Foundation, to discuss what other federations have been doing for Safe Play and some recommendations for what the CFC should do moving forward.

Generally, they've been targeting Safe Play at three levels: federation, tournament, and individual.

At the Federation level, the main things are getting a Safe Play Policy in place, creating a reporting process and deciding who will handle that process. Adopting the UCCMS is a good start because it holds us to a certain standard with the Sport Commissioner, but having a CFC policy as well allows us to be more specific and leaves less room for confusion. Emilia gave me a policy template they developed in collaboration with the European Chess Union which I've attached. I like the European Chess Union's policy which integrates it with Fair Play and the USCF policy has been improved significantly in its January update. I could draft something similar adapted for Canada.

The other key point is deciding on a reporting process and who will handle the reports. I think even a Google form or something similar would be a good start since it makes it easier for us to get the info we need and easier for victims since it eliminates the ambiguity of what to include in an email report.

For handling the reports, I've found that the more people directly involved the more apprehensive people are to report issues. Three was the number we settled on for the university Safe Play committee.

I think it would make sense to have Christina and me since women and youth are particularly vulnerable. Another member like Vlad as President, Patricia because legal insight would be valuable, or Olga as VP would bring it to three. From there, some sort of anonymization process could be created (if the victim wants) before it escalates to the rest of the board.

At the tournament level, they've been working on guidelines for players and organizers to follow. To a degree, this becomes redundant if the CFC adopts a policy that addresses tournament-specific issues.

One aspect I liked that could be something to look at is the formation of tournament-specific ethics committees that are designated to handle concerns during the tournament. For larger tournaments like Zonals, CYCC and Canadian Open I think this is a great idea. I've personally had and witnessed issues at larger tournaments in the States that would have been greatly helped by having designated people to go to for help. Especially for issues like harassment, just having that committee would be a deterrent and provide a faster way to minimize harm when issues occur.

I'm friends with Victor Zheng and Tanner McNamara who are organizers for Zonals this year, so it could be something I could discuss trying out with them.

The other big dimension they're working on is training advocates on how to identify and respond to safe play issues through their advocacy initiative. Only one Canadian is registered as an advocate and she praised the workshop quite highly.

They offer group training for federations and their members, and I think it would be a good idea to look at organizing one for TDs and Arbiters in Canada. They're a not-for-profit organization and only ask to donate what you can for their workshops, so it wouldn't be too costly and I think would give some great tools for organizers to lean on.

Sail Canada Policies https://www.sailing.ca/wp-content/up...y-2023-ENG.pdf

The Sail Canada policies came up because on my reading of the UCCMS I noted several issues that adopting it on it's own would cause:
1. The UCCMS is quite long and even the annotated version I find to be less clear than it could be to the average reader. A big problem that I discussed with Emilia was that often people aren't aware of what is and is not a Safe Play issue, so having a policy that is written in a way that is understandable to the majority of people is important. We've dealt with this issue at the University of Ottawa because some members have still been bouncing back socially after doing school online for several years, they genuinely didn't know that their behaviour was inappropriate and as soon as they were made aware they were apologetic and it never happened again. A clear "Code of Ethics" helps prevent misunderstandings like this by putting everyone on the same page, and I think the size and wording of the UCCMS alone doesn't do that.

2. My other issue with the UCCMS is that it refers to the Criminal Code on several times. The Criminal Code is great, but I don't think it's language is the most clear for the average person. There could also be issues with relying on the Code for non-physical sexual offences because it's not clear if the non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence will include deepfaked sexually explicit videos, which could do significant reputational and emotional harm. A clearer way to ensure that action could be taken in that situation and deter that sort of behaviour would be implementing a more clearly worded CFC Safe Play Policy.

3. The biggest issue though is that the UCCMS has a very limited jurisdiction. They can only hold the people who consent to be bound by it accountable, which involves a signature. That's why Sail Canada and most other sports organisations have implemented additional policies to complement it.

The Office of the Sports Integrity Commissioner was only able to admit a quarter of the cases brought to them last year because of jurisdictional issues. In those cases, they look for alternative resolution methods like the federation. Most of the people OSIC has jurisdiction over are coaches who sign as part of their licensing, so ultimately most complaints about players submitted through OSIC will come back to the CFC meaning we'll need a procedure to handle those complaints and ideally a document that outlines that process.

I'm very much in favour of adopting the UCCMS, but I share the same sentiment as Hockey Canada and other sports federations that it's not enough on it's own and the CFC needs it's own policy.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

What I like about the UCCMS is that it defines its terms which the USCF policy for example doesn't seem to do adequately. What I don't like about UCCMS is that it might be used by nefarious people to cause problems. What constitutes bullying versus simply being forceful in your opinions online? On the other hand, staying off social media except when you need to get some message out there is probably good for your peace of mind. If you need to sign repeated waivers, it could be a problem as we were contacted by one group which required us to get signed consent every year for testing for drugs and they wanted to charge us significant amounts. This was during the pandemic when we were shut down and they made not so veiled threats of consequences for FIDE but FIDE was not concerned and so we declined to get involved.

[Veronica Hitchlock]

What I don't like about UCCMS is that it might be used by nefarious people to cause problems. What constitutes bullying versus simply being forceful in your opinions online?

The part of the UCCMS I think you're referring to is 5.2.1:

5.2.1 Psychological Maltreatment includes, without limitation, verbal conduct, nonassaultive physical conduct, conduct that denies attention or support, and/or a
person in authority’s pattern of deliberate non-contact behaviours that have the
potential to cause harm.
a) Verbal Conduct: without limitation, verbally assaulting or attacking someone, including in online forms; unwarranted personal criticisms; implied or expressed body shaming; derogatory comments related to one’s identity (e.g. race, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, Indigeneity, disability); comments that are demeaning, humiliating, belittling, intimidating, insulting or threatening; the use of rumours or false statements about someone to diminish that person’s reputation; using confidential sport and non-sport information inappropriately.

I don't think that it should be a concern that it would be abused in that way, because in the annotated version it's followed up by this:
Annotation s. 5.2.1(a)

Expressing differences of opinion, offering constructive feedback, providing guidance and/or advice about a particular behaviour and/or situation does not constitute Psychological Maltreatment, unless it is made in such a way that responds to the criteria set out in Section 5.2.1 or other applicable provisions of the UCCMS.

The bar for verbal conduct seems pretty high and the UCCMS' primary objective is more to address issues that threaten a person's physical or emotional safety. I doubt that OSIC would take a claim about statements online very seriously unless it was particularly heinous like hate speech or very significant personal attacks.

The bar should be even higher considering that freedom of expression is protected by s. 2 b of the charter, meaning OSIC imposing sanctions based on the expression of opinions online would not go over well at all. I'd be shocked if they'd want to push hard on a verbal misconduct claim and risk legal issues that would prevent them from addressing the more pressing parts of their mandate.

I think the intention behind 5.2.1 was more to encompass issues like coaches speaking negatively about their players based on their weight (which is a big issue in many sports) and issues where coaches/parents will scream at players for underperforming. There are a lot of issues like that which 5.2.1 would catch that I don't think could be covered by the UCCMS otherwise, and I don't think OSIC would take kindly to people using it as retaliation for expressing themselves online in a less than courteous way.

5.12 of the UCCMS also mentions that submitting a false or unsubstantiated claim with OSIC in bad faith can be a violation of the UCCMS, so it would be a very very stupid thing for someone to go after unless they had proof of something seriously reprehensible because it would be just as likely come back to blow up in their face

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Have a work group been created with the task to come back with the "framework"? Otherwise it will be left on the level of discussions.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Have a work group been created with the task to come back with the "framework"? Otherwise it will be left on the level of discussions.

I think initially we should accept UCCMS which you can read at the links in the first article above. We hope to accomplish that by the AGM which may take place in late August or early September. In between we will have a meeting in June which will also feature this topic. The Canadian government spent a great deal of money coming up with this framework and it is endorsed by the Canadian Olympic Committee who have also offered help in getting this implemented within various sports organizations and even offering legal help to get this accomplished. Once we have done that we can look at extending it and customizing it for the CFC with additional steps and policies. Olga Mushtaler our vice president has done quite a bit of work on this looking at what other federations are doing. Veronica Hitchlock our women's coordinator has some experience with this in the realm of sailing and she has reached out to some experts in the field to help us get started and has looked at what chess federations across the Atlantic have done. We have had a number of discussions about this among the executive. I think Olga and Veronica will spearhead this with input from other board members including Patricia. Patricia has already agreed that we should start with the made in Canada solution that is comprehensive and well thought out.

The UCCMS which stands for Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport is the Canadian government's response and solution to the situations that have arisen in some other sports and they offer a supporting infrastructure for all sports federations in Canada.

I don't want to go to the participant nomenclature because it strips the non-voting members of some rights and removes a poison pill which would require all member groups to have a say in the event of dissolution of the CFC. This removes the ability of some future executive with nefarious intentions from stripping the CFC of assets and enriching themselves. It is a lot harder to execute a hostile takeover of the CFC if you need to get the approval of the 4800 members in addition to the voting members and executive.

[Christopher Mallon]

It won't perfectly align with whatever the final plan for Chess is, but this training and certification program already exists and might be useful?

https://www.respectgroupinc.com/respect-in-sport/

A lot of groups require youth coaches in particular to have this certificate. It's tailored to Canada so I imagine they are updating it as new guidelines are coming in.
I believe the cost is $12 for the "parent" program, and $35 ish for the "sport leader" program.