So here we are again, discussing the issue of violence in hockey. This time, it was Patrick Roy's son Jonathan sparking the dialogue with his attack on fellow QMJHL goaltender Bobby Nadeau, but it's important to remember that this heated debate has been going on for decades. And while it might seem simple to solve (at least for casual observers), it's absolutely not.

First and foremost, it's important to remember what professional hockey is: a dozen powerful athletes wielding sticks and motoring around an ice surface at speeds upwards of 30 miles per hour. They're chasing a hard rubber puck, capable of doing plenty of damage in its own right, and they're by and large wearing enough armor to protect them from virtually all danger. And through it all, each of them is somehow expected to measure the intentions of their opponents, bad or otherwise, while doing their part to either keep the puck out of their own net or put it into their opponent's.

The ice surface is 200 feet long by 85 feet wide, effectively the same as it's been for decades (with a few exceptions, where smaller rinks were replaced by larger ones, as when the Boston Garden gave way to the TD Banknorth Garden). Meanwhile, the players have gotten exponentially larger, nearly every NHLer weighing in at over 200 pounds. Technological innovations (lighter armor, faster skates) have made it possible for the players to skate more quickly than ever before. And their ultra-lightweight synthetic sticks make it possible to shoot the puck more quickly while also getting a lot more velocity on their slashes and crosschecks.

This, folks, is a recipe for mayhem. And given all these factors, it's truly astonishing that today's NHL is far less violent than the NHL of the 1970s, when players were smaller and slower, skated with wooden sticks, and (in many cases) didn't even wear helmets. Take, for example, the cover story in the November 17, 1975 edition of Sports Illustrated, entitled "A Violent Sport Turns Vicious."

In it, author Ray Kennedy makes reference to an incident involving the Detroit Red Wings' Don Maloney, who "felled the Maple Leafs' Brian Glennie with a flying punch from the side and then bounced his head on the ice two times for good measure." That incident spurred Ontario Attorney General Roy McMurtry to charge Maloney with "assault causing bodily harm." Indeed, it isn't only in the present that infractions against members of Canadian NHL teams receive more attention.

At that time, there were two competing top-level professional ice hockey leagues, the NHL and the WHA (they merged in 1979). In his story, Kennedy reported that the WHA's biggest star, Bobby Hull, "sat out a game as a protest against the 'brutality' and malicious attacks on his teammates."

"If something isn't done soon," Hull said then, "it will ruin the game for all of us. I've never seen so much vicious stuff going on."

Indeed, NHL team construction at that time was heavily influenced by the need for team toughness. When asked about his strategy for team-building, then-Maple Leafs GM Harold Ballard said, "We've got to mold a lineup that can take on a bunch of goons. I'm looking for guys you toss raw meat to and they will go wild."

Kennedy's analysis was unsurprisingly critical of Ballard: "To say that his remarks are tasteless, an insult to the players, the fans and the game, is to underestimate the disregard many guardians of professional sports have for the public conscience. And to suggest that Ballard's words are ill-timed is to ignore the hard truth that it is difficult to find a time when hockey has not been under attack for fostering brutality, and more difficult to find any substantial moves on the league's part to stop it."

Fighting apologists will say that "fighting is a well-established safety valve for players against other types of violence which would be more vicious and damaging." Meanwhile, its critics laud the controversial instigator rule for having severely reduced the incidents of fisticuffs. And in truth, fair arguments can be made for both sides.

Without question, the threat of a beat-down from the likes of Georges Laraque would necessarily reduce the number of violent infractions against Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. But when one looks back at the NHL's landmark incidents of violence, a large percentage of the perpetrators are renowned enforcers ostensibly retained to deter violence. And if the police cannot be trusted, it's very difficult to justify changing the rulebook to encourage more vigilanteism.

Perhaps, instead, it would be best to accept the simple reality that some violence is inevitable. Hockey at its best is both graceful and brutal, its high-speed collisions providing the perfect counterbalance to dazzling end-to-end rushes. Now gratuitous acts, like stomping on an opponent with a skate blade (see: Chris Simon and Chris Pronger), should certainly yield severe suspensions. And blindside hits to the head should also be legislated out of the game, but the teams would be wise to first eradicate them from the Jumbotron highlight reels that are played during game stoppages.

"If they cut down on violence, people won't come out to watch," Bobby Clarke cautioned in Kennedy's article. "Let's face it, more people come out to see Dave Schultz than Bobby Orr. It's a reflection of our society. People want to see violence."

Indeed, that's a simple reality that critics need to accept. The only thing that gets more fans out of their seats than a fight is a well-timed home-team goal, and even that's not a given. As long as the NHL's diehard fans continue to fork over their hard-earned money for tickets, the league has a very real obligation to provide them with the entertainment they're seeking.

And given the amount of gratuitous violence Americans voraciously consume (films, television programs, etc.), it can fairly be said that fighting in hockey is more quaint than concerning. Most fights involve two willing participants, and as long as the players are willing to assume the associated risks in order to provide the entertainment, it's difficult to argue against.

Thirty-three years ago, Kennedy cautioned that if the NHL's "laissez-faire policy on fighting results in any more serious injuries—or worse—the league must be judged guilty of criminal neglect." And perhaps with this very concern in mind, Quebec Minister of Education, Sport and Leisure Michelle Courschesne spoke out last week against fighting in hockey.

"We decided to quickly take action," Courchesne said. "Therefore, I communicated with my provincial and territorial counterparts to initiate talks on the question of fighting within hockey" and "to implement measures to stop fighting in hockey in Canada."

Should the Quebec government succeed in its efforts, it will be interesting to see whether fighting will—or won't—be allowed at Montreal Canadiens home games. And it will be interesting to see whether other provinces (and U.S. states) follow suit. But it probably won't change what the fans want, and if the violence they're seeking is eradicated from the game, many will likely seek out their entertainment elsewhere. And this must necessarily be a huge concern for the NHL's powers-that-be.

Arguments about violence in hockey will no doubt continue for as long as the game is played with sticks on ice. But it's important to evaluate that violence from within the proper context. It's important to separate gratuitous attacks (like Roy's) from legal, hard, open-ice checks. It's important to draw a distinction between stepping on an opponent with a razor-sharp skate blade and challenging an opponent to engage in fisticuffs.

Without proper context, the debate will be destructive, not constructive. And in the end, it's the fans—as much as the league and its players—who should probably be placed under the microscope. After all, they're the ones paying the freight.