Dutch beach volleyball player convicted of rape is booed again, louder, in second match of Olympics
(apnews.com)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 01 Aug 2024 10:28
https://lemmy.world/post/18171211
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 01 Aug 2024 10:28
https://lemmy.world/post/18171211
Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.
#world
threaded - newest
Associated Press Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)
> Name: Associated Press > Bias: Left-Center
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
This is cool functionality.
Then:
So they can bitch that people bboed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?
Fuck that guy, I hope the whole stadium booes anytime he shows his face.
If he was going to pull the “I’m here for volleyball” then he should shut the fuck up 24/7. Not try to play the victim then refuse to admit why they’re booing.
Mathew Immers is not the guy who raped the child. That is Steven van de Velde.
Immers is van de Velde’s beach volleyball partner.
They’re all Emmanuel Goldstein during the two minute hate.
Yes, Immers is the same as Emmanual Goldstein, an unseen character in the novel 1984 who did not even exist but was famous for having refused to discuss a controversy where his teammate repeatedly raped a child.
What was the sentence for his crime?
Do all nations have the same focus on rehabilitation as the US prison system?
Is it possible for an individual to commit such an act and reform themselves, perhaps even earn the trust of society again?
He served one year in the UK for raping a 12-year-old multiple times. Then, through a treaty, he was extradited to the Netherlands and served no more time at all. He called the whole thing nonsense when the press asked him about it.
Please do tell us how that is a fair punishment for raping a 12 year old multiple times.
So I’m not overly familiar, but I can try to summarize what I know.
Steven van de Velde is a Dutchman who went to the UK and raped a 12 year-old. He was sentenced to four years in prison for this by a UK court. Later he was extradited to the Netherlands, so he could sit out his sentence in the NL. However in the Netherlands, unlike the UK, sex with a minor is not automatically considered rape and needs to be proven in court. (Note: That is my understanding of the difference in interpretation) Because of this his conviction was reduced to “ontucht”, meaning sexual misconduct. (Even though what he did would probably also be considered rape in Dutch court).
As a result, he was out of prison after 13 months.
Now, Dutch attitude to these kinds of things, in my experience, is generally (but not always) that if you have paid your time, and have shown remorse for your actions, then it should probably not affect your future career prospects. The justice system is supposed to rehabilitate after all. (That is my experience though, and my experience may be biased, so don’t take this as gospel)
Hart van Nederland did a survey, and apparently only 27% of respondents think he should not be allowed to compete. 63% of respondents think he should be allowed to compete, and 10% don’t have an opinion either way. (Note that Hart van Nederland is not the most reliable of sources, but it gives an indication)
From what I have seen in Dutch circles this controversy is a lot less pronounced than it is in other countries. That’s not to say it is entirely uncontroversial, but it’s not quite to the same degree as I’m seeing internationally.
Personal opinion:
I don’t think his sentence should have been lowered to “ontucht”. I think what he did is morally reprehensible, and he should have sat out the full sentence for raping a minor. That is a failure on behalf of the justice system though, and van de Velde is not personally to blame for that.
That said, given that he has shown remorse for his actions, and has finished the sentence that the legal system imposed on him, I don’t think he should have been barred from competing in the Olympics on behalf of the Dutch team.Edit: As Flying Squid mentioned I might be mistaken that he has shown genuine remorse.
If he hasn’t that changes my opinion on the matter.
Remorse?
His “remorse” was over getting caught. He has never offered the slightest bit of apology to the victim.
If he hasn’t shown genuine remorse than changes my stance.
Given what I had read on the matter I was under the impression he had shown remorse. Particularly the “biggest mistake of [his] life” remark.
True remorse would involve an apology to the victim. At least I think most people would think so.
I disagree with that. There’s no need to put the victim on the spot like that. True remorse definitely doesn’t involve rejecting culpability like that though.
How is making a public apology to the victim putting them on the spot? I would say that a public apology is almost literally the least he could do for her.
It means she has to decide if she’ll listen to it, when and how she’ll be able to process it, and whether she forgives him. All of that in public? Not a chance in hell I’d want my rapist to do that.
Only if people expected her to respond, which they wouldn’t. The press would not be clamoring to see if she accepted it. They haven’t even named her as far as I know, since she was a minor, so they wouldn’t be able to.
Because all of that would be true regardless of whether he apologized in public or in private.
I’ve never heard anyone take a stance against a public apology before. This is honestly a very strange stance.
It’s still just hanging there, over her head, even if nobody expects an answer.
Weird, most of the people I’ve talked to while witnessing public apologies agree that they’d feel awful to receive. I don’t really talk about it in other scenarios, so I don’t know how common it is.
Which would be just as true if he apologized in private.
I absolutely don’t suggest a private apology! He should just leave her the hell alone forever
You are against apologizing to someone you’ve hurt? Really?
Thread got removed for me, possibly because I swore, but I don’t think it’s productive for the victim unless they seek it out. It’s too easy to load it with double meaning and use it as an opportunity to hurt them further. The only way to avoid that would be to use boilerplate language that doesn’t mean anything.
That squid guy is quite ridiculous. He regularly throws reason out the window to feed his ego by bashing whomever he can pass shallow judgement upon.
That’s where I think the mob goes wrong. Rape is a pretty big mistake. But, the best people I know today are that way in total rejection of who they once were. They’ve never brought it up. I confront them when I see myself in them.
His actions seem to demonstrate compliance and remorse.
Source
Those empowered to judge him have judged him forgiven.
On what basis should we believe differently?
We could find a stupid or good reason to discard each and every individual. Humans are deeply flawed. I need not conveniently bash this talented man to feel good about myself. I chose the more difficult and quite unpopular position of forgiveness.
You’re seemingly the only person who understood. You’re true to your username. I liked how you didn’t assign him responsibility for the perceived failure of the justice system. I think it was the critical thing that needed said when saying that he did more than what was mandated. Thank you for speaking up.
Reason wins because propaganda has a much shorter half life.
Removed, civility.
Removed, 3 day ban. I am a mod here and you will remain civil or be removed.
What exactly are you banning them for? Their comment seems pretty civil to me.
Their original comment was removed because they accused another user of being a child rapist.
The comment that got them a 3 day ban was for attacking a mod.
You can see their full modlog here:
lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=98689
Based on their history, I expect they’ll come back even worse and end up being permanently banned.
That wasn’t an accusation, it was a very stupid insinuation.
And that comment about you is less an attack and more an accusation. If the mod team deems fit to throw around bans because they can’t deal with a random user being critical yet allow some other users on here to continue to post literal Nazi propaganda, then I don’t know man.
I see you around a ton, and your moderating seems to be very personal.
It’s not personal, I don’t have that kind of time.
Some comments don’t get removed because they simply aren’t reported. It’s not like we’re personally reading every comment in every thread.
Here’s how it works:
We have a queue of reported messages, we go through the list and decide if it’s infringing or not.
The US does not have a rehabilitation prison system. We don’t really have a justice system, we have a vengeance system and a torture prison system. I don’t think prison should be torture or a slave plantation for any convict in any case. Although our property crime sentencing is overly harsh and violent crimes against a person are far to lenient. I think rapists need to be removed from society more than anything else, it should be up there with murder one. Also I think most non violent convicts could be on house arrest, work, pay taxes, and not be vengefully tortured.
I’m only intolerant of intolerance. That means I’ll forgive murderers and rapists once they’ve completed their punishment and rehabilitation. But, I also understand that my perspective on forgiveness isn’t common.
Except you’re not forgiving them once they’ve had their punishment and Rehabilitation. As pointed out this child rapist is unremorsful. He was neither punished nor rehabilitated. He’s an unrepentant child rapist. That’s who you’re defending.
A year for multiple rapes if a 12 year old is barely a sentence, no matter what justice system you’re in. And he’s clearly not even sorry.
I agree. He voluntarily did more, though.
When? Before he voluntarily did more, or afterwards?
Rape isn’t alcoholism. For some it’s maybe like heroin. But, I’ve not had a drink in more than a decade and know a heroin addict with more time under his belt. People can change.
After he screwed up someone’s life then did more than his sentence, he seems OK to everyone he’s engaging with now. So, I wonder if I’d forgive him if I met him IRL. It’s easier to judge him without nuance hypothetically, when there’s no consequences for doing so. If I met him I’d hopefully be strong enough give him a chance.
And his victim, who has self harmed after he hurt her, gets to watch him live his best life at the olympics.
No. That’s not ok.
If you’ll never forgive, why not just kill proactively?
No. That’s not ok.
Wow that is QUITE a jump from this dude shouldn’t be in the olympics to why not kill him.
There is plenty of other shit he could be doing that doesn’t involve international television.
And no, i will not forgive rapists because I have yet to see one who has ever been remorseful for what they’ve done. Certainly not from what i’m hearing about this guy.
There’s plenty of other shit you could be doing than punishing someone forever instead of offering them a quick death.
He is complaining that the crowd booed his partner. The partner he chose to play with. But he won’t recognize that the reason the pair is being booed is that one of the partners is a child rapist. I think it’s fair to think that that is bad.
I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here. Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers to just to make the world tour hoping to one day reach the olympics. For Immers he has busted his ass for years and at some point his national body probably paired him up with the other guy. It’s possible he may not have even known about it until they were partners and had established their dynamic and working relationship. Finding and building a team with a partner you click with on the court is hard-earned. I can imagine that Immers is absolutely distraught at the situation he’s been put in. He has a crappy choice here no matter what. Abandon what he’s spent his whole career building up to, now that he’s made it - because of something he had nothing to do with, knowing he may never get this chance again, even if he were to find another available partner… it takes years to learn how to play as a team; or he sucks it up, focuses on his own journey, cops the reflected criticism and hostility and tries to keep his emotions out of it…
It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.
Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.
If his buddy has broken his leg before the Olympics they would have found a replacement.
I guess that’s my point - no he wouldn’t. If his partner was out, that’s it. Min 4+ years gone. The nature of the sport and what it takes to qualify - no he wouldn’t.
If he has known for years and continued playing in the partnership then he’s made his bed and it’s time to lie in it. In the absence of info saying just that, I’m leaving room for the possibility that he’s found this out at the same time the news reading public has.
I’m not endorsing his choice. I’m saying he was faced with a shitty one. There may be a moral black and white here, I’m not trying to argue the right thing to do. I’m suggesting that likely through no fault of his own he had (and has) a choice to make. Obviously he’s made it. I think it’s reductive to declare it is a simple decision when you’ve dedicated years of your life, made daily sacrifice, put off having a family, a career, bank savings, preparing for the future to chase the chance of something fleeting. When it is all culminating in a moment- it takes a unique person to have given up so much for that dream to then willingly let it go at the last hurdle. He may for the rest of his life wish that he did.
Again, I’m not arguing the morals of the situation, I’m recognising the complexity of it.
It’s been said that all it takes in this world for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I sincerely want to be the kind of person who would abandon my whole life’s drive and focus to do what I believe is right. There is a hell of a lot of evil in this world - perhaps that’s because it’s a lot harder to do when facing it in the moment.
Then he can stop bitching that people are booing his partner who raped a fucking 12 year old.
Pick a lane, “no comment” or acknowledge what he did and ask for forgiveness.
This is literally the Dutch team complaining that people are booing, and refusing to acknowledge an incredibly valid reason why it’s happening.
Fuck em both.
Like you said, it’s a small population of players. Even if this guy was #1 in the Netherlands, if #2 thru 25 said they won’t play with a child rapist, the child rapist wouldn’t be on the team.
You think she forgot till now?
You think she doesn’t know his name?
Why is the issue talking about how he’s a child rapist and not that the child rapist is in the goddamn Olympics?
Quick edit:
We don’t call people heroes for doing the right thing because it’s easy and sacrifice free.
But we do call people shit bags for doing the wrong thing for personal gain/glory.
Which is what we’re doing here.
Except you, you’re out here complaining people booed a guy who raped a 12 year old.
Why?
Wow man, that’s a hot take. I’m not complaining at all. The crowd is upset that the Dutch team have chosen to select a man convicted of a heinous act. I absolutely abhor what that criminal did and in my mind there is absolutely no excusing or trivialising or equivocating on that. It’s unthinkable. I am not putting judgment on the crowd at all. I completely understand why they are doing it.
I don’t believe he was complaining in the interview. A journo asked him the world’s most obvious question and he has nowhere to go. He can’t defend his partner (not should he, not that he wanted to). He can only speak for himself and say it’s hard to get booed when personally you didn’t do the thing and you’ve worked so hard to get here.
I don’t know why you think I have anything but sincere empathy for the poor victim. I’m recognising that having a truly horrific life experience become fodder for the media, years after you last had that chapter of your life made public and the subject of speculation and judgment, must be a terrible ordeal - she will never forget his name or what happened, but there’s a difference between that and having this asshole on the front page of every news outlet for a month. It must be a genuinely traumatic experience to have it be made acute again.
You’re passionate and assertive in your feelings about this. I respect that and I don’t disagree with your sentiments. I don’t think your read meshes with what I was trying to say. I actually think we’re morally pretty well aligned. In the context of your comment, I don’t know many genuine heroes, they do what most people can’t - that’s why they’re so revered. We all know the way, only few actually walk it.
I don’t think that guy’s really complaining about the booing, I think he’s trying to separate the rapist from the other competitors.
I don’t know the case, and I’m very surprised the Netherlands let this guy compete for them, but he is and apparently served prison time (not as much as he probably should’ve). If he’s already served a prison sentence, then the Netherlands government probably believes he has been punished for the crime and is “rehabilited”. If he’s served time, double jeopardy applies to any punishment he would receive after the fact (IIRC).
I don’t know the rapist and I don’t care about him, I’d hope he’s incredibly remorseful and I’m not defending what he did, but like the OP was driving at; why are the actions of the rapist POS who served prison time tainting the other athletes competing for their own interests / country that legally posits the guy has been punished for his actions? Imagine being proud of your work and being booed because of the previous unrelated actions of a coworker you may or may not like.
If murderers are able to serve their prison sentence and be freed after their crime and feel remorse for their actions etc., at what point in time does someone stop being punished for their previous actions? I’m bringing up the rhetorical question in response to the common vitriol in comments surrounding sex crimes that bleeds onto anyone involved.
Unless you believe in the death penalty and that the rapist deserved to die for his actions by the hands of his government, what does it take for everyone to move forward? I ask because you’re positing the other Netherland’s athlete is essentially guilty because he didn’t risk his Olympic ambitions and refuse to play with the rapist who legally served his sentence.
How long he should’ve been in prison is another debate.
That’s not how double Double Jeopardy works (Netherlands also has a different name for it). It prevents you from being tried twice for a crime for which you’ve been acquitted/convicted. It does not prevent a country from refusing to have you represent them on the world stage.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy#:~:text=T….
From the US, but the philosophical reasoning still applies.
You misunderstand the point. The Netherlands did not stop him from competing for them, presumably because he’s served his time for the crime by their standards.
That’s your problem with the Netherland’s Olympic committee then, not the other athletes - the whole point of the post.
What point am I misunderstanding? You claimed double jeopardy applies. It does not. Not representing your country in the Olympics does not count as an official punishment for the same act.
The point is he was punished and likely contributed to him not being barred from Olympic participation. Ignore the double jeopardy statement then, engage with the actual discussion about the non rapist.
If you think the 19 year old having sex repeadly with a 13 year old is a “non rapist” then that says a lot about you and none of it good.
You clearly cannot read lmao
It is actually how it works in terms of official punishments(in the US at least):
Obviously not being picked for an olympic team isnt an official punishment, but the principle of not punishing someone for the same crime after they complete their given sentence is true.
for whatever reason someone might want to dedicate their entire life to earning the “best volleyball player” title for a few years, those were all 100% his decisions. if someone chooses to compete in a system that will even allow rapists to compete, then…sucks to suck? and it seems incredibly douchey to decide to play with a rapist and then try to act like the victim when the crowd boos
would YOU play on team rapist? if you would, then fuck you too.
if you wouldn’t, then why spill so much ink over trying to justify playing on team rapist?
to the larger conversation, this is one reason i say fuck the olympics altogether, it does more harm than good
The level of hostility toward the partner here caught me off guard… Yeesh…
Not even agreeing or disagreeing, just seems like a lot of misplaced anger.
I agree, this situation is twisted on both sides. Additionally this situation seems like non-statutory rape which makes the 1 year sentence quite lenient.
Then when the press asks him about getting booed he can say “i disagree with my partner’s life choices and understand the boos, but I am here to properly represent my country.” Instead of defending a convicted, unrepentant, child rapist.
Denmark are making the choice to shove him in everybody’s faces they made the choice to put him on the national team.
It’s Netherlands, but yes - he was selected by the national team.
They asked him a question and he answered. If you’re going to be mad at him for saying that then you should be mad at the people who asked the question.
He pulled the “no comment” card tho.
If he won’t talk about why they’re booing, he shouldn’t talk about the booing
But again, he shouldn’t be enabling a child rapist in the first place.
I question what kind of person is willing to play doubles with a convicted child rapist.
And then openly defend them to the media.
This whole thing is gross.
He deserved the boos.
He deserves much worse than that imo. Especially since all he got was a year and now just a few years later he’s playing in the Olympics.
I would be trying to encourage chanting of pedophile.
Just booing?
He went to another country, raped a 12-yo, fled and after conviction, his government - the Netherlands, only decided to give him a year of prison.
What else should they be doing? Storming the court and dragging him to a lynching tree? I’m guessing the French wouldn’t be especially accommodating to such vigilantism.
Maybe they can start by sitting on the court/field? 😏
You are absolutely correct!
You’d need to use a guillotine.
Holding up signage, shouting rapist, turning their backs…there is a lot of room between booing and lynching.
Yes?
Really? You want vigilantism and lynching? Do you think that might possibly go wrong at some point?
I think it’s a little different than typical vigilantism when he’s convicted and demonstrably used his privilege to get out of it, much less when he’s in the Olympics representing his nation (of child rapists, apparently, thus the government officials defending his right to get children drunk and rape them).
You are right that France isn’t the place to do it though, the French pedophilic cabal that has infiltrated the government is their Supreme Court.
“A little different.” This time. What about all the other times? What if it’s a member of the French supreme court that it turns out that, despite you thinking they’re a pedophile, they aren’t actually a pedophile?
I mean if they’re high in the judiciary they’re already guilty of something. It’s like billionaires, you know? Probably best to just get rid of the lot. Safer.
Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?
Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.
If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.
(BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)
Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?
Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.
How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:
I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.
Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.
No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.
We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.
So there also shouldn’t be laws? Because otherwise I’m not sure how matters of law should be settled like this if people aren’t familiar with the laws.
Sure, society needs rules, but they don’t need to be all that complex, and the real nuances or loopholes are better handled as individual cases
I think you underestimate how many laws you need to keep a nation functional.
Even Hammurabi had 282 written laws and his was a ‘whatever the king says is illegal is illegal’ empire.
You need laws to cover everything from murder to product safety to child custody after divorce. And none of those are able to solved simply every time because many cases have a lot of nuance.
On top of that, as I said, you need a lot of rules covering courtroom procedures. Expecting a random citizen to understand things like when something can be presented as evidence and what sort of questions a witness can be asked is expecting too much of them.
You make a great point - you do need a lot of laws… if the intent is to oppress people. Less so if you want a fair and equitable society.
You’re not really engaging with what I’m saying because you’re so assured and confident in your world view.
We don’t have to live in a hierarchical society where we are owned by our rulers. We can create a different world with our own rules.
I don’t know what those rules should be - no single person possibly ever could. My position is that the world we have is fundamentally, structurally, and intentionally unequal, unjust, and impossible to reform. We need to depose those who have created and enforced the current system and replace them with a new, fairer system designed from the ground up by all of us, not a new replacement elite.
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, but if we don’t end capitalism, we will instead live to see the end of the modern human civilisation.
A system of laws has nothing to do with capitalism. Pre-capitalist nations had laws, so did (and do) communist nations. Laws simply keep everything operating smoothly. And if you have an entity the size of a nation, you’ll need a lot of laws to cover the many issues regarding the many people in that nation. That has nothing to do with the economic system or the form of government.
There are no communist nations currently existing and there never have been any. I didn’t say that laws would not exist. I’m saying that the laws we currently have enforce and uphold capitalism, just as the laws of prior eras upheld feudalism, or monarchism, or whatever.
Okay, well then if laws exist, in your scenario, everyone would have to be equally familiar with them.
Sure. You can’t participate in a sport or a game without knowing the rules. So too is it unfair to expect people to participate in society without knowing its laws.
In our society, laws exist to be a cudgel wielded against the working class, but are not applicable against the ruling class except for internal power struggles. You already know in your heart that the people responsible for the climate disaster that we’re currently facing will never face justice unless we take it into our own hands.
First of all, that also has nothing to do with people needing to know the entirety of a system of laws if they are expected to be randomly selected to adjudicate.
Secondly, when are you going to take it into your own hands?
I didn’t say randomly selected, I said selected with some kind of fair and democratic process. Random selection I wouldn’t really personally feel is a good idea.
You’re still not engaging with my core point, you’re trying to pick holes. Forget everything you think that a “system of laws” has to be. Scrap it all. It doesn’t need to be complex or overbearing. It can be relatively simple. It doesn’t need people arguing over the specific wording of legal codes written in impenetrable legalese.
The intent is to have a system that is fair, equitable and just. Most laws can be replaced with the golden rules and the adjudication can be a matter of, “in this fair, or not fair? how can we resolve this matter fairly?” and deciding that with consensus in a way that does not itself break the golden rules.
It depends. The sooner that people like you realise that it’s our only chance, the sooner we can all take action. That’s why I’m taking the time to explain this. We need to work together. The few of us who already understand these ideas aren’t yet enough to make this happen.
A fair and democratic process requires a whole bunch of laws to ensure that process is, in fact, fair and democratic, so…
Keep chipping away at that mind prison. You’ll find a way out eventually. Have a great night!
Yes, it’s a ‘mind prison’ to suggest that you can’t have a fair and democratic election without laws to ensure that the election is fair and democratic.
By the way, I should point out that judges are elected in much of the U.S. Which is what you were advocating for anyway.
You are living your entire life in a cardboard box, saying “The walls must always be brown. The walls have always been brown. What colour would you make the walls?” and when I explain that there wont be walls, you declare, “nonsense! without walls, how would the roof be held up?” and when I say there wouldn’t be a roof either, you say “ah, but without a roof, you wouldn’t be able to know whether you’re looking up or down!”
Cool. You still can’t have a fair election without election laws to ensure that.
Believe it or not, people are not all naturally honest and honorable.
You’re going in circles. I have never used the term “election”, nor have I said that there can be no rules. I have said repeatedly that rules would exist - just that they could be simple.
I absolutely believe that people aren’t honest and honourable. That’s why I have been talking about consensus decisionmaking and abolishing power structures. I fully believe that power corrupts and therefore all unnecessary structures and hierarchies must be abolished. That includes money. Governments. Countries. States. Courts. The police. The whole lot has to go. It is the only way for a fair and equal society.
And you’re out here talking about how US judges are elected, fucking lol.
You said they would be democratically elected. That requires an election. So give me these simple election rules please.
Yeah, go ahead and quote where I wrote the phrase “democratically elected”. I know my own ideology better than you do.
This is what you said:
If you didn’t mean an election, what did you mean? What is a democratic process that doesn’t involve a vote?
Yes, correct. Plurality or majority voting, which is how we usually talk about elections, necessarily imposes the will of a majority upon minorities, and is thus not democratic.
Again, I’m not saying I have all the answers here - acting like I know best, better than everyone else, is itself not democratic. My position is, and always has been, that we need to get together and collectively determine the answers to these questions through consensus.
All I can share with you are some of my own ideas, which aren’t anywhere near as inclusive as I would like. I try to consider other people as best I can, and I try to think of as many bases to cover as I can, but I am imperfect and I acknowledge that.
But ultimately the answer to your question is generally going to be consensus-building and involving all concerned people in the decision making process, in some way.
Please answer the question: what is a democratic process that doesn’t involve a vote?
I did - consensus building. Please google consensus decision making.
This talks all about voting, so I don’t think I’m the one who needs to look it up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
I did a CTRL-F for “vote” and “voting” and didn’t see it mentioned once.
Look, I can tell that you’re getting a bit upset, it’s quite a shock, with having your world view challenged, so I’m going to back off for a little while and give you the opportunity to reflect on what you’ve learned and maybe do a bit of reading yourself to explore these topics a bit more. I know it’s a lot to take in all at once - there’s no pressure, you’ll get there, you’re a reasonable fellow, so I have every confidence in you. I look forward to building consensus with you in the near future and wish you a really pleasant evening. Take care!
Then your computer is broken.
This one was literally in bold and large print:
There’s more, but that’s enough.
Also, I am not upset and your condescension is noted. Hierarchies are bad, talking down to people as though they are your inferiors, on the other hand…
It’s like I told you, I’m an imperfect person - and apparently Wikipedia on mobile does some kind of lazy loading thing where CTRL+F doesn’t work. Anyways, like I said, you only just learned of this concept like a minute ago, so finding the word “vote” isn’t a magic gotcha. Go learn about it before you argue about it, because you’re just being wrong and obstinate. It’s late for me anyways so I need to get some sleep, if you want to continue being wrong about stuff I’m happy to correct you tomorrow.
Sorry for being a condescending prick - as above, I’m not a perfect guy, or even really a good guy, I’m just trying my best and sometimes people being stubbornly ignorant get the better of me. I mean what I said though - approach what I’ve spoken about with an open mind and a willingness to actually change and I’m sure you’ll at least find an alternative worth considering. Good night!
And what you say determines reality does it?
Cool, maybe start with not assuming what I do or don’t already know about in the very same comment.
Well, didn’t take long for that apology to stop meaning anything. Less than one sentence.
Good morning!
Don’t mistake my apology - it wasn’t for considering (or calling) you ignorant of the topic, because you are. Nothing wrong with that, we’re all ignorant of a whole lot of stuff. I’m ignorant about a massive array of topics.
There’s a really bad inclination of redditors to think that if you don’t know everything then you’re a fool, and that’s just not true. So let’s not do that - let’s be honest when we don’t know something, and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than digging our heels in and refusing to budge.
Anyways, I hope you took the opportunity to learn about consensus decision making - I know it isn’t perfect, it’s certainly got its flaws, but I think it improves on simple plurality or majority voting by quite a lot. There are quite a few different models as hopefully you are now aware. I’m curious what you feel the best model for decision making is, what is your ideal? I’ve spoken a lot about my ideas but you’ve not really shared much yourself, except for your enthusiasm for rules. I’d be really glad to hear your perspective.
Cool, except, like I said, I’m not ignorant on the topic. You just decided I was. That’s how I knew that consensus decision-making involved voting despite you saying it didn’t and saying the article (which you obviously never read) didn’t talk about voting.
And yet you keep lying about me being ignorant on this topic.
My favorite part about this is that, as I told you in a previous comment, I already told you I knew about it so you’re not only lying, you’re gaslighting.
Condescending, lying, gaslighting… anything else you want to do to convince me that you’re a troll who doesn’t belong here?
You can say what you like, but we both know the truth. Have you ever interacted with a delusional person before? It’s quite difficult, because you can’t confirm their delusions, but also just straight up telling them that they’re delusional isn’t very effective - they kind of close up and it’s harder to get through to them. So you kind of have to talk around it a bit, without directly challenging them.
I feel like it’s pretty apparent that you hadn’t heard of consensus-based decision making prior to our conversation. You’ve probably got some hazy ideas on the subject, but only from understanding the words used to form the term and some ideas about how a jury comes to make its decision, but you don’t have a firm grasp on the subject.
I can provide plenty of evidence to back up my belief:
Now, it could be that you somehow did actually know about the topic, and you’ve just acted as though you don’t for some other reason, that’s entirely possible, but I don’t believe it. But do you see how that’s different from me lying and “gaslighting” you? If I truly believe that you’re ignorant of something, then it’s neither lying nor manipulation for me to act as though you are ignorant of it.
It’s absolutely beggars belief that you would consider me a troll, but it’s reassuring in a way - you’re demonstrating that my arguments are persuasive enough that they’re beginning to threaten your ego, and you’re lashing out in self-defence. Your next step would be to block me or get me banned, to ensure that my words can no longer haunt you. You can do that, but hopefully my words will be a seed that can grow in your mind. Change is a long journey, and we often don’t realise when it has started.
Cool, more lying and gaslighting. But no, you’re clearly not a troll, just someone who thinks lying, gaslighting and now just plain old insults are appropriate around here. They are not.
And your silly prediction is wrong. I am not going to ban you for this despite the incivility rule violation. I am just going to stop talking to you.
But you have just earned yourself the eye of a moderator who will not tolerate your rule-breaking with anyone else. Including if I see any in your recent history.
If you were capable of arguing further, then you would - so I’m really glad to have gotten through to you, thank you for your time.
Just so you know, you can ban me all you want, I can just create any number of new accounts, I can change my IP address, I can even spin up a whole other instance if I really want to. I don’t mind if you want to give in to your ego, you don’t need to find another excuse - or let this message be the excuse. I’m just glad that my time spent with you has been worthwhile.
Like I said - rules, in our present society, are for oppressors.
They could have not invited a convicted child rapist to represent their country at the Olympics.
“They” are not the booing crowd.
Roman Polanski has entered the chat.
Being against lynching means I’m a child rapist? Really?
No no no no. I was just pointing out that France won’t extradite a child rapist. Calm down friend.
Edit: spelling
Sorry, I understand now.
Stop putting words in their mouth, there are so many things to do other than booing that are non violent but you just immediately took the most extreme possible outcome and suggested that was what the person you are reply to meant.
I didn’t put words in their mouths, I asked a question.
An incredibly leading question, yes
You do not know my intentions. You are not psychic.
“What else should they do next?” Was the question, everything that came after was you putting words in their mouth as an answer
Again, you are not psychic. You do not know what I meant by what I said because you didn’t ask.
This mod is notorious for this.
There’s SO many options between one year in prison and extra judicial killing. Like, in prison for 10 years, just off the top of my head.
I agree, but the booing crowd aren’t the ones that can put him in prison for 10 years.
Throw rocks at him. Large rocks.
Not putting him on a pedestal as a representative of your country would be a good start.
I think they were doing that by booing him.
i think at the very least he deserves an ass whooping. not trying to get into vigilante wierdo justice here but it would be nice to see one less confirmed remorseless pedo in this world since the system has definitely failed in this case.
So…you are suggesting the lynching tree.
ya basically but im not trying to come off as a edgelord maniac saying its the responsibility of regular people to vigilante this guy. itd be cool if they did but i doubt that would make the person this piece of filth hurt feel any better. At the very least tho itd be cool to see him jumped and every bone broken in his body and him then turned into a vegetable thatd be cool.
Well, I’m sure you tried. It’s still an edgelord maniac’s take.
l think its actually pretty reasonable to want a unrepentant pedophile rapist who has escaped justice to be served his just desserts. Im against the death penalty world wide because again justice isnt perfect and sometimes innocent people (especially in america and especially minorities) get executed. But in a rare case like this i think the gloves should be taken off a lil, but who knows maybe im just deranged.
You might not be trying to get into vigilante justice but you did anyway
The Netherlands is kind of fucked up when it comes to morality sometimes. I used to work with people from this country, and there were constant issues.
Edit: look up “Netherlands Santa”
I’m sorry, but this is just really kind of disingenuous to start something like this next to a topic such as this. Your experience with one company or something is purely anecdotal and the controversy around Zwarte Piet is also very nuanced to this very day. The kind of nuance someone not from here will not get from a casual google search. For anyone that cares about actually understanding, here’s a rundown:
Many people attributed Zwarte Piet as a fun and good role model for kids, not some kind of caricature clown to laugh at. Literally almost everyone grew up knowing and having a fond enjoyment of Zwarte Piet, like a childhood imaginary friend that always showed up when you needed a smile the most. And that creates a strong desire to set that positivity forth by continuing the tradition. It takes really good reasons to destroy something most people attribute to be part of the greater good of their lives.
We try to understand racism, and strive to effectively reduce it rather than just mindlessly treat symptoms. Many people saw the existence of Zwarte Piet as a way to instill positive experiences to kids who might be isolated from having positive experiences with actual people of color. We know that in part racism comes about from not having enough (or too many bad) real world experiences with people of different skin colors. It is a type of fear of the unknown. As such, this still seems like solid reasoning. (Fun note, rats will also not help other stranger rats with a different fur color to escape even with no direct harm to themselves except when they have already lived alongside aside a rat with that fur color)
Even people of color were not completely on one side, but for the ones that it hurt, it hurt loudly. Black people in the Caribbean (Also part of the Netherlands) still use Zwarte Piet to this day, because they do not care - They do not see the racism in it. Unfortunately there seems to be a correlation between being affected by racism and seeing the racism in Zwarte Piet, as many of us learned as the conversation marched on. And racists definitely did wield Zwarte Piet to make their racism be known. In a world without racism, Zwarte Piet would not be controversial. And many people were not acutely aware of the racism some people of color faced.
The majority has wanted to get rid of it (since about 2018, actually), and most places have more accepted solutions in place now. But this does not mean that many people agree because we think Zwarte Piet is actually inherently racist. It’s because we’ve heard the concerns of people of color and weighed their burden to be more important to relieve than the perceived benefit of tradition and instilling a positive message on people that look different from yourself. It also didn’t help that the vast majority of people that still wanted to overrule those concerns were pretty obviously racist, which pushed even more people over the edge, because we don’t want to hold traditions in place that shield racists and bigots. Some countries could really learn from that.
EDIT: Added a video about the rat study :)
The other responder here is either an AI bot trying to cloud the issue wa long answer, or a human doing the same. Right out of the playbook— Not falling for it 💅
If you’re not willing to be nuanced about difficult topics in good faith, you clearly do not care about it, nor about making the world a better place.
There’s nuance, which takes a while, and there’s distraction, easily achieved by loooong posts plus ooh a rat study
There’s also the absolute lack of nuance of “Haha the Dutch are all kinda racist - look they wear blackface as a tradition, aren’t they so morally reprehensible am I right?”. Of course I’m going for maximum nuance after that, because they already muddied the water.
And you damn well know that posting that carelessly next to a different touchy subject is in extreme bad faith. It’s almost like you’re mad I didn’t let them slander my country unopposed. Get outta here.
Dude they even said that Zwarte Pete is being phased out because while Zwarte Pete themselves in the context of only the Netherlands wasnt very problematic, the fact that the world is more globalized and Americans who HAD been hurt by THEIR history of Blackface took precedence over an overall positive tradition for people of the Netherlands. Nuance exists, and American history is not WORLD history
That’s ridiculous
What the actual fuck does that have to do with the current story
There’s an important detail that I’m not really seeing here. The UK gave him an 8 year sentence. The Netherlands negotiated to have him transferred to their jurisdiction, which happened after 1 year served, and then the Netherlands promptly let him go.
Not saying it’s right, but for context:
From theguardian.com/…/netherlands-child-rapist-olympi…
That, combined with him being on the Olympic team, sorta makes me concerned about Dutch people
Oh, Indonesians have some, ahem, concerning stories for you.
I’m not sure what the law ought to be though. I personally think a 16 year old should be legally able to have sex with their 15 year old partner. Maybe in england the difference in age matters. But if not, and a 15 year old legally cannot consent, is this hypothetical 16 year old now a rapist? That doesn’t sound right to me.
A 19 year old having sex with a 12 year old? That is clearly wrong and that’s rightfully already illegal here. But it’s not automatically rape because Dutch law does recognize consent from people under 16. I have no idea at what age people can give consent though. I’m not sure if there is a minimum. But if the 12 year old in this situation did not consent then it would obviously be rape, just to make that clear.
A question: what is the situation in other countries with high schoolers having sex? It must happen all the time that some 18 year old is dating a 15 year old and that they have sex. I think the overwhelming majority of Dutch people would not want that to be illegal, let alone considered rape.
Some countries have a “Romeo and Juliet” law that allows consent when the age gap is close. The UK does not have this, and someone under 16 cannot legally consent to sexual activity at all as far as I understand it.
surely giving a 12 year old alcohol beforehand is evidence of rape, right?
Just to be very clear I’m not defending him in the slightest, this whole thing is horrible and I agree he raped her.
I was just explaining the situation and the differences in law in England and the Netherlands.
While I agree that this crime should definitely fall within the definition and corresponding punishment of rape, I don’t agree that no 15 year old can ever consent to sex.
In Germany you can have sex with 14, everything below that is illegal (however the courts can decide not to prosecute if the involved persons both consented, are both under the age of 14, and very close in mental development). Between 14 and 16 you can have sex with people your age ±2 years (14 with 16 or 16 with 18, but not 14 with 17). At 16 to 18 it’s I believe ±3 years, so that with 17 you can have sex with persons up to 20 years old, even though you’re a minor and they’re adults. There are exceptions to this, most notably that if they have any power over you (teachers, bosses, etc), it will count as statutory rape as it’s argued that the victim didn’t have the possibility to refuse without fear of consequences.
In the US generally people under the age of consent are allowed to have sex with one another though exceptions would be made if the age gap was too large. People the age of consent and older are not allowed to have sex with people below the age of consent, unless they’re married.
Wait so you can get married under the age of consent? That seems completely illogical… if you can’t consent to sex surely you can’t consent to marriage?
It is illogical but the people who support it aren’t our best.
We’re usually talking very fundamentalist christian sects and right wing politicians in the vein of Roy Moore.
The parents have to consent to the marriage if the person is underage.
He didn’t rape a Dutch 12 year old. He flew to England and raped an English 12 year old. Eight years was getting off pretty easy to begin with.
The story from wikipedia, since I never see it written down:
“In 2014, van de Velde, aged 19 at the time, corresponded with a 12-year-old girl who sent him a friend request on Facebook. He said he believed the girl was 16 at the time they began to communicate, but he continued despite her telling him her age. In August 2014, he travelled to her home town, Milton Keynes in England, gave her alcohol and raped her near the local Furzton Lake.[12] That same night, van de Velde tried to stay at a hotel with his victim but was denied a room so they slept under a staircase.[13] There were further two instances of rape the next day.[12] During one of the three rapes, the victim told van de Velde that he was hurting her.[14]
Van de Velde returned to the Netherlands after the rapes[15] and told his victim to go to a sexual health clinic for contraception, at which point her age alerted concern among the staff.[14] He was extradited to the United Kingdom and arrested in January 2016.[15] The victim expressed feelings of guilt and had been self-harming and once overdosed, facts that caused the judge to “give van de Velde a scathing rebuke” during the case.[14][16]”
An unrepentant rapist who only served a whole 13 months for raping someone three times.
OMFG I misread things initially and though 12 years was how long he was in prison. 13 months??? That’s insane, and I am usually for more lenient punishments and rehabilitation programs. Harsh punishments to a point just equate to revenge eventually, but fuck this guy. He should have served a much harsher sentence. Just reading the description of what happened makes my stomach turn.
The problem with the rehabilitation argument is he clearly wasn’t rehabilitated after 13 months because he wasn’t repentant. So regardless of if the prison sentence is there as punishment or as rehabilitation 13 months was clearly not an adequate length of time in either case.
We agree
a twelve year old, specifically
he does know that 16 is still underage right?
Not in a lot of countries, like England and the Netherlands.
And a lot of places in the US.
it might be legal but it’s still underage, especially when he was 19.
The term underage refers to the legal age at which someone can participate in or consent to something, so while a 16-year-old would not have been underage for sex in either country, the 12-year-old he had sex with certainly was well underage.
Honestly fuck him and his teammate. The rapist wouldnt be playing if everyone refused to play with him. Full stop. These calls would be different if he showed remorse but instead he wants to complain. You dont get to complain about other’s opinion of you after you rape somebody.
There’s a German saying that I’m going to poorly reproduce.
I think it applies here.
Ive always heard it the reverse but same message. “If you choose to sit at a table with 11 Nazi’s then there are 12 Nazi’s at the table.” Same sentiment though and i absolutely agree.
If there’s 11 people at a table and a Nazi joins them, there are 12 Nazis at that table.
if there’s 1 person at the table and 11 Nazi joins them, there are 12 Nazis at the table.
See I dislike this one because the people at the table arent making the choice. I feel its more impactful when the “non Nazi” is choosing to associate with the known Nazi.
The idea is that you have to make an active choice to oppose them. Most people in the “Nazi Party” were just there because they wanted a job. If you didn’t join the party it was harder to get good jobs.
Ah that makes sense.
The people at the table are making the choice to stay there.
But then switching costs can muddle the point. If you’re already walking around looking for a table, then you don’t have to get up and move your half-eaten dinner. What if he follows you, how many times will you get up? If you just shove enough food in your mouth to get by, and then leave promptly, does that count?
You leave at that point.
It really is that simple.
It’s why I’m seriously considering not having Christmas with my family this year.
They’re not Nazis, but do seem to have some issues with “the natives” getting uppity.
I’ve heard it that the first 11 don’t complain.
If you’re the majority you don’t have to leave; you can refuse them a seat.
I recall Nazis were only about a third of the Reichstag when Hitler enacted emergency powers, and maybe that in the population.
Republicans I think are between a quarter to a third of the US population - and the more famously crazy ones not even that.
The point is that if 11 random people accept the one nazi, then there are a dozen nazis. Because nazism is so extreme that it is only accepted by other nazis.
But also, that “1 nazi” is how it starts. Ever wonder how a bar becomes a nazi bar? It’s because one dude with nazi tattoos came in, was nice and quiet, and didn’t get kicked out even though he was obviously a nazi. And then eventually, he started bringing his buddies. And they were nice too. They were polite, they were orderly, and they tipped well. They didn’t get kicked out.
But eventually, the nazis outnumber the non-nazis, and that’s when things begin to devolve. Suddenly, they’re not so accepting. You start hearing drunken slurs when they think you’re out of earshot. There’s suddenly an undertone of violence which wasn’t present before. The regular patrons don’t feel safe coming to your bar anymore. Eventually, if you fit the demographic, they begin treating you like you’re a nazi too. And now the nazis have found their new favorite bar to hang out at. You as the bartender are afraid to kick them out, because you feel like you’ll be in danger if you do. And it all started because one nazi was polite, and you didn’t kick him out for not making a fuss.
Yeah explained like that it makes sense to me.
But what if you’re choosing to sit at the table of Nazis because there’s a bomb in your briefcase that will kill some of them and damage Hitler’s hearing?
Well then you should build a better bomb.
I’ve heard it with the word fascist instead of Nazi but I’m not sure if the original saying uses Nazi or fascist. It’s true of course either way
Some people say “these athletes shouldn’t have to play politics”. That’s correct. But if I refused to work with a coworker who raped a 12 year-old, one of us would be replaced. If all of my coworkers refused, the perpetrator of sexual assault would be replaced, no matter how much Management liked them. And we’re not even representing our country…
While I think the Netherlands has a commendable approach to prison and rehabilitation, This dude should not be a representative for your country. If you say he’s served enough time, we can disagree (because he absolutely did not), but the choice to put him in Netherlands Orange and on international TV was a colossal mistake.
He should definitely be wearing orange, just not Netherlands Orange…
Not that Dutch prisons actually put people in orange prison clothes
He wants him sent to US Federal “pound me in the ass” prison.
From another article:
Wow. That reporter just made himself look like a pedophile by defending the pedophile rapist that hard.
He used the “she came on to me” line? Gross. They’re all gross and weird people.
And it 100% isn’t true. I know in the past there have been cases of underage individuals doing that but they’re usually older than 12. It tends to be school age children who think they know what romance is.
Not a 12-year-old kid.
…is 12 not school age?
Also, are you suggesting that somehow makes a difference?
It also leaves out the part where he gave her alcohol
Not gonna lie, no matter how gross the age difference is, I keep thinking about the couples from my high school (in Germany, where the age of consent is 14) where there were 12 and 13 year olds involved with 17-19 year olds. It was rare but it happened and the relationships often lasted quite a while, so it was kind of… consensual, for lack of a better term. And since I don’t know the girl or Van De Velde personally and I haven’t been there, I wanted to abstain from judging this other than on the legal basis.
But when I read that he gave her alcohol - a 12 year old - no way. Sorry but no matter how iN lOvE anyone was or whatever, you do not give a 12 year old alcohol, unless it’s a sip of your beer and she’s your kid (saying this as someone raised in Bavaria). But other than that, no alcohol. And when you end up fucking a 12 year old - which is awful to begin with, worse since they only met - and first intoxicating her, that is just the point at which you cannot argue any kind of maturity, love, attraction, age of consent crap or whatever anymore. You intoxicated and fucked a minor. Period.
The more details from the case are revealed the more I have to say fuck that guy. But at the same time - fuck the judges double and triple.
I appreciate your comment. I would just like to say that sometimes when 12 and 13 year olds get involved with older people in a ‘consensual’ relationship it is a sign of something wrong, trauma/depression/anxiety etc. It’s not normal for healthy children.
Hell if you did that to a legal adult it would be borderline. If you get someone really drunk and you’re not, then it cannot be consensual. People have been convicted of rape for exactly that.
I think Denmark just wants to try and keep their athlete but sometimes you just have to throw people away as been beyond redemption. And you certainly don’t lord them on the world stage. Denmark’s problem now is that they look bad, they look irresponsible, especially all the attempts to defend him which just make the situation worse.
Dude, you meant Dutch, not Danish?
People seem to find it terribly hard to find nuance when something awful like this happened. But losing sight of nuance doesn’t help in any way. Can he participate? Of course he can. Do you need to cheer for him? Of course not, boo as you please, but you’re not helping any one with it.
He was sentenced for his crime, first in England but ultimately he served a sentence according to the Dutch rule of Law, which found him guilty of sexual misconduct of a 12 year old, but not of rape, which in Dutch law is an important distinction. He served his time, he’s had his punishment. You’re more than free to disagree with the Dutch laws and the sentence that he got accordingly. But it’s not up to you. One should be judged by a court, not by the media nor by the public.
I read many people claiming that he has no remorse, quoting all sorts of media coverage. If you think you can judge whether there is remorse based on media coverage you’re awfully mistaken. I’m not claiming he has remorse, but obviously he’ll respond negatively to journalists, and quotes can easily be taken out of context. English media is renowned for being total assholes with zero interest in nuance.
People do horrible things, and this surely is such a thing, but that shouldn’t prevent people from ever participating in society ever again. If we would ban people, make them outcasts forever, that is not helping victims nor prevention in any way. What it will do is increase the taboo, people will refrain from testifying against suspects because even though they want them to be punished, they don’t want media and public going after them and ruining the rest of their lifes. Despite it emotionally being very understandable, this type of shortsighted public outrage is very counter productive and people should use their brains before they rage.
So am I. Good luck with your self-righteousness.
That’s a lot of words to say “I agree that this dude who raped a 12 year old should be allowed to hang out at the Olympics where a bunch of young teens often compete and then all sleep in close proximity to one another.”
I understand he’s isolated from the other athletes so that doesn’t seem to be the case. The word rape is a misrepresentation of what happened. He hasn’t forced himself on the girl, but it’s misconduct because any sexual contact with a 12 year old is obviously a crime. Still that distinction is important in Dutch law, and rightfully so because obviously forcing yourself on a 12 year old is even worse than consensual sex, and it’s rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is ‘rape’. Again, not defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.
He got the child drunk and groomed her through facebook so calling it consensual is a misrepresentation. He is a pedophile who raped a child. It is your denial and hand wringing over the consequences for your poor rapist that discourages people from coming forward and testifying. You are telling victims to shut up.
I am not at all telling victims to shut up. You just made that up.
Dutch courts haven’t found him guilty of rape, but did find him guilty of having sex with a 12 year old. That itself is more than terrible but calling it rape despite this fact is in fact a misrepresentation of what happened. Sure it was terrible thing that he did and I am not defending his actions at all. I am defending his right to participate in sports events and pleading against trial by media/public outrage.
His trial is over and he was found guilty. I am free to judge him as I please. There is no law that says the public must pretend crimes never happened once the sentence is done. The notion is absurd.
Never asserted that notion. Of course you’re free to do so. I am just saying it’s self righteous and not helping any one.
FTFY
Autocorrect strikes again. Your comment keeps using the word nuance instead of what I imagine must have been nonce.
Frankly, im fine with us all losing sight of this nonce when he gets tossed in some dark hole.
Okay so firstly, use some paragraphs, that was a wall of text.
Secondly, there’s a huge difference between releasing someone from prison after them serving their time and letting them go back to their normal life, and having that individual represent your country on the international world stage where they will gain a lot of fame. You see the problem there, he’s being put in a position of power, or at least he would be if the general public weren’t aware of who he is and what he did.
Fair point about the paragraphs. Other than that I disagree with you.
In the Netherlands you’ll need a certificate of conduct for many positions and if your criminal record is relevant to a position you won’t get the position. This is reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry of Justice and Security. So if he applied for a job as a coach for children then he would obviously be refused because of his criminal record, given that there’s a direct link to his crime and logically a clear change for recidivism. But his criminal record is not relevant for his position as an athlete. There’s nothing that would stop someone with a criminal record to become famous in such a way. This is not a flaw in the system, it’s a choice that was consciously made. We choose to only limit peoples freedom where there would logically be a big chance of recidivism. We don’t want to ban people to the shadows where they should keep there head down in shame.
Also you seem to be missing the crucial point here: all of it should be decided by rule of law, not by self righteous media-fueled public rage. The media and the public aren’t properly informed nor equipped to weigh these things. The risk of misguided public hatred is immense. That’s not something we should want in our society.
Feel free to disagree but I think we should be very happy that this is the way it is, because this means people actually get a second chance.
Hang on he committed a heinous horrible act of utter depravity and you’re angry at me for being mad about it? How does that work how do you get off defending someone like that oh and by the way he didn’t serve his time he was let out early.
And calling him a pedophile when he actually is a pedophile is acceptable.
I’m not angry, just sharing my thoughts. How does it work? Like I said, I am against media-fueled public rage in cases like these.
He did serve his time, according to the Dutch rule. His initial sentence was longer because it was in the UK and over there they consider every sexual activity with a minor rape, where as in the Netherlands they differentiate between actual rape and misconduct.
Won’t somebody think of the rapist’s feelings?
It’s not at all about that and I never suggested it is.
I’d probably accept the topic of nuance if alcohol hadn’t been involved. Once he introduced that, he’s pretty clearly a paedophile.
But yes - otherwise, I acknowledge there’s danger in too quickly labeling anyone and everyone a predator. Just like there’s furries that aren’t hurting people with weird stuff, if someone has genuinely kept distance and lack of forcefulness in what they do with a minor, it’s still BAD - it’s just not on the same vein as people who stalk and violently assault people. When I hear the idea of an 18-year-old being forever called predators/rapists for consentually dating 15-year-olds, it just sounds weird and wrong. Again, I’d call alcohol a form of forcefulness since a 12-year-old won’t be aware of its effects.
I agree with most of what you say, including what you say about the alcohol involved. Ultimately though the point is that he should be punished by courts, which has happened, and not by public outrage because media and public aren’t well suited to judge people fairly.
odd how jk rowling and the “protect children” crew haven’t said his name once. it’s almost as if jk rowling is pro paedophilia.
Wtf?