I’ve (G) worked in (childhood) sexual abuse for 16yrs and I know that I could never work with the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.
Does that make me discriminatory? If it does I do not f’ing care.
I’m sorry (I’m NOT apologising for my ethics…merely a turn of phrase) but the Dutch volleyball player would not have made it into the squad if I had been a member of the International Olympic Committee.
I (C) have worked within this field for 21yrs and have worked with numerous child sex offenders in the hope that I can protect as many children as possible from abuse. I too have serious issues with the volleyball player.
We would take past crimes into account and the 29yo who raped a 12yo (when he was 19yo) - sentenced to 4yrs in prison after admitting three counts of rape - would not have made the cut.
Why do we focus on his rights? What about that 12yo (who is now a 22yo living with the impact of his theft of her innocence).
He was declared to "have served the sentence" and to "be rehabilitated" sentiments which have quite rightly caused controversy. Given he served 1 of the 4 years he was sentenced to, it is difficult to see how the child he assaulted will feel seeing him now represent his country globally. To turn on the television and see the person who raped you being held up as a national hero, must be devastating. You can only wonder if any thought for her was given on his selection. Where are her rights?
We are fed up with the emphasis being on the inclusion of that rapist, that abuser, that paedophile…
We have seen widespread reporting on the BBC journalist who has pled guilty to receiving and viewing images of child abuse. We struggled, as did many, with the way in which this was reported. For example, the language used about the child abuse was poorly chosen and sought to minimise. They felt unable to call it what it really is, images of the sexual abuse of children. By failing to be clear about what it is, they also deny the experiences of these young people. The children who, through no fault of their own, have been abused by adults and will live with the physical and psychological effects for years to come. In this case, as with others like this the focus has been on the perpetrator, and little to no thought has been spared for the child(ren).
There does seem to be a disparity. It has led to some deep conversations here, as we have tried to understand whether this is about an unwillingness to acknowledge abuse? We have noted that there does continue to be a gender bias. How often are women questioned on what they were wearing on the night they were raped? It shouldn't matter! But the underlying message is men are men, we can forgive them their flaws, but women should know better, do better.
Is this what we are seeing in these recent reports? Excuses for "he didn't actually request all the images" or "He has served his time and is not a paedophile and is not a real risk" (Olympic Official).
Inclusion…some might call it wokeness…is it “just” a new form of misogyny (ingrained prejudice against women)?
Where has the sense gone? In the quest for a fairer, more equal world are we now seeing the ‘cancellation’ of women?
Surely we want to live in a society that allows all people to feel safe and to be treated fairly. To achieve this we need to stop “victim” blaming, stop excusing behaviour and abuse, stop ignoring the uncomfortable and start holding those responsible to account. It is time to shift the emphasis from the perpetrator to the person they abused (please note we have not used the names of the predators we have referenced; as we are trying to highlight the need to shift focus away from them).
Add comment
Comments