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.
“I was disappointed with the crowd, for sure,” Immers said. “I cannot do anything about his past anymore. I’m here to play with him. … So, yeah, I’m disappointed with it. But I think mentally we’re really strong, and I’m really strong to get through this, together. And we’re going to do that.”
Then:
Immers was asked about the reception and said the two spoke on the court and recognized they would need to be extra supportive of each other. Asked if he understood why they received that reception, he said, “I don’t want to talk about that, if it’s OK.”
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.
So they can bitch that people booed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?
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.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.
They’re all Emmanuel Goldstein during the two minute hate.
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.
I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here
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.
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.
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:
It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.
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.
It is actually how it works in terms of official punishments(in the US at least):
Amdt5.2.1.2.4 Imposition of Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against imposition of multiple punishment for the same offense.1 The application of the principle leads, however, to a number of complexities. In a simple case, it was held that where a court inadvertently imposed both a fine and imprisonment for a crime for which the law authorized one or the other but not both, it could not, after the fine had been paid and the defendant had entered his short term of confinement, recall the defendant and change its judgment by sentencing him to imprisonment only.2 But the Court has held that the imposition of a sentence does not from the moment of imposition have the finality that a judgment of acquittal has. Thus, it has long been recognized that in the same term of court and before the defendant has begun serving the sentence the court may recall him and increase his sentence.
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.
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 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.
Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers
busted his ass for years
spent his whole career
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
One legal distinction is that Van de Velde is unlikely to have been convicted of rape had he stood trial in the Netherlands rather than England. In England, sex with a 12-year-old is rape, regardless of the circumstances: an under-16 cannot legally consent. But after he was extradited to the Netherlands, having serving almost a year of his prison sentence, he was released after less than a month. Under Dutch law, his crime was deemed to be the lesser offence of ontucht, sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms.
That, combined with him being on the Olympic team, sorta makes me concerned about Dutch people
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, Indonesians have some, ahem, concerning stories for you.
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 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 :)
What the actual fuck does that have to do with the current story
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
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]"
After his release in 2017, van de Velde complained about “all the nonsense” reporting on his crime in the media, claiming that the term pedophile did not apply to him, without expanding further.
An unrepentant rapist who only served a whole 13 months for raping someone three times.
a twelve year old, specifically
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
He said he believed the girl was 16 at the time they began to communicate
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.
If you’re at table with eleven others and one’s a NAZI then there are twelve NAZI’s at the table.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
You leave at that point.
if there’s 1 person at the table and 11 Nazi joins them, there are 12 Nazis at the table.
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…
From another article:
There are also those, such as the court reporter Chris Klomp, who have argued that he is not the “sex monster” or “groomer” he has been made out to be in some English-language media.
Klomp wrote on X that, although what Van de Velde did was utterly wrong and punishable, he did not physically force the girl to have sex with him. He wrote: “The absence of coercion (other than the age difference) is also evident from the fact that the British court acquitted him of grooming. It was not his intention to ‘persuade her’ into sexual acts.”
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?
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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: https://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.deleted by creator
This is cool functionality.
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.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing this perspective.
Personally, I’m anti-rape.
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.
He
hasn’t forced himself on the girlgroomed a child and convinced her that sex was her idea, 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 thanconsensual sexstatutory rape (because minors can’t consent), and it’s rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is ‘rape’. Again,notit sure sounds like I’m defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion regarding a man who groomed and raped a 12 year old. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.FTFY
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.
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.
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.
