Field Theory: Not doing enough
29 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Because in New Zealand two things are at the top of the stats: rugby and domestic violence. This is NZR’s chance to start defeating one with the other.
We will know that the wider New Zealand community is starting to treat domestic violence as serious crime when an All Blacks player, or a Super Whatever-Number-It-Is player, donates his man of the match award to Women's Refuge.
-
Hadyn Green, in reply to
When New Zealanders realise that David Pocock is a better man than any of the All Blacks
-
I have a vague memory of Auckland or the Blues having some connection or appeal alongside Women's Refuge in the 1990's. Google hasn't helped, as it was back in the Lost Time before t'internet.
-
Moz,
Kinda saddens me that she still has to talk about all the amazing non-stripping things strippers do, in the hope that more people might agree that stripping is a job people do. Perhaps if those people also agreed that playing sport is also a job people do, and they're all people too? Worshipping one set while denigrating the other doesn't help anyone.
Deborah, it'd possibly be more meaningful if after the next assault is reported the rest of the team gave their match fees to refuge. "we are not like him" is a powerful message. Can't bring myself to write "if there's...", it's when.
-
It maddens me that this seems to have been reduced to "they shouldn't have hired a stripper" and "how else would you expect them to behave". They should be able to hire a stripper, and treat them like a human being. I see nothing wrong with them hiring a stripper - I see a massive problem in their behaviour, and the infuriating "boys will be boys" attitude about it.
-
John Campbell conducted a very good interview with NZ Rugby CEO Steve Tew, from which Tew did not emerge well.
-
This morning, RNZ seems to be reporting "the New Zealand Rugby said those claims were contradicted by independent witnesses not connected to the team".
Is that actually true? All I've noticed reported directly, and in the press conference, is the word "unsubstantiated" or similar. To me there's a significant difference between "unsubstantiated" and "contradicted".
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
difference between “unsubstantiated” and “contradicted”.
I suspect the problem also lies with the apparent 'transubstantiation' that occurs when immature dickheads are elevated to Super Rugby franchises...
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Is that actually true? All I’ve noticed reported directly, and in the press conference, is the word “unsubstantiated” or similar. To me there’s a significant difference between “unsubstantiated” and “contradicted”.
Yes, that distinction was made clear on Morning Report today. The whole thing reeks.
-
The Chiefs' self-serving, point-avoiding statement.
-
Hadyn Green, in reply to
The Chiefs’ self-serving, point-avoiding statement.
“the players have collectively accepted responsibility” – why? There are some big name players in the Chiefs who can, quite rightly, say they don’t want to be part of this. Sam Cane, Sonny Bill Williams, Brodie Retallick all now have a “black mark” on their records for something they didn’t do (I hope).
Good players suffer the consequences when bad players do something like this. And for some stupid “unwritten code” or other steaming pile of bullshit.
-
linger, in reply to
“Collective responsibility” doesn’t mean they all actively participated – more that nobody in the room spoke out and stopped this.
-
Hadyn Green, in reply to
“Collective responsibility” doesn’t mean they all actively participated – more that nobody in the room spoke out and stopped this.
By taking inaction they all did something. Deciding not to act is an action.
-
Many of the comments on this Stuff piece make for unpleasant reading, but they also illustrate why the rugby authorities have acted as they have. In short, they believe they know their audience:
As with all matters of spin (political, corporate, etc), the "shut down, move on" tactic relies on public/media attention waning, and then the backlash ("bor-ing!"). It's morally stunted, but all too often it works.
-
izogi, in reply to
“Collective responsibility” doesn’t mean they all actively participated – more that nobody in the room spoke out and stopped this.
Yah. It's the refined term for "we'll all band together and protect each other so they can't assume any of us were clearly responsible". But I suppose they're "officially" talking about the collective acceptance they all apparently had for the designated straw man of celebrating with strippers, and not about the activities that allegedly occurred when that was happening.
Many of the comments on this Stuff piece
That's a shame. Stuff really shouldn't be enabling comments on this sort of issue on its own website, unless it's going to be serious about moderation and fact-checking of what people write. If people want to have a pub discussion of unverified hearsay and opinion about sexual assault (allegations etc), they can easily go to the pub, or to facebook, or to any other random place on the internet. Better that than directly underneath a story from a media outlet to which masses of people look for reliable information.
-
linger, in reply to
Deciding not to act is an action.
Which was my point, too. There wouldn't be a need for after-the-fact "collective responsibility" PR (extending well beyond those present, which I think was your criticism of it?), or "not like us" messaging, if anyone had just sent a more timely "Don't be a dick" message in the moment.
-
Who were the “independent” witnesses who claimed that the stripper was not groped by Chiefs players? In what sense were they “independent”? Did they observe her the entire time? Why would a professional stripper tell stories about groping if it did not happen? She would have everything to lose by lying.
The NZR “verdict” has all the hallmarks of a self-serving whitewash.
-
Good luck getting female-focused sponsorship like My Food Bag for unrepentant thugby, writes Dita De Boni.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Who were the “independent” witnesses who claimed that the stripper was not groped by Chiefs players?
As if there was anyone there who was not connected to them. #pffft
-
Jesus.
Laura, the woman who came forward to say she'd suffered similar treatment to Scarlette at the Chiefs' function last year asked to speak to the internal inquiry and was ignored.
-
They might call themselves the Chiefs, but they sure don't act like it ..
-
Update: NZR got back to me and said the formal citation “goes on their record – so is counted if anything similar happens again”. I have asked what ‘similar’ means
-
Also as RNZ has pointed out this morning, some of the allegations of Scarlette were never actually aired by media.
Consequently if NZR's lawyer didn't even interview her until after everyone else, it's hardly possible they could have quizzed other witnesses about all of the allegations. If it were not already obvious, NZR clearly set out for this to be a media damage control exercise, and not a genuine investigation.
As nobody's yet mentioned it here, here's the open letter to the NZ Rugby Management and Board Members: http://www.loverugbyrespectwomen.org.nz/
Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu also had some great things to say this morning about problems with NZ culture around this stuff. -
Euan Mason, in reply to
Who were the “independent” witnesses who claimed that the stripper was not groped by Chiefs players?
As if there was anyone there who was not connected to them. #pffft
Agreed. I’m amazed that NZR thought they could get away with this bankrupt exercise, but maybe they thought that rugby gods should be judged by different standards from those applied to lesser mortals.
-
I'm sorry but I don't think a competition point is a suitable punishment. And much as I am in favour of donations to women's refuge I don't think money can negate the crime. Neither of those things actually acknowledges the harm done.
A woman was abused and assaulted. I think those "independent witnesses" are liars. I think everyone at NZR knows what happened. They are weaseling out of responsibility.
Essentially they are happy accept the abuse and assault of a woman.
That says a lot about their worth as humans.
If we had a media with an ounce of conscience every single interview with anyone associated with rugby in New Zealand should start by asking why they accept the assault and abuse of women as part of their sport.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.