NRL CEO David Gallop and radio broadcaster, footy fan, Paul Murray
UPDATE: The Australian Rugby League Commission has just voted to ban Robert Lui for the remainder of the season. Isaac Gordon will be banned until week 10 of the competition.
“The Cowboys and Sharks have joined the ARLC in making a clear statement about the need to prevent violence against women,” ARL Commission chief executive David Gallop said.
“…there is a need to send a strong message to the community and, as the first sport to make such an emphatic statement, we would encourage others to follow rugby league’s lead in the future.”
Here’s what we originally wrote today:
The National Rugby League (NRL) would prefer we all forgot it still has two high profile players on its books who physically assaulted their girlfriends. They’re signed. They have clubs. The NRL won’t sack them.
Radio broadcaster and avid footy fan Paul Murray originally wrote about the ridiculous state of affairs on Mamamia when he detailed the crimes for which both men, Robert Lui (now signed to the Cowboys) and Isaac Gordon (who is signed to Cronulla Sharks).
Robert came home after Mad Monday celebrations and kicked, headbutted and dragged his girlfriend by the hair. Charming.
Isaac came home one morning – at 7am – and verbally abused his pregnant girlfriend before pushing her head against the wall and biting her.
While the NRL has moved like molasses on the subject, the public have not.
A Change.org petition has grown to more than 20,000 signatures and Paul Murray, who kick-started it all, says the NRL is having trouble sweeping the reaction under the carpet.
“The response, since I wrote that first article on Mamamia, has been phenomenal,” he said (you can read that article here)
“There has been a football stadium of fans, actual fans of the game, come back to me on calls to the radio, on comments to your site, all of them saying clearly how much they love their game but how they love the women in their lives even more.
“The reason something needs to happen is so the wider community understands beyond doubt this is not acceptable.
“The NRL has gone through the seven stages of denial, it seems. First it outright ignored the reaction from fans and myself as just a bloke ranting on radio, then its response took on a threatening tone, then a passive-aggressive one … but once I went on Sunrise on Saturday the petition jumped 6000 signatures in one hit and the NRL has since issued a statement. A statement that leaves them a lot of wriggle room, if I’m honest.”
Murray said it seemed to be the preferred position of the NRL that players convicted of domestic violence be banned from the game for 12 months … but that any action would ignore the plight of Robert Lui and Isaac Gordon.
“It looks like they want to draw a line in the sand from this point onward and have that penalty apply to future players if they beat their partners or something similar,” he said.
Here’s the statement Paul received:
“The NRL respects the fact that people feel strongly about this.
People also need to remember that neither of these players are currently playing and they are not doing so for the reason that the club and the NRL have made it clear that they can’t play.
There are complex personal issues to consider in both cases involving the players and their partners and the very serious questions of rehabilitation.
There is also the clear need to send a message of deterrence.
We are looking at all of those aspects before determining when and if it would be possible for the players to resume playing.
In any event the players are suspended and will be for a significant period.”
So what’s left to do? Paul says people need to write letters, call the footy shows, sign the petition, let sponsors know they are unhappy.
“The NRL needs to move quicker. Isaac Gordon was found guilty in January … why hasn’t this been resolved?”
Have you been following the controversy? What do you think? Should the players be banned and, if so, for how long?
- Sign the petition here.
- The NRL’s Facebook page can be found here, it’s Twitter page here and it’s website here.
Comments
70 Comments so far
Drill store deal in Coach, omnibus bags, Mentor wallets.Buy in this day! reserve misled 70%.Fast deliverance!
[url=http://www.coachhandbagsjp.org/]
loading...
Coach store supply Coach, train bags, Cram wallets.Buy now! lay misled 70%.Fast deliverance!
[url=http://www.coachhandbagsjp.org/]コーチ 財布[/url]
[url=http://www.coachhandbagsjp.org/]コーチバッグ[/url]
[url=http://www.coachhandbagsjp.org/]コーチ アウトレット[/url]
コーチ 財布 : http://www.coachhandbagsjp.org/
loading...
Townsville anti-domestic violence experts speak: http://bit.ly/IH4vZt
Applauding tough stand of NRL but note the emphasis and support given to rehabilitation, personal change and the potential to bring back Lui as a positive role model.
Another expert, Karen Willis, spoke on the Ch 10′s Project on the same point.
Esp note the White Ribbon Ambassador comments: “the next step is to see that those who hold people accountable also give them the opportunity to change”
All very important, and something completely lacking, sadly, from the campaign of media identities, who wanted to cut him completely adrift from the Cowboys and end his career.
loading...
As a White Ribbon ambassador I find this sickening. It seems like sports people (who are not heroes nor stars in my eyes) are able to get away with murder, virtually. This seems especially so in the football codes in this country. These men should be treated in EXACTLY the same way as any other male who commits violence against any other female. This also includes possible gaol time. They are no different to anyone and shouldn’t be above the law. I generally don’t trust the media in any way shape or form, but in this case they can be used for good.
I’d also like to encourage other men to join the fight against violence against women. Take the pledge guys at http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/
loading...
To all those who have referred to ‘media witch hunts’, I find it interesting this idea of casting men who bash their partners as victims, of the media or anyone else.
How about simply being held morally accountable for their crimes?
Any organisation has the right to determine who it employs.
If your behaviour (criminal or otherwise) doesn’t fit with the values or image of that organisation and has the ability to harm it in the eyes of the public, you have every right to sack or penalise them.
And if the NRL claims to support anti-violence and anti-domestic-violence messages and to promote respect for women among its players, well then why wouldn’t it take a stand?
It’s also worth noting that Wendall Sailor was banned from the NRL for 2 years after being found guilty of cocaine use – a victimless crime.
Was that a witch hunt too?
You reap what you sow.
loading...
Very well put. All organisations have the right to determine who they employ and those that permit crimes should be held morally accountable. Recently a lady stole my friends handbag whilst she was in her local club, this lady was caught and she subsequently was sacked from her job at another local club due to word getting around about what she did. Yes, you reap what you sow.
loading...
It also reflects a very disappointing and dangerous double standard.
When Yumi and Kyle (a douche bag, granted) said things that offended people, campaigns were mounted for them to be fired or quit, and in Kyle’s case many advertisers pulled funding so as not to be associated with him or his actions/opinions.
When an NRL player bashes his gf or an AFL player rapes a girl, no advertisers pull funding. When anyone tries to suggest that they should be held publically accountable, it’s a “media witch hunt”.
Sports people are heralded as heroes and role models, and are paid accordingly. There’s a flip-side to that – being critcised and condemned when their actions don’t reflect that honour.
And from a monetary point of view – they, their team and the sport are brands – if they damage the brand, of course they should face consequences.
loading...
I realise that I’m about to become even more of a pariah, but here goes.
You’re high profile. When you cast aspersions on Cadel Evan’s achievements, you were the subject of a witch hunt. Are you OK if that is dismissed as ‘reaping what you sow’?
Your first response to this will likely be ‘Well, what I did wasn’t a crime. No-one was hurt.’
True, but as soon as someone has committed a crime, they should reap what they have sown in court. The court would take into account factors like, what would be the implications for the offender’s family if we jail him?
Loss of family income, he’ll be unable to pay maintenance from jail etc. These complications come in to play and make suspended sentences seem light to the general public. However, the court is trying to avoid punishing the offender’s family further than that they’ve already suffered.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure that Paul and yourself would have given the flow-on effects any thought.
You have a big voice through this site and your other media contacts. You should use it responsibly.
loading...
… not thinking sports people are heros… beating the shit out of your pregnant partner….
not seeing a link here.
loading...
The link is the (social) media beat up. Journalists are not vested by society with the power to interpret and enforce law, although in effect they have handed out punishment here.
Journalists also don’t have the facts to hand that the court does and shouldn’t whip up a lynch mob after punishment has already been meted.
I think the cycle of violence begins and ends in the home, if a kid sees his father beat up his mother, then he will repeat the cycle. I think that a kid comes from a non-violent home is not going to ‘turn’ because he’s aware that a footy player beat up his wife. If he’s aware of Robert Lui’s misdeeds then he’s probably aware that he was arrested, tried and punished.
The court’s actions punished Robert Lui exclusively, the removal of these men’s incomes punishes their entire family. It’s not justice.
I’m not completely sure what I’m arguing here, because I don’t really want to see a wife-basher get paid mega-bucks. I guess that I think that celebrities should be equal to everyone else before the law. They shouldn’t get off lightly, but they also shouldn’t be punished more deeply.
Justice should be left to the pros, not the frenzied mob.
loading...
And what about their wives who have stayed with them? How do you think they will feel about losing their only source of income for a year, they havent done anything wrong but they are the silent victims in all this.
loading...
Anon how is that any different to any other male who commits violence against women? Those men lose their jobs and can go to gaol, meaning those women also lose that income. Fortunately there are many services available for women (and children) who are victims of domestic violence. They are not left without support.
loading...
“I find it interesting this idea of casting men who bash their partners as victims, of the media or anyone else”
Because it’s just not possible that a man who committed an act of violence against a partner could ever be a victim of the media.
Sounds like what you’re saying is that if you commit that specific crime, you deserve whatever media treatment you get, no matter how low, or ill-informed.
It can never be unfair treatment because you gave up that right when you bashed your partner. Grubs can’t complain of grubby treatment at the hands of the media.
Nice defence.
And just to remind you, Wendell fell foul of a well known policy. There was no media lynch mob calling for his career to be ended. On his comeback, Wendell was a poster boy for successful rehabilitation.
None of the concerned chorus you were a part of gave a second’s thought or comment to encouraging Lui into successful rehabilitation and acceptance back into the game.
None of you asked any questions about his background, or found out anything about why this happened or what he was doing to change his behaviour. You were indifferent to what his partner wanted for their (including the child’s) future, and whether she was supporting him with his rehab.
All you did was give encouragement to the call that he should lose his job for good, and say that it was ‘tragic’ she was still with him.
You and your mob called for his head on a stick, and more or less advocated she and the young son should leave him for their own good. Without knowing a thing about them.
Does it get more irresponsible than that?
I’d say if the shoe fits, you wear it.
loading...
“When will you ban players who bash women?” When women who bash men are banned. That’s called equality. Currently, no female should be banned from anything for bashing men so let’s make sure that everyone is treated equally.
We know that psychological and emotional violence is worse than physical. Consequently, when is this site going to be banned for psychological and emotional violence against men?
This site is feminist and the only purpose of feminism is to vilify and denigrate men with outright lies, urban myths and gross misuse of statistics. A good example might be that Ms Freedman claims females are paid 18% less than men. This is an outright lie. If it were true then there should be thousands upon thousands of cases before the commission. There isn’t. So, we can conclude that females are too pathetic to stand up for themselves so what hope have they got in executive positions where they have to stand up for their bosses i.e. the shareholders? Or we can conclude that a significant proportion of employers break the law and, because females are too pathetic to complain, they get away with it. Although females are only too happy to make false claims of sexual harassment, females are too pathetic to make claims about their pay. Or it could be the truth i.e. that men work harder, take more risks and put in longer hours. But the truth is not a strong point of feminists.
“A little something called the ‘confirmation bias’. Lilienfield says we tend to look for evidence that is consistent with what we want to believe, but when an event occurs that doesn’t support our beliefs, we come up with an explanation.” This is a perfect description of feminists and their nonsensical “explanations”
loading...
I actually wrote about this very thing! Check it out: http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/the-fight-for-equality-and-rights-and-why-the-faux-oppressed-whinge/
loading...
What female dominated sport has a culture or pattern of raping or bashing men?
I can name numerous AFL players who’ve been charged with rape, just off the top of my head. Can you name any female sports stars off the top of your head who have been charged with assault?
Of course women can be violent and abusive to men and to other women – and on the flip side, most men aren’t violent. But I don’t believe it’s as necessary to campaign or write articles to draw awareness to female athlete perpetrated violence against men, because there’s no statistical evidence that it’s an ongoing issue.
loading...
Here’s my opinion.
Let’s ignore the fact that they are in the spot light. Let’s ignore the fact that people look up to them. What I want to say is this.
Why does the NRL think it’s ok to have people who represent the brand of NRL to behave in such a fashion? Don’t the powers that be think that this is dragging the name of NRL through the doody? Can’t they see the negative impact these players are having on the sport?
I can guarantee that if anyone else in any other company, was damaging the name of the company they work for because of their behaviour, they would be fired.
The other side of it is, if everyone allows or glosses over their shocking behaviour, and they aren’t punished in some way, how are they going to learn that this behaviour is unacceptable? Surely they would think, well I’ve still got my high paying job, I can do what I want?
Anyhoo, that’s my 5 cents.
loading...
I have to agree with the comments stating that a media witch hunt is not helpful here. I understand that sending a strong message that violence against anyone is never ok is an important one BUT why are these men being used as the faces of this anti-violence campaign? Yes yes because they commited violent acts I understand that but sadly so did thousands of other people. There’s no one profession or one type of man or woman who commits acts of violence. They didn’t hurt these women because they are footballers so why is that such a factor when we weigh up the consequences of their actions?
I have to say if I was the partner of one of these men (obviously I will never know for certain how I would act because I’m not in the situation) and had been the victim of their crimes I see NO way in which this media witch hunt would make me feel anything but horrible. I’ve read and heard victims of domestic violence say they feel shame after the attacks (as much as they should not be ashamed unfortunately people can be). Can we seriously imagine that publicising these men’s crimes far beyond the audience that would otherwise know about them has caused anything but pain for these women? I’m not trying to diminish the pain of the violence they were on the receiving end of but I think this sort of campaign just adds to the pain they are enduring. I think their family and friends could be the support network helping these women be strong and remove themselves from the situation instead of just opening it up to the wider public for people who don’t know them to fling around insults and opinions based on a few news articles. (not suggesting the stories are not 100% true)
I also agree with what John James said about having a conversation with your child about negative role models. I find it ridiculous when a famous person does something wrong and people all talk about how they are meant to be role models and what can they tell their kids?! What?! How about teaching your kids that admiring a footballer/actor/singer doesn’t mean copying every single thing they do? An education on why violence is wrong doesn’t become derailed because your child hears of a footballer who hit a woman.
loading...
loading...
hang on…to all those saying ‘you can’t sack someone because they will be tried in a court of law…you don’t get sacked for other crimes blah blah’. That isn’t right.
In a lot of work places you can be legally sacked if you have been convicted of a crime (disclaimer – haven’t been following the NRL saga and don’t know if they have been convicted…I’m assuming they, or others have been in the past).
Do you really think a banker convicted of defrauding their grandmother of money wouldn’t be sacked? Regardless of their debt to society being paid through the criminal justice system? Do you really think employers don’t sack people convicted of violent crimes whilst in their employ?
Of course there is nothing wrong with being sacked for being convicted of a crime, especially if your profession for whatever reason (affects the ‘brand’, loses clients, you are a role model, you handle money…whatever) requires you to adhere to a code of conduct.
The witch hunt I’m never comfortable with, it should be about the NRL having a clear position and a code of conduct that being convicted of a violent crime will be sacked.
loading...
If your crime relates to your work, ie a banker using his position with a firm to break the law, then that is different – a sacking is more than justified. If that same banker was accused of domestic violence, or drink driving etc etc, he would not lose his job over and above the punishments of the courts – unless it affected his ability to fulfil his duties.
loading...
actually, there are plenty of jobs where you can be sacked for a criminal offense that doesn’t ‘directly’ affect your job.
Where your job is seen to be one where you’re expected to represent a certain ‘standing’ in the community is one. ie teachers. there are many more around which can and will sack employees for criminal offences regardless of any link between the crime and their work, just the fact that a conviction exists.
loading...
I’m a teacher and at a staff meeting at least once a year, it’s made very clear that we can be sacked, transferred, or our pay scale reduced if we are convicted of a crime. Any crime. We have to report it when we are only charged to our principal and then it’s referred to an Ethics Committee. What happens then depends if we are convicted, the crime we are convicted of and if we have any other convictions, complaints against us etc.
i am assuming that all sporting contracts have a morals or ethics clause these days that can be invoked by the club when needed. This would cover violence of any type.
loading...
I couldn’t agree with this more Dee! All those saying ‘someone in a normal job wouldn’t be sacked’ are missing the point. Forget the role model argument. The fact is, people in normal jobs aren’t high profile. These men are, they signed up for this role. And if I worked at Woolworths and was convicted of a crime, and the crime became high profile and risked damaging the brand and reputation of the company I worked for…do you really think I wouldn’t be at risk of being sacked or suspended?
These guys are high profile and the crimes they have committed have damaged the reputation of their employer. From a business perspective, the NRL can and should discipline, for the sake of the game.
loading...
you know what, anyone who hits anyone is an arsehole. women, men, trans, kids… women are no more and no less precious than men. and it’s paternalistic, while well-meaning, to make a bigger deal about this because the victims are women.
all violence is bad, and all of it should be condemned. all violence, peeps. all violence. not just violence against women.
ok. thanks, i’ve got that off my chest.
taff
loading...
no, its just violence against women that is bad. The government says so.
loading...
Totally agree, that violence towards anyone is not ok and not on, but I think the attitude stems from the reality that generally speaking men are larger and stronger than women and the size and strength difference makes it harder to defend yourself against assault( ie women and children are more vulnerable in an assault and should be afforded greater protection). Under the law there is no difference in the offence between assaulting an adult woman or a adult male, with the exception of aggravating circumstances such as a woman being pregnant ( again comes back to a greater level of vulnerability) or disabilities. I would argue that there is a greater level of criminality if you say, hit me, a small female than if you took a swing at my 6’2, 90 kg trained soldier husband, purely because of the size disparity, ability to defend , and the greater likely hood of serious injury to the victim.
loading...
Just Taff,
I agree that all violence is bad. But there is a particular type of bad reserved for those who hit the people they claim to love. People who are particularly vulnerable.
loading...
I commend the NRL for stepping in (albeit a little late) when the Cowboys board failed to do so. I have one question, will Robert Lui get paid while sitting in the sideline?
loading...
Paul Murray and yourselves are engaging in a modern form of puritanism.
This is a matter for the people concerned and the courts. You engage in excessive tutt tutting that has nothing to do with justice. Wrong things were done and they need to be made good as far as possible. And busybodies should stay out of it.
loading...
Yes, it’s much nicer living in la-la land when we pretend violence against women isn’t happening. These men are in the public eye, held up as role models. When something is made public, it’s not being a busy body. IT’s educating the next generation that it’s NOT OK.
loading...
Jenna. Teaching the next generation is through giving them witness to good behaviour in your own life and through civic, social and religious entities. We no longer burn people at the stake.
loading...
Really Michael? Have you been following the news lately? The good old fashioned witch hunt is most definitely back in style! And to be honest I don’t have a problem with it.
I think what the Kyle Sandilands/Yumi Stynes/footy player “campaigns” show us is that society is now demanding that people who step up and put themselves in a position of ‘celebrity’ if you will (via sport or media) be held to a higher standard of account. We don’t accept Kyle Sandilands spouting misogynist drivel, and apparently we also don’t accept Yumi Stynes calling a decorated soldier’s masculinity into question. And we certainly don’t accept men who are being very well paid to ‘entertain’ large crowds of people (including many impressionable boys and young men) to continue in that role without censure after they violently assault the women they purport to love. By failing to condemn that behaviour the NRL was by default condoning it. At least they have now made a stand… although we shall continue to debate whether it goes far enough.
loading...
Hello Chookie. By definition the witch hunt was an hysterical moral panic that saw the cruel death of many. It was an evil act. Your acceptance of it in the name of moral outrage is a real concern.
These moral campaigns promoted by the likes of the media flimflam carry the risk of promoting shallow sensitivities that seek more than justice – they seek moral purity and revenge.
BTW 1: Styne’s did not attack a widely respected man’s masculinity, rather his intelligence by way of a cheap and crude comment. As with Kyle S, she is a media airhead who speaks for profit. They profit by their public persona, and indeed should lose by it when they offend.
loading...
Fantastically said Chookie!!
Michael, I am just so utterly unconvinced by your arguments. I agree that the younger generation is taught good behaviour through their daily influences and “through civic, social and religious entities”. The public media condemnation of a famous and celebrated man’s physical assault on anyone – let alone his pregnant partner (eg extremely physically and emotionally vulnerable) – teaches the younger generation that that behaviour is intolerable and unacceptable.
Refusing to take a stand against it and adopting an attitude of “let’s stay out of it and let the courts handle it” not only reiterates an archaic and dangerous paradigm that domestic violence is “private” and not anyone’s business, but also condones it by tolerating it.
If you’re not actively speaking out against it, you’re tolerating it – and therefore condoning it.
loading...
Geez Alice. Now you want the stocks brought back for public humiliation and punishment. Sometimes I feel the culture of MamaMia is so far out progressive that it has lost its memory of those things we have organically progressed on from through education and social development. Much of this is the legacy of our Christian tradition. The new-age equivalence of the stocks and worse, public lynching, via celebrity news campaigns is dangerous and diminishes our inherited civic values.
Much of this flows from our culture’s loss of memory that humans are flawed beings, which is better than not being at all. And justice has its demands expressed in law and mercy has its place in our trust in the law.
To me at times reading articles / comments it seems there is a mood that life is one big conspiracy against women. And with its expression sight has been lost of our rich tradition of justice and mercy.
Life is good, inasmuch without it you did not exist. Cheers
http://www.localforlife.com.au
loading...
You’re so caught up in rhetoric Michael.
No one is asking for a lynch mob. What I’m saying is that it’s appropriate for the public-the media, individuals, the person’s club etc to take a stand against sexual/domestic violence, because passivity equates with tolerance.
Speaking out to condemn a person’s actions is not the same as taking them out and shooting them.
Cultures and society don’t change through people sitting quietly and passively, ignoring behaviour they think is unacceptable (assuming you do find violence against women-or anyone-unacceptable). Just ask Rosa Parks.
loading...
Hello Alice. I m happy with the rhetoric classification… I seek to persuade with argument. The moral crusade mentality produces a holier than thou attitude that leads to the sort of behaviour of MM and Paul Murray. It is cheap and easy to do and produces the mob response. The “Likes” and online petitions are cheap love that gives immediate moral gratification. Justice becomes a secondary factor.
The tendency to overstate things in this holier than vow atmosphere is reflected in making a moral equivalence of Rosa Parks’ courageous action with the act of doing three clicks on the internet. Indeed cheap love.
I should not have to state that my comments presuppose my abhorrence of the crime of domestic violence in all of its forms, physical and mental and emotional.
loading...
So what would you rather do, Michael? Sit there and tell people to be quiet when they’re appalled by someone’s behaviour? Way to change the world, you couragous man.
That’s seriously pathetic. Your comments do exactly what you’re accusing others of – taking a holier than thou attitude in criticising others.
Obviously commenting online isn’t the same as what Rosa Parks did – but these kind of forums are useful for gauging social norms, and for defining, articulating and challenging ones views. Yes, it’s easy to comment, yes people like being able to have an opinion, and yes people’s opinions can become exaggerated. Who cares? That’s not some mind blowing insight you’ve offered, that’s pretty obvious. And there is a benefit to it.
By having the opportunity to engage in this kind of discussion, people become informed on topics, they learn to articulate and back up their arguments, and so on. I think that’s a good thing.
What your comment said was “This is a matter for the people concerned and the courts. You engage in excessive tutt tutting that has nothing to do with justice.” “Justice” is defined by legislation and common law, which aims to reflect society. Rape in marriage didn’t used to exist but because of a rise in awareness of it’s occurance and outcry against it, the legislation changed.
Excessive tutt-tutting (as you dismissively put it) is exactly how thoughts and ultimately movements develop. Do I think I’m starting a revolution while tapping at my keys and sipping a coffee? Nope. But I’m contributing to a discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable (domestic violence – which used to be totally acceptable), and how perpetrators should or shouldn’t be held accountable for it. Back in the day, they wouldn’t have been. Now with advertising, campaigns, organisation and yes, forums like this one, are speaking out against it, and it is now considered unacceptable.
In short – public debate, condemnation and accountability is necessary to change societal norms and values, which then change the laws. The two are inextricably link and always have been. It’s the trolls who prefer to sit there smuggly ‘informing’ people their opinions won’t make a difference that don’t contribute to that change.
loading...
As other posters have said I’m in the why should they be sacked camp. We have courts for a reason, and they have been punished through the courts like everyone else would be. They are just footy players – I don’t see why they should get treated any differently to anyone else in a negative or positive way.
loading...
Maybe because footy players are paid way more than the average person. They represent a club, a code and sponsors.
It all comes down to economics. If your behaviour tarnishes the brands you represent, you become a liability to your club, code and sponsors.
That is clearly what happened in this case.
Thankfully IMO.
loading...
I can feel the hate coming at me from all directions as I type this.
Make no bones about it. I have little time for football players, regardless. Football is the lifeblood for many, and good on them. That’s their thing. I have “my” things, and good on me.
I have absolutely NO time for any male who bashes a woman. I have absolutely NO time for any man who believes that there are occasions when bashing a woman is warranted. I absolutely condemn any violent actions towards women.
Regardless of the occupation of the violent offender, ( I’m choosing my words very carefully as I know that whatever I write, someone will interperet those words to mean something different ) I honestly don’t know whether I would support the call for banning or sacking. If I had my way footballers would be banned simply because they are footballers, but which profession will next be targetted ?
Surely there must be the odd one or two dozen male journos out there who have been violent towards women ? Lawyers, doctors, delivery drivers and garbologists. Should there be a blanket call to fire/ban/suspend everyone who has ever harmed a woman ?
Okay, I certainly concur that footballers are meant to be “role models” and are seen that way by some and I expect to be told so by many. I just see this as the thin edge of the wedge. You simply cannot go around sacking/banning everyone who lacks a decent moral compass.
Again I state that I have absolutely no time for any male who abuses a woman. Yet somehow I expect someone to pick innumerable holes in the argument that I have presented.
loading...
I agree with everything you have said. I am 100% against violence. And I agree that to ignore this situation is not the right way to deal with it. But a careful consideration of “mad Monday” and other elements of the culture seems more apt.
loading...
I agree with you to the extent that anyone who hits a woman is not a great person. Whatever their ability to be rehabilitated is, it’s not a good example. The problem with the NRL – or any high visibility occupation, like politics or such – is precisely that.
They are highly visible. Like it or not, the NRL needs to do something to show that it cares enough to tell the rest of the very good players in League and the fans that it won’t tolerate such horrid behaviour.
loading...
Bradley, for once I’m totally with you. On every single account of you post!
loading...
Yes I think the main point here is that they are very much in the public eye and are therefore more accountable to the public regarding their behavior. Don’t they get banned for misconduct like illegal drug use and assaulting other players (can you tell I don’t follow NRL?) Any hoot, they get paid a ridiculous amount of money!
loading...
The only problem with this is that a lot of sports people are professional sports people because they are gifted at sports. They aren’t doing it because they want to be role models. Are we saying now that an individual who has precious few other skills (and I don’t know if Lui is in this category) should not pursue professional football because they aren’t otherwise socially capable enough to be a good role model. Most NRL players are high risk takers who practice violence every day as a way of life. To expect them to be as capable as a nurse of switching off their naturally aggresive natures is frankly unrealistic. Of course they still have to be dealt with appropriately by the law but take away their lifelihood as well? Really? Better we should celebrate the gentlemen of NRL like Hindemarsh and El Mazri
loading...
The fact is, the players are in the public eye, and without support from the public – games, merchandise etc, these players wouldn’t have the well paid jobs they have. Therefore I think we have every right to expect better behaviour from them. By banning them it sends a very public message that violence towards women won’t be tolerated. It may also have a flow on effect to some impressionable supporters.
loading...
I am an avid NRL supporter and I could not agree more with this article. Every year the NRL has the ‘Women in League’ week where they aim to promote and celebrate women involved in the game. However, I find this to be extremely hypocritical as whilst the NRL use this week to sing about how much they admire and respect women, at the very same time there are players who gave been found guilty of violence against women playing in the week’s trademark pink jerseys. It is disgusting that the NRL do not take a stronger stance against these players. If the NRL are going to say they ‘respect, applaud and admire’ all of the women involved in the game and all the dedicated wives, girlfriends and mothers of the players, then that means that they should NOT continue to allow players who hit, punch, sexuality assault or who are in any way violent towards women, in their game.
loading...
Agree, whole heartedly!
loading...
/\/\
This
loading...
Belarina – totally agree.
loading...
I am an avid follower of the NRL, in particular, the Canberra Raiders. I have seen such instances of a player being de-registered for a year for drink driving (Todd Carney) and a player who was forced to re-sign to prevent further action against himself and the club for a Mad Monday prank involving beasteality (Joel Monaghan) within my own club, yet players who have faced with accusation (proven or not) of spousal battery continue to go swept under the carpet (Joel Thompson within the club I support) or get by by changing clubs (Robert Lui) continue to go unnoticed. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I am a woman, I am an eldest sister to three younger sisters and two younger brothers, I am an aunt to three gorgeuous nieces and I am a step (or bonus) mother to an intelligent 5 year old boy. How am I supposed to continue to support a code who is happy to have a Women In League round, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of the reality of women supporting the game, simply wash their hands, sweep it under the rug and act like they have zero responsibilty, especially when you take into account the punishment they dish out to players on other issues (such as drink driving and beastiality as I previously mentioned, and players assualting eachother [see the game between Melbourne Storm and Manly from last season where several players got banned from playing for weeks and weeks]).
I posted comments on the three major sponsors of the NRL on their FaceBook pages. I recieved a cut and paste, PR-spiel from both Toyota and Telstra, and a very sarcastic and patronising response from Harvey Norman (Who I will now never shop with again, and will advise others not to do so in future either) about how I should adjust my FB settings.
They MUST take action, or fans HAVE TO take further action.
loading...
I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again…no matter what these men have done (and I do not condone their crimes for a second) I am not comfortable with this kind of media witch-hunt…
These men have already been arrested, charged, judged and found guilty by the courts of the land…who are you, the media, to decide that they must now also lose their source of income…why should these men, who are paid employees, be subject to further punishment above and beyond other men who have been convicted of the same crime…if it is OK to demand that these men be sacked, why not demand that every man who has been convicted of the same crime also be sacked from their jobs as well…You cannot have one law for one type of person, and another law for another type of person. Their vocation shouldn’t determine their punishment.
Instead, why not commend the NRL who are actively supporting these players, not only be keeping them employed, but also by providing them access to counselling services…what do you think will happen to these young men if you take away something that gives them meaning? Instead of giving them a chance to learn from their mistakes and become better people, taking away their vocation would leave them without purpose or meaning…they would probably become worse for that, not better.
Again, I do not condone domestic violence of any kind, but I also do not condone the media putting itself above the law. Now, if you think that the punishment handed out by our judicial system is too lenient, well that’s another issue altogether…I’d probably support you in that…but I will not support you in this cause. You are not our judicial system!
http://kikiandtea.com/2012/04/role-models/
loading...
These men are role models. They are in the public eye, and no amount of pretending otherwise is going to change that.
I am an Avid supporter of the NRL, but I have a young bonus-son who already idolises sevral players from the team we support. It is everyone’s social responsibilty to ensure ANYONE in the public eye is setting a good example for the younger generation WE are responsible for.
loading...
Sporting people are talented and famous…but being talented and famous does not make you a positive role model…you can also be talented and famous and be a negative role model…it is up to us to teach our children that talent and fame alone do not guarantee that you will be a good person…these men are examples of this…
Teaching children that all talented and famous people must be role models is a fools dream.
Teaching children that all people can be either good or bad, regardless of fame or talent, is the real lesson.
loading...
I feel this is simply a case of “it’s too hard, I’m just one person”.
Like I said, you can pretend they are not role models all you like, it doesn’t make it true, and it also stands that the NRL dish out much harsher Punishments for drunk driving, bestiality and on field “assaults”, claiming that it is a family-friendly game who’s players ARE role models. NRL’s words, not mine. They CANNOT pick and choose, even when people, supporters or otherwise, do.
loading...
I agree with you…they are role models…negative role models…
You should explain to your kids why they are negative role models…and why talent and fame won’t guarantee good behaviour.
loading...
Rach, you and your partner are the role models for your son and not some who happens to be good at sport and you don’t know.
loading...
Which is why I am aking a stance on this. I am sure you can understand and appreciate that.
loading...
They are role models, until they give us reasons not to be. It is up to parents to teach their children who it is acceptable to idolise, and who it is not and why.
loading...
Hi Rach. There are role models……and then there are ” role models”.
loading...
I agree with you to a large degree JJ.
And in reference to your attached blog I think that it does come down to role models. My 6 year old son is a HUGE fan of the NRL. However I have made no effort to teach him who the players are. He does not watch the interviews or half time commentary. I think that to hold people who may have had childhoods that did not teach them right from wrong, that did not learn how to treat women, did not learn ethics and morals and then to hold them up as role models for children is unrealistic and unfair to the individual. I do not know the players in question, nor their backgrounds, so am not specifically commenting on them.
loading...
John James – I 100% agree with you
loading...
Hey JJ ! I completely agree with the sensible arguments that you have put forward.
loading...
Johnjames – I agree with almost all you have written, but I think that a one season ban will set a firm example to other players that this sort of behavior is never okay. Yes, they have the judicial system to make the decisions on their punishment, but these same stories still keep (disappointingly) emerging. Stories about assault, rape, chauvinist & mysogist behavior are regularly reported in the media regarding NRL players. They can do all the workshops and educational programs they want, but the hard truth is that these currently just aren’t working. Maybe the threat of a loss of income will be something tangible for players, and something that can really reduce the number of these incidents occurring.
Maybe if they knew that if they commit an act of violence against a women, and knew it would mean a season ban, then it would be a massive deterrent to not commit these acts in the first place. It would be another step towards improving the attitudes of players and hammer home that violence against women isn’t okay.
loading...
In any workplace that employs hundreds of people, you will find a proportion, men and women, that are bad people and break the law. Just because there is more media attention on NRL / AFL does not mean there is an endemic problem with the majority of players – the majority of players, as are the majority of employees in any industry, are good people. A few bad apples…let the law deal with them as it would any other citizen.
loading...
I also agree and I do feel a bit sorry for the family of Robert Lui who as an Indigenous man also supports his siblings as well as his partner and children and to be without an income for a year will be hard. Having said that I do know that he is a quiet, shy sort of man and wouldnt hurt a fly when sober, but cannot handle his drink and seems to be a mean drunk. But people do have to take responsibilty for their own actions as well.
loading...
Why the hell should they sack them? If they had a normal job they wouldn’t be sacked and yes they get paid a lot of money to play rugby but look it’s still just a job.
loading...
Personally I’m waiting for the A Current Affair expose on these two players and the incidents surrounding them.
I’m even more interested in this expose given the recent media coverage on A Current Affair of an ex NRL player and his private life (which did not involve any illegal activity). The disgusting harassment he received seemed to stem from this player’s lack of co-operation in providing an interview or comment to a grubby Channel Nine sports reporter, clearly because this would not be in the best interests of his family, and also because it is no of anybody’s business.
Oh wait…..how much did Channel 9 pay the NRL for the rights to televise???
Absolute hypocrisy!
loading...