robertmorris
Juniors
- Messages
- 49
This was originally a letter written to Phil Gould on defending Matthew Johns and the rape libel against professional athletes, particularly Rugby League players, made by the media and radical feminists. It is quite long so I give a summary (Cliffs)
- Matthew may have made a mistake by not vigorously defending himself.
- For the media, and the public mind, the biggest issue is whether there was consent, not the morality of consensual group sex.
- Matthew's future and reputation depend on what opinion the general public form over the coming days and weeks on whether there was consent or not.
- There exists a rape libel in the media, and in the imaginations of some of the public, that football players are habitual rapists.
- All professional athletes are subject to the same rape libel and insinuations by the media, regardless of the facts, the veracity of accusations or the amount or lack of evidence.
- When legitimate figures within a sport voice concern over the moral and professional issues over indiscretions, the media and radical feminists take that as an admission of far more serious criminality of habitual rape.
- The rape libel must be challenged and disproven with evidence and facts. Courts should decide criminality.
- Radical feminists and cultural studies theorists will always find men and football players guilty as oppressors as women, with them it will always be lose-lose. Their views must always be challenged and never legitimised, like the NRL has done with Catherine Lumby.
- Rugby League and sport in Australia needs to be aware of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in the United States, where innocent athletes were pillared by the media and prosecutors for over a year as racist gang rapists before finally being completely exonerated.
- To win the argument with players that they should have higher standards of behaviour, it should be demonstrated how much of their pay comes from entertaining children, and they should therefore have the incentive to privately behave to the standard expected from children's entertainers. Would it be ok if the Wiggles did it?
To Phil Gould,
Over the past week and a half I have watched the Matthew Johns scandal as a deeply concerned fan of Matthew and the game. I have been deeply angry, frustrated and disillusioned with how events have unfolded. Rugby League, his teammates, and the Media have abandoned and crucified Matthew. I waited for a somebody, a real man and mate, to step up, brave the tide bearing down on him, and publicly defend Matthew and the truth.
You are the only one who has substantively done this, the only one to put their reputation on the line for the sake of friendship to vigorously defend Matthew, his innocence and his reputation. But it seems it is only one man against the entire world, or at least the entire media and the NRL, and it seems that Matthew is losing the public battle for his reputation, his career and his future.
I can't sit back and see this man publicly destroyed without a shred of justice. It's not right if it were n ordinary man who was the victim and it is not right as a fan and follower of Matthew's sporting and entertainment career, to sit back and do nothing. I am deeply concerned for Matthew's future and wellbeing, and I feel I need to communicate with you, Matthew's friend and public advocate, what I feel are the issues that Matthew's camp may have overlooked or underestimated.
Matthew's Response
I fear that Matthew Johns may have done himself a disservice, or at least played an enormous gamble with his career and reputation, by not vigorously defending himself or providing a full and complete account of the evening and of the actions and the character of 'Clare'.
I can understand the concern that a vigorous defense and full account of the evening from Matthew may have resulted in an attempt at self-harm or suicide from 'Clare', and that placing her welfare above all else was the moral thing to do. But the cost of this may be the sacrifice of Matthew Johns career and reputation from which be can never recover.
A person who has the capacity to lie egregiously in the past, can and will lie egregiously in the present and future, particularly when they have an admitted motive of vindictive malice. The ABC report did not seriously investigate the veracity of 'Clares' claims, and I would be cautious in accepting the veracity of the reported claims of her past attempts at self-harm. Questionable pretences of the threat to her welfare are a weak basis for Matthew to sacrifice his reputation and career.
The problem with not offering a vigorous defense and full account of the evening is that you allow 'Clare' and the media to tell their story unchallenged, that after time, becomes the accepted fact. You and many people may understand the situation as a mentally unstable woman, who feeling aggrieved or ashamed about a sexual encounter after the fact, and perhaps out of malice, remembers it as rape. The problem is the media do not see or portray it that way. The substance of the story is not Matthew Johns infidelity or the morality of consensual group sex, it is that Matthew Johns and his Cronulla teammates gangraped a woman. And without challenge from Matthew Johns, or the other participants, it is the gangrape narrative that will capture the public imagination and become the accepted wisdom of the evening, and Matthew's character.
The disconnect was there to be seen on the Footy Show last Thursday. Yourself, Andrew Voss, and the rest of the panel were in general agreement that the problem was that group sex was that always be perceived as immoral and carry the risk of a later false rape accusation from the consenting participants. Even if there was a green light, consent from the woman, it was not ok to go through with it because it carries the strong risk that it will come back to bite the player on the arse.
However this was not the main concern of Jacquelin Magnay. She did not share the assumption that there was a green light from 'Clare', or a green light for the sexual encounters, group or otherwise,of other football players and woman generally. For her the issue was consent, 'Clare' did not give it, Matthew Johns and the Cronulla players did not have it, and that 'Clare' was gangraped.
This is the disconnect, unless Matthew Johns vigorously defends himself, provides a full account of the evening, and of the actions and character of 'Clare', then the media and public at large does not share the assumption that the acts that evening were consensual, and that without consent, the group sex of the evening, becomes gangrape. Unless Matthew's case is vigorously presented, then 'Clare' and the medias narrative will dominate air and print space, and ultimately win out.
You can not assume that people will simply agree with Matthew's innocence, that without persuasion they will accept that they are watching a rerun of Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction, when 'Clare' and the medias narrative, and the public temptation, is to see the evening as Jodie Foster in 'The Accused'.
You can't overlook consent as the most important issue for Matthew Johns career and reputation. With consent, he is guilty of infidelity and, what some will consider, a sexual immorality, both fodder for gossip magazines and a short media scandal. Without consent, Matthew Johns is a rapist, guilty, in the public and media mind, of a crime so reviled and considered second only to murder, of which perpetrators are sentenced to fifty five years in super maximum security prisons as the most despised members of society. If Matthew Johns reputation over the coming weeks is established as one of a rapist, and 'Clares' narrative of the evening, as gangrape without consent, goes without vigorous challenge, then Matthew's career is forever over.
It must be established in the media and public mind beyond reasonable doubt that the group sex that evening was consensual, that Matthew Johns is not a rapist, and to utter a suggestion otherwise is to be held in contempt as the slander and slur that it is. It would be right and honourable if the other participants come forward and offer the vigorous defense that Matthew did not, but ultimately his reputation will live or die on what actions he takes to defend himself now in the coming days and weeks.
The media libel on professional athletes as habitual rapists
The other great problem with this disconnect is that when you and others, quite rightly, address the problems that consensual group sex presents to football players, morally and to their reputations and careers, it is seen through the very different prism as a confession that the real problem is that footballers regularly, and without consent, gangrape woman. It is the same with Matthew's apology, certainly the moral and manly thing to do, but what is it an apology for? A confession that Matthew did not have consent and did in fact rape 'Clare'? The moral and professional issues you raise, and that constituted Matthew's apology are confused, deliberately by the media, with the issues of criminality; rape, sexual and indecent assault.
When the media reports on a sporting scandal, and legitimate voices within the sport voice their legitimate concerns about the moral and professional problems with a players actions, it is construed and accepted as a confession of far more serious crimes that are hated and reviled by the general public. Every single story about the scandal thus far has held out the possibility that the real issue is rape, that every comment on the issue, is a comment on the rape and gangrape of women by footballers. Just because a person, a footballer, commits some kind of moral or professional wrong, does not mean they should be thrown to the dogs as criminal guilty of the worst crime second only to murder. It is a slur and a libel that permeates all media, and most public discussion, of any sporting scandal involving sex, the libel that football players are habitual rapists.
Letting Radical Feminism and Feminist Cultural Studies Go Unchallenged
This is why I think there is great danger in legitimizing feminist cultural studies spokespeople like Catherine Lumby as NRL officials, or accepting without challenge like minded radical feminist views presented in the media. Feminist social theory always holds men guilty as oppressors of women, no matter the individual actions or culpability of individual men. Football players, men at the height of masculinity, will always be guilty of social crimes in the eyes of feminists, and no matter their actions, the consent of their female partners, they will always be oppressors and degradators of women.
There is no winning option with radical feminism, it is lose-lose. It does not matter if there was consent and the woman was a willing participant, it does not matter if no crime was committed, it does not matter if the immorality or unprofessionalism was minor or transient, it does not matter if the accusation has no veracity, or is just hearsay or rumor, the man is guilty. Nothing Rugby League can do will appease radical feminists, they will always be agents of male patriarchy and domination. Feminist Cultural Studies places no value on the virtues of sport and athleticism, it sees only wrongs.
It is foolish to ask them to be our games moral judges because the game will never live up to their standard. And it is a standard so far removed from that of the public and woman generally. The fans will always be the ultimate judges, and they will judge with their feet and wallets, on footballers morality. Courts will always be the judges on criminality.
The danger is, that the radical voice becomes the official ombudsmen of Rugby League, as Catherine Lumby seems to have become, or when unchallenged in the public arena, the radical feminist theory of men and footballers as the enemy of women and habitual rapists, becomes legitimate and captures the public mind.
The Rape Libel and the Duke Lacrosse Case
The rape libel, that footballers, and male athletes generally, are habitual rapists, was best exposed in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Case in the United States. If you haven't read up on the situation, please do, it is the text book case of every sporting rape scandal, and is a portent of where we in Australia are heading or have arrived at.
A young black woman, Crystal Magnum, along with a colleague, were hired as strippers for a team party. No sexual acts occurred at all. The woman later accused the Lacrosse players of gang rape, and police and prosecutors aggressively pressed charges. For over a year the boys, all white, were held up as the worst kind of racist rapists across the entire national media, they had wanted posters plastered around their university, 88 professors authored an article that condemned the male sporting culture of the team as one that was inherently conducive to rape.
This was all in spite of the fact that the players were perfectly innocent, had committed no wrongdoing and no crime what so ever. They had been the victims of a mental unstable, but malicious, fantasist. Her statements to police changed completely many times, the number of supposed rapists was changed multiple times, she could not consistently identify the same players as rapists, despite being given only the lacrosse team photos to choose from, no DNA sample matching any of the players could be found, though the DNA of two other males from a subsequent consensual sexual encounter were, etc... the litany of procedural misconduct and weakness of the case go on and on. Eventually the case was dropped, the boys exonerated, and the prosecutor disbarred, charged and found guilty of professional misconduct.
None of this stopped the media, radical feminists, and the public at large from destroying these athletes lives, careers and reputations as vile gangrapists. The facts did not matter, only the profile, that athletes are habitual rapists, no matter the veracity of the accusation. The same thing happens in Australia with 'Clare', almost nobody in the media has bothered to investigate or establish the veracity of her story, certainly not the ABC before airing her slander. Nobody seems interested in publicly asking the question, is an innocent man being maliciously defamed? Should the veracity of a mentally unstable person be held up to scrutiny before another's life and career are destroyed? Whilst media and public alike seem to be very keen on insinuating and presenting the libel that footballers are gang rapists, no matter the facts. Again when the media fails, when his teammates fail him, only Matthew, and perhaps his close friends like yourself, can defend him, air the truth, and defeat the libel.
Letting False Accusations Fly, Hurts Real Victims of Sexual Assault
The rape libel has become part and parcel of Rugby League reporting, it is very close to becoming received wisdom. The same rape libel was certainly behind the Bulldogs 2003 Coff's Harbour affair, and like there, the veracity of the accusation does not matter, only the libel, the myth, that athletes regularly gang rape women. A similar violence libel was levelled against Mark McGaw.
It's no longer enough to stay quite, pretend the slur does not exist, and wish it go away. It's not enough for the victims of malicious lies to stay quite for fear of drawing attention upon themselves of aggravating radical feminist groups. Not only is the reputation of Rugby League, the players and all sport on the line, but it is fundamentally immoral and unjust, not only for the victims of false and malicious accusations, but for the real victims of rape and sexual assault.
On the Footy show last Thursday you made the good point of how wrong it is that the victim of Dane Tilse's actions in Bathurst did not feel comfortable coming forward to police. This is a concerning issue, for Rugby League and society, and deeply unjust. There are many issues to be addressed with that situation, the one relevant to Matthew Johns and the rape libel against football players, is that false accusations of rape and assault, discredit legitimate victims.
When the media and the public ignore the veracity and merits of individual accusations, and by the rape libel, automatically treat false accusations the same as true accusations, it has the effect of making all rape accusations illegitimate: In the mind of the victim who must decide whether she wants to go ahead with a trial, in the minds of police and the criminal justice system who become skeptical to claims of rape, and to the general public who, once burnt, may become hostile to real victims.
This is the other, and perhaps the greater victim of the rape libel against football players, real victims of sexual assault. Does 'Clare' now become the public face of rape? I could not imagine a greater disservice to justice. Pru Goward, a real feminist and a real advocate for the rights of women, and a much better feminist ombudsmen of the NRL than Catherine Lumby could ever be, is very apt is seeing through the rape libel. She has been strongly advocating that women who are victims of sexual assault, or make accusations that they have been, must go to the police and to the courts, to have justice served upon the perpetrators of the crime, and to have the veracity of their accusation tested in the only proper way, before the courts, so that the innocent victims of false accusations may be exonerated, should a prima facie case even exist. This must be the public position strongly advocated by Rugby League, and people like Pru Goward should be the face and mother of Rugby League feminism, not culture studies theorists like Lumby.
Defending Rugby League, Sport and Matthew Johns Against the Rape Libel
Rugby League, and sport generally, is under attack from the rape libel, Matthew Johns is the latest victim. You have been the only public figure to substantively come forward and defend him and the game, whist also giving an honest account of his and the games shortcomings. The 88 professors statement from the Duke Lacrosse Case offers the logic of the rape libel and the dirty tactics that the cultural enemies of sport employ and athletes fall victim to. No matter what Rugby League does, no matter how much we get our own house in order, they will always attack, they will always libel, and they will always unjustly slur, attack and destroy sporting figures.
But if Rugby League, and now Matthew Johns, defend themselves vigorously from the rape libel, discredit it as untrue, unjust, devoid of merit and exposed for lack of veracity, then the game can also be honest with its shortcomings, not be slandered with falsehood, and be all the stronger for it. Rugby League, with the NRL or not, fans and public figures alike, must wage that political and public relations campaign, and it begins with exposing the slurs, exposing the libel and exonerating Matthew Johns.
Professional Athletes Should Think of Themselves as Children's Entertainers
Whilst Rugby League, and Matthew Johns, must defend themselves from the rape libel and false accusations of crime, the moral and professional misconduct of players is still concerning and a detriment to the game. Whilst they do not deserve to be vilified by the rape libel, the media will do so anyway, and the player still loses regardless of his innocence when his career and reputation have been destroyed. Your traffic light analogy, that the light may be green, a player may be otherwise justified in engaging in consensual group sex, but that it is morally and professional wrong for him and his career, is apt. As the SMH interview with an anonymous NRL player who resented the intrusion into the private lives of players showed, it is more than an issue of education, it is an argument that needs to be made and won with players.
In most other walks of life, or even an amateur football player, there is not a strong argument, beyond suggesting that the act itself may be immoral, as to why consenting adults should not engage in group sex. Most people would generally accept that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a matter only for them. An analogy would be to replace group sex with homosexuality. Some may find homosexuality to be immoral, but very few would think it proper to interfere or to deny somebody the right to privately engage in the act. Group sex is obviously enjoyable, and there are many woman find it enjoyable and want to participate, so what right does the NRL have to make rules as to what a player does in the bedroom?
I suggest that the way to make and win that argument, is to look at what pays a rugby league players wage. How much of the revenue of the NRL and the clubs comes directly and indirectly from children. If the percentage is say 15% and 40% respectively, then take that percentage of your wage; that is how much money you are earning as a children's entertainer. Why as a professional Rugby League player do you get paid so much money and not beers or a few hundred bucks a win at a park? In large part it is because you are a children's entertainer, you entertain hundreds and thousands if not millions of children every weekend and season, and they, there parents, pay a large portion of you salary. Children's entertainers have a particular reputation to uphold. A moral guide for football payers should be: What would the Wiggles do? What would people and the media say if one of the Wiggles did this? Would it be ok if the Wiggles did it?
Take the percentage figure a player earns as a children's entertainer, and explain and establish the thought process that this is what I get paid to entertain children, and this is what I get paid to live my private life to the standards and reputation of a children's entertainer. If I get paid $100,000 and 40% comes directly and indirectly from children, then that $40,000 is the pay of I get for turning down that girl at the bar, $40,000 for not having one more beer and turning in for the night. That is the personal interest, the direct pay off, for foregoing some of what you would otherwise be free to do. I would suggest that by putting a personal dollar figure, on the payment a player receives for being a children's entertainer, and not engaging in moral or professional conduct that would threaten that, by emphasising the financial reward rather than the punishment of fines and termination, it may be effective in winning the argument with players, when other arguments fail.
_ _ _
Thanks for stepping up for your mate and a man many Australians are great fans of. I wish all the best for Matthew and hope he gets his career back on track as soon as possible. Please keep being his public advocate and if need be carry him through this. Please keep on using you public position to do your best for the game.
Kind Regards,
A fan of the game
P.S.
The Group of 88 Professors Statement on the Duke Lacrosse Case
Link:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/11/duke-case-listening-statement.html
Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
By Stuart Taylor Jr and KC Johnson
A book, which should be required reading for all journalists, sports and otherwise, on the topic.
Book Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312384866/ref=ed_oe_p
- Matthew may have made a mistake by not vigorously defending himself.
- For the media, and the public mind, the biggest issue is whether there was consent, not the morality of consensual group sex.
- Matthew's future and reputation depend on what opinion the general public form over the coming days and weeks on whether there was consent or not.
- There exists a rape libel in the media, and in the imaginations of some of the public, that football players are habitual rapists.
- All professional athletes are subject to the same rape libel and insinuations by the media, regardless of the facts, the veracity of accusations or the amount or lack of evidence.
- When legitimate figures within a sport voice concern over the moral and professional issues over indiscretions, the media and radical feminists take that as an admission of far more serious criminality of habitual rape.
- The rape libel must be challenged and disproven with evidence and facts. Courts should decide criminality.
- Radical feminists and cultural studies theorists will always find men and football players guilty as oppressors as women, with them it will always be lose-lose. Their views must always be challenged and never legitimised, like the NRL has done with Catherine Lumby.
- Rugby League and sport in Australia needs to be aware of the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case in the United States, where innocent athletes were pillared by the media and prosecutors for over a year as racist gang rapists before finally being completely exonerated.
- To win the argument with players that they should have higher standards of behaviour, it should be demonstrated how much of their pay comes from entertaining children, and they should therefore have the incentive to privately behave to the standard expected from children's entertainers. Would it be ok if the Wiggles did it?
To Phil Gould,
Over the past week and a half I have watched the Matthew Johns scandal as a deeply concerned fan of Matthew and the game. I have been deeply angry, frustrated and disillusioned with how events have unfolded. Rugby League, his teammates, and the Media have abandoned and crucified Matthew. I waited for a somebody, a real man and mate, to step up, brave the tide bearing down on him, and publicly defend Matthew and the truth.
You are the only one who has substantively done this, the only one to put their reputation on the line for the sake of friendship to vigorously defend Matthew, his innocence and his reputation. But it seems it is only one man against the entire world, or at least the entire media and the NRL, and it seems that Matthew is losing the public battle for his reputation, his career and his future.
I can't sit back and see this man publicly destroyed without a shred of justice. It's not right if it were n ordinary man who was the victim and it is not right as a fan and follower of Matthew's sporting and entertainment career, to sit back and do nothing. I am deeply concerned for Matthew's future and wellbeing, and I feel I need to communicate with you, Matthew's friend and public advocate, what I feel are the issues that Matthew's camp may have overlooked or underestimated.
Matthew's Response
I fear that Matthew Johns may have done himself a disservice, or at least played an enormous gamble with his career and reputation, by not vigorously defending himself or providing a full and complete account of the evening and of the actions and the character of 'Clare'.
I can understand the concern that a vigorous defense and full account of the evening from Matthew may have resulted in an attempt at self-harm or suicide from 'Clare', and that placing her welfare above all else was the moral thing to do. But the cost of this may be the sacrifice of Matthew Johns career and reputation from which be can never recover.
A person who has the capacity to lie egregiously in the past, can and will lie egregiously in the present and future, particularly when they have an admitted motive of vindictive malice. The ABC report did not seriously investigate the veracity of 'Clares' claims, and I would be cautious in accepting the veracity of the reported claims of her past attempts at self-harm. Questionable pretences of the threat to her welfare are a weak basis for Matthew to sacrifice his reputation and career.
The problem with not offering a vigorous defense and full account of the evening is that you allow 'Clare' and the media to tell their story unchallenged, that after time, becomes the accepted fact. You and many people may understand the situation as a mentally unstable woman, who feeling aggrieved or ashamed about a sexual encounter after the fact, and perhaps out of malice, remembers it as rape. The problem is the media do not see or portray it that way. The substance of the story is not Matthew Johns infidelity or the morality of consensual group sex, it is that Matthew Johns and his Cronulla teammates gangraped a woman. And without challenge from Matthew Johns, or the other participants, it is the gangrape narrative that will capture the public imagination and become the accepted wisdom of the evening, and Matthew's character.
The disconnect was there to be seen on the Footy Show last Thursday. Yourself, Andrew Voss, and the rest of the panel were in general agreement that the problem was that group sex was that always be perceived as immoral and carry the risk of a later false rape accusation from the consenting participants. Even if there was a green light, consent from the woman, it was not ok to go through with it because it carries the strong risk that it will come back to bite the player on the arse.
However this was not the main concern of Jacquelin Magnay. She did not share the assumption that there was a green light from 'Clare', or a green light for the sexual encounters, group or otherwise,of other football players and woman generally. For her the issue was consent, 'Clare' did not give it, Matthew Johns and the Cronulla players did not have it, and that 'Clare' was gangraped.
This is the disconnect, unless Matthew Johns vigorously defends himself, provides a full account of the evening, and of the actions and character of 'Clare', then the media and public at large does not share the assumption that the acts that evening were consensual, and that without consent, the group sex of the evening, becomes gangrape. Unless Matthew's case is vigorously presented, then 'Clare' and the medias narrative will dominate air and print space, and ultimately win out.
You can not assume that people will simply agree with Matthew's innocence, that without persuasion they will accept that they are watching a rerun of Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction, when 'Clare' and the medias narrative, and the public temptation, is to see the evening as Jodie Foster in 'The Accused'.
You can't overlook consent as the most important issue for Matthew Johns career and reputation. With consent, he is guilty of infidelity and, what some will consider, a sexual immorality, both fodder for gossip magazines and a short media scandal. Without consent, Matthew Johns is a rapist, guilty, in the public and media mind, of a crime so reviled and considered second only to murder, of which perpetrators are sentenced to fifty five years in super maximum security prisons as the most despised members of society. If Matthew Johns reputation over the coming weeks is established as one of a rapist, and 'Clares' narrative of the evening, as gangrape without consent, goes without vigorous challenge, then Matthew's career is forever over.
It must be established in the media and public mind beyond reasonable doubt that the group sex that evening was consensual, that Matthew Johns is not a rapist, and to utter a suggestion otherwise is to be held in contempt as the slander and slur that it is. It would be right and honourable if the other participants come forward and offer the vigorous defense that Matthew did not, but ultimately his reputation will live or die on what actions he takes to defend himself now in the coming days and weeks.
The media libel on professional athletes as habitual rapists
The other great problem with this disconnect is that when you and others, quite rightly, address the problems that consensual group sex presents to football players, morally and to their reputations and careers, it is seen through the very different prism as a confession that the real problem is that footballers regularly, and without consent, gangrape woman. It is the same with Matthew's apology, certainly the moral and manly thing to do, but what is it an apology for? A confession that Matthew did not have consent and did in fact rape 'Clare'? The moral and professional issues you raise, and that constituted Matthew's apology are confused, deliberately by the media, with the issues of criminality; rape, sexual and indecent assault.
When the media reports on a sporting scandal, and legitimate voices within the sport voice their legitimate concerns about the moral and professional problems with a players actions, it is construed and accepted as a confession of far more serious crimes that are hated and reviled by the general public. Every single story about the scandal thus far has held out the possibility that the real issue is rape, that every comment on the issue, is a comment on the rape and gangrape of women by footballers. Just because a person, a footballer, commits some kind of moral or professional wrong, does not mean they should be thrown to the dogs as criminal guilty of the worst crime second only to murder. It is a slur and a libel that permeates all media, and most public discussion, of any sporting scandal involving sex, the libel that football players are habitual rapists.
Letting Radical Feminism and Feminist Cultural Studies Go Unchallenged
This is why I think there is great danger in legitimizing feminist cultural studies spokespeople like Catherine Lumby as NRL officials, or accepting without challenge like minded radical feminist views presented in the media. Feminist social theory always holds men guilty as oppressors of women, no matter the individual actions or culpability of individual men. Football players, men at the height of masculinity, will always be guilty of social crimes in the eyes of feminists, and no matter their actions, the consent of their female partners, they will always be oppressors and degradators of women.
There is no winning option with radical feminism, it is lose-lose. It does not matter if there was consent and the woman was a willing participant, it does not matter if no crime was committed, it does not matter if the immorality or unprofessionalism was minor or transient, it does not matter if the accusation has no veracity, or is just hearsay or rumor, the man is guilty. Nothing Rugby League can do will appease radical feminists, they will always be agents of male patriarchy and domination. Feminist Cultural Studies places no value on the virtues of sport and athleticism, it sees only wrongs.
It is foolish to ask them to be our games moral judges because the game will never live up to their standard. And it is a standard so far removed from that of the public and woman generally. The fans will always be the ultimate judges, and they will judge with their feet and wallets, on footballers morality. Courts will always be the judges on criminality.
The danger is, that the radical voice becomes the official ombudsmen of Rugby League, as Catherine Lumby seems to have become, or when unchallenged in the public arena, the radical feminist theory of men and footballers as the enemy of women and habitual rapists, becomes legitimate and captures the public mind.
The Rape Libel and the Duke Lacrosse Case
The rape libel, that footballers, and male athletes generally, are habitual rapists, was best exposed in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Case in the United States. If you haven't read up on the situation, please do, it is the text book case of every sporting rape scandal, and is a portent of where we in Australia are heading or have arrived at.
A young black woman, Crystal Magnum, along with a colleague, were hired as strippers for a team party. No sexual acts occurred at all. The woman later accused the Lacrosse players of gang rape, and police and prosecutors aggressively pressed charges. For over a year the boys, all white, were held up as the worst kind of racist rapists across the entire national media, they had wanted posters plastered around their university, 88 professors authored an article that condemned the male sporting culture of the team as one that was inherently conducive to rape.
This was all in spite of the fact that the players were perfectly innocent, had committed no wrongdoing and no crime what so ever. They had been the victims of a mental unstable, but malicious, fantasist. Her statements to police changed completely many times, the number of supposed rapists was changed multiple times, she could not consistently identify the same players as rapists, despite being given only the lacrosse team photos to choose from, no DNA sample matching any of the players could be found, though the DNA of two other males from a subsequent consensual sexual encounter were, etc... the litany of procedural misconduct and weakness of the case go on and on. Eventually the case was dropped, the boys exonerated, and the prosecutor disbarred, charged and found guilty of professional misconduct.
None of this stopped the media, radical feminists, and the public at large from destroying these athletes lives, careers and reputations as vile gangrapists. The facts did not matter, only the profile, that athletes are habitual rapists, no matter the veracity of the accusation. The same thing happens in Australia with 'Clare', almost nobody in the media has bothered to investigate or establish the veracity of her story, certainly not the ABC before airing her slander. Nobody seems interested in publicly asking the question, is an innocent man being maliciously defamed? Should the veracity of a mentally unstable person be held up to scrutiny before another's life and career are destroyed? Whilst media and public alike seem to be very keen on insinuating and presenting the libel that footballers are gang rapists, no matter the facts. Again when the media fails, when his teammates fail him, only Matthew, and perhaps his close friends like yourself, can defend him, air the truth, and defeat the libel.
Letting False Accusations Fly, Hurts Real Victims of Sexual Assault
The rape libel has become part and parcel of Rugby League reporting, it is very close to becoming received wisdom. The same rape libel was certainly behind the Bulldogs 2003 Coff's Harbour affair, and like there, the veracity of the accusation does not matter, only the libel, the myth, that athletes regularly gang rape women. A similar violence libel was levelled against Mark McGaw.
It's no longer enough to stay quite, pretend the slur does not exist, and wish it go away. It's not enough for the victims of malicious lies to stay quite for fear of drawing attention upon themselves of aggravating radical feminist groups. Not only is the reputation of Rugby League, the players and all sport on the line, but it is fundamentally immoral and unjust, not only for the victims of false and malicious accusations, but for the real victims of rape and sexual assault.
On the Footy show last Thursday you made the good point of how wrong it is that the victim of Dane Tilse's actions in Bathurst did not feel comfortable coming forward to police. This is a concerning issue, for Rugby League and society, and deeply unjust. There are many issues to be addressed with that situation, the one relevant to Matthew Johns and the rape libel against football players, is that false accusations of rape and assault, discredit legitimate victims.
When the media and the public ignore the veracity and merits of individual accusations, and by the rape libel, automatically treat false accusations the same as true accusations, it has the effect of making all rape accusations illegitimate: In the mind of the victim who must decide whether she wants to go ahead with a trial, in the minds of police and the criminal justice system who become skeptical to claims of rape, and to the general public who, once burnt, may become hostile to real victims.
This is the other, and perhaps the greater victim of the rape libel against football players, real victims of sexual assault. Does 'Clare' now become the public face of rape? I could not imagine a greater disservice to justice. Pru Goward, a real feminist and a real advocate for the rights of women, and a much better feminist ombudsmen of the NRL than Catherine Lumby could ever be, is very apt is seeing through the rape libel. She has been strongly advocating that women who are victims of sexual assault, or make accusations that they have been, must go to the police and to the courts, to have justice served upon the perpetrators of the crime, and to have the veracity of their accusation tested in the only proper way, before the courts, so that the innocent victims of false accusations may be exonerated, should a prima facie case even exist. This must be the public position strongly advocated by Rugby League, and people like Pru Goward should be the face and mother of Rugby League feminism, not culture studies theorists like Lumby.
Defending Rugby League, Sport and Matthew Johns Against the Rape Libel
Rugby League, and sport generally, is under attack from the rape libel, Matthew Johns is the latest victim. You have been the only public figure to substantively come forward and defend him and the game, whist also giving an honest account of his and the games shortcomings. The 88 professors statement from the Duke Lacrosse Case offers the logic of the rape libel and the dirty tactics that the cultural enemies of sport employ and athletes fall victim to. No matter what Rugby League does, no matter how much we get our own house in order, they will always attack, they will always libel, and they will always unjustly slur, attack and destroy sporting figures.
But if Rugby League, and now Matthew Johns, defend themselves vigorously from the rape libel, discredit it as untrue, unjust, devoid of merit and exposed for lack of veracity, then the game can also be honest with its shortcomings, not be slandered with falsehood, and be all the stronger for it. Rugby League, with the NRL or not, fans and public figures alike, must wage that political and public relations campaign, and it begins with exposing the slurs, exposing the libel and exonerating Matthew Johns.
Professional Athletes Should Think of Themselves as Children's Entertainers
Whilst Rugby League, and Matthew Johns, must defend themselves from the rape libel and false accusations of crime, the moral and professional misconduct of players is still concerning and a detriment to the game. Whilst they do not deserve to be vilified by the rape libel, the media will do so anyway, and the player still loses regardless of his innocence when his career and reputation have been destroyed. Your traffic light analogy, that the light may be green, a player may be otherwise justified in engaging in consensual group sex, but that it is morally and professional wrong for him and his career, is apt. As the SMH interview with an anonymous NRL player who resented the intrusion into the private lives of players showed, it is more than an issue of education, it is an argument that needs to be made and won with players.
In most other walks of life, or even an amateur football player, there is not a strong argument, beyond suggesting that the act itself may be immoral, as to why consenting adults should not engage in group sex. Most people would generally accept that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a matter only for them. An analogy would be to replace group sex with homosexuality. Some may find homosexuality to be immoral, but very few would think it proper to interfere or to deny somebody the right to privately engage in the act. Group sex is obviously enjoyable, and there are many woman find it enjoyable and want to participate, so what right does the NRL have to make rules as to what a player does in the bedroom?
I suggest that the way to make and win that argument, is to look at what pays a rugby league players wage. How much of the revenue of the NRL and the clubs comes directly and indirectly from children. If the percentage is say 15% and 40% respectively, then take that percentage of your wage; that is how much money you are earning as a children's entertainer. Why as a professional Rugby League player do you get paid so much money and not beers or a few hundred bucks a win at a park? In large part it is because you are a children's entertainer, you entertain hundreds and thousands if not millions of children every weekend and season, and they, there parents, pay a large portion of you salary. Children's entertainers have a particular reputation to uphold. A moral guide for football payers should be: What would the Wiggles do? What would people and the media say if one of the Wiggles did this? Would it be ok if the Wiggles did it?
Take the percentage figure a player earns as a children's entertainer, and explain and establish the thought process that this is what I get paid to entertain children, and this is what I get paid to live my private life to the standards and reputation of a children's entertainer. If I get paid $100,000 and 40% comes directly and indirectly from children, then that $40,000 is the pay of I get for turning down that girl at the bar, $40,000 for not having one more beer and turning in for the night. That is the personal interest, the direct pay off, for foregoing some of what you would otherwise be free to do. I would suggest that by putting a personal dollar figure, on the payment a player receives for being a children's entertainer, and not engaging in moral or professional conduct that would threaten that, by emphasising the financial reward rather than the punishment of fines and termination, it may be effective in winning the argument with players, when other arguments fail.
_ _ _
Thanks for stepping up for your mate and a man many Australians are great fans of. I wish all the best for Matthew and hope he gets his career back on track as soon as possible. Please keep being his public advocate and if need be carry him through this. Please keep on using you public position to do your best for the game.
Kind Regards,
A fan of the game
P.S.
The Group of 88 Professors Statement on the Duke Lacrosse Case
Link:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/11/duke-case-listening-statement.html
Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
By Stuart Taylor Jr and KC Johnson
A book, which should be required reading for all journalists, sports and otherwise, on the topic.
Book Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312384866/ref=ed_oe_p
oops:Ramble
