Sunday, February 10, 2019

#ME TOO, TOO FAR

I don't hold a candle for Scott Kuggeleign, never met him and I doubt I would recognise him off the cricket field.    But the targeting of him by the #Me Too Army is wrong.     What do they want NZ Cricket to do?    Change his cricket 'whites' for sackcloth and ashes ... drop him from the team?

Look, the reality is that a jury of his pears found him NOT GUILTY and that should be the end of it.   Not guilty means just that.  

I guess the #Me Too movement would much prefer that the NZL justice system reflected Scottish law with their 'Not Proven' provision.     There is no practical difference between 'Not Guilty' and 'Not Proven' with the defendant being acquitted in both cases except that Not Proven carries a certain stigma which might or might not be deserved.  

No, in my book you're either guilty or not guilty and it is unfair that Kuggeleign is being targeted over something the record shows he did not do. 


21 comments:

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Nothing to with justice Veteran.....it's all about social media. Get used to it because it is how elections and referendums will be conducted in the future

Frightening non?

Kimbo said...

You contradict yourself by saying there is no practical difference between ‘Not Proven’ and ‘Not Guilty’,...and then insist “the record shows he did not do it”. No, the jury did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. On the balance of probabilities may well have suspected, indeed concluded he did do it. I hasten to add I don’t know what happened, although (note the correct spelling) Kuggeleijn was, by his own admission, reckless and foolish.

Your plea to ”leave him alone” also overlooks that modern professional sport has willingly turned athletes, including their entire lives into commodities and media personalities. Ok, so you put that out there for assessment and comment, especially on social media, then you no longer get to control how people act. Whether it’s Israel Folau’s views on homosexuality, or Sonny Bill Williams’ Moslem faith, the (social) media coverage may not be fair, but then the athletes needed to think about that before they agreed, in effect, to be part of the sports entertainment system. For what it’s worth, I think SBW has taken a whole lot more crap over the years, much of it less deserved than Kuggeleijn IMHO. Yet I don’t see bloggers of the right-wing persuasion wringing their hands over the vile comments made at SBW’s expense. For what? Exercising the entirely legal right of religious faith.

Which means “unfair” is in the eye of the beholder. Bottom line: if one believes in freedom of speech, and as long as it is not clearly defamatory (e.g., “Kuggeleijn is a rapist”) then any attempts by NZ Cricket to censor signs are giving the protesters what they want - additional publicity. I’d suggest that they and Kuggeleijn have little choice but to suck it up. Like SBW does on a regular basis. As they have already found, their attempt to silence dissent/contempt for the air-brushed PR confection has invoked the Streisand Effect.

Kimbo said...

Also you ask, What do they want NZ Cricket to do? ... drop him from the team?

Er, yes. That should be quite clear. And irrespective of the not guilty verdict, it was Kuggeleijn’s admitted actions that saw him land up in court. Which, in the catch-all phrase of modern professional sports contracts “brought the game into disrepute”. Which meant NZ Cricket likely had the option to cut him loose. Others have rightly been let go for a lot less, e.g., Jesse Ryder.

Despite that NZ Cricket and Kuggeleijn decided enough time had passed to give his selection a go. Ok, so they both weighed up the PR problem vs athlete benefits/financial incentives and decided to run the gauntlet of a potentially negative reaction, and now NZC want to limit the damage. Seems like complaining “I’m going to play test cricket but the nasty fast bowler is bouncing the ball around my head”! Don’t like the reaction even though you want the large sums of money that comes with professional sport? Then don’t do the stuff that provoked the bad publicity in the first place.

The Veteran said...

Kimbo ... no contradiction ... while in (Scottish) law 'Not Proven' has the same effect as 'Not Guilty' it does carry with it a certain stigma.

But we're not talking about Scottish law. Kuggeleijn was judged under NZ law and Not Guilty means just that.

Take that one step further. Are you seriously arguing that it's fair game for a person found Not Guilty of an offence to be continually targeted for something that in the eyes of the law he/she didn't do because, if you are, then you are endorsing mob rule. The 'mob' didn't hear the evidence. The jury of his peers did and made their decision.

Kuggeleijn may have been reckless and foolish. Can I respectfully suggest there are very few of us who haven't been reckless and foolish at some stage of our life.

Egbut ... you are right about social media.

The Veteran said...

and Kimbo ... how does being found Not Guilty of an alleged offence bring a game into disrepute ... just askin.

Kimbo said...

In the context of “bringing the game into disrepute” that I outlined above (ie., acting in a foolish and reckless manner that saw him end up in court on a serious charge, and irrespective of the verdict tarnished the PR image and income streams of the game)

...yes, IMHO I think it is “fair” Kuggeleijn and NZ Cricket are targeted. And even if it isn’t “fair”, to rail against the reaction of some is in the “man shakes fist at cloud” category. And if you are looking at a precedent, refer to English cricket all rounder Ben Stokes. Or closer to home, former NZ all rounder...Chris Cairns. Who in their right mind would use Cairns to market a product now, irrespective of his successful court appearances?!

Yes, we have all done things that are reckless, and there but for the grace of God in many cases. But unlike Kuggeleijn most of us don’t have a lucrative high-profile career that is predicated on...not bringing his employer/profession into disrepute. And I repeat, irrespective of the verdict, that’s what Kuggeleijn’s foolish actions that saw him wind up in court did.

Kimbo said...

I fear you are being deliberately obtuse. It’s not being found “not guilty” that brings the game into disrepute, it’s being stupid enough to place yourself in circumstances where you are likely to be charged in the first place. Which Kuggeleijn most certainly did. Hence his apology, which you may accept, others may not. It is a free country.

Refer also to Ben Stokes for the same interpretation of the “bringing the game into disrepute” clause. Hey, I’m not the one who put it in the contract!

The Veteran said...

So 'Double Jeopardy' means nothing then? Not guilty in the criminal court but able to be hung, drawn and quartered in the Court of Public Opinion even though he may have only been reckless and foolish. Problem is of course that the Court of Public Opinion aka the #Me Too movement does not have access to all the facts ... just an inbuilt prejudice and bias and a certain mob hysteria ... not overly healthy.

I'm not defending CJ. It's trial by mob that I'm uncomfortable with.

Kimbo said...

No, your mistake is confusing the criminal court with the court of public opinion. And you don't get to control the second any more than you do the first. And they both have different "rules" and "procedures". Case in point, Chris Cairns...

Kimbo said...

Also, just wondering if you would make the same "double jeopardy"/"it's not fair" claim when some people criticise the second David Bain verdict?

The Veteran said...

Kimbo ... no, the law is the the law is the law ... with all its imperfections and with this very important over-rider ... I wan't there to hear all the evidence.

Kimbo said...

Problem is of course that the Court of Public Opinion aka the #Me Too movement does not have access to all the facts ... just an inbuilt prejudice and bias and a certain mob hysteria ... not overly healthy.

I think it is an undisputed fact that the woman in question repeatedly said 'no' and she was heavily intoxicated. Enough facts there I would suggest for folks who make up the "court of public opinion" to make up their mind as they see fit. And bear in mind cricket, like many sports is seeking to expand its commercial and playing appeal to females. In that light continuing to select Kuggeleijn when there was justifiable grounds (irrespective of the not guilty verdict) to cut him lo as a bad commercial/PR risk may not have been a wise move.

And if NZ Cricket wants to censor "public opinion" then it must bear the brunt of any additional bad publicity to...

Psycho Milt said...

"Not guilty" may effectively mean "innocent" in a court of law, but the court of personal opinion is under no obligation to follow the same rules. Given the behaviour described in court (and, if we insist on disbelieving his victim, just the behaviour he himself admitted to), his being kept on the team does bring the sport into disrepute - or at least, should. NZ Cricket clearly feels it doesn't, which illustrates one reason feminists coined the term "rape culture" in the first place.

Kimbo said...

no, the law is the the law is the law ... with all its imperfections and with this very important over-rider ... I wan't there to hear all the evidence.

And the jury did and Kuggeleijn is now free.

But by what "law" must members of the public support Kuggeleijn's continued selection for the Black Caps, especially when they consider him, at best, an unsavoury character unappealing especially to actual and potential female cricket supporters and players?

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Perhaps NZC took the appointment of a certain US supreme court judge as a precedent.

Kimbo said...

I also don't recall anyone claiming it was "unfair" and "double jeopardy" when all of OJ Simpson's sponsors dropped him like a hot potato, and his sports broadcasting and acting careers were effectively terminated, irrespective of him being found not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

pdm said...

Egbut - he was selected for NZ before the Kavanagh appointment.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

pdm....joke

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

There is no justice really for those found innocent. One of the saddest experiences I had in the Church (NZ) was to see the way a minister who had erred grievously some thirty years earlier and had since shown showed great evidence of true repentance was hounded out of the organisation. So much for forgiveness.

Neither is there any justice for those who are guilty and who serve out their time and, in so doing, become exemplary citizens. I tried for weeks to find such a fellow a small non-bank loan to allow him to get his whanau's land out from the clutches of an ANZ mortgage (60k). As soon as I disclosed to a lender that he had served a sentence for murder, the door was closed.

Eventually, I sold him a very small term life policy for $200k. Six months later he was killed in a tractor accident and the bank was paid out.

Judge Holden said...

Christ you’re a grifter Adolt. Sorry, I can’t get you the loan you desperately need, but here buy this shitty insurance policy. FFS what a tosser.

gravedodger said...

The gyrations of the luvvies has a potential to match the "Mouse Trap" in longevity stakes.

Kavanaugh guilty of course,
Fairfax, hang about that could lead to a GOP elevated so not guilty and it was years ago anyway and who would take the recovered memory accusations of a professor?.
Wood a certain young man who thrust his hands down the pants of attendees at a labour yoof camp, nuffin to c here move along.

Today in a certain Newspaper a certain youth of seventeen apparently declined to follow what has since become the View d Jour for a politician some thirty years later is being pilloried for not being "rainbow enough" FFS