Scott Kuggeleijn
4
This is a really tricky and complicated issue, probably best avoided in a 140 characters or fewer format.
Scott Kuggeleijn has been selected in the New Zealand squad to play South Africa in the washed-out third test in Hamilton. And so the narrative began.
Cricketer cleared of rape called up for Black Caps to replace Trent Boult https://t.co/ObuJqPKwKW pic.twitter.com/ij27T6hLPu
— nzherald (@nzherald) March 23, 2017
The trials were not pleasant affairs, and there remains a consent culture issue on New Zealand. However, the judicial system in this country found him not guilty, and that has to be legally respected. The Crown are not appealing the decision.
The standard innocent until proven guilty line is a pivotal part of New Zealand’s, and many other countries’, justice system.
One of the strange things about the outrage following Kuggeleijn’s selection is that it was announced by New Zealand Cricket six weeks earlier. Following his acquittal he would be available for selection.
Three broken fast bowlers later, and a non-functioning all-rounders collective meant his inclusion was inevitable.
There are a few realities in this.
First of all, it would be a really dangerous precedent if a sporting body was to consider itself above a court decision, regardless of its verdict.
Secondly, there needs to be consistency. There have been few calls for him to be sacked from playing for Northern Districts, so why is it different when it comes to playing for New Zealand? Remember that those playing First Class cricket are paid by the central body.
There is a line of thought that it’s OK for him to continue playing cricket, but not for New Zealand. Partly because those games are on TV.
Formulating rules and protocols around such a demarcation would be hugely complicated, and a little bit open to pitchfork justice. Also, if there was a stand-down period, how long should that be for, and how is that calculated?
There is also a slightly complicated argument that he should have had his ND contract torn up, probably before the trial. There really seems to be a collective outrage aimed at his employer, rather than the judicial system when dealing with such a crime.
That didn’t happen. This subsequent NZ selection was a logical progression.
Nebulous mini-punishments aren’t actually that practical.
I think what I often see is a black or white approach to this kind of event, and it can miss the grey middle. I’m all for allowing people who have committed crimes and done their time (and shown remorse) back into the public eye. I’m still waiting in some cases, so you won’t catch me watching Veitch any time soon.
There’s also the innocent until proven guilty issue, and I’m totally good with that. I’m not judging Kuggeleijn as a convicted criminal, I’m judging him for his comments and lack of remorse. I read what he said in court, and it was appalling. The victim blaming and lack of remorse is why I would never hire him for anything, let alone one in the public spotlight. It’s not whether or not he was convicted that makes me not want him on the black caps, it’s that he’s a terrible person.
“I’m not judging Kuggeleijn as a convicted criminal, I’m judging him for his comments and lack of remorse. I read what he said in court, and it was appalling.”
Bingo.
It’s analogous to employing someone acquitted for lynching but who, during the trial, made all sorts of racist comments. NZ Cricket had respect the verdict, but it can also have higher standards than someone who thinks no sometimes doesn’t mean no.
I am with Eric on this one.
It is the conversations around consent that are important on this one – his and his lawyers comments about how women dress and implied consent were distressing. And we don’t have an understanding of whether he has indeed now educated himself on what constitutes consent. And some of this also plays into the conversation of whether elite sportspeople are role models. Personally, I think they are and that position of leadership also helps shape societal values, norms and beliefs (whether we want them to or not).
[…] debutantes are Scott Kuggeleijn and Seth Rance. The inclusion of the former will always be controversial, but their call-ups are an endorsement of the NZ provincial system. Rance is classic provincial […]