Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.

236 points

“I was disappointed with the crowd, for sure,” Immers said. “I cannot do anything about his past anymore. I’m here to play with him. … So, yeah, I’m disappointed with it. But I think mentally we’re really strong, and I’m really strong to get through this, together. And we’re going to do that.”

Then:

Immers was asked about the reception and said the two spoke on the court and recognized they would need to be extra supportive of each other. Asked if he understood why they received that reception, he said, “I don’t want to talk about that, if it’s OK.”

So they can bitch that people bboed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?

Fuck that guy, I hope the whole stadium booes anytime he shows his face.

If he was going to pull the “I’m here for volleyball” then he should shut the fuck up 24/7. Not try to play the victim then refuse to admit why they’re booing.

permalink
report
reply
68 points
*

So they can bitch that people booed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?

Mathew Immers is not the guy who raped the child. That is Steven van de Velde.
Immers is van de Velde’s beach volleyball partner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*

He is complaining that the crowd booed his partner. The partner he chose to play with. But he won’t recognize that the reason the pair is being booed is that one of the partners is a child rapist. I think it’s fair to think that that is bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-43 points

They’re all Emmanuel Goldstein during the two minute hate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Yes, Immers is the same as Emmanual Goldstein, an unseen character in the novel 1984 who did not even exist but was famous for having refused to discuss a controversy where his teammate repeatedly raped a child.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here. Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers to just to make the world tour hoping to one day reach the olympics. For Immers he has busted his ass for years and at some point his national body probably paired him up with the other guy. It’s possible he may not have even known about it until they were partners and had established their dynamic and working relationship. Finding and building a team with a partner you click with on the court is hard-earned. I can imagine that Immers is absolutely distraught at the situation he’s been put in. He has a crappy choice here no matter what. Abandon what he’s spent his whole career building up to, now that he’s made it - because of something he had nothing to do with, knowing he may never get this chance again, even if he were to find another available partner… it takes years to learn how to play as a team; or he sucks it up, focuses on his own journey, cops the reflected criticism and hostility and tries to keep his emotions out of it…

It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
93 points
*

I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here

Then he can stop bitching that people are booing his partner who raped a fucking 12 year old.

Pick a lane, “no comment” or acknowledge what he did and ask for forgiveness.

This is literally the Dutch team complaining that people are booing, and refusing to acknowledge an incredibly valid reason why it’s happening.

Fuck em both.

Like you said, it’s a small population of players. Even if this guy was #1 in the Netherlands, if #2 thru 25 said they won’t play with a child rapist, the child rapist wouldn’t be on the team.

Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.

You think she forgot till now?

You think she doesn’t know his name?

Why is the issue talking about how he’s a child rapist and not that the child rapist is in the goddamn Olympics?

Quick edit:

It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

We don’t call people heroes for doing the right thing because it’s easy and sacrifice free.

But we do call people shit bags for doing the wrong thing for personal gain/glory.

Which is what we’re doing here.

Except you, you’re out here complaining people booed a guy who raped a 12 year old.

Why?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Wow man, that’s a hot take. I’m not complaining at all. The crowd is upset that the Dutch team have chosen to select a man convicted of a heinous act. I absolutely abhor what that criminal did and in my mind there is absolutely no excusing or trivialising or equivocating on that. It’s unthinkable. I am not putting judgment on the crowd at all. I completely understand why they are doing it.

I don’t believe he was complaining in the interview. A journo asked him the world’s most obvious question and he has nowhere to go. He can’t defend his partner (not should he, not that he wanted to). He can only speak for himself and say it’s hard to get booed when personally you didn’t do the thing and you’ve worked so hard to get here.

I don’t know why you think I have anything but sincere empathy for the poor victim. I’m recognising that having a truly horrific life experience become fodder for the media, years after you last had that chapter of your life made public and the subject of speculation and judgment, must be a terrible ordeal - she will never forget his name or what happened, but there’s a difference between that and having this asshole on the front page of every news outlet for a month. It must be a genuinely traumatic experience to have it be made acute again.

You’re passionate and assertive in your feelings about this. I respect that and I don’t disagree with your sentiments. I don’t think your read meshes with what I was trying to say. I actually think we’re morally pretty well aligned. In the context of your comment, I don’t know many genuine heroes, they do what most people can’t - that’s why they’re so revered. We all know the way, only few actually walk it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I don’t think that guy’s really complaining about the booing, I think he’s trying to separate the rapist from the other competitors.

I don’t know the case, and I’m very surprised the Netherlands let this guy compete for them, but he is and apparently served prison time (not as much as he probably should’ve). If he’s already served a prison sentence, then the Netherlands government probably believes he has been punished for the crime and is “rehabilited”. If he’s served time, double jeopardy applies to any punishment he would receive after the fact (IIRC).

I don’t know the rapist and I don’t care about him, I’d hope he’s incredibly remorseful and I’m not defending what he did, but like the OP was driving at; why are the actions of the rapist POS who served prison time tainting the other athletes competing for their own interests / country that legally posits the guy has been punished for his actions? Imagine being proud of your work and being booed because of the previous unrelated actions of a coworker you may or may not like.

If murderers are able to serve their prison sentence and be freed after their crime and feel remorse for their actions etc., at what point in time does someone stop being punished for their previous actions? I’m bringing up the rhetorical question in response to the common vitriol in comments surrounding sex crimes that bleeds onto anyone involved.

Unless you believe in the death penalty and that the rapist deserved to die for his actions by the hands of his government, what does it take for everyone to move forward? I ask because you’re positing the other Netherland’s athlete is essentially guilty because he didn’t risk his Olympic ambitions and refuse to play with the rapist who legally served his sentence.

How long he should’ve been in prison is another debate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

If his buddy has broken his leg before the Olympics they would have found a replacement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I guess that’s my point - no he wouldn’t. If his partner was out, that’s it. Min 4+ years gone. The nature of the sport and what it takes to qualify - no he wouldn’t.

If he has known for years and continued playing in the partnership then he’s made his bed and it’s time to lie in it. In the absence of info saying just that, I’m leaving room for the possibility that he’s found this out at the same time the news reading public has.

I’m not endorsing his choice. I’m saying he was faced with a shitty one. There may be a moral black and white here, I’m not trying to argue the right thing to do. I’m suggesting that likely through no fault of his own he had (and has) a choice to make. Obviously he’s made it. I think it’s reductive to declare it is a simple decision when you’ve dedicated years of your life, made daily sacrifice, put off having a family, a career, bank savings, preparing for the future to chase the chance of something fleeting. When it is all culminating in a moment- it takes a unique person to have given up so much for that dream to then willingly let it go at the last hurdle. He may for the rest of his life wish that he did.

Again, I’m not arguing the morals of the situation, I’m recognising the complexity of it.

It’s been said that all it takes in this world for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I sincerely want to be the kind of person who would abandon my whole life’s drive and focus to do what I believe is right. There is a hell of a lot of evil in this world - perhaps that’s because it’s a lot harder to do when facing it in the moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers

busted his ass for years

spent his whole career

for whatever reason someone might want to dedicate their entire life to earning the “best volleyball player” title for a few years, those were all 100% his decisions. if someone chooses to compete in a system that will even allow rapists to compete, then…sucks to suck? and it seems incredibly douchey to decide to play with a rapist and then try to act like the victim when the crowd boos

would YOU play on team rapist? if you would, then fuck you too.

if you wouldn’t, then why spill so much ink over trying to justify playing on team rapist?

to the larger conversation, this is one reason i say fuck the olympics altogether, it does more harm than good

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

The level of hostility toward the partner here caught me off guard… Yeesh…

Not even agreeing or disagreeing, just seems like a lot of misplaced anger.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Then when the press asks him about getting booed he can say “i disagree with my partner’s life choices and understand the boos, but I am here to properly represent my country.” Instead of defending a convicted, unrepentant, child rapist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I agree, this situation is twisted on both sides. Additionally this situation seems like non-statutory rape which makes the 1 year sentence quite lenient.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Denmark are making the choice to shove him in everybody’s faces they made the choice to put him on the national team.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s Netherlands, but yes - he was selected by the national team.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I question what kind of person is willing to play doubles with a convicted child rapist.

And then openly defend them to the media.

This whole thing is gross.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

They asked him a question and he answered. If you’re going to be mad at him for saying that then you should be mad at the people who asked the question.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

He pulled the “no comment” card tho.

If he won’t talk about why they’re booing, he shouldn’t talk about the booing

But again, he shouldn’t be enabling a child rapist in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
174 points

While I think the Netherlands has a commendable approach to prison and rehabilitation, This dude should not be a representative for your country. If you say he’s served enough time, we can disagree (because he absolutely did not), but the choice to put him in Netherlands Orange and on international TV was a colossal mistake.

permalink
report
reply
74 points

He should definitely be wearing orange, just not Netherlands Orange…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not that Dutch prisons actually put people in orange prison clothes

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He wants him sent to US Federal “pound me in the ass” prison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
150 points
*

Just booing?

He went to another country, raped a 12-yo, fled and after conviction, his government - the Netherlands, only decided to give him a year of prison.

permalink
report
reply
51 points

There’s an important detail that I’m not really seeing here. The UK gave him an 8 year sentence. The Netherlands negotiated to have him transferred to their jurisdiction, which happened after 1 year served, and then the Netherlands promptly let him go.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Not saying it’s right, but for context:

One legal distinction is that Van de Velde is unlikely to have been convicted of rape had he stood trial in the Netherlands rather than England. In England, sex with a 12-year-old is rape, regardless of the circumstances: an under-16 cannot legally consent. But after he was extradited to the Netherlands, having serving almost a year of his prison sentence, he was released after less than a month. Under Dutch law, his crime was deemed to be the lesser offence of ontucht, sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms.

From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/30/netherlands-child-rapist-olympics-steven-van-de-velde

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

That, combined with him being on the Olympic team, sorta makes me concerned about Dutch people

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

He didn’t rape a Dutch 12 year old. He flew to England and raped an English 12 year old. Eight years was getting off pretty easy to begin with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

What else should they be doing? Storming the court and dragging him to a lynching tree? I’m guessing the French wouldn’t be especially accommodating to such vigilantism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

They could have not invited a convicted child rapist to represent their country at the Olympics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

“They” are not the booing crowd.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

I’m guessing the French wouldn’t be especially accommodating to such vigilantism.

You are absolutely correct!

You’d need to use a guillotine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Holding up signage, shouting rapist, turning their backs…there is a lot of room between booing and lynching.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

Not putting him on a pedestal as a representative of your country would be a good start.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think they were doing that by booing him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

There’s SO many options between one year in prison and extra judicial killing. Like, in prison for 10 years, just off the top of my head.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I agree, but the booing crowd aren’t the ones that can put him in prison for 10 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Stop putting words in their mouth, there are so many things to do other than booing that are non violent but you just immediately took the most extreme possible outcome and suggested that was what the person you are reply to meant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

This mod is notorious for this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

I didn’t put words in their mouths, I asked a question.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Roman Polanski has entered the chat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

Being against lynching means I’m a child rapist? Really?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Really? You want vigilantism and lynching? Do you think that might possibly go wrong at some point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

i think at the very least he deserves an ass whooping. not trying to get into vigilante wierdo justice here but it would be nice to see one less confirmed remorseless pedo in this world since the system has definitely failed in this case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So…you are suggesting the lynching tree.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You might not be trying to get into vigilante justice but you did anyway

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Throw rocks at him. Large rocks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Maybe they can start by sitting on the court/field? 😏

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points
*

The Netherlands is kind of fucked up when it comes to morality sometimes. I used to work with people from this country, and there were constant issues.

Edit: look up “Netherlands Santa”

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

I’m sorry, but this is just really kind of disingenuous to start something like this next to a topic such as this. Your experience with one company or something is purely anecdotal and the controversy around Zwarte Piet is also very nuanced to this very day. The kind of nuance someone not from here will not get from a casual google search. For anyone that cares about actually understanding, here’s a rundown:

Many people attributed Zwarte Piet as a fun and good role model for kids, not some kind of caricature clown to laugh at. Literally almost everyone grew up knowing and having a fond enjoyment of Zwarte Piet, like a childhood imaginary friend that always showed up when you needed a smile the most. And that creates a strong desire to set that positivity forth by continuing the tradition. It takes really good reasons to destroy something most people attribute to be part of the greater good of their lives.

We try to understand racism, and strive to effectively reduce it rather than just mindlessly treat symptoms. Many people saw the existence of Zwarte Piet as a way to instill positive experiences to kids who might be isolated from having positive experiences with actual people of color. We know that in part racism comes about from not having enough (or too many bad) real world experiences with people of different skin colors. It is a type of fear of the unknown. As such, this still seems like solid reasoning. (Fun note, rats will also not help other stranger rats with a different fur color to escape even with no direct harm to themselves except when they have already lived alongside aside a rat with that fur color)

Even people of color were not completely on one side, but for the ones that it hurt, it hurt loudly. Black people in the Caribbean (Also part of the Netherlands) still use Zwarte Piet to this day, because they do not care - They do not see the racism in it. Unfortunately there seems to be a correlation between being affected by racism and seeing the racism in Zwarte Piet, as many of us learned as the conversation marched on. And racists definitely did wield Zwarte Piet to make their racism be known. In a world without racism, Zwarte Piet would not be controversial. And many people were not acutely aware of the racism some people of color faced.

The majority has wanted to get rid of it (since about 2018, actually), and most places have more accepted solutions in place now. But this does not mean that many people agree because we think Zwarte Piet is actually inherently racist. It’s because we’ve heard the concerns of people of color and weighed their burden to be more important to relieve than the perceived benefit of tradition and instilling a positive message on people that look different from yourself. It also didn’t help that the vast majority of people that still wanted to overrule those concerns were pretty obviously racist, which pushed even more people over the edge, because we don’t want to hold traditions in place that shield racists and bigots. Some countries could really learn from that.

EDIT: Added a video about the rat study :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What the actual fuck does that have to do with the current story

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

The other responder here is either an AI bot trying to cloud the issue wa long answer, or a human doing the same. Right out of the playbook— Not falling for it 💅

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

If you’re not willing to be nuanced about difficult topics in good faith, you clearly do not care about it, nor about making the world a better place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Dude they even said that Zwarte Pete is being phased out because while Zwarte Pete themselves in the context of only the Netherlands wasnt very problematic, the fact that the world is more globalized and Americans who HAD been hurt by THEIR history of Blackface took precedence over an overall positive tradition for people of the Netherlands. Nuance exists, and American history is not WORLD history

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s ridiculous

permalink
report
parent
reply
148 points

The story from wikipedia, since I never see it written down:

"In 2014, van de Velde, aged 19 at the time, corresponded with a 12-year-old girl who sent him a friend request on Facebook. He said he believed the girl was 16 at the time they began to communicate, but he continued despite her telling him her age. In August 2014, he travelled to her home town, Milton Keynes in England, gave her alcohol and raped her near the local Furzton Lake.[12] That same night, van de Velde tried to stay at a hotel with his victim but was denied a room so they slept under a staircase.[13] There were further two instances of rape the next day.[12] During one of the three rapes, the victim told van de Velde that he was hurting her.[14]

Van de Velde returned to the Netherlands after the rapes[15] and told his victim to go to a sexual health clinic for contraception, at which point her age alerted concern among the staff.[14] He was extradited to the United Kingdom and arrested in January 2016.[15] The victim expressed feelings of guilt and had been self-harming and once overdosed, facts that caused the judge to “give van de Velde a scathing rebuke” during the case.[14][16]"

permalink
report
reply
98 points

After his release in 2017, van de Velde complained about “all the nonsense” reporting on his crime in the media, claiming that the term pedophile did not apply to him, without expanding further.

An unrepentant rapist who only served a whole 13 months for raping someone three times.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

a twelve year old, specifically

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

OMFG I misread things initially and though 12 years was how long he was in prison. 13 months??? That’s insane, and I am usually for more lenient punishments and rehabilitation programs. Harsh punishments to a point just equate to revenge eventually, but fuck this guy. He should have served a much harsher sentence. Just reading the description of what happened makes my stomach turn.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The problem with the rehabilitation argument is he clearly wasn’t rehabilitated after 13 months because he wasn’t repentant. So regardless of if the prison sentence is there as punishment or as rehabilitation 13 months was clearly not an adequate length of time in either case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

He said he believed the girl was 16 at the time they began to communicate

he does know that 16 is still underage right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Not in a lot of countries, like England and the Netherlands.

And a lot of places in the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

it might be legal but it’s still underage, especially when he was 19.

permalink
report
parent
reply
120 points

Honestly fuck him and his teammate. The rapist wouldnt be playing if everyone refused to play with him. Full stop. These calls would be different if he showed remorse but instead he wants to complain. You dont get to complain about other’s opinion of you after you rape somebody.

permalink
report
reply
85 points

There’s a German saying that I’m going to poorly reproduce.

If you’re at table with eleven others and one’s a NAZI then there are twelve NAZI’s at the table.

I think it applies here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

Ive always heard it the reverse but same message. “If you choose to sit at a table with 11 Nazi’s then there are 12 Nazi’s at the table.” Same sentiment though and i absolutely agree.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

If there’s 11 people at a table and a Nazi joins them, there are 12 Nazis at that table.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

But what if you’re choosing to sit at the table of Nazis because there’s a bomb in your briefcase that will kill some of them and damage Hitler’s hearing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’ve heard it with the word fascist instead of Nazi but I’m not sure if the original saying uses Nazi or fascist. It’s true of course either way

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Some people say “these athletes shouldn’t have to play politics”. That’s correct. But if I refused to work with a coworker who raped a 12 year-old, one of us would be replaced. If all of my coworkers refused, the perpetrator of sexual assault would be replaced, no matter how much Management liked them. And we’re not even representing our country…

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 261K

    Comments