A senior official with the Dutch Olympic committee has insisted that a convicted child rapist in its beach volleyball team is not a paedophile, in an email seen by the Guardian.
A concerned British man who has lived in the Netherlands for more than a decade, wrote to the Dutch Olympic committee and called the inclusion of Steven van de Velde in the team “a stain on the Dutch national side”. In a reply the Dutch Olympic committee spokesperson wrote: “Steven is NOT a peadophile [sic]; you really don’t think that de Dutch NOC would send someone to Paris who IS a real risk? No, he isn’t a risk.”
There has been mounting public anger at the presence of the beach volleyball player Van de Velde, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old British girl in 2016. Earlier this week the International Olympic Committee faced calls for an investigation into how a convicted child rapist has been allowed to compete at Paris 2024. The IOC has said the selection of athletes for the Games was the responsibility of individual committees.
There has been mounting public anger at the presence of the beach volleyball player Van de Velde, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old British girl in 2016. Earlier this week the International Olympic Committee faced calls for an investigation into how a convicted child rapist has been allowed to compete at Paris 2024. The IOC has said the selection of athletes for the Games was the responsibility of individual committees.
Raping a 12 year-old child is a misstep, people; relax! Yesterday I accidentally stepped in some dog poo; we’re exactly the same!!!
This dude has no place in the Olympics. The Dutch standing behind him is disgraceful.
I actually wholeheartedly believe in reintegration of convicted criminals in society. I also, maybe even more wholeheartedly, believe that pedophiles need to be open about it so that they can get the help to cope with their urges, and we should not be judgemental about it and stigmatize them ahead of time - the majority of SA offenders who attack minors are not pedophiles. You won’t prevent a pedophile from assaulting a minor by yelling at him for his preferences alone.
Now, that being said, fuck this guy. A misstep? If this happened in 2016 he should still be serving his sentence and definitely not be back on the Olympic team.
Ok, I looked it up: it happened in 2014, so he was 20 then. The age of consent in the Netherlands is surprisingly high (16), so you cannot even claim due diligence or anything. (I am from Germany and over here it is 14, and I have known a couple of 14-18+ relationships, and I could have seen a case where a German 18 year old guy has sexual relations with a British 15 year old and gets in trouble because of this.) He was sentenced to 4 years and served 1. One year for raping a 12 year old girl when he was 20. Wtf? The judges should be ashamed. And as for the Olympic team, shame on them too. This guy should not be representing your country.
Dunno if I’d call 16 “surprisingly high”, here in America, at least, it’s 18. To the extent anyone thinks we should change it (it’s not a common point of discussion, except that there’s legal inconsistency between ages of consent for sex, smoking, drinking, driving, owning firearms, etc.), they think it should be 21. We also have Romeo and Juliet laws, which protect relationships between minors and people of very close ages (such as between 17 yrs and 18 yrs) from the same level of punishment as an adult assaulting a minor.
It’s 14 in Germany? Yuck.
Why shouldn’t it be 14. With 14 you’re old enough to stand trial so you’re old enough to decide who you want to fuck. There’s staggered protections, though:
Technically 13/14 relationships are illegal, but courts apply Radbruch’s formula to throw those cases out.
Generally, you don’t get charged as an adult until you’re 18 in America, so, not applicable.
I’m having difficulty parsing this first dotted point… Here, we don’t generally prosecute minors who have relationships with each other, as while the law (and culture) does discourage that, it’s primarily there to protect minors from sexual exploration by adults; hence our “Romeo and Juliet” laws, which protect relationships between minors and adults of similar age (such as for people born within 2 years of each other, but this varies by state).
The rest of this seems nonsensical to me, even America’s laws around adulthood (16, 18, 21) are more clear-cut. I think there’s a very fundamental difference in how law is conceptualized here, so I can’t really understand how or why you would have a law saying 14 years is old enough for sex, but 18 for porn, but 21 for prostitution, as a premise.
Romeo and Juliet laws do exist for many states, but not for all states, and the adoption of these laws is relatively recent. For instance Connecticut and Indiana only passed them in 2007.
No, they’re not, ohmygod :D
You have an actual federal government, but yet most of the States have different and sometimes conflicting laws.
The EU doesn’t have a central government, as it’s composed of sovereign nations (US states are not sovereign), and we still try to standardise as much legislation and regulation as possible.
How is it legal for literal children to have firearms? How is a 16-year old old enough to drive a car, but not to have a beer or sex? How is an 18-year old old enough to determine whether they want to literally risk their lives in war, but aren’t old enough to have a single beer?
It’s like your dating system; it’s all over the place.
Don’t talk about nonsense, my American friend.
I think there’s a difference in average maturity between US teenagers and European teenagers. I moved to the states when I was 20 and was shocked about how childish some of my new peers seemed. And I remember also being completely surprised I couldn’t even lift my dad’s case of beer into his trunk (he’s a wheelchair user). The cashier flipped out when I picked it up.
Being charged as a minor is still getting charged. The offences you stand trial for are the same, it’s the sentencing that differs. So if it was illegal to have sex with a 14yold, and then two 14yolds were having sex, we’d have to put them both on trial for sexual abuse of the other because they’re both criminally mature. Under 14yolds cannot be tried.
Because having sex and earning money with sex are two very different kinds of things. Kids are also old enough to buy shovels and dig holes doesn’t mean we let them work in the mines. They can have and earn money (within reasonable parameters, think doing paper rounds or working a trade in the context of learning a trade) and spend it, they cannot take on debt or future obligations (like a mobile contract which you can’t cancel on short notice and such).
Oh, and maybe this is worth pointing out in contrast to the US: We actually have sex ed and none of that abstinence only BS which obviously doesn’t work, look at your teen pregnancy rates.
I wholeheartedly agree about abstinence-only education being an absolute failure of a policy, though I should also point out that it’s a state policy, and states outside of the deep-south generally have at least basic sex-ed, and some states are fairly comprehensive.
Funny enough, when living in Tennessee, it was the class teaching the course, because the teacher was unable to tell us about condoms, how to use them, or where to discretely get them for free. She didn’t stop up us, I think because she wanted the class to know, but wasn’t allowed to teach us proper sex-ed by law.
I do also think there’s a meaningful difference between juvenile criminal law and adult criminal law, in that we treat children’s ability to make informed decisions differently than that of adults’.
14yolds can make informed decisions the question is whether they bother to do so, not whether they have the capacity. The main difference in Germany is a) specialised judges and b) sentences and sentencing institutions which capitalise on the fact that youth are still very malleable. While ordinary prison guards are social workers and adults can be absolutely bone-headed and set in their ways, correctional youth institutions have an army of pedagogues and psychologists running circles around the kids, forming them.
The age of consent in America is not 18 everywhere. It is set by each state and ranges from 16-18. From Wikipedia:
While the unrestricted age of consent is between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the laws have widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[104] The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[105][106] By 1920, 26 states had an age of consent at 16, 21 states had an age of consent at 18, and one state (Georgia) had an age of consent at 14.[104] Small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The last two states to raise their age of general consent from under 16 to 16 or higher were Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995,[107] and Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.[108]
I think this comment has gotten the most responses out of any I’ve made in the time I’ve been on this platform. It’s also the comment with the most negative reaction.
I’m sorry, I understand there are significant cultural differences between Europe and America, but my conscience demands that I dig in my heels with this one: The age of consent must be at least 18 (with much lighter penalties for minors, and exceptions for near-age relationships, the aforementioned "Romeo & Juliet Laws), if not a little higher, as high as 21. I do agree that American law is distressingly inconsistent, and there are some states (notably southern/Republican-controlled states) where the age of consent and marriage is disgustingly low. I comdemn them as well.
My foot is down. 18. No lower. In fact, for every negative reply from some European defending this morally repugnant practice, I’m adding another year!
It’s 14 in Germany but apparently parental consent is needed, otherwise it’s 16.
Why tough. It’s not like you are a child mentally by age 17 years 11 months 29 days and then BOOM birthday happens and your mind becomes mature all of the sudden.
We assume that kids grow to adults in their teenage years. And we grant them our trust and support them to make decisions for themselves, more and more so.
To me, trying to criminalize sex for teenagers has about the same effect as outlawing abortion. It will still happen, it will just be much less safe.
I want my daughter to be able to come to me about questions and if she decides she’s ready to engage on sexual acts, and be able to do it at home where she’s safe and comfortable and not in a car or outside or a public toilet. I don’t want her to risk getting an STI because she is afraid of buying condoms or asking questions. Her feeling that she is “committing a crime” will not make her safe.
I also want to point out: rape, incest etc are obviously still illegal. And let’s be clear here - sexual assault in minors is awful, but/because it is assault. There is explicitly no consent there. These cases very often happen by grown ass adults that the children know - family members or close family friends. I doubt that a 14 year old will willingly agree to have sex with her dad or uncle - no matter whether this is legal or illegal.
Technically he was 19. Also under Dutch law the term rape would imply the use of force, which was either not the case or not considered proven hence why the sentence ended up being lowered.
Still awful. Just trying to get the fact straight so people can judge for themselves.
That’s what I assumed. Probably the 12 year old “agreed” to everything.
I’ll be frank here, I remember being a teen in Germany. And let me tell you these were some horny times for some classmates. But at no point, also not looking back, would I have said any of these girls or boys who were sexually active at 14, 13 or even 12, have done so out of pressure or against their will. And judging from what I know of them today, all of them are in secure, healthy relationships and live happy, successful, and fulfilling lives. I’ll also point out that we have sex ed from early on (I remember in elementary), so at the age of consent everyone of us has put a condom on a banana in class at least once. Everyone knows where babies come from, we learn how cycles work, what different kinds of contraceptives there are. Also, just because the age of consent is 14 doesn’t mean you are required to lose your virginity at or by age 14.
Now, you still have to draw the line somewhere. I personally don’t think it should be 18 because it’s just unrealistic to assume that teenagers won’t have sex. Or that they will only have sex with other teenagers. “Gap laws” seem sensible to me. But that’s just my opinion, and it is very influenced by the open culture and a societal distinction between kids and youngsters.
And in this case, he is from a country where the age of consent was set to 16. In Britain it is also 16. So even if I can somehow imagine that it was “mutual”, 19 and 12 is in no way even close to legal in neither country. I don’t really know how this case has made it to court. As I said, I know quite a bunch of people who had sex before the age of consent, but they usually kept that, well, out of the courtroom.
Any details on the why? I wasn’t keeping an eye on the issue. Seems oddly light
That seems to be a mistranslation. I’m not excusing anything, but the word he used in Dutch is more serious than just a mistake or a misstep. I’m not sure how to translate it, but it’s not a euphemism.
A “misstep” happens once. You learn from it, and avoid doing it again. He did it 3 times. He wenr to bed, woke up, and said “lets do it again”. Thats not a “misstep” anymore.
Classic poopiphile behavior.
The Olympics has nothing to do with this.
Either this guy participates in society or he doesnt and remains locked up.