- Date published:
8:48 am, August 4th, 2016 - 55 comments
Categories: boycott, discrimination, domestic violence, Ethics, health and safety, Social issues, sport, workers' rights - Tags: sexual violence, waikato chiefs
The Waikato Chiefs rugby team have admitted homophobic abuse at a post season piss up in a hot springs hotel. Now it has been revealed that the players sexually abused a woman at the same event.
So how are the Chiefs management going to deal with the assault? They’ve decided the best response is to publicly attack the victim’s credibility.
“You have got to remember this is one person’s accusation and her standing in the community and culpability is not beyond reproach,” says Chiefs CEO Andrew Flexman.
So that’s all right then.
The woman concerned is a sex worker. She was hired to act as a waitress and then perform a strip tease.
Hiring her isn’t an issue.
Abusing her is the issue.
But not according to the leadership of the Waikato Chiefs.
Their dim witted , moralistic CEO thinks the only problem is that being sprung using sex workers isn’t a good look.
Which is why he has chosen to add some abuse of his own.
So here’s the simple solution for the Hamilton based franchise; fire Andrew Flexman. Send a straightforward message that abuse of women, either physically or verbally, is unacceptable.
If that doesn’t happen, here’s another simple solution. The organisers of the Super Rugby competition should remove the Waikato Chiefs from next season’s competition.
Wouldn’t that send a powerful, positive message?
UPDATE: CEO Andrew Flexman has apologised on Radio Sport’s Martin Devlin show. Well, sort of.
“I’m not in a position to make that assertion because I don’t know the woman from a bar of soap,”
“Anybody that knows me well, Martin (Devlin), knows that that’s not the person I am, that’s not consistent with the value set that I have. In no way, shape or form would I ever make that assertion about a woman based on a vocation that she chooses and has the choice to be involved in.”
“The way it reads certainly gives the impression that I am questioning the integrity of her vocation and her choice around that and fundamentally I shouldn’t be in a position to do that.”
“And I guess, having re-read it, as it appears in the article, notwithstanding the context, I regret the way it’s been phrased if I’m honest.”
Full audio here: