Nathan Broad's actions seem criminal, yet his punishment is incredibly lightDarren Kane
WA Today
5 November 2017In the words written at the command of a mind more sapient; more virtuous than mine: the more you see, the less you know; the less you find out as you go; I knew much more then, than I do now. And how!
The longer I go on, I know less and less. Either that, or maybe it's just that you come to understand all that you don't know, if you catch my drift. You know that hypothetical question, about which superpower you'd pick over all others
I wouldn't pick any. But oh, how I'd love a crystal ball that functioned as something other than an anger management tool.
But perhaps it's just the sardonic mood of the room I'm in. I'm sitting here writing this column (with a fountain pen, as is my wont) in an Italian restaurant on Macquarie Street. As I begin scribbling, the opening bars of Speak Softly, Love hang in the background, wafting from the sound system. It's the height of irony, actually. You'd never identify that arrangement by name. You might however recognise the instrumental, as the title theme from The Godfather. A production hardly known for either soft dialogue or love.
So many mixed messages! And on that topic, can someone please explain to me the outcome of the investigation into the circumstances of the circulation of a photograph, depicting a topless woman, wearing nothing much other than a Richmond player's AFL premiership-winning medallion?
Based on the statements released this week by each of Tigers president Peggy O'Neal and Tigers player Nathan Broad, the latter is clearly the instigator who caused the unauthorised dissemination of a very personal picture of the said woman. In defiance of her explicit request that he delete the photo (and Broad's untruthful assurance to her, that he had). Broad's words warrant direct quotation:
"I take full responsibility for what I have done.
"I sent a very private picture without this young woman's consent. I am ashamed and embarrassed. I made a very bad drunken decision.
"Not only have I let down my family, my friends and the Richmond Football Club, but most of all I let down a young woman who I cared about. A young woman who I spent time with before the grand final. A young woman who I liked and respected.
"I'm deeply sorry for the heartache that I've caused this young woman and her family. It was never my intention to hurt her or her family. By sending the picture I lied to her and broke her trust.
"This young woman deserves to have her privacy respected. To the media
the longer this story keeps running the more suffering it will cause her and her family. I am the one who deserves to be punished but this woman does not deserve any more pain."For all of this, Broad has incurred the featherweight penalty, of being suspended for the first three home-and-away matches of the 2018 season. No monetary penalty or financial recompense; no "hard toil" in the community. Just three matches, on the bench. That's it.
That's it, in circumstances where prima facie, what Broad's copped to doing amounts to a criminal offence in Victoria, carrying the possibility of two years in the big house. Though a custodial sentence in the circumstances would've been unlikely, this is a criminal act even in the event the Victorian Police hadn't ceded to the request from Broad's victim, to drop the criminal investigation. That's the prism through which this ought be viewed. Criminal behaviour, against a young female victim, who can't fight back.
A simple Google search brings up various incarnations of the image in question; some redacted, others not so much. The Internet can't easily be cleansed once an image is floating around in cyberspace, it's there forever more. It's trite for Broad to propound the argument that the media risks prolonging the poor girl's agony, should the story be reported on further. The ignominy of having the photograph in circulation won't just dissipate, in line with the media's future disinterest.
And for Broad to hide behind his apparent drunkenness, as some sort of excuse, is manifestly weak. Yes, Broad ought be ashamed, and embarrassed. But neither emotion ought be allowed to be diluted, just because he was sozzled at the exact moment he pressed "send". And especially so after having promised the lady in question that he would do the exact opposite, and delete the image.
The outcome is potentially catastrophic, for the woman concerned. It's irrelevant that she consented to the image being taken in the first place. And frankly, Broad would come across so much more a man, if he didn't hide at all behind alcohol as an excuse. Just as words spoken or written can't be taken back, for the victim in this situation matters can't easily be put right.
To the sanction: a three-match ban is, in all the circumstances, manifestly light. Yet doubling or tripling the sanction would achieve no more. For it's not about the penalty, so much as realising that no penalty can properly address the "heartache" (to use Broad's words) and devastation that he's caused; and that his actions will likely continue to cause, into the future.
It's interesting in a way to draw a line between Broad's actions and those of the English cricketer Ben Stokes. And for good measure, throw in the brawling by the "Italian" rugby league players James Tedesco and Shannon Wakeman. Tedesco and Wakeman's post-match fisticuffs in a Cairns pub may yet result in some sort of sanction by Rugby League World Cup organisers, though neither combatant seems all that concerned, nor does the Italian Rugby League. It's odd though, how such shenanigans can happen during a world cup campaign. Should Italy qualify for the FIFA World Cup next year, you can't imagine the same goings on in Russia.
Stokes didn't fly to Australia with England's Ashes squad. It's highly doubtful he will be a late arrival, and he most certainly will not be unless the police investigating the circumstances of his late September brawl conclude their investigations without charging him. Recent reports of Stokes defending two men against homophobic slurs as being the catalyst for the fisticuffs might be truthful; they might be convenient explanations. But Stokes' actions remain objectively vicious.
All three situations involve potentially criminal behaviour. But my point is this, whatever Tedesco, Wakeman or Stokes have done, each were fighting against someone who had at least some degree of opportunity even if not an equal chance of fighting back.
Broad's victim had no such hope. She was totally blindsided, and lied to. And that's utterly unfair.
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/richmond-photo-scandal-nathan-broads-actions-seem-criminal-yet-his-punishment-is-incredibly-light-20171103-gze39c.html
