Rita Panahi on Richmond revenge porn: AFL’s hypocrisy exposedRita Panahi,
Herald Sun
16 October 2017HUMILIATING a young woman by circulating a topless image of her without consent is shameful behaviour no matter the circumstances, but the offence is even more egregious if committed by a professional footballer.
Unlike the average millennial, every single player in the AFL is taught about cyber safety and the dangers of transmitting questionable material electronically, whether it’s sexting, texting or social media posts.
If they choose to ignore all the warnings and behave like self-indulgent flogs, then they’ll have to face the consequences, whether it’s a fine, a club or AFL-imposed suspension or criminal charges.
The foul stench of hypocrisy makes every offence more egregious, and Richmond — along with the AFL — has a history of virtue signalling on a range of social and political issues including respect for women.
The premiership medal scandal has revealed a layer of hypocrisy within Richmond and the AFL. Picture: Greg Ford/AFL Media
Yet when one of their own is suspected of behaviour that is not only unconscionable but possibly criminal, they go missing, uttering weasel words. More on that later.
The young lady at the centre of the controversy, who is said to be deeply traumatised by her image going viral, has been firstly victimised and then blamed for her own victimisation.
Listening to Melbourne radio last week, it was evident that it wasn’t just blinkered footy fans who were dismissive of the injured party in this grubby affair.
Seasoned talkback hosts who should know better seemed to think the woman gave up her rights when she posed for the photo, never mind that, according to Victoria Police, “the image was posted without consent”.
This is what listeners heard on 3AW:
Darren James: That girl, she would’ve volunteered for that, wouldn’t she?
Tony Moclair: Yes, she would have.
James: You can’t see her face. She wasn’t being tied up.
Moclair: No, she wasn’t but the police are involved now, Darren, because the police have nothing else to do, there’s no home invasions or anything … but they’re on the case.
The tone was somewhere between derision and contempt. Perhaps the two normally sensible hosts were not aware of just how distressed the alleged victim was or that sharing invasive images without consent is a criminal offence.
Australia’s pre-eminent cyber security expert, Susan McLean, is highly critical of Richmond’s response, labelling it “appalling.”
On the ABC’s Q&A program last Monday night, Richmond president Peggy O’Neal said: “If it turns out that it is disrespectful to women, we certainly don’t stand for that, that’s not what our club’s about and if someone has made a disrespectful and humiliating gesture then of course it will be taken into account.”
Ms McLean, a former veteran cop, is disappointed that the AFL’s only female club president did not strongly condemn the intimate image abuse.
“How can it not be disrespectful? I found that comment to be disgusting,” Ms McLean said. “The club has got to be mindful that there is a police investigation but that doesn’t stop them from making a general statement that image-based abuse is abhorrent, disrespectful and illegal.”
The cyber cop has worked extensively with AFL clubs and believes they can’t just “take a stand when it suits” and must be consistent in their response to the treatment of women.
“Richmond is one of the four clubs I haven’t worked with,” Ms McLean said.
“This for me is not a technology issue, it is a respect issue. The technology is a conduit for the act. That act shows the calibre of the individual. It’s not a joke, it’s not harmless fun. It’s disrespectful and illegal.”
It’s also widespread. A survey of 4200 people by RMIT University showed that one in five was a victim of “image-based abuse”, with the most common type of abuse the taking of sexual/nude pictures without consent followed by distributing pictures without consent or threatening to distribute.
The behaviour is often labelled “revenge porn” but “revenge” isn’t necessarily a factor.
“Image-based abuse has emerged so rapidly as an issue that inevitably our laws and policies are struggling to catch up,” RMIT University’s Dr Nicola Henry said.
“This isn’t just about ‘revenge porn’ — images are being used to control, abuse and humiliate people in ways that go well beyond the ‘relationship gone sour’ scenario.”
When Ms Neal was asked on Q&A about the infamous image, she claimed to have only recently heard of the saga.
“I’m just not across the facts … It’s just been brought to my attention very recently within the last few hours but I understand that something’s going on,” she said before speaking about the AFL’s values of equality and inclusiveness.
But how can that be when the photo was being circulated among football circles for over a week and on the Friday before she appeared on Q&A, an edited version was published on 3AW’s website and shared extensively on social media.
Behind the scenes a senior Tigers official was in contact with the radio station regarding the image and accompanying story.
Meanwhile, the young woman’s distraught family had been in contact with the club.
How can the president be ignorant of the photo for a further three days after mainstream media coverage of its existence?
It’s easy to take a stand on fashionable causes but if football is to eliminate its “women’s issues” then it must care less about brand management and more about victims.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/richmond-afl-exposed-for-hypocrisy-in-revenge-porn-scandal/news-story/dbbeb54f073aecee8c31c530b6ce6f02
