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.
Sounds like the official isn’t a decent human being.
Right now, this is a bad look for Netherlands.
Pedophile or not, it doesn’t matter. He’s still a child rapist.
Being a rapist doesn’t even need a qualifier, you’re a piece of shit regardless.
This is getting an unnecessary amount of attention. I won’t defend his actions, but he was punished for it. You know how many ex-convicts participate in society every day? Heaps of them.
But when you give fame and wealth to known child rapists like van de Velde, trump, or others who regularly appears in epstein’s flight logs, they can use that fame and wealth to attract more victims and cover up their actions.
There’s a difference between having a livelihood and being granted access to the power that nationwide recognition gives you.
There’s lots of things in society you are excluded from doing, when being a convicted criminal. Even more when it’s a “rape of a child” conviction.
One the things you should be excluded from is the olympics.
- She was 12
- He flew from his home in the Netherlands to England (~209miles) to meet this girl
- She was 12, he was 19
- He raped her
- He plead guilty (not found guilty)
- She was 12
- Sentenced to four years in prison
- Only served 1 year, 1 month
No, he in fact was not punished for it. He still owes society 2 years, 11 months.
Conflating the raping of a 12-year-old girl that he admitted to raping with other felons is insulting to the other felons.
No, he in fact was not punished for it. He still owes society 2 years, 11 months.
This is not how the justice system works in progressive countries. It’s not the goal to lock people up. One of the main goals is to avoid reoffending behaviour. And this is not avoided by locking people up as long as possible.
What also likely played a role in his shortened sentence is the fact that he was so young. At 19, people change really fast. So the judge and the psychiatrist may have believed him that he understood his lesson after 1 year and 1 month.
I’m sure the now 22-year-old that he admitted to raping 10 years ago feels relief knowing he’s learned his lesson and gets to back to being a superstar because he was just a kid who grew out of his phase of raping 12-year-olds.
I do agree with you that most people can learn from their mistakes, and should be given multiple chances for redemption. But I draw the line at rape, especially of children; it’s personal. I will respect your opinion, despite not agreeing with it, if you will respect mine, while not agreeing with it. 😊
Yeah. It totally depends on their behaviour after their sentence, and their attitude towards their crime. Since this person did not reoffend for about nine years, I would think he has improved. And he apparently was deemed safe for society upon release, otherwise he would not have been released early, and possibly not been released at all.
You won’t defend his actions, but you’ll defend his extremely short (and not fully served) prison sentence as being enough. You’re gross. A convicted child rapist shouldn’t be allowed at the Olympics - it’s supposed to be an honour.
You know how many rapists keep raping after their paltry sentence? Heaps of them.
13 months for repeated raping a 12 year old whom he was in contact with for months and knew her age. Yea, definitely did his time for this one. Did you know the victim self harms now? Meanwhile your boy Steven Van de Velde is going to the Olympics. Seems legit.
He raped a 12 year old. So yes he is. Put him in the registry.
Steven van de Velde has somehow achieved Matt Gaetz / DonOld Trump scot-free immunity status
Well, he bumps an inflated ball just so well while standing in sand.
I’ll never get over the power of language. Here we have a man that raped a child and the controversy is over how to label the rapist.
No holy book in history has ever exercised more influence and control over society than the dictionary.
Van de Velde, who is now 29, was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after pleading guilty to raping the girl in Milton Keynes. He had flown to England to meet her in 2014 with full knowledge of her age, having met her on Facebook. He served 12 months in a British prison, before being transferred to his home country where he was released after a further month.
This does sound just a tiny bit pedoey.
Yeah. It would be extremely questionable but still a little believable if the situation was “we met at a club that was supposed to be 21 and up and I thought she just looked young.” The reality is he traveled to another country to rape someone he knew was a child.
I’m sorry, but in what world does this not make him a pedophile?
He went to a location to have sex with a 12-year old. There are loads of people in ass-pounding prison right now for those exact acts as pedos.
He’s a pedo and a rapist. This is some asinine Brock Turner level nonsense. The Dutch should be ashamed to have even accepted him back home let alone send him to the Olympics.
Most men who commit these crimes aren’t sexually attracted to children/adolescents. It’s the power trip behind it and the feeling of control. Unfortunately, they end up targeting children because they are so vulnerable.
Pedophilia is rather rare and can be treated easily but society and the media have done so much damage that people who are truly pedophiles are afraid to seek help.
Brock Allen Turner and this guy are sociopaths. Entitled, narcissistic shits who think they can have or do whatever they want.
Unrelated to the main post but your comment brings up a point I think is important for society to understand. “pedophiles are afraid to seek help.” Pedophilia is a mental disorder and doesn’t inherently mean someone is a criminal, or ever will become one. But because it is such a violent and life destroying term to be labeled as a pedo those who have this mental disorder and are struggling to not offend will never seek the mental help they desperately need, this in turn leads to children being harmed.
Everyone is responsible for their actions, and pedophiles who rape or hurt kids are also responsible for their actions, but society as a whole contributes to more children being harmed by the way we represent and treat the mental disorder.
Interesting. Surprising you’d rape someone you’re not sexually attracted to. Quite sick in any case.
Definitely sick. The main point is that they really don’t care about the identity of their victims - just that they can satisfy their own desires. This guy would probably just as likely rape a passed out 50-something woman if he thought he could get away with it.
Yeah, in what world is he not a pedophile (don’t @ me about ephebophilia)? I thought the rub would be that he was 14 months older than her or something. He was 19 and traveled to another country to have sex with a preteen.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Are they talking about the pedophile Steven Van De Velde? The pedophile that likes having sex with children Steven Van De Velde? I think that guy might be a pedophile.
If there’s a reason why he’s “not a pedophile” as they claim, let’s hear their reasoning. Miscarriages of justice do occur, but there’s no outcry that this dude got a raw deal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I’ll trust the verdict of the court, indicating that Steve van de Velde is a pedophile.
Be prepared for the “ephebophile” argument, which, if Wikipedia is to be believed anyway, is actually for ages 15-19, but it won’t stop those who have twisted their minds into a knot to explain this away.
Or the “if there’s grass on the field, play ball” argument (which is kind of ironic given the popularity of shaving it all off again.) which covers anyone who shows any sign of adolescent hair growth.
Or “she was asking for it / totally wanted it / shouldn’t have been acting that way / shouldn’t have been dressed like that”.
Because those are all the soundest of arguments.
But the unspoken reason will be: “He’s rich and famous and therefore he can do what the hell he wants with no consequences. F–k you.”
Well, now I know why people hate the Dutch.
Van de Velde has consistently remained transparent about the case which he refers to as the most significant misstep of his life.
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.
Yesterday I accidentally stepped in some dog poo; we’re exactly the same!!!
Classic poopiphile behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
- No exploitation of lack of sense of sexual self-determination of under 16yolds if the perpetrator is over 21. Over 16 that sense is presumed to be present, and under 21yolds aren’t themselves considered mature enough to know what they’re doing. Also from 18-21 either juvenile or adult criminal law may apply, depends on the defendant.
- No sex against money or money-valued things (prostitution, sugar daddying) until 18, also no sex with persons in a position of authority, trust, care, etc (teacher, boss, whatnot). Also, no porn.
- No recruitment into prostitution under 21years old (side note that’s where a good chunk of the “human trafficking” statistic in Germany comes from. I’m not saying the law is bad all I’m saying we shouldn’t confuse chaining women to radiators with driving through the Romanian countryside asking gals whether they want to make lots of money).
Technically 13/14 relationships are illegal, but courts apply Radbruch’s formula to throw those cases out.
You’re old enough to stand trial
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.
Generally, you don’t get charged as an adult until you’re 18 in America, so, not applicable.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
The rest of this seems nonsensical to me, even America’s laws around adulthood (16, 18, 21) are more clear-cut.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile a female equestrian was banned for hitting a horse.
Maybe she should’ve fucked it, that would be fine it seems? 🤣
Let’s not compare that, I’m happy she was banned. I know you don’t want to say it was ok, but the comparison could be used to pardon her behaviour.
I suspect if it was a man hitting the horse, it would have been brushed away as “part of the sport”.
People like you do not understand how to compare stuff.
I mean different countries different people making the decision.
Let’s briefly set aside the fact that she was 12.
He was convicted of raping another person… period. That alone should disqualify him from representing his country at the Olympics.
Now back to your regular scheduled world wide publicity for Steven van de Velde, who repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl.
Presumably did his time, but you have to let criminals who have completed their sentence rejoin society.
A child rapist is another story
He was convicted in 2016, thats a pretty short sentence even for adult rape imo.
Yea, wtf is this shit? He’s a convicted rapist. The end.
But apparently not a pedophile. Not sure how that works, I’m also unclear on why it’s even relevant.
If he’d murdered someone would that be better or worse?
They just want to clarify that he’s not selective, he’d also rape adult women if given the opportunity.
The Dutch wikipedia explains that according to research, 25% to 50% acts because of a sexual preference for minors.
The others only act because they see an easy opportunity to have sex, or worse, want to exploit them.
I guess that’s what he bases his statement on?
Just a bunch of downplaying stuff with definitions and nonsense talk in my opinion.
Hey, he got her drunk first. It’s not like he did it for free!
Well actually, If you set aside her age it wouldn’t be rape at all, since it’s statutory rape. She technically consented and did things herself. But of course since she’s a child she can’t consent, she was manipulated by someone much older.
My point is her age is very important and should definitely not be set aside.
Somehow, I think the more important part is the child rape conviction. If the Dutch Olympic Committee would rather Steven van de Velde be known as a convicted child rapist rather then a paedophile, then I think the Guardian could accommodate that.
The whole situation aside… what is up with the email skills of the Dutch Olympic Committee? This email is legit worded like a text message or a Lemmy comment
"Steven is NOT a peadophile; 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.”
