Two weeks ago the nation talked about long-time football president Eddie McGuire and whether or not his comments about drowning Caroline Wilson were just a joke or symptomatic of a far bigger problem.
Today we saw former Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius sentenced to just six years for the murder of his former partner Reeva Steenkamp.
And while it would be easy to write the two off as completely different situations, the truth is that they have two key similarities that link them.
Oscar Pistorius sentenced in court. Source: Getty.
They are the same similarities that allowed Wayne Carey to beat his wife, glass his girlfriend, physically assault a female police officer and still maintain a high profile role as a television presenter for one of Australia's major networks.
They are the same similarities that allowed NFL player Phillip Merling to play professional football at the top level for a further five years after he beat his pregnant girlfriend.
And the rules these people need to follow to be eligible are simple: just be male, an elite athlete and rich. From there, the public adoration and high paid lawyers will take care of everything else.
Reeva Steenkamp with Oscar Pistorius. Source: Getty.
Everything we know about domestic violence tells us that it operates on a spectrum of which there are two ends. Obviously, murder sits at one far end, whereas comments meant simply as "jokes" sit at the other. But just because they're in different places doesn't mean they're not still on the same spectrum or bearing a relation to one another.
Irrespective of where it sits, both send a clear message. And that is that the rules are different when you're up there at the top. And that's true for most people with money and fame behind them, not just athletes. The difference is, there are almost no female athletes that are privy to the level of fame or volumes of money that men are.
The spaces we spend our time filling with excuses and arguments around these acts are the spaces they operate in. And we willingly give them that.
Reeva Steenkamp with Oscar Pistorius. Source: Getty.
Despite the minimum sentence for murder in South Africa being 15 years, Pistorius has received just six.
Reeva Steenkamp was murdered while screaming in fear and unable to escape. She was murdered by a man who had a known history of violent behaviour towards his partners and a fascination with guns. She was murdered by a man that friends described as controlling, aggressive and manipulative.
She was murdered by a man who scolded her on a number of occasions over her behaviour, saying that acting outside of the boundaries he had set for her may in some way jeopardise his sponsorships and ability to make money.
So if you want to look at serving justice, look at taking away the things he truly cares about.
Reeva Steenkamp. Source: Getty.
Judge Thokozile Masipa is wrong is saying that a long-term sentence would not serve justice. Stripping Pistorius of his power over others for as long as legally possible would have been the only justice there is.
By taking away the lucrative deals, television opportunities, throngs of photographers, sponsorships and the public adoration from these people is to take away the very set of rules that allows them to continue to operate untouched. It's only when those things are removed that they are no longer enabled and no longer sitting outside of the rule book of everyone else.
Creating a new minimum sentence - part of which has been served in the privacy of his relative's mansion - just perpetuates the problem.
I understand why people don't want to connect the dots and see the links of the spectrum. Why it would be so easy to hate Oscar Pistorius and think of this only as an isolated incident. But it just so obviously isn't and we can't keep pretending that it is anymore.
Top Comments
I get in trouble on this site because when I defend truth and procedural fairness, it gets widely interpreted as defending DV and the shitheads that perpetrate it. Nothing could be further from my actual intentions, further, I'll confess to being in the 'Pistorius committed deliberate murder' camp, but despite my personal scepticism, I think that the judge needs to be quoted accurately, rather than paraphrased and distorted to suit a view point.
Judge Thokozile Masipa said there were “substantial and compelling circumstances” that meant he should not serve the 15-year minimum sentence for murder.
Masipa said the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intentionally killed Steenkamp was something the court had a duty to correct “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”
The judge categorically doesn't hold the belief that Pistorius' act was deliberate. Yet, here we sit, thousands of miles away and privy to only a fraction of the facts that this judge has scrutinised and reading an article by a journalist who is convinced that Pistorius committed murder and has cherry-picked words accordingly.
I'm not offended by your bias, Katy, because I share it, but as someone whose words are very public, I don't think that you can let your personal viewpoint cannibalise your professional objectivity, even for a case as incendiary as this one.
That ain't right.
What part of 'serve a mandatory 15 year gaol sentence if found guilty of murder' does the judge, and you, not understand. This judge's bias has been evident from the start and highlighted with the overturning of her initial findings. Your attempt to be seen as impartial by pointing out further ineptitude is as self-serving as it is mistaken.
If, in fact, Masipa said the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intentionally killed Steenkamp was something the court had a duty to correct “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”, is the excuse she uses to justify the woefully inadequate sentence she handed down, only one year more than her original sentence (and you don't see a pattern here?) then she has, once again, given rise the to very thing she claims to be trying to prevent in the mistaken 'belief' that that is her duty.
The judge's belief becomes irrelevant after a higher court found her findings to be an error in judgement.
The only thing that's not right here is that anyone could try to defend the indefensible.
Bit half-cocked here, Really.
'What part of 'serve a mandatory 15 year gaol sentence if found guilty of murder' does the judge, and you, not understand.'
You're sidestepping my main point and while I accept my ignorance of the case and bias, you're springboarding off of yours. The judge doesn't believe that the act was deliberate. I personally disagree with her, but own up to my distance from the facts. What makes you believe that you have the vantage point to gainsay her finding?
Yes, the judge does not believe Pistorius is guilty of murder. This is why her judgement was overturned, on appeal. Which means her only duty now is to sentence Pistorius on what he has been FOUND GUILTY of (by an unanimous decision of five panel members of a supreme court)
The MANDATORY sentence is 15 years for the crime which he has been found guilty of.
Now, unless you have a different definition of the word MANDATORY, how do you justify defending a murderer who has, in fact, received every benefit IN SPITE of the law?
You accuse me of poor comprehension and in the same breath accuse me of defending a murderer? I'm defending the need for procedural fairness, some restraint from online onlookers and to a certain extent, the judge.
Can I ask you what you think would motivate the judge to fudge her result?
I would add white to the mix of guaranteeing a light sentence or being let off. The pathetic man killed a woman who was reported to be preparing to leave him. This is a known escalator in violence. His actions did not match up with his story. He never showed remorse or guilt, he only covered up his guilt. This judge must never see psychology reports or offender management assessments. He has all the hallmarks of re-offending. Time and time again violent men who get away with murder re-offend. This judge is a let down to society and the judiciary. As for the comparison of the others in the story, I get it. We forgive violence as long as it comes from rich white, famous, often sporting "hereos". That same worshipping allowed serial paedo Saville to get away with evil sh.t too.