...criticised Stewart’s planned return to the field on Saturday in light of the charges laid against him over the alleged sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl.
"I think that it is quite disappointing," she said.
"I think my personal view is that it would be more appropriate for him to stand aside while investigations are conducted but, of course, this is an issue for the rugby league to decide.
"They need to make a decision on the basis of what they feel is an appropriate image for their code."
On a personal level I don't care one way or the other about Stewart or Manly and have no opinion on his innocence or guilt.
What I find amazing is that we have a Federal Government Minister making comments on whether he should be allowed to continue working pending the outcome of these charges.
Would Tanya demand others stand aside from their work on the basis of an unproven allegation - and hence, in the event they are innocent, be punished for nothing?
There seems to be an assumption here that the alleged victim is telling the truth. If she is Stewart deserves whatever punishment he gets; but what if, for whatever reason, she isn't?
That is why we have a presumption of innocence.
UPDATE: The thing I find even more amazing is that there is a Minister for the Status of Women.
UPDATE II: We now have the White House Council on Women and Girls:
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," Obama said.
What's the bet that "treated fairly" really means treated "preferentially".
No comments:
Post a Comment