Steven Van de Velde ‘isn’t a risk’, a Dutch Olympic official said in an email, as abuse survivors urged the team to withdraw the volleyball player

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.

  • MrMcGasion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1810·
    5 months ago

    Probably one of those weirdos who knows the specific term for paedophiles who are into teens rather than younger children and tries to use it as if it’s a meaningful distinction.

    • WannadeEnglish
      91·
      5 months ago

      Okay, I’ll bite. How is that not a meaningful distinction? Do you really think attraction to a 15 year old and attraction to a 5 year old is the exact same thing? It’s just like the distinction between murder and manslaughter. They’re both bad but they are not the same.

      • MrMcGasion@lemmy.worldEnglish
        44·
        5 months ago

        I didn’t say it was the exact same, but to the victims the difference isn’t very meaningful, much like victims of murder and manslaughter are still dead whether we make a distinction or not. It’s meaningful for prosecution purposes - at least in the case if manslaughter and murder because it’s taking intent into account. It’s also a bit easier to accidentally kill someone than it is to accidentally have sex with a minor.