Category: In the News

I had just finished a blog and was casting around for another subject when I saw an article on the Serena Williams implosion at the US Open in September. I had kept some cuttings on the subject but hadn’t done anything about it until I saw India Knights piece in the Sunday Times in the same month. Still doing nothing more than digging out the original cuttings I saw the incident referred to once again by Jo Konya in the Mail, Well I can take a hint and I reread the cuttings to see whether my original concerns still valid.

The facts behind the incidents are that in the US Open final Williams was penalised for three code violations, the first for throwing her racket to the ground; the second for receiving coaching during the match and finally for verbally abusing the referee. As the tennis correspondent of The Times reported,

“A read of the grand slam rulebook, something from which players and some pundits would benefit, showed that Ramos was undoubtedly correct n each of the three code violations that he issued…” The Times

We have to stop at this point and decide whether we agree that the rules were, in fact, broken before we enter into the furore that followed. All three offenses were caught on camera with her coach further admitting that he did coach in contravention of the rules. The argument from now on is not whether it was right that she was punished  but whether  the rules were equally applied. In her post match press conference Williams said, ” I can’t sit here and say I wouldn’t say he’s a thief because I thought he took a game from me. But I’ve seen other men call other umpires several things. I’m here fighting for woman’s rights and for woman’s equality and for all kinds of stuff …. ” (The Times) She went on further to say that the Umpires remark was sexist and that no man had lost a match for calling the Umpire a ‘thief’. Having pressed the gender button we may pause to note that at the time of her outburst, men had been fined 23 out of 33 fines imposed at the Open and that her fine was at the lower end of the scale (The Times). The other thing to note was that she was not penalised for just one offense but for the sum of three violations.

This cut very little ice with The American National Organisation for Women who pressed the racial  as well as the sexist button. Both Sue Barker and Billie Jean King joined in with King claiming that, “when a women is emotional, she’s ‘hysterical’ and penalised for it” (The Times) This is a theme that was picked up in India Knights article in the Sunday Times. Her take was that women’s rage was considered unfeminine and out of character by a misogynistic society and therefore had to be controlled. In contrast men who had a ‘short fuse’ were somewhat admiringly regarded as being  red blooded and alpha male. I wonder what world India Knight lives in where boorish and bullying behaviour is applauded?

In anyone’s world, “to threaten, with the help of a few expletive, to shove a tennis ball down the throat of Shino Tsurubuchi” (The Times) is unacceptable

This incident occurred during the 2009 US Open when Tsurubuchi called a foot fault. Two years later Williams imploded again,

“I truly despise you” Williams said to Asderaki before later expanding on her thoughts during a change of ends. “I promise you, if you ever see me walking down the Hall look the other way because you’re  are out of control. You’re a hater and you’re just unattractive inside.” (The Times)

I wonder what Knight would have said if a man had made the same threats to the same female officials? Note in all of these incidents there is little discussion on the facts of the case but an immediate ‘fall to the ground’ to claim victimhood. There is some equality in the fact that Williams can sink to the level of the worst male offender but I assume that is not something that Knight and the other Williams supporters would choose to celebrate.

Mathew Syed wrote a sympathetic review of the problems that Williams has had to face to get to where she is (The Times). He describes a constant series of overt and subtle forms of racism that she suffered and applaused her championship of equality and woman’s rights. He also understands that sometimes the decisions that go against Williams can appear to be a part of the general discrimination that she has suffered on a daily basis. However, in this case he argues that sometimes, ” … heroes can cross the line in their personal conduct and can sometimes claim prejudice in specific circumstances where non exists.”

In her tirade against Ramos she said, “I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right for her.” What lessons should her daughter take from this particular episode? Should it be that any woman can match any man in a race to the bottom? I disagree with the view that a women’s anger is hysterical whilst angry men are admired but I suspect that society holds woman to a higher standard and that may be unfair. Should the lesson be that any unfavourable action against a woman can be attributes to sexism and victimhood? I refer to this as the ‘fall to the floor’ gambit and as  Jo Konta says “I’m all for equal rights but I don’t necessarily always agree when you don’t like something, you brush it onto the inequality carpet and say because I’m a woman I didn’t get this,”(Mail Online)

I think that Serena should say to her daughter that she has had to fight hard to be where she is and sometimes all the tension and emotion overspills and she says or does something she regrets. The right thing to do is to lead by example and say that this time she was wrong and she should offer an apology to Ramos however much some of her supporters will see this as a betrayal. In the end her daughter should see the sense of fairness and compassion that was shown to Osaka at the victory ceremony when Williams asked the crowd not to boo and spoil Osaka’s day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References: The Times, 10/09/18, Stuart Fraser, Umpire was not Sexist – Serena Broke the Rules

The Times, 10/09/18,Mathew Syed , She endured a lot but should apologise

The Sunday Times Magazine, 16/10/18, India Knight, Serena Williams, like all women, is entitled to her Rage….

Mail Online, 22/11/18, Mike Dickson, Everyone is human, including Serenahttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-6423275/Jo-Konta-believes-Serena-Williams-wrong-accuse-umpire-sexism.html

I didn’t vote for a second term for Michael D, not because I feel that he is not qualified for the job but that he is too qualified when measured by the old time political metrics. Don’t misunderstand me, at the first election he was the only one who understood the constitutional role and limitations of the Presidency. I had hoped that his promise for a one term Presidency meant that perhaps this was the final fling of the political consensus that sent an old politician to the Aras for a nice retirement, leaving the major centrist  parties free to ignore an inconvenient and expensive election. But leopards don’t change their spots, especially old ones. Once Michael D had his feet under the Presidential Desk at the Aras for seven years the prospect of unemployment seemed less inviting. Had either of the two Mary’s  made this about face there would have been outrage but because it was Michael D, no one was really surprised. No one was surprised about delaying his decision to run so that opponents had to scramble to seek adoption by councils that were on holiday. No surprise either that they would have no time to build a campaign or, that he was suddenly so busy that he could only debate on his terms. This was old style and typical of the smoke filled rooms that gerrymandered politics of the past.

I had hoped that with the election of Presidents Robinson and McAleese that we had broken with the past and signalled a new approach but the only change was that the smoke filled rooms are now non smoking.

Does it really matter? Michael D is a safe pair of hands and will not disgrace Ireland by choosing the wrong fork at the Heads of State dinners. He occasionally shows his Old Labour affiliation as with the panegyric to his old Soviet comrade, Castro but does anyone really care? After all he ‘creamed’ the vote even with a low turnout and Leo has agreed to shorten the term to five years and look at the cost of the Presidency. The problem was the Casey vote. I have argued in the past (Sinn Fein ) that we are sleepwalking into a situation where support for the centre dissolves and dissipates to the Left and Right extremes.

John Lahart said “The Casey vote has to be heeded and acknowledged or it will escalate into something larger and we will have our own Nigel Farrage  style politician in the making” (Sunday Times)

The only thing that I would dispute with the above is that because the right is noisier and they feature in the Press more, that we ignore the extremists on the Left. Be that as it may there is a feeling of frustration in the Country that Lahart has identified. This is not because Casey is particularly popular or has anything worthwhile saying,

as Fintan O’Toole said,” Casey didn’t create an audience – it found him”. (Irish Times 27/10/18)

The Editorial in the Sunday Times (Sunday Times 28/10/18) described the current political status as a,” suffocating consensus that was slowly killing robust political debate.”  Indeed the subtext to Michael D’s acceptance speech was that words hurt and difficult and possibly painful issues are best not aired in public and best left in the safe hands of the centrist liberal elite. I have argued elsewhere that  this arrogant attitude, together with the breakdown of trust with the political class,  has increasingly frustrated the middle ground voters.

The matters raised by Casey were not the main issue but,” … by actually speaking his mind he managed to breach the stultifying political correctness that sanitises most statements made by our career Politian’s,” (Sunday Times 28/10/18) 

We always believe that we are different, what happens to others will never happen to us. We should take the lessons from the Presidential election of centrist indifference and frustration of the middle ground and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as others.

 

references: The Irish Times, 27/10/18, Finton O’Toole                                                The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Stephen O’Brien/Justine McCarthy, Higgins Keeps Crown.                                                                                                                                  The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Editorial, Election shows we need a Party to Break our Consencus.

I would think that it is fairly rare that one day after the implementation date of a new Act that headlines such as ‘Drink Driving Laws too Weak’  would appear(The Times 27/10/18) . However, this is the Act that Minister Ross introduced to appease public pressure to do something about the mess that are the RTA’s and their policing. It was also a Bill that was heavily criticised, not for the proposed penalties but for any realistic attempt to reform the rickety structure that governs enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts in Ireland. I wrote an essay on the subject in July, using data mainly drawn from an RTE program and the basic issues that were raised were not addressed in any serious way (.At the Stroke of a Pen) In summary the main recommendations were:

1. A reformed and properly resourced traffic corps.
2. Consolidate the RTA’s to reduce the possibility of legal loopholes
3. Ensure equal application of the law in all Courts
4. Enforce the banning orders. Compliance is currently estimated to be  around 35%

Politicians believe that passing a law solves a problem but it is obvious that unless it is resourced and enforced that we are only tinkering with the matter, I would repeat my closing question from my July essay.

How about it Minister? Do you think that yet another Amendment will cut road deaths or, would joined up enforcement make a bigger difference?

I was listening to George Hook this morning (Saturday Sit-in,04/08/18) and thinking that he sort of fits into the ‘disgruntled corner’ in that at least he tries to ask the questions that we want asked. The problem is that he is easily outmanoeuvred by the two woman regulars in the opening section of the program and Michael Graham at the end. In fact, he spends so much time winding up to a question that he never manages to land a punch and you could say that everyone in the middle section manages to avoid any damage as well. Still, amongst the ranks of presenters he, at least, has some concept of what the man and woman in the street would like answered.

My attention was caught by the interview with Finian McGrath who had made representations to the Minister of Justice and more recently the Taoiseach, on behalf of Dr. Bassam Naser who had been jailed for not paying tax. His position seems to be that he has taken off his Minister of State hat and is acting as an ordinary TD on a constituency matter. I am not sure how he can switch roles and still retain Ministerial access to Charlie and Leo but that is something that the coalition has to work out. In summary, he accepts that Naser was guilty of the offence and should have been punished. His argument is that the sentence of sixteen months imprisonment was too severe and that he should be released on humanitarian grounds and the sentence  be commuted to some sort of community service. He further stated that Naser was ‘very remorseful’ and prepared to make restitution. (The Irish Times, 25/07/18) It seems that 200 of Finian’s constituents support his call for a review but this seems to contrast with the Trial Judges view of the good Doctor when he said, ‘his offenses were serious and that Naser had “failed abysmally” and was “morally reprehensible’.” (The Irish Times, 25/07/18)

At this point we all appear to have accepted that this wasn’t a misunderstanding  between Naser and his accountant and we are left with the question of the severity of the sentence. A couple of things did come out of the interview, one was that Naser is serving his sentence in an Open Prison and the other is that with good behaviour up to a third of the sentence will be commuted. Finian made a valid point that there are others who have committed more serious crimes who have had community service sentences and there is an issue of sentencing consistency between judges. I would argue that, if this was the case, that the more serious criminal should also be incarcerated, all other things being equal. The issue that incarceration is expensive and doesn’t reform criminals is a different debate and applies to a large number of miscreants who might also claim special representation on this basis.

The question that George put was that since the banking crisis the public have sought a much more serious view of ‘white collar’ crime but as soon as it is applied there are all sorts of calls for special treatment. This is not a victimless crime, and the remorse shown and the appeal on the basis of family hardship is the same as any criminal who has been caught. In other words, Naser didn’t think of the consequences when he was committing the crime but we are supposed to take them into consideration now that he is behind bars. (Are they behind bars in an Open Prison?)

I am sure these considerations were put to the Judge at the sentencing hearing and I assume that there are no legal grounds for appeal and am curious as to why so much publicity for this case. I would think that Leo and Charlie could foresee the public reaction to any interference in a tax case and have learnt to dodge the more obvious pitfalls. Political considerations aside it is always problematic when a Government Minister challenges the Courts and I don’t see the necessity to do so in this case.

 

 

references : Saturday Sit-in, George Hook, 04/08/18, Newstalk                              The Irish Times, Fiach Kelly, 25/07/18, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/minister-defends-lobbying-for-release-of-doctor-jailed-for-not-paying-tax-1.3575442

It was supposed to be ‘business as usual’ when it came to the Presidential election. Michael D. would keep us guessing for as long as possible and then declare his intention to go for a second term, just in time to make it difficult for anyone else to get the qualifying TDs or Counsel votes. The centre parties of Labour, FG and FF have no appetite for a troubling election and so have reverted back to the old system of political jobbery that existed before the two Marys. It doesn’t really matter does it? We have had two referendums in the near past and two more coming up (women and blasphemy in case you had forgotten) local and Europeans next year with the ever threatened General Election if Leo and Michael can’t agree. As noted by Eamon Delaney in his article(The Times, 20/07/18), surely that’s enough democracy for anyone.  It probably would have gone to plan with Michael D. enjoying general support or at the very least a level of indifference but for Mary Lou’s intervention.

The new leader of Sinn Féin saw an opportunity and has cleverly won a tactical victory against the old centrist parties by declaring that her party will field a candidate for the Presidential election. By doing this she has wrong footed her opponents and shown them up to be a comfortable cabal content with the old anti democratic system of promoting an agreed candidate without bothering the electorate. Mary Lou has demonstrated that there is clear water between the old discredited parties and the new invigorated SF and I would be astonished if the SF candidate wasn’t a young woman. This would give her gender and youth attraction and establish SF as a modern party of the future. I disagree slightly with Eamon Delaney’s conclusion that their candidate would not break too free, “… from the moorings of that particular party.” (The Times, 20/07/18)  A second option to promoting the usual party line is to offer the electorate someone who a broad church can support. This takes the wind out of the sails of the opposing parties and reassures the general public that SF has left the guns behind and is a respectable party that can be trusted to enter a future coalition. Have the parties of the centre been caught knapping on this one?

reference: The Times, 20/07/18, Eamon Delaney, Comment

Update 28/07/18

According to The Times Sinn Féin has set out its stall for the forthcoming Presidential election by describing its ideal candidate as a woman who will challenge the ‘patriarchy’ that still governs Irish society. The selection committee chairman goes on to mention women. young people, gender pay and the two recent referendums.  You read it here Leo and Michael better start looking over your shoulder, you are about to be overtaken.

The Times, 28/07/18, Ellen Coyne,

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was branded an “airhead” and an “EU Toady” on the front page of the UK tabloid the Sun on Friday morning.
The insults are a response to Mr Varadkar’s comments about the impact of a potential “no-deal” Brexit on air travel next year.
“The situation at the moment is that the United Kingdom is part of the single European sky, and if they leave the EU they are not, and that does mean that if there was a no-deal, hard Brexit next March the planes would not fly and Britain would be an island in many ways and that is something that they need to think about,” the Taoiseach said in Kerry two days ago. (Irish Times, 20/07/18)

I have copied the full paragraph from the IT so that quotes are kept in context and I would say that I wouldn’t normally comment on the editorial of the Sun but for the reaction it seems to have provoked in Dublin. Perhaps the Sun has gained some gravitas since it’s interview with Trump although he claims it was all or, part, “fake news”. I think that the content of the front page article is admirably set off  by a picture of Gwyneth Paltrow with the byline, ‘Gwns and Needles’ which the IT has thoughtfully included in it’s own article.

Why is it worth comment? Only because, despite all protestations, all explanations concerning context, to an outsider it does sound like a threat. Secondly, the tone of the briefing is reminiscent of similar threats emanating from Brussels. I will give the Taoiseach the benefit of the doubt because he must know that airspace, like borders, work in a number of ways and I would suggest that Ireland would suffer more in a playground ‘tit for tat’ argument than Britain. The basic premise is somewhat false. Non EU airlines operate in European airspace and European airlines, such as Aer Lingus, operate within British airspace. The issue eventually will be decided by a trade off between global airline groups based on market principles not ideology and it is the  Taoiseach’s job to ground the current discussions in common sense and to ensure that pragmatism succeeds over polemics to the benefit of everyone.

 

Reference – Irish Times, 20/07/18, Conor Gallagher,https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-called-airhead-by-sun-newspaper-over-flights-remark-1.