The man recognizes it's within his interests to show remorse.
Does he truly feel it? We'll never know.
This is a bit of an interesting conundrum ...
Granted, I do not know the details of the crime for which he plead guilty and was sentenced. Was it a violent rape? Or was it a concensual get together but she was far to young and he was slapped hard for it? Now I don't condone it either way but it might give nuance to how he feels about it.
On one side, he, and society overall see it as he served his sentence (not all of it but that is not his fault) and is rehabilitated, he made changes to his life after that and made sure he is not near minors alone again, now even has a family of his own.
But, I really think it's wrong to think rehabilitation means you can stand on a podium for admiration, or be in a place that strives for excellence in rhe public eye.
This is where he and the people around him should have realized that, no, no matter how good he is in his sport, he should just not be a competitor in the olympics as a shining example of greatness.
Rehabilitation means to be allowed back into society, in a menial job out of view and not in a spotlight of any kind.
It is definitely not a full reset on your life and you can do whatever, thinking people mostly forgot what you did.
So the bullying boo's are quite justified imo and he should have expected this backlash because he sought the spotlight and admiration for his greatness in sport. And it shows he thought it a deserved thing for his ego following the years of hardship he went through after making a big mistake when he was young.
He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn't, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn't stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.
So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don't know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn't just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There's a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.
Also, he's never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he's said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He's much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren't really relevant to his case because it doesn't appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He's merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.
Thank you for elaborating on the backstory, seems I did not know half of the past of the case.
Tried a short google but there was no old in depth information about the case back then.
All in all it is at least a strange thing that the people around him thought it was a good idea for him to attend the olympics and enabled him to do it.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.