I am in something of a quandary and at the same time a
little concerned about what I am going to write in this blog – or rather what,
in a world of internet trolls, its repercussions might be. Let me explain.
Chedwyn Evans in happier times |
Of course, there is no doubt that Evans has been found
guilty. It is equally true that he still protests his “innocence”. There are issues about the amount of alcohol that
were allegedly consumed, about whether the sex was consensual and indeed about
the veracity of some of the testimony of “witnesses” . But even allowing for
all that Evans is in a hard place – and maybe rightly so. Yes, as many argue,
he has served his time, paid society’s price for his crime so, they argue, he
should have a clean slate. Sadly, however, it isn’t that easy; feeling is
running high – the self righteous mob is on the loose. Those great guardians of
the national conscience and morality big business are threatening to withdraw
sponsorship. And it is here where I start to wonder. I wonder not about the dreadful nature of the “crime”, nor
about Evans’ ultimate guilt for there is little doubt that sex of some kind
took place and for me that very fact suggests that Evans was seriously at fault
and open to censure especially so given his profile and the circumstances. But
I wonder rather about our response and our desire for what in the end looks to
me very much like revenge. In the final
analysis, the only people who really know the answer to Evans’ guilt as to the
charge of rape are Evans himself, the young woman concerned and God. All the
rest is conjecture, gossip, opinion and prejudice. No matter how many juries he
appears before or how many petitions are raised the final judgement is still
only a matter of opinion and that seems to me a very dubious reason for desiring the
eternal damnation of an individual.
And, I begin to wonder about our rather strange view as a
society which seems to me to involve a number of double standards. At one end we castigate and take moral standpoints – probably quite
rightly – about situations like that of Evans and yet at the other we tolerate, support and get seeming pleasure from our media, advertising,
the fashion world and wider society which thrives on promoting an endless diet of the sexualisation of
women and relationships. From the earliest age girls are, in a myriad of ways,
sexualised; reputable shops sell “grown up items of clothing for girls, TV
cinema spews out a constant diet of sex (both overt and covert) much of it
involving varying degrees of overt, covert or implied violence towards women, many of our newspapers
daily carry front page photographs of
scantily clad young women – all to encourage us to buy. And few of us do not buy into it in some manner - if we did not then the big business and global enterprises that produce the stuff would offer something else to satisfy our desires. At the same time we accept that sport pays young men like
Evans huge amounts of money and they are worshipped as young gods inhabiting a bizarre world where everything
can be bought and their every need satisfied.
In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph – an august journal of middle class
probity if ever there was one – was a large photo of the actress Helen Mirren
emerging, scantily dressed from a swimming pool. The photo had little or
nothing to do with the article, the Telegraph could have chosen any one of
thousands of pictures of Mirren - but it chose that one. It was clear
titillation. I have absolutely no doubts
that those vilifying and threatening
Evans and his club will at the same time enjoy much of what is thrown at
us in the modern society via TV, cinema, advertising, sport and the media even though
it is the sort of thing that creates a world where a wealthy and famous young
man feels he can go out and have sex with anyone he meets. In short, as I say, there are
many double standards at work here. maybe, just maybe as well as demonising Ched Evans we ought to look also to ourselves and our base values.
Anyone who has read my blogs before will know that with
great regularity I write about modern football – and invariably, no matter from
what premise I start I always manage to criticise the modern game and in
particular the negative role models projected by young men such as Evans. Huge
amounts of the criticism directed at Evans are rightly based upon the role model
he will present to youth if he is reinstated. Similarly the fact that Sheffield
initially suggested that they might allow him to train with them has caused
great distress amongst his critics. That offer has now been withdrawn. But I
wonder if we (say) substituted IT specialist for professional footballer would
it still work? Let me explain. Suppose an IT specialist was convicted of rape
in exactly similar circumstances to Evans and upon release from prison wanted
to resume his career. In that situation, having been locked up for almost three
years he might want to go on a training course to update him/skill him up so
that he is familiar with the latest developments that have occurred in that
fast changing world before he looks for a job or sets up his own business.
Would we deny him the chance to go on a course?
That, I believe, is not dissimilar to Evans who simply wants to get
match fit by training so that he might resume his footballing career. And if we
would deny that opportunity to the IT specialist (as apparently Sheffield United have done to Evans) then I have
absolutely no doubts we are going down a truly dreadful path to an unforgiving
society and one which basically says that anyone convicted of a crime – yes, even
rape - must serve their sentence for the rest of their lives. That recalls the
penal servitude imposed on prisoners who were shipped off to Australia two
centuries ago – is that what we are about in this, the 21st century,I sincerely hope not, but the present paranoia and vitriol does not bode well. I wonder what Charles Dickens writer of that great tale "Great Expectations" would have to say about! The "hero" (if you can call him that) Abel Magwich, returns from his lifetime of Australian penal servitude having made his fortune to meet the young man Pip who he has sponsored (without Pip's knowledge) over many years. The secret sponsorship has allowed young Pip, a boy from a poor background, to rise up and become a well connected gentleman. Magwitch was the arch criminal but he reformed and tried to do the right thing, and to make up for his former wicked ways. Dickens, of course, returns to the theme of redemption in many of his great novels - the innate goodness of man and our power try to be better: Scrooge, Sydney Carton and Thomas Gradgrind are just three of many examples. I have absolutely doubt that if Dickens were alive today he would have some pretty scathing things to say about the strident, self righteous voices that are emanating out of Sheffield and other places at the moment.
As I write this I wonder, continuing on the literary theme, how many of Evans’ critics have
enjoyed the wonderful musical (or have they actually read the very thick book!) Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables . If they have, then they
will know that the hero, Jean Valjean, is a convicted criminal and when he is
at last released after many years, in
desperation he steals some silver plate
from the priest who has given him sanctuary. When Valjean is apprehended by the
police with the plate still in his possession he is returned to the priest who
silently forgives him and tells the police a lie that the silver was a
gift to help Valjean. In other words, forgiveness was the name of the game and the priest
was giving Valjean a second, or maybe even third chance, for in front of the police he gave Valjean even more silver to take away. He was giving him the
opportunity to show that he was a new man, to redeem himself. The rest of the story as they say is
history. It may be trite, it may not be directly comparable, but I have absolutely
no doubts there are small parallels with the Evans’ situation and those that
would cast stones need, I believe, to think on those things. You cannot enjoy
the story, empathise with Valjean and the actions of the priest and at the same
time castigate Sheffield United or Evans for wanting a second chance. To do so
is both logically and morally perverse. A real life story of redemption – it's the
story of Jean Valjean made real in Sheffield!
But, for me, I am still confused. I don’t know what to
think. My antipathy towards modern football and the highly paid superstars of
the game who by their on and off the field behaviours and attitudes
consistently let themselves and their fans down ensure that I have many of the
same feelings and instincts as the many of those who want Evans forever damned.
I am, too, anxious about the role model he presents and the fact that if he is
reinstated he will in a short time be earning huge amounts of money and again
living “the high life”. Finally I am concerned that professional football has a
huge capacity to quickly forget – forgiveness never comes into it! Week in week
out we see superstars letting themselves, their clubs and their fans down by
their bizarre behaviour and negative role models but score a couple of goals
and all is forgotten – and this combined with the huge amounts of money
involved ensures that morals are quickly
“bent” to suit the need and the situation! I have absolutely no doubts that
many of those same folk who are currently calling for Evans to be dammed will,
within a few weeks be cheering him if another club does re-sign him and he starts scoring
goals. All will be forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history. We will
hear the awful cliché “move on get over
it”. That is the nature of the game and modern life – today’s angst, moral
maze and news is tomorrow’s fish and chip paper, and anyone who argues otherwise is naive. But
given all that and no matter what he has done, no matter how culpable he is, I
find it increasingly difficult to accept that a person should be forever damned
and that an individual’s future should be dictated by the loud voices of the
indignant, the self righteous, the strident, the angry and the vengeful. That, I believe, is the easy option for
society: society need
no longer worry about it. We "good" people would never behave as did Evans would we so “Lock ‘em up
and throw away the key” is the call. It makes all the rest of us feel good about ourselves - we have locked up a real monster, not all like us nice people! But.......forgiveness, reconciliation and being
aware that someone actually can atone for their misdoings is so much
harder for men and women to swallow. It's uncomfortable to know that someone we once despised and felt superior to can actually do good and earn redemption and respect - be redeemed. It takes away our perceived moral superiority. Indeed, go back to the climax of Les Miserables and that is exactly what happens to the
policeman, Javert, who has chased and harried Valjean over the years. Javert is unable to accept that
Valjean has indeed turned out to be a “good man” and by his deeds won
redemption. Javert is unable to
reconcile his unwavering belief in authority and law with the kindness
exhibited by Valjean, and so powerful does this become that Javert's raison d’être is vanquished -
he commits suicide. Forgiveness and redemption
are very, very hard for all concerned.
John Profumo |
But it didn’t end there. Profumo, vilified and deserted by
the high society he had previously enjoyed, had to make a new start and shortly
after his resignation he began to work as a volunteer cleaning toilets for a
charity in the East End of London. He continued to work there for the rest
of his life. It was said after his death that he simply"vanished into London's East End for 40 years, doing quiet good
works". Eventually after much persuasion he became chief fundraiser
for the charity, and raised large sums of money. All this work was done as a
volunteer. In the eyes of most commentators, Profumo's charity work redeemed
his reputation. His friend, the social reform campaigner Lord
Longford said he "felt more
admiration [for Profumo] than [for] all the men I've known in my
lifetime". In later life and in recognition for his good works Profumo was appointed a Commander
of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and received the honour at
a Buckingham Palace from the Queen. In 1995 Conservative Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher invited him to her 70th birthday dinner,
where he sat next to the Queen. His redemption complete. The Profumo story rang a few bells with me and raised something I have thought a lot about in the
last few days.
When I was working, I regularly led the school assembly and, as I have read the continuing tale of Ched Evans, one story has come back to
haunt me. I have wondered if I had been leading an assembly in a Sheffield
school in the past few weeks could I (would I) have told this story? Here it
is:
Once upon a time in a
land far away, lived twin brothers. The two boys were likeable, but
undisciplined, with a wild streak in them. Their mischievous behaviour began to turn serious when they began
stealing. First small things from shops but then breaking into houses – with
each crime they got braver and more daring. They were always caught – they were fined, put
in the village stocks or put into prison but each time they returned to their
life of crime and their crimes became more hurtful and unpleasant. Then one
night they stole some sheep and in the process badly injured the shepherd who
had been looking after them. It was decided that something had to be done about
them, a lesson must be taught. The local
magistrate decided their fate: the two
brothers would be branded on the forehead with the letters ST for "Sheep
Thief." This sign they would carry with them forever they were told.
Everyone would know what they were and what they had done. They would never be
forgiven. They were dragged before the whole village and the blacksmith branded
their foreheads with the two letters.
One brother was so
embarrassed by this branding that he ran away; he confessed to his brother that
he could never live in the village again. The two separated and never met again
The other brother, however, was filled with remorse and reconciled to his fate.
He chose to stay and try to make amends to the villagers who he had wronged. At first the villagers were sceptical and
would have nothing to do with him. But this brother was determined to make
reparation for his offences and he persevered. Whenever there was a sickness,
the sheep thief came to care for the ill with soup and a soft touch. Whenever
there was work needing to be done, the sheep thief came to help with a lending
hand. It made no difference if the person were rich or poor, the sheep thief
was there to help. Never accepting pay for his good deeds. He lived his life
for others.
It was many, many
years later, when a traveller came through the village. Sitting outside inn enjoying a beer and eating lunch, the
traveller saw a very old man with a
strange brand on his forehead seated nearby. The stranger noticed that all the
villagers who passed the old man stopped to share a kind word and to pay their
respects; children stopped their play to give and receive a warm hug. Both the
old and the young, man and woman would have a chat and a smile at the old man. Curious,
the stranger asked the innkeeper, "What does that strange ST brand on the
old man's head stand mean?"
"Oh, I don't
know. It happened so long ago...long before my time" the innkeeper
replied. He scratched his head and then, pausing briefly for a moment of reflection
continued: "...most folk say it stands for SAINT – I’ve heard so many of
my customers say That man’s a saint”.
OK it’s just a story. It’is about redemption and making up
for our misdeeds. It is about John Valjean. And John Profumo. But, is it
applicable to Ched Evans? Probably not – the Evans' case given the unique
situation and implications make it rather special. Can a sinner become a saint
– and should they be allowed to? I don’t know. But in the last few days I’ve wondered,
what if I had told that story today in a school assembly and a child had afterwards asked me if it applied
to the Ched Evans situation - what would I have replied? I honestly don’t know
what I would have said. Should I have
told that child that Evans should be be allowed to show that he is a changed
man? Would I have said he should play for Sheffield again so that everyone
could see he was a changed man. Or should I have said Evans should be like the
twin who left town never to be seen again. Again, I don’t know. But, as a
famous footballer Evans holds a huge ace in his hand – by his words, deeds and
behaviour he could be a real force for good and in the process show that he is
indeed a reformed character and just the sort of role model football and young people and wider society needs. He could
be a real focus for change – not just about rape but about society’s wider
attitudes and confused thinking about our morals which are constantly under
attack from the media, advertising, TV and cinema. It would take, on his part, huge bravery to
turn out in front of hostile crowds but just as the twin in the story, that is
the price to be paid when one faces up to one’s accusers. It would also be very
difficult for his club – but again it would be a measure of their desire to
present something positive. Or, on the
other hand........ maybe his critics are right – maybe he should not be allowed
to resume his former life but should quietly disappear? I simply don’t know.
Mr & Mrs Kassig - forgiveness is hard but I suspect they think necessary and, as Christians, an imperative |
No comments:
Post a Comment