“Media discussions since Evan’s release on license have focused on his ‘right’ to employment, as if Evans will be consigned to a lifetime on income support if he isn’t allowed to pay professional football. Frustratingly, these suggestions have become lore, including the theory that banning Evans would make footballers a special class of people denied the rights of all other former convicts. This conveniently ignores the fact that there are a number of crimes that will prohibit perpetrators from gaining employment: we hardly allow bankers who have committed fraud to return to the employment where they perpetrated the fraud. Violent offenders are not allowed to work with vulnerable people – and I’ve yet to see men convicted for GBH being allowed to work for the police once they’ve completed their sentence. Banning a convicted rapist from playing professional football isn’t out with the law – it’s simply stating that convicted rapists have no right to employment in an industry that will render them heroes to young children.”

That paragraph, in a nutshell, perfectly sums up why people are so upset about the news that Hibernians FC offered former professional footballer Ched Evans (who was convicted of raping a 19-year-old girl) a contract. It is taken from an article written in 2011 by Louise Pennington for the Huffington Post (UK) when Sheffield United were considering taking him back.  A petition signed by 160,000 people led Sheffield to withdraw the offer.

Yet, here we are four years later, this time in Malta, and the same arguments are being made by those who see nothing wrong in giving Evans “a second chance”.  Unbelievably, our Justice Minister is of the same belief, which makes me wonder whether he is in tune at all with the rampant problem of sexual assault and date rape on our islands.

And while the Prime Minister expressed his disagreement with the  Hibs contract, the reason he has asked them to re-consider is because it would tarnish Malta’s image as a tourist destination. Excuse me? As PM, what he should have said is that Malta wants to send a clear message to women that convicted rapists are not welcomed with open arms as if nothing had ever happened.   

As the story about the Hibs offer grew in the British press, we have since learned that Evans is barred from taking up employment in a foreign country anyway. It was also a positive step to see a statement by Lorraine Spiteri, from the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations in that article, who noted that our deep-rooted patriarchal culture needed to change.  From the comments I have been reading online it is clear that there is a long way to go.

Just as happened in the UK, the Ched Evans case has split public opinion; apart from “give him another chance”, there were those pointing out that he has always maintained his innocence and was therefore wrongly accused and sentenced. Still others claim that this was a shamefully cynical move by Hibs who have pounced on the chance to sign up Evans at a discounted rate, so to speak, as no team in England will touch him with a barge pole (which says a lot about our standards).  And many (too many) simply cannot understand why Evans cannot resume his football career since he has done his time.

The reactions to the news says a lot about our own moral compass. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the following excerpt from Malta Today:

“When Evans was invited to train with Sheffield United back in November, television presenter Charlie Webster quit as club patron, Olympian Jessica Ennis-Hill asked for her name to be removed from one of the stands at Bramall Lane, and two shirt sponsors threatened to quit. Sheffield United ended up retracting their decision to allow Evans to train with them, saying that they had not anticipated the intensity of the public reaction.

However, (Hibs Technical Director Jeffrey) Farrugia believes that no such protests will be held at Hibernians’ stadium.

“There won’t be anything of this at our club,” he said. “I can’t understand sometimes how English football, English clubs, think about all these things. Everybody must have a second chance. He paid for what he did, for us it’s not an issue.”

And that is the crux right there: Farrugia cannot comprehend why English clubs “think about all these things” to which I assume he is referring to the refusal of anyone with a bit of self-respect to have their name associated with that of Ched Evans.   I always find it baffling how in Malta we beat our chests in self-righteousness at every opportunity, and yet we seem to have blinkers when it comes to discerning what is morally right or wrong.  Maybe it’s because this is the revered Holy Grail of sport, football, that we are talking about which, as Louise Paddington pointed out in her article, “has a problem with misogyny.” 

When you have someone like PN Home Affairs spokesman Jason Azzopardi (whose pious voice invariably reminds me of a priest) saying, “Evans should not be made to pay for his mistake for life”, you just have to do a double take. Until you find out that he happens to be the Honorary president of Hibs F.C.  Oh, come on.

Another argument is that in Malta, footballers are hardly role models, but that is missing a very crucial point and conveniently ignoring the context: this is a UK footballer we are talking about, one who was involved in an extremely high profile rape case. In the UK, players are held in such heady esteem that their every move is subject to intense scrutiny. And whereas there may have been a time when this laddish behaviour was considered macho and acceptable, times have drastically changed. As Bill Cosby has learnt, men can no longer get away with it just because of who they are. Rape can never be excused. A drunk girl, even one who goes into a hotel room with two different men, does not have the ability to consent.  If we are going to say that it’s OK for a famous footballer to have sex with a girl who is stoned out of her mind, then what message is that giving to young men (and boys) out there who idolize their football heroes?

And that, dear managers of Hibs F.C. is the whole point of this matter.  He may have “paid for what he did” but that does not mean he should once again be elevated to his former glory and cheered by fans as if the slate had been wiped clean.  There is something unsavoury about it, and just simply, morally, wrong.  And, as has happened in other instances, the fact that it needs to be explained to people why it is so completely wrong is the most worrying thing of all.