Sad, old Sir Brian the bully

Last updated 00:23 31/08/2008

MARTIN HUNTER/Sunday Star-Times

SAD, OLD SIR BRIAN: If Sir Brian Lochore genuinely believes smacking is not a form of hitting, he needs to try it out on an adult some time. Columnist Richard Boock suggests he tries Beatrice Faumuina for size? It might do them both the world of good.

Relevant offers

Opinion

The winner is...the Halbergs, of course! Get runs, stop theirs to win in 50-over game Hard to take that jab on the chin Zimbabwe so poor we are being misled Rugby the deserving winner at Halberg Awards Sir Bob Jones' boxing tirades becoming tiresome Sports awards ceremonies can be divisive Terry's racism trial exercise in hypocrisy Contador judgement doesn't feel like justice Adams lighter and brighter

Hark the cry of the ageing old duffer; the one who pines for the past, wanting a return to the days when a man's command was law and the women and children simply did as they were told. Sir Brian Lochore remembers this as respect; poor bugger. Talk about rose-tinted glasses. The blows he took in the ruck must be starting to get to him.

If anyone was in any doubt about the link between New Zealand's rugby culture and male-perpetrated violence, they only had to read the comments made by Sir Brian last week during a speech to Parents Inc. Essentially, the implication was that if we were to bring back the biff at home, all would be solved. Sad man. He doesn't seem to realise we tried that and it didn't work.

Sir Brian's comments were a reminder that great rugby players don't necessarily make great social commentators. In fact, they were a reminder that great rugby players sometimes have nothing to offer at all, apart from reminiscing on how things happened in their day. In SBL's world, that included children being physically chastised by all and sundry, children being left in the car at night while the parents were boozing, and men ruling the roost.

"In the evenings we went to the rugby parties with the kids, who slept in the back of the car. We can't do that any more because we haven't got rid of the perpetrators that actually destroy our society," he said. The thought that those perpetrators might include people foolish enough to drink and drive with their children, or those who still insist on using an unsupervised motor vehicle as an overnight creche, didn't seem to occur to him. It's as if he sees nothing wrong with the practice.

The disappointment is that such a well-regarded former sportsman should use his reputation to push such bankrupt theories. His speech to a reported 1000 fathers carried a whiff of physical intimidation throughout. Consequences, lines in the sand, putting the hard word on people, and, of course, smacking but not hitting. For someone who's been portrayed as a fine leader, he came across as just another rugby bully. First the ban on rucking, now the law against beating kids. What's the world coming to?

Sir Brian possibly needs to remember that he's still seen as a spokesman for a sport steeped in the macho and physical, in which most of the participants need no extra encouragement to throw their weight about. You might have thought he would've considered his views more carefully. His message seemed to be: "Reassert yourself quickly men, or the womenfolk will take charge." How splendidly progressive. Were there to be a Chauvinist of the Year award, he would already be a front-runner, possibly alongside Garth McVicar.

Ad Feedback

If Sir Brian is uncomfortable about where the world is heading, then good job. The sooner some folk are forced to face their failings as a generation (rather than pointing the finger at everyone else), the sooner we might all be able to make some progress. Happily, the violence that underpinned New Zealand rugby in SBL's day is no longer tolerated, nor the bullying and tyranny that went hand-in-hand in the community.

It might be that he'd like to return to a time when domestic abuse was so rife no one even bothered to report it; when there was no law preventing a husband from raping his wife, and when a woman could hardly get a job, let alone a bank loan. He might want to champion an era when unquestioning respect for elders meant the unwelcome attentions of scoutmasters, priests, nuns, teachers and scores of pseudo uncles and aunts. That's his business.

But the last thing today's young rugby players really need to hear is a sermon from a former great, extolling the virtues of a time when the male of the species could often slap around his wife, never mind his children, with impunity. A time when a woman's complaint about domestic violence would often be laughed out of a police station; when male aggression was king, and when the WAGs knew their place. That was the truth of SBL's good ol' days. Not as much ad-hoc violence, but plenty of the institutionalised variety.

Neither does the game of rugby need to hear from another confused soul who doesn't understand the difference between violent and non-violent behaviour. "Yes, I smacked my children, but I've never hit them," said Sir Brian. "Yes, I smacked other people's children, but I never hit them." I know, that was then and this is now. But if he still genuinely believes that smacking is not a form of hitting, he needs to try it out on an adult some time. May I suggest Beatrice Faumuina for size? It might do them both the world of good.

For all that, the shame is that he didn't take the chance to reject his own generation's misguided ways last week and reinforce to the many rugby players who hang on his every word, the need for tolerance and a completely non-violent approach to parenting. He could have urged young men to work closely and equitably with their partners, rather than trying to dictate proceedings throughout. Instead we heard only the anti-women slur: "our society is trying to turn fathers into male mothers". Why is that? Because intimidating, violent or wilfully reckless behaviour is now being discouraged?

Whatever the view, there's little doubt rugby has been one of the country's main shop-fronts for chauvinism and violence, and the sight of one of New Zealand's most revered All Blacks enthusing over the memory of rank paternalism cannot have helped its image. It certainly hasn't been pretty. To think that, of all the messages Sir Brian could have sent to Kiwi rugby dads last week, he chose the one about "the good ol' days". The great myth of the modern man. If only he'd actually existed.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Sport Homepage

Sponsored links

Share this page

Email Facebook MySpace Digg StumbleUpon Delicious Reddit Linkedin Twitter

112 comments

Expand All

Oldest First

John #112 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Allan, There are journos who know a bit about the game, and have played it at a high level too, and they're called Jonathan Millmow. He talks about the game he covers - cricket. And with knowledge, substance and a sound reasoned argument. Not scandal or dribble. But this clown, Boock, will still continue to write his weekly crap. Classic big fish in a small pond, thanks to his surname and the size of this country of course.

Alan Wilkinson #111 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

John, thanks for the heads-up. I naively assumed the author WAS the ex NZ rep cricketer and therefore actually knew something about something.

I wouldn't have bothered commenting at all on his drivel had I realised that assumption was wrong.

John #110 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Couldn't agree more with Terrence and Nick - Boock is a complete idiot. He is always writing utter dribble on the back page of SST and now he's hit rock bottom with an attack on a Kiwi icon - teh only man whos won us a RWC. A man of huge mana. Boock is a ''journo'' who is always desperate to create any form of controvesrey (see his other back pages) as his main subject, cricket, is so poorly covered by him. If you look at his basic cricket knowledge, it's just that - basic. It just shows that in a small country (having a brother who's played for NZ) comes down to ''its not what you know - its who you know''. Pathetic. SST, you are losing readers with thsi clown staying on.

Keith Phillips #109 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Boock maybe Sir Brian should try the smack and hit on you!! then after they pick you up perhaps Our beautiful Beatrice Faumuina could repeat the dose, just for bringing her into your Dumber than dumb article you have managed to fluke on the Stuff site. I am also of Sir Brian's age and I can tell you all the belts I got from the old man I deserved. And perhaps should have gotten more. I have 3 generations of kids and I have seen the values we were taught all those years ago just slip by and I now here my grand kids telling there parents to get f'd. I hear the grand child say it only once and I gave him the pasting of his life. Call me bully and a thug. I will not tolerate that talk from an eight year old to his mother. By the way he never topped me to the cops. Also his mum told me he has never used the f word again in front of her. So Sir Brian our values are not all doom and gloom now are they..

Zane #108 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Do not always agree with Boock on Cricket - but he is right on the money with this. PC is just an abbreviation used oft by oldies hankering for, you guessed it - the good 'ole days.

Whats funny is that the oldies parents used to say, "things were better in my day", and their parents........... If my Great great great great grandfather were still around, I bet he would chime in with "no - you all have it wrong, things were best in my day"!

Every generation would have you believe that things were "better" than than the present. No one wants to remember that the "good times" had a lot of "bad times" too.

Mark #107 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I'm not a rugby bully. I'm too afraid of being hurt to either play rugby or be a bully. I don't smack my son.

Having read both of RB's articles I'm very disappointed in his attempt at writing.

RB shows little to no respect for SBL as a person. SBL does not deserve respect because he played rugby, but rather because he is a person. Resorting to name-callling is ridiculous for a grown man and, for the sake of consistency, I hope RB has encouraged his own children to treat people with as little respect as he has treated SBL. Perhaps this is exactly what SBL was talking about??

RB made assertions and guesses as to what SBL said or meant and even put words in his mouth that I have not heard or read SBL say. This is called "making stuff up" not facts. In essence, and in his own words, RB came across as "just another ... bully" which I suggest is no better than the the bully who uses physical violence.

I thought you were supposed to comment and report on sports. However, if you ever decide to head down this track again, learn to write a fact based argument on the issue Mr Boock, not a personal attack. And learn respect.

Christine #106 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I read your new article with interest. Hoping that you might have considered both the balanced and unbalanced views of the people who took the time to comment and also thought through why people responded in the way they did.

I have to say I was disappointed in three counts

Firstly, I find it interesting that the latest article which explicitly states "Why shouldn't we discuss SBL's comments?" doesn't include the opportunity to comment on the article.

Secondly, irony is referred to in this week's column. Is it not also ironic that in saying "Sir Brian's comments were a reminder that great rugby players don't necessarily make great social commentators.", Mr Boock obviously doesn't apply the same logic to sports columnists commenting on the social views of sports people.

But finally, and most importantly Mr Boock, you are totally right on one thing. We SHOULD disucss SBL's comments. Debate them. Wholeheartedly disagree with them. Vigorously defend them.

Intelligent debate starts from a premis of respecting the person you are disagreeing with.

Unfortunately, what you completely missed in this week's defence of the article is that you didn't just attack SBL's views. You attacked him. You augmented your reasonable points with name calling and insults. You lashed out with a violent verbal tirade and lacked self-control and discipline to reason in an intelligent way.

My childs school defines bullying to include name calling and other verbal attacks. It makes no mention of what is worse, physical, emotional or verbal bullying.

Seeing as you clearly read the comments, could you answer one question? Given the guidance on bullying issued by my child's school, do you see nothing wrong in the manner in which you sought to respond to Sir Brian's views?

lew #105 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I believe that Lahore is right, and his views have been deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented. I don't think has talkng about it being ok to beat children and rape wives and drive drunk, but saying that the pendulum of political correctness has swung too far.

Alan Wilkinson #104 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

R Wilson has it exactly right except is too generous. Boock is not just clueless. He said all those horrible, personal things about Lochore yet afterwards weasels that he was only criticising the ideas, not the man.

Blatant gutless lies.

As for the silly nonsense from the likes of Andrew and Jo, their sanctimonious "non-violent" lives are only possible because they have delegated their violence to an army of many, many thousands of police, now equipped with an arsenal of weaponry that was unheard of a few generations ago.

Those who get their own way by enlisting the force of others might be the most pathetic weaklings of all, Jo?

nzcrawf #103 05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Richard. In hindsight, if you were going to write an article with such a strong view on what Sir Brian had said, why didn't you try arranging an interview with him to clarify his wording (and your understanding) first?

To write an article with the benefit of clarification seems half baked to me. Sir Brian has been an ambassador for our country and well respected. I think he deserved more respect. And the subject, sensitive as it is, did too.

Ad Feedback

Show 53-102 of 112 comments

Ad Feedback

Sport Headlines

RSS