From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli

IF the ugly encounter between Australian professional soccer player Sam Kerr and the English police officers were in the reverse, and the police officer referred several times to Ms. Kerr as “f***** stupid and black”, the world would have exploded in outrage.

It is not a quantum leap to assume Ms. Kerr would have alleged racial vilification, and sought compensation. Supporters would have been shrieking from the ramparts, bellowing for the offending police officers to be drawn-and-quartered and for their heads on pikes — at least!

Ms. Kerr’s post-judgement mea culpa aside, it is incomprehensible, however poorly she contends to have expressed herself; however inebriated; or however inadequately she manages the English language, that she did not recognise her tirade of abuse was profoundly offensive. Certainly, the jury’s dismissal of the charges sets a disquieting precedent. Does it follow, ipso facto, it is now arguably allowable to refer to someone as a black b***** and then erroneously contend it was not meant to be racist but simply a sloppy turn-of-phrase — a deficient vocabulary; a linguistic solecism?

The dictum declares: “the law is blind”. It should matter not whether the victim of racially aggravated harassment is black or white. Remember: “white honkey” is a racial slur common in the United States. Also, “white trash” is disparaging, and “white and privileged” pejorative. The precise intent of ‘white’ when used as an adjective in theses specific linguistic applications is to insult; it connotes a precise racial classification. It is, categorically, vilification and intentionally offensive.

Debatably, Kerr’s contention she was treated differently because of her status is risible and disingenuous. From involvement, and as a general extrapolation, those possessed of a public profile are willing to use their fame to secure a table at a fully-booked restaurant, but are quick to moan discrimination when the circumstances are not to their advantage.

Ms. Kerr should not perceive this judgement as a personal victory. The verdict notwithstanding, her inebriation, the abusive invective, the vomiting, the fare evasion, and the smashed taxi window, should not be dismissed, casually. The behaviour on the night of the altercation was, by any standard of civilised judgement, offensive; blatantly anti-social. Certainly, she did not wrap herself in glory. Viewing the released 34-minute CCTV footage should be cause for her to pause, and ruminate. There is every reason to be profoundly ashamed. Ms. Kerr needs to learn to control her tongue and moderate her language. People behave as well as they know how. She displayed a total lack of regard. Her diatribe of expletives was boorish.

Talent and public regard come with grave responsibility. There is an obligation to set an example; to be an inspiration to those who lend their support. Today, women’s sport is enjoying the international recognition it deserves. Ms. Kerr, as a trail-blazer for those who will follow in her wake, needs to allocate considerably more time and effort to her capacity for influence. Understandably, her captaincy remains a matter of speculation. It is an ambassadorial role of major importance; an honour which should be held by those who are seen to represent the Nation’s values, and who enjoy the full confidence of their sporting federation. Arguably, no male captain would survive a comparable scandal.

Roland can be heard with Brett Macdonald — radio 3BA Monday at 10.45 a.m. Contact: [email protected]