Sander Gulien found guilty of sexual intimidation

Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:06 pm

The Dutch Donald Duck-artist Sander Gulien has been found guilty of sexual harassment, via MSN Messenger and telephone, of three 15- and 16-year old girls. According to Dutch newspaper 'De Telegraaf', he stalked the girls with sexual tinted messages, he did indecent proposals and he posed naked in front of his webcam. He also threatened them by telephone.

Dutch chief-editor Thom Roep defended his freelance-artist by saying: "I don't see what his private life has to do with Donald Duck. The girls were 15 and 16 years old, they don't belong to our target audience". Is it ok to harrass girls, as long as they're not part of your target audience?
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:17 pm

Has Gulien been found guilty of that crime by a judge - or could it be dat De Telegraaf just likes to print sensational stories? If it IS really true, I find it disturbing. Why would a young talented artist want to act that way, and possibly jeopardise a promising career? And stalking 15 and 16 year olds! I find it really hard to believe and understand.

Thom is right! Gulien's private life has absolutely NOTHING to do with Donald Duck Weekblad or Sanoma Uitgevers. I suppose that such news (if, indeed it is really news) is of some interest to Dutch Disney Comics fans (and, especially Gulien fans) -IF (and only if) it means that Sander will have a slowdown or cessation of his production due to court-related time commitments.

As a Sander Gulien fan, I'm not too happy to read such "news" on a public forum (or in De Telegraaf)!
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby plergh » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:38 pm

I've not been a fan of art, looks out of proportion to me pretty often. Certainly not up to hype that was made out him when he debuted... what 6-10 years ago. Well, he is not that much worse than some other artists either.

Anyway, I know that seeing his art in a magazine from now on, will make my stomach turn if he indeed has been found guilty.
plergh
 

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:34 pm

Robb_K wrote:Has Gulien been found guilty of that crime by a judge - or could it be dat De Telegraaf just likes to print sensational stories? If it IS really true, I find it disturbing. Why would a young talented artist want to act that way, and possibly jeopardise a promising career? And stalking 15 and 16 year olds! I find it really hard to believe and understand.

Thom is right! Gulien's private life has absolutely NOTHING to do with Donald Duck Weekblad or Sanoma Uitgevers. I suppose that such news (if, indeed it is really news) is of some interest to Dutch Disney Comics fans (and, especially Gulien fans) -IF (and only if) it means that Sander will have a slowdown or cessation of his production due to court-related time commitments.

As a Sander Gulien fan, I'm not too happy to read such "news" on a public forum (or in De Telegraaf)!

You go on and deny it, just because it was in a newspaper you don't like. I see that kind of behaviour more often: closing your eyes for something because the truth is too awful to acknowledge.

De Telegraaf asked Thom Roep for his reaction. And he gave one. Doesn't that prove something? All of a sudden, Sander Gulien's name has been removed from the Weekly's website: http://www.donaldduck.nl/zolder/tekenaars
And the story has been printed previously, without the name 'Sander G.' in another paper.

And how can you defend Thom's reaction? This seems like blind admiration for Gulien, Rosa-style. Thom's defense is that 15 and 16 years old are not the target audience for the Weekly. Is that an excuse for Gulien to harrass them?
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:36 pm

And yes, he received a 'taakstraf'- he has to work 75 hours.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Translator » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:51 pm

Taakstraf=community service
or in his case "cummunity"
whoohaha
Translator
 

Postby Robb_K » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:21 am

Rockerduck wrote:And yes, he received a 'taakstraf'- he has to work 75 hours.

Thank you for the update. Rockerduck. The fact that he has received the taakstraf indicates that he was found guilty of the alleged crime, or that he admitted to having committed it, by "accepting" the "punishment". So, apparantly, he DID do something like what was described in the news articles.

I am disturbed by this. I didn't mean to imply that Thom Roep would be correct to say that it was acceptable to stalk underage girls and behave in such a way. I only defended Thom Roep's statement (and right to make the statement) that Sanoma Uitgevers is NOT RÉSPONSIBLE for the private actions of a completely independent free-lance artist, who happens to sell them drawings. He is not a direct employee, such as Michel Nadorp or Lucas Abedy. The very fact that Gulien was given a slap on the wrist and allowed to stay in normal society, instead of spending time in prison, shows that Sanoma should not be expected to tell Gulien that they don't want to do business with him any more.

Does this all mean that Gulien's actions don't reflect upon Sanoma and Disney? Indeed NOT! He has done something reprehensible. If Sanoma chooses to tell him that he did wrong and has dirtied their image, and they choose not to work with him, who could blame them? I only defended Thom's proper and true statement that Sanoma was not RESPONSIBLE for Gulien's reprehensible actions.

Now, it's up to sanoma to decide whether or not continuing to work with Gulien will tarnish their image. If they believe so, they will tell Gulien they no longer need his services. That is NOT the question Roep was asked. I am sure that he was glad that it was worded the way it was, or he offered an answer only to the question he COULD answer at the time. I am sure that Sanoma would not have wanted to take a policy stand on Gulien until the outcome of the court procedings was final. Now that he admitted to having committed the acts (openly, or by default, by accepting the taakstraf), Sanoma may have a decision to make regarding their image. I can't say what they will or should do.

Personally, I know that they COULD get along without Gulien's services if they had to. Do I want them to stop working with Gulie. I am not sure that I'm qualified to make that judgement. Do I condone such juvenile, selfish and inconiderate behavior? NO! Do I want to say to young men that such behavior will be tolerated? NO! Do I think that the taakstraf should have been more severe? YES. Perhaps he should have also been made to spend a few days in prison, together with hard-core (real) criminals, as a lesson that nasty behavior comes with a price?
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:54 pm

I see I misinterpreted your first reaction to the news, Rob. I'm glad to see we agree on this case. I agree Gulien's actions have nothing to do with Sanoma/Donald Duck Weekly. I just thought Roep's words did come out a bit painfully. Perhaps he should've phrased his opinion slightly different.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:42 pm

Rockerduck wrote:I see I misinterpreted your first reaction to the news, Rob. I'm glad to see we agree on this case. I agree Gulien's actions have nothing to do with Sanoma/Donald Duck Weekly. I just thought Roep's words did come out a bit painfully. Perhaps he should've phrased his opinion slightly different.

I think Thom was very careful when deciding what to say. As the court case was not over, he didn't know if Gulien was guilty of ANYTHING. He also had not talked to his bosses about the issue. There was no was to make a policy statement. NOW, that it is all over, and the public knows he was assigned the taakstraf, Sanoma may have to decide if it will be possible for their image to remain unblemished if he continues to work for them. If they decide that they would have image problems, they'll have to tell him they can no longer work with him.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Dukka » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:29 pm

When 'De Telegraaf' published the article, the court case was over for more than 3 weeks.
"Someone has to make decisions. This is not a business for lame ducks."
Dukka
New member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:04 pm

Postby Robb_K » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:49 pm

Dukka wrote:When 'De Telegraaf' published the article, the court case was over for more than 3 weeks.

Okay. But Thom still may not have been prepared to make a statement about Gulien's future relationship with Sanoma, because his bosses may not have decided yet. Maybe they wanted to see how sANDER WOULD BEHAVE AFTER ALL THIS; AND they needed to have a long talk with him?
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Stephan » Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:14 pm

Robb_K wrote:If they decide that they would have image problems, they'll have to tell him they can no longer work with him.

I don't think they will fire Sander that easy, since he is one of the most important dutch comic artists. It would be selfdestructive.
On the other had, you're right about the fact that what Sander did is neither good for the image of the dutch redaction. Indeed we can only wait to see what Sanoma decides.
Stephan
Stephan
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stephan

Postby Robb_K » Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:31 pm

I'm guessing that Sander will continue to work for Sanoma. I like his work, so I hope so. Also, he is an adult, and made a mistake. I think he should not lose his career over it. I am sure that he had no idea those girls were underage. But that doesn't excuse what he did. He is in the public eye, and represents his firm to the young children in The Netherlands. He should be much more careful of what he does that COULD get into the public's knowledge. He should also not act rude with women (or anyone).
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby (anonymous) » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:36 pm

Uncensored e-mail, deleted from the Dutch McDuck board:

- - - - - - - - - -

From: "Frank Jonker"
To: "Daniel van Eijmeren"; "Sander Dijkhuis"; "Martijn Houwen"
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kennismaken met Daniel van Eijmeren?


Hoi Daniel, Martijn en Sander,

Allereerst, Daniel, begrijp ik eigenlijk niet waarom ik jou een carbon copy
van een mailtje van mij aan de moderators van McDuck moet sturen. Tenzij
jijzelf tegenwoordig ook moderator van McDuck bent, natuurlijk. Een mailtje
waarin ik overigens niemand onder druk hebt gezet, maar vriendelijk gevraagd
of Sander en Martijn alsjeblieft iets aan de situatie zouden willen doen,
voor het helemaal uit de hand loopt. Sander en Martijn zijn ook de enige die
snel kunnen ingrijpen in dit soort gevallen.
En natuurlijk neem ik het in dit geval voor Sander Gulien op. Ik weet
namelijk heel zeker dat Sander Gulien geen pedofiel is (net zo zeker als ik
wist dat jij, Daniel, niets met de Ingmar Bomer-mail aan Don Rosa te maken
had)! Sander heeft, zo lang als ik hem ken, twee vriendinnen gehad die
beiden boven de twintig waren én beiden van Aziatische afkomst. En die
laatste voorkeur heeft Sander nog steeds: Aziatische, maar niettemin
volwassen vrouwen. Met minderjarige meisjes heeft het nooit iets te maken
gehad.
Het verhaal achter die post? Sander heeft al meer dan een jaar last van een
anonieme hacker (de fake-Sander Gulien) die heeft ingebroken in zijn
computer, zijn wachtwoorden gehackt, in elk geval gedreigd mails namens
Sander Gulien naar de Duckredactie te sturen en zich intussen al schuldig
heeft gemaakt aan tenminste drie misdrijven: te weten: hacking, stalking en
het plegen van smaad!!
En zo iemand zou ongestraft zijn gang mogen gaan op McDuck? What's next? Dat
iemand onder mijn naam gaat posten en beweren dat alle Donald Ducktekenaars
en schrijvers lid zijn van de NVD? Of van de voormalige CD? En dan mogen wij
onszelf daartegen proberen te verdedigen, zeker? Kom nou, zeg!
Zeker van jou, Daniel, valt me deze houding behoorlijk tegen. Je bent door
Don Rosa en Dan Shane op DCML al publiekelijk aan de schandpaal genageld.
Inzake de Ingmar Bomer-affaire was er een zekere Engelstalige Sir McDux die
jou in op McDuck van van alles en nog wat beschuldigde en toen hebben heel
wat bezoekers en leden het toch ook voor jou opgenomen. En bovendien heb ik
zelf nog urenlang gesprekken met jou en Mau gevoerd om te proberen jullie
weer nader tot elkaar te brengen en Mau op de een of andere manier te
bewegen aan de McDuckbezoekers duidelijk te maken dat jij niets met zijn
Ingmar Bomer-mail te maken had.
En nu Sander Gulien in precies dezelfde situatie zit als jij vorig jaar, en
zichzelf hiertegen ook niet of nauwelijks kan verdedigen. zouden we hem
moeten laten bungelen? No way!
Dat juist jij, die precies weet hoe dit voelt een dergelijk iets voelt en
het allemaal zelf heeft meegemaakt, een dergelijke houding aanneemt, valt me
erg van je tegen, Daniel. Wat dat betreft stel je me echt diep en diep
teleur!

Groeten,

Frank


- - - - - - - - - -

Censored version: http://forum.mcduck.nl/viewtopic.php?pid=45717#p45717
(anonymous)
 

Postby Robb_K » Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:45 pm

I'm glad to read that it was a hacker that got into Sander's computer and misrepresented him. Frank Jonker's word is good enough for me. I know he wouldn't make such a statement unless he knew the facts. It was very difficult for me to believe that a Disney artist would take such a risk as that juvenile behavior. I'll be glad to hear that he'll stay on as an artist with Sanoma.

I hope such hackers don't get into my computer and misrepresent me.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Next

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron