Danushka Gunathilake’s trial by social media

Local social media warriors have already found him guilty, so much for the ‘due processes

In the absence of independent eyewitness evidence, except her friends who have seen the two in the pub, or other forms of incriminating evidence at the crime scene, Danushka’s case is likely to depend on circumstantial evidence. Effectively, this is a case that would rely on his word against her word

Sri Lankan cricketer Danushka Gunathilake, who is accused of allegedly sexually assaulting an Australian woman, he met on Tinder was refused bail yesterday for the second time when he appeared before the court via a video link.  The judge deemed him a flight risk, denying bail. 

Gunathilake, a top order batter, was charged with four counts of sexual intercourse without consent. A spokeswoman for the Australian police earlier told the media that Danushka, who had met his alleged victim over social media, visited her for pre-arranged drinks in a pub and after that the two had gone to the residence of the woman. At the house, Danushka allegedly refused to wear a condom against the wishes of the woman, choked her and subject her to sexual activities several times. He was reportedly dragged off the team bus by the Australian police, minutes before the team was to leave for the Sydney Airport. 

Her word against his? 

In the absence of independent eyewitness evidence, except her friends who have seen the two in the pub, or other forms of incriminating evidence at the crime scene, Danushka’s case is likely to depend on circumstantial evidence. Effectively, this is a case that would rely on his word against her word. Based on the victim’s testimony, investigators would have to deduce a motive, intent, premeditation or pattern of behaviour to substantiate the original charges of sexual assault - at the same time, making sure that the victim’s statement is true. 
Australian investigators have the burden of proof to prove Danushka Gunathilake guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Until then, he should be presumed innocent.

Now, for sake of disclosure, I am neither a fan nor a friend of Danushka. Nor do I believe his record in all three forms of cricket or his off-field conduct justify the numerous opportunities he was given, though selectors might have different expectations.
 However, I find it disturbing that local social media warriors have already found him guilty - a lot sooner than the Aussie cops do their job. There is always a hefty dose of anti-Sri Lankan hate in social media – and even in the comment sections of this newspaper – and the right to free speech even unpalatable should be defended.

‘Universally disliked’ 

However, a rational observer should be able to deduce a generalized demographic profile of the propagators of this animus, much of which is born out of their innate bitterness. However, Danushka seems to be universally disliked, and his haters on social media go beyond your average Sri Lankan hater.

Cricket fans are angry with his regular brush-off with team disciplines and his regular poor form in the field. Feminists consider this as an opportunity not just to hold Danushka accountable, but also to bring to light everyday acts of harassment they allegedly suffer at the hands of men.
Then some folks suffer from an existential identity crisis and find validation through two seconds of fame on social media. Then, there is the type that fits into the generalized profile, I referred to earlier.

Danushka Gunathilake deserves some of the hate. His off-field behaviour has been a cause for concern, he was suspended multiple times over breach of discipline, including on one incident in which a Norwegian woman alleged that a Sri Lankan national (not Danushka) raped her in the hotel room of Danushka during the South African tour of Sri Lanka. (Danushka claimed he was sleeping). He was also suspended (and later the suspension was prematurely lifted)  for breaching the Covid protective bubble during Sri Lanka’s tour of England, and also on two other occasions, for not turning up to practice after a late-night drinking session, and a scuffle at a party also involving a woman.

 Probably, Danushka should not be in the team for his regular breaches of discipline. This general lack of discipline has proved to be contagious to the rest of the team in the past.  
However, habitual breaches of discipline and the charges of sexual assault that he is accused of now are different things.  It should not be interpreted as the former leading to the latter. That would be prejudicial and influence the court unfairly against the defendant.  The local critics seem to be indulging in that exact fallacy. 

Interestingly it is the same folks who, rightly so, called for due process when another Sri Lankan was arrested over terrorism charges. He was later acquitted.  That quest for fair play seemed to have been lost in this particular case.  It is up to Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) to take appropriate disciplinary action against Danushka Gunathilake. However, SLC also has a duty to stand by him throughout the legal process. 

It should not get influenced by the social media boloney of premature presumption of guilt.  Sadly, though SLC is wrought by the vested interest of its office bearers and is guided much less by the interest of the country and the sport, such institutions are at the risk of seeking guidance from social media echo chambers. 
Therefore, it is the duty of the government, and respective ministers of foreign affairs and Sports to direct relevant agencies to provide consular and legal help to Danushka and to contest any signs of racial bias, of which Australia is not starkly clean. 

Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter