NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[sr36]

Bigfooty needs to put together a team of white saviours to go down to North's training sessions and explain to their first nation's players that Clarkson is racist and they shouldn't have anything to do with him. I have a bad feeling their indigenous players don't really understand the situation and we need to protect them before it's too late

I don't think he poses any risk, so think he should be able to go to work, pending an investigation. But I don't think it'll happen, because there will be significant backlash. It's an odd climate in the AFL. JDG was bizarrely stood down until the end of a hearing about a bar fight where noone was significantly hurt.

 

[sr36]

You mean, there are no credible doubts, aside from the fact Clarkson and Fagan deny all misconduct in relation to any of this.

They have denied wrongdoing. They haven't denied any of the events that were reported on. If they come out and say these things didn't occur, you may have a point, but they haven't said that.

 

[mcnulty]

They have denied wrongdoing. They haven't denied any of the events that were reported on. If they come out and say these things didn't occur, you may have a point, but they haven't said that.

“I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different.”

 

[Makeshift Park]

They haven't denied any of the events that were reported on. If they come out and say these things didn't occur, you may have a point, but they haven't said that.

Oh I'm sure these meetings aren't complete fabrications.

 

[Festerz]

Seems that a legal threat from NMFC President is what led to the twitter apology from Jackson.

Refuse to subscribe to NewsCorp fluff but for those who do...

 

[Chief]

“I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different.”

And the assistant that remembers it like the Russian Mafia and dreading the day they would be called to account for it?

 

[mcnulty]

And the assistant that remembers it like the Russian Mafia and dreading the day they would be called to account for it?

Again I have seen nothing to suggest this coach is directly corroborating the stories of the families. Have you?

 

[Ricketz]

It’s quite simply not true that there were six eyewitnesses to each instance where Fagan and Clarkson are alleged to have caused someone harm.

In this country, when a reporter defames someone, there are only a select few defences available to them. One is a truth defence. But in order to argue that, they need to be able to demonstrate the imputation conveyed in their work is substantially true. Arguing that they’ve accurately conveyed someone’s allegation is insufficient. They need to stack up the allegation itself.

We have three separate players making separate allegations suggesting a single pattern of discriminatory behaviour. But if you want to substantiate the allegation by “Zac,” you can’t simply point to a completely separate allegation by “Ian.”

Reread the most incendiary passage of the article, where Ian recalls Clarkson leaning over him and demanding his partners pregnancy is terminated, and show me where there is anything to back up his recollection of that meeting.


No.

Given the decision to name Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, anything that shows on the balance of probabilities that the terrible things they are alleged to have done actually happened.

It seems like an entirely appropriate response to me.

Jesus, did I say they were eyewitnesses to the same events? But when you set that bar, there are three sets of two eyewitnesses that did.

You are just making up unreasonable standards that are not reflected by our judicial system, nor are they necessary, in order to justify your excuses for Clarkson, Burt and Fagan, and also to support your uneducated assessment of the journalistic professionalism of Jackson.

So that makes it a whinge. Please stop, it's embarrassing.

 

[hawkman]

Seems that a legal threat from NMFC President is what led to the twitter apology from Jackson.

Refuse to subscribe to NewsCorp fluff but for those who do...

Use

Welcome to nginx 98c763ea26ab5ee112bb713bfa30ba6e!35.161.83.9

Article don't add anything much apart from this

North Melbourne’s management, on behalf of Hood, contacted the ABC over the matter. Jackson deleted the tweet and apologising on Monday night.

 

[Ricketz]

Why should anyone respond directly to your trolling?

That you choose this thread to troll on says everything that needs to be said about you. Take some time to reflect on your behaviour and stop posting inflammatory garbage.

It's not trolling. It's asking for clarification.

Stop being a snowflake. If you want to cast aspersions at others you should expect some feedback anyway.

 

[Ricketz]

I’ll have a stab. Egan in his report proposed mediation as the preferred method of reconciliation. Presumably in part to protact the families from potentially nasty and protracted legal proceedings. By putting everything in the public domain as he has, Jackson may have put that at risk.

Well that doesn't make sense. Why would the families involve go to the largest media organisation that has national coverage to tell their story?

 

[Ricketz]

That's not true. Reread Clarkson's response.


Those further steps to protect his reputation would be litigation.

Its entirely appropriate that readers debate a controversial story on its journalistic merits. This story is no different.
I'm not that interested in speculating on Jackson's motives. I'm interested in what the weight of the evidence shows us, the readers.

But Clarkson lied. He was twice contacted to hear his side and chose not to respond.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Jesus, did I say they were eyewitnesses to the same events? But when you set that bar, there are three sets of two eyewitnesses that did.

You'll find you're alone in your tenuous interpretation that the partners of the players are present throughout all of the accounts provided.

You are just making up unreasonable standards that are not reflected by our judicial system, nor are they necessary, in order to justify your excuses for Clarkson, Burt and Fagan, and also to support your uneducated assessment of the journalistic professionalism of Jackson.

So that makes it a whinge. Please stop, it's embarrassing.

They aren't my standards. I'm not saying "this is what I would have preferred Russell Jackson did". I'm saying this is the law.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Jesus, did I say they were eyewitnesses to the same events? But when you set that bar, there are three sets of two eyewitnesses that did.

You are just making up unreasonable standards that are not reflected by our judicial system, nor are they necessary, in order to justify your excuses for Clarkson, Burt and Fagan, and also to support your uneducated assessment of the journalistic professionalism of Jackson.

So that makes it a whinge. Please stop, it's embarrassing.

Imagine if the NYT journos covering the Weinstein allegations had to stick these standards, the story would never have seen the light because there would never be a 2nd witness present for any of the incidents.
The Clarkson/Fagan supporters here are using the same tactics people have historically used to discredit rape victims. Its a disgusting use of the power imbalances in our society.

 

[Ricketz]

You'll find you're alone in your tenuous interpretation that the partners of the players are present throughout all of the accounts provided.

They aren't my standards. I'm not saying "this is what I would have preferred Russell Jackson did". I'm saying this is the law.

It doesn't matter what I think, or desperate goal shifting keyboard warriors think. You said there was no corroborating evidence and there is.

It's not the law. You really need to read up on it before you claim you know it.

 

[Makeshift Park]

But Clarkson lied. He was twice contacted to hear his side and chose not to respond.

Either you can't read or you're trolling.

This is Clarkson's response.

Since learning of the allegations first reported in the media last Wednesday I have been shocked and deeply distressed.

It remains profoundly disappointing that these matters are now being widely canvassed in the public domain without the opportunity being given to me or others to give our accounts or even read the Hawthorn report, which to this day I have not seen.

The further recent publication of purported extracts from the report means I now have grave concerns that any chance of a fair process and just outcome have been seriously undermined, if not irrevocably corrupted.

Its clear as day that he's saying he wasn't given the opportunity to respond to the Hawthorn report not the ABC report.

 

[sr36]

It doesn't matter what I think, or desperate goal shifting keyboard warriors think. You said there was no corroborating evidence and there is.

It's not the law. You really need to read up on it before you claim you know it.

Careful, you'll be accused of not knowing what corroboration means. Apparently eyewitnesses are the only form that corroboration can take.

 

[mcnulty]

Well that doesn't make sense. Why would the families involve go to the largest media organisation that has national coverage to tell their story?

Did they go to Jackson or did Jackson approach them?

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Either you can't read or you're trolling.

This is Clarkson's response.



Its clear as day that he's saying he wasn't given the opportunity to respond to the Hawthorn report not the ABC report.

Thats a boiler plate response to serious allegations that his legal team would have drafted for him. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Imagine if the NYT journos covering the Weinstein allegations had to stick these standards, the story would never have seen the light because there would never be a 2nd witness present for any of the incidents.
The Clarkson/Fagan supporters here are using the same tactics people have historically used to discredit rape victims. Its a disgusting use of the power imbalances in our society.

Imagine thinking that US defamation law applies in Australia.

If you're seriously interested in this topic, there's a lot of scholarship that its not possible to replicate the #metoo movement in Australia because of our laws.

#MeToo exposes problems with Australia’s defamation laws

Ranked Australia’s #1 young university. UTS offers globally recognised degrees, strong industry ties, and career-ready learning in the heart of Sydney.

www.uts.edu.au

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CanLawRw/2020/16.pdf

 

[sr36]

You'll find you're alone in your tenuous interpretation that the partners of the players are present throughout all of the accounts provided.

They aren't my standards. I'm not saying "this is what I would have preferred Russell Jackson did". I'm saying this is the law.

You seem to be coming from a position where defamation is assumed and that it needs to be proven otherwise. I've got no idea if that is the law or not, but it seems contrary to most other laws.

And you seem to be expecting that proof to have been supplied to all and sundry.

Edit: Just read the article you posted. Seems that you're spot on. Accept for the second bit I wrote.

 

[Makeshift Park]

It's not the law. You really need to read up on it before you claim you know it.

Okay buddy, you're talking a big game here, show me, with reference to actual case law, a single example where I've misrepresented reporters' legal obligations.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Imagine thinking that US defamation law applies in Australia.

If you're seriously interested in this topic, there's a lot of scholarship that its not possible to replicate the #metoo movement in Australia because of our laws.

#MeToo exposes problems with Australia’s defamation laws

Ranked Australia’s #1 young university. UTS offers globally recognised degrees, strong industry ties, and career-ready learning in the heart of Sydney.

www.uts.edu.au

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CanLawRw/2020/16.pdf

Interesting strategy by you to hide behind our defamation laws then post an article detailing why those laws fail to protect victims.

 

[Makeshift Park]

You seem to be coming from a position where defamation is assumed and that it needs to be proven otherwise. I've got no idea if that is the law or not, but it seems contrary to most other laws.

And you seem to be expecting that proof to have been supplied to all and sundry.

I'll be honest, I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

This isn't defamatory?

Far from sharing his joy, Ian alleges that a group of coaches, including Alastair Clarkson and Chris Fagan, ushered him into an office, where he was urged to have the pregnancy terminated, "get rid" of his partner and move into the home of an assistant coach.

"It was so intimidating, confusing and upsetting," Ian says.

"Clarkson just leaned over me and demanded that I needed to get rid of my unborn child and my partner. I was then manipulated and convinced to remove my SIM card from my phone, so there was no further contact between my family and me. They told me I’d be living with one of the other coaches from that night onwards.

He felt he had no choice. "He told me to kill my unborn kid."

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You mean, there are no credible doubts, aside from the fact Clarkson and Fagan deny all misconduct in relation to any of this.

Their denials are what created a lot of the doubt, IMO.

Clearly lawyers wrote them, and they are careful with their words.

Clarkson basically states that the stuff happened, but he just has a different perspective on it.

His denial doesn't accuse them of lying, and doesn't dispute that it happened. It actually makes reference to the events.


So can you sue someone for stating facts? And telling their story in relation to how those facts made them feel?


Fagan's is similar. He denies wrongdoing. That's a really, really vague term.

The only wrong doing is that their actions made them feel really bad. How can he deny that? If it made them feel, it made them feel bad.

And how can sue them for saying it made them feel bad?

Again, he hasn't denied that the events occurred. Just that there was no wrongdoing.