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

 

[South of the Yarra]

If the indigenous players at North are happy for Clarko to start work at Arden Street, it's good enough for me.

Many Aboriginal people will not tell you if they are happy or not so you may never know.

 

[Kwality]

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

You could whizz across town & have a chat to Chance Bateman .....

 

[sr36]

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

This isn't defamatory?

I get it now. So in essence, if something is harmful to reputation it is defamatory. And you can't utter or print defamatory stuff unless you can establish it's truth. Or you're in an exception like parliament or reporting to authorities.

Potentially dangerous from the ABC, but Probably not a good thing for Clarko and co, bearing in mind this article would assumedly have gone through a legal risk assessment.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I get it now. So in essence, if something is harmful to reputation it is defamatory. And you can't utter or print defamatory stuff unless you can establish it's truth. Or you're in an exception like parliament or reporting to authorities.

But in the example above, unless those events never actually occurred (which Clarkson hasn't denied at this stage) - how can 'Ian' describing his feelings as a result of those events be defamatory?

 

[Makeshift Park]

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

I've said all along Australia's defo laws are problematic.
This conversation is about the Hawthorn racism review and the article by Russell Jackson that drew our attention to it.
Many people have firm views on what should happen to Clarkson and Fagan. I'm not one of them.
Many people have firm views on whether Jackson has done a wonderful job or a terrible job. I'm not one of them.
We can either have a conversation where we smash our heads together based on our team loyalties, or we can discuss the merits and limitations of the article that started all this.
Those limitations include the insufficient extent to which evidence is provided to us, the readers, to demonstrate whether any of this actually happened.
The extent to which Jackson has ensured the allegations are true will determine what happens next.
I'm saying there isn't a whole lot in the published article that suggests there are sources beyond the allegations themselves. There might be. But that's not going to satisfy Clarkson and Fagan's lawyers. And so therefore it becomes an open question whether a story like this will ultimately help the very victims its seeking to provide a voice to.

 

[South of the Yarra]

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

Many of the Aboriginal players will not comment if they are happy with the situation or not. They will go about their business regardless. Many won't be happy but will not challenge or take action.

 

[mcnulty]

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

Different memory of it. He’s clearly saying things didn’t go down the way they have been alleged, according to him.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I get it now. So in essence, if something is harmful to reputation it is defamatory. And you can't utter or print defamatory stuff unless you can establish it's truth. Or you're in an exception like parliament or reporting to authorities.

Potentially dangerous from the ABC, but Probably not a good thing for Clarko and co, bearing in mind this article would assumedly have gone through a legal risk assessment.

Bingo.

 

[Paimon]

That's not going to happen.

Clarkson, Fagan and Burt will accept the AFL mediation once the investigation is done and never speak of this again.

We are absolutely going to see if The Boys Club has either a. diminished influence, b. found a greater subversion to better hide their disgusting tactics, c. have even less shame than we all ever imagined possible (c is where your scenario turns out to be 100% fact).

I’m not holding my breath.

 

[sr36]

But in the example above, unless those events never actually occurred (which Clarkson hasn't denied at this stage) - how can 'Ian' describing his feelings as a result of those events be defamatory?

Defamatory has some connotations that suggest it's inappropriate to have been told, but it actually just means damaging to a reputation, and this is damaging to a reputation. Regardless of whether or not it is true, Clarkson has had his reputation damaged.

 

[Ricketz]

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.

I can barely understand what you are trying to say here. But read this and stop banging on about crap:

Part 4.4 – Corroboration (s 164)
The common law is generally concerned with the quality rather than the quantity of evidence. However, in a small number of exceptional cases in criminal trials, the common law developed rules of law or practice which focused on the existence of supporting or corroborating evidence.

In the case of perjury, the common law permitted the jury to convict only where the falsity of the statement in question was proved either by two witnesses, or by a single witness with corroboration.

In a number of other circumstances, the common law permitted convictions on the basis of uncorroborated evidence, but required the judge to warn the jury about the dangers of convicting in the absence of corroboration. This requirement was originally imposed in relation to the following classes of evidence or witnesses:

Accomplices;
Complainants alleging sexual offences; and
Unsworn evidence of children.
The law relating to corroboration was often complex and technical, raising difficult issues regarding what evidence qualifies as ‘corroboration’. In addition, legislation in most states had reformed corroboration requirements in relation to sexual offence complainants and children.

Sections 164 and 165 of the Uniform Evidence Law replace previous corroboration requirements with a guided discretionary approach to jury directions which focuses on the needs of the case. The Act, however, preserves corroboration requirements in relation to perjury (ALRC 26 at [1015]–[1023]).

Following the commencement of the Jury Directions Act 2015 on 29 June 2015, corroboration directions are prohibited in all cases except those such as perjury where corroboration continues to be required as a matter of law. Prior to these changes, the Evidence Act 2008 permitted but did not require corroboration directions. This gave rise to difficulties in cases where judges gave erroneous corroboration directions and concerns about inconsistent practices regarding when judges would choose to give corroboration directions.

 

[blackshadow]

Many Aboriginal people will not tell you if they are happy or not so you may never know.

True.

But what is an organisation supposed to do, especially if they've canvassed their staff in a private and sensitive way? If objections aren't made how does an organisation proceed?

 

[sr36]

Bingo.

That article you posted was a really good one to understand the landscape.

Just one last question. Does it require truth "beyond reasonable doubt" like in a criminal case, or simply probability like in other cases.

 

[South of the Yarra]

True.

But what is an organisation supposed to do, especially if they've canvassed their staff in a private and sensitive way? If objections aren't made how does an organisation proceed?

It's a good point that it is difficult to deal with an issue if it stays underground. Many of our Aboriginal players just buried what was taking place and got on with playing football. Many are still dealing with this pain and suffering post football. This is where clubs need to be better and have Aboriginal people in full time roles in their clubs who are able to support players and gain the knowledge of what is happening in a culturally sensitive way.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I can barely understand what you are trying to say here. But read this and stop banging on about crap:

Part 4.4 – Corroboration (s 164)
The common law is generally concerned with the quality rather than the quantity of evidence. However, in a small number of exceptional cases in criminal trials, the common law developed rules of law or practice which focused on the existence of supporting or corroborating evidence.

In the case of perjury, the common law permitted the jury to convict only where the falsity of the statement in question was proved either by two witnesses, or by a single witness with corroboration.

In a number of other circumstances, the common law permitted convictions on the basis of uncorroborated evidence, but required the judge to warn the jury about the dangers of convicting in the absence of corroboration. This requirement was originally imposed in relation to the following classes of evidence or witnesses:

Accomplices;
Complainants alleging sexual offences; and
Unsworn evidence of children.
The law relating to corroboration was often complex and technical, raising difficult issues regarding what evidence qualifies as ‘corroboration’. In addition, legislation in most states had reformed corroboration requirements in relation to sexual offence complainants and children.

Sections 164 and 165 of the Uniform Evidence Law replace previous corroboration requirements with a guided discretionary approach to jury directions which focuses on the needs of the case. The Act, however, preserves corroboration requirements in relation to perjury (ALRC 26 at [1015]–[1023]).

Following the commencement of the Jury Directions Act 2015 on 29 June 2015, corroboration directions are prohibited in all cases except those such as perjury where corroboration continues to be required as a matter of law. Prior to these changes, the Evidence Act 2008 permitted but did not require corroboration directions. This gave rise to difficulties in cases where judges gave erroneous corroboration directions and concerns about inconsistent practices regarding when judges would choose to give corroboration directions.

Okay, I've read it, and now I'm wondering what you're seeking to argue by copy and pasting some paragraphs relating to criminal trials and the jury directions act in a conversation about media law and defamation.

 

[Makeshift Park]

That article you posted was a really good one to understand the landscape.

Just one last question. Does it require truth "beyond reasonable doubt" like in a criminal case, or simply probability like in other cases.

Australia's defamation laws are civil, so its on the balance of probabilities.

 

[sr36]

Australia's defamation laws are civil, so its on the balance of probabilities.

Personally, I can't see a defamation case, unless they're turfed from the AFL,or the stories are completely fraudulent. And they're only getting turfed if the stories aren't fraudulent.

There's likely to be enough in the meetings that they don't want it to be aired, unless they've got nothing else to lose.

 

[Ricketz]

Okay, I've read it, and now I'm wondering what you're seeking to argue by copy and pasting some paragraphs relating to criminal trials and the jury directions act in a conversation about media law and defamation.

You said corroborating evidence was required by law. That is from the judicial court of Victoria. It clearly isn't.

So, now - you prove me wrong.

 

[Makeshift Park]

You said corroborating evidence was required by law. That is from the judicial court of Victoria. It clearly isn't.

So, now - you prove me wrong.

Ah, the old judicial court of Victoria.
Much more respectable than all those non-judicial courts.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Personally, I can't see a defamation case, unless they're turfed from the AFL,or the stories are completely fraudulent. And they're only getting turfed if the stories aren't fraudulent.

There's likely to be enough in the meetings that they don't want it to be aired, unless they've got nothing else to lose.

I agree.

 

[Ricketz]

Ah, the old judicial court of Victoria.
Much more respectable than all those non-judicial courts.

Deflection. Admit it - you were just making crap up.

You have every opportunity not to be a hypocrite and do what you just asked me to.

 

[South of the Yarra]

All this talk about legalities, corroboration and defamation is interesting but let's not forget that there are people at the centre of this and these people are hurting.

 

[Curly5]

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

Nobody is obliged to speak to the media. Certainly not to address anonymous allegations. Leading questions, loaded questions, cherry-picked responses? Very unwise to do that. Jackson has demonstrated he's not impartial.

 

[Area51]

Bingo.

There is also a public interest defence. YouTube was running this defence in the Barilaro case that originated out of the friendly jordies channel. Not sure a decision has been handed down yet.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

All this talk about legalities, corroboration and defamation is interesting but let's not forget that there are people at the centre of this and these people are hurting.

Great point, it really comes across as intentional deflection to focus on technicalities of our legal system.
If you come from the position that this case has shone a light on the systemic racism at Hawthorn and the AFL at large then I see no point discussing the legal system either as that too is inherently biased by design against first nations people.