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

 

[Le Grille]

Is it? I found the emails to be neither here nor there.

They are a one sided account of a person, that had no connect to the hawthorn football club that was trying to get what she wanted (fair enough), and she acknowledges that she met with the club post the emails (clearly not ignored).

She says she spoke to an aflpa psych, which is either not true, or true and the aflpa deemed it not worth following up on. She spoke to police, who didn’t think it was worthwhile following up on. If at that point her partner was happy not to live with her, what’s the issue specifically with the emails?

Are these emails and the mafia comment the entirety of the “proof”?

I’m coming from the pov that with the nature of the allegations, any organisation, particularly one in a high profile industry would have evidence that the matter had been given due process. They are serious allegations and I would think Hawthorn could point to we receive ld the complaint and we did this this and this and found the following. If this had been done I’d have thought the hawks would have said it was dealt with at the time

 

[Ricketz]

I'm not sure if you are talking about Clarkson or the indigenous players.

Technically, Jackson's article is defamation against the named coaches, whether or not it's true, as their reputation is undoubtedly damaged. But if he can show that it is very likely to be true, Jackson can't be sued for the defamation.

Or in other words, the formal definition of defamation isn't interested in truth or Australia's defamation laws - it's only interested in what has happened to Clarko's reputation - it's been defamed, which would be pretty hard to dispute. Whether or not it is defamatory isn't in dispute - it is defamatory. Whether or not it is true and thus legally ok to damage his reputation is what is in question.

Not many dictionaries define defamation as just "damaging reputation".

 

[blackshadow]

Not many dictionaries define defamation as just "damaging reputation".

Who gives a **** about dictionary definitions? It's about legal definitions as defined by legislation and case law. Good luck putting that into a dictionary definition.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You do know Jed isn't one of the players right.

I don’t know that, and neither do you.

I’m sure he’s pumped to be delisted by the same coach who told him to go find another club.

Edit: and yes, I’ve lost track of the amount PM’s I’ve been sent telling me that player X was/wasn’t the leak, and is/isn’t one of the players in the article. So I don’t know how anyone can be confident they know unless they’re Egan himself.

 

[the big lebowski]

I’m coming from the pov that with the nature of the allegations, any organisation, particularly one in a high profile industry would have evidence that the matter had been given due process. They are serious allegations and I would think Hawthorn could point to we receive ld the complaint and we did this this and this and found the following. If this had been done I’d have thought the hawks would have said it was dealt with at the time

Complaint by who? Someone not associated with the club that wanted something that may well have been in direct conflict with what a hawthorn employee ( the player ) wanted at the time? The hawthorn football club had no legal relationship with this woman. All that mattered was following the law and doing what their employee wanted.

Again, she spoke to the aflpa!

An organisation specifically there to look after the players. Their response was (seemingly) that there was no issue.

Who knows, maybe she lied, I’ve heard people lie about things such as houses burning down and fake robberies etc in order to manipulate others.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Some of you were getting on your high horses about Fagan and Clarkson not replying to The ABC.

Rather ironic that The ABC is not responding to questions being put to them about their hero Rusty.

You might need to read up on what 'ironic' means.


And what do you mean by 'some of you'??

 

[hawkman]

A few more than 2. You're only looking at current senior coaches. Burt wasn't a coach, so it'd be worded to include the entire football department staff. Pies have a couple who were in that footy department at the time. So do a few other clubs. Personally, I expect a couple of other names to be part of the investigation.

Wasn't talking about assistants. Was just thinking about Simpson, Beveridge and Ratten. Add in assistants there are probably 5-10 clubs that could be impacted if they weren't named

 

[Le Grille]

Complaint by who? Someone not associated with the club that wanted something that may well have been in direct conflict with what a hawthorn employee ( the player ) wanted at the time? The hawthorn football club had no legal relationship with this woman. All that mattered was following the law and doing what their employee wanted.

Again, she spoke to the aflpa!

An organisation specifically there to look after the players. Their response was (seemingly) that there was no issue.

Who knows, maybe she lied, I’ve heard people lie about things such as houses burning down and fake robberies etc in order to manipulate others.

Effectively I’m saying, it clearly wasn’t sufficiently dealt with then because we are having the investigation now. If the club/AFLPA had dealt with it then and had documented it we wouldn’t need this now

 

[sr36]

Wasn't talking about assistants. Was just thinking about Simpson, Beveridge and Ratten. Add in assistants there are probably 5-10 clubs that could be impacted if they weren't named

I look at it as 5-10 clubs that still might join North and Brissie and cop a whack for Hawthorns wrongdoing.

 

[JyeDye]

Some of you were getting on your high horses about Fagan and Clarkson not replying to The ABC.

Rather ironic that The ABC is not responding to questions being put to them about their hero Rusty.

Were people really getting on their high horses about that? I remember people complaining that they weren't given a chance to respond when in fact they actually were. Think you might be a little bit off there.

 

[the big lebowski]

Effectively I’m saying, it clearly wasn’t sufficiently dealt with then because we are having the investigation now. If the club/AFLPA had dealt with it then and had documented it we wouldn’t need this now

I get what you’re saying.

What I’m saying is why would you investigate something such as a girlfriend of a player wanting to see her boyfriend who at that moment didn’t want to see her. After she had already spoken to the aflpa, doctors, police etc who all deemed no further action was required.

And 1-2 months later they were back living together anyway.

The point being the emails themselves only prove that one woman not connected with hawthorn had an issue about access to her boyfriend. You said it was concerning that the emails hadn’t been made public? Despite the woman being able to do it at any time is she wanted. Like anytime over the last 10 years

 

[sr36]

Not many dictionaries define defamation as just "damaging reputation".

I would have said the same, but law is a language unto itself and significantly the legal definitions don't appear to include it. Not the one's I read anyway. And Australian law doesn't appear to require untruth as a necessity to sue for defamation.

 

[Ricketz]

Who gives a * about dictionary definitions? It's about legal definitions as defined by legislation and case law. Good luck putting that into a dictionary definition.

Well, only the court can determine if it is defamation then - until such time it isn't.

Whoever might be claiming defamation will have to overcome these defences I am guessing:

Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

Defences of fair report of proceedings of public
concern

(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory
matter if the defendant proves that the matter was,
or was contained in, a fair report of any
proceedings of public concern.
(2) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory
matter if the defendant proves that—
(a) the matter was, or was contained in, an
earlier published report of proceedings of
public concern; and
(b) the matter was, or was contained in, a fair
copy of, a fair summary of, or a fair extract
from, the earlier published report; and
(c) the defendant had no knowledge that would
reasonably make the defendant aware that
the earlier published report was not fair.
(3) A defence established under subsection (1) or (2)
is defeated if, and only if, the plaintiff proves that
the defamatory matter was not published honestly
for the information of the public or the
advancement of education.

Where a proceeding of public concern includes:
proceedings of a sport or recreation association, or of a committee or governing body of the association, under its relevant objects, but only to the extent that the proceedings relate to a decision or adjudication made in Australia about—
(i) a member or members of the
association; or
(ii) a person subject by contract or
otherwise by law to control by the
association;

But who knows?

 

[Ricketz]

I would have said the same, but law is a language unto itself and significantly the legal definitions don't appear to include it. Not the one's I read anyway. And Australian law doesn't appear to require untruth as a necessity to sue for defamation.

Correct, and for good reason. Some decisions are necessarily unpalatable, but entirely within the law.

 

[JackOutback]

Before reading up on this I would have agreed with you, because that is it's layman use. But you might want to read a few more dictionaries. Some definitions include truth some don't.

I'm not in law, so don't know for sure, but when it's discussed in a legal context, it doesn't seem to include it. M

Defamation law in Australia: A quick guide

Defamation can cause serious harm to a person's reputation and as a result their life. The laws of defamation serve to protect a person's name and character. Our experienced lawyers have provided a quick guide on defamation laws in Australia.

gordonlegal.com.au

And more relevantly, Aussie law seems to treat defamation as not including untruth. As you don't have to demonstrate untruth in order to sue for defamation, the onus on the publisher to show truth. Or so I'm led to believe. Which would suggest that you can make a successful case for defamation, without showing your definition of defamation.

That seems to be an explainer rather than a definition. Importantly, it states that a defence against defamation is proving the allegations are substantially true. So for defamation to succeed, it must not be true. Yes, the onus is on the publisher to prove the truth of the allegations, and people are free to sue at any time, but it is inextricably linked to untruth for it to succeed.

Im not a defamation lawyer, but I don't think that is right mate.

Seems to me as a journalist if you directly quote someone, put it in quotation marks, and attribute who has said it, then you aren't defaming anyone. At worst you are relaying an act of defamation.

How can a journalist reasonably be expected to prove that it is true? They weren't present during the act. They aren't a member of the police force, nor are they a judge who can call witnesses under oath.

Not true, you can't put 'so-and-so says someone is a paedo' and then argue you didn't make the claim. You published it, relayed it, you are responsible for it. Hence why the Daily Tele got sued for claiming Geoffrey Rush sexually harrassed someone even though they were reporting someone else's claims. The onus was on them to establish the truth in order to publish.

 

[Forward Press]

Someone released the emails to newbold, provided the are genuine, I find it really odd that there was no documented internal investigation to point to, any organisation in Australia would do that , to protect themselves as a minimum.

I have no issues with the article, I think jackson got Sonja’s letter wrong and I’m happy that apology played out.

But the only way this gets resolved is a full flawless investigation. I’m all for that.

I’m not convinced that the afl are capable of running it.

On that point I think you will find majority agreement no matter whether they support the affected clubs or not.

 

[Laphroaig]

What a bunfight.

In 363 pages has anybody had the thought that it might be a really good idea to take off the blinkers and ask some other players, preferrably every single listed player past and present, the same questions?

There are not many people who would be more satisfied than I would to see Clarkson burn. Maybe Kennett is one. Which, given the rather odd terms of reference for the Club review could be suspected of being informative.

However. There are (at least) two questions here. One is did the events reported actually happen, or to what extent is what happened consistent with the newspaper report?

Equally important question. Maybe more important. Are the alleged experiences confined to a particular group of players or were the behaviours more widespread?

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the ism industry have to date shown no interest at all in the second question and rushed headlong to the barricades. Which is rather counter productive to the goal of defeating ism.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Not true, you can't put 'so-and-so says someone is a paedo' and then argue you didn't make the claim. You published it, relayed it, you are responsible for it. Hence why the Daily Tele got sued for claiming Geoffrey Rush sexually harrassed someone even though they were reporting someone else's claims. The onus was on them to establish the truth in order to publish.

So to bring this all full circle, you agree that the onus is on Russell Jackson to establish the truthful basis of the allegations against Clarkson and Fagan prior to publishing them.

 

[Ricketz]

That seems to be an explainer rather than a definition. Importantly, it states that a defence against defamation is proving the allegations are substantially true. So for defamation to succeed, it must not be true. Yes, the onus is on the publisher to prove the truth of the allegations, and people are free to sue at any time, but it is inextricably linked to untruth for it to succeed.


Not true, you can't put 'so-and-so says someone is a paedo' and then argue you didn't make the claim. You published it, relayed it, you are responsible for it. Hence why the Daily Tele got sued for claiming Geoffrey Rush sexually harrassed someone even though they were reporting someone else's claims. The onus was on them to establish the truth in order to publish.

They were defamatory publications because they were not proven to be true.

That says nothing about Jackson's article.

 

[Forward Press]

That seems to be an explainer rather than a definition. Importantly, it states that a defence against defamation is proving the allegations are substantially true. So for defamation to succeed, it must not be true. Yes, the onus is on the publisher to prove the truth of the allegations, and people are free to sue at any time, but it is inextricably linked to untruth for it to succeed.


Not true, you can't put 'so-and-so says someone is a paedo' and then argue you didn't make the claim. You published it, relayed it, you are responsible for it. Hence why the Daily Tele got sued for claiming Geoffrey Rush sexually harrassed someone even though they were reporting someone else's claims. The onus was on them to establish the truth in order to publish.

The Rush case (and other successful defamation cases) would have guided Jackson and the ABC on this - I don't think they reported this and named the staff based merely on the word of the alleged victims. The article mentioned written evidence in various forms substantiating or corroborating that meetings took place and certain things happened, and other witnesses to what was alleged. The journalist does have a responsibility to not just report mere rumour and gossip especially if it's highly damaging to reputations, but I don't believe Jackson is going half-cocked on nothing here.

 

[Ricketz]

What a bunfight.

In 363 pages has anybody had the thought that it might be a really good idea to take off the blinkers and ask some other players, preferrably every single listed player past and present, the same questions?

There are not many people who would be more satisfied than I would to see Clarkson burn. Maybe Kennett is one. Which, given the rather odd terms of reference for the Club review could be suspected of being informative.

However. There are (at least) two questions here. One is did the events reported actually happen, or to what extent is what happened consistent with the newspaper report?

Equally important question. Maybe more important. Are the alleged experiences confined to a particular group of players or were the behaviours more widespread?

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the ism industry have to date shown no interest at all in the second question and rushed headlong to the barricades. Which is rather counter productive to the goal of defeating ism.

What? The allegations are about racism. This isn't another white lives matter deflection is it?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So to bring this all full circle, you agree that the onus is on Russell Jackson to establish the truthful basis of the allegations against Clarkson and Fagan prior to publishing them.

Given neither Fagan nor Clarkson denied that the events occurred in their statements - I don't think that would even relevant.

The truth part hasn't been disputed as yet.

 

[the big lebowski]

What? The allegations are about racism. This isn't another white lives matter deflection is it?

Lol how do you land on racism if you don’t consider if the same thing happened to other players of different backgrounds?

The current report actually exposes us to the fact that only indigenous players played for hawthorn.

You’re logic is bizarre

 

[sr36]

That seems to be an explainer rather than a definition. Importantly, it states that a defence against defamation is proving the allegations are substantially true. So for defamation to succeed, it must not be true. Yes, the onus is on the publisher to prove the truth of the allegations, and people are free to sue at any time, but it is inextricably linked to untruth for it to succeed.

You could be right, but having read about 6 online explainers, they allstart with a statement about what defamation is, which doesn't include truth and then later add a but - that you can't be sued if you can show that your damaging comments were true.

What I'm saying might not be the absolute truth, but for all extensive purposes, it's how the term appears to be used in an Aussie courtroom, or at least the way the law makes sense to me. As otherwise how can you win a case for defamation, without showing that it wasn't true, you wouldn't have cleared the charges hurdle? But clearly you can win without showing it is untrue, if the onus is on the publisher to prove truth

Defamation | Victoria Legal Aid

Information about defamation and where to get help if you have been defamed or have been accused of defaming someone

www.legalaid.vic.gov.au

 

[blackshadow]

Given neither Fagan nor Clarkson denied that the events occurred in their statements - I don't think that would even relevant.

The truth part hasn't been disputed as yet.

Pull the other leg it plays jingle bells.

Clarkson
"The failure to maintain the confidentiality of the review and further damaging public speculation means I have no option but to express publicly, in the strongest and most emphatic terms possible, that I did not behave in the manner claimed.

Fagan
“I confirm, as I said in my earlier statement, that I deny, categorically, the allegations of wrongdoing by me in relation to First Nations players at the Hawthorn Football Club, and that I intend to defend myself.

If that's not disputing the truthfulness of the allegations I don't know what is.