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

 

[Ricketz]

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

It's not my logic, it's Hawthorne's logic. It's the experience of the players who reported it. If Hawthorn found evidence of similar behaviour to non-indigenous players they wouldn't have focussed on racism. If other players had come forward with similar experiences that would have been reported.

It's your logic that relies on imaginary situations, not mine.

 

[JyeDye]

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.

Is this not exactly what they are investigating right now? The article and investigation are separate.

 

[Ricketz]

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.

It's disputing their characterisation of wrongdoing and their behaviour, not the truthfulness of the allegations.

 

[JyeDye]

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.

To me that reads as a lawyer telling them what to write. But it sounds like that the personal talks and events did happen, but they were not conducted in the manner that was presented.

 

[Laphroaig]

What? The allegations are about racism.

No, that is an assumption. You are not the only one to leap to it, but it has no basis on the information at hand.

For the allegations to be demonstrated as racism there must be evidence that the behaviour was not only bad, that it was motivated by of the race of the receiver. Not, for example, that the person who did bad was actually just a prick being a prick. Without needing racial motivation to behave like a prick.

There is no data.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

I feel I'm wasting my time here, as people are either really dumb (likely) and/or simply refuse accept certain realities (more likely).

There are three layers to this.

(1) The events that are alleged to have occured (ie. them rocking up to the house, them taking his phone and SIM, him staying with the coach, etc. etc.)

(2) The impact on the 'victims' of these events

(3) The motivation behind these events


In relation to (1), The article states that these events occurred. It states them as fact. Neither Fagan nor Clarkson have disputed this publicly. Their statements are carefully worded, and the do not deny that the events occurred.

For (2), The impact on the 'victims' is a fact. How they reacted to, and perceived the events and actions are entirely their perogative. The article quoted the victims on this.

But as for (3), aside from stemming from an indigenous investigation, the article doesn't seem to imply or state why Clarkson and Fagan did these things. I don't think it calls them racist, or mysoginist. I don't think it states that they are bad people. And this is the part they do specifically mention in their statements. They carefully state that they didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Laphroaig]

Is this not exactly what they are investigating right now? The article and investigation are separate.

We have no information on what is being investigated.

We know that an investigation will begin some time soonish. Which does not yet have terms of reference.

So we have no idea what will be investigated.

 

[JyeDye]

We have no information on what is being investigated.

We know that an investigation will begin some time soonish. Which does not yet have terms of reference.

So we have no idea what will be investigated.

So what are you complaining about? You would have to assume everything you listed would be investigated, I mean that's literally what an investigation is, looking deeper into it, asking more questions.

 

[Ricketz]

No, that is an assumption. You are not the only one to leap to it, but it has no basis on the information at hand.

For the allegations to be demonstrated as racism there must be evidence that the behaviour was not only bad, that it was motivated by of the race of the receiver. Not, for example, that the person who did bad was actually just a prick being a prick. Without needing racial motivation to behave like a prick.

There is no data.

No, I am not assuming anything. Hawthorn commissioned a review to look into how First Nations players were treated at the club, similar to the Collingwood 'Do Better' review.

This from Hawthorn;
"Earlier this year the Hawthorn Football Club engaged external First Nations consultants to liaise with current and former First Nations players and staff to learn more about their experience at the club.

This important work has raised disturbing historical allegations that require further investigation. Upon learning of these allegations, the club immediately engaged AFL Integrity as is appropriate."

This from the AFL:
"The AFL takes extremely seriously all matters where people report experiencing harm, discrimination or mistreatment in our industry. We recently received a document from the Hawthorn Football Club outlining very serious allegations gathered during the recently completed review by an external consultant who interviewed current and former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players."

The players that came forward to Jackson were indigenous and believed they were treated that way because of their heritage.

 

[blackshadow]

It's disputing their characterisation of wrongdoing and their behaviour, not the truthfulness of the allegations.

To me it's definitely disputing the truthfulness of the allegations.

Are you telling me that Clarkson isn't disputing the statement about him instructing someone to terminate their unborn child? He's disputing the bejesus out of it.

 

[Ricketz]

To me it's definitely disputing the truthfulness of the allegations.

Are you telling me that Clarkson isn't disputing the statement about him instructing someone to terminate their unborn child? He's disputing the bejesus out of it.

Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you. Not because I have a vested interest, but because he doesn't say that at all.

You are reading what you like into it - not what is actually there.

 

[sr36]

To me that reads as a lawyer telling them what to write. But it sounds like that the personal talks and events did happen, but they were not conducted in the manner that was presented.

Let's face it, the most likely scenario here is that the Hawks had some players that they felt hadn't adjusted their social lives enough to succeed in the industry and their solution was to intervene way too heavily.

This is an industry where there has always been talk of minders. As recently as this year, there was widespread criticism of Collingwood inside and outside the industry for "allowing" Jordan Degoey to go on holiday during his time off. It's an industry that not only accepts a ridiculous amount of intervention in private lives, but in some parts expects it. Looking like Hawks went nuclear with their intervention and may have caused some serious damage. Best wishes to those who've been hurt.

Really hoping neither of the current Pie employees who were there at the time were involved in the hideous solution. But it won't surprise me, one of them in particular would have had to be involved in discussions about the "problem". Hopefully not the solution. But I'll wait with my fingers crossed, as how can you have a racism scandal in the AFL that doesn't involve Collingwood.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

To me it's definitely disputing the truthfulness of the allegations.

Are you telling me that Clarkson isn't disputing the statement about him instructing someone to terminate their unborn child? He's disputing the bejesus out of it.

He's not though. We don't know what he's disputing specifically.

The fact that he has 'clear memory' of the events, makes it pretty obvious that the events occurred!

Obviously what he would be disputing is that he directly told him to kill his kid. But the article doesn't state that he said that.

It says he told the player to 'get rid of them' (or whatever the words were). The player then explained how he interpreted the comment.

We know that Clarkson has form in telling players how they should manage their personal lives, including from a paternal perspective - so given Clarkson acknowledged the events in his statement then it's not a stretch to assume that a conversation around his relationships happened.

Now this is where Clarkson, IMO, is in trouble. Because having that conversation with a white player may be well intentioned and received a certain way - but that same conversation with a vulnerable indigenous player is unacceptable.

He may plead 'no wrong doing' on the basis of it was well intentioned, but that won't fly.

Kennett used the same defence regarding his 'joke' with Rioli's missus. "I say that same joke to white people, so it's not racist".

That's just not how it works.

 

[Curly5]

Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you. Not because I have a vested interest, but because he doesn't say that at all.

You are reading what you like into it - not what is actually there.

So he’s saying it’s all true but it wasn’t wrong?

 

[Del191229]

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.

He was delisted because we're playing Will Phillips in his spot next year.

And he may yet be re-rookied.

And he's not one of the players.

I note Hawthorn's board elections due soon.

Who is the "Clean Up The Mess" Candidate.

 

[gouki88]

No, that is an assumption. You are not the only one to leap to it, but it has no basis on the information at hand.

For the allegations to be demonstrated as racism there must be evidence that the behaviour was not only bad, that it was motivated by of the race of the receiver. Not, for example, that the person who did bad was actually just a prick being a prick. Without needing racial motivation to behave like a prick.

There is no data.

This is a very, very shallow understanding of the nuanced ways in which racism exists.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

He was delisted because we're playing Will Phillips in his spot next year.

And he may yet be re-rookied.

And he's not one of the players.

I note Hawthorn's board elections due soon.

Who is the "Clean Up The Mess" Candidate.

North aren't allowed to make list management decisions anymore.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He was delisted because we're playing Will Phillips in his spot next year.

And he may yet be re-rookied.

And he's not one of the players.

I note Hawthorn's board elections due soon.

Who is the "Clean Up The Mess" Candidate.

That sounds like Sonia Hood.

 

[mcnulty]

Their statements are carefully worded, and the do not deny that the events occurred.

You keep circling back to this and it remains just as ridiculous. Clarkson’s statement couldn’t be any clearer in denying the events AS REPORTED:

“I didn’t behave in the manner claimed”

“My clear memory of the events is different”

The most rational reading of this is that he recalls the meeting, but denies what he’s alleged to have done there.

You’re indeed wasting your time if you keep trying to convince people apples are oranges.

 

[sr36]

. Hawthorn commissioned a review to look into how First Nations players were treated at the club, similar to the Collingwood 'Do Better' review.

It actually wasn't that similar. Collingwood reviewed how they responded to known incidents involving racism or allegations of racism.

Most of our past indigenous players weren't part of the review as they weren't involved in any of the known incidents nor were part of Collingwood's response.

The Collingwood review wouldn't have picked up any of this stuff, just as the Hawthorn review won't have picked up much of the systemic stuff that was highlighted in the Pies review.

 

[JackOutback]

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.

If Clarkson and co. choose to sue, then he has to be sure of the truthful basis of the allegations, and I am sure both he and the ABC would be fairly confident in their position to have gone ahead and published. If the accused don't sue, then there's no onus on them to further establish the bona fides of the story and most people would presume that the broad facts are not in question.

 

[Pie eyed]

He's not though. We don't know what he's disputing specifically.

The fact that he has 'clear memory' of the events, makes it pretty obvious that the events occurred!

Obviously what he would be disputing is that he directly told him to kill his kid. But the article doesn't state that he said that.

It says he told the player to 'get rid of them' (or whatever the words were). The player then explained how he interpreted the comment.

We know that Clarkson has form in telling players how they should manage their personal lives, including from a paternal perspective - so given Clarkson acknowledged the events in his statement then it's not a stretch to assume that a conversation around his relationships happened.

Now this is where Clarkson, IMO, is in trouble. Because having that conversation with a white player may be well intentioned and received a certain way - but that same conversation with a vulnerable indigenous player is unacceptable.

He may plead 'no wrong doing' on the basis of it was well intentioned, but that won't fly.

Kennett used the same defence regarding his 'joke' with Rioli's missus. "I say that same joke to white people, so it's not racist".

That's just not how it works.

To be fair and for clarity, paraphrasing the comment Kennett "here's some money go and buy a new pair of jeans" is in regard the trend of wearing "fashionably" ripped, torn or worn jeans/clothes. It is a common as dirt line with a decades long history, which cuts through all races and religions and is a comment on fashion not a racist slur.
Only the fashionista should be offended.

It could be taken as a a slur in the wrong (or right) circumstance, but I would think there would have to be prior background.
Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting anyone.
This particular instance is drawing a long bow.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You keep circling back to this and it remains just as ridiculous. Clarkson’s statement couldn’t be any clearer in denying the events AS REPORTED:

“I didn’t behave in the manner claimed”

“My clear memory of the events is different”

The most rational reading of this is that he recalls the meeting, but denies what he’s alleged to have done there.

You’re indeed wasting your time if you keep trying to convince people apples are oranges.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Dangerousfield]

365 pages in and it's still simple, no grey area here - one side or the other are liars

 

[Laphroaig]

So what are you complaining about? You would have to assume everything you listed would be investigated, I mean that's literally what an investigation is, looking deeper into it, asking more questions.

You heard the one about assume makes an ass of u and me?

The investigation will cover ONLY the ground directed by the terms of reference the AFL gives it.

So I await the publication, or perhaps non-publication, of the terms of reference with some interest.

A beauracracy, and that's what the AFL is, can pretty much determine what an "independent" investigation will find. It's a simple matter of what you tell them to look for, and what you fail to tell them to look for.