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

 

[ferball]

Well don't use their experience to support your argument and I won't.

You're talking about something you have no idea about.

Look I'm not trying to make light of those players and partner's experiences at hawthorn but you are comparing those experiences to people who were taken from their families as children, in some cases never to see them again and tortured and abused. Torturing and abusing children and trying to break them psychologically... even now it makes me angry and I never experienced it.

It wasn't done with the "best of intentions" either, despite what revisionist people who are trying to make light of it say.

You're minimising of what those people who died, sometimes alone and in pain, went thru. You might not realise that but you are.

Even now kids that are removed from indigenous families don't have to deal with that (and I don't endorse that removal either, unless its extremely bad situations and those kids stay with extended family who care for them.)

 

[ferball]

You don’t think that aboriginal children that are being abused or not cared for should be afforded the same protection as non-indigenous children? Or is it that indigenous parents should have more leeway in terms of abuse and neglect?

I see you haven’t the faintest idea.

It depends on the situation and the standards being used to judge those parents.

Also on the support networks those kids have.

If the kids are being raised by aunts, uncles or grandparents while their parents are neglectful and making a mess of things then I don't think its necessarily a good thing. If their support network is strong enough to make up for the difference then it shouldn't happen and in some cases it does.

In other circumstances its the only appropriate response.

 

[South of the Yarra]

You're talking about something you have no idea about.

Look I'm not trying to make light of those players and partner's experiences at hawthorn but you are comparing those experiences to people who were taken from their families as children, in some cases never to see them again and tortured and abused. Torturing and abusing children and trying to break them psychologically... even now it makes me angry and I never experienced it.

It wasn't done with the "best of intentions" either, despite what revisionist people who are trying to make light of it say.

You're minimising of what those people who died, sometimes alone and in pain, went thru. You might not realise that but you are.

Even now kids that are removed from indigenous families don't have to deal with that (and I don't endorse that removal either, unless its extremely bad situations and those kids stay with extended family who care for them.)

There were no good intentions just a cruel, twisted and insane desire to eradicate Aboriginality.

 

[blackshadow]

This isn't Jackson's story, it's the story of the people involved.

He does refer to them as his stories…

 

[ferball]

I think he's denying that he said 'kill your kid'. But it's my guess that the meeting and the conversation about parenthood and the pregnancy did happen. So the event did go down, IMO.

What Clarkson meant by his comments, is what is being denied.


And the article didn't state that he said 'kill your kid' either.

Its easy to see a situation where terminating the pregnancy was discussed as an option by Clarko and that was interpreted by the young players and their partners as a recommendation or even an instruction. And if you're a young kid with the pressure of trying to make it as a footy player then i can understand that you'd default to taking what was meant to be advice advice as an instruction, even one delivered with no heart or compassion. Then add that its being delivered by a white authority figure in uniform...

I'm not saying that's what happened but it might have - this is what the investigation is for.

And if it did then I don't think that all this shame being thrown about is reasonable. If the coaches responsible have reflected on their behaviour and learned, or at least are prepared to that is a very important step imo. Cos its better to stop this happening again than just getting some sort of retribution for it. Especially if the retribution is more about public consumption and the AFLs image than actuallly healing these hurts and changing the way the AFL does things.

If after all this they are unrepentant when they should be then I don't want players like Simpkin or Thomas exposed to that sort of shit.

But I struggle to see how Clarkson or Fagan could have got the best out of the indigenous players they have got so much out of if they were genuinely that shit as people.

Clarkson started his career at North and credits Pagan (as u19 coach,) Kanga Kennedy and Ron Joseph as people who, when he was going off the rails, dragged him back onto a path that led to where he is today. He may have thought he was playing a similar role but was ignorant of the specific implications of playing that role with people who've been raised in an environment where white authority figures are seen as and behave as occupiers and oppressors.

That's not the same as just being campaigner for the sake of it.

 

[ferball]

There were no good intentions just a cruel, twisted and insane desire to eradicate Aboriginality.

I completely agree. That's why that original comment got me irritated a bit. I don't think that's the case with Burt, Clarkson and Fagan.

 

[sr36]

He does refer to them as his stories…

They're about other people, but they are his stories. He's interviewed people and then selected bits they've said, added his own words and arranged it all into a very compelling article.

 

[ferball]

I think he's denying that he said 'kill your kid'. But it's my guess that the meeting and the conversation about parenthood and the pregnancy did happen. So the event did go down, IMO.

What Clarkson meant by his comments, is what is being denied.


And the article didn't state that he said 'kill your kid' either.

I just copied this from the article:

"He told me to kill my unborn kid."

 

[Del191229]

They're about other people, but they are his stories. He's interviewed people and then selected bits they've said, added his own words and arranged it all into a very compelling article.

Crucial.

 

[Chief]

He does refer to them as his stories…

That doesn't mean he has ownership of the facts. He's telling someone else's story.

 

[sr36]

Crucial.

Of course. That's what writers do. It's neither good nor bad. Whether he's selected well and added well to give an accurate account of the player's perceptions is what makes it a good or bad account. And in this case, whether he's nailed that and their perceptions are reliable is what makes it good or bad journalism.

 

[Chief]

They're about other people, but they are his stories. He's interviewed people and then selected bits they've said, added his own words and arranged it all into a very compelling article.

I take your point there.

 

[Del191229]

Of course. That's what writers do. It's neither good nor bad. Whether he's selected well and added well to give an accurate account of the player's perceptions is what makes it a good or bad account. And in this case, whether he's nailed that and their perceptions are reliable is what makes it good or bad journalism.

Rusty is first and foremost a writer. By his own description he's a "self taught" journalist.

Whether their perceptions are reliable is not what makes it good or bad journalism though, its whether he's presenting us with enough information to make an informed decision as readers as to whether they are reliable or not.

And he hasn't done that - but we've done this to death and its apparent lots of folks have made an emotional rather than rational decision regarding Rusty's craft on this one.

 

[Del191229]

That doesn't mean he has ownership of the facts. He's telling someone else's story.

He hasn't shown any interest in going through the Fact Shop door, let alone arrived at taking ownership of them.

 

[Chief]

He hasn't shown any interest in going through the Fact Shop door, let alone arrived at taking ownership of them.

From what I recall the actual report matched up with what he wrote.

I read this stuff at the time so I could be wrong.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I just copied this from the article:

"He told me to kill my unborn kid."

FFS.

And what was the sentence prior to that? Where he said what Clarkson actually did and said.

The quote you picked, is clearly his interpretation of what Clarkson meant when he said to 'get rid of them'.

Seriously. People are just f***ing dumb.

 

[Del191229]

From what I recall the actual report matched up with what he wrote.

I read this stuff at the time so I could be wrong.

The report isn't fact either. Egan didn't put any of the allegations he heard to those accused. To be fair, he wasn't asked to.

The report is also composed of unverified anonymous allegations.

Those are facts.

 

[sr36]

Whether their perceptions are reliable is not what makes it good or bad journalism though, its whether he's presenting us with enough information to make an informed decision as readers as to whether they are reliable or not.

Disagree. If one article did all that you asked, you'd only ever need one article on a big story. And that one article would take up the whole newspaper. The follow up from the media in general is where you get the balance and nuance and other angles of the story and where the reader gets enough information to form a stronger or weaker opinion of reliability. The breaking article is rarely the whole story.

He's broken a big story, by detailing some allegations. Compellingly written. If his version is accurate to the perceptions of the individuals and those perceptions are true, it's fantastic journalism.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

The report isn't fact either. Egan didn't put any of the allegations he heard to those accused. To be fair, he wasn't asked to.

The report is also composed of unverified anonymous allegations.

Those are facts.

That is not facts, that is conjecture/speculation on your behalf.

 

[Area51]

The degree to which some of the North supporters in this thread have become invested the defence of a coach who to date has done nothing for them is insightful as to how desperate for success they have become. You are not representing your club in a favourable light.

Meanwhile has anything actually happened with the investigation or are the AFL still continuing with the do nothing for long enough and it will go away strategy. I did hear that Clarkson and Fagan, while still subject to allegations of abuse, will be allowed to commence / continue their roles where they will have further opportunities to interact with vulnerable people.

It sounds like the AFL has got their safeguarding standards firmly in place. Safeguarding their mates that is. Is it any wonder the complainants don't trust the AFL with this.

 

[Makeshift Park]

That is not facts, that is conjecture/speculation on your behalf.

There is nothing speculative in the post by SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay that you are responding to.

Claim 1) The report isn't fact either.

This is Phil Egan's first recommendation from the Cultural Safety Review.
In his words, the report found "alleged negligence and human rights abuses".



Claim 2) Egan didn't put any of the allegations he heard to those accused.

These are Phil Egan's own words:


Claim 3) To be fair, he wasn't asked to.

This is how Phil Egan described the project brief:



Claim 4) The report is also composed of unverified anonymous allegations.

This is how Egan describes the project's methodology:


To his credit he's undertaken a level of corroboration by requesting additional primary data. But the fact remains that from a legal standpoint, the allegations remain just that.

 

[sr36]

See, I find it outrageously unlikely that anyone in Clarkson’s position, even if they’re an authoritarian as Clarkson is alleged to be (but probably not the only sports coach in the world to be that way), would single out one young impressionable recruit with the intent of ending the boy’s partner’s pregnancy. I’m thinking it was the disruptive relationship that was causing problems, the lad being pushed this way and that by family members.

However, after this incident what happened next? The player stayed with the club, stayed with the partner, had the baby, saw the year out, came back the next year (during which the partner had an abortion of her/their own volition), saw that year out as well before being delisted.

I don’t see a pattern of discriminatory behaviour by anyone here.

FFS. This is up there with: why did she go back to work if her boss was sexually harassing her? We didn't she go straight to the police if she really was r*ped? Why didn't she just leave her abusive partner? If it was me, I would've...Blah blah blah.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

There is nothing speculative in the post by SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay that you are responding to.

Claim 1) The report isn't fact either.

This is Phil Egan's first recommendation from the Cultural Safety Review.
In his words, the report found "alleged negligence and human rights abuses".

View attachment 1539874

Claim 2) Egan didn't put any of the allegations he heard to those accused.

These are Phil Egan's own words:

View attachment 1539870
Claim 3) To be fair, he wasn't asked to.

This is how Phil Egan described the project brief:

View attachment 1539873

Claim 4) The report is also composed of unverified anonymous allegations.

This is how Egan describes the project's methodology:

View attachment 1539877
To his credit he's undertaken a level of corroboration by requesting additional primary data. But the fact remains that from a legal standpoint, the allegations remain just that.

Why don't you just believe what the Indigenous players and partners and the assistant coach are saying .

 

[Forward Press]

FFS. This is up there with: why did she go back to work if her boss was sexually harassing her? We didn't she go straight to the police if she really was r*ped? Why didn't she just leave her abusive partner? If it was me, I would've...Blah blah blah.

That post was also liked by the upstanding journalist of BigFooty...mildly disturbing rationale, to say the least, employed by the posters.

 

[Paimon]

"Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any inappropriate conduct should, in the view of the investigation panel, be subject to disciplinary action which would be undertaken pursuant to a separate process under AFL Rules“

From AFL.com.au—emphasis mine. If I were a cynic I might suggest that we have found their escape clause cloaked in disciplinary language.

If the panel is independent—and if that is an important mechanism for natural justice—I would have thought those deciding any possible punishments ought to be independent. I really don’t know.