NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

[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

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Just to rehash.

I went to the footy as a kid in 1993, heard terrible words and phrases yelled at Adrian mccadam as he kicked 10 goals against the pies. My dad said he’d never go to a Collingwood game again. In the subsequent 300 games I’ve since attended I’ve never heard someone yell out those or other clearly racist remarks.

What colour I am has nothing to do with the words I hear from those around me.

As Yolngu, an Indigenoud person, has highlighted to you, is that if you were indigenous and attended 300 odd games of footy between 1993 and now, you most certainly would have been on the receiving end of racial abuse.

I am concerned you are unable to take this feedback on. It appears like you are deliberately refusing to take on the perspectives on people with lived experiences who know far more than you about this topic.

Edit - I misspelt Yolngu’s name the first time. My apologies. (Spelling not my strong suit).

 

[perplexed]

You might be right that this is a great outcome for the players vis a vis alternatives at hand, and that through the process they might get a solid outcome. I think it is less about content and outcomes and more about process at this stage. If people are not comfortable with a process, they will always be reluctant to engage.

I think it is important to remember that we are talking about people who have experienced deep trauma in the AFL system and have extremely low degrees of trust (actually, probably better to express it as extremely high degrees of mistrust).

It’s alway important, but particularly important, in situations like this that time is taken to co-design processes that all parties, but most importantly the aggrieved parties, feel safe and confident in.

I think it is telling that time seems to be the big thing that the AFL is not willing to compromise on. They rushed out an announcement of the panel before the panel was selected, they rushed out the panel before the TOR were set, they rushed out the TOR before the aggrieved parties were comfortable, with one of the main sticking points being the arbitrary timeframe for conducting the review.

Where’s the rush here? The players have been living with these things for years. Take the time to do this right. Let the coaches go back to coaching by all means (they voluntarily stood down anyway). Just take the time to do it right.

The rush is coming from the AFL to media manage. The rush is coming from Gil wanting to wrap this up neatly before his tenure is over. The rush is coming to enable the coaches to get to work with a clean slate. Amongst all this, the needs of the traumatised players and their families are no where to be found.

It is again (white) people in power determining what is right for them and their families. I can more than understand why they are reluctant to take any part in the process.

The AFL are way too compromised to run this review, but it needs to be acknowledged that the players started the war by going nuclear. They could have taken their complaints to several authorities and had this dealt with sensitively, instead they went to the press and let them drop the bomb. They don't get to now say slow down we need time, they took ten years to choose this path. If they don't take this elsewhere now they can't complain about the AFL doing what the AFL always do.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

The AFL are way too compromised to run this review, but it needs to be acknowledged that the players started the war by going nuclear. They could have taken their complaints to several authorities and had this dealt with sensitively, instead they went to the press and let them drop the bomb. They don't get to now say slow down we need time, they took ten years to choose this path. If they don't take this elsewhere now they can't complain about the AFL doing what the AFL always do.

I’m glad that as a (probably non-indiengous) supporter of the football club at which the key person accused currently coaches is able to tell the aboriginal players and families, who have lived with trauma and power imbalances for several years now, what it is they should expect.

You should contact their lawyers so you can clear this mess right up.

 

[South of the Yarra]

As Yolngu, an Indigenoud person, has highlighted to you, is that if you were indigenous and attended 300 odd games of footy between 1993 and now, you most certainly would have been on the receiving end of racial abuse.

I am concerned you are unable to take this feedback on. It appears like you are deliberately refusing to take on the perspectives on people with lived experiences who know far more than you about this topic.

Edit - I misspelt Yolngu’s name the first time. My apologies. (Spelling not my strong suit).

Cheers mate. Thanks for understanding

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Cheers mate. Thanks for understanding

Thank you for sharing your experiences. All I have done is listen. I am learning a lot from you.

Can I ask a question? What is it that made you want turn up to the footy for so long when you knew players and supporters from the opposition team, but also your own, were going to hurl racial abuse?

I don’t mean this question to come across like you shouldn’t have turned up. I am sure you have had very good reasons. I wanted to keep it an open question so that you could answer how you wanted without needing to correct any misconceptions I might hold.

 

[perplexed]

I’m glad that as a (probably non-indiengous) supporter of the football club at which the key person accused currently coaches is able to tell the aboriginal players and families, who have lived with trauma and power imbalances for several years now, what it isn’t they should expect.

You should contact their lawyers so you can clear this mess right up.

I'm sure your smug response makes sense in your head.

They've made serious allegations - they need to back them up, ...somewhere. If they had any advice at all, I don't think they would have started by going to the press, and if they did they would have a court or commission in mind. Personally I don't think they do, I suspect they only lawyered up after getting hoodwinked by Jackson. Although I'm happy to hear ideas as to why going to the press was a good way to kick things off.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Thank you for sharing your experiences. All I have done is listen. I am learning a lot from you.

Can I ask a question? What is it that made you want turn up to the footy for so long when you knew players and supporters from the opposition team, but also your own, were going to hurl racial abuse?

I don’t mean this question to come across like you shouldn’t have turned up. I am sure you have had very good reasons. I wanted to keep it an open question so that you could answer how you wanted without needing to correct any misconceptions I might hold.

A great question mate. At first when I was younger it was just expected. It was part of who you were. You just put up with it. I know that is wrong but that is the way it was. It was hard when you heard opposition do it even harder when your own fans did it. As I got older and learnt more I began to challenge even my own supporters. The thing that kept me going to the footy was family, it was always about going to the footy to see our beloved Pies with family.

 

[perplexed]

Here’s a start, if they didn’t go to the press then you, I and others wouldn’t be talking about it. In addition, the AFL wouldn’t be taking it as seriously as they are. If a 30 day review amongst all this publicity is the best the AFL can do, do you really think going through a confidential AFL process would deliver any justice at all?

Here’s another, they have accessed some justice against the people they feel have wronged them within a system of massive power imbalance. I know you are struggling to empathise with the players and their families, but if what they are saying is true, then of course they would take any retribution they could get.

And again, it’s not for you to tell them what they need to do. They have agency and they are making their own choices.

You seem very angry at a journalist for doing their job. You’d get on great with Luke Beveridge.

You seem to enjoy verballing me. I'm not angry or 'struggling to emphasize'. Nor am I proposing a confidential AFL process, that will be as garbage as their achievements so far - us talking about it and the AFL pretending to take it seriously. I'm saying that by going to the press they have let themselves get chucked under a bus. You think this was a wise course of action? They have opened themselves up to legal action and lost control of the process.

I think they should have gone to Yoorrook or the Human Rights Commission instead. Of course they have agency, I think they used it poorly.

 

[Del191229]

Keep shooting the messenger bro

My point about the power imbalances in my trying to reply to your posts has been proven.

 

[gouki88]

My point about the power imbalances in my trying to reply to your posts has been proven.

Your personal investment blinding your eyes to any possibility of a fair judgement has also been proven.

 

[Del191229]

Your personal investment blinding your eyes to any possibility of a fair judgement has also been proven.

Do you think the Yoo-Rook Commission is a good venue for these allegations to be tested?

 

[eastfreo75]

I'm sure your smug response makes sense in your head.

They've made serious allegations - they need to back them up, ...somewhere. If they had any advice at all, I don't think they would have started by going to the press, and if they did they would have a court or commission in mind. Personally I don't think they do, I suspect they only lawyered up after getting hoodwinked by Jackson. Although I'm happy to hear ideas as to why going to the press was a good way to kick things off.

My understanding that they didn’t go to the media or Hawthorn.

Hawthorn approached the former players and journalist got wind of it and spoke with the ex players.

 

[Del191229]

My understanding that they didn’t go to the media or Hawthorn.

Hawthorn approached the former players and journalist got wind of it and spoke with the ex players.

Hawthorn established the inquiry after the Riolis went public about Jeff Kennett's racism.

Hawthorn, under President Jeff Kennett, hire Phil Egan to do the inquiry.

Egan finds that bad things largely only happened when Kennett wasn't President, doesn't mention Kennett's racism to the Riolis, finds that everything is hunkydory now under Kennett.

Hawthorn submit the report to the AFL Integrity Unit, as recommended by Egan's report.

Egan or someone else, but the general consensus is Egan, then leaks the report to Russell Jackson and provides him with details of the players he's spoken to.

Jackson publishes his article.

 

[eastfreo75]

I think it allows some unconscious bias towards Clarkson's version of events though. It's hard to imagine anyone telling someone to abort their kid.

Sorry mate but it happens all the time.

My teen half sister had a lot of pressure from the family to abort her child.

I was the only one to listen to her and go through the pros and cons.

 

[travelli]

A

Again, what you think doesn’t matter. The lawyers of the players have made it clear that they don’t believe a culturally safe review can be completed within a one-month time boxed review.

Also, Higgins’ rape trial would have involved months of preparation from both parties, including time for discovery and other formal court processes - so even if you opinion mattered (it doesn’t), you have shot your argument in the foot.

I don't think this culturally safe review will be done in a month. The first step is to see if clarko/Fagan are fit to coach .

The next part will be about implementing strategies across the AFL to understand and respect cultural diversity. That'll take years and will be subject to ongoing reviews.

The AFL has to be seen to be doing something here . Wait for the recommendations.

 

[perplexed]

My understanding that they didn’t go to the media or Hawthorn.

Hawthorn approached the former players and journalist got wind of it and spoke with the ex players.

That could well be the case. However talking to him on the record without any legal advice seems fraught.

 

[sr36]

That could well be the case. However talking to him on the record without any legal advice seems fraught.

The latest little manouvre on here seems to be trying to build a case of clandestine activity to discredit.

However, if the player's are telling the truth, why shouldn't they tell that truth to anyone they want to? Why should they have tried to keep Clarkson and Fagan's names out of the press? And why shouldn't they have legal representation that is aimng for the best outcome for them?

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

A great question mate. At first when I was younger it was just expected. It was part of who you were. You just put up with it. I know that is wrong but that is the way it was. It was hard when you heard opposition do it even harder when your own fans did it. As I got older and learnt more I began to challenge even my own supporters. The thing that kept me going to the footy was family, it was always about going to the footy to see our beloved Pies with family.

Thanks for sharing Yolngu

 

[sr36]

I don't think this culturally safe review will be done in a month. The first step is to see if clarko/Fagan are fit to coach .

The next part will be about implementing strategies across the AFL to understand and respect cultural diversity. That'll take years and will be subject to ongoing reviews.

The AFL has to be seen to be doing something here . Wait for the recommendations.

Inquiry
Outcome for Fagan and Clarkson.
Settlement negotiations will commence.
League wide review of policies and practices with recommendations relating to appropriate levels of involvement in player's lives and other issues around indigenous inclusion.

 

[Gralin]

Hawthorn established the inquiry after the Riolis went public about Jeff Kennett's racism.

Hawthorn, under President Jeff Kennett, hire Phil Egan to do the inquiry.

Egan finds that bad things largely only happened when Kennett wasn't President, doesn't mention Kennett's racism to the Riolis, finds that everything is hunkydory now under Kennett.

Hawthorn submit the report to the AFL Integrity Unit, as recommended by Egan's report.

Egan or someone else, but the general consensus is Egan, then leaks the report to Russell Jackson and provides him with details of the players he's spoken to.

Jackson publishes his article.

So Egan bad too now?
Given the ABC article wasn't based on the report and it's not hard to get a list of past players I don't know why this leak from Egan idea exists, other than from prior trying to discredit the whole thing

 

[Forward Press]

So Egan bad too now?
Given the ABC article wasn't based on the report and it's not hard to get a list of past players I don't know why this leak from Egan idea exists, other than from prior trying to discredit the whole thing

I also now love this new line of 'power imbalance' to go along with shooting the messenger.

Yes, the poor coaches who have no money, no lawyers and no-one believing them, versus the evil indigenous players and their families and their access to vast wealth and media cronies.

You cannot make this shit up any more. We already know Dr Hood is a personal family friend of the poster - it would not surprise now if the poster was revealed to be the actual head of Dr Hood's PR team.

 

[Gralin]

I also now love this new line of 'power imbalance' to go along with shooting the messenger.

Yes, the poor coaches who have no money, no lawyers and no-one believing them, versus the evil indigenous players and their families and their access to vast wealth and media cronies.

You cannot make this s**t up any more. We already know Dr Hood is a personal family friend of the poster - it would not surprise now if the poster was revealed to be the actual head of Dr Hood's PR team.

Yeah and apparently power imbalance means I'm not allowed to disagree with them because its unfair.

 

[sr36]

I also now love this new line of 'power imbalance' to go along with shooting the messenger.

Yes, the poor coaches who have no money, no lawyers and no-one believing them, versus the evil indigenous players and their families and their access to vast wealth and media cronies.

You cannot make this s**t up any more. We already know Dr Hood is a personal family friend of the poster - it would not surprise now if the poster was revealed to be the actual head of Dr Hood's PR team.

Unfair on Hood. Nothing to suggest that she'd stoop to this level.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Your insistence on the poor quality of the report is boring, and reeks of being bitter.

I’m a social science academic, and have a professional interest not just in the findings of such reports, but in their methodology and epistemology - ie what methods did they use, what type of knowledge claims did they generate out of these methods, and what sort of recommendations did they come up with, based on the former. I read the Collingwood Do Better report, the recent report into the SAS, and the leaked Hawthorn report, from this perspective.

The Hawthorn report sought to capture the experiences of Indigenous players. To that purpose, its primary methodology was interviews with only the indigenous players. The epistemologically interesting bit is - what type of knowledge claims can you generate from that methodology? You can certainly claim to produce knowledge regarding the players’ experiences - how they felt, what was important to them about the experience etc. That is not the same, however, as producing definitive knowledge regarding the facts of the matter at hand. That’s why the issue with the report is whether it overreached, in terms of whether the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made were appropriate to the methodology used, and the limits to the type of knowledge that such a methodology can generate.

That is why, even though notions of ‘multiple epistemologies’ and ‘multiple ontologies’ are all the rage in Arts Faculties, and are used to justify the legitimacy of indigenous knowledge-making practices, unfortunately the rubber hits the road when a shared, or agreed upon set of procedures for trying to determine the facts of a matter are needed. I don’t think the process they followed at Collingwood should be called a “truth-telling”. When conflicting views exist, it’s not a truth-telling for one group to claim an epistemically priveleged position and claim that only they can speak the truth. That doesn’t mean that investigations such as occurred at Collingwood and Hawthorn shouldn’t happen, but their limits should be acknowledged.

Russel’s article doesn’t show any awareness of these limitations, and treats reports of experience as though they are unequivocal facts. A more nuanced view would acknowledge that it is possible to believe the players’ account of their experiences, without assuming that such a belief is equal to believing that the players’ precise recollections are unequivocal facts.

When conflicting views need to be reconciled and some approximation of the “facts” of the matter need to be established, the judicial model is the best and fairest one that we have. It is far from perfect - as you and others have pointed out it is biased towards the interests of the ruling class - but nonetheless it’s the best system we have available for resolving conflict with consideration for fairness and procedure.

Academic rant over.

 

[BigPond101]

Inquiry
Outcome for Fagan and Clarkson.
Settlement negotiations will commence.
League wide review of policies and practices with recommendations relating to appropriate levels of involvement in player's lives and other issues around indigenous inclusion.

Gil would be mad if he hasn't already sent a memo to all clubs you can't have young indigenous players or any player living with the coaches. Enough problems occur naturally living with someone let alone if you are 18 and that person is your boss