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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[South of the Yarra]

Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd. Particularly describing 'they', 'them', 'their' as exclusive language, when they are the inclusive terms of our age. I wasn't sure if it was serious or playing around with inclusive/exclusive

Inclusive of gender etc but should be careful with race. Anyway, I was actually complimenting it so as I said back to the issue of alleged Aboriginal abuse.

 

[Power Raid]

TBH, its probably best for this whole discussion if people accepted that there's a good reason why the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia; but that doesn't mean it gets everything right and wins every defamation case against it and its reporters.

I know board members at the ABC and they don't trust the editors and journalist.

FYI - the board has no say over content

 

[South of the Yarra]

Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd. Particularly describing 'they', 'them', 'their' as exclusive language, when they are the inclusive terms of our age. I wasn't sure if it was serious or playing around with inclusive/exclusive.

Just from the Human Rights Commission so you can see what i mean

'When we feel angry or frustrated, we often look for someone else to blame for our problems. As a community, we can do the same thing. People who look or talk differently to us are an easy target. You can hear it happening today in comments like, "those people take our jobs" or "they get government handouts all the time". Nearly all the time, these statements are wrong.'

 

[sr36]

Inclusive of gender etc but should be careful with race. Anyway, I was actually complimenting it so as I said back to the issue of alleged Aboriginal abuse.

"They" when speaking in general about the people of a culture is dodgy, but when speaking about specific individuals the way he was is fine.

 

[sr36]

Just from the Human Rights Commission so you can see what i mean

'When we feel angry or frustrated, we often look for someone else to blame for our problems. As a community, we can do the same thing. People who look or talk differently to us are an easy target. You can hear it happening today in comments like, "those people take our jobs" or "they get government handouts all the time". Nearly all the time, these statements are wrong.'

Yes - the notion of "the other". It's not the words in all usage though. It's only when they're used to refer to a group of people as the other.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Is there that much risk then? The blokes aren't going to lose their jobs due to the article - they might over the inquiry, but that would make the article supported by evidence in the inquiry. How do they show evidential damages if the inquiry says not enough evidence?

They don't have to demonstrate they suffered financially as a result of the story to win a defo case, but it would help them if they could.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Yes - the notion of "the other". It's not the words in all usage though. It's only when they're used to refer to a group of people as the other.

Is not 'they' in this case referring to a cultural group of Aboriginal men. I am sure I have used it many times myself as well.

 

[sr36]

Is not 'they' in this case referring to a cultural group of Aboriginal men. I am sure I have used it many times myself as well.

No. It's referring to a specific group of claimants, who are Aboriginal. It's not a general reference to Aboriginal men, which is when it's dodgy.

 

[perplexed]

Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd. Particularly describing 'they', 'them', 'their' as exclusive language, when they are the inclusive terms of our age. I wasn't sure if it was serious or playing around with inclusive/exclusive.

I thought it was being accused of othering the victims, but I was probably being a bit sensitive.

 

[sr36]

I thought it was being accused of othering the victims, but I was probably being a bit sensitive.

I interpreted it that way as well, but was also a tad confused.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If you do want to discuss the merits of what's been reported, why do you immediately have a giant sook about sHoOtiNg tHe mEsSeNgER any time anyone tries to do that?

You refuse to discuss the article, that is the problem.
What are you scared of???

Tell us where the article was wrong ……..for once!

 

[Del191229]

Yes, make them culturally appropriate as I mentioned above but it will not happen, so we are wasting our breath. Don't hole meetings dressed suits in a board room, hold them on a beach. Take away the power imbalance.

This is my fundamental issue with how the story has been handled.

Because of the way Jackson CHOSE to handle it, it was inevitably heading straight to the world of suits and power imbalances where indigenous people get done over.

There were other ways he could have managed the story to avoid, or at least try and avoid, this outcome.

This isn't shooting the messenger as the simple folk of the thread insist.

If I were doing that I'd be disputing the substance of the allegations - as I've said repeatedly I believe those making complaints and I can see how the major power imbalances already extant in a footy club woukd have been magnified in these instances.

But it's time for a reckoning, and being honest imo.

Where are we now? The two coaches are going back to work. The AFL has put a very AFL process in place. According to their lawyer sone of the complainants are feeling further aggrieved and considering walking away from it all.

That's not their fault. All they've done is tell their story.

So we have to ask ourselves how we got here imo. Some will say Clarkson and Fagan created it with their actions, and that MAY be true, we don't know yet for sure.

But there's one key player who has displayed shocking judgement and has already had to walk back stuff he's published due to defamation threats.

It is simply implausible to say there was no other option. And it's dishonest to say he was just doing his job

There were so many other, better, different ways for this to go.

But here we are in the same old shit of the colony, with indigenous people getting screwed over by white institutions.

And our media is a key white institution, one of the most powerful in maintaining the occupation of indigenous land.

Look at what they're doing to Lidia Thorpe right now. Among many others.

 

[faible]

This is my fundamental issue with how the story has been handled.

Because of the way Jackson CHOSE to handle it, it was inevitably heading straight to the world of suits and power imbalances where indigenous people get done over.

There were other ways he could have managed the story to avoid, or at least try and avoid, this outcome.

This isn't shooting the messenger as the simple folk of the thread insist.

If I were doing that I'd be disputing the substance of the allegations - as I've said repeatedly I believe those making complaints and I can see how the major power imbalances already extant in a footy club woukd have been magnified in these instances.

But it's time for a reckoning, and being honest imo.

Where are we now? The two coaches are going back to work. The AFL has put a very AFL process in place. According to their lawyer sone of the complainants are feeling further aggrieved and considering walking away from it all.

That's not their fault. All they've done is tell their story.

So we have to ask ourselves how we got here imo. Some will say Clarkson and Fagan created it with their actions, and that MAY be true, we don't know yet for sure.

But there's one key player who has displayed shocking judgement and has already had to walk back stuff he's published due to defamation threats.

It is simply implausible to say there was no other option. And it's dishonest to say he was just doing his job

There were so many other, better, different ways for this to go.

But here we are in the same old s**t of the colony, with indigenous people getting screwed over by white institutions.

And our media is a key white institution, one of the most powerful in maintaining the occupation of indigenous land.

Look at what they're doing to Lidia Thorpe right now. Among many others.

I appreciate you leading with your concern for Indigenous people, then going straight to every imaginable avenue of not being concerned for Indigenous people.

We get it, Clarkson was a nice distraction from two straight wooden spoons and a generally shit time at North. At least have the honesty to admit that you don't particularly care about what happens to the Indigenous people in the article given every single comment you make is all about how Clarkson and co have been wronged.

 

[JackOutback]

Oh, did he talk to other indigenous players who had been part of Clarkso/Fagan's teams but thrived did he?

Because it has no fecking relevance. I could punch someone in a pub, the police don't go and speak to all the people I didn't punch and say 'according to these people, he's not a punching kinda guy'.

 

[King Huskii]

Seriously going to the AFL and let them investigate, how old are you ?

How old are you?

 

[faible]

the police don't go and speak to all the people I didn't punch and say 'according to these people, he's not a punching kinda guy'.

If you're wealthy or famous enough they'd probably do that for you. Our system is quite discerning that way.

 

[sr36]

This is my fundamental issue with how the story has been handled.

Because of the way Jackson CHOSE to handle it, it was inevitably heading straight to the world of suits and power imbalances where indigenous people get done over.

There were other ways he could have managed the story to avoid, or at least try and avoid, this outcome.

This isn't shooting the messenger as the simple folk of the thread insist.

If I were doing that I'd be disputing the substance of the allegations - as I've said repeatedly I believe those making complaints and I can see how the major power imbalances already extant in a footy club woukd have been magnified in these instances.

But it's time for a reckoning, and being honest imo.

Where are we now? The two coaches are going back to work. The AFL has put a very AFL process in place. According to their lawyer sone of the complainants are feeling further aggrieved and considering walking away from it all.

That's not their fault. All they've done is tell their story.

So we have to ask ourselves how we got here imo. Some will say Clarkson and Fagan created it with their actions, and that MAY be true, we don't know yet for sure.

But there's one key player who has displayed shocking judgement and has already had to walk back stuff he's published due to defamation threats.

It is simply implausible to say there was no other option. And it's dishonest to say he was just doing his job

There were so many other, better, different ways for this to go.

But here we are in the same old s**t of the colony, with indigenous people getting screwed over by white institutions.

And our media is a key white institution, one of the most powerful in maintaining the occupation of indigenous land.

Look at what they're doing to Lidia Thorpe right now. Among many others.

In terms of the where are we parts, how would we be in a better situation without the article. For a start, the AFL probably wouldn't have made the inquiry as independent as they have made it. If it's done that, it's done its job and it hasn't closed down the other avenues where you'd like it investigated.

 

[Del191229]

Because it has no fecking relevance. I could punch someone in a pub, the police don't go and speak to all the people I didn't punch and say 'according to these people, he's not a punching kinda guy'.

But when it gets to court, that's exactly what will happen

 

[Gralin]

This is my fundamental issue with how the story has been handled.

Because of the way Jackson CHOSE to handle it, it was inevitably heading straight to the world of suits and power imbalances where indigenous people get done over.

it was always going to the suits, its just the AFL were going to try and do it out of the public eye
Hawks and AFL sat on the report for 2 weeks with no contact to the former players and families
that's how it ended up in Jackson publishing an article

There were other ways he could have managed the story to avoid, or at least try and avoid, this outcome.

This isn't shooting the messenger as the simple folk of the thread insist.

such as?

If I were doing that I'd be disputing the substance of the allegations - as I've said repeatedly I believe those making complaints and I can see how the major power imbalances already extant in a footy club woukd have been magnified in these instances.

you mean like when you write things like

It means Jack Latimore wouldn't have just accepted it all without question and without running a proper journalistic process.

That's what he did with this excellent piece on Senator Lidia Thorpe recently.

Lidia Thorpe, the Greens senator who annoys the establishment

Read Indigenous affairs reporter Jack Latimore’s earlier profile of Lidia Thorpe as she announces her split from the Greens.

www.theage.com.au

Note how it includes several voices, including those who offer very different perspectives, something Jackson didn't.

You aren't insinuating that that Jackson article and the claims in it aren't truthful

because that is how it reads

But it's time for a reckoning, and being honest imo.

Where are we now? The two coaches are going back to work. The AFL has put a very AFL process in place. According to their lawyer sone of the complainants are feeling further aggrieved and considering walking away from it all.

and you're acting like if we never heard about this that the AFL wouldn't have done a very AFL thing with this

That's not their fault. All they've done is tell their story.

So we have to ask ourselves how we got here imo. Some will say Clarkson and Fagan created it with their actions, and that MAY be true, we don't know yet for sure.

But there's one key player who has displayed shocking judgement and has already had to walk back stuff he's published due to defamation threats.

he walked back a tweet, don't make it like the article has been walked back

It is simply implausible to say there was no other option. And it's dishonest to say he was just doing his job

There were so many other, better, different ways for this to go.

But here we are in the same old s**t of the colony, with indigenous people getting screwed over by white institutions.

And our media is a key white institution, one of the most powerful in maintaining the occupation of indigenous land.

Look at what they're doing to Lidia Thorpe right now. Among many others.

again you keep talking like Jackson is to blame for everything

which is ignoring the actual racism that appears to have happened because of how it was reported

 

[Forward Press]

TBH, its probably best for this whole discussion if people accepted that there's a good reason why the ABC is the most trusted news organisation in Australia; but that doesn't mean it gets everything right and wins every defamation case against it and its reporters.

Getting the occasional article wrong or being sued for defamation (mind you, the ABC won the Christian Porter case despite what Porter himself thought) does not mean we start from the presumption that the Russell Jackson article is wrong, though. As you pointed out, there is a reason why in spite of high profile things like the Porter defamation case and Tony Abbott's crusade to defund the ABC, that it is still regarded as the most trusted news organisation in Australia.

There is no doubt that Jackson's article, since it named people and reported serious allegations that damaged their reputations, would have gone through lawyers and editors before being given the tick of approval. The idea that it's all made up by disgruntled ex-employees and that the journalist did not bother to verify, corroborate and seek comment from the accused should be ridiculed as a result.

 

[Del191229]

You refuse to discuss the article, that is the problem.
What are you scared of???

Tell us where the article was wrong ……..for once!

What do you actually want?

I keep saying I believe those making the allegations and can see how the situations they describe happened.

It's like you want some quasi religious declaration of faith in The Article.

It's pretty weird.

 

[JackOutback]

But when it gets to court, that's exactly what will happen

Erm, no it doesn't. People may offer up character statements, but the courts don't weight up actual evidence I punched someone against statements from other people I didn't punch. If the evidence is there, I go down. If it is found Clarkson treated these players horrifically, the fact he didn't treat Buddy in the same way doesn't exonerate him in any way, shape or form. Which is why speaking to those people is wholly unnecessary. The article was characterising specific claims.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What do you actually want?

I keep saying I believe those making the allegations and can see how the situations they describe happened.

It's like you want some quasi religious declaration of faith in The Article.

It's pretty weird.

No, I just want you to tell us what is wrong with the article and stop being evasive.

It is actually quite simple but you chose to play games and avoid the detail and abuse Jackson .

 

[sr36]

But when it gets to court, that's exactly what will happen

No it won't. If it does go to court, he'll have some character witnesses, but he won't be defending a charge of being racist, he'll be charged with claims from the claimants about actions towards them. How he behaved towards Jed Anderson, or Shaun Burgoyne will have no more relevance than how he behaved towards Luke Hodge. It'll be about how he behaved towards the claimants.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Erm, no it doesn't. People may offer up character statements, but the courts don't weight up actual evidence I punched someone against statements from other people I didn't punch. If the evidence is there, I go down. If it is found Clarkson treated these players horrifically, the fact he didn't treat Buddy in the same way doesn't exonerate him in any way, shape or form. Which is why speaking to those people is wholly unnecessary. The article was characterising specific claims.

That's exactly what they do.
You always read the judge saying "good person who's made a mistake" etc