NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[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

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

Irrelevant still needs to be innocent until proven guilty according to many or do we just pick accuse. Yes, we know Bryant was guilty, so we don't have innocent to proven guilty. We simply pick and choose.

Martin Bryant was caught with the gun in his hand, charged and then plead guilty to all charges.

There are also those who still believe he may not be guilty.

 

[FlyHigh18]

Are they going to tell their story now??

They can’t, what they want to say is in the player records, which are confidential.

They’ve asked for them, and were denied by the accusers.

Independent panel couldn’t find anything to nail the accused… nothing in the apparent sms or emails. But guess what, they did see players records. Packed up shop now. No cash.

What ppl aren't accepting, the thing causing the most division to spectators, is that both sides of the story contains truth. There were plenty who participated in the review, provided their feedback of suffering some form of everyday racism. But the louder bullshit stories that made the headlines and inflated by R Jackson ended up stealing the spotlight.

 

[yodellinhank]

They can’t, what they want to say is in the player records, which are confidential.

They’ve asked for them, and were denied by the accusers.

So they don't get to say their side of the story because they don't know what that is?

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I might leave it there as I'm not understanding how you can deny allegations but you can't speak about them.

If you can’t understand that perhaps posting further in here at all might be unwise?

 

[sr36]

If you can’t understand that perhaps posting further in here at all might be unwise?

Do you understand the very simple concept that if you "categorically deny" all accusations then you are speaking about the allegations and saying that they are all entirely false?

 

[bigfatcorn]

Of course this was all lies, I said from the beginning this smelled like manure and i got called a racist.

 

[matthew_s]

Of course this was all lies, I said from the beginning this smelled like manure and i got called a racist.

if you think that press conference proved anything at all, either way, well...

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Churchill’s famous quote about sums up the state of play after Gil’s press conference:

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

The AFL took months to basically wash their hands of this mess and handpass it onto someone else.

That’s pretty telling. It shows how serious and complicated the whole thing is and how they know how much damage it can/could have done to their brand.

Lots of stuff still on the table.

Gil mentioned the Hawks in the presser. I think that’s a bad sign for them. My prediction is he’s softening everyone involved up for them to be punished. That would appease the community that wants blood, Alistair Clarkson, and show the Human Rights Commission (especially if they end up deciding in favour of the indigenous families) that they weren’t asleep at the wheel.

The AFL has spent months working out the potential fallout from this and has come up with the “least bad” outcome for them.

1. Wash their hands when it comes to casting judgement on the individual coaches themselves. This is smart as it gets rid of the angry loose cannon Clarko problem they had.

2. Not specifically say that the indigenous families were lying, more that “if you want a hearing, don’t do it with us, do it with the human rights commission/the courts”. This takes the AFL out of the firing line on this one.

Gil will rest a bit easier tonight. He knows the only way this blows up again (in Andrew Dillon’s face if it happens) will be if the human rights commission gives the Twitter mobs ammunition to turn this story viral again.

This was always the big risk for the competition anyway so he would see the measures he has taken as one way to lessen that risk.

 

[Lingsface]

Churchill’s famous quote about sums up the state of play after Gil’s press conference:

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

The AFL took months to basically wash their hands of this mess and handpass it onto someone else.

That’s pretty telling. It shows how serious and complicated the whole thing is and how they know how much damage it can/could have done to their brand.

Lots of stuff still on the table.

Gil mentioned the Hawks in the presser. I think that’s a bad sign for them. My prediction is he’s softening everyone involved up for them to be punished. That would appease the community that wants blood, Alistair Clarkson, and show the Human Rights Commission (especially if they end up deciding in favour of the indigenous families) that they weren’t asleep at the wheel.

The AFL has spent months working out the potential fallout from this and has come up with the “least bad” outcome for them.

1. Wash their hands when it comes to casting judgement on the individual coaches themselves. This is smart as it gets rid of the angry loose cannon Clarko problem they had.

2. Not specifically say that the indigenous families were lying, more that “if you want a hearing, don’t do it with us, do it with the human rights commission/the courts”. This takes the AFL out of the firing line on this one.

Gil will rest a bit easier tonight. He knows the only way this blows up again (in Andrew Dillon’s face if it happens) will be if the human rights commission gives the Twitter mobs ammunition to turn this story viral again.

This was always the big risk for the competition anyway so he would see the measures he has taken as one way to lessen that risk.

Andrew Dillon is a lawyer so anything legal will be his bread and butter.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Andrew Dillon is a lawyer so anything legal will be his bread and butter.

Absolutely: the AFL are protected legally now, with this negotiation no doubt somewhat down to Dillon’s legal skills.

The potential future fallout I am talking about for the AFL is in the court of public opinion, Twitter mobs, BBC etc. which can do untold damage to their brand.

 

[South of the Yarra]

there has been a lot of incidents over the years where DeGoey has gotten himself in trouble. If you are a multiple offender in society of course the hammer is going to come down harder on you if you stuff up again. Thats how the law works in general. Clarkson, Fagan and Burt have no history of any wrongdoing. They have had these hearsay allegations come across them with no evidence to support any of the accusations. I know it hurts you to hear the truth mate but the major difference too is with DeGoey, Bryant etc they were charged by the police. The police don't just charge people out of the blue, nor do they have an agenda, they are employed to enforce the law! The indigenous accusers never went to the police, to court, fairwork or anything. All they did was go to the ABC. That right there is why people like me see them as having no credibility compared to other cases. Not due to race

So you have proven my point. We pick and choose the innocent before proven guilty statement

 

[South of the Yarra]

Of course this was all lies, I said from the beginning this smelled like manure and i got called a racist.

So the Aboriginal boys were lying?

 

[CarterS]

Gil mentioned the Hawks in the presser. I think that’s a bad sign for them. My prediction is he’s softening everyone involved up for them to be punished. That would appease the community that wants blood

I think you've misread the community if you think that.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I think you've misread the community if you think that.

The wider community has been calling for sanctions against the hawks.

 

[speedpeck23]

South of the Yarra is running with the academic definition of racism, where it is deemed racism if it has an extra negative effect for people of a particular cultural group. Which is different to the layman's defnition which assumes some negative intent towards that cultural group in order to categorise it as racism.

No idea how a body like the HRC would define it.

It has to be about intent , otherwise you can't ever make a decision on anything. However well researched you are in attempting something you can never be sure of the outcome...you can't 100% predict the future on anything. Unless you are an advocate of the " ends justifying the means"...then you have an interminable problem.

 

[speedpeck23]

It seems ironic to me that on the one hand the AFL promotes the Yes vote on the referendum to give a voice to First Nations People and then on the other hand threatens to sanction one of their constituent clubs for engaging an authoratitive agency "Binmada" to facilitate a communication between First Nation Players and the club itself.

 

[CarterS]

Interesting comments from Fagan who has basically said he would welcome court action because everything would be made public and he believes his side of the story would be vindicated.

Long statement but here's the interesting part for me

Prior to the agreement referred to above being reached, the documents held by Hawthorn that the complainants had refused to release to me were released to me, very recently, with their consent. Those same documents were in the possession of both the investigation panel and the AFL for consideration by those parties for a significant time prior to their release to me. I am bound by a confidentiality deed not to disclose the contents of the documents. But I can say that they support the categorical denials of the allegations against me that I have stated from the outset. I can also say that for my part, I would be completely happy for all of these documents to be made public.

I am happy for any of my conduct and any documents to be aired publicly in a public court or proper public process and let someone impartial decide what is true and what is false.

 

[travelli]

All they can say at this point though is that they deny the accusations. They don’t technically know who made them. To give anymore context could potentially remove the anonymity that the people involved have requested.

They can’t do anymore currently. They’ve denied the allegations, that’s all they can say. We can believe them if we’d like, or not. But until the accusations are made formal, which they may or may not be, that’s it. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s just it.

Do you think this outcome will satisfy all parties?

 

[sr36]

It has to be about intent , otherwise you can't ever make a decision on anything. However well researched you are in attempting something you can never be sure of the outcome...you can't 100% predict the future on anything. Unless you are an advocate of the " ends justifying the means"...then you have an interminable problem.

You think it has to be intent because you're looking at it as a label that is given to people. The academic definition is labelling behaviour, not people. If you're the subject of behaviour that racially discriminates against you, is the intention the significant thing or is the discrimination the significant thing?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

You think it has to be intent because you're looking at it as a label that is given to people. The academic definition is labelling behaviour, not people. If you're the subject of behaviour that racially discriminates against you, is the intention the significant thing or is the discrimination the significant thing?

When I was growing up racial discrimination was doing things to a particular race/s that you wouldn't do to others.

Somewhere in the last probably 10 years that changed to how the person perceives your actions

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So did you have the same attitude with Martin Bryant?
Why was Jordan De Goey not given that same luxuory?

Go read the posts from some posters on here defending Clarkson but slamming De Goey.

Don't bull$%#$ me on innocent to proven guilty.
We all know why

You realise some people actually have a consistent view on an issue across the board regardless of who is or isnt involved. Just because you havent met them doesnt mean they dont exist.

Dont conflate how you feel about something as fact. Youre entitled to feel however you feel but it doesnt make it a standard of fact.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Notes club of support for thread starter, notes longest bow ever used to connect two completely unrelated matters.

Walks off quietly thinking of potential landmines but impressed at the lengths some posters will attempt to go to "exonerate" their club at least in their minds.

I'm sure that we will soon see Jeff Kennett say something similar but in a more clunky manner in the media.

 

[sr36]

When I was growing up racial discrimination was doing things to a particular race/s that you wouldn't do to others.

Somewhere in the last probably 10 years that changed to how the person perceives your actions

What I'm talking about isn't perception. It's a definition where if an action has an outcome that is likely to disadvantage one cultural group, it's defined as racial discrimination. Intent isn't part of the definition, except when you get into sub-categories.

That definition is neither the correct or incorrect decision. But it's a widely used definition. And it's important to know what definition people are using, otherwise you get these big arguments, when you're really just arguing about two different definitions.

 

[HairyO]

But he refused to talk to the investigation.

Best legal advice is not to say anything but don’t claim you wanted to talk.

He didnt refuse. He refused until he saw everything. Like literally everyone accused of something would do.

You do understand how legal systems tend to work, right? You get to see everything in advance so you know what it actually is you are accused of and also have access to all the evidence so you can see what you need to be responding to?

You've posted many times in thread and dont seem to have a grasp on even the basics you would pick up watching TV shows about lawyers. Rumpole was probably the best.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I'm curious what reasoning would be given to sanction Hawthorn. Instigating a survey to try and better understand views held by past and present indigenous players with a view to improve cultural awareness within the club doesn't seem like a good reason to be punished. It may have turned into a sh*t show for all involved with the ABC article, but how is that a governance issue for Hawthorn?

Or is Gil insinuating it was Hawthorn that leaked the report? That would certainly be worthy of bringing the game into disrepute.

Other than that, I can't see what other reasoning there could be considering the AFL has just declared there was no breach of AFL rules.

I'm struggling with that as well

Can't see exactly why Hawks FC would get sanctioned