Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread

[Kramer1]

It's a survey, not a vote. They are still human rights issues that are or have been heavily debated in public before. We have never asked for a sporting code or football club to pass judgement or pick a side in similar issues.
We shouldn't be publicly berating a club for sitting on the fence a little bit, even when the statement was clearly heavily slanted towards support of SSM and they are being s**t canned for not supporting it.
One person has now come out (pun intended) and claimed that they will cancel their membership and probably never get another one (bet that changes when we climb up the ladder) because the club wasn't strong enough in their stance. She supports SSM and the club has strongly inferred that they hold the same stance as her, but respect the rights of others to not hold the same opinion.
It's head-scratching.

When things don't make sense I turn to the Betoota Advocate. Satirical art imitates life...
http://www.betootaadvocate.com/unca...ar-old-country-town-nanna-for-not-voting-yes/

 

[ShanDog]

The club communicated that this was a nationally important issue, and then refused to state their stance unequivocally for fear of being seen as 'campaigning', as opposed to holding a straight-forward opinion, one which they can freely communicate as a collective organisation of people who do have a right to an opinion on the matter. An organisation that is supposedly employing people and preaching a collective approach to a variety of long-standing issues internally and externally and seeks to hold a positive impact on the community:

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Carlton/Documents/CarltonFC_OurPurpose_December16.pdf

"Committing to a strong and united culture"
"Build on being a recognised leader in community engagement and social impact"
"Engaging in open and honest communication with our members and stakeholders"
"Deliver sustainable revenue growth aligning with our ‘Sense of Belonging’ and ‘whole of club’ strategy"

The club has done all those things you just quoted from that policy - they just didn't do it as emphatically as you and other ideologues would like because you are in the business of hyperbole, identity politics and holier-than-thou virtue signalling. Your reaction to what they said was in no way measured or reasonable. I know you're a flighty, emotional sort of person, but it doesn't excuse the vitriolic posting. You were wrong.

The club could have supported the 'yes' vote while stating it was a free vote

That's the first reasonable thing you have said on the matter instead of flying off the handle, declaring the club morally bankrupt now and into the future.

the club could have stated the nature through which some might be entitled to vote 'no' in the context of state and federal law as well as human rights, but I challenge you to present such an opinion in a secularist fashion that doesn't highlight that you deem a group of society to be due less legal rights than the rest.

I have no desire to argue the 'No' vote since I don't agree with it, nor do I believe there is a secular argument for it that holds up to any sort of intellectual rigor.

Within the context of the existing structure of the English language and the principles of mathematics, I will happily discuss and encourage the discussion of how you inscribe the notion of 1+1 equalling 2, but I will not entertain the serious opinion of 1+1 equalling 3, nor commentary that easily encourages people to believe as such.

If people want the right to opine on a matter, then they should be able to respect my right to point out when they are being utterly non-nonsensical and/or dangerous with their opining. If they feel dismissed because of that, perhaps they should review what they are saying and then engage further if necessary.

Sudden change of tune - now people ARE allowed to say things? I thought "Everyone is welcome, but not all opinions"?

In case you've ever wondered why I've not put my hand up to jump on the BF Blues podcast with you before Shan, this is why. I am staggered that you think you've taken an ethical and compassionate approach to the rights of any individuals or parties discussed, and I am staggered that you think your analysis is of sound standing.

This might shatter your little world view, but no, I haven't wondered. Not once. I could not give a s**t. But it makes sense for you to play identity politics in all areas of life. Staggering. So staggering.

 

[Aphrodite]

Has anyone read Hawthorn's statement.

Look familiar .......

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2017-09-19/hawthorn-embraces-all

 

[passmark]

Has anyone read Hawthorn's statement.

Look familiar .......

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2017-09-19/hawthorn-embraces-all

Those MONSTERS!!!!!!

 

[Gethelred]

As mentioned earlier, I think it's safe to assume that most of the day-to-day senior operators of the club would well and truly be behind the 'yes' vote. It begs the question, which of the directors or benefactors exerts such influence that they prevented the club from unequivocally standing up for the principles they espouse as an organisation? .. That is the issue at play. They are dancing around that issue by pretending that they do not want to look like they're campaigning. We all know the organisation has values they are committed to (see link in Jimmae's post above) and those values can only lead to supporting the 'yes' vote, so by showing their support they would be doing nothing more than acknowledging the values the club is committed to, the values the club sells to its members.

I'm also opposed to people 'shoving views down others' throats' (which would have to be one of the most misapplied statements getting around social media at the moment). As I've stated previously, people seem to think that by offering an unequivocal position it equates to an action of forcing their view on people. That is simply not true.

According to the article, at board level, there were a few who were going to/had voted no, which is probably why the message is far softer than it could be.

Carlton probably argue that they have done the same, but they have clouded the language enough to leave everyone thinking they are linked in arms with the club on all related issues...

I would really argue that this entire mess is confected, by those whose desire is to sell ad revenue; a Carlton divided, at each others throats, is one that sells space in newspapers and on the internet.

Trust that people - all people - are smart enough to read what is being said, and the statement as issued by the club ceases to be an issue. We're so ready to think the worse of people; it creates these little bubbles of outrage, over things that are said, not done. Why for once, can we not please talk about things without berating, or attacking other people, instead of attacking purely what they are saying? Your first post, Jimmae, was highly emotive; your response to Shandog's was much more thoughtful and logical; you attacked his argument, not his person. It's this that makes all discourse better, and enables minds to be changed, not calling people homophobes or denigrating them as dullards or idiots, firing them from their jobs, attacking them at large on social media.

Ultimately for me, it comes down to this; I'm not comfortable with a business telling me what to vote for, even on an issue that isn't binding. The fact that we are being attacked for not adhering to others ideas - and responding exactly how I would under the same circumstances to that criticism - is troubling, as it reveals that in certain ways we are not free to think how we wish about things that affect no-one but ourselves (and in case anyone interprets that as support of the No campaign, I'm purely talking about Carlton's release).

 

[Aphrodite]

Thread is taking a very nasty turn.

Play nice and don't attack each other.

Respects all opinions even if they aren't the same as your opinions/beliefs.


Thanks all.

 

[Aphrodite]

Those MONSTERS!!!!!!

I know such cheeky buggers passy.

 

[ShanDog]

Those MONSTERS!!!!!!

Clearly hate the gays.

 

[thylacine60]

Why isn't Jimmae the club's captain?

 

[ODNBlue]

I am so sick of hearing about all this vote yes or no crap. It is causing people to becoming conflicted with each other. It's even breaking up families who support different views. Just make a seperate law from the original law of marriage that applies for gay people. That way religious people can't complain about the sacred law of marriage being violated and gay people no longer have anything to argue about. Maybe my view is too simple, but ffs shut up about it.

Actually, that already exists (for non-LGBTQI's)... I'm not religious... but I'm married... The word 'marriage' is a homonym... it has two meanings... marriage before God is one meaning, and marriage in the eyes of the law is the other. That's all that is being asked for... The religious amongst us can still have their marriage before God, and everyone can be married in the eyes of the law. Equality.

 

[Aphrodite]

To quote Darcy Vescio:-

'I want to live in a country where you can look at everyone and know that they have the same rights as the person next to them'.




That is all!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The club could have supported the 'yes' vote while stating it was a free vote

Sorry if I've taken this quote out of context because I have to admit I just skimmed through your post, but I thought that was exactly what they did?

 

[Jimmae]

The club has done all those things you just quoted from that policy - they just didn't do it as emphatically as you and other ideologues would like because you are in the business of hyperbole, identity politics and holier-than-thou virtue signalling. Your reaction to what they said was in no way measured or reasonable. I know you're a flighty, emotional sort of person, but it doesn't excuse the vitriolic posting. You were wrong.

I strongly disagree and feel they undermined their policy from the standpoint of delivering both a positive social impact, and securing long term revenue.

I have no desire to argue the 'No' vote since I don't agree with it, nor do I believe there is a secular argument for it that holds up to any sort of intellectual rigor.

So you're defending the club for defending the rights for others by calling this a personal choice, rather than of conscience or human rights, despite them intimating as such (and then directly contradicting that)?

Then you're stating you can't even theorise a rational opposing argument, and you still think that nothing needs to be said in regards to the nature of the national conversation, nor of your complete ideological premise?

To speak metaphorically: if many are adrift at sea and many are shining fog lights to guide them to shore, but not all of them with the best of intentions, would it not be prudent for the brightest, most visible lights to shine a way to safe passage, regardless of their originally intended purpose?

Yes, my statement is seemingly self-evident, and yet here I am, feeling as though I have to state it because you think we have competing ideologies and practices...

Sudden change of tune - now people ARE allowed to say things? I thought "Everyone is welcome, but not all opinions"?

Ultimately they are the same thing. Eventually you will uninvite someone from a party once they push past a threshold. That was the nature of my statements.

Am I to take this as us agreeing?

Has anyone read Hawthorn's statement.

Look familiar .......

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2017-09-19/hawthorn-embraces-all

I've informed the Hawthorn footy club of a possible hacking/phishing issue on their sites in the past, and sure enough, my anti-virus has blocked me from viewing that.

Perhaps you can reach out to contacts that I can't, because their social media team has NFI.

I would really argue that this entire mess is confected, by those whose desire is to sell ad revenue; a Carlton divided, at each others throats, is one that sells space in newspapers and on the internet.

Trust that people - all people - are smart enough to read what is being said, and the statement as issued by the club ceases to be an issue. We're so ready to think the worse of people; it creates these little bubbles of outrage, over things that are said, not done. Why for once, can we not please talk about things without berating, or attacking other people, instead of attacking purely what they are saying? Your first post, Jimmae, was highly emotive; your response to Shandog's was much more thoughtful and logical; you attacked his argument, not his person. It's this that makes all discourse better, and enables minds to be changed, not calling people homophobes or denigrating them as dullards or idiots, firing them from their jobs, attacking them at large on social media.

Ultimately for me, it comes down to this; I'm not comfortable with a business telling me what to vote for, even on an issue that isn't binding. The fact that we are being attacked for not adhering to others ideas - and responding exactly how I would under the same circumstances to that criticism - is troubling, as it reveals that in certain ways we are not free to think how we wish about things that affect no-one but ourselves (and in case anyone interprets that as support of the No campaign, I'm purely talking about Carlton's release).

I stand by all of my comments, and attack the club's comments as cowardly.

Furthermore, no one here is supporting the club to be able to demand people to vote one way or another, at all. For them to state how they collectively feel represents them as an organisation, that's something else entirely.

Ultimately you cannot blindly keep everyone in a debate, space or organisation if that includes people whose first move is to exclude or discriminate against others based on prejudice, particularly that stemming from hateful and illogical positions. Further to this, you cannot continue to include them once their point of view is proven to hold no basis in reality.

 

[Aphrodite]

To quote Darcy Vescio:-

'I want to live in a country where you can look at everyone and know that they have the same rights as the person next to them'.




That is all!

Just one more:-


Kate Jenkins:-

'I respect peoples right to make their own decision in this matter'!





*The 2 quotes above are my personal thoughts as well.

 

[ShanDog]

So you're defending the club for defending the rights for others by calling this a personal choice, rather than of conscience or human rights, despite them intimating as such (and then directly contradicting that)?

Then you're stating you can't even theorise a rational opposing argument, and you still think that nothing needs to be said in regards to the nature of the national conversation, nor of your complete ideological premise?

Herein lies your problem - everything is a group mentality for you. No respect for the individual. That is the argument from the club I am defending. Identity politics has no place in politics, let alone sporting clubs, yet you want our club to play in that quagmire.

The contex of the vote and the voting process itself are two separate things you are trying to conflate into one for your own ideology. Yes, it's an individual right to vote your opinion in the plebicite. Yes, the subject matter of the plebicite is about human rights. Two separate things in which the club just articulated accurately, yet people who are too driven by social justice ideologies and not rationality can't see that and default to 'If you don't overtly agree, you are a coward'. Rubbish.

Out of interest's sake, what exactly is my ideological premise Jimmae? Do you know what it is? Or are you just running with the aforementioned default position of the perpetually outraged?

 

[jezzzza]

Working under such thinking, it is then the duty of all members of the community to take a stand. The club didn't want to take a stand, but then released a non-statement that encourages people with delusional opinions to feel validated.

That is weak, cowardly and self-serving and such a way of thinking will not preserve the club in the long term. I've watched them make many of these blunders in recent times, and I am now firmly of the belief that the club has no interest in building a sustainable brand for the future without being dragged there kicking and screaming.

A big thank you to people like Jamison, Judd, MLG, SOS, Darcy Vesio, Bolton and more because it is still individuals that are dragging our great football club into the modern reality and a hopeful future, not the organisation as a collective. I can only hope that none of what was issued is personally reflective of their own views on either the vote, or how to handle such a situation.

If there was a key contributor, donor or powerbroker who pushed for a statement of this nature, or curtailed a more emphatic statement in the positive, you should be ******* ashamed with yourself. In the wake of this, such an individual will likely be extricated from the club circles and structure, and I look forward to such a day.


In picking its own side, the club does not speak for you, nor represent you.

This statement was the club acting within the bounds of the CFC constitution:

2.1. The Club exists for the benefit of its supporters and the community. It seeks to serve this purpose by undertaking the following:
(a) In playing the game of AFL football, to provide its supporters with enjoyment, engagement, fulfilment and hope of success;
(b) By promoting the playing of AFL football in general;
(c) Through promoting the playing of AFL football by maintaining, providing, supporting and controlling a team or teams of Players bearing the name of the Carlton Football Club, or affiliating with another entity for the purposes of playing AFL football in the Victorian Football League, in any competition with other clubs primarily within Australia, but if necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Board, in any other part of the world;
(d) Through the playing and promotion of AFL football, to encourage participation by its supporters and the community generally in the sport of AFL football to improve health, fitness and well being;
(e) To promote health and fitness generally in the community by: Constitution of Carlton Football Club 5 (i) being positive role models; (ii) ensuring Players attend clinics within schools and at community events; (iii) providing access to the Club’s facilities for organised community groups;
(f) Making available the Club’s facilities to charitable, community, sporting, social and educational groups;
(g) By being actively involved in multi-cultural programs and introducing community groups of diverse backgrounds to the sport of AFL football and the positive benefits that it brings;
(h) To promote and actively support worthwhile causes including charitable organisations which can benefit from an association with, and assistance from, the Club;
(i) To promote environmental sustainability awareness and education to school groups and interested parties; (j) Through striving for success on a sustainable basis including the pursuit of premierships; and
(k) Any other activities that will provide benefit to the community to ensure that the Club can fulfil its purpose.

The underlined section means ALL of it's supporters and members of the community. This includes those who choose to vote No (I am not in this category. Not that I should have to admit that, but in the interest of not being labled a bigot....).

In picking its own side, the club does not speak for you, nor represent you.

In actual fact, any statement made by the club is a representation of its members. This is due to the ownership of the club being held collectively by all "Ordinary Members" (I.E. any person eighteen years or above, who has paid the appropriate annual subscription fee, is a Donor in accordance with clause 3.6, or has entered into an agreement to pay the appropriate annual subscription fee by instalments prior to 1 October each year entitling that person to: Constitution of Carlton Football Club 6 1) attend a minimum of all home games of the Club or 2) be classified as a Country & Interstate member according to AFL guidelines during the year of membership, is eligible to be an Ordinary member of the Club for that year and becomes an Ordinary member once registration takes place in accordance with clause 3.11.)

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Obviously the club could have come out harder but i think they made it very clear where our stance lies without stating it point black. Some may say fence sitting. Some may say reasoned and a step back from the debate.

Non-issue and the histeria in the media is a bit over-the-top

 

[StandByyourMan]

The club are rightly getting torched for stepping into the public arena to do the kind of s**t that Trump did in regards to Charlottesville. No, the club was not saying 'all sides have made mistakes', but they did validate a section of the population that are slinging illogical and/or bigoted opinions, often laced with religious overtones.

My only hope out of this stupid poll is that the government hoped to shine an incredibly bright light on the delusions of what would mostly be the far right. Yes, they pandered, but I hope they had an ulterior motive when they did so, and hopefully the landslide numbers should give such people serious pause for thought on the way they think, and express themselves.

Working under such thinking, it is then the duty of all members of the community to take a stand. The club didn't want to take a stand, but then released a non-statement that encourages people with delusional opinions to feel validated.

That is weak, cowardly and self-serving and such a way of thinking will not preserve the club in the long term. I've watched them make many of these blunders in recent times, and I am now firmly of the belief that the club has no interest in building a sustainable brand for the future without being dragged there kicking and screaming.

A big thank you to people like Jamison, Judd, MLG, SOS, Darcy Vesio, Bolton and more because it is still individuals that are dragging our great football club into the modern reality and a hopeful future, not the organisation as a collective. I can only hope that none of what was issued is personally reflective of their own views on either the vote, or how to handle such a situation.

If there was a key contributor, donor or powerbroker who pushed for a statement of this nature, or curtailed a more emphatic statement in the positive, you should be ******* ashamed with yourself. In the wake of this, such an individual will likely be extricated from the club circles and structure, and I look forward to such a day.


In picking its own side, the club does not speak for you, nor represent you.

Diversity of opinion should have a moral framework... people running around telling others that they should have less rights because of things like a 2000 year old book that any muppet with enough clout could have modified, that advocates ideas like stoning people to death for infidelity, or some other illogical or irrelevant reason should not stand in the same arena as demonstrable fact.

Everyone is welcome, but not all opinions are. But by all means, go stand shoulder-to-shoulder with some nazis and tell them they have a right to have their policy ideas be heard in the interest of diversity of opinion.


These weren't turned into a national vote.

Like like like

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Obviously the club could have come out harder but i think they made it very clear where our stance lies without stating it point black. Some may say fence sitting. Some may say reasoned and a step back from the debate.

Non-issue and the histeria in the media is a bit over-the-top

Can you do a graph on it please?

 

[TheKing101]

The club are rightly getting torched for stepping into the public arena to do the kind of s**t that Trump did in regards to Charlottesville. No, the club was not saying 'all sides have made mistakes', but they did validate a section of the population that are slinging illogical and/or bigoted opinions, often laced with religious overtones.

My only hope out of this stupid poll is that the government hoped to shine an incredibly bright light on the delusions of what would mostly be the far right. Yes, they pandered, but I hope they had an ulterior motive when they did so, and hopefully the landslide numbers should give such people serious pause for thought on the way they think, and express themselves.

Working under such thinking, it is then the duty of all members of the community to take a stand. The club didn't want to take a stand, but then released a non-statement that encourages people with delusional opinions to feel validated.

That is weak, cowardly and self-serving and such a way of thinking will not preserve the club in the long term. I've watched them make many of these blunders in recent times, and I am now firmly of the belief that the club has no interest in building a sustainable brand for the future without being dragged there kicking and screaming.

A big thank you to people like Jamison, Judd, MLG, SOS, Darcy Vesio, Bolton and more because it is still individuals that are dragging our great football club into the modern reality and a hopeful future, not the organisation as a collective. I can only hope that none of what was issued is personally reflective of their own views on either the vote, or how to handle such a situation.

If there was a key contributor, donor or powerbroker who pushed for a statement of this nature, or curtailed a more emphatic statement in the positive, you should be ******* ashamed with yourself. In the wake of this, such an individual will likely be extricated from the club circles and structure, and I look forward to such a day.


In picking its own side, the club does not speak for you, nor represent you.

Diversity of opinion should have a moral framework... people running around telling others that they should have less rights because of things like a 2000 year old book that any muppet with enough clout could have modified, that advocates ideas like stoning people to death for infidelity, or some other illogical or irrelevant reason should not stand in the same arena as demonstrable fact.

Everyone is welcome, but not all opinions are. But by all means, go stand shoulder-to-shoulder with some nazis and tell them they have a right to have their policy ideas be heard in the interest of diversity of opinion.


These weren't turned into a national vote.

I do not agree at all. The club has taken a very smart approach as to not upset either side of the yes or no vote. Are you saying the club should not respect religious beliefs? To say some peoples beliefs are delusional is very disrespectful. If you believe gay people should have the right to get married then great. Do not go and call other people delusional because you don't agree with them. Im assuming you are on the side of equal rights and freedom of speech? If thats the case, you have no right to tell people what is right and wrong. I stay out of all of this because people who try and sound like they have it all figured out piss me off, i don't want to become one of those people. Let people have their own beliefs and shut up about it. You believe gay marriage is the right thing to allow. Good, fair enough, but leave it at that. Gay people should have the right to get married under law, but STFU with ridiculing others for their beliefs. FFS

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Can you do a graph on it please?

I'll try and knock one up

 

[Jimmae]

Thread is taking a very nasty turn.

Play nice and don't attack each other.

Respects all opinions even if they aren't the same as your opinions/beliefs.


Thanks all.

I can't respect a stance that gives ground to people who wish to harm or marginalise others for fear of inciting them further. Eventually a tipping point is reached, and I can assure you that despite the way Shan has portrayed me, I am much further down the pipeline than many in that respect.

Sorry if I've taken this quote out of context because I have to admit I just skimmed through your post, but I thought that was exactly what they did?

Fair enough, I am getting pretty long-winded in the name of being exacting in my stance.

Herein lies your problem - everything is a group mentality for you. No respect for the individual. That is the argument from the club I am defending. Identity politics has no place in politics, let alone sporting clubs, yet you want our club to play in that quagmire.

The contex of the vote and the voting process itself are two separate things you are trying to conflate into one for your own ideology. Yes, it's an individual right to vote your opinion in the plebicite. Yes, the subject matter of the plebicite is about human rights. Two separate things in which the club just articulated accurately, yet people who are too driven by social justice ideologies and not rationality can't see that and default to 'If you don't overtly agree, you are a coward'. Rubbish.

Out of interest's sake, what exactly is my ideological premise Jimmae? Do you know what it is? Or are you just running with the aforementioned default position of the perpetually outraged?

The voting process itself is a lightning rod for the context of the vote... they are not as easily separated as you have stated.

We've already agreed upon a way in which the club could have been emphatic, respectively and inclusive, while still maintaining a stance that tapped into human rights, conscience voting and the initial opportunity for freedom of expression.

Instead, the club have skated around this linguistically, to the point where people can argue at length about the exact intent of the statement, and most would suggest it is fence sitting for the sake of appeasing an entire membership base. I find it disrespectful, disingenuous and belittling of the public that they would seek to throw fog around their opinions, and question why they should enter it into the public record at all if this is all they intended to do.

In all of this, the most telling part of the statement is this, and I think it reflects the flaw of your logic also:

"... a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

This is an impossible notion. This is not a true political, aspirational or realistic goal without creating the exact environment you think I'm trying to engender by being dismissive or vocal at an earlier stage. The problem here is broad terms, that serve no practical reality, other than satisfying corporate speak and glossing over everyday social issues.

Finally, can I just say that identity politics are inevitable, and that as you and I sit at the top of such a 'food chain', we often miss the point of why they exist. Identity politics is fine because it helps identify key social issues, but it's the populism and blind pandering to them that can be a problem.

You need to understand that I feel your language and point of view on this seems to leave the door open for someone with some incredibly hateful views to continue to get premium air time and column space that they will use to advocate for unconstitutional and illegal behaviour.

My viewpoint in no way denies an individual to ask questions, to propose alternative legislation or views, or to be offered a second chance should their stance change. I simply have a problem with a clearly stated argument that is in favour of hateful actions being allowed continued equal opportunities when their views can be summarised and successfully counter-debated in seconds.

I think the club has kept the door open here, and a lot of people agree.

This statement was the club acting within the bounds of the CFC constitution:

2.1. The Club exists for the benefit of its supporters and the community. It seeks to serve this purpose by undertaking the following:
(a) In playing the game of AFL football, to provide its supporters with enjoyment, engagement, fulfilment and hope of success;
(b) By promoting the playing of AFL football in general;
(c) Through promoting the playing of AFL football by maintaining, providing, supporting and controlling a team or teams of Players bearing the name of the Carlton Football Club, or affiliating with another entity for the purposes of playing AFL football in the Victorian Football League, in any competition with other clubs primarily within Australia, but if necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Board, in any other part of the world;
(d) Through the playing and promotion of AFL football, to encourage participation by its supporters and the community generally in the sport of AFL football to improve health, fitness and well being;
(e) To promote health and fitness generally in the community by: Constitution of Carlton Football Club 5 (i) being positive role models; (ii) ensuring Players attend clinics within schools and at community events; (iii) providing access to the Club’s facilities for organised community groups;
(f) Making available the Club’s facilities to charitable, community, sporting, social and educational groups;
(g) By being actively involved in multi-cultural programs and introducing community groups of diverse backgrounds to the sport of AFL football and the positive benefits that it brings;
(h) To promote and actively support worthwhile causes including charitable organisations which can benefit from an association with, and assistance from, the Club;
(i) To promote environmental sustainability awareness and education to school groups and interested parties; (j) Through striving for success on a sustainable basis including the pursuit of premierships; and
(k) Any other activities that will provide benefit to the community to ensure that the Club can fulfil its purpose.

All you've done is highlight that they perhaps need to update and clarify their stance on promoting diversity and inclusiveness, because this would seem to fall into the purview of subsections 2.1(g) and 2.1(h).

In actual fact, any statement made by the club is a representation of its members. This is due to the ownership of the club being held collectively by all "Ordinary Members" (I.E. any person eighteen years or above, who has paid the appropriate annual subscription fee, is a Donor in accordance with clause 3.6, or has entered into an agreement to pay the appropriate annual subscription fee by instalments prior to 1 October each year entitling that person to: Constitution of Carlton Football Club 6 1) attend a minimum of all home games of the Club or 2) be classified as a Country & Interstate member according to AFL guidelines during the year of membership, is eligible to be an Ordinary member of the Club for that year and becomes an Ordinary member once registration takes place in accordance with clause 3.11.)

Nowhere there does it state that the club is run to financially profit or enact policy on behalf of members.

The entirety of the role of an ordinary member from a constitutional standpoint is to vote at an AGM, mostly for appointing the board, who can then run the club as they see fit, including what is tabled at an AGM unless an extraordinary general meeting is successfully petitioned for and called.

The only other benefits of membership are game attendance, and the ability to call oneself a member.

On the other side of things, here's some fun facts:

3.13 (a) Upon applying for membership and by paying, or agreeing to pay by instalments, the relevant annual subscription fee, the applicant, or where a person is deemed by this Constitution to be an Ordinary Member – the person, warrants and confirms that:

...

(v) he or she agrees that if the Club is wound up while the applicant is an Ordinary member or within one year after the applicant or person ceases to be an Ordinary member, the applicant or person is liable to contribute up to $50.00 to the assets of the Club.

Winding Up
13.4. If a surplus remains following the winding up or dissolution of the Club, the surplus will not be paid to or distributed amongst members, but will be given or transferred to another corporation or club with similar objects to that of the Club and which, by its constitution, is: (a) required to apply its profits (if any) or other income in promoting its objects; and (b) prohibited from making any distribution to its members or paying fees to its Directors, such corporation to be determined by the Ordinary members at or before the winding up and in default, by application to the Supreme Court of Victoria for determination.

So you actually are divested from any form of financial ownership or active stewardship, while retaining some financial responsibility, in exchange for voting rights at an AGM, which usually pertains to appointing the board.

I'm going to have to leave it there guys, but suffice to say I'm arguing about the principle of the club's approach as much as the nature of the statement itself, and I'm entirely dissatisfied with their practice moving forward.

 

[Jimmae]

I do not agree at all. The club has taken a very smart approach as to not upset either side of the yes or no vote. Are you saying the club should not respect religious beliefs? To say some peoples beliefs are delusional is very disrespectful. If you believe gay people should have the right to get married then great. Do not go and call other people delusional because you don't agree with them. Im assuming you are on the side of equal rights and freedom of speech? If thats the case, you have no right to tell people what is right and wrong. I stay out of all of this because people who try and sound like they have it all figured out piss me off, i don't want to become one of those people. Let people have their own beliefs and shut up about it. You believe gay marriage is the right thing to allow. Good, fair enough, but leave it at that. Gay people should have the right to get married under law, but STFU with ridiculing others for their beliefs. FFS

Freedom of speech has its limits, and the appearance of placation is a bizarre goal in the face of a debate on equality.

Ok, now I'm done.

 

[ShanDog]

You need to understand that I feel your language and point of view on this seems to leave the door open for someone with some incredibly hateful views to continue to get premium air time and column space that they will use to advocate for unconstitutional and illegal behaviour.

If that's the case, I think you're giving the club's statement far too much value. The club's statement, whether for or against SSM, won't be changing minds at all. Treating it as if it would is overestimating their influence and underestimating the stubbornness of people. It's one reason organisations should just stay out of political matters. All this is an aside anyway. I took issue with your overreacting.

The club just told the world it supports equality and SSM, as they should. They just didn't tell everyone else what to do about it, as they should. It really is that simple unless you have an agenda.

 

[Gethelred]

Furthermore, no one here is supporting the club to be able to demand people to vote one way or another, at all. For them to state how they collectively feel represents them as an organisation, that's something else entirely.

Ultimately you cannot blindly keep everyone in a debate, space or organisation if that includes people whose first move is to exclude or discriminate against others based on prejudice, particularly that stemming from hateful and illogical positions. Further to this, you cannot continue to include them once their point of view is proven to hold no basis in reality.

By the same token, you also cannot change another's mind by attacking them, not their illogical point of view.

I posted an article by Caroline Wilson above, in which she states that there was not unanimity in the board on this, so it would've been blatantly untrue for the club to state collectively how they feel, and further than that for a business made up of hundreds of people to agree on something other than 'yay, business!' is expecting a bit much.