Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

[LuvtheKangas]

In Kennets defence ( and iam far from a fan of his) its a long bow to suggest the published comments were racist in nature, insensitive possibly, stupid, definitely,

I sincerely hope the basis of cyrils action is based on something far more appropriate than a throw away line based on ones fashion choice? Obviously the other accusers issues must be of a more serious nature but they don't seem to be the parties front and square, possibly due to their lower profiles as footballers given i had never even heard of them before the accusations came to light????

I agree that the comments themselves aren't racist, but they can be racist in the context of how Cyril and his wife perceived them.

In fairness, I don't think Kennett is the main issue here, I was just driving home the point that the nature of the investigation has led to a bad outcome for us that we are understandably annoyed about. So, opposition supporters who come here to say "I don't get why you guys are reacting badly" and proceed to tell us why we should react differently, are out of line.

 

[BigRedRoo]

I agree that the comments themselves aren't racist, but they can be racist in the context of how Cyril and his wife perceived them.

With great respect this is fundamentally wrong.

If the comments are not racist, then they are not racist.
If the comments are dependent on how someone interprets them and open to subjective feelings then anything ever said to anyone could be construed as Racist.

Where does this leave us, if anything ever said to anyone can be branded as racist? Where's the line? How do you know if you've cross that line?

How can we communicate with one another if Racism can't be avoided?

Do we start using the New Speak dictionary from 1984?

There has to be an objective standard for racist language, otherwise anyone who ever speaks can be guilty of racism.

 

[Intothewind]

With great respect this is fundamentally wrong.

If the comments are not racist, then they are not racist.
If the comments are dependent on how someone interprets them and open to subjective feelings then anything ever said to anyone could be construed as Racist.

Where does this leave us, if anything ever said to anyone can be branded as racist? Where's the line? How do you know if you've cross that line?

How can we communicate with one another if Racism can't be avoided?

Do we start using the New Speak dictionary from 1984?

There has to be an objective standard for racist language, otherwise anyone who ever speaks can be guilty of racism.

@BigRedRoo there is a good explanation on what is racist on the HRC website. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work...ce/complaints-under-racial-discrimination-act

 

[LuvtheKangas]

With great respect this is fundamentally wrong.

If the comments are not racist, then they are not racist.
If the comments are dependent on how someone interprets them and open to subjective feelings then anything ever said to anyone could be construed as Racist.

Where does this leave us, if anything ever said to anyone can be branded as racist? Where's the line? How do you know if you've cross that line?

How can we communicate with one another if Racism can't be avoided?

Do we start using the New Speak dictionary from 1984?

There has to be an objective standard for racist language, otherwise anyone who ever speaks can be guilty of racism.

Yeah, as the reference in the post above explains (don't expect you to read it all), there's more to it than we (society) perhaps appreciated.

 

[Del191229]

Hey South of the Yarra why do you think the Hawthorn stuff is being pursued so vigorously when Phillip and Jim Krakouer's far more detailed and sound claims against numerous players, the league and a coach has got nowhere near as much traction?

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

With great respect this is fundamentally wrong.

If the comments are not racist, then they are not racist.
If the comments are dependent on how someone interprets them and open to subjective feelings then anything ever said to anyone could be construed as Racist.

Where does this leave us, if anything ever said to anyone can be branded as racist? Where's the line? How do you know if you've cross that line?

How can we communicate with one another if Racism can't be avoided?

Do we start using the New Speak dictionary from 1984?

There has to be an objective standard for racist language, otherwise anyone who ever speaks can be guilty of racism.

The challenge with trying to enforce an objective standard for racist language is that smart arse racists then attempt to game the system. A while back, a number of AFL players were trying to get around accusations of racism by calling indigenous players "green campaigners" instead of black campaigners. Clearly, their intent was to offend through racism, and yet at the time, there were (and probably will continue to be) people who insist that calling someone green is not racist but simply refers to their inexperience or their environmental politics. Such faux naif debating techniques poorly conceal sympathies towards racists.

 

[BigRedRoo]

The challenge with trying to enforce an objective standard for racist language is that smart arse racists then attempt to game the system. A while back, a number of AFL players were trying to get around accusations of racism by calling indigenous players "green campaigners" instead of black campaigners. Clearly, their intent was to offend through racism, and yet at the time, there were (and probably will continue to be) people who insist that calling someone green is not racist but simply refers to their inexperience or their environmental politics. Such faux naif debating techniques poorly conceal sympathies towards racists.

I understand and appreciate what your saying.

However, I really do think without an Objective standard, then anyone's language can be weaponized against them.
If the standard for racism is subjective feelings, then if you don't like someone you can then accuse them of racism. Claim you felt offended. In this scenario it doesn't matter if the person was racist or not, the accusation is all that's needed to convict a person of being racist. I felt offended, therefore you were offensive, it doesn't matter why you said what you said or your intent, only that I was offended.

Again I ask, where does this leave us as a society?

If subjective feelings are the standard, people won't speak to each other in fear of being accused of racism. In these circumstances public debate quickly gets controlled by Zealots and you wake up one morning living in a terror.

Sounds far fetched don't it? But read the Gulag Archipelago and understand how mere accusation was enough to find oneself living under Stalin's murderous tyranny. History is bound to repeat by those who fail to learn the lessons that history offers.

I think this has now reach the end, I will say nothing further on this matter.

 

[hsquid]

To anyone still thinking that Hawthorn is in the clear if Clarko is, I repost something refuting a similar sentiment expressed by the eternally fabulous Jeffery Kennett when the AFL investigation was wound up without findings against the coaches.
--

Spoiler: Jeff's comments

Jeff Kennett: It would be absurd for Hawthorn to pay compensation over ‘racism report’ fiasco​

The leaking of the Hawthorn report sparked a media firestorm and ultimately destroyed the investigation. The club would become a laughing stock if it paid compensation for a debacle it did not create.
Jeff Kennett

October 31, 2023 - 5:15PM
Rarely would I take issue with my fellow columnist Rita Panahi, but her article last Friday, headed “Hawthorn should pay up for racism report fiasco” must be answered.
Rita stated that Hawthorn Football Club vilified three of its former employees, and we should pay millions in compensation.
Absolutely incorrect.
Serious allegations were made public by Cyril Rioli and his wife through The Age. The allegations were serious, and the club board decided quickly, led by board member Ian Silk, that we should establish whether any other past or present Indigenous player or staff member had similar experiences.
Mr Silk then headed a committee that appointed Binmada, an Indigenous organisation headed by Phil Egan, assisted by Dr Meaghan Katrak Harris, to hear the experiences of Indigenous players and staff of their time at Hawthorn.
This was a cultural safety review.
Not all wished to participate.
Binmada had previously been engaged by the AFL, the federal government and others to work on Indigenous matters.

Some of those who did talk to Binmada told of experiences that shocked the board. And some experiences were good.
On receiving the report, Hawthorn immediately informed the AFL, and referred the report to the AFL Integrity Unit as we were required to do according to the AFL Respect and Responsibility guidelines.
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.
That started a media firestorm.
In that and other media reports that followed, former employees Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were named, totally unfairly, as the process by AFL Integrity to check the allegations with the three had not even started.
The leaking of the allegations, for whatever reason, by the Indigenous family members destroyed the natural process of investigation.
Binmada was commissioned only to hear the stories of our Indigenous personnel. We never anticipated a report outlining such allegations. Binmada was not the appropriate organisation to seek to verify or otherwise investigate the allegations.
That was the role of AFL Integrity using any process it wished to adopt. So, Hawthorn did not, and would never, vilify its people. Those who went public vilified those they accused before the facts were established.
Rita says we should pay Clarkson a seven-figure payout as compensation.

It has now been suggested by the AFL that Hawthorn should pay both the Indigenous families who made the allegations, including those who leaked contents of the report, and the three former employees compensation just to settle the issue once and for all.
The fact that the Hawthorn board is considering such payments is absolutely absurd.
Worse, it sets a shocking precedent for all clubs in the future should any employees make unsubstantiated public claims simply to have them settled by mediation or agreement for financial gain.
Hawthorn has become the laughing stock of the legal profession that we might pay compensation for seeking to ensure we had a safe working place, when the normal process of establishing the truth was derailed by those who leaked the report.
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt.
That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.
McLachlan also told me that the only reason the AFL was pursuing Hawthorn was to establish who leaked the report. Not to penalise Hawthorn in any way. Discussions between lawyers during the process accepted and said Hawthorn was not at fault for the process it had adopted and followed.
So why now would the AFL be demanding any compensation be paid to accusers and accused by Hawthorn? And what has Hawthorn actually done that warrants such payments? The AFL has not articulated an action or offence.
No wrong by Hawthorn has actually been established.
If the AFL argues the wrong was the public exposure that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt endured, that was not caused by Hawthorn, but those family members who leaked their stories, without giving AFL Integrity the opportunity to establish the facts.
I am sorry, Rita, but your vilification of Hawthorn is unwarranted and incorrect. On the evidence, no compensation should be paid by Hawthorn.
We have seen in the past that appeasement never works. We need strong, fair and accurate leadership at the AFL and its clubs.
Have a good day.

Cough cough. Ok Jeff. Here are a few holes in that convenient reconstruction:

The indigenous families leaked the report
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.

False. The first media reports include detailed descriptions of the report. This report would not have been available to the indigenous families. It must have been leaked by a) Binmada/Egan b) Hawthorn or c) the AFL.

Spoiler: Details

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline:” Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that its methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

The Binmada report was an appropriately constituted "cultural safety review"

False. The Binmada report was obviously flawed and not in a state to be shared externally:

• It made 'findings' despite supposedly only being a listening exercise
• It innapropriately named specific individuals as committing "human rights abuses" without any due process
• It recommended reparations despite recommendations not being included in the ToRs.
• It strangely only named former staff members and said all was well today, without any of its own recommendations having been followed.
• It's terms of reference were oddly time specific to exclude the Presidency of one J. Kennett.
• It was run by the cousin of an aggrieved former staff member who was a central player in the issues described (and whose name was suspiciously omitted in the leak, hinting at the identity of the leaker)

Spoiler: Details

Reading the report findings it becomes a lot clearer what has gone wrong with the process.

1. Hawthorn commissions a study into the experiences of indigenous players, any support they need and what they can do better.
2. Phil Egan has 'semi-structured' interviews with a self-selected set of indigenous players to hear their experiences.
3. Phil makes a strange mishmash of findings and recommendations, focused on historical grievances that blur the lines between allegations and fact with literally no effort at establishing facts. More on this below.
4. Hawthorn doesn't act on the report before it is leaked. Appropriate action would have been to coordinate with the AFL Integrity Unit about the possible need for a broader fact-finding investigation.
5. Journalist reports the findings of the report combined with his own similar-content interviews. Names names without any attempt at establishing facts.
6. Mess

Specifically, Phil's findings are problematic because:

1. The first recommendation says "The findings of alleged negligence and human rights abuses towards First Nations HFC players, as found by this review, committed by ....[Clarkson, Fagan, Burt]...". This is written as a finding, not an allegation, even if the word 'alleged' is in there. It's meaningless to have a 'finding' of 'alleged' human rights abuses. As mentioned, the TOR do not expect any 'findings' of fact at all. In no way should any names be named at this point without any fact-finding investigation being done.
   [Additional legal nerd point: In general people can't commit human rights abuses: Only states can. It's what human rights means, rights against states]
2. It makes sense to refer the results to the AFL Integrity Unit (Recommendation 1) or for Hawthorn to do further investigations (Recommendation 3) but not both without coordination. The recommendation should have been to share the results with the AFL Integrity Unit and agree how and whether to investigate specific individuals or incidents more deeply.
3. It makes no sense to recommend reparations and restitution or apology without any fact-finding (as imagined under point 2) and simply as a result of individual testimonies.

Less critically:

1. He recommends major investment in indigenous understanding (a General Manager, compulsory training and review of current training, a Cultural Safety and Self Determination Framework) without identifying anything at all wrong with the current set up. "All current and recently retired players felt Culturally Safe at HFC"
2. He recommends Hawthorn paying more indigenous consultants (i.e himself / conflict of interest alert) to provide education on the impact of trauma, without saying who needs that education and why.
3. He says there was virtually no response to Hawthorn's email to everyone and that it was only because of his 'profile and respect' that people were prepared to be interviewed (implying there are many sensitive things unrecorded and meaning inputs are skewed to his friends) but seems to contradict himself when he says they all feel culturally safe.

All these are issues of process and recommendations and apply no matter what the accuracy of the reported facts. These process failings bypass the checks and balances that would normally exist and thereby increase the chances of exactly the present kind of cluster**** in which there are incredibly damaging unaccountable, untested allegations out in the wild without any process to test them.

No findings against Clarko means no findings against Hawthorn
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt. That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.

False False False. There was no statement regarding Hawthorn's culpability in this and to suggest otherwise is the wishiest of wishful thinking. The terms of reference for the investigation are strangely clear about this - perhaps at Jeff's insistence. While the panel looked at Hawthorn's handling of the investigation, they were not empowered to make any recommendations beyond the individuals. It's hard to believe Jeff doesn't know this and yet is cynically painting the absence of a finding as the same as being cleared.

Spoiler: Details

2. The ‘Matters for investigation’ focus on Hawthorn as a club and yet the only recommendation required is whether to subject individuals to disciplinary action.

There is a strange disconnect between section C “Matters of Investigation” and D “Recommendations”.

Spoiler: C Matters of Investigation

The Investigation will investigate, consider and report on and in relation to the following
matters:

1. Whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in any conduct which involved or included Inappropriate Conduct directed towards players, their families and/or their intimate partners.

2. Specifically with regard to First Nations players, whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in Inappropriate Conduct directed towards any First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners which involved or included demands, duress or pressure in relation to, or interference with:
a) the living arrangements of First Nations players (including where and with whom they lived and whether they were counselled or encouraged to alter existing living arrangements);
b) the intimate relationships of First Nations players (including whether the First Nations players were counselled or encouraged to end intimate relationships);
c) the reproductive choices or health of intimate partners of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged to terminate pregnancies or which impacted on or affected pregnancies);
d) the freedom of movement of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to visit family and friends interstate, or to limit the frequency or duration of such visits); or
e) the freedom of communication of the First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to communicate with their families, their intimate partners and/or their friends, or to limit such communication).

3. If Inappropriate Conduct is found to have occurred during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) in respect of the Matters for Investigation:
a) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified was known and countenanced (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
b) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified ought to have been known (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
c) whether and to what extent HFC provided appropriate support for players, their families and/or intimate partners with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct;
d) whether and to what extent HFC provided mechanisms for the performance review of persons involved in any identified Inappropriate Conduct or reprimands, warnings, counselling or education to those persons; and e) whether HFC provided appropriate and culturally safe support for the First Nations players, their families and/or intimate partners including with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct.

4. Whether the HFC appropriately supported the First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners in the period immediately following the cessation of their employment by the HFC during the Relevant Period, including by the provision of assistance in the relocation back to their home communities.

5. Whether the ‘Cultural Safety Review’ commissioned by HFC and undertaken by Mr Philip Egan of Binmada Pty Ltd (Binmada Report) was an appropriate mechanism and/or adopted appropriate procedures for the matters Mr Egan was engaged to review and/or ultimately investigated.

The investigation is very focused on Hawthorn rather than individuals. i.e. did HFC engage in inappropriate conduct, specifically [all the things we know about from the report], did they provide sufficient and appropriate support, was the Binmada report appropriate. There are only two items that indirectly look at individuals [3a&b] which look at what ‘senior management and board’ knew or should have known about the issues.

Spoiler: D “Recommendations”] The final report addressing the Matters for Investigation above, will set out: a) Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any Inappropriate Conduct should, in the view of the Investigation Panel, be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to AFL Rules and commenced by persons so authorised under AFL Rules. b) Any other recommendations connected to the Matters for Investigation that may be considered by the Investigation Panel to be appropriate. [/QUOTE][/SPOILER][QUOTE="hsquid, post: 77216174, member: 128002

In contrast there is only one specific recommendation required: whether any individuals should be subject to disciplinary action by the AFL. It’s hard to know what to make of this. It could just be an anomaly. Or it could imply that the focus on individuals is only part of the whole report and there is an emphasis on the senior management / board and what they knew or should have known. Perhaps the area of "what senior management should have known" is the area where there is the most concrete evidence and the most scope to make a clear adverse finding: I would be nervous reading this if I were Andrew Newbold. The one shocking and undisputed fact from all of this is his dismissive and disdainful response to multiple distressed emails from a players partner.

We know Andrew Newbold was horrible to one of the partners and she was brushed off. We have his emails. We know Hawthorn carried out a highly flawed process - see above. We know the report was formulated and leaked in a way and at a time that would maximise damage to Clarkson at a time when the club had just been forced to pay him a million dollars it had tried to get out of. We know there was bad blood between the racist, yet unmentioned and conveniently out of the country person who commissioned the report and the person who it damaged most.

We know that the most senior club officials behaved appallingly to at least some indigenous families and to their own former staff. Maybe that's why they will be paying.

 

[Del191229]

The Kennett comments to Shannyn Ah-Sam about the jeans are the only element of this whole shitty saga that I would confidently hand on heart say are straight up unarguable racism.

(Even if Kennett didn't know/mean to be, which is ****ing frogshit given the roles he's held ... and held at the time)

 

[Engimal v3]

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here when I say I believe Clarko probably did what was alleged against him lol

I just don't understand how the accusers are going to prove any of it.

 

[gokangas]

The Kennett comments to Shannyn Ah-Sam about the jeans are the only element of this whole shitty saga that I would confidently hand on heart say are straight up unarguable racism.

(Even if Kennett didn't know/mean to be, which is ****ing frogshit given the roles he's held ... and held at the time)

Without being there and knowing exactly what was said and how it was said, I see that potentially the opposite. As an MC and event host I have used that joke many times when torn jeans first became fashionable. Looked at a BF or GF and said for heavens sake buy him/her a new pair of jeans so he/she can get rid of those torn ones. And heard the same line used by other MCs. I repeat I wasn't there when Kennet said it to be sure of context but it was probably the least racist thing I have heard alleged.

 

[Del191229]

Without being there and knowing exactly what was said and how it was said, I see that potentially the opposite. As an MC and event host I have used that joke many times when torn jeans first became fashionable. Looked at a BF or GF and said for heavens sake buy him/her a new pair of jeans so he/she can get rid of those torn ones. And heard the same line used by other MCs. I repeat I wasn't there when Kennet said it to be sure of context but it was probably the least racist thing I have heard alleged.

You're a privileged older white bloke who moves in the same wider social and political circles as Kennett, of course you don't think it is racist - and that's fine.

It is worth noting that eve if not deployed to an indigenous person it can still be taken as a pretty shitty put down/"joke".

I mean, getting a group of people to laugh at someone else's appearance is like the basis of bullying no?

Kennett saying it to S hannyn Ah-Sam is just racist bullshit, especially in the context of everything that had happened to BEFORE that.

And that's his responsbility, not hers.

Its not her place to NOT be offeneded, its his to not go round offending people.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Without being there and knowing exactly what was said and how it was said, I see that potentially the opposite. As an MC and event host I have used that joke many times when torn jeans first became fashionable. Looked at a BF or GF and said for heavens sake buy him/her a new pair of jeans so he/she can get rid of those torn ones. And heard the same line used by other MCs. I repeat I wasn't there when Kennet said it to be sure of context but it was probably the least racist thing I have heard alleged.

Accepting that you guys don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, you’d have to consider - especially after all this - how different (unfunny, offensive) it sounds to some people who hear it?

 

[koshari]

The Kennett comments to Shannyn Ah-Sam about the jeans are the only element of this whole shitty saga that I would confidently hand on heart say are straight up unarguable racism.

(Even if Kennett didn't know/mean to be, which is ****ing frogshit given the roles he's held ... and held at the time)

Rubbish, I have heard older more conservative dressing individuals make these type of comments to younger people with more casual dress sense all the time. other variations of the theme are, "are you off to the beach, "did you ride your motorbike in" "washing day?" etc...

Even my father who is old school ( spent a bit of time being a publican) and barely wore a pair of jeans in his life, still wears trousers every day and was forever commenting on people ( myself included) who wore more casual clothing.

If anything it goes back to the white collar/blue coller class thing than any racist undertones.

I mean, getting a group of people to laugh at someone else's appearance is like the basis of bullying no?

that would stand regardless of the person it was said to race, hence that race isnt the difference if it were to offend.

 

[gokangas]

Accepting that you guys don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, you’d have to consider - especially after all this - how different (unfunny, offensive) it sounds to some people who hear it?

As I said it has to be in context and its not a joke I use anymore - torn jeans have been in fashion quite a while so not funny now.

 

[koshari]

Accepting that you guys don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, you’d have to consider - especially after all this - how different (unfunny, offensive) it sounds to some people who hear it?

absolutely, like i said it was a silly thing to day buy it doesnt make it racist. Could a young white anglo saxon female find it distasteful? most likely yes.

 

[gokangas]

You're a privileged older white bloke who moves in the same wider social and political circles as Kennett, of course you don't think it is racist - and that's fine.

It is worth noting that eve if not deployed to an indigenous person it can still be taken as a pretty shitty put down/"joke".

I mean, getting a group of people to laugh at someone else's appearance is like the basis of bullying no?

Kennett saying it to S hannyn Ah-Sam is just racist bullshit, especially in the context of everything that had happened to BEFORE that.

And that's his responsbility, not hers.

Its not her place to NOT be offeneded, its his to not go round offending people.

I get that too and did point out that the intent of the joke can vary and we weren't there to judge that so I accept that it could be racist if directed that way. Context! Its critical. BUT I am not trying to defend JK - can't stand him. Just saying that I can see how it could just be a joke that was taken the wrong way. I have other examples of similar things that I would have said years ago but would not now. But not targeted at a person by race. Anyway, times have changed and I do accept that if a person feels something said to them is racist then that's it.

 

[koshari]

As I said it has to be in context and its not a joke I use anymore - torn jeans have been in fashion quite a while so not funny now.

doesn't always have to be a joke either, growing up in the country with long hair and a pierced ear i received plenty of comments re my appearance, it was obvious they were not attempts at humour either,

 

[gokangas]

doesn't always have to be a joke either, growing up in the country with long hair and a pierced ear i received plenty of comments re my appearance, it was obvious they were not attempts at humour either,

I was always the fat kid so had plenty of bullying and plenty of jokes aimed at me too. Jokes or personal put downs? I suppose both in some ways. Again to me depended on who said it and what I thought their intent was.

 

[koshari]

I was always the fat kid so had plenty of bullying and plenty of jokes aimed at me too. Jokes or personal put downs? I suppose both in some ways. Again to me depended on who said it and what I thought their intent was.

i suspect the big difference between an attempted joke and a put down may be if there was an audience, if they are comments directed solely to you in the context of just the 2 of you privy to them its pretty obvious its a put down because its not like the person the remark is said to is going to be rolling going to be in a fit of laughter.


have also experienced comments made in a group dynamic that were intended as jokes where i absolutely laughed, one being a case of the bloke he offended punched his lights out.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I was always the fat kid so had plenty of bullying and plenty of jokes aimed at me too. Jokes or personal put downs? I suppose both in some ways. Again to me depended on who said it and what I thought their intent was.

That's actually the whole point (bolded).

 

[giantroo]

 

[Topparoo]

Well at last Cornhole says something that I can agree with. He's also being a little bit supportive of Clarkson and the kangas

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here when I say I believe Clarko probably did what was alleged against him lol

I just don't understand how the accusers are going to prove any of it.

So then you know that what he is accused of doing is being in the room, right?

 

[ferball]

Cornholio with the common sense...