Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

[travelli]

No Fagan is daring them to go knowing that they won’t. He has no interest on a court date. He and Clarko are positioning themselves to get an agreement with all parties not to proceed further. That’s as good as being cleared.

It's not. It's not at all. Everyone is still wondering if they are pricks enough to encourage a couple to abort their baby, or at least facilitate a young bloke to leave his pregnant partner

Their reputations have been brutally slurred and this is no restitution

 

[blackshadow]

I've had a quick look at the last few pages of the corresponding thread on the Hawthorn board. Summarising:

• Nervousness amongst many over what the AFL will do
• One poster even suggested forming a breakaway competition and ditching the AFL
• Some think Kennett is a campaigner and is now beyond reach, so it's frustrating
• They demand to know who leaked the report
• Club director Andy Gowers has a presser at 11am

You forgot the over arching "but we did nothing wrong!"

 

[giantroo]

Families at centre of Hawthorn saga to take claims to human rights commission​

By Jon Pierik, Peter Ryan and Jack Latimore​

May 31, 2023 — 10.05am

Families at the centre of the Hawthorn racism saga are set to announce they will pursue claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission against Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan, Jason Burt and the Hawthorn Football Club, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

The sources were not authorised to speak publicly ahead of an announcement.



The AFL on Tuesday night reached an agreement with the families and apologised for past instances of racism in the game. Former Hawthorn officials Clarkson, Fagan and Burt were cleared of any wrongdoing under AFL rules, and have all strenuously denied allegations that they mistreated First Nations players and their partners at the Hawks between 2010 and 2016.

The investigation by the AFL’s independent panel, chaired by Bernard Quinn KC, was closed and the AFL released detailed measures to make clubs safer and more inclusive.

Families who are party to the AFL deal have agreed not to take further action against the league in the courts or AHRC, but there is nothing stopping them from making other claims against Hawthorn officials or the club itself.

Marque Lawyer’s managing partner, Michael Bradley, who is representing one of the members of a family involved in the investigation, said the AFL had achieved nothing in its settlement with those who agreed to participate in the investigation process.

Players and partners known by pseudonyms Ian, Liam and Jacqui made submissions to the AFL inquiry, but those with the pseudonyms of Zac and Kylie and Amy did not, their legal representatives questioning the investigating panel’s independence.

Bradley has guided Amy, a Gunditjmara and Bunitji woman, through the case, with Amy releasing a statement in November detailing what were described as “harrowing” claims she has made in the initial Hawthorn “cultural safety review”.

Bradley said on Wednesday the AFL had failed to achieve an appropriate resolution.


“I guess the AFL has achieved exactly what it set out to achieve. Nothing,” he told this masthead.
In November, Amy said she was in a relationship with a Hawthorn player when she alleges the club forced the man to leave her and tell her to have an abortion.
Bradley has maintained that Amy’s original decision not to take part in the investigation because of “unsafe” reasons had been the right call.

“Our client’s view is that the recent developments only reaffirm that she made the right decision to stay out of the AFL’s hopelessly compromised process. It has descended to farce, and she wants no part of it,” Bradley said earlier this month.

Lawyer Judy Courtin, acting for Zac and Kylie, has also slammed the investigative process, and said her client was preparing for civil action. Courtin was contacted for comment.

Hawthorn face a separate investigation and, depending upon the outcome of that investigation, possible AFL charges over how the Hawks’ 2022 “cultural safety review”, or Binmada Report, was commissioned and handled. The report was leaked to the ABC before those subject to the serious accusations had an opportunity to respond.

Clarkson, the four-time premiership coach, his former football boss Fagan, and former welfare manager Burt had strenuously denied all allegations in the original ABC story and had said they look forward to clearing their names. Clarkson, now the North Melbourne coach, has taken indefinite leave from his role for mental health reasons from the toll of the Hawthorn inquiry.

 

[Harris 10]

I had a discussion this morning and didn't know the answer, as my legal background mostly comes from watching episodes of LA Law back in the 80's and reading all of the qualified Lawyer comments on Bigfooty.

My question, Is there anything that stops Clarkson, Fagan and Burt lodging a complaint with the Human Rights Commission over the way they've been treated throughout the process?

 

[Val Keating]

******* rusty.

As others have mentioned, you read through that article and when it comes to describing the outcome they separate the quotes and content out to make it seem as dodgy as possible.

They try very hard to make sure they never connect that the families agreed that the coaches had no case to answer, instead they agreed to end it. And that the AFL 'terminated' it.

Using single word quote on how the AFL "cleared" the coaches is also another trick to make it seem dodgy. The whole thing is a disgrace from the ABC, still cannot quite understand how Rusty thought his original bullshit article was good to go, and how he probably still thinks he was in the right - he's hurt everyone involved with his carelessness.

Or how the ABC legal team ticked it off.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

As above re the HRC.

In addition, they have legal power to compel witness appearances and can refer matters to actual federal courts, re human rights abuse.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Hazey1977]

Maher was in particular salivating with over the top WOKE hysteria. Never have I felt more sickened by the media than listening to those two that day. From that day forward not once have I listened to a second of those two . Similar to my decision of blocking Cornes from my life has been the better for it

I've stopped listening to SEN, but you can bet you're life I'm there today.... Just waiting to see the backpedaling!

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Hazey1977]

Oooof. Not 2 weeks I hope...

Can we ask for a late addition to the BF Kanga's LTI, due to exceptional circumstances and enter the BF MSD?

There's a little fiery bloke up here in Queensyria, currently not following an AFL club. Previously did a few sessions with the Brions, but never stuck. Has dubious travel history with stories to share. L

Work a look?

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Dingrel]

There you have it. Basically proves this was all a hitjob from the get go by Kennett as one last drive by on Clarko. He took a million dollar payout from the Hawks that made Kennett look foolish, so Jeff wanted the last laugh.

Jeff deliberately leaves his time as president out of the report, hires his puppet Egan to do it, makes sure Clarko isn’t allowed to comment and then leaks it to Rusty.

Gil isn’t pleased. And I reckon the AFL is going to go hard on the Hawks. Very easy for Jeff to speak out from the comfort of retirement life now tho isn’t it. Scumbag

Exactly how I see it, and with no platform to respond all along. I'm ashamed to say I once voted for that C U Next Tuessday.

 

[travelli]

Families at centre of Hawthorn saga to take claims to human rights commission​

By Jon Pierik, Peter Ryan and Jack Latimore​

May 31, 2023 — 10.05am

Families at the centre of the Hawthorn racism saga are set to announce they will pursue claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission against Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan, Jason Burt and the Hawthorn Football Club, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

The sources were not authorised to speak publicly ahead of an announcement.



The AFL on Tuesday night reached an agreement with the families and apologised for past instances of racism in the game. Former Hawthorn officials Clarkson, Fagan and Burt were cleared of any wrongdoing under AFL rules, and have all strenuously denied allegations that they mistreated First Nations players and their partners at the Hawks between 2010 and 2016.

The investigation by the AFL’s independent panel, chaired by Bernard Quinn KC, was closed and the AFL released detailed measures to make clubs safer and more inclusive.

Families who are party to the AFL deal have agreed not to take further action against the league in the courts or AHRC, but there is nothing stopping them from making other claims against Hawthorn officials or the club itself.

Marque Lawyer’s managing partner, Michael Bradley, who is representing one of the members of a family involved in the investigation, said the AFL had achieved nothing in its settlement with those who agreed to participate in the investigation process.

Players and partners known by pseudonyms Ian, Liam and Jacqui made submissions to the AFL inquiry, but those with the pseudonyms of Zac and Kylie and Amy did not, their legal representatives questioning the investigating panel’s independence.

Bradley has guided Amy, a Gunditjmara and Bunitji woman, through the case, with Amy releasing a statement in November detailing what were described as “harrowing” claims she has made in the initial Hawthorn “cultural safety review”.

Bradley said on Wednesday the AFL had failed to achieve an appropriate resolution.


“I guess the AFL has achieved exactly what it set out to achieve. Nothing,” he told this masthead.
In November, Amy said she was in a relationship with a Hawthorn player when she alleges the club forced the man to leave her and tell her to have an abortion.
Bradley has maintained that Amy’s original decision not to take part in the investigation because of “unsafe” reasons had been the right call.

“Our client’s view is that the recent developments only reaffirm that she made the right decision to stay out of the AFL’s hopelessly compromised process. It has descended to farce, and she wants no part of it,” Bradley said earlier this month.

Lawyer Judy Courtin, acting for Zac and Kylie, has also slammed the investigative process, and said her client was preparing for civil action. Courtin was contacted for comment.

Hawthorn face a separate investigation and, depending upon the outcome of that investigation, possible AFL charges over how the Hawks’ 2022 “cultural safety review”, or Binmada Report, was commissioned and handled. The report was leaked to the ABC before those subject to the serious accusations had an opportunity to respond.

Clarkson, the four-time premiership coach, his former football boss Fagan, and former welfare manager Burt had strenuously denied all allegations in the original ABC story and had said they look forward to clearing their names. Clarkson, now the North Melbourne coach, has taken indefinite leave from his role for mental health reasons from the toll of the Hawthorn inquiry.

Good.

I wonder what outcome the families actually want?

 

[DesertRoo]

I have my doubts it will ever go there.

You would need to come out from under the protection of anonymity to do that right?

It won’t, ultimately with legal action there has to be a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel.
I doubt the families in question are going to bankroll it, so it’s up to the lawyers and how much money they believe they can extract from the AFL and Hawthorn. If their isn’t a pot big enough, there’s no way a lawyers going to invest years on this.

 

[The Dingrel]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/hawthorn-racism-scandal-jeff-kennett-hits-back-at-afl-ceo-gill-mclachlans-suggestion-the-hawks-could-be-punished/news-story/435bfc91f6ea60c4fb27c7fef3e7fd1a

Hawthorn could be stripped of draft picks and fined over its handling of its racism investigation with the AFL weighing up whether to charge the club for bringing the game into disrepute.

As the AFL terminated the independent investigation without laying charges against Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan or Jason Burt the league also dropped a potential bomb on the Hawks.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said the club’s failure to give Clarkson, Fagan and Burt a right of reply would form the basis of a potential charge.

“The process whereby allegations were aired without anybody having the ability to respond to them has provided an environment where there has been many parties – complainants and the defendants – put in a hugely vulnerable situation, and it’s had an impact across the industry for all First Nations people and others,” McLachlan said.

“I think that’s something that needs to be contemplated.”

The loss of draft picks would be disastrous for Hawthorn’s rebuild under coach Sam Mitchell, with the club’s first pick currently No.3.

Former Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett declared there was no basis for the Hawks to be punished by the AFL for undertaking its cultural review.

“I am profoundly disappointed at the comments by the AFL CEO tonight that they are contemplating taking action against the Hawthorn Football Club,” Kennett said.
“What Hawthorn did in trying to establish whether racial discrimination was widespread in the club was absolutely the correct thing to do.”

Kennett said the club was not responsible for the devastating leak of the report to the ABC in Grand Final week last year.

“That was the trigger that caused the firestorm and the attack on the reputations of the three who stood accused,” he said.

McLachlan said the decision whether to charge Hawthorn would be made by the AFL’s “general counsel (Stephen Meade) and or the Commission”.

Under rule 1.6 the Hawks could be charged with engaging in conduct that is “unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute”.

In 2013 the AFL kicked Essendon out of finals, fined the club $2 million and stripped the club of early draft picks in the next two drafts under that rule.

The Binmada review was commissioned by the Hawks board in April last year after favourite son Cyril Rioli and wife Shannyn made claims of racial incidents at the club.

“Gillon McLachlan can’t have his cake and eat it,” Kennett said.

“He can’t on the one hand say it was wrong to find out whether the allegations of the Riolis were widespread or not - and then on finding that there was no substance against any of the three Hawthorn officials - he can’t then say that the club has done anything but the right thing in the interests of a safe workplace.

​

“We did what any employer would do when something is brought to their attention. We tried to find out whether it was widespread or just isolated. We got the stories, a number of startling, disappointing responses - they have now been investigated and (it was) found that those stories had no substance.”

Kennett said he “trusted” that the current Hawthorn board would have “the courage to actually defend the actions it has taken” and will “argue the case very strongly”.

Just give us their #3 pick as compensation for Clarko needing to stand down. How was the timing of all this hitting the media, and I wonder if it even would have come out at all if not for Clarko signing on as our coach.

 

[Val Keating]

However should the case advance to the Human Rights Commission, Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, who’ve long denied any wrongdoing but were never formally interviewed on the matter, would need to attend compulsory mediation.

It would require the First Nations families to put their testimonies on record, meaning their identities would be made public for the first time.

“It’s far from the end of this story,” Chief Herald Sun reporter and AFL 360 co-host Mark Robinson said on Tuesday night.

“My information tonight is it is destined for the Human Rights commission.”

If consolidation can’t be reached, the families could sue for discrimination in the Federal Court, while the entire process reportedly could drag out for another couple of years.

Good

 

[gokangas]

Assuming it goes to the HRC can any party refuse to be involved or are you legally obliged.

 

[Marksup]

For those that missed my earlier posts this is what I have in regards to Clarko.

1. There will be no legal action - he just wants this done and dusted. Expect a similar statement from him as to what Fagan put out. Then expect some form of agreement from all parties not to proceed with legal/ HRC action.
2. He will return either the Bulldogs game or more likely first game after the bye against Adelaide.
3. For those saying what’s in it for the families to proceed that way - simple - Hawthorn are now in the gun for their behavior through this whole saga. Expect they will face sanctions and have to cough up cash and apologies.

This from the same source as I’ve had in regards to when we were chasing Clarko - I trust it will be fairly accurate.

What about Zac and Ian/Amy though? They weren’t involved in the AFL investigation and made the most serious claims?

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

What about Zac and Ian/Amy though? They weren’t involved in the AFL investigation and made the most serious claims?

Will be part of any no legal action agreement - there is no evidence that the claims they made could be proven - hence one of the reasons why they refused to participate in the AFL investigation.

 

[Disco Dew]

Assuming it goes to the HRC can any party refuse to be involved or are you legally obliged.

• The Commission will notify you that it has received a complaint and will provide you with a copy of the complaint. The Commission wants to hear your views on the matter and wants to make sure you have a fair opportunity to respond and resolve the complaint.
• If the Commission asks you to provide information or documents, you will also be asked to provide this within a specific timeframe. If you do not provide the information in the timeframe or you do not respond at all, the President of the Commission has power under the law to compel you to provide the information. The law also says that the President can compel people and organisations to attend conciliation.

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

It's not. It's not at all. Everyone is still wondering if they are pricks enough to encourage a couple to abort their baby, or at least facilitate a young bloke to leave his pregnant partner

Their reputations have been brutally slurred and this is no restitution

I understand what you are saying but two points -
1. They have no interest in further legal proceedings. They do not want this to drag through the courts to clear their names when there is an easier solution.
2. There is no evidence that those things occurred.

A negotiated agreement not to proceed covers them and as they are not guilty then provides closure once and for all.

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

Assuming it goes to the HRC can any party refuse to be involved or are you legally obliged.

The families will baulk at going further as soon as they lose the veil of anonymity.

 

[DocSholl]

I understand what you are saying but two points -
1. They have no interest in further legal proceedings. They do not want this to drag through the courts to clear their names when there is an easier solution.
2. There is no evidence that those things occurred.

A negotiated agreement not to proceed covers them and as they are not guilty then provides closure once and for all.

I think you're missing the point about reputation.

 

[Disco Dew]

The families will baulk at going further as soon as they lose the veil of anonymity.

Fairly certain any complaints to the AHRC are confidential. I’d say the respondents would be made aware to the complainants but it’s not like it’s also made public.

 

[blackshadow]

KickItAnywhere34 DocSholl

 

[adas]

If an independent Panel has come to the conclusion after 8 months of fact finding - a conclusion that the claimants also agreed to - that the defendents have nothing to answer for, what would be the purpose of going to HRC or Federal Courts?

The Panel has found absolutely no wrongdoing on behalf of Clarko and Co. Why would the HRC or Courts see it differently???

 

[nicko74]

If an independent Panel has come to the conclusion after 8 months of fact finding - a conclusion that the claimants also agreed to - that the defendents have nothing to answer for, what would be the purpose of going to HRC or Federal Courts?

The Panel has found absolutely no wrongdoing on behalf of Clarko and Co. Why would the HRC or Courts see it differently???