- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,269
- 9,726
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I must have missed this?
Eddie McGuire makes on-air gaffe about Adam Goodes and King Kong
- Thread starter Farang83150
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It was when he was speaking out against homophobia on the field, I believe. A contrite confession of past behavior.
Crack me up.......There are some people that are genetically pre-disposed to being overweight. There are some people that are pre-disposed to being ugly, or red headed. Some players have been known to carry some extra weight at certain times. I'm not the one complaining here as I am none of the above but the people who are will be the ones in the High Court suing for all they are worth. I haven't made these rules. Governments and organisations make them and then enforce them on us whether we like or agree or not. People freely choose what gets under their skin and what doesn't. And clearly more people find it offensive that someone should vilify another person because of their skin colour rather than their weight or height or hair colour or lack there of. That's just the way people are. But there really is no difference. Does it matter what they find offensive? Or should we have a list of things that you are not allowed to be offended by?
So what you are saying is that if I called someone a short arsed shit kick then that is not being vilified? And I am going to be very careful here and not draw any inference to any person or events just happened. So you think he knows he's a short arse and yes that was a shit kick! He has still been vilified in his mind.
And yes it is unfortunate that at some stage the football will be like the tennis or one of those North Korean soccer matches where nobody dare says anything. I hope I am long gone when that happens.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,269
- 9,726
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Interesting article
Interesting article
Yes it is and it demonstrates that there are no levels of vilification as there are with high tackles etc. The law does not differentiate that one person has been more vilified than another. A slur is a slur regardless of what that slur is. And that is why I said it all stops or nothing stops, there is no middle ground here. This is how the law looks at it.
Yeah. Good luck to'em.
It doesn't matter what people find offensive. It matters the attitudes people express. Racist attitudes are for the chop. They are not to survive the evolution process, because they give us nothing. They do lots of bad and no good.
In the context of a professional football team, frowning on unhealthiness does good and no bad.
The poor old genetically pre-disposed fat people probably can't really make it in football anymore. You know, coz people make fun of them too much. They should probably sue.
Good. He can suck shit. Vilification on merit is fine. Vilify everyone for exactly how shit they are, I say. But there's nothing shit about being from any particular race, which is why racial vilification gets pulled up. It's because we are in a transitional period as a society, and we are in between genuinely thinking racial difference carries with it inherent difference in merit and just accepting that racial differences are purely cosmetic and meaningless in regards to merit without even having to think about it.
This transitional period causes schism. Some schism is necessary to confront, and some is necessary to just get over.
The relative inconsitensy of the fatty on the footy field copping fat jokes with no protection akin to anti-racial vilification rules sits safely in the second category.
Will never happen. If anything, once people break society out of the prism of pervasive prejudice, it'll all be fair game again. It's just no-one'll ever use any of it by then, coz it's more relevant to call someone fat.
I agree with monkeyboi, there cant be double standards if this is what they want. There cant be any reference to anyone about race no matter how insignificant and how the person reacts. If the person it happens directly to who's to say it wont upset someone else, happened to Goodes but it hurt O'brien. If they want to stamp it out stamp it out completely.
That means also refering to cameron ling as an orangutan, because it would be offensive to red heads and its calling him an ape aswell. He may not be offended, but whos to say another red head or fair skinned footballer isnt offended by the remark?
If they bring it in, cut out everything. By commentators players spectators and everyone.
That means also refering to cameron ling as an orangutan, because it would be offensive to red heads and its calling him an ape aswell. He may not be offended, but whos to say another red head or fair skinned footballer isnt offended by the remark?
If they bring it in, cut out everything. By commentators players spectators and everyone.
Dude I totally agree with you on nearly everything you say. Racism is vile and needs to be stamped out, I absolutely hate it in any form. But Harry can't be offended by what anyone says if he doesn't give a shit what he says if it hurts someone else. Ling is not an orangutan, Goodes is not an ape and Hawkins is not a fat ****. The law makes no differentiation of any of the above statements if they wanted to take it further. Thats all Im saying.
Right. If your point was that Harry O's a self important tool, we're totally on the same page.
S'pose I was just arguing against the article itself, which I thought was pretty dumb.
And my point does remain, some things are worse than others and racism is worse than most. I don't thinking taking a stand against racism means you have to become all "New Age" or be a hypocrite.
Harry O's position is understandable, but he did it in a Harry O way, so **** him.
But then again...
...how many other AFL players are as brave with their opinions? How many other players actually take a risk with their public standing to come out and say what they believe? I roll my eyes at Harry just like everyone else, but in that regard the league and the world needs more of him.
They're all turning into jarheads.
Racial vilification laws make no distinction between what is true or not, only what vilifies on the basis of race.
Don't know what other laws you're referring to? Workplace health and safety or something?
The point being lost here is that Goodes is in fact an ape - along with the rest of the human race. The species 'homo sapiens' form part of the mammal family Hominidae, otherwise known as the Great Apes.
Nah mate. Been said.
Clearly your a racist piece of shit who doesn't understand what people Goodesy never met or never knew had to go through 100 years ago!
Hey mess, we agree on a lot of things here which is pretty rare for an Essendon and Hawthorn supporter. Vilification in any form is banned under the Australian Human Rights Commission and several UN charters. Employers have been sued for allowing workers to call other workers names, fatty, baldy, ranga etc. It also comes under work place bullying laws which if any player wanted to take that stance on it for anything that is said on field then they would probably win, I have no doubt about it. Why? Because that is what we have created in order to live in a decent and just society. Its a shame that we need laws for this and people cant just treat others as they would expect to be treated. I understand more about this than most people as I have represented people in that circumstance, both employer and employee. Calling someone fat may seem petty but to them its not. And these footballers are technically at work, this is their job. Calling Hawkins a fat **** is technically work place bullying.
Yes, some things are worse than others and racial vilification is on the top of it for me too. But I am not gay or overweight so to those people, sexuality and weight vilification would be on the top of theirs as this is their reality, I would think that someone who was bullied all day at work over their weight couldn't give a toss what that 13 yo girl said. We do need more people to speak out and for that I do applaud Harry, but he has to put into context his past and the hurt he has created and think about the things he has said. He's no angel when it comes to vilifying someone by his own admission. There was a time we called it sledging and now its bullying and and vilification. Sledging was not a crime but bullying and vilification are. In any form.
Yes, some things are worse than others and racial vilification is on the top of it for me too. But I am not gay or overweight so to those people, sexuality and weight vilification would be on the top of theirs as this is their reality, I would think that someone who was bullied all day at work over their weight couldn't give a toss what that 13 yo girl said. We do need more people to speak out and for that I do applaud Harry, but he has to put into context his past and the hurt he has created and think about the things he has said. He's no angel when it comes to vilifying someone by his own admission. There was a time we called it sledging and now its bullying and and vilification. Sledging was not a crime but bullying and vilification are. In any form.
Technically correct as your post no doubt is, the first player to enforce these laws over being called fat on a footy field would've been wise to have preemptively begun a search for housing options overseas. And rightly so, IMO.
The football field is a unique work environment, and should conform to different rules.
Neville Bruns has a lot to answer for...
I am fed up with this whole issue. Not just because I am a Collingwood supporter either. I would not care which club this related to, my opinion would be the same.
If it is okay for the Swans to refer to their triple brownlow medalist Bobby Skilton as "the chimp" based on his physical appearance, why can't a dual brownlow medalist be referred to as an ape?
I have heard this term used for Fevola, Monkhurst, Dunstall and several others by supporters of various clubs. Yes it can be construed as a somewhat derogatory implying a lumbering, sub-human or less intelligent person but no-one is 100% certain that the intent of the 13 year old girl was using this term in a racist manner. There are certainly worse undeniably racist slurs or remarks someone could use if this was the intent.
As for Maguire his comments were hamfisted, clumsy and stupid - but racist? I think not. It should be taken in the true context in which the comments were made. Maguires philanthropic activities related to indigenous issues and groups would seen to belie any racist attitudes.
There was an on air discussion regarding the promotion of the stage show of King Kong. In light of the vast over the top media coverage regarding the ape comment made to Adam Goodes and the resultant publicity this generated, Maguire made a dreadfully bad analogy that Goodes could be used to promote the show...that is it...period...
I should note that I have personally been a Harassment Contact Officer in a workplace and undergone the associated training and certifications that this involves. Yes it is true that Adam Goodes has been offended by what has been said and that only the person to whom the remarks are made can truly say if this is racist or not. Apologies have been quite rightly made by the individuals concerned to Adam Goodes. However in a reverse sense it should be noted that only the 13 year old girl and Maguire truly know if they had any racist intent in their remarks. Everyone else are merely speculating.
So what are the ramifications now for the average football supporter and their banter/abuse from across the boundary line. Is is no longer appropriate to refer to the "gorilla" defender or forward, can we use the word "mongrel" or "bastard" or may that be seen to referring to someone as a half-breed or of dubious parentage? Should people be able to make jokes about supporters of clubs eg Collingwood supporters being criminals or lacking teeth? Where would it end. Perhaps the AFL will have to create a supporters handbook giving a list of appropriate insults or phrases which can be used by the aggravated supporter.
Enough...
If it is okay for the Swans to refer to their triple brownlow medalist Bobby Skilton as "the chimp" based on his physical appearance, why can't a dual brownlow medalist be referred to as an ape?
I have heard this term used for Fevola, Monkhurst, Dunstall and several others by supporters of various clubs. Yes it can be construed as a somewhat derogatory implying a lumbering, sub-human or less intelligent person but no-one is 100% certain that the intent of the 13 year old girl was using this term in a racist manner. There are certainly worse undeniably racist slurs or remarks someone could use if this was the intent.
As for Maguire his comments were hamfisted, clumsy and stupid - but racist? I think not. It should be taken in the true context in which the comments were made. Maguires philanthropic activities related to indigenous issues and groups would seen to belie any racist attitudes.
There was an on air discussion regarding the promotion of the stage show of King Kong. In light of the vast over the top media coverage regarding the ape comment made to Adam Goodes and the resultant publicity this generated, Maguire made a dreadfully bad analogy that Goodes could be used to promote the show...that is it...period...
I should note that I have personally been a Harassment Contact Officer in a workplace and undergone the associated training and certifications that this involves. Yes it is true that Adam Goodes has been offended by what has been said and that only the person to whom the remarks are made can truly say if this is racist or not. Apologies have been quite rightly made by the individuals concerned to Adam Goodes. However in a reverse sense it should be noted that only the 13 year old girl and Maguire truly know if they had any racist intent in their remarks. Everyone else are merely speculating.
So what are the ramifications now for the average football supporter and their banter/abuse from across the boundary line. Is is no longer appropriate to refer to the "gorilla" defender or forward, can we use the word "mongrel" or "bastard" or may that be seen to referring to someone as a half-breed or of dubious parentage? Should people be able to make jokes about supporters of clubs eg Collingwood supporters being criminals or lacking teeth? Where would it end. Perhaps the AFL will have to create a supporters handbook giving a list of appropriate insults or phrases which can be used by the aggravated supporter.
Enough...
MrChristo
Premiership Player
[Damn, can't find an emoticon for watching 2 hours worth of powerpoint slides then ticking a box...so a
will do... ]
[Damn, can't find an emoticon for watching 2 hours worth of powerpoint slides then ticking a box...so a
Sorry matey, not sure if you are having a go at me or not... I have also been a union official, CFA volunteer, First Aider, SES worker and many other things that require training. I made mention of this merely to indicate that I am aware of the process and legislation regarding this issue. Not trying to bignote myself or being an idiot
Well, research I was involved in, led to significant advancements in the treatment of childhood cancer, so I'd say I've got him covered. Wouldn't you !
Yes mate it is a unique work environment but a work environment it is none the less. Remember when Barry Hall punched Brett Staker? There were lawyers lining up at Stakers house. Hall is lucky he never went through with it, he had to sell his soul to stop it going any further. There is still nothing stopping players taking external action on any grounds for any offence they feel has been committed against them. The AFL makes rules, not LAWS. That's why they let the media crucify this young girl, they have no power to do anything else to her except ban her from the games. And I am sure this would not have suited the blood seekers, so hand her over to the police for 2 hours and then let the media feed on the carcass.
May be it will take that first player to haul someone through the courts for something like being called a homo or whatever. May be then it will stop on the field in all forms. But if it doesn't stop on the field and the players can't unite and stop this themselves then it will never stop in the stands and people like Eddie will keep making stupid comments and continue to get away with it by appearing to be the victim.
But lets get back to the media and Eddie.
This is not the first time Eddie has said something without engaging a gear. Hell I think we all have, he is just unfortunate enough to have said it with a microphone in front of him. But he is a millionaire so if he does get "boned" then he and Carla and the kids wont go hungry. Eddie and the media are pretty well one in the same, I really couldn't see him getting boned just as Newman will never get boned. The day Newman came out with the black face mocking Nicky Winmar should have been his last. But that has all been forgotten so life goes on for Sam. The media (CH9) is way to powerful to let that happen to either of them. And other media outlets soon give up just in case it happens to them and then CH9 turn on them.
But why did Eddie say it? He is definitely not a racist. I don't think he is a total idiot either, I mean total idiots are very, very rare and most end up in prison. But he is an idiot. I think he didn't explain himself clearly enough at the start of his statement. He should have clarified what he was about to say, not what he said after it was said. When you try to clarify what was said no matter how you say it, it will always sound like you are making excuses.
This is not the first time Eddie has said something without engaging a gear. Hell I think we all have, he is just unfortunate enough to have said it with a microphone in front of him. But he is a millionaire so if he does get "boned" then he and Carla and the kids wont go hungry. Eddie and the media are pretty well one in the same, I really couldn't see him getting boned just as Newman will never get boned. The day Newman came out with the black face mocking Nicky Winmar should have been his last. But that has all been forgotten so life goes on for Sam. The media (CH9) is way to powerful to let that happen to either of them. And other media outlets soon give up just in case it happens to them and then CH9 turn on them.
But why did Eddie say it? He is definitely not a racist. I don't think he is a total idiot either, I mean total idiots are very, very rare and most end up in prison. But he is an idiot. I think he didn't explain himself clearly enough at the start of his statement. He should have clarified what he was about to say, not what he said after it was said. When you try to clarify what was said no matter how you say it, it will always sound like you are making excuses.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t-one-long-gaffe/story-fni0cwl5-1226655071907
A whack of the highest order!!
A whack of the highest order!!
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #2,849
Two things-
1. Finding it hard to believe this is turned around in some people's minds as a comparison between selfless McGuire and pouty, self-centered Goodes.
2. I didn't ever hear Eddie say "good old days". However, why in hell he would think to say "Speaking of apes..." ?
1. Finding it hard to believe this is turned around in some people's minds as a comparison between selfless McGuire and pouty, self-centered Goodes.
2. I didn't ever hear Eddie say "good old days". However, why in hell he would think to say "Speaking of apes..." ?
10 goal breeze
Cancelled
- Apr 15, 2013
- 15
- 3
- AFL Club
- Essendon
