News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Or they have paid attention to how these sorts of defamation cases have played out and know its not in their interest to pursue it.

Defamation cases in this country are weighted generally towards the complainants. It’s not that hard to win. The Roberts Smith one is a bit of an outlier, but we’re not talking about a case that had nuance and grey areas there like this scandal. He was guilty as sin.

I think they’re still think they likely pursue (they’ve got til mid September), but if they don’t I would say it’s far more likely because of back ground AFL pedalling, and also because a big case like that would probably end up being a full time job for these guys for a serious period of time, something pretty hard to do whilst also coaching.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Defamation cases in this country are weighted generally towards the complainants. It’s not that hard to win. The Roberts Smith one is a bit of an outlier, but we’re not talking about a case that had nuance and grey areas there like this scandal. He was guilty as sin.

I think they’re still think they likely pursue (they’ve got til mid September), but if they don’t I would say it’s far more likely because of back ground AFL pedalling, and also because a big case like that would probably end up being a full time job for these guys for a serious period of time, something pretty hard to do whilst also coaching.

Are they?
There's been 2 high profile cases, one with rebel Wilson, one with roberst-smith

Wilson won her initial one then had it overturned on appeal on the basis that the media wouldn't intentionally mislead (or words to that affect), and Roberts Smith had his name dragged through the mud for months before the case

 

[Brishawk]

Defamation cases in this country are weighted generally towards the complainants. It’s not that hard to win. The Roberts Smith one is a bit of an outlier, but we’re not talking about a case that had nuance and grey areas there like this scandal. He was guilty as sin.

I think they’re still think they likely pursue (they’ve got til mid September), but if they don’t I would say it’s far more likely because of back ground AFL pedalling, and also because a big case like that would probably end up being a full time job for these guys for a serious period of time, something pretty hard to do whilst also coaching.

Porter withdrew his defamation case after he realised the media outlet were going to trial him in civil court using a truth defence. Pursuing his defamation case likely ends up making things worse for him even if he won. Dutton lost a defamation case (initially won but overturned) for a tweet labelling him a rape apologist. Craig machlan withdrew his case citing strain on family but likely he also realised that he was going to be tried in civil court and likely he ends up worse for it, not to mention the costs.

Ben roberts smith has spent tens of millions and now has to pay tens if millions in costs for his case. Totally ill advised to purse defamation but it wasn’t his money he was spending.

Erin molan won a defamation case for being claimed to be racist. Her exposure in that case was limited to what she had said in public on air.

Erin Molan denies claims of casual racism after court hears radio clips

Broadcaster says recordings played at her defamation trial have nothing to do with mocking someone’s name and ethnicity

www.theguardian.com

If clarko pursues defamation (which he wont) he will be on trial. They will bring forward all the witnesses they can find to testify against him. Everything that has been private will become public. Even if he wins, he would lose. It is not in his interests to sue here and i have said this from day one.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Porter withdrew his defamation case after he realised the media outlet were going to trial him in civil court using a truth defence. Pursuing his defamation case likely ends up making things worse for him even if he won. Dutton lost a defamation case (initially won but overturned) for a tweet labelling him a rape apologist. Craig machlan withdrew his case citing strain on family but likely he also realised that he was going to be tried in civil court and likely he ends up worse for it, not to mention the costs.

Ben roberts smith has spent tens of millions and now has to pay tens if millions in costs for his case. Totally ill advised to purse defamation but it wasn’t his money he was spending.

Erin molan won a defamation case for being claimed to be racist. Her exposure in that case was limited to what she had said in public on air.

Erin Molan denies claims of casual racism after court hears radio clips

Broadcaster says recordings played at her defamation trial have nothing to do with mocking someone’s name and ethnicity

www.theguardian.com

If clarko pursues defamation (which he wont) he will be on trial. They will bring forward all the witnesses they can find to testify against him. Everything that has been private will become public. Even if he wins, he would lose. It is not in his interests to sue here and i have said this from day one.

The major difference in most of those cases is that, in very basic terms, there's a clear set of events that (likely) happened, a clear perpetrator and what appears to be a misuse of the civil court to save some sort of face.

Whatever we think about Clarkso and the rest, they 100% believe to their core they did nothing wrong, and so do a significant amount of people who were there at the club and the AFL. So what this is really about is an interpretation of some of the events, and probably also challenging other events accused that they and others strongly believe were fabricated.

Not saying you're wrong in that it could completely go south for them, but if they are as stubborn as we know they are, and believe they are innocent as we know they think they are, I just can't see what your saying would be the deterrent.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Are they?
There's been 2 high profile cases, one with rebel Wilson, one with roberst-smith

Wilson won her initial one then had it overturned on appeal on the basis that the media wouldn't intentionally mislead (or words to that affect), and Roberts Smith had his name dragged through the mud for months before the case

Here's a good article about it:

What is defamation and where do we draw the line in Australia?

Several high profile Australians have become embroiled in defamation cases, but anyone could find themselves accused.

www.sbs.com.au

Professor Rolph said Australian law tends to favour defamation plaintiffs (the party making the claims) rather than defendants (who the complaint is made against).

“All the plaintiff needs to prove is that the defamatory claim has identified them in front of more than one person and that it is defamatory,” he said.

“The defendant has to prove the defamatory claim is true - it’s not up to the plaintiff to prove that the claim is false. Australian law also tends to presume claims are false.”

 

[Brishawk]

The major difference in most of those cases is that, in very basic terms, there's a clear set of events that (likely) happened, a clear perpetrator and what appears to be a misuse of the civil court to save some sort of face.

Whatever we think about Clarkso and the rest, they 100% believe to their core they did nothing wrong, and so do a significant amount of people who were there at the club and the AFL. So what this is really about is an interpretation of some of the events, and probably also challenging other events accused that they and others strongly believe were fabricated.

Not saying you're wrong in that it could completely go south for them, but if they are as stubborn as we know they are, and believe they are innocent as we know they think they are, I just can't see what your saying would be the deterrent.

Picture this. A player takes the stand and is forced to relive trauma relating back to childhood, the historical treatment of his people and his experiences in football and post football life. Even in the best possible world for clarkson, that is not going to do his reputation any amount of good. It doesn’t matter that many of these events occurred outside of the players’ time at the club. Clarkson will be portrayed as being responsible for causing the player to relive them. The accusations in the media of abuse of white privilege will flow in his direction. Their will be no relief from the criticism during the hearing.

 

[peetoo]

Are they?
There's been 2 high profile cases, one with rebel Wilson, one with roberst-smith

Wilson won her initial one then had it overturned on appeal on the basis that the media wouldn't intentionally mislead (or words to that affect), and Roberts Smith had his name dragged through the mud for months before the case

Rebels was based on loss of future earnings. That’s not really happened has it?

 

[peetoo]

Picture this. A player takes the stand and is forced to relive trauma relating back to childhood, the historical treatment of his people and his experiences in football and post football life. Even in the best possible world for clarkson, that is not going to do his reputation any amount of good. It doesn’t matter that many of these events occurred outside of the players’ time at the club. Clarkson will be portrayed as being responsible for causing the player to relive them. The accusations in the media of abuse of white privilege will flow in his direction. Their will be no relief from the criticism during the hearing.

People commenting from the outside keep referring to inter generational trauma, stolen generations.

Is there any direct evidence of this in these cases? I don’t think the person who’s background is NZ would be referring to that?

I keep asking this, but no one points to any direct evidence in these cases. Happy to be shown otherwise

 

[lethalselbow]

Maybe nobody goes to court.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Rebels was based on loss of future earnings. That’s not really happened has it?

I though it was a defamation case, and the amount was the loss of potential earning, not anpayout on defamation, eg. They cost her so much.
The ruling was still defamation?

 

[Mercy Seat]

Picture this. A player takes the stand and is forced to relive trauma relating back to childhood, the historical treatment of his people and his experiences in football and post football life. Even in the best possible world for clarkson, that is not going to do his reputation any amount of good. It doesn’t matter that many of these events occurred outside of the players’ time at the club. Clarkson will be portrayed as being responsible for causing the player to relive them. The accusations in the media of abuse of white privilege will flow in his direction. Their will be no relief from the criticism during the hearing.

I can certainly picture that, but that's a likely outcome anyway with the HR appeal.

For the record, I think any form of defamation suit would be one of the worst outcomes for all involved. The idea of club legends being pitted against each other in a court of law, blokes like Hodge and Burgoyne potentially testifying on one side, Rioli on the other would just be bloody awful.

 

[Off The Couch]

I can certainly picture that, but that's a likely outcome anyway with the HR appeal.

For the record, I think any form of defamation suit would be one of the worst outcomes for all involved. The idea of club legends being pitted against each other in a court of law, blokes like Hodge and Burgoyne potentially testifying on one side, Rioli on the other would just be bloody awful.

I think it’s already very clear where the players mentioned sit.
I’m leaning more towards them suing ABC than the players who accused them and that will be a tough one for them as Jackson will call the players.

What hodge and silk experienced will have nothing to do with it

 

[Brishawk]

I think it’s already very clear where the players mentioned sit.
I’m leaning more towards them suing ABC than the players who accused them and that will be a tough one for them as Jackson will call the players.

What hodge and silk experienced will have nothing to do with it

The abc would have to call the players as witnesses. At least assuming the mount a truth defence.

 

[Off The Couch]

The abc would have to call the players as witnesses. At least assuming the mount a truth defence.

I thought that’s what I said but reading back what I wrote even I’m confused

 

[Mercy Seat]

I think it’s already very clear where the players mentioned sit.
I’m leaning more towards them suing ABC than the players who accused them and that will be a tough one for them as Jackson will call the players.

What hodge and silk experienced will have nothing to do with it

I think that's the only path forward if there was defamation - suing the ABC. They wouldnt sue the players.

But people at the club who submitted statements either side of the issue (Hodge, Silk, even Buddy) you would think would be subpoenaed.

 

[Brishawk]

I thought that’s what I said but reading back what I wrote even I’m confused

Oh right now i get it lol

 

[brad sue well]

Picture this. A player takes the stand and is forced to relive trauma relating back to childhood, the historical treatment of his people and his experiences in football and post football life. Even in the best possible world for clarkson, that is not going to do his reputation any amount of good. It doesn’t matter that many of these events occurred outside of the players’ time at the club. Clarkson will be portrayed as being responsible for causing the player to relive them. The accusations in the media of abuse of white privilege will flow in his direction. Their will be no relief from the criticism during the hearing.

Good to know the (cultural) context is highly relevant as it should be. Underlines how the accused either knew of this or massively ignorant (that I can't see is the case).

Meanwhile, Clarkson slides back into coaching via the backdoor and in a few weeks he will be coaching. "naaaah, I've been back for a few weeks, just wanted to dodge the old crew, good as gold. Just a little holiday for no reason because Gill did. I can't wait to get stuck into formidable Fremantle..."

 

[peetoo]

So no poster has direct reference to the players themselves feeling this ‘great historical cultural significance’?

Or no one referring back to it can find any.

Could it be this linkage is wide of the mark and constructs by posters and media types

As always, happy to be shown otherwise, the allegations of excessive controls are surely bad enough

 

[brad sue well]

People commenting from the outside keep referring to inter generational trauma, stolen generations.

Is there any direct evidence of this in these cases? I don’t think the person who’s background is NZ would be referring to that?

I keep asking this, but no one points to any direct evidence in these cases. Happy to be shown otherwise

I think this may have been touched on before... a general google will touch on it for sure.

I have been in quite a few homes of descendants of the Holocaust and there are some pretty messed up second and even third generations (born in Aust) as a result of their family trees trauma, it is like their is no soul in the very place that people should be themselves the most.

Say Chad's family doesn't have any connection at all to the Stolen Generation, he has spoken of being racially profiled, he is part of a population of this country whose health and life outcomes are a blight; it is relevant and should be part of his story/context in a court case. This is his day to day existence and has it's own worries I would have thought. It is why the AFLPA today announced they broadened their Indigenous Advisory Board with a Professor with a background in health, human rights and law (and on the AFLPAs Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee).

I don't know NZ history but in some ways they are ahead of us (Treaty of Waitangi), I think a similar google will show their First Nations people also have worse outcomes similar to Aust. And why a workplace who is as involved in a (young) person is responsible for being culturally considerate. In a different way, same should be afforded to recruits from Ireland and other aspects of 'diversity' (and in their own way, accommodate 'weird cats' like Will Langford and if it comes the Club's way, other forms of trauma a player may have, regardless of culture).

To add some more and reply to your second post... if you know someone who is Indigenous, ask if/how they separate their Indigeneity from their day to day goings on, not sure it is possible. Some of the accusers may well have no connections to the Stolen Generation but they have other pretty important things to respect/consider (as touched on above), regardless.

 

[peetoo]

I think this may have been touched on before... a general google will touch on it for sure.

I have been in quite a few homes of descendants of the Holocaust and there are some pretty messed up second and even third generations (born in Aust) as a result of their family trees trauma, it is like their is no soul in the very place that people should be themselves the most.

Say Chad's family doesn't have any connection at all to the Stolen Generation, he has spoken of being racially profiled, he is part of a population of this country whose health and life outcomes are a blight; it is relevant and should be part of his story/context in a court case. This is his day to day existence and has it's own worries I would have thought. It is why the AFLPA today announced they broadened their Indigenous Advisory Board with a Professor with a background in health, human rights and law (and on the AFLPAs Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee).

I don't know NZ history but in some ways they are ahead of us (Treaty of Waitangi), I think a similar google will show their First Nations people also have worse outcomes similar to Aust. And why a workplace who is as involved in a (young) person is responsible for being culturally considerate. In a different way, same should be afforded to recruits from Ireland and other aspects of 'diversity' (and in their own way, accommodate 'weird cats' like Will Langford and if it comes the Club's way, other forms of trauma a player may have, regardless of culture).

To add some more and reply to your second post... if you know someone who is Indigenous, ask if/how they separate their Indigeneity from their day to day goings on, not sure it is possible. Some of the accusers may well have no connections to the Stolen Generation but they have other pretty important things to respect/consider (as touched on above), regardless.

With respect…that’s not what I was asking. They were treated differently in that the ‘health check’ was only targeted at indigenous players. For clear reasons

Short answer…so nothing direct from the players themselves. I do wait to be corrected, but not any more stuff not actually in these cases - which are bad enough anyway.

The thread really does have enough of that already.

To be honest, an employer going down the lines of OK this guy has connection to stolen generations, I must keep that in mind

No just ask the guy personally what his relationship to culture means. Don’t assume from what you’ve read. That really is being paternal, assuming something which may not be in play.

We have seen the various Adam Goodes docos. Prior to that he was in ‘who do you think you are’ and it really was a voyage of discovery for him, something he apparently didn’t think about muchuntil then, as his mother tried to keep the indigenous issues from him growing up. I got from it that some people of indigenous background may have almost as limited an exposure to the struggles as we are.

As I said, I stand to be corrected. But google? No

 

[brad sue well]

With respect…that’s not what I was asking. They were treated differently in that the ‘health check’ was only targeted at indigenous players. For clear reasons

Short answer…so nothing direct from the players themselves. I do wait to be corrected, but not any more stuff not actually in these cases - which are bad enough anyway.

The thread really does have enough of that already.

To be honest, an employer going down the lines of OK this guy has connection to stolen generations, I must keep that in mind

No just ask the guy personally what his relationship to culture means. Don’t assume from what you’ve read. That really is being paternal, assuming something which may not be in play.

We have seen the various Adam Goodes docos. Prior to that he was in ‘who do you think you are’ and it really was a voyage of discovery for him, something he apparently didn’t think about muchuntil then, as his mother tried to keep the indigenous issues from him growing up. I got from it that some people of indigenous background may have almost as limited an exposure to the struggles as we are.

As I said, I stand to be corrected. But google? No

Apologies for misreading it. I read that you didn't think generational trauma existed, hence google.

It is a fair assumption when the AFLPA have a guide to working with Indigenous players that says to Clubs, learn about the Stolen Generation. You are right, might be media/this thread's speculation regarding these players... although I think Amy's artwork may allude to it and says "reproductive coercion" AFL STATEMENT | Marque Lawyers. Knowing the Stolen Generation exists and that what has been alleged has strong similarities, I think is a valid trauma of those families when people in power can be treated with caution.

I would imagine even IPDMs take some time to learn about players they are responsible for and asking someone in a direct way is probably not going to get the answer and might build more caution. Depending on who, it might be from their parent, Uncle or Auntie (who may well be the family spokesperson is how it has been described to me); why the AFLPA document refers to meeting the family/Community before drafting. Some players never open up, shows what a tough role wellbeing is (having comprehensive policy/procedure protects all involved in these circumstances).

The Goodes family and Adam being shielded may well have a trauma that isn't as strong and unclear to Adam during his early years and a really big hit in the face when he did learn of the detail. Realisation why his Mum was a particular way on certain topics, she sounds like an incredible woman.

All good, enjoy the weekend.

 

[peetoo]

Apologies for misreading it. I read that you didn't think generational trauma existed, hence google.

It is a fair assumption when the AFLPA have a guide to working with Indigenous players that says to Clubs, learn about the Stolen Generation. You are right, might be media/this thread's speculation regarding these players... although I think Amy's artwork may allude to it and says "reproductive coercion" AFL STATEMENT | Marque Lawyers. Knowing the Stolen Generation exists and that what has been alleged has strong similarities, I think is a valid trauma of those families when people in power can be treated with caution.

I would imagine even IPDMs take some time to learn about players they are responsible for and asking someone in a direct way is probably not going to get the answer and might build more caution. Depending on who, it might be from their parent, Uncle or Auntie (who may well be the family spokesperson is how it has been described to me); why the AFLPA document refers to meeting the family/Community before drafting. Some players never open up, shows what a tough role wellbeing is (having comprehensive policy/procedure protects all involved in these circumstances).

The Goodes family and Adam being shielded may well have a trauma that isn't as strong and unclear to Adam during his early years and a really big hit in the face when he did learn of the detail. Realisation why his Mum was a particular way on certain topics, she sounds like an incredible woman.

All good, enjoy the weekend.

All good mate

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

Knowing the Stolen Generation exists and that what has been alleged has strong similarities.

Hang on... wat?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Hang on... wat?

This doesn’t need explaining again.

 

[peetoo]

This doesn’t need explaining again.

The direct link has never been explained in this thread, just presented as fact.