NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[HairyO]

Nobody said they all hated him. Many players have said that they didn't experience what these players and their families experienced. I believe one family who had a bad outcome said that they'd be fine with their child or partner playing under these coaches today.

Are you one of the many here saying lifetime bans are in order ?

 

[Zgope1]

You know everytime a serial killer or serial sex offender gets found out you can find about 100 people saying “oh they seemed like such a normal person”. Hell in the last week we’ve seen a number of well known celebs come out in support of Danny Masterson (who just got convicted of rape).

To be clear I’m not comparing rape and murder to racism, just pointing out that having some referees in your corner doesn’t mean you’ve never done anything bad.

Charlie and other indigenous players being supportive of and even having love for Fagan doesn’t prove that Fagan is innocent of these past allegations (and I’m not saying he’s guilty of them either). It’s entirely possible (and even probable) that Fagan has likely said and done some racist s**t in the past and now has a wonderful relationship with all of his players of all backgrounds. Perhaps he learned from his past mistakes, perhaps he’s grown and matured as a person, perhaps he just gets along better with his current group.

Weird stance that Charlie stands arm in arm with him so he couldn’t have ever been in the wrong.

Err I think that’s all pretty implicit. Lots of good people are guilty of problematic behaviour or not being received well by everyone. Allowing for subjectivity in social rules is healthy when it’s not rape or murder we’re talking about.

As is always the case, defenders sound like they’re making the guy sound like he’s never done anything wrong and accusers are depicting him as a bad person.

When it all boils down to- some people like him, some people don’t. We don’t have the authority to make any objective claims about him so we may just have to accept that and carry on.

 

[phantom13]

Err I think that’s all pretty implicit. Lots of good people are guilty of problematic behaviour or not being received well by everyone. Allowing for subjectivity in social rules is healthy when it’s not rape or murder we’re talking about.

As is always the case, defenders sound like they’re making the guy sound like he’s never done anything wrong and accusers are depicting him as a bad person.

When it all boils down to- some people like him, some people don’t. We don’t have the authority to make any objective claims about him so we may just have to accept that and carry on.

Except that people are making statements like this

“Chris Fagan coaches a grand final team brimming with outstanding First Nations players who love him. That’s the evidence that matters”

That’s a very problematic statement for the complainants against Fagan. Imagine if all it took was some solid character references now to undo previous matters.

You’re right, there are all sorts of shades of grey in something like racism claims (even some of the more extreme ones in this report) but plenty of people are saying Charlie and co like him so these claims are all bullshit.

 

[Chief]

Are you one of the many here saying lifetime bans are in order ?

For who?

 

[Chief]

And yet so many here - including you I believe Chief - actively or passively joining the mob that wanted to run Chris out of the AFL. Time for some deep reflection.

What has changed that would make me change my mind about anything I have said in this thread?

 

[HairyO]

For who?

For the coaches. The first 20 pages were filled with people falling over eachother to be more outraged and demand stiffer penalties.

 

[Chief]

For the coaches. The first 20 pages were filled with people falling over eachother to be more outraged and demand stiffer penalties.

I've said what I think a couple of times at least.

You'd have to go back and look. I don't see any reason to change my stance.

 

[Zgope1]

Err I think that’s all pretty implicit. Lots of good people are guilty of problematic behaviour or not being received well by everyone. Allowing for subjectivity in social rules is healthy when it’s not rape or murder we’re talking about.

As is always the case, defenders sound like they’re making the guy sound like he’s never done anything wrong and accusers are depicting him as a bad person.

When it all boils down to- some people like him, some people don’t. We don’t have the authority to make any objective claims about him so we may just have to accept that and carry on.

Except with a case where the judgements of characters and their actions is subjective. Then the evidence that you’ve quoted does become the most important because it proves the subjectivity of the case. It basically proves Fagan is not objectively racist. Now he may have still erred in past actions but knowing there is this level of support for him any notion that he is irredeemable is basically ousted

 

[Chief]

any notion that he is irredeemable

Don't know who said that he was.

 

[Zgope1]

Don't know who said that he was.

Sorry chief. I’d just read the last few pages and seen that people were discussing other posters suggesting lifetime bans. Maybe that’s hyperbolic or untrue

 

[sr36]

Except with a case where the judgements of characters and their actions is subjective. Then the evidence that you’ve quoted does become the most important because it proves the subjectivity of the case. It basically proves Fagan is not objectively racist. Now he may have still erred in past actions but knowing there is this level of support for him any notion that he is irredeemable is basically ousted

The big thing that makes this sort of thing so difficult is that everyone wants it to be a judgement of character, rather than simply what it should be a judgement of actions.

 

[Zgope1]

The big thing that makes this sort of thing so difficult is that everyone wants it to be a judgement of character, rather than simply what it should be a judgement of actions.

Welcome to 2023 society. You can contribute to that problem or not it’s up to you.

Sounds like you’re more interested in the actions which is good.

 

[Chief]

The big thing that makes this sort of thing so difficult is that everyone wants it to be a judgement of character, rather than simply what it should be a judgement of actions.

How do we show our character but through our actions?

 

[sr36]

How do we show our character but through our actions?

If you think Fagan or Clarksons character can be summed up by what dud or didn't happen 15 years ago you're looking at human character as both unchangeable and very shallow and narrowly defined.

 

[Chief]

If you think Fagan or Clarksons character can be summed up by what dud or didn't happen 15 years ago you're looking at human character as both unchangeable and very shallow and narrowly defined.

I didn't say it was.

I think you're just looking for a fight about something that has been swept under the carpet. You don't need to white knight Fagan and Clarkson. I think they acted terribly but have gotten better.

They think nothing bad happened and sued to stop the official inquiry.

 

[sr36]

I didn't say it was.

I think you're just looking for a fight about something that has been swept under the carpet. You don't need to white knight Fagan and Clarkson. I think they acted terribly but have gotten better.

They think nothing bad happened and sued to stop the official inquiry.

I couldn't give a shit about Fagan or Clarkson. What I care about is that on this issue like so many others there can't be a discussion about behaviour because it gets turned into a discussion on character - this bloke is or isn't racist. So it gets everyone's backs up and there's no progress whatsoever.

 

[Lynch takes a mark]

Any update on the HRC?

 

[Chief]

there can't be a discussion about behaviour because it gets turned into a discussion on character

Because behaviour reflects character.

 

[sr36]

Because behaviour reflects character.

And they both continually change. Neither is permanent, yet the one that is obviously impermanent is viewed as an accurate reflection of the other impermanent thing, which is viewed as permanent.

 

[HairyO]

Any update on the HRC?

Assuming the former players went to the HRC when they said they would, it should be another 8 or 9 months before there is likely to be public hearings (assuming it takes a year which is the average).

 

[tassietime]

The anti-Fagan camp’s revisionist argument is ‘he may be alright now, that doesn’t mean he didn’t say/do something offensive in the past’. This conveniently omits that many in this camp were advocating that he be run out of the game forever (and probably still hold this view). This is the rationale of the lynch mob, the puritanical, the fundamentalist. The claims against Fagan are (literally) unfounded. His current relationship with Aboriginal players is further, and conclusive, evidence that he should never have been subjected to the slander of the last 12 months.

 

[phantom13]

The anti-Fagan camp’s revisionist argument is ‘he may be alright now, that doesn’t mean he didn’t say/do something offensive in the past’. This conveniently omits that many in this camp were advocating that he be run out of the game forever (and probably still hold this view). This is the rationale of the lynch mob, the puritanical, the fundamentalist. The claims against Fagan are (literally) unfounded. His current relationship with Aboriginal players is further, and conclusive, evidence that he should never have been subjected to the slander of the last 12 months.

I dont think many are in the "anti-Fagan" camp though.

If the most heinous of claims were proven to be absolutely true then its pretty hard to argue he should ever be allowed to hold a position like coach or any position in charge of player welfare again.

In reality even the worst of the claims was almost certainly going to be something of a misunderstanding and even if proven to be accurate, lead to some cultural sensitivity training.

As it stands the point that is being made is that his current standing and relationship with his players is not in any way related to the previous claims, it doesnt disprove or invalidate them, just as a claim from a current player wouldnt prove them correct.

The matters are seperate and at best you can argue perhaps prove that he has grown and matured in that space.

 

[HairyO]

I dont think many are in the "anti-Fagan" camp though.

If the most heinous of claims were proven to be absolutely true then its pretty hard to argue he should ever be allowed to hold a position like coach or any position in charge of player welfare again.

In reality even the worst of the claims was almost certainly going to be something of a misunderstanding and even if proven to be accurate, lead to some cultural sensitivity training.

As it stands the point that is being made is that his current standing and relationship with his players is not in any way related to the previous claims, it doesnt disprove or invalidate them, just as a claim from a current player wouldnt prove them correct.

The matters are seperate and at best you can argue perhaps prove that he has grown and matured in that space.

He has denied it ever happened so I dont think growth and maturity works as a reason.

Id say a more likely reason is the current players dont believe it to be true. But we are just speculating.

12 months in and probably another 8 or 9 months til we find out all the claims and responses / counter-claims.

 

[phantom13]

He has denied it ever happened so I dont think growth and maturity works as a reason.

Id say a more likely reason is the current players dont believe it to be true. But we are just speculating.

12 months in and probably another 8 or 9 months til we find out all the claims and responses / counter-claims.

Growth doesnt just happen in a vacuum. He may have grown for a whole host of reasons, including incidents and the like that happened in previous roles where recollections may vary.

If hes not a better all round coach and player manager now than he was however many years ago he was at the Hawks id be surprised.

 

[sr36]

The anti-Fagan camp’s revisionist argument is ‘he may be alright now, that doesn’t mean he didn’t say/do something offensive in the past’. This conveniently omits that many in this camp were advocating that he be run out of the game forever (and probably still hold this view). This is the rationale of the lynch mob, the puritanical, the fundamentalist. The claims against Fagan are (literally) unfounded. His current relationship with Aboriginal players is further, and conclusive, evidence that he should never have been subjected to the slander of the last 12 months.

Anyone who wants to define him by whatever may have happened in some incidents 15 years ago is very judgemental. As is anyone who wants to define him by Charlie Cameron putting his arm around him.

He may or may not have a case to answer for events from 15 years ago. And if he does have a case to answer he should cop a whack, but it won't define his whole character, as much as people will want to do exactly that.

The AFL didn't have the powers to investigate it and it's now gone to the HRC. That's where it's at. His current relationship with Charlie Cameron is completely and utterly irrelevant and says nothing about his behaviour in previous relationships from 15 years ago. Just as his relationship and behviour towards Buddy Franklin at the time says nothing about his behaviour towards other players. You can call that a revisionist argument if you want - I call it reality. The reality is that we just don't know if his behaviour towards the accusers was inappropriate or not.