NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[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

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

“I have no option but to express publicly, in the strongest and most emphatic terms possible, that I did not behave in the manner claimed.”

What does that mean?

He didn't say those things in an aggressive, controlling or forceful way? Or he didn't say them at all?

He didn't barge into their house? But instead politely walked in? Or he didn't go there at all?

He didn't force the kid to cut off his missus? But instead suggested it in a supportive way? Or it never happened at all?


This is my concern. Regardless of the motive, or the manner in which these things were done, if they happened at all, it's bad.

And neither have denied that any of this stuff happened. Which make me think it did all happen, and they just believe they were not in the wrong by doing it.

And if that's going to be their defence, they're in trouble.

 

[mcnulty]

What does that mean?

He didn't say those things in an aggressive, controlling or forceful way? Or he didn't say them at all?

He didn't barge into their house? But instead politely walked in? Or he didn't go there at all?

He didn't force the kid to cut off his missus? But instead suggested it in a supportive way? Or it never happened at all?


This is my concern. Regardless of the motive, or the manner in which these things were done, if they happened at all, it's bad.

And neither have denied that any of this stuff happened. Which make me think it did all happen, and they just believe they were not in the wrong by doing it.

And if that's going to be their defence, they're in trouble.

Oh enough of this nonsense. It should be clear to any reasonable observer that he intends to dispute aspects of these allegations. What his version of events is you’ll just have to wait and see.

 

[Forward Press]

South of the Yarra's posts have been good reading as it offers a perspective we don't usually consider.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It should be clear to any reasonable observer that he intends to dispute aspects of these allegations.

No shit. That part is clear.

But he hasn't denied that this stuff happened. So based on his statement, and Fagan's, it appears the aspects they dispute will relate to the context, not the actions themselves.

And if so, that will be very problematic for them.

 

[mcnulty]

But he hasn't denied that this stuff happened.

He’s saying he didn’t behave in the manner he’s been accused of. So he’s absolutely denying that at least some of this stuff didn’t happen the way it’s been alleged.

The rest is pure speculation on your behalf.

 

[Forward Press]

He’s saying he didn’t behave in the manner he’s been accused of. So he’s absolutely denying that at least some of this stuff didn’t happen the way it’s been alleged.

The rest is pure speculation on your behalf.

Um, if we shouldn't speculate on BigFooty then most posts would be deleted and BigFootyNews would be the main contributor.

Thought there'd be leeway in this thread for all posters to assign motives, dissect reasoning and engage in robust debate. Meh.

 

[Roylion]

Clarkson and Fagan haven't denied that these things happened. They almost appear to acknowledge it.

Chris Fagan:

“I confirm, as I said in my earlier statement, that I deny, categorically, the allegations of wrongdoing by me in relation to First Nations players at the Hawthorn Football Club, and that I intend to defend myself."

 

[mcnulty]

Um, if we shouldn't speculate on BigFooty then most posts would be deleted and BigFootyNews would be the main contributor.

Thought there'd be leeway in this thread for all posters to assign motives, dissect reasoning and engage in robust debate. Meh.

Um… I didn’t say the poster shouldn’t be speculating, I’m saying they are speculating
.

 

[nineteen eighty]

A stitch up is a manipulation such that someone is WRONGLY blamed. If you called it a stitch up, then you either have a different understanding of the term to everyone else, or you are saying that the blame is based on falsehoods. Which one is it?

We don’t know if they are guilty or not of what has been alleged. Regardless of how much some on here keep saying it, we simply don’t know as we don’t have 2 sides of the story.

This has been leaked. So the very fact they are being judged on something they have not had a chance to respond to in the media is a stitch up. The leak is the stitch up.

Note: they may well be guilty. Give them a chance.

 

[Forward Press]

We don’t know if they are guilty or not of what has been alleged. Regardless of how much some on here keep saying it, we simply don’t know as we don’t have 2 sides of the story.

This has been leaked. So the very fact they are being judged on something they have not had a chance to respond to in the media is a stitch up. The leak is the stitch up.

Note: they may well be guilty. Give them a chance.

Repeating this ad nauseum does not eventually make it true.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Chris Fagan:

“I confirm, as I said in my earlier statement, that I deny, categorically, the allegations of wrongdoing by me in relation to First Nations players at the Hawthorn Football Club, and that I intend to defend myself."

So he's denied wrongdoing.

Not that he didn't do the things that he's been accused of - just that there was no wrongdoing.

This is exactly my point.

 

[Descent]

We don’t know if they are guilty or not of what has been alleged. Regardless of how much some on here keep saying it, we simply don’t know as we don’t have 2 sides of the story.

This has been leaked. So the very fact they are being judged on something they have not had a chance to respond to in the media is a stitch up. The leak is the stitch up.

Note: they may well be guilty. Give them a chance.

Okay, so you just don’t know what the idiom “stitch up” means. You could have just said that.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Chris Fagan:

“I confirm, as I said in my earlier statement, that I deny, categorically, the allegations of wrongdoing by me in relation to First Nations players at the Hawthorn Football Club, and that I intend to defend myself."

What is he actually denying in that statement?

 

[Proper Gander]

Sure, assuming Hawthorn haven't spent their time before the story throwing their harddrives against a wall, it should be easy to establish some of the facts at least.
I'd like to think Clarko/Fago/Burto were just really misguided rather than pure evil, I could be wrong though.

And FWIW I reckon Clarko is a campaigner regardless of whether not he genuinely believed he was helping his players.

I suspect in a kind of way they were/are misguided. I doubt anyone said ‘lets go smash up some families, won’t that be fun’. More a case of men ambitious to the point of derangement and with extremely limited capacity for empathy believing that they have a right to get what they want regardless of who gets in the way, while having the luxury of a complete absence of scrutiny by any of their adoring co-workers. After all, they win premierships and all so they must be right, yeah?

 

[Royce Hafey]

Chris Fagan:

“I confirm, as I said in my earlier statement, that I deny, categorically, the allegations of wrongdoing by me in relation to First Nations players at the Hawthorn Football Club, and that I intend to defend myself."

He denies wrongdoing, which opens a crack for saying, that he did what was alleged but that it wasn't wrongdoing.

 

[Proper Gander]

He denies wrongdoing, which opens a crack for saying, that he did what was alleged but that it wasn't wrongdoing.

I think this is something that really does create a big problem.

Alastair Clarkson is still coaching, and still has charge of young men. If he did behave in the manner alleged, and insists there is nothing wrong with doing so, then there remain real questions as to whether he should be permitted to coach again.

 

[Saucery]

I suspect in a kind of way they were/are misguided. I doubt anyone said ‘lets go smash up some families, won’t that be fun’. More a case of men ambitious to the point of derangement and with extremely limited capacity for empathy believing that they have a right to get what they want regardless of who gets in the way, while having the luxury of a complete absence of scrutiny by any of their adoring co-workers. After all, they win premierships and all so they must be right, yeah?

Whist there is an indication that racism or racial stereotyping has been at play historically at the club there is certainly the taint of a culture of bullying.

The anti discrimination act states:

"A person must not offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule another person on the basis of race, including other things, where a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would anticipate the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed. This can be a form of bullying; it is against the law.

It is important to note that where harassment/bullying happens but does not relate to attributes covered by discrimination law, it is still a serious problem and may be a breach of occupational health and safety laws. Organisations must provide a safe environment for their employees and for people coming into their workplace.

Section 104 of the Anti-Discrimination Act says organisations must take reasonable steps to ensure no member, officer, employee or agent engages in discrimination or prohibited conduct. Further, it says an organisation that does not comply with this requirement is liable for any breach of the Act committed by any of its members, officers, employees or agents."

That last part is a big problem for Hawthorn and the AFL.

All of this would indicate that based upon any finding of racist overtones in the multiple enquiries soon to be underway could see this matter before the Australian Human Rights Commission, or even a senate inquiry. The courts are now inevitable, civil at least if not criminal.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Sadly I think people have more confidence in Worksafe Vic than they deserve. It's toothless, and it's not as independent as it's supposed to be.

 

[Proper Gander]

Whist there is an indication that racism or racial stereotyping has been at play historically at the club there is certainly the taint of a culture of bullying.

The anti discrimination act states:

"A person must not offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule another person on the basis of race, including other things, where a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would anticipate the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed. This can be a form of bullying; it is against the law.

It is important to note that where harassment/bullying happens but does not relate to attributes covered by discrimination law, it is still a serious problem and may be a breach of occupational health and safety laws. Organisations must provide a safe environment for their employees and for people coming into their workplace.

Section 104 of the Anti-Discrimination Act says organisations must take reasonable steps to ensure no member, officer, employee or agent engages in discrimination or prohibited conduct. Further, it says an organisation that does not comply with this requirement is liable for any breach of the Act committed by any of its members, officers, employees or agents."

That last part is a big problem for Hawthorn and the AFL.

All of this would indicate that based upon any finding of racist overtones in the multiple enquiries soon to be underway could see this matter before the Australian Human Right Commission, or even a senate inquiry. The courts in now inevitable, civil at least if not criminal.

Yes I agree. I think it is inevitable. And necessary. I think Jackson was right to publish the article. I’m not sure if they would have succeeded, but I do believe the AFL would have attempted a private enquiry of sorts, spread some money around subject to non-disclosure agreements and come up with some empty statements about ongoing commitment to learning and growth in cultural matters.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What is he actually denying in that statement?

Wrongdoing.

Which is a subjective term.

It’s a nothing PR/legal statement. Says I’m the victim etc without actually saying anything. He didn’t write it.

 

[Royce Hafey]

Sadly I think people have more confidence in Worksafe Vic than they deserve. It's toothless, and it's not as independent as it's supposed to be.

Sadly, also, I suspect you're right. If they're anything like Worksafe South Australia, then nothing will come of it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Sadly I think people have more confidence in Worksafe Vic than they deserve. It's toothless, and it's not as independent as it's supposed to be.

Utterly inadequate and inappropriate for an enquiry into the type of allegations made here.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Why hasn't Jeff Kennet been sacked yet?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Sadly I think people have more confidence in Worksafe Vic than they deserve. It's toothless, and it's not as independent as it's supposed to be.

Not sure people should have much faith in any government body.

 

[Gralin]

Why hasn't Jeff Kennet been sacked yet?

Sacked?
That would require him to have a job.