News Hawthorn Racism Scandal

[TeeKray]

Yep. And there is also the recent strengthening of the public interest test in relation to Australia's defamation laws introduced by Attorneys' General across the nation recently to “ensure that the law of defamation does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression and, in particular, on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance“.

In summary section 27A (as it is listed in SA legislation - other jurisdictions may have different labelling clauses) provides that it is a defence to a publication of defamatory matter if a respondent proves that:

• the matter concerns an issue of public interest; and
• the respondent reasonably believed that the publication of the matter was in the public interest.

The ABC as the national broadcaster acting to report on claims made in an officially sanctioned report about behaviours within an AFL Club fits pretty well within those public interest parameters IMHO.

Are internal going ons at an AFL club really in the public interest? From a media perspective they are but I wonder if a more stringent standard might apply here. Something like the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case would firmly pass the public interest test (ie tax payer funded armed services), this is a little less clear.

 

[Festerz]

Are internal going ons at an AFL club really in the public interest? From a media perspective they are but I wonder if a more stringent standard might apply here. Something like the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case would firmly pass the public interest test (ie tax payer funded armed services), this is a little less clear.

From a legal perspective, public interest is defined as being something of common concern to the public at large or a significant section of the public.

Reckon you would be very hard pressed to find any one of note in 2023 who would be prepared to argue that the (alleged) treatment of Indigenous players within Australia's national sporting competition does not meet that public interest criteria. Especially given the high priority given to recognising Indigenous issues by the AFL and its member clubs in recent years.

I mean if someone tried to mount a legal challenge on this point the ABC would just roll out reams of official media releases, comments and public statements made by Gil McLachlan and AFL Club CEOs in relation to Indigenous Round over the years to highlight the public interest in reporting on this matter.

EDIT:

For completion, I should have mentioned that the recently strengthened public interest test requires the Court to take account of the seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published; the extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts, or relates to the performance of the public functions; whether it was in the public interest for the matter to be published expeditiously; and the integrity of the information source. IMHO as a non lawyer the published stories covered off these issues comprehensively. YMMV.

 

[PowerBaz]

He's been busy clearing his desk before he heads off to Europe...


View attachment 1701342

‘Old Adelaide’ Murdoch, McLachlan…

 

[TazD]

Lmao, Burt has claimed one of the families making the claims isn't indigenous. Best shitshow since Essendon.

 

[Powerade 08]

I can’t be arsed doing it but wonder what would be found by digging back in the threads about Cyril unexpectedly quitting and fleeing Melbourne. I’m sure there were murmurings of a falling out with Kennett.

He found out that Kennett has a L.Franklin golliwog but not a Rioli one. It was all downhill from there.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I liked the bit where the news of the 'settlement' came out two days after the end of Sir Doug Nicholls Round. I guess the AFL thought that announcing it literally the day after would be a bit too on the nose even for them.

 

[StrappingTape]

From a legal perspective, public interest is defined as being something of common concern to the public at large or a significant section of the public.

Reckon you would be very hard pressed to find any one of note in 2023 who would be prepared to argue that the (alleged) treatment of Indigenous players within Australia's national sporting competition does not meet that public interest criteria. Especially given the high priority given to recognising Indigenous issues by the AFL and its member clubs in recent years.

I mean if someone tried to mount a legal challenge on this point the ABC would just roll out reams of official media releases, comments and public statements made by Gil McLachlan and AFL Club CEOs in relation to Indigenous Round over the years to highlight the public interest in reporting on this matter.

EDIT:

For completion, I should have mentioned that the recently strengthened public interest test requires the Court to take account of the seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published; the extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts, or relates to the performance of the public functions; whether it was in the public interest for the matter to be published expeditiously; and the integrity of the information source. IMHO as a non lawyer the published stories covered off these issues comprehensively. YMMV.

There's not a court of law in this country where Clarkson and Fagan don't walk away with bags and bags of money from the ABC if they go down that path.

 

[Festerz]

There's not a court of law in this country where Clarkson and Fagan don't walk away with bags and bags of money from the ABC if they go down that path.

Thank you Strapping Tape LLB KC.

 

[Festerz]

Burt has claimed one of the families making the claims isn't indigenous.

Yes. But it's now pretty well known that the player has a Māori father that is why "first nations" was used, rather than Indigenous. A point not picked up in some reporting. So if that is correct, Burt's comment is accurate but it is a distinction that misses the point (it also might be seen as a crude attempt to 'out' the player's identity publicly). Pretty disappointing given Burt's role as a former Player Welfare Manager imho. It is not the 'gotcha' moment that is being claimed.

As a point of reference, the fact that Collingwood's 'Do Better' investigation into systemic racism at their club came off the back of allegations made by a non-Indigenous player from Brazilian and Congolese descent as opposed to someone of an ATSI background did not change the basis and findings of that report.

Copy of the Hawthorn brief for reference:

 

[Phar Ted]

Pure coincidence that the report was initially leaked to the most anti white male media source in the country.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Yes. But it's now pretty well known that the player has a Māori father that is why "first nations" was used, rather than Indigenous. A point not picked up in some reporting including the original ABC Report I saw. So if that is correct, Burt's comment is accurate but it is a distinction that misses the point (it also might be seen as a crude attempt to 'out' the player's identity publicly). Pretty disappointing given Burt's role as a former Player Welfare Manager imho. It is not the 'gotcha' moment that is being claimed.

As a point of reference, the fact that Collingwood's 'Do Better' investigation into systemic racism at their club came off the back of allegations made by a non-Indigenous player from Brazilian and Congolese descent as opposed to someone of an ATSI background did not change the basis and findings of that report.

Hmmm have never heard that term used to refer to Maori, but I guess its technically correct? I'm not sure it should be used that way in this context. A quick google found this:

 

[Festerz]

Hmmm have never heard that term used to refer to Maori, but I guess its technically correct? I'm not sure it should be used that way in this context. A quick google found this:

View attachment 1701717

No idea mate. And you would be better placed than me to know how Māori people refer to themselves in their own country. Using the term Indigenous Australians generally refers to peoples of ATSI background.

I think the issue here is what collective term is used in a report looking into the past experiences of Indigenous players from different cultural backgrounds without identifying them specifically. It is a similar issue faced by the Collingwood Football Club's Do Better Report, which also used the 'First Nations' terminology.

Note that it was Burt's reference to one of the aggrieved parties mentioned in the Hawthorn Report as being 'non Indigenous' which has made the terminology an issue and I'm not sure why he did that. Is Burt suggesting that we should separate the report references and allegations into 2 groups- 'Claims made by Indigenous Australians' and 'Claims made by Indigenous New Zealanders'?

My view is that in doing that it misses the point of what the report and the allegations have raised as an issue. In fact it probably amplifies them.

 

[Sleezy]

Depends how hard line the ABC want to take this. If they have a lawyer with some balls, that lawyer would be responding to any defamation action with "you don't want to take this to trial, because even if we can't prove on the balance of probabilities that every single thing we alleged is true, we'll be able to prove enough of it to destroy your all-important public image. Our settlement offer is $0.00, if you really want to run this to a trial and have all your dirty laundry aired out, we'll see you in court."

The above probably won't actually happen because lawyers by their nature are risk-averse and would rather give up a settlement figure they can control than go to a trial they can't control, but if the ABC have the balls to call Clarkson/Fagan/Burt's bluff, I'm not sure whether Clarkson/Fagan/Burt would actually push it to a hearing.

The Ben Roberts Smith defamation trial is a great example of this. No-one is getting away from that clean.

 

[1954]

Hmmm have never heard that term used to refer to Maori, but I guess its technically correct? I'm not sure it should be used that way in this context. A quick google found this:

View attachment 1701717

Agreed, the term `Maori' has become a generic description, where South Sea Islander would be more appropriate for the people of the other island nations off the east coast of Australia.

I was talking to a bloke from Samoa last week who didn't identify as Maori, and there was a programme on SBS recently where a bloke who believed his indigenous background was 100% Aust Aboriginal but traced his lineage to the Cook Islands, whose inhabitants have no connection to the Aborigines of mainland Australia for which the term `First Nations' was coined.

 

[Festerz]

The ABC has issued a statement into its reporting of the Hawthorn racism scandal - doubling down on its insistence that its reporting was ethical, fair and balanced in response to claims being made in other media outlets. It also refutes claims that details of former player allegations were leaked to them:

Statements & Responses - Media Centre - About the ABC

Information about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation including history, management, corporate reports, plans and submissions and the latest news from our media centre.

about.abc.net.au

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Pure coincidence that the report was initially leaked to the most anti white male media source in the country.

Anti-white? Seriously?

I'm not a big fan of the ABC but please.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MrMeaner]

There's not a court of law in this country where Clarkson and Fagan don't walk away with bags and bags of money from the ABC if they go down that path.

Only a non-lawyer could be so certain of knowing what a Court would do in any situation.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Pure coincidence that the report was initially leaked to the most anti white male media source in the country.

The report wasn't leaked. I was going to follow up what Malcolm Speed said yesterday, but never got around to it.

Festerz's link to the ABC statement a few posts above mine confirms that.

The players and their families were never told to sign a confidentially agreement. That would have made the whole exercise of finding out how bad Hawthorn's relationship with its past indigenous players really was, a useless exercise. They wouldn't have opened up.

People talk to other people. I'm sure that once some people spoke to Phil Egan about their experiences, some who had suppressed their stories for years, seeing that wound was opened up again, would have spoken to other people about it, and those other people then talk to other people. So the story "gets out" so to speak.

Its nothing new it happens all the time. How many times have you not talked about a bad experience for years, someone brings it up, and then that's all you think about and talk about for a few days?

Russell Jackson is the reporter who wrote / broke the Robbie Muir story in 2020. He is the reporter who has written several stories about paedophille sports officials and coaches abusing young players in several different sports. He has interviewed Héritier Lumumba. He writes normal sports stories about what happens on the field, but he has certain bent about stories off the field. So like a good investagative reporter he gets some info and he then starts to dig.

If you don't know Jackson's work, you can find it here and just keep loading up the pages;
Russell Jackson - ABC News

I have no doubt someone from the players/families has gone to Jackson because they feel they can trust him, based on the work he has done and presenting the victims side of the story. That's what happens in journalism when you gain the reputation for being a good investigative journalist. People take stories to them because they know they will look at it thoroughly.

I got a text from a friend about 5 days after the story broke, that Sheedy went public in late August and bagged Clarkson when Essendon were going to sack Rutten and offer the job the Clarkson, because via people in the indigenous community, he had been told the story of what happened at Hawthorn and Clarkson's role. Some media types stood on their high horse and said Sheedy can't stay on as a board member of Essendon when he is white anting the rest of the board. Others called it an untenable situation.

I don't know if the Sheedy story is true, but I do know he is still a board member of the Essendon Football Club.

No report was leaked. Talking to other people isn't a leak if you haven't been told you can't talk to anyone else about it.

 

[Phar Ted]

'We'd be disappointed': Hawthorn boss urges AFL not to impose sanctions on Hawks

The AFL left the door open for potential sanctions against the Hawks after the independent investigation into allegations of racism was dropped. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

Hawthorn president Andy Gowers says the initial leak of information gathered from the club's internal investigation into it's treatment of First Nations players was ultimately responsible for the subsequent AFL probe reaching a stalemate.

He said the club does not know where the leak, which resulted in a story published by the ABC's Russell Jackson, originated from.



Looks a bit leaky to me!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

'We'd be disappointed': Hawthorn boss urges AFL not to impose sanctions on Hawks

The AFL left the door open for potential sanctions against the Hawks after the independent investigation into allegations of racism was dropped. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

Hawthorn president Andy Gowers says the initial leak of information gathered from the club's internal investigation into it's treatment of First Nations players was ultimately responsible for the subsequent AFL probe reaching a stalemate.

He said the club does not know where the leak, which resulted in a story published by the ABC's Russell Jackson, originated from.



Looks a bit leaky to me!

Its not a leak. That is just spin because Hawthorn didn't and couldn't stop people talking. They ****ed up and are trying to pass the buck.

If you don't get participants to sign a confidentiality agreement, then they are free to tell who ever they want. In this case it was an investigative reporter.

 

[Phar Ted]

Its not a leak. That is just spin because Hawthorn didn't and couldn't stop people talking. They ****ed up and are trying to pass the buck.

If you don't get participants to sign a confidentiality agreement, then they are free to tell who ever they want. In this case it was an investigative reporter.

Semantics REH - I'm happy for you to believe that but in my book if you go running to the media knowingly with a story that was not yet to be released it's a leak, we can happily agree to disagree.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Semantics REH - I'm happy for you to believe that but in my book if you go running to the media knowingly with a story that was not yet to be released it's a leak, we can happily agree to disagree.

You leak an official report.

You tell your individual story.

There is a difference, both legally and ethically. The end result for Hawthorn might be the same, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

 

[Festerz]

The Ben Roberts Smith defamation trial is a great example of this. No-one is getting away from that clean.

Don't want to take this thread off line with a legal discussion but given the verdict of the Roberts-Smith defamation hearing will be handed down later this afternoon it's important to understand why Nine Media has relied on the 'truth' defence as opposed to the more general 'public interest' defence I discussed earlier (and which I believe is most likely to be used by the ABC should they face defamation action for their Hawthorn story).

And that is that the Nine newspapers allegations against Roberts-Smith were made BEFORE the strengthened public interest test changes were made to Australian defamation legislation and was therefore unavailable to be used in the Nine Entertainment defence.

EDIT: Ben Roberts Smith has had a massive loss in his defamation claims against the Nine Network with Justice Besanko finding most imputations including murder, proved to be substantially true.

Proceedings have been dismissed.

 

[Grave Danger]

Hawthorn racism scandal now confined to the AFL brand protection hall of fame, writes Michael Warner​

We’ve been here before. Over and over again. Another conveniently contrived outcome aimed at protecting the brand of the AFL.

It’s like Groundhog Day, only without the laughs.


Read the whole article here, but here's a taste:



McLachlan and the league seem to have carefully negotiated the investigation away and in the process absolved themselves of any responsibility for what happens next.


“We aren’t going to get sued and it doesn’t involve us anymore. You can go somewhere else to sort it out,” was the takeaway message from Tuesday night’s press conference.


Brand protection has always been the AFL’s priority - no matter the seriousness of an allegation or investigation.


And, of course, there’s always a patsy in footy’s justice system - someone who has to pay a price, which this time round will be Hawthorn for supposedly botching its cultural safety review.

 

[Jimmy95]

I don't understand why there's an element of passionate AFL supporters that continually want to see the 'AFL' burn on a fire.

Why should the AFL 'brand' should be damaged due to the actions of 1 or a few rogue individuals at a given club from time to time.