News Hawthorn Racism Scandal

[chiwigi]

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.

Then they will; we will certainly find out.

If they don't, then we also find something out.

 

[Jimmy95]

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.

Hawthorn should pay the price as if the allegations are true then it occurred in their club on their watch.

 

[Grave Danger]

Hawthorn should pay the price as if the allegations are true then it occurred in their club on their watch.

Hawthorn should pay, but then watch their $ distribution from the AFL increase in accordance.

 

[Portology]

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.

The AFL is an employer, the clubs essentially just a kind of franchise. Regardless of the specific failures setting and enforcing, well, lets just call it part of "safe working conditions" on franchisees, the AFL brand is damaged by the actions of a few rogue franchises/franchise employees just like the 7/11 brand was damaged when they leave franchisees sufficiently loosely managed that they get away with underpaying/exploiting employees for years.

The damage comes from assumptions people make around whether gaps were left open deliberately ("yeah turn a blind eye, let franchisees cut corners to save money so they can afford higher franchise fees") or just out of arrogance, incompetence or ignorance (I think the AFL situation here is more likely to centre on these last three root causes). The AFL brand is damaged here even if it's an absolute best case scenario of "well this stuff X is really hard to do properly and you have to screw it up at least once to find out how to do things right". The AFL's closed shop mentality when "fixing" stuff, followed by highly performative displays once they think they've fixed something works against "the brand" time and again. From Carlton to Essendon to "the rules" to MRP to... this.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

The judge found that the media substantially told the truth on most matters. I know there is a subtle difference but the truth about a war crime = public interest to me. At the moment I have no idea if the judgement aides or hinders the 3 coaches potentially suing the ABC, but here it is;

Judge hands down defamation findings – as it happened

This blog is now closed.

www.theguardian.com

The following are the major conclusions. One, the applicant’s conduct and actions on the mission to W108 has found means that the respondents have established the substantial truth of imputations two, three, four, five, six and nine. Two, the applicant’s conduct and actions to the mission to Darwan has found means that the respondents have established the substantial truth of imputations one, two and three.

Three, the applicant’s conduct and actions on the mission to Chenartu is found means that the respondents have established the substantial truth of imputations of two and three. Four, the respondents have not established the particulars of truth with response to the response to such out on October 2022.

Five, the respondent had not doubled the particulars of truth with respect to the mission to Faisal on the 5 November 2012. Six, with respect to the alleged bullying of Person 1, respondents have established the substantial truth of imputation 12. Seven, with respect to the alleged unlawful assault on Bucks, and in related to invitations 10, 11 and 14, the respondents have established the substantial truth of those imputations.

Eight, with respect to the alleged act of domestic violence and imitation seven and eight, I am not satisfied that Person 17’s evidence is sufficiently reliable to form a basis of a finding that the assault occurred, and that imputation seven and eight are substantially true. However, I consider that the respondents have played out the defence of contextual truth.

Edit here is the link to Justice Besanko's summary judgement today. The full judgement will be released by 2pm Monday 5th or earlier if the Commonwealth finishes assessing both the open hearing judgement and the closed hearing judgement ( which "are in the order of 50 pages and that they address, in some detail, aspects of the closed Court evidence relevant to the missions to W108, Darwan and Chinartu") to see if there are any national security concerns they don't want released to the public and removed beforehand.

Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555 (Summary)

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL is an employer, the clubs essentially just a kind of franchise.

The AFL is not the employer. It doesn't employ hundreds of individuals at each club, the clubs do. The AFL only employs its own employees.

The AFL is more like an association of employers, who agree to abide by the AFL's rules and regulations, to compete in a market that the AFL has ultimate full control of.

 

[Portology]

The AFL is not the employer. It doesn't employ hundreds of individuals at each club, the clubs do. The AFL on employs its own employees.

The AFL is more like an association of employers, who agree to abide by the AFL's rules and regulations, to compete in a market that the AFL has ultimate full control of.

no lawyer but my use of "an" and "the" was fairly deliberate there

 

[Festerz]

The judge found that the media substantially told the truth on most matters. I know there is a subtle difference but the truth about a war crime = public interest to me. At the moment I have no idea if the judgement aides or hinders the 3 coaches potentially suing the ABC, but here it is;

Not a lawyer so I don't either.

My best guess is that the massive loss suffered here by Roberts-Smith in both financial and reputational terms will cause anyone contemplating about taking on the media in defamation action for their reporting to think again.

And my gut feel as a non lawyer is that Nine Entertainment seemed to be on far shakier ground in their reporting of Roberts-Smith as a 'murderer' than Rusty and the ABC are for reporting on documented allegations made by individuals previously involved with the Hawthorn Footy Club.

 

[Winganeen]

Hawthorn should pay, but then watch their $ distribution from the AFL increase in accordance.

A loss of multi-year draft picks would send them in to the doldrums for years.

Say no first rounders this year or next, with expansion looming would be an enormous blow.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A loss of multi-year draft picks would send them in to the doldrums for years.

Say no first rounders this yearthey can't say or next, with expansion looming would be an enormous blow.

Harsh enough to stop them winning a premiership until the 2030's so that they can't say they have won a flag every decade since the 1960's?????

 

[Jimmy95]

The AFL is an employer, the clubs essentially just a kind of franchise. Regardless of the specific failures setting and enforcing, well, lets just call it part of "safe working conditions" on franchisees, the AFL brand is damaged by the actions of a few rogue franchises/franchise employees just like the 7/11 brand was damaged when they leave franchisees sufficiently loosely managed that they get away with underpaying/exploiting employees for years.

The damage comes from assumptions people make around whether gaps were left open deliberately ("yeah turn a blind eye, let franchisees cut corners to save money so they can afford higher franchise fees") or just out of arrogance, incompetence or ignorance (I think the AFL situation here is more likely to centre on these last three root causes). The AFL brand is damaged here even if it's an absolute best case scenario of "well this stuff X is really hard to do properly and you have to screw it up at least once to find out how to do things right". The AFL's closed shop mentality when "fixing" stuff, followed by highly performative displays once they think they've fixed something works against "the brand" time and again. From Carlton to Essendon to "the rules" to MRP to... this.

I definitely agree that the AFL brand gets damaged from situations like this but I don't understand why some would question the AFL for seeking to minimise the damage to its overall brand from events like this.

It's not 'their' AFL it's 'our' AFL given we're all stakeholders in this great competition.

 

[Portology]

I definitely agree that the AFL brand gets damaged from situations like this but I don't understand why some would question the AFL for seeking to minimise the damage to its overall brand from events like this.

It's not 'their' AFL it's 'our' AFL given we're all stakeholders in this great competition.

IMO because the AFL/AFL execs give the appearance of caring more about punishing Hawthorn and avoiding blame themselves than about fixing the processes that run between themselves and at the clubs, and the "closed shop" mentality doesn't help with that public trust. In reality there may be a lot of ducks' feet paddling under the surface to do the real work to change systems so this sort of **** is less likely in the future but who would know?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I definitely agree that the AFL brand gets damaged from situations like this but I don't understand why some would question the AFL for seeking to minimise the damage to its overall brand from events like this.

It's the way they do it, that Michael Warner is questioning, not they are doing it.

The AFL executive have a history of being shoddy with process and only worried about the outcome, trying to do deals to get their preferred outcome, before things have been properly analysed / investigated, ie the start of the process not the end.

Read his book and it lists all the things they have done it since early 2000's when the AFL commissioners handed over so much power to the executives, each one of the incidents, bare the harassment and bullying of females and one male staff member and settlements made, were known. There is a bit of hoo-ha and then the caravan moves on, like the game, but when you read it all in one place you see how they have got worse at it over the years.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the AFL has absolute power, just like the major sports bodies - IOC, FIFA, UEFA, AFC, BCCI, MLB etc. There are no checks and balances on the AFL. The last independent analysis of them lead to the Crawford report in 1993. As we have seen with so many institutions, they all need a good clean out, a good bushfire after 20 to 30 years to clean them up and out. That's why Sydney Prez Andrew Pridham said there should be an independent Crawford style review in mid 2020 when Coronavirus shock up the comp, and why the AFL Commissioners and executives have resisted it for 3 years now. They don't want to give up power.

Its why umpiring doesn't get fixed up because they are worried about PR spin and the image, and the kiddies. How will the bloody kiddies react, the kiddies don't want to be umpires etc. If they did the real hard yards, they would improve umpiring, make some umpires full time, give out honest statements about mistakes made by umpires, go back to publishing the missed free kicks and incorrect free kicks stats, write better rules, clearer rules etc, but they don't because its all to hard and they would rather shut down all the yucky talk about umpiring and fine people in the industry who do. Same bloody thing with the whole tribunal system.

At some point the clubs are going to say enough is enough and take power back from the AFL executives and commission. I feel sorry for the ceo when that happens, because the game will have to go backwards to be fairer and that ceo will get a bucket of shit poured over them, and will be seen as the first failure since 1986. Andrew Dillon might end up being that poor sucker.

 

[Portology]

It's the way they do it, that Michael Warner is questioning, not they are doing it.

The AFL executive have a history of being shoddy with process and only worried about the outcome, trying to do deals to get their preferred outcome, before things have been properly analysed / investigated, ie the start of the process not the end.

Read his book and it lists all the things they have done it since early 2000's when the AFL commissioners handed over so much power to the executives, each one of the incidents, bare the harassment and bullying of females and one male staff member and settlements made, were known. There is a bit of hoo-ha and then the caravan moves on, like the game, but when you read it all in one place you see how they have got worse at it over the years.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the AFL has absolute power, just like the major sports bodies - IOC, FIFA, UEFA, AFC, BCCI, MLB etc. There are no checks and balances on the AFL. The last independent analysis of them lead to the Crawford report in 1993. As we have seen with so many institutions, they all need a good clean out, a good bushfire after 20 to 30 years to clean them up and out. That's why Sydney Prez Andrew Pridham said there should be an independent Crawford style review in mid 2020 when Coronavirus shock up the comp, and why the AFL Commissioners and executives have resisted it for 3 years now. They don't want to give up power.

Its why umpiring doesn't get fixed up because they are worried about PR spin and the image, and the kiddies. How will the bloody kiddies react, the kiddies don't want to be umpires etc. If they did the real hard yards, they would improve umpiring, make some umpires full time, give out honest statements about mistakes made by umpires, go back to publishing the missed free kicks and incorrect free kicks stats, write better rules, clearer rules etc, but they don't because its all to hard and they would rather shut down all the yucky talk about umpiring and fine people in the industry who do. Same bloody thing with the whole tribunal system.

At some point the clubs are going to say enough is enough and take power back from the AFL executives and commission. I feel sorry for the ceo when that happens, because the game will have to go backwards to be fairer and that ceo will get a bucket of s**t poured over them, and will be seen as the first failure since 1986. Andrew Dillon might end up being that poor sucker.

OT rambling warning, I promise not to continue this any further here

Yeah let some sum of current club cultures take over the industry, not just the day to day ops. That'll work out as well as it did in the 1980s. OK the difference is much increased professionalism nowadays and less explicitly Vic-centric control. Oh, wait...

Ideally you split running the industry (expansion, standards, commercial), things you want independent professionals doing, from running the game (rules, umpiring, etc), things you want footy people doing... but the power structure hidden under the "independent" AFL commission won't allow that because of the self interest and baked in protectionism of the Vic market.

I see three power blocs, in practice two. a) Vic clubs, b) AFL-controlled non-Vic clubs and c) independent non-Vic clubs. The unspoken rule is a + b > c forever, to anchor real power in Vic. Yes a) has sub groups of Big Vic Clubs and Little Vic clubs, and Big Vic cares about Little Vic to the extent of their self interest (eg more attractive player market), for keeping hold of the balance of power forever by the numbers, and lastly sheer hometown myopia. IMO the Vic imperative to maintain baked in control is one factor why we're not getting "control" of our club back anytime soon.

No one's going to give it away. Who is going to take power* from the essentially Vic-centric cabal and how... or what kind of crisis would trigger it?

*deliberate Godfather III reference for ya

 

[MrMeaner]

It is impossible to determine if the BRS judgment would have any impact on future defo proceedings as the full reasons have not yet been released. However, it seems most likely that it was a finding of fact in this matter and thus has little to no impact on other proceedings.

If it has any impact, it would, as Festerz suggests, give some plaintiffs pause before bringing proceedings. That's a practical, not a legal, effect though.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

OT rambling warning, I promise not to continue this any further here

Yeah let some sum of current club cultures take over the industry, not just the day to day ops. That'll work out as well as it did in the 1980s. OK the difference is much increased professionalism nowadays and less explicitly Vic-centric control. Oh, wait...

Ideally you split running the industry (expansion, standards, commercial), things you want independent professionals doing, from running the game (rules, umpiring, etc), things you want footy people doing... but the power structure hidden under the "independent" AFL commission won't allow that because of the self interest and baked in protectionism of the Vic market.

I see three power blocs, in practice two. a) Vic clubs, b) AFL-controlled non-Vic clubs and c) independent non-Vic clubs. The unspoken rule is a + b > c forever, to anchor real power in Vic. Yes a) has sub groups of Big Vic Clubs and Little Vic clubs, and Big Vic cares about Little Vic to the extent of their self interest (eg more attractive player market), for keeping hold of the balance of power forever by the numbers, and lastly sheer hometown myopia. IMO the Vic imperative to maintain baked in control is one factor why we're not getting "control" of our club back anytime soon.

No one's going to give it away. Who is going to take power* from the essentially Vic-centric cabal and how... or what kind of crisis would trigger it?

*deliberate Godfather III reference for ya

I have been saying for 4 or 5 years now you have to split the AFL Commission into 2 parts.

You have AFL custodial commission/commissioners who look after the rules, the umpires, the affiliated leagues and the grass roots and game development. This is where you put good football experienced people on to be commissioners and they would also control the tribunal process. They get say 20-25% of the monies from media deals.

Then you have AFL commission/commissioners who are the business and politically connected people and run the AFL comp to be profitable as possible with a better degree of fairness in the fixture written into it, than is currently in vogue. The executives who work for these bodies can't **** around with the rules, umpires and tribunal like the current AFL executives do. And you have better types of KPI's for executive bonuses than the executives currently have.

For this to happen the clubs have to take control and set it up via a Crawford type review. The AFL won't do it off their own bat. You don't want to give the clubs long term full power, but the balance isn't right at the moment.

This is basically the set up in Euro soccer. I don't know if in South American soccer each nation is set up this way, but GremioPower can fill us in.

The Football Association runs the game in respect to rules, development, amateur levels of the game and the national teams. These FA's do have major revenue streams of selling TV rights for national team games, especially world cup qualifying games in particular, as well as ticketing and merchandise revenue from international games. The AFL don't have this, so that's why a certain % of TV revenue would have to be allocated to the AFL Custodial Commission.

The major league in each nation is run by a company controlled by the clubs, have a share in the company with promoted and relegated teams swapping their shares respectively, and they have a ceo whose number 1 mission is to run the league to maximise returns with a degree of fairness, the FIXture isn't a fixture as there is draw where every team plays each other home and away and one city doesn't dominate the league and everything done to maximise results that come from that city.

Its the relevant separation of power and duties so that all parts of the game can grow without being massive conflicts all the time. Currently there is nobody on the AFL Commission with enough relevant football experience - not just played at AFL level but haven't even played 100 to 200 games of senior footy at ammo level let alone state league level. There are a few who played school footy.

You don't get this Euro soccer style set up in North American sports, because those big 4 leagues don't have a game development role and custodial role. College and high school/junior leagues in these 4 sports are so big and do so much of the game development that they don't need to, or try and do all the things the AFL do.

 

[StrappingTape]

Then they will; we will certainly find out.

If they don't, then we also find something out.

So already guilty and guilty either way then? The fact that so many despite 0 evidence still believe they are the worlds worst racists aborting aboriginal babies wherever they go shows they have no way of being made whole again but I can also see them choosing not to go down that path because they are already worn out. Of course that's even more confirmation of how racist they are.

 

[StrappingTape]

It is impossible to determine if the BRS judgment would have any impact on future defo proceedings as the full reasons have not yet been released. However, it seems most likely that it was a finding of fact in this matter and thus has little to no impact on other proceedings.

If it has any impact, it would, as Festerz suggests, give some plaintiffs pause before bringing proceedings. That's a practical, not a legal, effect though.

It would but our LARPing resident lawyer is too busy tying himself in knots that the new standards brought in will stop evil Fagan and co from any chance of winning because he doesn't want them to win. Any time a defamation case that is high profile loses it would give further plaintiffs food for thought but it can also be said anytime someone wins a major defamation case it can encourage someone to go down that route, each case is unique. I haven't followed the Ben Roberts Smith one much at all but it'll get appealed and won't be resolved for years, he's bankrolled by some deep pockets and so is nine, it's like a proxy fight within a trial and I can't see his backers giving in coz they want to beat the other sides Mr Bigs.

The ABC dude seriously ****ed it with the report into the coaches, the ABC knows it, he knows it and so do the victims lawyers. Everyone's been talking tough whilst trying to back out, there should be some serious exclusion of media heads who rushed to judgment, Robbo for one had them all fired into the sun as soon as he heard and there were many other supposedly experienced journalists doing the same thing.

 

[Flash of power]

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.

Don't be so sure, how exactly can a court prove defamation if it is simply he said she said?

The players at the centre of it probably don't even need to turn up, they didn't defame they just shared a story. The accused (THE ABC) could bring in 'witnesses" that collaborate each others stories to increase the probability that what they published was true. How do Clarkson and Faigan prove something didn't happen ?? proving something didn't happen is much more difficult that building a case that it could of happened.

They could easily lose because it can't be proven that it didn't happen, it doesn't mean it did happen just that it can't be proven not to be true so no defamation exists.

If they go down that path they are seriously screwed forever more, emotionally, financially and reputationally, that is a very big dice to roll and why most lawyers with their clients interest at heart ( i know it's an oxymoron) will advise against going down that path.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Just read this story in The Oz. Looks like a legal threat is why AFL quickly wound things up this week. Robbo and Michael Warner are the co-authors.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/letter-from-chris-fagans-lawyers-played-part-in-ending-of-afls-hawks-racism-investigation/news-story/7d82f3c8d58dcc1d9584033d2760803f?amp

A legal letter sent by lawyers for Brisbane Lions coach Chris Fagan on Sunday helped turn the Hawthorn racism scandal on its head.
The email informed the four First Nations families at the centre of the saga that Fagan was set to launch a Supreme Court injunction against the AFL and its independent investigation panel.
The families were told that the move would see them become “defendants” in a court battle over the racism probe where they would be identified “by name”. The Fagan letter was described by one support person as a factor in the families’ decision to agree to a deal with the league.

If successful in achieving an injunction, the AFL’s independent investigation would have come to an immediate end.

The email from Clayton Utz partner Scott Sharry and senior associate Stephen Hurford to the families’ lawyer Leon Zwier reads: “Our client intends in the week commencing 29 May 2023, and no later than Thursday, 1 June 2023, to commence a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria for orders in the nature of permanent injunctions restraining the continuation of the investigation.
“The proceeding … will include each of your clients as defendants, identifying each by name, on the basis that they are (with others) necessary parties because they are directly affected by the relief to be sought.
“The proceeding to be filed will not disclose any “information” as defined in the Deed concerning your clients other than their names. “As the proceeding progresses, however, additional ‘information’ will be disclosed as part of the proceeding. Your clients will be notified in advance of each disclosure pursuant to the Deed.”

The families discussed the contents of the email with Zwier during a crisis meeting on Monday.
The letter gave the families until 4pm Monday to respond.
The prospect of a deal between the players and their families and the AFL appeared dead in the water on Sunday, but on Tuesday night league boss Gillon McLachlan announced the Hawthorn racism investigation was over and that no “adverse findings’’ were found against former Hawks coach Alastair Clarkson, former club football manager Fagan and former welfare boss Jason Burt.

In turn, the families agreed not to take legal action against the league.

The families, who had been determined to receive an apology from the former Hawks trio, were instead given a generic apology by the league to any Indigenous player who had suffered racism in the history of the game. At least one of the families involved now regrets agreeing to the AFL deal in the belief they were used as a pawn aimed at resolving the eight-month racism dispute..........

 

[Flash of power]

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:

View attachment 1701761

Come on that is grasping at straws, If the term 'first nations' was used by the ABC to describe the individuals invovled, 99.9% of the Australian community would assume they were referring to Australian Indigenous people not first nations people of another nation.

So Burt is right to call them out on it, it was disingenuous at best downright deceptive at worst. Typical ABC

 

[Festerz]

If the term 'first nations' was used by the ABC to describe the individuals invovled, 99.9% of the Australian community would assume they were referring to Australian Indigenous people not first nations people of another nation.

So Burt is right to call them out on it, it was disingenuous at best downright deceptive at worst. Typical ABC

How bizarre.

'First Nations' was the term used in the brief by the Hawthorn FC who also supplied the names of the individuals to be interviewed as part of the report. This is made quite clear in the report that is now widely available - sections of which I posted in my comment.

It (First Nation's peoples) is also a term used in the Collingwood 'Do Better' Report originating from allegations made by Heritier Lumumba who is of Brazilian-Congolese descent.

Not sure why the hate for the ABC in this thread from a few individuals in merely reporting accurately on this.

Because it doesn't change one iota the nature of the allegations or how the AFL chose to respond to them.

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

Anti-white? Seriously?

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

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

‘anti white’ probably means that not everyone on the abc looks like the host of a C7, 9 & 10 morning show panel.

 

[Flash of power]

How bizarre.

'First Nations' was the term used in the brief by the Hawthorn FC who also supplied the names of the individuals to be interviewed as part of the report. This is made quite clear in the report that is now widely available - sections of which I posted in my comment.

It (First Nation's peoples) is also a term used in the Collingwood 'Do Better' Report originating from allegations made by Heritier Lumumba who is of Brazilian-Congolese descent.

Not sure why the hate for the ABC in this thread from a few individuals in merely reporting accurately on this.

Because it doesn't change one iota the nature of the allegations or how the AFL chose to respond to them.

Do a little straw poll of your colleagues, friends etc and see what their interpretation of First nations people are? If it is that broad, we are all first nations people of somewhere aren't we?

You are right that it doesn't change the nature of the allegations, they were deplorable, forget anyone's skin colour, the accused were given no opportunity to provide their perspectives. how would you like allegations to be made about you by the national broadcaster without the right of reply or your side of the story taken into account before publishing it. Think about that for a minute.

 

[Jimmy95]

Don't be so sure, how exactly can a court prove defamation if it is simply he said she said?

The players at the centre of it probably don't even need to turn up, they didn't defame they just shared a story. The accused (THE ABC) could bring in 'witnesses" that collaborate each others stories to increase the probability that what they published was true. How do Clarkson and Faigan prove something didn't happen ?? proving something didn't happen is much more difficult that building a case that it could of happened.

They could easily lose because it can't be proven that it didn't happen, it doesn't mean it did happen just that it can't be proven not to be true so no defamation exists.

If they go down that path they are seriously screwed forever more, emotionally, financially and reputationally, that is a very big dice to roll and why most lawyers with their clients interest at heart ( i know it's an oxymoron) will advise against going down that path.

If such a trial were to occur, is it up to the ABC to prove what they published was true or the plaintiff to prove what was published wasn't true?