News Hawthorn Racism Scandal

[Festerz]

If fagan and clarkson don't take this to court then it's an admission of guilt.

Rubbish.

All we all want is the truth to be confirmed.

Not sure who 'we' is.

But how does Fagan threatening to name the First Nations families involved through a Supreme Court injunction process to shut down the AFL conciliation process have anything to do with finding the truth?

And as Portology highlighted - how does a public adversarial trial process where the deepest pockets determines the best legal representation result in resolving a he/said she said matter like this and provide justice to both parties?

Answer is - it doesn't.

The task of the judge or jury in our adversarial trial system is not the pursuit of absolute truth or justice, but the arbitration of a contest between parties who assert different versions of the truth - using the 'balance of probabilities test. I couldn't think of a worse way to resolve this festering sore.

FWIW I don't think any of the parties involved are liars or racists. What I think happened is what happens all the time in life - a fundamental difference between what is said and intended on one side and what is heard and interpreted on the other. There is no winner or loser to be found here. And no universal truth for a civil court to uncover either.

Again, I agree whole-heartedly with Portology. What was needed from the moment these allegations first arose was a private arbitration and conciliation process where all sides get to air their grievances and respond to allegations and a resolution sought to the satisfaction of everyone. But while that still might happen via the Human Rights Court, the stakes have been raised so high and so much public damage has been done to the reputation of individuals that no one is going to be happy with the results.

 

[MrMeaner]

What exactly do you imagine would be the basis of any defamation action against the ABC in relation to their reporting of this story?

I mean I get the moral outrage etc. from some of the ABC publishing the the allegations and names of those accused but I am fecked if I can see they did anything wrong as a broadcaster from a legal standpoint.

There is always a risk for the media in publishing reports like this. There are numerous imputations Clarkson et al may be able to allege the ABC, Jackson and those interviewed for the piece made. If made out, it is conceivable that they would have been harmed by those imputations.

Equally, it is possible that the ABC has numerous defences available to it against any claim. That is not to mention the kind of public scrutiny BRS has subjected himself to, which would have to play on the minds of any potential claimant, particularly if there is some truth to the allegations.

All this is to say that neither side has an overwhelming case, at least on the basis of what we know.

Generally, treating any proceeding, particularly defo proceedings, as a spectator sport is fraught. It is worse when you are removed from them as you have to rely on media reports, which are necessarily selective in what they report and can get it wrong (eg presenting submissions as evidence).

 

[Jimmy95]

Not sure who 'we' is.

The public who now want to know what's actually gone on since it was made public by the abc. The abc made it a matter of public interest.

But how does Fagan threatening to name the First Nations families involved through a Supreme Court injunction process to shut down the AFL conciliation process have anything to do with finding the truth?

Because it's telling them to put up or shut up. Stop throwing hand grenades from behind the bunker of anonymity and stick to your convictions that you were racially abused and seek justice if that's what you believe.

EDIT: I noticed you added a number of additional paragraphs to your post after i responded with the above.

I agree with your statement that neither party are likely to be racists or liars, it's just a different interpretation of events.

It's possible to be insensitive and horrible without being racist.

 

[MrMeaner]

Just as an aside, if someone defamed me, I would have to think long and hard before bringing proceedings. That would be the case, even if it was clear-cut and the damage significant.

Those who easily threaten taking things to court underestimate the cost, both monetary and personal, of doing so.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Just as an aside, if someone defamed me, I would have to think long and hard before bringing proceedings. That would be the case, even if it was clear-cut and the damage significant.

Those who easily threaten taking things to court underestimate the cost, both monetary and personal, of doing so.

And that's before you take into account that these three potential claimants are all well known public figure with reputations to protect and a whole bunch of dirty laundry they don't want aired, unless they're as stupid as Ben Roberts-Smith is.

The idea that they're just going to walk out of the ABC office with a sack full of money is a delusion propagated by people who don't like the ABC and/or who do like racists.

 

[Festerz]

Because it's telling them to put up or shut up. Stop throwing hand grenades from behind the bunker of anonymity and stick to your convictions that you were racially abused and seek justice if that's what you believe.

That's not what the email from Fagan's lawyers to the First Nation's Family was about at all - it was seeking 'a permanent injunction restraining the continuation of the (AFL) Investigation process' with the clear objective (as outlined in paras 4 & 5 of the email) to making public the names of those former players/families.

It was a tactical ploy that was not aimed at resolving the matter or seeking a just outcome. But, as REH succinctly concluded, it achieved its intended outcome of stopping the flailing AFL investigation in its tracks . But in no way has it resolved anything.

 

[Jimmy95]

LOL. That's not what the email from Fagan's lawyers to the First Nation's Family was about at all - it was seeking 'a permanent injunction restraining the continuation of the (AFL) Investigation process' with the clear objective (as outlined in paras 4 & 5 of the email) to making public the names of those former players/families.

HTF anyone could think that legal threat had anything to do with resolving the matter or seeking a just outcome is beyond me. What it did do is stop the flailing AFL investigation in its tracks but in no way has it resolved anything.

Naming the people involved would've brought the situation to a head whereby it likely has to be resolved.

 

[MotlopRules]

Just as an aside, if someone defamed me, I would have to think long and hard before bringing proceedings. That would be the case, even if it was clear-cut and the damage significant.

Those who easily threaten taking things to court underestimate the cost, both monetary and personal, of doing so.

When you think about it there's a strong argument that defamation cases should be closed court proceedings.

Zero net benefit to the public shit show these high profile cases turn into, and no matter the outcome the play-by-play trial by media which occurs throughout the process renders any 'win' fairly futile.

 

[Jimmy95]

And that's before you take into account that these three potential claimants are all well known public figure with reputations to protect and a whole bunch of dirty laundry they don't want aired, unless they're as stupid as Ben Roberts-Smith is.

The idea that they're just going to walk out of the ABC office with a sack full of money is a delusion propagated by people who don't like the ABC and/or who do like racists.

I'd suggest for most of us the bothersome aspect of this situation is that one side has been torched without a right of reply. It's not that we're racists or hate the ABC.

 

[Festerz]

When you think about it there's a strong argument that defamation cases should be closed court proceedings.

Zero net benefit to the public s**t show these high profile cases turn into, and no matter the outcome the play-by-play trial by media which occurs throughout the process renders any 'win' fairly futile.

I think the risks and dangers from further reducing the transparency and public accountability of our justice system would far outweigh the benefits (other than in circumstances where protecting the privacy of participants is paramount)


"In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial"

(The words are those of 19th Century English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, warning against secrecy in the administration of justice).

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

I'd suggest for most of us the bothersome aspect of this situation is that one side has been torched without a right of reply. It's not that we're racists or hate the ABC.

They were offered a right of reply. A number of times through a number of avenues. They offered to delay the publishing date. Still no reply.

You can't not reply when offered the opportunity multiple times and then cry "muh right of reply" when you fail to do so.

 

[Jimmy95]

They were offered a right of reply. A number of times through a number of avenues. They offered to delay the publishing date. Still no reply.

You can't not reply when offered the opportunity multiple times and then cry "muh right of reply" when you fail to do so.

The right of reply should've been provided a lot longer than basically 5 minutes before the ABC article was going to be published.

After that occurred it was obvious they were advised by their lawyers not to say anything.

 

[Festerz]

The right of reply should've been provided a lot longer than basically 5 minutes before the ABC article was going to be published.

Again - that is simply not true. The ABC addressed this matter in the statement published on line - twice (the latest posted yesterday):


Here it is again for you to read.

From the start there has been a concerted attempt to undermine ABC journalist Russell Jackson’s reporting on the Hawthorn FC allegations made by some First Nations former players and their family members.

This has been based on a suggestion that three former Hawthorn employees named in the story were not given an opportunity to respond before publication. That is incorrect. The ABC has addressed this twice before, here and here. It is disappointing that similar suggestions have been made again.

To repeat: Across two days before publication of the original story the three individuals were contacted multiple times by the ABC, via email, phone call and text message. Also contacted were the media teams at Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions and the personal management of one of the individuals.

 

[Jimmy95]

Again - that is simply not true. The ABC addressed this matter in the statement published on line - twice.

Rubbish.

The first clarkson knew of this was when the journalist told him the article is written and will soon be published.

At that time any sensible person would speak to their lawyer and follow the advice given.

I want to make it clear I don't know whether what happened is true or not or somewhere in between. My gripe is with the process up until now.

 

[Jimmy95]

Again - that is simply not true. The ABC addressed this matter in the statement published on line - twice (the latest posted yesterday):


Here it is again for you to read.

From the start there has been a concerted attempt to undermine ABC journalist Russell Jackson’s reporting on the Hawthorn FC allegations made by some First Nations former players and their family members.

This has been based on a suggestion that three former Hawthorn employees named in the story were not given an opportunity to respond before publication. That is incorrect. The ABC has addressed this twice before, here and here. It is disappointing that similar suggestions have been made again.

To repeat: Across two days before publication of the original story the three individuals were contacted multiple times by the ABC, via email, phone call and text message. Also contacted were the media teams at Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions and the personal management of one of the individuals.

Hahaha 2 days to reply before an incoming missile destroys your otherwise happy your life.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Hahaha 2 days to reply before an incoming missile destroys your otherwise happy your life.

If somebody accused me of attempting to force my employee's wife into getting an unwanted abortion it would take me 2 seconds to respond with 'no I didn't', let alone 2 days.

 

[Jimmy95]

If somebody accused me of attempting to force my employee's wife into getting an unwanted abortion it would take me 2 seconds to respond with 'no I didn't', let alone 2 days.

To be fair so would I but I'm not them with their profile and circumstances.

 

[Festerz]

one side has been torched without a right of reply.

Rubbish.

The first clarkson knew of this was when the journalist told him the article is written and will soon be published.

The right of reply should've been provided a lot longer than basically 5 minutes before the ABC article was going to be published.

Hahaha 2 days to reply before an incoming missile destroys your otherwise happy your life.

To be fair so would I but I'm not them with their profile and circumstances.

 

[Jimmy95]

You think two days is a fair timeframe for a right of reply when the first you've heard of this situation is when an ABC journalist has contacted you to inform they're going to soon publish an article that will destroy your life, destroy your life whether it's factually true or not?

 

[Festerz]

You think two days is a fair timeframe for a right of reply....

I think two days is a lot longer than 'not being given a right of reply' or being given 'basically 5 minutes' to reply which is what you've been telling us.

But sure - now that your idiotic statements have been proved false, lets pretend you're now interested in having a serious discussion about the journalist code of ethics and ABC editorial policies.

Err no thanks. But feel free to go here

 

[Jimmy95]

....there's been an investigation against you by your former club, the investigation is handed over to the AFL, the contents of the investigation are told to an ABC journalist and the first you know about the entire even is when the journalist contacts you to say...'I've written an article that will be published in less than 2 days, have you got anything to add?'

Yeah two days heaps of time!

 

[Jimmy95]

I think two days is a lot longer than 'not being given a right of reply' or being given 'basically 5 minutes' to reply which is what you've been telling us.

But sure - now that your idiotic statements have been proved false, lets pretend you're now interested in having a serious discussion about the journalist code of ethics and ABC editorial policies.

Err no thanks. But feel free to go here

Oh I'm sorry they were given a right of reply during the investigation were they?

Glad you don't sit on a court bench with your level of bias.

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

You think two days is a fair timeframe for a right of reply when the first you've heard of this situation is when an ABC journalist has contacted you to inform they're going to soon publish an article that will destroy your life, destroy your life whether it's factually true or not?

They offered to delay publishing. For someone as high profile as AFL coaches there is a high likelihood their lawyer would consult with them on the day they advise them of the story. They didn't even respond to accept their publishing delay offer.

Most people would take some kind of action to prevent their life soon being destroyed.

 

[Jimmy95]

They offered to delay publishing. For someone as high profile as AFL coaches there is a high likelihood their lawyer would consult with them on the day they advise them of the story. They didn't even respond to accept their publishing delay offer.

Most people would take some kind of action to prevent their life soon being destroyed.

Maybe they would've if they even knew there was an investigation run by their former club.

There's a lot to come out in the wash with this. Hawthorn CEO suddenly resigns for 'mental health' reasons....yeah nothing to see here.

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

Maybe they would've if they even knew there was an investigation run by their former club.

There's a lot to come out in the wash with this. Hawthorn CEO suddenly resigns for 'mental health' reasons....yeah nothing to see here.

The investigation was regarding First Nations players experiences at the club. I'm not sure why Clarkson, Fagan or Burt needed to be advised or involved in determining the First Nations player experiences, as it is their own personal story. Hawthorn presumably saw a significant conflict of interest if they were to investigate the alleged incidents themselves and thus referred the matter to the AFL.

They were sent "detailed questions". They were at the club when the reported incidents occurred. It would take minimal critical thinking to determine what the situation is when a journalist is asking questions about your conduct with First Nations players and their partners. Even if you were a proud smooth brain, you could request clarification of the accusations or just refer the matter to your lawyer. A lawyer would very quickly grab the offer of publishing delay to assess their position properly.

They have handled themselves like people who think they are above the law. And look, without any such findings, they are already being declared as being cleared of some of the most campaignery behaviour ever alleged in the largest professional sporting league in the country.

**** 'em.