Racism claims.
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:59 am
The great forum in name of the Essendon Football Club
http://bombertalk.net/
Firstly. If they are alleging racism and abuse leading to harm, it must be remembered that such claims must be assessed against the laws of the land and the VFL/AFL rules at the time of the alleged incidents. You cannot retrospectively apply modern day laws, rules and public understandings to events that happened even just 40 years ago.The legal claim against the AFL alleged it was foreseeable for the league, which was operating as the VFL for part of the period covered by the class action, to see that indigenous players and players of colour were at risk of abuse during matches, or in connection with matches, from opposition players, members of staff of opposition clubs, including coaches, and spectators.
It also alleged umpires and match officials did not prevent abuse and that the AFL did not sanction players or spectators for racism, leading to the risk of long-term or permanent harm.
Ms Sinclair said the class action was seeking compensation in an attempt to improve safety in the AFL.
Agree with 99% of what you say,mate.s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:55 pmFirstly. If they are alleging racism and abuse leading to harm, it must be remembered that such claims must be assessed against the laws of the land and the VFL/AFL rules at the time of the alleged incidents. You cannot retrospectively apply modern day laws, rules and public understandings to events that happened even just 40 years ago.The legal claim against the AFL alleged it was foreseeable for the league, which was operating as the VFL for part of the period covered by the class action, to see that indigenous players and players of colour were at risk of abuse during matches, or in connection with matches, from opposition players, members of staff of opposition clubs, including coaches, and spectators.
It also alleged umpires and match officials did not prevent abuse and that the AFL did not sanction players or spectators for racism, leading to the risk of long-term or permanent harm.
Ms Sinclair said the class action was seeking compensation in an attempt to improve safety in the AFL.
It wasn't until mid 1995 that the AFL introduced Rule 30 banning racial and Religious Vilification. This was after David Shaw in April 1993 (then President of EFC) condemned racial abuse within the game, especially abuse directed towards the 4 Indigenour and Torres Strait Islander Essendon players. Then a few weeks later Nickky Widmar lifted his Jumper.
It should be noted that both Jim and Phil Krakouer finished their AFL/VFL careers in 1991... well before the introduction of Rule 30.
Secondly. I would be more impressed if the named respondents in the case were not the Krakouer brothers... in particular Jim. To abuse Jim during a match, all you had to do was to raise any of his multiple convictions that occurred before he played football. I doubt that could be constituted as racist. Also raising his connection to bookmakers and match outcomes elicited the same response.
Jim would not get a game at any professional level these days.
Thirdly. the claim by Ms Sinclair that this action is an attempt to improve safety in the AFL is disingenuous. The racism and vilification rules are currently very strict. Just ask Tex Walker or Matthew Rendell... but not Alistair Clarkson who gets away with it again. Yes more can be done, but getting some money from the AFL is not going to change that.
What will change this is for the public and the AFL to keep doing what they are doing.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:13 pmAgree with 99% of what you say,mate.s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:55 pml... but not Alistair Clarkson who gets away with it again. Yes more can be done, but getting some money from the AFL is not going to change that.The legal claim against the AFL alleged it was foreseeable for the league, which was operating as the VFL for part of the period covered by the class action, to see that indigenous players and players of colour were at risk of abuse during matches, or in connection with matches, from opposition players, members of staff of opposition clubs, including coaches, and spectators.
It also alleged umpires and match officials did not prevent abuse and that the AFL did not sanction players or spectators for racism, leading to the risk of long-term or permanent harm.
**SNIP**
Ms Sinclair said the class action was seeking compensation in an attempt to improve safety in the AFL.
Tricky part is,what would change that?And how do you deal with Nasty Racists who attend the game,who might use the Voice Referendum to vindicate themselves?
That spectator who touched Pickett.Didn't see that incident properly.Was he just given a pat on the back,or an angry whack on the back?s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:03 pmWhat will change this is for the public and the AFL to keep doing what they are doing.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:13 pmAgree with 99% of what you say,mate.s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:55 pml... but not Alistair Clarkson who gets away with it again. Yes more can be done, but getting some money from the AFL is not going to change that.The legal claim against the AFL alleged it was foreseeable for the league, which was operating as the VFL for part of the period covered by the class action, to see that indigenous players and players of colour were at risk of abuse during matches, or in connection with matches, from opposition players, members of staff of opposition clubs, including coaches, and spectators.
It also alleged umpires and match officials did not prevent abuse and that the AFL did not sanction players or spectators for racism, leading to the risk of long-term or permanent harm.
**SNIP**
Ms Sinclair said the class action was seeking compensation in an attempt to improve safety in the AFL.
Tricky part is,what would change that?And how do you deal with Nasty Racists who attend the game,who might use the Voice Referendum to vindicate themselves?
Spectators who badly abuse players typically get their memberships cancelled and get banned from attending all future games. Most venues have a "dob-in" phone line and the majority of patrons do not tolerate such BS anymore.
Last year, 9 spectators were banned for life for racist comments on the one weekend as a line-in-the-sand warning. Four spectators got a 2 year ban for fighting. One spectator got a 18 month ban for touching Marlion Pickett over the fence.
It would be good if the AFL could be consistent and give Alistair Clarkson a commensurate penalty for his constant and unchecked vilification ... a 2 match suspended ban and $20,000 is less than the penalty Sheeds got for his throat gesture when you factor in inflation and modern salary packages (and it was Sheed's first offense, lost count of Clarkson's transgressions). Clarkson didn't even issue a proper apology.
Nope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:50 pm Googled it,had a look.
Hmmmmm,Tigers fan pats him on the back a few times,but seemed to be giving him pointed advice twice,then sits sown.
Yes,probably shouldn't have touched Pickett,but 18 months?Was it abusive stuff the Fan came out with?If so,fair enough maybe,.........
Thanks for your input,though I guess we're going to cop it anyway!s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:08 pmNope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:50 pm Googled it,had a look.
Hmmmmm,Tigers fan pats him on the back a few times,but seemed to be giving him pointed advice twice,then sits sown.
Yes,probably shouldn't have touched Pickett,but 18 months?Was it abusive stuff the Fan came out with?If so,fair enough maybe,.........
The AFL has a zero tolerance approach on that sort of thing. For the spectators at least
That's why I find it amusing the ambulance chasing lawyer's assertion that this action is to increase safety in AFL.
Seeing her on ABC News last night(and probably others with this doorstep quip),she referred to the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act.So she probably believes the Action can go retro.But will it stack up?s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:08 pmNope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:50 pm Googled it,had a look.
Hmmmmm,Tigers fan pats him on the back a few times,but seemed to be giving him pointed advice twice,then sits sown.
Yes,probably shouldn't have touched Pickett,but 18 months?Was it abusive stuff the Fan came out with?If so,fair enough maybe,.........
The AFL has a zero tolerance approach on that sort of thing. For the spectators at least
That's why I find it amusing the ambulance chasing lawyer's assertion that this action is to increase safety in AFL.
This is where it gets complicated.grassy1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 10:56 amSeeing her on ABC News last night(and probably others with this doorstep quip),she referred to the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act.So she probably believes the Action can go retro.But will it stack up?s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:08 pmNope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.grassy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:50 pm Googled it,had a look.
Hmmmmm,Tigers fan pats him on the back a few times,but seemed to be giving him pointed advice twice,then sits sown.
Yes,probably shouldn't have touched Pickett,but 18 months?Was it abusive stuff the Fan came out with?If so,fair enough maybe,.........
The AFL has a zero tolerance approach on that sort of thing. For the spectators at least
That's why I find it amusing the ambulance chasing lawyer's assertion that this action is to increase safety in AFL.
18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section:
public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
Firstly, it's a Class Action, which is a civil suit.s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 4:55 pm
Firstly. If they are alleging racism and abuse leading to harm, it must be remembered that such claims must be assessed against the laws of the land and the VFL/AFL rules at the time of the alleged incidents. You cannot retrospectively apply modern day laws, rules and public understandings to events that happened even just 40 years ago.