Racism claims.

[F111]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-10/ ... /103569932

[BenDoolan]

Well… these things end up coming back to bite ya.

We’ll see what transpires.

Great timing for next week’s ‘84 celebrations.

[grassy1]

Mmmmmmm,.........

Just curious if the claims included taunts and rough stuff from Indigenous people of different race,for lack of a better word?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms and it's sad Jimmy and Phil having carried those pent up feelings for Decades,let alone years.

But if they're going to go the Full Distance and they were racially abused as Noongars,by 2 Territorians who I won't name for now(not who people outside WA and NT might think it is),those guys will have to be included as well.

I think Western Australians who know their Footy here,would well know,who I am talking about,but even then I would like to think the 4 protagonists from the opening minutes of 1 particular WAFL Grand Final have long settled their differences,on those flashpoints that undoubtedly physically did happen.

Verbally,well one of the Antagonists might be off the hook being softly spoken,but the other was known to let his gift of the gab,to accompany the rough stuff.

Late Edit - According to one who saw it and close to those involved,Only personal Insults Flowed freely that day beftween the 4 involved in that set of spotfires,not Racial Ones.Good enough for me!

Sadly now,such events have to be included and accounted for,Otherwise some people could appear to be a little hypocritical when pointing the finger.

It's a real shame that matters have to come to a class action,when players who are much more older and mature now,could have reconciliation functions to settle their differences,reconcile with each other and forgive.

Takes the heat out of one eyed supporters then getting in on the act,throwing out the Racist tag,lest they be racists themselves.

But that's up to Jimmy,Phil and the others in the Class action to figure out,but it is sad it has come to this!

[grassy1]

To the players launching a class action,a couple of things.

By itself,Yes .....by itself Sorry doesn't cut it anymore.But if you give your Onfield protagonists a chance of Redemption without the recriminations guys,that might be a good starting!

Don't know how you pinpoint your off - field culprits,decades down the track.

[s'dreams]

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.

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.

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.

[grassy1]

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.

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.

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.

Agree with 99% of what you say,mate.

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?

[grassy1]

Has Sheeds or TD made any Public Statements by any chance today?

[s'dreams]

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.

l... 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.

Agree with 99% of what you say,mate.

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?

What will change this is for the public and the AFL to keep doing what they are doing.

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.

[grassy1]

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.

l... 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.

Agree with 99% of what you say,mate.

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?

What will change this is for the public and the AFL to keep doing what they are doing.

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.

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?

[grassy1]

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,.........

[s'dreams]

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,.........

Nope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.

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.

[grassy1]

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,.........

Nope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.

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.

Thanks for your input,though I guess we're going to cop it anyway!

[grassy1]

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,.........

Nope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.

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]

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,.........

Nope. Not abusive. A bit sarcastic but not abusive.

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?

This is where it gets complicated.

The 1975 Racial Discrimination Act has been modified and amended a number of times since its' introduction in 1975. The last set of major amendments were made on 13 December 2022... but the act is still termed the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act.

Consequently, the Act as it read in the late 1980s would apply in this case... not the modern act.

The relevant part of the Racial Discrimination Act is Section 18C

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.

To the best of my reading of the legislation, Section 18C was added to the act in whole in 1995, amended in 1999 and also in 2009. This means that vilification was not an offense under the act during the time that the Krakouer brothers were playing VFL/AFL football.

So while such vilification was sad, tasteless and gross ... and there are questions whether all of those cited actually engaged in vilification (some named I believe would be more likely than others to do so), it was not illegal under the Federal legislation at the time. It may have been under State legislation at the time, but I haven't bothered to check out given the lawyer is citing the federal act.

I may be wrong, but that is up to lawyers and the courts to sort out.

It is also curious why the Krakouer brothers (and lawyer) did not make their complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission for consideration... which is the recommended course of action under the act. Instead they have gone to a Victorian court.

My hunch is they are chasing some "go away" money from the AFL, which is much more common than you think regarding class-actions.

[nudder12]

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.

Firstly, it's a Class Action, which is a civil suit.
So the Criminal Laws of the day, or now, have little relevance.

The case hinges on whether or not the people launching the case were adequately protected if the outcomes (allegedly caused by the defendants) were foreseeable.
It's very hard to see how modern definitions/understandings of racism won't impact that assessment.

[grassy1]

Not a Racism case,but apparently Zac Mainwaring allegedly had a barb thrown at him about his old man Chris on the Saturday,just gone.

I wonder what caused the exchange of words,push and shove at Half - Time,between us and Claremont.Usually Claremont are sledging us,whilst laughing at us,with all the constant thrashings they give us!So we stick to 'em a bit by Half - Time of a Scratch Match and they take umbrage at that?

Not condoning anyone sledging anyone's dead family member,but would love to know the context of how it happened.And I'm staggered that any younger player might have launched such a sledge,being only 2 or 3 when Chris passed away.What would they have known about such an event,or cared to remember?Had to be an older player,if something was said!

Or a spectator more likely,if Zac Mainwaring got up the nose of Perth Supporters on Saturday.Bound to be someone aching to think up a line,during the Melee!But it was a Player allegedly.If he gets pinged,what type of Villification would that come under?

Apparently the Clubs sorted things out after the game,with all concerned shaking hands and that was it.

Not if the WAFC stick their nose in,not to mention Mainwaring Snr's former Employer,7WestMedia.They seem very eager to Whip up a "How Dare You!"Media Frenzy and won't mind 9,10 and 6PR joining their Howls of Outrage!

[grassy1]

This story has more twists and turns than the Monaco Grand Prix Circuit.

Suffice to say,Mainy Jnr did not have a Barb thrown about his old man's passing,but rather getting a spot in Claremont's Team though Nepotism,after the sledger had one thrown at him about not getting drafted last year.

And one of our boys copped a week,after the bloke wearing him like a 2nd skin was told,"Get off me,ya faggot!"

Could be a smarter way to say things,like Lou Richards and friend swapping players at a friendly social match with prisoners.

Wasn't reported by the Umpires,but the Claremont chap felt it necessary to squeal to the Umpires afterwards,leading to the report and suspension of our player.Pretty pathetic really,knowing that lot Sledge us all the time,we keep stchum,yet if the League feel all this is important to them,why turn a deaf ear to it all for years on end,knowing full well who the culprits are,then draw a line in the sand,picking and choosing who to ping.

As I said,pretty pathetic and playing Favourites,surprise surprise!