Tribunal / suspensions 2024

[Uninformed]

So you're saying you've given up on the greater good coming to action, and that personal responsibility is key. A libertarian viewpoint?

Gotta start somewhere.

[jazzadogs]

I'm a straight white man, and was surprised by the reaction to the word c*******er. It's not a word I use often, but when I have it has been as a general insult with no real consideration of the meaning behind it. It was a good opportunity to reflect, and I was able to be part of discussions with some LGBT friends which helped me understand. I think this Finlayson incident is another instance where people can choose to reflect on their own attitudes - it is absolutely up to the people using the words to acknowledge the hurt they can cause.

I work with children with disabilities, and we are very mindful of our language with a general preference for person-first language. But different people prefer different things. For example, being called "autistic" may be offensive to one person because they are not defined by their diagnosis, and they would prefer the term "has a diagnosis of autism" - but for others it might be the reverse.

I had a friend of mine, well educated and generally very respectful, use the term 'retarded' the other day. I spoke to them about why I don't think that word should be used as an insult. But other colleagues believe that the list of offensive words related to disability is larger - crazy and lunatic being two that surprised me, as I had never applied those connotations to those words.

I guess the point of all of this is that offence is absolutely in the eye of the receiver, but responsibility does fall upon the offender to apologise and learn. Most people will make mistakes with their language - use the wrong pronoun, use an insult you learnt when you were a kid etc - but the responsibility is 100% on you to listen, apologise and learn. Particularly in regards to historically oppressed groups like particular races, LGBTQI+, disability and more.

I think Finlayson has been harshly treated because he has shown a willingness to listen, apologise and learn. The AFL has, as is so often the case, bungled their handling of a tricky situation.

[Sedat]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[hujsh]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

What? Do you have any examples of that because I'd be shocked if true

[Bulldog Joe]

So just to summarise:

1. Calling someone a f***** is completely unacceptable and punishable by 3 weeks - no prior offences and total contrition/ownership of the offence, complete with unreserved apologies in person and on camera/in print, do not matter and actually watered down the punishment from 6 weeks to 3
2. Calling someone a c********* is mildly frowned upon and quietly swept under the carpet with no real punitive sanction, even though the offender has a lengthy rap sheet of questionable behaviour - a suspended sentence, a fine, and a small written statement hastily tossed out on Friday arvo 'take out the trash' time will suffice
3. Deliberately boycotting an entire sanctioned official AFEL round celebrating the basic human rights of the gay and lesbian (and others) community, because you hold the belief that gay and lesbian people have no right to exist, is all good to go - in fact you can do this very publicly two years in a row and even be lauded for it by most sections of the media/AFEL community

Just to be crystal clear, if you applaud 1 and have no problem with 2 and 3, you are not serious about the issue of homophobia and actually deserve no place at the table to discuss it - but that won't stop the AFEL from continuing to do so.

The AFEL have shown themselves to be utter cowards. They were totally silent for 2 years and tacitly approved the obviously homophobic behaviour in relation to point 3, and they lacked any semblance of leadership/proactivity on point 2. Then realising the folly of their ways a month ago, they have gone total scorched earth on point 1 in an attempt to show 'leadership', when in actual fact they hid like the cowards they are for 5 full days after the offence was uttered/admitted/unreservedly apologised for to ascertain the mood of the baying mob, most of whom were shamefully silent during points 2 and 3.

I won't even mention a certain AFEL club happily taking sponsorship money from an organisation owned by a nation that punishes being gay by death.

Had the AFEL shown an even basic level of leadership on this issue from the get-go, the 3 week sanction given to Finlayson would not have caused a ripple. I've still yet to hear anyone justifying his use of the slur in question - it was unacceptable and everybody has been on a unity ticket on this. But you cannot be conditional in relation to homophobia, period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

While I agree with most of what you say, I take exception to the AFLW player boycotting Pride Round.

If that is her belief/religious principle she is and should be absolutely entitled to the action taken. That is her freedom of expression.

[Grantysghost]

Clarko also said to a female journo youll get yours?

Yours = what exactly?

I found this waaaaaay worse than anything else
It's threatening harm.

[bornadog]

Clarko also said to a female journo youll get yours?

Yours = what exactly?

I found this waaaaaay worse than anything else
It's threatening harm.

I took it as harm, or some sort of retribution - should almost be charged for assault for that one

[Sedat]

If that is her belief/religious principle she is and should be absolutely entitled to the action taken. That is her freedom of expression.

Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL are utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia. They only give a shit when it affects the optics and the 'brand'.

[angelopetraglia]

Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL should be utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia.

They walk that fine line. For example. They celebrate Bachar Houli and his foundation. Then on the other hand they are celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with the pride round.

[Bulldog Joe]

Of course she can - that's the beauty and the privilege of living in a society that has freedom of expression and religious freedom. As an aside, so can Folau (different code I know) and that Essendon CEO who was in the role for 5 minutes.

Clearly her stance unequivocally violates the AFEL's position (who is ultimately her employer), so it was incumbent upon the AFEL to send the strongest possible message in support of the cause by denouncing any form of homophobia. Tumbleweeds for 2 years running - hence the AFEL are utterly disqualified and discredited from having a valid opinion on homophobia. They only give a shit when it affects the optics and the 'brand'.

I will disagree on this one but respect your passion on it.

[hujsh]

They walk that fine line. For example. They celebrate Bachar Houli and his foundation. Then on the other hand they are celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with the pride round.

Sorry but those things appear completely unrelated. As far as I can tell neither Bachar nor his foundation have any stance on pride/homosexuality. If the implication is that any Muslim organization is inherently homophobic I have to vehemently disagree. Yes today many Islamic nations have homophobic attitudes or laws but that does not reflect all Muslims nor does it accurately reflect the history of the religion which was probably more tolerant of homosexuality before more Western views began to be imported (eg the Ottoman Empire).

Now if I'm missing something with regards to Bachar or his foundation I'm happy to be corrected there but it seems pretty focused on getting Muslim kids more into footy. I'm not sure homophobia quite gels with their stated missions either.

[angelopetraglia]

Sorry but those things appear completely unrelated. As far as I can tell neither Bachar nor his foundation have any stance on pride/homosexuality. If the implication is that any Muslim organization is inherently homophobic I have to vehemently disagree. Yes today many Islamic nations have homophobic attitudes or laws but that does not reflect all Muslims nor does it accurately reflect the history of the religion which was probably more tolerant of homosexuality before more Western views began to be imported (eg the Ottoman Empire).

Now if I'm missing something with regards to Bachar or his foundation I'm happy to be corrected there but it seems pretty focused on getting Muslim kids more into footy. I'm not sure homophobia quite gels with their stated missions either.

They are not competely unrelated. There is some correlation between his religion and their attitidue to the LGBQT+ community. Bachar is deeply religous. It is a crucial part of his his identity. Good on him too for celerbating his culture and for giving back to teh community and being a spokesperson. But his religions view is pretty clear. I'm guessing his view on it from what I have seen.

It is not a hill I'm going to die on. My point is, if you celebrate every single minority/marginalised group you are going to end up walking a very fine line.

But my post was in response to this.

"Greater Western Sydney confirmed on Wednesday Zreika, who was the first Muslim to play in the AFLW, had chosen once again not to wear the Pride jumper, which AFLW players use to recognise, support and celebrate the LGBTQI+ community, and therefore would not participate in that round’s game."

[hujsh]

It is a correlation based on what we have seen play out. Bachar is deeply religous. It is a crucial part of his his identity. His religions view is clear. I'm guessing his view on it from what we have seen.

But it was in response to this.

"Greater Western Sydney confirmed on Wednesday Zreika, who was the first Muslim to play in the AFLW, had chosen once again not to wear the Pride jumper, which AFLW players use to recognise, support and celebrate the LGBTQI+ community, and therefore would not participate in that round’s game."

I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'they're Muslim so they must also be homophobic'. It's a better assumption today than it used to be but it's still a big assumption that I think is unfair personally. Bachar isn't Zreika. They are both of Lebanese descent and it is a very conservative place but Bachar was born and raised here and has bent some rules (fasting during Ramamdan) despite his devotion.

I just don't want to conflate Islam and opposition to Pride any more than we'd automatically assume Christians are homophobic or transphobic

[angelopetraglia]

I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'they're Muslim so they must also be homophobic'. It's a better assumption today than it used to be but it's still a big assumption that I think is unfair personally. Bachar isn't Zreika. They are both of Lebanese descent and it is a very conservative place but Bachar was born and raised here and has bent some rules (fasting during Ramamdan) despite his devotion.

I just don't want to conflate Islam and opposition to Pride any more than we'd automatically assume Christians are homophobic or transphobic

But many practicing religous Christians are indeed homophobic. Hence the issues that Manly had with their pride round and and deeply religous islander players in their team. Seven Manly players refused to wear the jumper. They only refused to wear the jumper, they boycotted the game.

[hujsh]

But many practicing religous Christians are indeed homophobic. Hence the issues that Manly had with their pride round and and deeply religous islander players in their team.

And many aren't. We're also conflating many different branches of Christianity and the varied cultural backgrounds into one big homogeneous blob when we say that.