John Burns, alleged racial abuse Friday night.

[hardtack 10,537]

I once told a supporter that a comment they were making about an aboriginal player was inappropriate, many people heard what was said, when they repeated it I said that I would report them for anti social behavior, they stopped. The player did not hear the comments. If it stops is that enough? I think it is.

I don't think it needs to be heard by the player to constitute vilification, but it does have to be a public comment made with the intent of inciting others into hatred.

[daisycutter 29,613]

Yes DC, they were seated outside the room, but according to others on here, there were others including Gill Mc sitting close by.

yes hardtack, know that. it was just that your previous post said ".....seems to have come out over this despite there being others in the room"

no bigee

[ManDee 7,140]

Something about drawing long bows comes to mind. In this case very long and verging on the ridiculous.

I ask several questions and make a comment. You obviously have some knowledge as to what was said that is not stated here. Care to share? Or is it more long bows on your behalf?

[jnrmac 20,061]

I recall years ago at a Friday night game at the G, we were playing the Cats. At that time we had the Cockatoo-Collins boys on our list and both were playing that night. Certainly, their efforts were below par, but they were not alone, as we got smashed that night. 2 Melbourne members in front of me made comment to the effect of the boys going walkabout, as they all do. This was not broadcast news for the whole ground to hear, but I left the people concerned in no uncertain terms that what they said was wrong and inappropriate. 'All it takes for evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing'

How is the view from your high horse?

[hardtack 10,537]

yes hardtack, know that. it was just that your previous post said ".....seems to have come out over this despite there being others in the room"

no bigee

Oops... my bad

[Chris 2,892]

Is it racial abuse tho?

I would have thought it religious abuse.

If he called him a terrorist due to being Muslim it has nothing to do with his race. Just his religion.

What if he called him a terrorist because he is an Arab, would that not be based on race?

[jnrmac 20,061]

No it's not. The analogy is with Judaism. Not just a religion, but a way of life. You are certainly born to it.

Judaism is a choice not a race. Like every religion. Just because you are born a mormon doesn't mean you have to be a mormon once you are an adult.

Do gooders like you blur the lines between what racial vilification actually is.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Making spurious analogies do not aid or add efficacy to the debate. There are 2 main points here:

1. The allegation is that a senior operative of the RFC believes he heard the word "terrorist' used in relation to a Muslim; player Bachar Houli, uttered by a person of some celebrity.

2. Although a serious allegation, the alleged proprietor says he cannot remember if he did or he did not. If he didn't use the word, in reference to Houli, then end of story.

If there is any substance to the allegation, then it cannot be justified by saying it was said in a "private" conversation. For as long as people acquiesce to such language, the more the fabric of our society becomes tarnish. Any such use of words as alleged cannot and should not be tolerated.

Simple

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Judaism is a choice not a race. Like every religion. Just because you are born a mormon doesn't mean you have to be a mormon once you are an adult.

Do gooders like you blur the lines between what racial vilification actually is.

Ahh the old term used by people who cannot mount rational, calm and reasoned debate. Define "do-gooder" for me please

[hardtack 10,537]

Making spurious analogies do not aid or add efficacy to the debate. There are 2 main points here:

1. The allegation is that a senior operative of the RFC believes he heard the word "terrorist' used in relation to a Muslim; player Bachar Houli, uttered by a person of some celebrity.

2. Although a serious allegation, the alleged proprietor says he cannot remember if he did or he did not. If he didn't use the word, in reference to Houli, then end of story.

If there is any substance to the allegation, then it cannot be justified by saying it was said in a "private" conversation. For as long as people acquiesce to such language, the more the fabric of our society becomes tarnish. Any such use of words as alleged cannot and should not be tolerated.

Simple

I don't think anyone is trying to justify it (if it was indeed said).

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Judaism is a choice not a race. Like every religion. Just because you are born a mormon doesn't mean you have to be a mormon once you are an adult.

Do gooders like you blur the lines between what racial vilification actually is.

Ah no. Being Jewish is a whole lot more than subscribing to a certain religious philosophy

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

How is the view from your high horse?

Sorry, but I don't understand the point of your question

[ManDee 7,140]

Making spurious analogies do not aid or add efficacy to the debate. There are 2 main points here:

1. The allegation is that a senior operative of the RFC believes he heard the word "terrorist' used in relation to a Muslim; player Bachar Houli, uttered by a person of some celebrity.

2. Although a serious allegation, the alleged proprietor says he cannot remember if he did or he did not. If he didn't use the word, in reference to Houli, then end of story.

If there is any substance to the allegation, then it cannot be justified by saying it was said in a "private" conversation. For as long as people acquiesce to such language, the more the fabric of our society becomes tarnish. Any such use of words as alleged cannot and should not be tolerated.

Simple

You must have some knowledge of the conversation, or how can you assume that the analogies are spurious? Or are you fabricating facts to suit your argument? Who is being spurious?

The private conversation was with Steve Price.

On The Project tonight Price said: “I was there and sitting with John Burns. I didn’t hear that comment at all. So I’m not doubting that the Richmond person says he heard it but I didn’t hear it.”

So are you the Richmond staff member? No one else heard it. It is possible something was misheard.

Simple this is not.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

Interesting comments made here

Are the blood types of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Scientologists and Athiests the same or different?

The difference is some believe in "cloud fairies" and others don't.

[ManDee 7,140]

Interesting comments made here

Are the blood types of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Scientologists and Athiests the same or different?

The difference is some believe in "cloud fairies" and others don't.

I follow the invisible pink unicorn faith.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

You must have some knowledge of the conversation, or how can you assume that the analogies are spurious? Or are you fabricating facts to suit your argument? Who is being spurious?

The private conversation was with Steve Price.

On The Project tonight Price said: “I was there and sitting with John Burns. I didn’t hear that comment at all. So I’m not doubting that the Richmond person says he heard it but I didn’t hear it.”

So are you the Richmond staff member? No one else heard it. It is possible something was misheard.

Simple this is not.

I was simply referring to your "comparisons" in one of your posts. What is simple is bigotry should never be tolerated on any level. To try and say degrees of bigotry are OK is "spurious"

[daisycutter 29,613]

Ah no. Being Jewish is a whole lot more than subscribing to a certain religious philosophy

to be a little picky ivor

but judaism is not the same as jewish

many jews are not followers/believers of judaism

edit: on reflection i think you are saying that too

Edited April 28, 2015 by daisycutter

[pitchfork 181]

was afraid to click on this thread...seems I was justified.

• To debate whether this is offensive, should be tolerated, or constitutes vilification is totally moronic and suggests of those that argue such that they have never been vilified for who they are, and cannot empathise with those who experience it.

Look, if someone says this at the footy, the appropriate course of action is to tell them to shut it. Most often they'll be extremely embarrassed.

Not totally clear if the media ideally would have been made involved from the get go, but given the incident happened in an area teeming with media, and that the Richmond official was shaken (see AFL360), it's unsurprising that there was not a water-tight process of dealing with it.

Edited April 28, 2015 by pitchfork

[AzzKikA 2,371]

Just because i say someone looks like a terrorist doesn't mean i think they ARE a terrorist. FFS, bunch of whiny little children, "he called so&so a terrorist, that's outrageous!" even tho so&so looks like one. "He called so&so a monkey, that's outrageous!" even though so&so looks like one. Heard many people comment at the football about how much a certain Collingwood player looks like a neanderthal, no one has seemed to overhear that one. Seriously when will this crap end. People will ALWAYS be picked on for the way they look, it will never change, shows more character ignoring it than whinging. Blowing it out of proportion just adds fuel to the fire. Proceed with the insults and put downs if you must, but i have my beliefs and opinions just like you, what makes your right?

[hardtack 10,537]

Just because i say someone looks like a terrorist doesn't mean i think they ARE a terrorist. FFS, bunch of whiny little children, "he called so&so a terrorist, that's outrageous!" even tho so&so looks like one. "He called so&so a monkey, that's outrageous!" even though so&so looks like one. Heard many people comment at the football about how much a certain Collingwood player looks like a neanderthal, no one has seemed to overhear that one. Seriously when will this crap end. People will ALWAYS be picked on for the way they look, it will never change, shows more character ignoring it than whinging. Blowing it out of proportion just adds fuel to the fire. Proceed with the insults and put downs if you must, but i have my beliefs and opinions just like you, what makes your right?

Yeah...and just because you call an African American the "N" word, it doesn't mean you dislike African Americans... those whiny children!

[ManDee 7,140]

I was simply referring to your "comparisons" in one of your posts. What is simple is bigotry should never be tolerated on any level. To try and say degrees of bigotry are OK is "spurious"

Comparisons? The heading of the post was "Hypotheticals" Was that lost on you?

I made no reference to degrees of bigotry. Hence I think your argument spurious.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Comparisons? The heading of the post was "Hypotheticals" Was that lost on you?

I made no reference to degrees of bigotry. Hence I think your argument spurious.

My apologies. SO the point of your "hypotheticals" was ....... ?

[ManDee 7,140]

My apologies. SO the point of your "hypotheticals" was ....... ?

I posed several questions to ascertain peoples views. This was in order to make people think about the impact of what they say, and if it could be considered vilification. It can be a grey area. You and I probably agree mostly in this area. In the Burns example I think it is possible he was misheard or misunderstood. If he made a public racist comment he deserves to be pilloried.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

I posed several questions to ascertain peoples views. This was in order to make people think about the impact of what they say, and if it could be considered vilification. It can be a grey area. You and I probably agree mostly in this area. In the Burns example I think it is possible he was misheard or misunderstood. If he made a public racist comment he deserves to be pilloried.

Fair enough. Yet he saw fit to apologise to Houli, which he accepted and the Richmond operative who was shaken by what he heard, who also accepted Burns' apology. To me, if there is any substance to this Age article, there are still a lot of unanswered questions:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/radio-host-john-burns-apologises-for-bachar-houli-terror-slur-20150427-1muoho.html

[ManDee 7,140]

Fair enough. Yet he saw fit to apologise to Houli, which he accepted and the Richmond operative who was shaken by what he heard, who also accepted Burns' apology. To me, if there is any substance to this Age article, there are still a lot of unanswered questions:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/radio-host-john-burns-apologises-for-bachar-houli-terror-slur-20150427-1muoho.html

I agree. It is possible to believe that you have not said something and for someone to think that you have. This has happened with my wife often. (Would you like a cup of tea?- Yes I put the bin out last night.) We laugh about it, but often cannot believe what the other says they have said. A misunderstanding is possible, as is a whitewash.

If I have said something that has offended you I apologise for the offence taken, regardless of any lack of intent to offend on my behalf.