What 'race' is a Muslim?

  On 27/04/2015 at 23:27, jnrmac said:

What 'race' is a Muslim?

And the point is? Whether racial or religious vilification, it is just not on under any circumstances. For the record, Islam is not just a religion, it is way of life, intertwined with a cutlure.

  On 27/04/2015 at 22:51, daisycutter said:

here is the Hun's take on it http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aw-breakfast-co-host-john-burns-apologises-for-bachar-houli-terrorist-slur-he-cant-recall/story-fni5f22o-1227323935136

for those who don't know "Bulltish Artist of the Week" refers to a segment 3aw runs on Breakfast show hosted by burns and stevenson

burns was a guest of richmond at the game, invited by steve price a richmond supporter

he was seated with price with gillom mc seated behind and the informant seated somewhere in front who claimed he overhead a conversation

given this environment i find it hard to believe he would have called houli a terrorist

price says he had no recollection and he is a richmond supporter

anyway, all a bit strange to me

Why? Because you're an avid fan of his radio show?

I find it inconceivable that a person couldn't recall whether they said something of that nature. If he didn't say it, then there's no reason for Burns to offer an apology. If it was Joe Public, they would have been marched out of the ground, and been pilloried by all sections of the media.

The double standards stink.

  On 27/04/2015 at 23:37, mo64 said:

Why? Because you're an avid fan of his radio show?

I find it inconceivable that a person couldn't recall whether they said something of that nature. If he didn't say it, then there's no reason for Burns to offer an apology. If it was Joe Public, they would have been marched out of the ground, and been pilloried by all sections of the media.

The double standards stink.

why? yes i suppose i believe burns. i don't think he is at all racist and the circumstances don't lend themselves to such a comment

i think something was heard, maybe misheard and maybe out of context....it happens

i think late on sunday burns was convinced to make a nothing statement in order to put the issue to bed

of course i could be mistaken, but what makes you so certain of his guilt? do you know something we don't?

  On 27/04/2015 at 22:50, iv said:

He was actually enjoyed life too much and was known to turn up to "work" a little worse for wear.

Aha, a pity really. As a team they were good, haven't bothered much since he left the show. Personal opinion but I think the show is lame, obviously most radio listeners don't agree with me.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:17, daisycutter said:

why? yes i suppose i believe burns. i don't think he is at all racist and the circumstances don't lend themselves to such a comment

i think something was heard, maybe misheard and maybe out of context....it happens

i think late on sunday burns was convinced to make a nothing statement in order to put the issue to bed

of course i could be mistaken, but what makes you so certain of his guilt? do you know something we don't?

No-one can be certain of anyones' guilt or otherwise, unless they were there. However, the point is well made. If what has been alleged was not said, then no need for apology and one would stand on that principle. Again, where the allegation made is so serious, you would think someone who is the subject of that allegation could recall whether they said it or not. Certainly Brendan Gale went public and attested to the integrity of his executive who made the allegation.

I am sorry, but I just don't buy the "I can't recall if I said it or not" defence.

I am ready to get howled down, but it is interesting to note, that someone having a private conversation, not yelling out a remark to the public at large, is eavesdropped and reported for it.

The context of the remark is unknown. For example what if the comment was " some people could call Houli a terrorist and that would be offensive", yet only part of it was heard by the Informant.

I haven't got the faintest idea what was said, only that I thought, what was forbidden, were offensive comments yelled out and directed to someone, but heard publicly.

I was unaware that even private conversations, that no one else heard, other than the Informant, including the CEO of the AFL, who was sitting directly behind the parties in the conversation, could nevertheless land you in hot water.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:25, iv said:

No-one can be certain of anyones' guilt or otherwise, unless they were there. However, the point is well made. If what has been alleged was not said, then no need for apology and one would stand on that principle. Again, where the allegation made is so serious, you would think someone who is the subject of that allegation could recall whether they said it or not. Certainly Brendan Gale went public and attested to the integrity of his executive who made the allegation.

I am sorry, but I just don't buy the "I can't recall if I said it or not" defence.

I think Burns is a lover of some of the fine wines. If he had several glasses, is it not possible that he would not remember a comment made to a mate, on a night where he may have had more glasses later and then 2 days later is accused of a making the offensive comment?

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:24, rjay said:

Aha, a pity really. As a team they were good, haven't bothered much since he left the show. Personal opinion but I think the show is lame, obviously most radio listeners don't agree with me.

it was certainly a better show when donoghue (connell) was there at 3aw, and when it was on 3rrr as LG&M, but still holds it's ratings.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:27, Redleg said:

I am ready to get howled down, but it is interesting to note, that someone having a private conversation, not yelling out a remark to the public at large, is eavesdropped and reported for it.

The context of the remark is unknown. For example what if the comment was " some people could call Houli a terrorist and that would be offensive", yet only part of it was heard by the Informant.

I haven't got the faintest idea what was said, only that I thought, what was forbidden, were offensive comments yelled out and directed to someone, but heard publicly.

I was unaware that even private conversations, that no one else heard, other than the Informant, including the CEO of the AFL, who was sitting directly behind the parties in the conversation, could nevertheless land you in hot water.

Redleg, If someone next to you at the footy turned to his mate and made a comment of that nature in reference to a Melbourne player, and you clearly heard what was said, what would your reaction be?

I thought that the Richmond official showed a lot of courage in the action that he took, and I'm disappointed in the outcome.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:31, Redleg said:

I think Burns is a lover of some of the fine wines. If he had several glasses, is it not possible that he would not remember a comment made to a mate, on a night where he may have had more glasses later and then 2 days later is accused of a making the offensive comment?

He was accused of making the offensive comment just after it happened. The "he may have been too drunk to remember" defence is pathetic.

  On 27/04/2015 at 23:32, iv said:

And the point is? Whether racial or religious vilification, it is just not on under any circumstances. For the record, Islam is not just a religion, it is way of life, intertwined with a cutlure.

This point

Racial vilification is the term in the legislation of Australia that refers to a public act that encourages or incites others to hate people because of their race, nationality, country of origin, colour or ethnic origin.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:40, jnrmac said:

This point

Racial vilification is the term in the legislation of Australia that refers to a public act that encourages or incites others to hate people because of their race, nationality, country of origin, colour or ethnic origin.

Exactly, race isn't a choice,

Religion is.

One chooses to believe a book that may or may not be written about a factual person.

One is being born with certain genetics.

Really really different.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:51, Gorgoroth said:

Exactly, race isn't a choice,

Religion is.

One chooses to believe a book that may or may not be written about a factual person.

One is being born with certain genetics.

Really really different.

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

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:51, Gorgoroth said:

Exactly, race isn't a choice,

Religion is.

One chooses to believe a book that may or may not be written about a factual person.

One is being born with certain genetics.

Really really different.

Vilification may have elements of both race and religion, they aren't mutually exclusive. As I mentioned earlier, racial and religious vilification can sometimes have blurred boundaries, such as when an Indian is called a Muslim terrorist in the street despite being Hindu. Not saying this is the case with Houli, but it's too simplistic to say racial and religious vilification are separate things.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:59, iv said:

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

this does get quite somantic doesn't it.

some (many) would argue that homo sapiens sapiens doesn't have any races at all

the definition of what constitutes a "race" is much debated. it gets worse when you toss in dna genotyping

anyway, instead of talking about racial vilification it may be more appropriate (in many circumstances) to refer to ethnic vilification

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:34, mo64 said:

Redleg, If someone next to you at the footy turned to his mate and made a comment of that nature in reference to a Melbourne player, and you clearly heard what was said, what would your reaction be?

I thought that the Richmond official showed a lot of courage in the action that he took, and I'm disappointed in the outcome.

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'

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:40, jnrmac said:

This point

Racial vilification is the term in the legislation of Australia that refers to a public act that encourages or incites others to hate people because of their race, nationality, country of origin, colour or ethnic origin.

Legislation also exists regarding religious vilification. Either way, your point is moot. Whatever anybody wants to call it, it is simply wrong and therefore unacceptable.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:40, jnrmac said:

This point

Racial vilification is the term in the legislation of Australia that refers to a public act that encourages or incites others to hate people because of their race, nationality, country of origin, colour or ethnic origin.

And therein lies a large part of the issue. If (and none of us know the facts... not even mo64) the offending remark was made in a private conversation between two people that just happened to be overheard by one individual (no-one else seems to have come out over this despite there being others in the room, and I imagine in as close proximity). It is hardly a public act designed to incite people.

As I said in an earlier post, sit Burns down in a room with Houli and the person who reported the comment. Perhaps both the reported and the reporter need to be educated (and why has no-one questioned the sobriety of the reporter in the way that they have questioned it in Burns' case?).

  On 28/04/2015 at 01:21, hardtack said:

And therein lies a large part of the issue. If (and none of us know the facts... not even mo64) the offending remark was made in a private conversation between two people that just happened to be overheard by one individual (no-one else seems to have come out over this despite there being others in the room, and I imagine in as close proximity). It is hardly a public act designed to incite people.

As I said in an earlier post, sit Burns down in a room with Houli and the person who reported the comment. Perhaps both the reported and the reporter need to be educated (and why has no-one questioned the sobriety of the reporter in the way that they have questioned it in Burns' case?).

might be wrong hardtack, but i got the impression they were not in a function room but in the stand seating outside the function area

not that it makes much difference though

A hypothetical.

Barry the Biddelonian bombs it in to the forward line. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has been terrorising our midfielders. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has trouble at the airport, he looks like a terrorist. Vilification?

Barry is a blond anglo saxon with a beard or Barry is of Lebanese decent and has a beard. Vilification both or only one?

We don't know what was said, we don't know what was heard or misheard. It was a private conversation, I think the apology was appropriate if Burns thought he may have offended someone, even though he does not know what it was that offended them. I would have preferred it to have been discussed in private.

If no one hears it is it vilification?

If the vilified person does not hear it are they vilified?

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.

  On 28/04/2015 at 00:59, iv said:

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

You may have it thrust upon you from birth, true. But it's a choice to continue to believe.

Being born say black is not a choice.

  On 28/04/2015 at 01:27, ManDee said:

A hypothetical.

Barry the Biddelonian bombs it in to the forward line. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has been terrorising our midfielders. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has trouble at the airport, he looks like a terrorist. Vilification?

Barry is a blond anglo saxon with a beard or Barry is of Lebanese decent and has a beard. Vilification both or only one?

We don't know what was said, we don't know what was heard or misheard. It was a private conversation, I think the apology was appropriate if Burns thought he may have offended someone, even though he does not know what it was that offended them. I would have preferred it to have been discussed in private.

If no one hears it is it vilification?

If the vilified person does not hear it are they vilified?

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.

you left out "Barry the Biddelonian is a Terrapin" - LOL

  On 28/04/2015 at 01:27, ManDee said:

A hypothetical.

Barry the Biddelonian bombs it in to the forward line. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has been terrorising our midfielders. Vilification?

Barry the Biddelonian has trouble at the airport, he looks like a terrorist. Vilification?

Barry is a blond anglo saxon with a beard or Barry is of Lebanese decent and has a beard. Vilification both or only one?

We don't know what was said, we don't know what was heard or misheard. It was a private conversation, I think the apology was appropriate if Burns thought he may have offended someone, even though he does not know what it was that offended them. I would have preferred it to have been discussed in private.

If no one hears it is it vilification?

If the vilified person does not hear it are they vilified?

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.

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

  On 28/04/2015 at 01:24, daisycutter said:

might be wrong hardtack, but i got the impression they were not in a function room but in the stand seating outside the function area

not that it makes much difference though

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