6 hours ago, hardtack said:

You must have really hated these moments...
 

It's almost as if they're responding to "sports fans" or "footy fans" who bring politics into the stadium on a weekly basis.
 

Like these idiots:

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by Deeprived Childhood

Poor ol' Dyson after his last game wouldn't know if he's Arthur or Martha even if he looked in a mirror !

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

I think the AFL does have a reasonable mandate to take some social actions. The case as I see it is -

1. Everyone should feel welcome and safe attending or playing football.

2. Some people can reasonably believe they are not welcome and safe attending or playing football.

3. The AFL should take reasonable steps to overcome the gap.

As for endorsing the Yes campaign. Well... hard to imagine someone feeling especially welcome at an AFL game if the sport is boldly declaring 'maybe' when asked the question "Is this person's relationship so soiled and awful as to be afforded lesser civil rights than murderers, drug traffickers, terrorists and rapists?".

Yeah, 'maybe' doesn't cut it, does it?

People can have their religious beliefs, and even have their belief that their religious belief should be imposed on the whole of society, but for a secular 'whole of society' organisation, it is important to show that basic level of respect for equal rights.

All of the above will be on open display on  Friday and Saturday nights at AFL venues ' maybe ' ? 

7 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I think the AFL does have a reasonable mandate to take some social actions. The case as I see it is -

1. Everyone should feel welcome and safe attending or playing football.

2. Some people can reasonably believe they are not welcome and safe attending or playing football.

3. The AFL should take reasonable steps to overcome the gap.

As for endorsing the Yes campaign. Well... hard to imagine someone feeling especially welcome at an AFL game if the sport is boldly declaring 'maybe' when asked the question "Is this person's relationship so soiled and awful as to be afforded lesser civil rights than murderers, drug traffickers, terrorists and rapists?".

Yeah, 'maybe' doesn't cut it, does it?

People can have their religious beliefs, and even have their belief that their religious belief should be imposed on the whole of society, but for a secular 'whole of society' organisation, it is important to show that basic level of respect for equal rights.

Exceptionally well summarised. 

Yesterday, I thought the AFL should not campaign.  Reading your comments has changed my mind as you've hit on the crux of the issue. 

Dyson is a white Rastafarian-he faces discrimination on a daily basis because of his religion.

The AFL is signalling it's virtuousness to the rest of us . Older ,religious people are not their target audience so [censored] 'em.

This is clearly an offensive stance to take for all those Muslims they have tried so hard to encourage into AFL.-The Bachar Houli academy will be conflicted and offended.

I see this as a good way to get my agenda across-a Rastafaian prayer room/smoking facility to calm my nerves.

The Rastafarians amongst us will never stop fighting for this for as long as we can be bothered.

 

Crickey! Demonland is becoming far too complicated for my simple soul.

I don't want to think.

I just want to post my smut and banal schoolboy humour and enjoy a shiraz. ( and other more exotic pleasures of course).

15 hours ago, hardtack said:

You must have really hated these moments...
 

If you hadn't noticed they are individuals taking a stance not an organisation. Completely different concepts.

53 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

If you hadn't noticed they are individuals taking a stance not an organisation. Completely different concepts.

Actually, not different at all. An organisation is just a collection of individuals.

A great step by the AFL to add its weight to removing the stigma and oppression of a minority group in our society. 

The fact that so few (any) AFL players are prepared to openly declare their homosexuality is indicative of the sad and toxic oppression they endure. 

Good to see Australia is growing up. 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

If you hadn't noticed they are individuals taking a stance not an organisation. Completely different concepts.

So, read this and tell me whether you prefer the way the AFL handles social issues or the way the Australian Olympic Committee goes about it (and they had two chances - the 1972 and 2000 Olympics).

33 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Actually, not different at all. An organisation is just a collection of individuals.

So you do understand the AFL is a collective with employees, players and fans entitled to their own opinions without being told how to think.

I support individuals rights to express their opinion.

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

So you do understand the AFL is a collective with employees, players and fans entitled to their own opinions without being told how to think.

I support individuals rights to express their opinion.

We agree. Except that I believe that as an organisation is a collection of individuals, an organisation has a right to express an opinion, too. Whether you want to agree with that opinion or not is entirely up to you.

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, read this and tell me whether you prefer the way the AFL handles social issues or the way the Australian Olympic Committee goes about it (and they had two chances - the 1972 and 2000 Olympics).

I don't think the afl should get involved in social issues. I have no interest or see no relevance in that link.

Get real they only do it to protect there business interest.

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

We agree. Except that I believe that as an organisation is a collection of individuals, an organisation has a right to express an opinion, too. Whether you want to agree with that opinion or not is entirely up to you.

What if the AFL took the no stance would you have the same opinion? 

I would but I'm guessing you wouldn't.

It is not about which side the AFL are supporting they should not be supporting a political side of an argument or pushing social agenda.

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Crickey! Demonland is becoming far too complicated for my simple soul.

I don't want to think.

I just want to post my smut and banal schoolboy humour and enjoy a shiraz. ( and other more exotic pleasures of course).

Fortunately, this issue is a no-brainer!

Edited September 20, 20178 yr by TeamPlayedFine39

Everything is a political/social issue.

So let's do away with:

Anzac Day, Indigenous Round, the Woman's AFL entirely, the Pride match, Multicultural round, our Indigenous mascot, Melbourne's reconciliation plan, and the AFL's respect and responsibility policy.

That would really make the game better wouldn't it?

11 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yeah, no more of that Reach or reading in schools program nonsense, eh!

I believe it's the Melbourne football club who supports Reach as  a club Community partner, not the AFL. The promotion of reading in schools has been a project of the MFC for a number of years, and I don't remember it being an AFL initiative ever.

25 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I don't think the afl should get involved in social issues. I have no interest or see no relevance in that link.

Maybe they take a stand because they don't want people hurling racist insults over the fence, sexist abuse of players and officials, homophobic abuse of players and umpires, and religious abuse of players and fans.  Maybe they see that as creating an environment that fans would not be overly keen to attend.  Maybe by saying those attitudes aren't welcome in the league they believe they are making it more welcoming and harmonious for all races, religions, sexualities and genders to enjoy together...

 

I don't miss hearing the racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry that was being yelled out in crowds when I grew up.  The game is better without it.

26 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

I believe it's the Melbourne football club who supports Reach as  a club Community partner, not the AFL. The promotion of reading in schools has been a project of the MFC for a number of years, and I don't remember it being an AFL initiative ever.

I'm not sure if you're trying to state a fact or make a point. If it's the latter - that the AFL shouldn't be given credit for something being done by the MFC, the point in this thread is about whether organisations should be supporting social causes. Whether it's the MFC or the AFL supporting Reach and reading in schools, both are organisations. It's just a question of which organisation is supporting these social causes.

9 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Maybe they take a stand because they don't want people hurling racist insults over the fence, sexist abuse of players and officials, homophobic abuse of players and umpires, and religious abuse of players and fans.  Maybe they see that as creating an environment that fans would not be overly keen to attend.  Maybe by saying those attitudes aren't welcome in the league they believe they are making it more welcoming and harmonious for all races, religions, sexualities and genders to enjoy together...

 

I don't miss hearing the racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry that was being yelled out in crowds when I grew up.  The game is better without it.

Perhaps I'm lucky enough to have lived in a generation that hasn't heard racist, homophobic or other  prejudiced ignorance at the footy.

I'm glad that has gone. 

The AFL can be harmonious for all without  involving itself in political discourse.

4 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Perhaps I'm lucky enough to have lived in a generation that hasn't heard racist, homophobic or other  prejudiced ignorance at the footy.

I'm glad that has gone. 

The AFL can be harmonious for all without  involving itself in political discourse.

You must be deaf my friend...

or clueless.

5 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

You must be deaf my friend...

or clueless.

Neither. I obviously don't sit where you do.

14 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Perhaps I'm lucky enough to have lived in a generation that hasn't heard racist, homophobic or other  prejudiced ignorance at the footy.

I'm glad that has gone. 

The AFL can be harmonious for all without  involving itself in political discourse.

You've said that you're glad that racist, homophobic and other prejudiced ignorance has gone. As a matter of interest, how do you think that happened? 

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You've said that you're glad that racist, homophobic and other prejudiced ignorance has gone. As a matter of interest, how do you think that happened? 

By people like Nicky Winmar calling it out for what it is.