51 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I didn't originally proffer an opinion on this particular case if you read my comments.  

Not on this particular case. But in this thread you did proffer an opinion on:

- so-called grievance culture amongst victims looking for money

- people 'looking' for offence... "as long as people take offence then we will continue to have these issues". AKA victim blaming

- Eddie somehow being a victim for his Adam Goodes as King Kong insult, despite a "contrite and fullsome" apology which took 3 attempts before becoming vaguely believably. 

- #metoo culture of victims apparently seeking revenge 

So we get the picture.

Is Joel himself engaging in racially prejudiced behaviour by suggesting it's a problem limited to people who identify as being "black" and not other races?
What about asian, european, latin-american..?

6 hours ago, SFebey said:

Speaking on SEN now - press conference

Seems like he has it in for the AFL and trying to make a statement.

Not just about what happened years ago but whats happening today also in the dark rooms of the AFL.

Going to human rights commission and federal court.

No detail to work with to form judgement

I wonder if there ever will be...

Wilkinson produced one of the fastest (if not the fastest) times ever recorded at Draft Combine.  Unfortunately, he was a rubbish footballer, which I'm very confident is the reason he was delisted.

It's clear he was racially vilified by another player, as well as an opposition supporter, what isn't clear is if he was racially, or sexually harassed within his football club.

It's an interesting test case for the AFL and I'll watch with interest.  There's not much more to say until evidence is submitted.

26 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Wilkinson produced one of the fastest (if not the fastest) times ever recorded at Draft Combine.  Unfortunately, he was a rubbish footballer, which I'm very confident is the reason he was delisted.

It's clear he was racially vilified by another player, as well as an opposition supporter, what isn't clear is if he was racially, or sexually harassed within his football club.

It's an interesting test case for the AFL and I'll watch with interest.  There's not much more to say until evidence is submitted.

Seems to be two separate, and important issues at play.

1. Was there racist behaviours and culture in place at the suns and did the AFL and the Suns leadership act in a proper manner to see it corrected.

2. Was Wilkinson delisted, then not drafted again due to him speaking out against these actions.

 

One sounds a lot easier to get the bottom of than the other.

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Seems to be two separate, and important issues at play.

1. Was there racist behaviours and culture in place at the suns and did the AFL and the Suns leadership act in a proper manner to see it corrected.

2. Was Wilkinson delisted, then not drafted again due to him speaking out against these actions.

 

One sounds a lot easier to get the bottom of than the other.

If you'd seen Wilkinson play you'd know why he was delisted.

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

I usually stick up for Australia when we are accused of being a racist country but maybe I should stop

I am saddened by a lot of the views and opinions posted in this thread. Racist remarks of any kind are vile and cut so deep. comparing racist comments to other types of name calling or blokey banter is ridiculous.

it is not upto the victim to 'move on', quit AFL or cop it on the chin. Racism is not acceptable. full stop.

we still have a long way to go it seems

I have a lot of sympathy for this fella and anyone else subjected to prejudice.

I also think there are broad sections of Australian society which have entrenched racist views, however I am still someone who gets frustrated when Australia is picked out as some kind of racist beacon is an otherwise morally upright world. Huge swathes of Asia and Africa are deeply deeply racist, considerably more so than Australia. Ever heard the Chinese or Indians talk about each other? How about the US where black people cant order a coffee without being molested.

Australia had work to do, like all countries, but I continue to believe we are a great, multicultural country whose majority population remain reasonable and fair minded people.

Harry O can you just jstfu until the lead into QB w/e !

I remember when he was racially abused during his first game -for nearly the entire game- which is something I don't like or agree with at all.

Having said that he appears to be a vexatious mendicant .

5 hours ago, Biffen said:

I remember when he was racially abused during his first game -for nearly the entire game- which is something I don't like or agree with at all.

Having said that he appears to be a vexatious mendicant .

?litigant?

This case will say a lot about AFL culture and the head office's preferred method of crisis management.

It will be difficult to say whether he has legitimate grievances as of now as the nature of the allegations haven't really come to light. This is understandable as any attempts at meditation might be prejudiced should this turn into a pizzing match in the media (of it hasn't been already).

However, while you can't tar every footy club with the same brush, there are certain local clubs (and even at the higher levels) who indulge in behaviors that would be considered disgusting by even some of the more boorish amongst us. I have heard stories about clubs in my local area that engage in acts that would make your hair turn white (and would get me banned from here and potentially sued). Also some of the tales I have heard about some individual ex and current AFL players aren't exactly flattering in regards to their after hours activities.

When you think that this is the culture that some of these AFL players came from, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine some of the things Wilkinson is intimating.

If the Suns and, by extension, the AFL'S dirty laundry gets aired here, then it's time for Gil and his Collins Street mates to eat a giant cement mixer of humble pie. From that point on (if it comes of course),  there must be no more massaging of outcomes to fit the AFL's PR and commercial interests.

This has happened on three occasions recently with Essendon (tipping them off and then holding their own hamfisted inquiry that they thought would make everything go away) us (if you want to get conspiritorial and want to know why Bails and CC were charged but not CS, read Bails' book when his lawyer posits why that is the case) and Richmond (trying to replace Victoria Police in investigating Dusty's evening at the Japanese restaurant).

There should be outcomes that should be just first and foremost of their thinking should this Wilkinson thing blow up. Plain and simple.

15 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Not on this particular case. But in this thread you did proffer an opinion on:

- so-called grievance culture amongst victims looking for money

- people 'looking' for offence... "as long as people take offence then we will continue to have these issues". AKA victim blaming

- Eddie somehow being a victim for his Adam Goodes as King Kong insult, despite a "contrite and fullsome" apology which took 3 attempts before becoming vaguely believably. 

- #metoo culture of victims apparently seeking revenge 

So we get the picture.

I see what you are trying to do there.  

1. Not grievance culture looking for money specifically. Some yes but more a culture of people looking for things to complain about and be offended by generally. Comedians complain around the world about how they can't say many things now because people might be offended. It's actually sad. It's the thing about free speech that sometimes people will say things that offend or be untrue. If you believe in free speech you can't pick and choose. Sunlight is often said to to be the best disinfectant for disturbing speech and I happen to believe its better than someone or some committee determining what can and can't be said. In the contest of ideas and thought the best will win out.  

2.  It's not, to use your pithy slogan, 'victim blaming' in the least to say that people will take offence. Your comment is outrageously offensive but you have a right to say it. Someone says something to you then its your choice as to whether you take offence or not. A vegan might be offended by you eating meat. According to you this is victim blaming the vegan. Logic isn't your strong suit I see.

3. Adam Goodes was particularly ungracious and at no point have I tried to say McGuire was a victim. You have made another false and glib assertion. But its fair to ask what more McGuire could have done in the circumstances after his fulsome apology.

4. I think the #metoo outrage has a lot of validity but it's wrong to assert that I was accusing all of the people caught up in it are out for revenge. There is though a disturbing digital lynch mob mentality in some cases and in many cases retribution is being sought before evidence has been produced, tested and settled. It's people with their self-righteous and pious tone like your good self that would rather signal their outstanding virtue and pile on criticism and stifle debate because it makes them feel better about themselves. We get the picture.  

My initial reaction was that the claims don't quite seem plausible: This isn't the usual defensiveness of a white middle-class male, I just don't understand how systematic racial abuse of a player could occur in this day and age. I went to an all-boys school in a regional town and even there, I can't imagine anything like this occurring. These young men grow up idolising athletes from the NBA, NFL and play alongside Indigenous players. How could they possibly still hold such backward ideas? This isn't even taking into account the measures put in place by the AFL educate players.

However, these are strong claims and it's equally hard to believe there isn't at least a kernel of truth to them. Surely by now, there are dozens of former Gold Coast players and support staff without any strong ties to the club who would be able to corroborate such claims. And if not, surely someone honourable enough to give an honest appraisal of the situation. I would suggest Gary Ablett, but that would also suggest his leadership wasn't strong enough to put a stop to the behaviour.

 

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I see what you are trying to do there.  

1. Not grievance culture looking for money specifically. Some yes but more a culture of people looking for things to complain about and be offended by generally. Comedians complain around the world about how they can't say many things now because people might be offended. It's actually sad. It's the thing about free speech that sometimes people will say things that offend or be untrue. If you believe in free speech you can't pick and choose. Sunlight is often said to to be the best disinfectant for disturbing speech and I happen to believe its better than someone or some committee determining what can and can't be said. In the contest of ideas and thought the best will win out.  

2.  It's not, to use your pithy slogan, 'victim blaming' in the least to say that people will take offence. Your comment is outrageously offensive but you have a right to say it. Someone says something to you then its your choice as to whether you take offence or not. A vegan might be offended by you eating meat. According to you this is victim blaming the vegan. Logic isn't your strong suit I see.

3. Adam Goodes was particularly ungracious and at no point have I tried to say McGuire was a victim. You have made another false and glib assertion. But its fair to ask what more McGuire could have done in the circumstances after his fulsome apology.

4. I think the #metoo outrage has a lot of validity but it's wrong to assert that I was accusing all of the people caught up in it are out for revenge. There is though a disturbing digital lynch mob mentality in some cases and in many cases retribution is being sought before evidence has been produced, tested and settled. It's people with their self-righteous and pious tone like your good self that would rather signal their outstanding virtue and pile on criticism and stifle debate because it makes them feel better about themselves. We get the picture.  

Given your opinions on all matters above I find that comment highly ironic.

Further, they are either off topic and not relevant to this thread or you are tarring Wilkinson with the same brush.

But I did like the comparison between a vegan (ie. choice) and a black man, as if they are even similar

We have differing views obviously.

Can this thread please be removed from the Melbourne Demons board and placed under General Discussion?

I can’t see the connection this topic has with talking about our club.

AFL not backing down from their position:

3AW

NOW | AFL boss Gil McLachlan addressing Joel Wilkinson allegations.

"I know ... he was the victim of racism early in his career. Those issues were examined and the issues were dealt with at the time," he said.

"It may play out in court, I don't know."

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I see what you are trying to do there.  

1. Not grievance culture looking for money specifically. Some yes but more a culture of people looking for things to complain about and be offended by generally. Comedians complain around the world about how they can't say many things now because people might be offended. It's actually sad. It's the thing about free speech that sometimes people will say things that offend or be untrue. If you believe in free speech you can't pick and choose. Sunlight is often said to to be the best disinfectant for disturbing speech and I happen to believe its better than someone or some committee determining what can and can't be said. In the contest of ideas and thought the best will win out.  

2.  It's not, to use your pithy slogan, 'victim blaming' in the least to say that people will take offence. Your comment is outrageously offensive but you have a right to say it. Someone says something to you then its your choice as to whether you take offence or not. A vegan might be offended by you eating meat. According to you this is victim blaming the vegan. Logic isn't your strong suit I see.

3. Adam Goodes was particularly ungracious and at no point have I tried to say McGuire was a victim. You have made another false and glib assertion. But its fair to ask what more McGuire could have done in the circumstances after his fulsome apology.

4. I think the #metoo outrage has a lot of validity but it's wrong to assert that I was accusing all of the people caught up in it are out for revenge. There is though a disturbing digital lynch mob mentality in some cases and in many cases retribution is being sought before evidence has been produced, tested and settled. It's people with their self-righteous and pious tone like your good self that would rather signal their outstanding virtue and pile on criticism and stifle debate because it makes them feel better about themselves. We get the picture.  

I don't agree with much of this, but I can see where you're coming from.

However point three is very unfair to Goodes.  McGuire called him a Gorilla on breakfast radio and sniggered like an eight year old.  Then, much like an eight year old, he offered an apology and believed that that should be the end of that.  As I have to explain to my son, an apology does not erase what you have done, and it doesn't mean that the other person has to accept.  You 'offer' an apology.

Goodes had every right to be angry with Eddie and he had every right to suggest that a simple sorry (not immediately of voluntarily offered mind you) would make everything magically alright between them.  The King Kong comment is so cringe-worthy it makes my skin crawl; it was an old-school racist joke, like the ones I heard and even participated in in the schoolyard in the 80s.

 

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I don't agree with much of this, but I can see where you're coming from.

However point three is very unfair to Goodes.  McGuire called him a Gorilla on breakfast radio and sniggered like an eight year old.  Then, much like an eight year old, he offered an apology and believed that that should be the end of that.  As I have to explain to my son, an apology does not erase what you have done, and it doesn't mean that the other person has to accept.  You 'offer' an apology.

Goodes had every right to be angry with Eddie and he had every right to suggest that a simple sorry (not immediately of voluntarily offered mind you) would make everything magically alright between them.  The King Kong comment is so cringe-worthy it makes my skin crawl; it was an old-school racist joke, like the ones I heard and even participated in in the schoolyard in the 80s.

 

I think you will find that this is totally incorrect. My recollection is that they were discussing the opening of King Kong in melbourne and McGuire suggested getting Goodes down for the opening (it was several days after a 13yo girl called Goodes an Ape). Very poor undoubtedly and he deserved a carpeting.

As for a 'forced apology' or as some have suggested 3 delayed and lame attempts this is what happened and what he said:

McGuire immediately issued an on-air apology and later held a media conference where he publically apologised. "I'm happy to stand here in front of everybody, in front of the country, and say we do not stand for racial vilification. I let myself down because I had a slip of the tongue. When I realised what had been said, about 20 seconds later, I went and did an air check... I immediately retracted and apologised... I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, certainly not to racially vilify anyone."

"That's what was on my mind, it was just something that just came out, it was simply a slip of the tongue mistake that I didn't even realise I said at the time. As soon as I realised, I made every effort to rectify the situation. "Once I realised what had happened, I made every step possible to repair the hurt that had been done. I'm happy to face the court of public opinion."

I am no apologist for McGuire but to suggest he was not immediately contrite and apologetic is wrong. I get your point about Goodes not having to accept it and I agree. I just happen to think it made him appear ungracious.

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I think you will find that this is totally incorrect. My recollection is that they were discussing the opening of King Kong in melbourne and McGuire suggested getting Goodes down for the opening (it was several days after a 13yo girl called Goodes an Ape). Very poor undoubtedly and he deserved a carpeting.

As for a 'forced apology' or as some have suggested 3 delayed and lame attempts this is what happened and what he said:

McGuire immediately issued an on-air apology and later held a media conference where he publically apologised. "I'm happy to stand here in front of everybody, in front of the country, and say we do not stand for racial vilification. I let myself down because I had a slip of the tongue. When I realised what had been said, about 20 seconds later, I went and did an air check... I immediately retracted and apologised... I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, certainly not to racially vilify anyone."

"That's what was on my mind, it was just something that just came out, it was simply a slip of the tongue mistake that I didn't even realise I said at the time. As soon as I realised, I made every effort to rectify the situation. "Once I realised what had happened, I made every step possible to repair the hurt that had been done. I'm happy to face the court of public opinion."

I am no apologist for McGuire but to suggest he was not immediately contrite and apologetic is wrong. I get your point about Goodes not having to accept it and I agree. I just happen to think it made him appear ungracious.

That's a matter of interpretation.  Just listened to the recording on youtube and they were discussing a giant gorilla hand holding an actress outside of the Eureka Tower.  Eddie then said they could 'Get Goodsy down for it.'

The apology was not immediate, it came later in the program.  He continued to mumble after the Goodsy comment and was bailed out by Luke Darcy.

But it doesn't matter either way.  Stupid, unnecessary, humourless thing to say and Goodes didn't have to listen to his apology.

 

Joel Wilkinson was subject to racism, but proving it ended his career will be difficult

JON RALPH, Herald Sun

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gold-coast/joel-wilkinson-was-subject-to-racism-but-proving-it-ended-his-career-will-be-difficult/news-story/d2a9f6afef363d1b271b5844cc960810

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

Joel Wilkinson was subject to racism, but proving it ended his career will be difficult

JON RALPH, Herald Sun

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gold-coast/joel-wilkinson-was-subject-to-racism-but-proving-it-ended-his-career-will-be-difficult/news-story/d2a9f6afef363d1b271b5844cc960810

 

It really depends on what Joel's end game is here.

If he really feels his career was ended because he was a problem, then I think he's barking up the wrong tree and is on a hiding to nothing.

If he's using his situation in an altruistic manner to bring a spotlight to the problems of racism in society, then he may manage to achieve what he has set out to do, although I don't think he's gone about it in a terribly clever way.

Either way, it's crap what has definitely happened to him, and even worse if all that he has said is true, and I'm sorry that he feels that way. He needs a bit of a cuddle, and I hope he gets what he needs.

Edited May 11, 20186 yr by Mach5

On 5/9/2018 at 3:16 PM, Return to Glory said:

Honestly SFebey, I'm desperate for someone to abuse me in the workplace. Anything will do; fat honky, middle aged, Melbourne supporter. Anything. You won't even know you've done it until the court summons appears.

You dirty rat.

On 5/9/2018 at 8:19 PM, bandicoot said:

The guy is looking for a quick buck... such a pathetic human being. If you had an issue with a player abusing you then take it up then. Don’t wait 7 years when you are broke and unemployed and then try milk the system. 

FWIW . . . the data tells us that the average time between severe abuse (e.g. sexual abuse) taking place and being reported is approximately 40 years. Severe abuse usually causes shame and guilt - even though the abused is in no way to blame for the abuse. However, deep feelings of shame, for example, debilitate people's lives to the point where they live in fear and experience horrible anxiety and low self-esteem. This often results in, among other things,  an inability to discuss and disclose the abuse - and in some cases ends in suicide. 

Like others, I know only what has been reported of the Wilkinson matter. If it comes to pass that his case is substantiated, I really hope that the full force of the law is bought to bear on the abusers and their supporters.

Edited May 11, 20186 yr by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

23 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

FWIW . . . the data tells us that the average time between severe abuse (e.g. sexual abuse) taking place and being reported is approximately 40 years. Severe abuse usually causes shame and guilt - even though the abused is in no way to blame for the abuse. However, deep feelings of shame, for example, debilitate people's lives to the point where they live in fear and experience horrible anxiety and low self-esteem. This often results in, among other things,  an inability to discuss and disclose the abuse - and in some cases ends in suicide. 

Like others, I know only what has been reported of the Wilkinson matter. If it comes to pass that his case is substantiated, I really hope that the full force of the law is bought to bear on the abusers and their supporters.

are you saying this case involves " severe abuse (e.g. sexual abuse)"? i hadn't heard those claims.