10 hours ago, 48 Year Now said:

I am not saying the language used is acceptable. Where will it all end , we dont know but we know there wasnt a victim and we are yet to know the effect on the perpetrator.

There was a victim; indeed many. All those who have the same characteristic and are told that their characteristic is a matter of shame and a device for abuse and/or humour. Then add those who respect or love the collateral damage or simply think that they deserve a fair go.

13 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Rankine didn’t start high school until 2012.

No excuse. None.

I’ve never seen so many falling over themselves to excuse AN OPPOSITION PLAYER WHO VERBALLY ABUSED SOMEONE AT WORK as I have this week on here.

Honestly, it’s starting to get weird. He did a really dumb thing, that is inexcusable. He has nothing to do with our club, so Red and Blue glasses aren’t even an excuse.

Let’s stop trying to excuse the person in the wrong shall we.

I was really just trying to make a distinction between an act of deliberate and targeted abuse and someone who is wildly ignorant of the damage of such language. But perhaps that point didn't need to be made.

Footballers are not typically well educated; they mix with a very narrow section of society and are basically allowed to live out a protracted adolescence. It’s ironic their actions and words are of such greater consequence - but I understand you are much less aggrieved by the incident itself than the attempts to downplay it.

Edited Monday at 18:272 days by wisedog

10 hours ago, 710 Asbury St said:

If you read what I wrote, I’m not saying people I personally knew were bullied because they identified as LGBTIQ+. I said that people who do identify that way were afraid of the reaction they’d get if they came out. However, you may never have witnessed it, nor did I at school but believe me it happened. There are quite a few peer reviewed research articles in regard to this. Just because you didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Also, people who identify as LGBTIQ+ also faced criminal penalties for their sexual preference. South Australia was the first to decriminalise in the late 70’s with Tassie not doing so until 1997. This sends a message.

Queensland only abolished gay panic laws in 2017.

South Australia only abolished their gay panic laws in 2020.

Some people on this website would call this ‘woke’.

12 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The AFL already protects some players from missing finals eg: HWSNBN Mark 11, Cripps, Cotchin and back a little while Barry Hall. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

We don't need any more distortion of the MRO/Tribunal 'magic herbs and spices' decisions.

I just feel that much of the reason this latest episode has blown up as it has, is due to the consternation around a star player missing finals.

If something like this was in place, Rankine would cop his 5 weeks, as he otherwise would have. Then if Adelaide play in a Premiership, and he plays 3-4 finals, he has to sit out 9-12 games in the next home and away season. That decision becomes Adelaide’s to make, and the AFL won’t have to grasp for reasons to reduce the penalty on the cusp of a finals series. (As I wrote in my earlier post, it would only be an option for players contracted for the following season.)

Just an idea, and I do acknowledge the distinct possibility it’s not a particularly good one at that.

Edited Monday at 16:412 days by wisedog

Earlier in this thread someone posted about iny miny mini mo. That struck a chord with me because I used to say that in primary school to see who was out in tiggy or whatever game we were playing. I had no idea of the meaning at the time. Thank goodness we have cultural change since those days.

On the football field anything went but the classic in my era was your mother wears army boots. There were also lots of homophobic slurs that me and my mates and opposition players said.

Not one of my mates or I would say those things now because luckily it is no longer socially acceptable and we wouldn't want to because we understand the hurt it can cause.

When my daughter was getting bullied at school I would tell her sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you. I thought I was trying to make her more resiliant but maybe that is an outdated approach.

CTE is a massive issue is sport and we have all whinessed what happened to Danny Frawley. Now his precious daughter Danielle is married to Angus who has suffered a number of head knocks.

I feel like physical action on the field is more severe than anything said on the field and the MRO is disproportionate in some of their deliberations. Having said that if a homophobic slur is directed at a homosexual player or something racist said to an indigenous player throw the book at them

7 hours ago, BoBo said:

Queensland only abolished gay panic laws in 2017.

South Australia only abolished their gay panic laws in 2020.

Some people on this website would call this ‘woke’.

Thank you. I hadn’t looked that far into it, just into the decriminalisation. It’s actually surprising that SA was the first to decriminalise and the last to abolish gay panic as a defense.

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

your mother wears army boots.

I forgot about this!

What a weird, and unbelievably common, thing to say. I wonder how it became such a part of the language of footy?

Thanks for the memories.

Im done. See you next year if im still allowed to have an opinion here.

2 hours ago, 710 Asbury St said:

Thank you. I hadn’t looked that far into it, just into the decriminalisation. It’s actually surprising that SA was the first to decriminalise and the last to abolish gay panic as a defense.

For the sake of accuracy there was never a gay panic defence, you are refering to the Law of Provocation.

10 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Im done. See you next year if im still allowed to have an opinion here.

For the sake of accuracy there was never a gay panic defence, you are refering to the Law of Provocation.

I don't tend to get involved in these sort of back and forth, I often think that there is little point as the person on the other end is unlikely to give credence to a response, nor will they change their mind. But I digress slightly.

While from a semantical standpoint while you're correct that there wasn't a 'gay panic defence', that is actually a misnomer and incredibly ill-guided. The entrenchment of a homosexual advancement defence (as it is known in Australian jurisprudence) via case-law, enabled this defence to have the full force of the law.

In fact, in the case of Queensland, this was enshrined by virtue of s. 304 of the Criminal Code Act (note: prior to the abolishment, it did not use gender neutral language which is now in the section "unwanted sexual advance" and "by the person").

The first recorded case of the homosexual advance defence was employed by the defendant in R v Murley (1992), a Supreme Court case in Victoria, with the case law then becoming entrenched in NSW pursuant to a number of cases occurring between 1992 - 1995, with the most influential being the seminal case of R v Green. In Green, the accused reacted to 'gentle' touching by the Victim, who was then punched aproximately 35 times, had his head slammed into a wall, and was stabbed around ten times with a pair of scissors. Despite the NSW Court of Appeal determining that a romantic and amorous could not satisfy the traditional test for provocation, the High Court upheld the appellants appeal finding that a non-violent sexual advance could indeed satisfy the test.

In such a fashion, and with nuance, cases like Murley and Green paved the way for homosexual advance defences to be both legitimised and entrenched in the law, subject to statutory and parliamentary intervention. What is then implicit within that, is that jurisprudence remains complicit in the legal argument that the fatal use of force against a gay male is legally excusable, in so far as that the action is not in fact murder, but akin to manslaughter (at worst), and is somehow less reprehensible than other forms of interpersonal violence. From a psycho-social perspective, at least in the Australian context, the theory around this defence was arguably the notion that lethal force can be employed against another male, as it is a natural reaction from a heterosexual male which would arise and cause loss of control in the heterosexual male, when hetero honour was threatened by a homosexual male. This was successful as a partial defence in Queensland as recently as 2009 and 2011. By way of a comment, in the Victorian jurisdiction this has been tested - and dispelled in R v Johnstone [2011].

I'd also refute your comment (for the sake of accuracy, to use your words), that there never was a homosexual advance defence - and that it was the law of provocation. That is plainly incorrect, an attempt to strawman the argument, and a poor attempt at playing semantics. Substantively it is incorrect. The (partial) or complete defence was based in the laws of provocation, but that is not akin to saying that it is the law of provocation.

If anyone has actually stuck with me through this, it's appreciated. It is definitely a bit of TLDR'er, but if we're going to discuss these societal issues - we need to be nuanced and discuss them with accuracy, IMO.

**For context, gendered language was heavily used in case law prior to the abolition of provocation, so it was essentially homosexually explicit.

53 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Im done. See you next year if im still allowed to have an opinion here.

For the sake of accuracy there was never a gay panic defence, you are refering to the Law of Provocation.

Also, I'm not overly offended that you do have an opinion - I don't mind genuine debate at all; but if you're going to try and strawman someone, at least be accurate.

I said there has never beena defence called gay panic law? True or false?

1 minute ago, 48 Year Now said:

I said there has never beena defence called gay panic law? True or false?

Stunning retort.

If you want to play semantics, you'll need to be more specific - but going to the intention (as intention is very important) with regards to legal matters, and affording your own words their ordinary, natural and every day meaning, then yes there has been; and had you substantively and intellectually read my reply you would know and understand that to be the answer.

2 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

I forgot about this!

What a weird, and unbelievably common, thing to say. I wonder how it became such a part of the language of footy?

Thanks for the memories.

I was once directed with "your father watches daytime television", which really hurt - once I worked out the nuance in it....

4 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Stunning retort.

If you want to play semantics, you'll need to be more specific - but going to the intention (as intention is very important) with regards to legal matters, and affording your own words their ordinary, natural and every day meaning, then yes there has been; and had you substantively and intellectually read my reply you would know and understand that to be the answer.

good luck with your projects.

6 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

good luck with your projects.

Would've thought someone so focused on strawmanning by syntax and grammar would do better than that, but each to their own.

Cheers, big man!

56 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I was once directed with "your father watches daytime television", which really hurt - once I worked out the nuance in it....

Once I saw written on a Belfast bathroom wall..

‘Ya Dad sells Avon’

17 hours ago, Nietaphart said:

Yet, you made everyone who is part of the Rainbow community on here a victim by your views.

👏👏👏

Try being a straight, law abiding white anglo msn who has worked hard all his life, raised children, done voluntary work for the most vunerable in tbe community . how dare you. You want a separate community , go for it.

On 25/08/2025 at 13:03, 48 Year Now said:

Im done. See you next year if im still allowed to have an opinion here.

Derogatory comment and one i take offence to. Talk about true colours.

3 hours ago, 48 Year Now said:

Im done. See you next year if im still allowed to have an opinion here.

For the sake of accuracy there was never a gay panic defence, you are refering to the Law of Provocation.

So, are you done? Two promises… neither of them kept.

Also, it’s amusing that you say you’re done then immediately fire off another salvo.

12 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

So, are you done? Two promises… neither of them kept.

Also, it’s amusing that you say you’re done then immediately fire off another salvo.

please define immediately

7 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

please define immediately

When a self-confessed white, heterosexual man squeals that he's the victim in society these days, I immediately laugh.

What's going on? It's not perfect but if people can just smile and nod whenever their sensibilities are threatened the rest of us are none the wiser. Really if they can hold it in when a store owner is female or two men are holding hands or a 'foreign' family walk past it's better for everyone. Why is it so hard to not use a slur? I really can't see what the argument would be. Of course I can feel sorry that Rankine's stupidity and / or hatred will cause him so much grief but that's on him.

Howdo we even know the Collingwood player isn't actually gay? He has every right to be a professional footballer and every right to pretend he's not gay (as sad as that is in so many ways). As for there being no victim it can also be that people in the crowd hear the slur as well as other players. I doubt many are that offended by just one slur but it accumulates and in time gays have internalised that they're worthless or inferior and others by then hate gays so much that they're aggressive towards them. Please, can't we just stamp this out?

BTW there's been around 11000 players. Apparently they're all straight and mainly Anglo-Saxon. I somewhat doubt we're the vulnerable ones.

49 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Try being a straight, law abiding white anglo msn who has worked hard all his life, raised children, done voluntary work for the most vunerable in tbe community . how dare you. You want a separate community , go for it.

I think you need to work some more intersectionality into your post.

Christian? Tax payer?

Confused on MSN though, I thought that was decommissioned in 2014?

51 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

Try being a straight, law abiding white anglo msn who has worked hard all his life, raised children, done voluntary work for the most vunerable in tbe community . how dare you. You want a separate community , go for it.

Yep, privilege is a hard burden 🥴

Looks like there is an opportunity for a 'straight, law abiding [hard-working] white anglo m[e]n' support group/crowdfund?