![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
bergholt wrote:was that discriminatory against rapists?The Fireman wrote:Was Malthouse fined for calling Milne "a rapist"?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
bergholt wrote:was that discriminatory against rapists?The Fireman wrote:Was Malthouse fined for calling Milne "a rapist"?
Very good post JB.joffaboy wrote:Haven't bothered reading the first 7 pages fully but I gather almost everyone agrees this is a complete overreaction and a load of absolute BS.
A couple of issues need to be raised
1) When did the umpire become the moral arbiter of what can and can't be said on the field, when it is NOT vilification?
2) Buckley is correct - it is NOT vilification as the player was not offended or complained.
There is a bigger issue here. it is the fact that because the umpires are a law unto themselves that they now think they are a mouthpiece for society. Margetts had no right to cast a moral judgement on two other individuals. Because the umpires are untouchable, they think they can intervene in anything they like.
Margetts was the umpire who made the absolutelt terrible mistake that decided the outcome of the match on Friday. From all reports he was instrumental in the poor last quarter decision making.
But it has been reported that he will not be dropped from unpiring this weekend.
it seems obvious that to take the heat off this incredibly arrogant decision the AFL have trumped up this charge so the attention of the ADHD media and supporters will be diverted from their arrogant, and incompetent decision.
Margetts should be dropped, and should be held to account for once more sanatising the game.
you realise that makes no sense, right?howlinwolf wrote:I don't care what they call their union but it isn't marriage.
The Oxford Dictionary defines marriage as between man and woman. Next we'll be calling an apple an orange due to PC.
So not only do we now have AFL umpires being moral arbiters, but we also have the Oxford dictionarybergholt wrote:you realise that makes no sense, right?howlinwolf wrote:I don't care what they call their union but it isn't marriage.
The Oxford Dictionary defines marriage as between man and woman. Next we'll be calling an apple an orange due to PC.
So what? It was directed at someone who isn't a homosexual, who wasn't offended, and didn't want to make a complaint.felix wrote:If your calling some one a friggin homo your using it as in insult and what your saying is there is something wrong with being a homo . If you think there is something wrong with being a homo your homophobic . Being homophobic in the work place is discrimination.
That's actually a really lovely anecdote. Makes issues like this one seem so much more interesting and bearable. Maybe someone’s got other stories from the toilets at Tramp Nightclub?stevie wrote:My wife's brother is gay and I've met a few of his gay friends.
A few years, I was talking to this guy who followed the footy. This was during the Ben Cousins stuff and all the gay guys loved him!
Anyway, this guy got a text from his gay mate in Melbourne. He looked at his phone and started laughing. The text said, 'guess who I slept with last night - KOUTA'!
I thought that was hilarious! Also, they all said that the swimmer Thorpe was gay but they werent sure why he hadn't come out
Kim can also be a boy's name. Just sayinCairnsman wrote: Where's our next Kim Dutthie!
Hermaphrodite?Dr Spaceman wrote:Kim can also be a boy's name. Just sayinCairnsman wrote: Where's our next Kim Dutthie!
Dr Spaceman wrote:I’ve had a chance to sleep on this and agree with all of those who are saying the AFL has gone mad.
The headlines scream “Milne’s homophobic rant” but really it’s the AFL (and the complaining ump) who are being homophobic.
If Milney had’ve used the “F” word then fair enough. But he didn’t.
Now I don’t know whether Harry is gay or not but that’s not relevant here. As far as I know it’s offensive to call an African American the “N” word but it’s not offensive to refer to them as African Americans. And I don’t think it’s offensive to refer to a non African American as an African American.
If you’re gay surely it’s not offensive to be called a “Homo”. And if you’re not gay then it’s simply a silly comment aimed at putting you off your game.
Answer this: If a player had “come out” and you then called him a “Hetero” would the AFL also step in? Of course they wouldn't.
It’s the AFL that has put this on the front page and who have made “Homo” a terrible slur. Something so horrific that they have had to drag tank boy away from his duties to head up some huge enquiry. They are the ones who, by their actions, are saying that “Homo” is a horrible thing. They are, IMO, being Homophobic.
This fuss is amazing when you think of the Government funded ABC and their commissioning of various works by Chris Lilley, most of which rely on characters playfully ribbing their mates with terms such as “Homo”. Obviously no one in Canberra has seen fit to haul the ABC over the coals for this, but then again we’re talking about a level of power one rung below the AFL.
Lets’s hope no one at the AFL, including umpire Margetts, ever accidentally flicks across to re-runs of Summer Heights High or the Angry Boys or they may have a total breakdown.
Suppose it's back to "chewy on ya boot".wasaintsfan wrote:wow cant even sledge anymore because some one might get upset... THATS THE POINT TO PUT SOME ONE OFF... cant swear, cant talk about family, can call some one a homo? dont even try meantion a racial joke.... what are they meant to say? you might miss but you might get the goal? so they dont hurt their feelings.. but then that might still be to offensive as there is the possibility they might miss the goal
Makes sense to me... he's an idiot.bergholt wrote:you realise that makes no sense, right?howlinwolf wrote:I don't care what they call their union but it isn't marriage.
The Oxford Dictionary defines marriage as between man and woman. Next we'll be calling an apple an orange due to PC.
+1 gringo.gringo wrote: The problem is that Chris Lilley is the representation of the true Australia. If you hear people speak in the real world it's more Chris Lilley than Adrian Anderson. The problem with going too far with the PC stuff is when people go "hang on this is stupid" and you actually get people thinking this is all pretending and I'm not a bad person. They are getting a backlash now and undoing a lot of the good things they have done. The AFL publicised the issue as a way of looking like they are being proactive and inclusive but have probably done more damage than good.
I'm a big lefty and have a strong belief in allowing human rights for all but sometimes the idiots in power don't get it. It show not reality and as such they have probably burnt heaps. People are sympathetic in general to minorities in Australia but like when some Imam comes out demanding Sharia law in Australia, some thing just make the masses recoil. Poorly thought out grandstanding.
markp wrote:Can they call someone a 'shiella', or 'mental', or 'short-arse', or 'baldy'?... all are technically vilification.
You cheeky bugger.... ooops!... $12kjoffaboy wrote:markp wrote:Can they call someone a 'shiella', or 'mental', or 'short-arse', or 'baldy'?... all are technically vilification.
Hey I'm a short-arsed, baldy, mental shiela, you owe me (lets see,,,1,2,3,4, insults that Margetts would be scarlett with embarrassment about)
$12,000.
Thats right cough up you Homo.
Aw s.hit, make it $9,000 then
gringo wrote:"........but we (Collingwood FC) needed something to distract the public from our player turning up to training under the influence of unknown substances and we hate Milne so we chucked it out there."saintbrat wrote:http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspxCollingwood coach Nathan Buckley said O'Brien wasn't affected by the remark by Milne.
"Harry straight after the game wanted nothing to do with it (making any complaint)," Buckley told radio station 3AW on Thursday night.
"He wasn't offended. He wasn't affected by it.
"Our understanding is it's not vilification unless the person receiving the comments is concerned by it.
"I think we're all concerned by the slur itself and the fact it gets out in the open forum because people are going to be offended when a comment like that gets out in the open forum.
"But for Harry's part it didn't affect him on the night."