The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Homosexuality and public life

Homosexuality and public life

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. ...
  14. 33
  15. 34
  16. 35
  17. All
CJ, I just went and read the article, and it appears to say what Antiseptic says it does.

"The club had initially backed suggestions the newspaper had added words to the column but was left embarrassed when Akermanis conceded it had all been his doing.

The club has not ruled out imposing a fine, suspension or even termination of his contract.

At the very least, he faces sanctioning under the club's strict media policy, written into all of Akermanis' contracts outside the club and detailed clearly to him by Bulldogs' management."

And

"Coach Rodney Eade yesterday stressed Akermanis' form wouldn't have any bearing on any ramifications over his column. ''If he had kicked 10 goals and had 15 Brownlow votes at this stage, whatever sanction or discussion that is going to happen with Jason would be exactly the same,'' Eade told Triple M."

This can only refer to his newspaper comments. The article does mention poor form and is confusing, but Antiseptic appears to be substantially right.

You're both into jostling. I didn't see him say you were afraid of footballers, and you didn't bring it to my attention. And we don't argue about moderation decisions on the forum. Want to complain send me an email with an explanation.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 30 May 2010 11:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Graham, but what club would sack a good player over such a trifling incident? Looks to me like the Bulldogs want to get rid of him, and Akermanis is providing them with a good reason in repeatedly breaching his contract.

I wasn't complaining about your moderation, nor did I think the insult was worth bringing to your attention - as you say, 'jostling'. Nonetheless, it was both untrue and gratuitous, and warranted refutation.

Cheers :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 30 May 2010 11:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY:"surely it is up to the football club who they are comfortable having play for them. If they are uncomfortable with Aker's position, then under your argument, why can't they discipline him?"

They are perfectly within their rights to do so, as is clear. That doesn't make him wrong though, or negate his sense of discomfort. All it does is continue the huge over-reaction that his comments have caused. We've even had Lindsay Tanner, supposedly a busy Federal Minister, writing a newspaper column attacking Akermanis, using the same flawed arguments that the lesser minds here might employ. It's quite worrisome that one of the better minds in the Federal Parliament is so limited or constrained that he is unable to do better than that.

To continue the analogy of the gay club and the bogans who just want to go in for a drink, would any of the high-profile incumbents who might have a media presence be likely to face criticism from the press or their employer for saying they don't want bogans in their club because they felt uncomfortable in their presence?

Vicki Wilson has not been criticised by her employer, the Qld State Govt or the press for suggesting that Akermanis's "malehood may be a bit small (tee hee)", let alone faces dismissal.

It's the double standard that interests me, as always.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 31 May 2010 6:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, the link you provided seems to bear out my contention that this is disruption for its own sake. The EGLSF could only get 30 attendees, including those from specifically lesbian, gay or transsexual sports organisations to a conference specifically about homophobia in sport. That suggests to me the phrase "tempest in a teacup".

the best figures suggest that only 1'5% of the population is gay and I suspect that in sports like football, at any level, the number of gay players is much, much, much less than the population average. The attendance at the event you mentioned tends to support that contention.

I'd go further and suggest that the number of lesbian participants in women's sports is much higher than the number of gay participants in men's sports. Most gay men or boys that I've known are just not interested.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 31 May 2010 6:42:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, that should say 1.5%. Bloody greengrocer's apostrophes.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 31 May 2010 7:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read this somewhere over the weekend.

"Akermanis has it round the wrong way. It is not homosexuals who should refrain from "outing" themselves in the changeroom. It's homophobes"

<chuckle>
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 31 May 2010 1:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. ...
  14. 33
  15. 34
  16. 35
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy