South Melbourne Keystone Cops

[markinUSA]

A victim's statement regarding the incident is obviously one important factor to consider.
However, that is not the sole basis of determining whether a crime can indeed be considered a hate crime. Far from it. In fact, most victims are far too upset to label an act a hate crime, for fear of retaliation.
So, the broader context needs to be examined.
- Was the person brought to the scene of the crime simply because they were disabled? (yes)
- Was the crime committed against nondisabled counterparts? (note here the word counterparts - the players were not his peers, other workers were. No nondisabled workers were victimized). This suggests that the selection of victims was nonrandom. One doesn't need to demonstrate HATE to demonstrate BIAS in the selection of victims. Simply thinking a disabled person is an 'easy target' or is 'vulnerable' have been accepted as sufficient grounds for the bias elements of disability hate crime cases to be satisfied.
- Note the absence of disability equality or disability recognition in the programs of the AFL. Unlike the indigneous round, or the women's round, the AFL has failed to grasp disability as a key element of human rights and social inclusion.
- I may be the only one on here recognizing this as a crime, but that doesn't mean I am alone among disability rights advocates in doing so. This case has been discussed among local, national and international advocates thanks to social media... it's abuse, it's a crime, and it should be dealt with severely.
- The fact that the AFL has a history of paying off victims means that this case is unlikely to reach a proper resolution. That may mean the individual victim stays silent; but what it also means is that there is no effective, collective response to disabled people.
- All the jokes about 'midgets' (to use your hate speech) and other demeaning comments about little people don't rebut my arguments. They make them stronger. They demonstrate that this is a hostile environment towards disabled people. That hostile social/cultural environment is what enables hate crimes to flourish.

[Devilhead]

A victim's statement regarding the incident is obviously one important factor to consider.
However, that is not the sole basis of determining whether a crime can indeed be considered a hate crime. Far from it. In fact, most victims are far too upset to label an act a hate crime, for fear of retaliation.
So, the broader context needs to be examined.
- Was the person brought to the scene of the crime simply because they were disabled? (yes)
- Was the crime committed against nondisabled counterparts? (note here the word counterparts - the players were not his peers, other workers were. No nondisabled workers were victimized). This suggests that the selection of victims was nonrandom. One doesn't need to demonstrate HATE to demonstrate BIAS in the selection of victims. Simply thinking a disabled person is an 'easy target' or is 'vulnerable' have been accepted as sufficient grounds for the bias elements of disability hate crime cases to be satisfied.
- Note the absence of disability equality or disability recognition in the programs of the AFL. Unlike the indigneous round, or the women's round, the AFL has failed to grasp disability as a key element of human rights and social inclusion.
- I may be the only one on here recognizing this as a crime, but that doesn't mean I am alone among disability rights advocates in doing so. This case has been discussed among local, national and international advocates thanks to social media... it's abuse, it's a crime, and it should be dealt with severely.
- The fact that the AFL has a history of paying off victims means that this case is unlikely to reach a proper resolution. That may mean the individual victim stays silent; but what it also means is that there is no effective, collective response to disabled people.
- All the jokes about 'midgets' (to use your hate speech) and other demeaning comments about little people don't rebut my arguments. They make them stronger. They demonstrate that this is a hostile environment towards disabled people. That hostile social/cultural environment is what enables hate crimes to flourish.

Of course the whole thing was planned - the St Kilda Football Club lured the helpless disabled victim to the hotel with the sole intention of lighting him on fire - it all makes sense now!!

[Enrico_Misso]

I'm struggling with what is offensive.
I've learnt in the last few weeks, that despite clear dictionary definitions the following terms are offensive ...

Midget is an offensive description but dwarf isn't?
Prostitute is an offensive description but sex worker isn't?
Oriental is an offensive description but Asian isn't?
Can add those to
Aboriginal is apparently an offensive description but indigenous isn't?
Black is offensive but coloured isn't?

Now someone just has to explain to me - why?
I think some people just look for new ways to be offended.

[1965 Saint]

Thanks for the personal attention; but I didn't really need it.
All I want is for someone to be charged, if they've done the crime, and if it is a disability hate crime... I want them to go to jail. I might be alone on this forum saying that, but I am far from alone in the disability community in thinking that. There's an online campaign about it now.

I'll give you a tip Stay in Toledo and don't bother us. Dick...d

[1965 Saint]

Well thanks everyone for your support.

I am very sad that I am not in Melbourne right now. If I was, I would be at St Kilda Football Club tomorrow, with the Clint Jones run-out top I bought through the Saints auctions, when he was first drafted. I would be burning it in public.

Dick...d!!!!!!

[ShanghaiSaint]

A victim's statement regarding the incident is obviously one important factor to consider.
However, that is not the sole basis of determining whether a crime can indeed be considered a hate crime. Far from it. In fact, most victims are far too upset to label an act a hate crime, for fear of retaliation.
So, the broader context needs to be examined.
- Was the person brought to the scene of the crime simply because they were disabled? (yes)
- Was the crime committed against nondisabled counterparts? (note here the word counterparts - the players were not his peers, other workers were. No nondisabled workers were victimized). This suggests that the selection of victims was nonrandom. One doesn't need to demonstrate HATE to demonstrate BIAS in the selection of victims. Simply thinking a disabled person is an 'easy target' or is 'vulnerable' have been accepted as sufficient grounds for the bias elements of disability hate crime cases to be satisfied.
- Note the absence of disability equality or disability recognition in the programs of the AFL. Unlike the indigneous round, or the women's round, the AFL has failed to grasp disability as a key element of human rights and social inclusion.
- I may be the only one on here recognizing this as a crime, but that doesn't mean I am alone among disability rights advocates in doing so. This case has been discussed among local, national and international advocates thanks to social media... it's abuse, it's a crime, and it should be dealt with severely.
- The fact that the AFL has a history of paying off victims means that this case is unlikely to reach a proper resolution. That may mean the individual victim stays silent; but what it also means is that there is no effective, collective response to disabled people.
- All the jokes about 'midgets' (to use your hate speech) and other demeaning comments about little people don't rebut my arguments. They make them stronger. They demonstrate that this is a hostile environment towards disabled people. That hostile social/cultural environment is what enables hate crimes to flourish.

MarkinUSA you're a flog

[skeptic]

Alright I'll give this a go now. To this point I've been fairly disinterested but this post caught my attention. Let me start off by saying two things. 1 - I support the position that anyone at the club that engages in this sort of this or any other potential act that will bring unwarranted media attention to this club... especially this club with its history is a half-wit. 2 - regulars on the forum know that I have no love lost for CJ. If it was up to me I would have cut him 2 years ago and whilst will stop short of saying I hate him, I sink the boots in wherever I can because I don't rate him much as a player.

A victim's statement regarding the incident is obviously one important factor to consider.
However, that is not the sole basis of determining whether a crime can indeed be considered a hate crime. Far from it. In fact, most victims are far too upset to label an act a hate crime, for fear of retaliation.

So it seems to me that the first thing you're wanting us to do is disregard the victims statement. Potentially because you think the victim is too upset to label it a hate crime. Based on the what I've read RE his i/v, he doesn't. Hypothesis - I believe you want us to disregard it as it does not suit your argument.

So, the broader context needs to be examined.
- Was the person brought to the scene of the crime simply because they were disabled? (yes)

Ummmh no they weren't. Not simply because they were disabled but because they offered a particular service and they got paid for it. Furthermore, they weren't brought to the scene if the crime, they attended on their own accord and I dare say, the victim himself utilises his disability for his own gain as is his right to do.

Hypothesis - you using loose associations and twisting words to suit your argument. It is at this point I began to suspect that you either a) have your own agenda or b) are extremely emotional invested in the issue

- Was the crime committed against nondisabled counterparts? (note here the word counterparts - the players were not his peers, other workers were. No nondisabled workers were victimized). This suggests that the selection of victims was nonrandom. One doesn't need to demonstrate HATE to demonstrate BIAS in the selection of victims. Simply thinking a disabled person is an 'easy target' or is 'vulnerable' have been accepted as sufficient grounds for the bias elements of disability hate crime cases to be satisfied.

How many non disabled workers were there? Unsure of that. I don't understand why the fact that several non-disabled players that were targeted first is disregarded. Given that several players were targeted suggests very much that the target was random. Where is the bias? How is a midget an easier target to set on fire? He's smaller. I imagine Justin Koschitzke was way easier to catch. What am I missing here?

Hypothesis: your argument to this point now makes little sense to me

- Note the absence of disability equality or disability recognition in the programs of the AFL. Unlike the indigneous round, or the women's round, the AFL has failed to grasp disability as a key element of human rights and social inclusion.

Ok. So now it's league hate problem? I also note the lack of recognition for the elderly, people with AIDs, diabetes, the mentally ill are not represented, is there a gay and lesbian round? How about a reconciling convicts, survivors of domestic violence, soldiers returning from war (though we have Anzac round I guess), recovering alcoholics/gamblers... IT'S A GAME. There's only so much social good a business can realistically strive for.

Hypothesis: you're going off on tangents and drawing far reaching conclusions... going to go with emotional here

- I may be the only one on here recognizing this as a crime, but that doesn't mean I am alone among disability rights advocates in doing so. This case has been discussed among local, national and international advocates thanks to social media... it's abuse, it's a crime, and it should be dealt with severely.

Don't think anyone has said it wasn't wrong. Or stupid. Or idiotic. As far as being a crime.. well the victim isn't pursuing it and the police don't seem inclined to press charges but all of that aside... how does the victim being a dwarf make this more of a crime?

- The fact that the AFL has a history of paying off victims means that this case is unlikely to reach a proper resolution. That may mean the individual victim stays silent; but what it also means is that there is no effective, collective response to disabled people.

Am getting a bit over this now. It also means that you can't prove that the victim has been paid off

- All the jokes about 'midgets' (to use your hate speech) and other demeaning comments about little people don't rebut my arguments. They make them stronger. They demonstrate that this is a hostile environment towards disabled people. That hostile social/cultural environment is what enables hate crimes to flourish.

All the midget jokes may well be in poor taste... happy to accept that but this particular issue has not raised anymore jokes than about 1000 other things discussed on here that have gotten as much discussion. U only have to look at the thread titled Essendope to discover a wide range of cutting jokes many of which are fairly insensitive. O don't think that this is something limited to this forum but the internet in general

Sorry MUSA... really don't u/s where your coming from. I can comfortably say that I am disappointed in the players, the club, the culture etc but see absolutely nothing that's any indication of a hate crime. It's actually leaning closer to... what's the term? Positive Discrimination? You seem to think the act is worse because it happened to a midget?

[markinUSA]

Skeptic, you raise a good question. What I am doing is highlighting the fact that there are two victims in hate crimes: the indivdiual who has a particular act done towards them (such as being set alight) and the broader identity community to which they belong (in this case, disabled people) whose right to feel safe is also collectively harmed. Thats the essence of hate crime law: the sense that there is a parallel crime - involving collective victims - as well as the individual victim. So, the argument is that there is a need to address the collective harm which is done by the act as well as the individual harm... instance, there are often community education elements involved in responding, so that some of the biases and stereoytpes which underpin this kind of behavior don't happen again. In this case, there's an obvious need for disability education among AFL players ergarding respect and equality for disabled people. It's the same concept that underpins the respect and recognition rounds for women and indigenous people.

[Life Long Saint]

A victim's statement regarding the incident is obviously one important factor to consider.
However, that is not the sole basis of determining whether a crime can indeed be considered a hate crime. Far from it. In fact, most victims are far too upset to label an act a hate crime, for fear of retaliation.
So, the broader context needs to be examined.
- Was the person brought to the scene of the crime simply because they were disabled? (yes)
- Was the crime committed against nondisabled counterparts? (note here the word counterparts - the players were not his peers, other workers were. No nondisabled workers were victimized). This suggests that the selection of victims was nonrandom. One doesn't need to demonstrate HATE to demonstrate BIAS in the selection of victims. Simply thinking a disabled person is an 'easy target' or is 'vulnerable' have been accepted as sufficient grounds for the bias elements of disability hate crime cases to be satisfied.
- Note the absence of disability equality or disability recognition in the programs of the AFL. Unlike the indigneous round, or the women's round, the AFL has failed to grasp disability as a key element of human rights and social inclusion.
- I may be the only one on here recognizing this as a crime, but that doesn't mean I am alone among disability rights advocates in doing so. This case has been discussed among local, national and international advocates thanks to social media... it's abuse, it's a crime, and it should be dealt with severely.
- The fact that the AFL has a history of paying off victims means that this case is unlikely to reach a proper resolution. That may mean the individual victim stays silent; but what it also means is that there is no effective, collective response to disabled people.
- All the jokes about 'midgets' (to use your hate speech) and other demeaning comments about little people don't rebut my arguments. They make them stronger. They demonstrate that this is a hostile environment towards disabled people. That hostile social/cultural environment is what enables hate crimes to flourish.

That is the biggest steaming pile of excrement I've seen since watching Mark "vitamins" McVeigh's performance after the Weapon interview.
Well done to Skeptic on answering the points. You've saved me the effort.

[Devilhead]

the broader identity community to which they belong (in this case, disabled people)

Dwarfism is a recognized condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act, yet according to Little People of America online - "Opinions vary within the dwarf community about whether or not this term (disabled) applies to us"

Why is it that a large proportion of dwarfs don't believe that they are disabled??

I mean what constitutes being disabled???? - people with autoimmune diseases, cancer patients, schizophrenics, sciatica sufferers, elderly with bad eyesight, kids with broken arms, footballers with chronic hamstrings ......

All of these unfortunate people are disabled in someway

Would think that there is a very good chance that 85% of the worlds population is currently disabled in some way or another.

[markinUSA]

The reason some people don't want to claim "disability", as a personal identity, is because of the prejudiced attitudes which permeate through society about it... many of the same biases are on display here. That does not mean that they are not entitled to legal protections under disability discrimination laws. They are. It means that people wrestle with an identity that is highly stigmatized. But collectively, and politically, these conditions are included in the term "people with disabilities".

But we are getting somewhere because we are bringing to the surface the loathing, contempt, disgust, and shame many of you have towards disabled people... very few of you choose inclusive, non-discriminatory language. It reflects badly on you, and such attitudes are what simmers beneath the surface and allow disability discrimination to be a daily occurrence in most disabled people's lives. And then, fairly regularly, the discrimination bursts into violence and abuse... we've seen it publicly directed at Blake Johnson by Clint Jones, but he's just the latest of many.

[Moorabbin Man]

Dr Spaceman

Facts are known now.... It happened

What is your view.... Is it still ok?!

Some of the stuff written on this thread is offensive, and embarrassing for those who wrote it IMO

I just figured out why going to the footy is an unpleasant experience.... When supporting football, people tend to lose their morals (and brains) and are just plain offensive... Seems the same goes for

Being a one eyed loyal passionate supporter, allows you to say anything you want, without having to justifying further than the fact your just supporting your team... It pathetic and the cultural norm

I have gotta say it, I think it is hilarious. It's The Dwarf that publicly humiliated himself by going to the Press (seeking publicity) and I thank him for providing some great merriment yesterday. His publicity stunt will work, he'll get many bookings over the next few weeks and you can be sure that there will be many further attempts to light him up.

[joffaboy]

The reason some people don't want to claim "disability", as a personal identity, is because of the prejudiced attitudes which permeate through society about it... many of the same biases are on display here.

Sounds like self loathing projection.

You should look into your heart and see why you are so abusive towards others on this subject. There is no way to reason with someone who is such a one eyete zealot.

However you should study your obvious guilt you carry and they you try to ally by labelling and judging others.

Please, let this go. It is embarrasing for you.

there is no crime, there is no general "loathing" of the disabled (well not in our country, maybe where you live), no hate crime.

All there is is hysterics and hyperbole.

Mate, just study your own and very claear deficiencies before abusing other, more clear headed and less emotional people.

[Dis Believer]

The reason some people don't want to claim "disability", as a personal identity, is because of the prejudiced attitudes which permeate through society about it... many of the same biases are on display here. That does not mean that they are not entitled to legal protections under disability discrimination laws. They are. It means that people wrestle with an identity that is highly stigmatized. But collectively, and politically, these conditions are included in the term "people with disabilities".

But we are getting somewhere because we are bringing to the surface the loathing, contempt, disgust, and shame many of you have towards disabled people... very few of you choose inclusive, non-discriminatory language. It reflects badly on you, and such attitudes are what simmers beneath the surface and allow disability discrimination to be a daily occurrence in most disabled people's lives. And then, fairly regularly, the discrimination bursts into violence and abuse... we've seen it publicly directed at Blake Johnson by Clint Jones, but he's just the latest of many.

You are so full of s*** I am surprised your head hasn't exploded. Once again, you seek to force "YOUR ACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE" on people, and when they don't conform, you use that as proof of their

loathing, contempt, disgust, and shame many of you have towards disabled people

. What crap.
I was in a room of 300 people a week ago, at an annual fundraiser that has been going for 8 years to support a little girl that has Cerebral Palsy. Everyone in that room gave her a standing ovation when she walked a lap of the room on crutches. Many of them were so moved that they were reduced to tears. She couldn't have done that a year ago. She is disabled. No-one hates fears or loathes her or holds her in contempt. They admire her determination to overcome her personal hurdles, they are inspired by the advances she is making and her capacity to work so hard.

I believe this is in indicative of the average person, the room was full of ordinary people. Stop looking for hatrd where it doesn't exist, there's enough real hatred in the world already.

And then, fairly regularly, the discrimination bursts into violence and abuse... we've seen it publicly directed at Blake Johnson by Clint Jones, but he's just the latest of many.

Bollocks - He was included in the stupid drunken antics, the players were pulling he same stupid stunt on each other. They didn't discriminate against him, and they weren't violent towards him. If anything, they were more inclusive than they should have been. And as for your bulls*** question of whether any other co-workers were set alight, my understanding is that his only co-worker is another dwarf !!

[#gosaintas]

I guess that's what happens when you treat yourself with no self respect or dignity...everybody else will reciprocate. Behave like a freak and you will be treated like a freak. Silly thing for Clint to do but perfectly understandable in that environment.

[Kickit]

Was it the South Melbourne Cops that investigated the "Collingwood after GF party "
The one where they decided to charge the VFL player who performed a sex act in the alley, but it was all too hard to work out what might have gone on inside the house where the AFL players were.?

[Kickit]

Forget the Humiliated Dwarf ( who hires himself out for entertainment - obviously a Shakespeare recital or poetry or such ).

I've just heard that there are brothels full of poor women who are treated as sex objects.