Nothing to do with this situation or supporting Boonie Doon, but I am a
believer that if your in charge of something you should do it your way (to
as much as you have control over) as if it goes wrong you have no one to
blame but your self.

Now applying that thought to Boonie Doon, If they feel the risk they should
sack the guy but they should understand the legal trouble they are getting
themselves into and be prepared to where that for THEIR beliefs!

Of course, my “feelings” would be based on reason and evidence, not just a premonition or a bad dream or ingrained bigotry.

From your responses you seem to be saying that:

1) The Bonny Doon football club has no reasonable basis for its suspicions that there’s an unacceptable risk in hiring a bi trainer. It’s just pure bigotry.

2) However, having formed that (erroneous) view, they are required to sack him because they have a duty of care.

3) While this is discrimination, people who advocate or express this view shouldn’t be criticised.

Is that pretty much it?

“While the risk is higher, it’s still acceptable.” NA

“The risk is higher and unacceptable.” NA

“The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form
the view the risk is unacceptable.” True

“The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view.” False

“If someone feels – rightly or wrongly – that Asians are too likely to
steal, they don’t have to employ them.” False

Now I have answered them according to the words you used. For example the
second last question seems to ask me to comment on the legality of the
actions of the club. I think they’re illegal/discriminatory (but the
law/appropriate authority will decide that). The last question again seems
like it has a legal aspect. If the only reason they aren’t hiring them is
that they’re Asian, then that would be discriminatory/illegal as well.

So how would you answer the questions. And let me add this statement:

“If I was hiring a house cleaner and I got the feeling that there was an
unacceptable risk of them stealing from my house, even if they had years of
good references, I wouldn’t hire them”

Molly
PS. I am assuming your getting these comment replies via your email. Don’t
you love this comment system?

I don’t think you’re helping yourself by saying “lot’s of people have this position, so it must be right”. A hell of a lot more people barrack for Collingwood than Hawthorn – so why don’t you join up? Or become a Hindu, for that matter. See, because it’s stupid to base arguments on popularity.

Forget Kennett and the media, I’m interested in what you personally think about this.

Just mark a True or False next to these statements:

“There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behaviour hiring a bi trainer than a straight one.”

“While the risk is higher, it’s still acceptable.”

“The risk is higher and unacceptable.”

“The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form the view the risk is unacceptable.”

“The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view.”

“If someone feels – rightly or wrongly – that Asians are too likely to steal, they don’t have to employ them.”

Nail your colours to the mast.

Well, that’s a crock. If true, he should condemn the hicks publicly, and the club should be widely criticised and possibly sued for discrimination and unlawful dismissal. Sponsorship should be pulled and any government support or money removed from the club and any sponsors who fail to remove their support.

By your logic, if some racists somewhere reckon that Asians are more likely to steal, then they’re acting on a “duty of care” to stop employing them. That is just wrong.

I note that you are the only person who is going “Nah, nah, that’s not what Jeff really meant!” when everyone else is on the same page.

I note that you have refused to provide a plausible alternative interpretation for Kennett’s remarks.

I also note that you have failed to give any possible “context” that could allow a reasonable person to re-interpret the facts.

Lastly, I see you’ve been spreading yourself around on the gay sites too:

http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/no-apology-from-kenn...

When taken with your earlier defence of Buddy Franklin, it’s clear you’re hero worship of the Hawthorn Football Club has blinded you to common sense.

Thank god you don’t barrack for Collingwood, otherwise you’d be combing the streets of Kew, day and night, looking for that possum and carrying on about whether or not the CIA has spy satellite footage of Didak getting into the car immediately after the crash.

I personally think Hyundai are no more risky Fords or any other car, but if
you see a risk in them and you feel its an unacceptable risk I am not going
to force you to drive it, you have to look after your passengers, you have a
duty of care to them that if you think the risk is too great (even if I
think thats stupid or your slandering illegally Hyundai) to not put them in
that situation because in the unlikely event of something bad happening
(that I just can’t see it happening) your passengers could be seen to say
“Hey you thou ght this was risky but you still drove the thing and still
offered me lifts!”

Yes I know, your not talking about cars, its an example, an analogy and I am
just explaining these points in this analogy. Jeff didn’t comment on the
situation and in fact didn’t sit around (as he could have! Limelight? Come
on! There’s only “Limelight” because Jeff used a bad analogy).

On the context, as I mentioned earlier it appears this wasn’t from a Press
Conference, it wasn’t a writtern statement, so how would the Jurno of
contacted him? I think it safe to think to say it was probably a phone
interview. The jurno appears (a bit like yourself not that they are the
same) to have a barrow to push and was focusing on the issue from the gay
right issue. Jeff sets up early that he doesn’t see it as a gay rights issue
as much as a issue of care. He actually says he disagrees with your point 3)
saying that if you see a risk (rightly or wrongly) with the amount of legal
action people take, you have to act on that risk to protect yourself (you
can look at the articles that I provided, as he says that, and apparently we
are taking everything he says as being true or at least no out of context).
What he says is point 4 and he doesn’t stand back and watch, after being
approached by the trainer, he tries to help, but the club and the trainer
wouldn’t budge (doesn’t say that he thought the trainer was wrong in not
budging by the way). So (if I am right) the Jurno keeps bringing up points
about gays and Jeff says (or tries badly), look its not about gays its about
duty of care. Now I don’t know your feelings about Paedophiles, but rightly
or wrongly most people (I think) don’t have a lot of time and if the trainer
HAD of been (WHICH HE ISN”T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) one, wider society
wouldn’t have an issue with what the club did because the wider society
would see the risk. I agree that it would of been better if he has of said
something like axe murder but on the spot the paedophile analogy came out
and the jurno ran with it.

But if the jurno was going with the Jeff is homophobic, why didn’t he ask
Jeff? I mean I think Jeff has been slandered in this and thats why I have
talked of the issue but its got basically no traction in the wider
community! It was a small issue for a day. It was in the paper 3 times, on
radio a couple of times, but thats it. Jeff is still the head of Beyond Blue
and the Hawks, so it hasn’t harmed him (thank god, because he doesn’t
deserve it).

And yes he did say it, and he stands by it! He stands by the fact that you
have to look after your staff and players and if YOU see a risk, you have to
act!

You ask why Jeff would involve himself as mediator if he holds either view. I think it’s because he a) thought he could help, b) likes playing that role and c) he likes the limelight. No further explanation warranted.

You ask why he would then try to reinstate the trainer even if he may think the risk is elevated. Well, it is perfectly reasonable to say something like “While I think Hyundais are more risky than Fords, I’d still drive a Hydundai because the risk is acceptable to me.” So just because you see someone driving a Hyundai, it doesn’t imply that they believe the risks are equal. It just means both risks are below some threshold. This could well be Kennet’s view of queers and kids.

But, again, you keep talking about “duty of care” and the “gay/risk debate”. What debate? What risk? These concepts are not just free-floating vague notions. You have to say risk of *what* happening. Eg parachute doesn’t open, you crash the hang glider, the curry burns your arse off etc

This is the same problem Kennett is getting into. If he doesn’t clarify what risks he had in mind when he said that then he is a coward and a fool: A coward because he lacks the guts to say what he really thinks, and a fool because he thinks that dropping hints like that will save him from criticism.

Molly, here’s your opportunity to show you are neither: name the exact bad outcome of employing a bisexual footy trainer. Go on. I challenge you. Spell out in a few short simple sentences the behaviours, actions or events that would arise that are so terrible. If you just mumble something about “duty of care” or “think of the children” without specifying them, then you’re no better than Kennett.

Lastly, give us a couple of examples of “context” that could possibly make Kennett’s remarks reasonable and acceptable. Was it the punch line to an elaborate joke? Was he in fact quoting someone else? Was he rehearsing for a new play he’s in? Was he temporarily stunned by a wayward frisbee? Was he holding up a giant “I’m just kidding” sign? What?

I don’t think any such “context” could exist. Therefore, bleating on about the nature of the interview or what else was said is entirely irrelevant. He said it. He doesn’t deny it. There’s only one way you can take it. And that’s wrong and offensive.

Yes I agree, that if Jeff was writing the piece himself, I don’t think you
would see the peadophile analogy. In the fact the one I use is mobiles on a
plane. I don’t think there is any risk and my understanding is that their
isn’t a lot of evidence to say there is a risk but the airlines think there
is and so I respect there right to stop people using a mobile on a plane,
even though I don’t believe there is a risk. So the airline “was trying to
do the right thing”.

Why would Kennett use the (ahem) “analogy” of paedophiles to illustrate this unspecific perceived risk? He could have used, oh I dunno, say sky diving, like I did.

But he didn’t. He mentioned paedophiles. And talked about non-specific “risks” and “liabilities” associated with the trainer, the only relevant characteristic under examination being his bisexuality.

Come on. Get real and stop playing games, splitting hairs and concocting conspiracy theories about selective quoting.

Perhaps the most generous interpretation is that Kennett himself personally accepts the riskiness of bisexuals to be no more or less than the general community but that the bigoted hicks at the rural footy club PERCEIVE there to be an elevated risk. Well, if that’s the case, he should call them on it in public and give those pitchfork-toting rednecks a damn good verbal thrashing. But he hasn’t, has he?

No, I think Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk, but that by dressing it up in legalistic language, being vague, dropping hints (ie happening to just chance upon the randomly selected example of a paedophile, wink wink) and talking to a football audience he could get away with it.

JMTC.

Geez, you’d think a man who’s been to private school, joined the army and worked as Arts Minister would have met a few queer people in his time and learnt to lighten up!

1) His reinstatement mission only came about after the gaffe.
2) You’re incorrect when you assert Kennett was trying to reinstate the trainer whilst making those remarks.
3) He perceives homosexuals to be a risky proposition but, unlike paedophiles, one that is worth taking, on balance.

This last one is a little more nuanced, so I’ll elaborate. Perhaps (in Kennett’s mind) it’s like comparing doing a sky diving tandem jump while on holiday in NZ versus BASE jumping off the Rialto. Both are clearly on the risk spectrum, but one is an acceptable level of risk and one isn’t.

If this is the case, then he’s still wrong and offensive. Being gay or bi does not put you on the same risk spectrum as being a paedophile. I’ve got no reason to think that being queer puts you at any more or less risk of being a kiddie fiddler than being straight. But, you know, I’m prepared to hear evidence against that.

If Kennett has been selectively quoted, I expect he (or, more likely, a trusted supporter) would have pointed this out by now. Your conspiracy theory would have more legs if you found the same newspaper replete with examples of comma-less quotes. I’m pretty sure you won’t find that, but – again – I’m prepared to be proven wrong.

The trailing comma in a quote is a standard part of editing, especially for newspapers. Check any style guides:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...

Secondly, it’s very clear that he Kennett perceives homosexuality to be a risk akin to paedophilia (possibly one at a lower level). Of course, Jeff is entitled to his views. But this is bigoted, wrong and he should be roundly condemned. As he was. I think it’s cost him his chance of becoming Lord Mayor.

I’m no fan of Kennett, but I recall when he was the only politician with a profile prepared to speak up against Pauline Hanson and had some begrudging respect for that. Now, I’m disappointed to find out that he has a 1950s attitude towards sexuality.