One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 27, 2015, 03:27:47 AM
-
Richmond are investigating claims defender Bachar Houli was racially vilified by being labelled a ‘terrorist’ in Friday night’s loss to Melbourne
Michael Warner
Herald-Sun
April 27, 2015
RICHMOND is investigating an allegation defender Bachar Houli was racially vilified by a prominent media figure at the MCG on Friday night.
A comment during the match, won by Melbourne, was heard by a senior Richmond staff member. The allegation is that Houli, a Muslim, was called a “terrorist”.
The abuse allegation centres on Richmond’s official match function during the first quarter of the game. The person under investigation was sitting in seats outside the Olympic Room, where the function was based.
Richmond last night confirmed its probe.
“We are investigating an allegation of racial abuse directed at Bachar Houli during Friday night’s game,” Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale said.
“The incident was brought to my attention by a member of our executive team.”
The AFL on Sunday night said it was aware of the allegation under investigation.
Houli became the first Muslim to play the game at the highest level after he was taken by Essendon in the 2006 draft.
Houli, who turns 27 next month, has been a regular for the Tigers since joining Richmond from the Bombers before the 2011 season.
He has played 118 games and has been a strong voice for racial and religious understanding, working for the AFL as a multicultural ambassador.
The alleged abuse is the second such incident in as many weeks at the MCG.
Western Bulldogs midfielder Lin Jong accepted the apology of a Richmond fan after an incident during the Round 2 match between the Dogs and Richmond.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-are-investigating-claims-defender-bachar-houli-was-racially-vilified-by-being-labelled-a-terrorist-in-friday-nights-loss-to-melbourne/story-fndv8t7m-1227322265800
-
Any idea who this is?
I wonder if it is the king of the jungle who hosts the show on Thursday night?
Wouldnt be surprised.
-
Yeah its definetly not nice to be using slurs as such. And I don't believe it's acceptable.
There should be an apology to said player by offender.
I do become annoyed though when they mention Bachar is a muslim and was racially vilified, so when did Ideaology become a race? ::)
-
Really things like this are happening at games week by week in the afl to common utter disgrace.
-
Really things like this are happening at games week by week in the afl to common utter disgrace.
Been happening for 100 yrs week by week.
Just that now everything gets reported and it seems more common.
-
Really things like this are happening at games week by week in the afl to common utter disgrace.
Been happening for 100 yrs week by week.
Just that now everything gets reported and it seems more common.
Well it would be nice to see the person apologise. And... it's up to Bachar whether he accepts it or not which is fair enough
-
Just a reminder no guessing as to who it is thereby naming names until it is published in the main stream media or if in fact it took actually place
Let the investigation runs its course
-
Ch 7 news just now says the media figure was John Burns from 3aw. Burns on 3aw said he can't recall saying anything.
-
Radio show host John Burns cannot recall comments relating to Bachar Houli vilification claims
Jesse Hogan
The Age
April 27, 2015 - 4:18PM
The co-host of Melbourne's most popular radio show, John Burns, says he does not recall labelling Richmond footballer Bachar Houli a terrorist at the MCG at the weekend - but has apologised if he did, in fact, do so.
Burns was asked on his 3AW radio show on Monday morning if he was the "prominent media figure" referred to in the Herald Sun report about the alleged incident. He replied: "No, it wasn't me . . . certainly not."
By the afternoon, however, Burns confirmed he had been the subject of a allegation from a senior Richmond staff member that Burns had called Houli, a devout Muslim with a prominent beard, a terrorist. The staff member was sitting in front of Burns on level two of the MCG outside the Olympic Room, in which both were attending a function run by the Tigers on Friday night.
"We were at a football match, we were in the grandstand, we'd had a very pleasant evening . . . and a conversation was taking place between me and a person that I happened to be with, catching up with stuff we were talking about prior to the game . . . and a person in front of me turned around and said 'What did you say?'," Burns told 3AW, which is part-owned by Fairfax Media, the owner of this website.
"I wasn't aware of having said anything, really, and I don't recall what I said, but he alleged I made a comment that was offensive. I don't recall that comment."
Burns confirmed he had been drinking before the incident but insisted he was "certainly not" drunk.
"It was a social event. There was a dinner beforehand. I don't think I was unduly affected by liquor at all. I was there to enjoy the game," he said.
Burns said he was not "barracking or yelling out or anything like that" at the time of the incident and was "quite calm". He said he had subsequently spoken to his conversation partner from Friday night and declared "that person . . . has said he did not hear me say it".
Asked about a scenario in which he had, in fact, called Houli a terrorist, Burns said "absolutely" that would have been inappropriate, and he would convey those sentiments to Houli and the Tigers.
"I would apologise profusely to both of them and tell them I'd be absolutely mortified if I said something like that. It's, in my view, totally out of character and it's not something that I'd normally say at the football," he said.
"I cannot recall saying anything that I intended to be offensive to anybody on the side of [the fence at] the game."
Burns said he had spoke to Houli at previous football functions and considered him to be "just a delightful young man".
Richmond investigated the incident. The club said they acknowledged Burns' statement and accepted his apology, and therefore considered the matter closed. They reiterated their full support for the staff member who raised the issue and reiterated that they accept "his version of events".
Burns disagreed that the latter suggested Richmond did not believe Burns' account of the incident.
"They're not mutually exclusive, those statements," he said.
"I don't remember . . . having made such a comment. He said that I did; what he heard I don't know. I don't remember what the comment was, I don't remember making it.
"On the basis that he says I did, I can't deny what he heard, but if I said something that was offensive that was mortifying."
While the Tigers said they considered the matter closed Burns said he had no qualms with the AFL integrity unit continuing its investigation, believing it was compelled to do so.
"I've apologised for anything I might've done that's offended anybody, but I do not recall anything at all that I intended to be offensive," he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/radio-show-host-john-burns-cannot-recall-comments-relating-to-bachar-houli-vilification-claims-20150427-1mudj6.html
-
Ch 7 news just now says the media figure was John Burns from 3aw. Burns on 3aw said he can't recall saying anything.
of course he couldn't, was that the lawyers advice ::)
-
LMAO
Stiff poo
-
I think he said that he used to be a bomber and someone thought that meant terrorist! :snidegrin
-
Ah, the AFL industry, will nationally shame a 14 year old girl, will ban some bogan in Bay 13 for racist abuse.
But if a corporate or coterie member does it, it's brushed under the MCC carpet.
I wonder which senior Richmond executive was 'hearing things'?
I think he said that he used to be a bomber and someone thought that meant terrorist! :snidegrin
:lol
-
LMAO
Stiff poo
Some of us are quite offended ::)
-
Never heard of him
-
Ah, the AFL industry, will nationally shame a 14 year old girl, will ban some bogan in Bay 13 for racist abuse.
But if a corporate or coterie member does it, it's brushed under the MCC carpet.
I wonder which senior Richmond executive was 'hearing things'?
I think he said that he used to be a bomber and someone thought that meant terrorist! :snidegrin
:lol
x2
-
Ah, the AFL industry, will nationally shame a 14 year old girl, will ban some bogan in Bay 13 for racist abuse.
But if a corporate or coterie member does it, it's brushed under the MCC carpet.
I wonder which senior Richmond executive was 'hearing things'?
I think he said that he used to be a bomber and someone thought that meant terrorist! :snidegrin
:lol
x2
X3 ;D
-
Houli saddened by alleged 'terrorist' slur from radio host
AAP
April 27, 2015 9:55 PM
RICHMOND’S Bachar Houli has expressed his sadness at being caught up in a vilification controversy.
Melbourne radio announcer John Burns issued an apology on Monday after it was alleged he had referred to Houli, a devout Muslim, as a "terrorist" during the Tigers' loss to Melbourne on Friday night.
Burns said he didn't remember if he had used that word in a conversation with a friend, but Richmond backed the version of events as recounted by a club official who overhead the exchange and lodged a complaint.
"It's just sad to hear it especially in this day and age with the way that we celebrate diversity and celebrate all different cultures," Houli told FoxFooty.
"It's something that we shouldn't accept within our society. We've come a long way and it is definitely a minority - it's not the majority of Australians.
"We are moving forward, but it's just sad to see it pop up every now and then."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-27/richmonds-bachar-houli-allegedly-villified-as-terrorist
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RADIO host Steve Price has backed John Burns, saying he did not hear him call Richmond star Bachar Houli a “terrorist”.
On The Project tonight Price said: “I was there and sitting with John Burns. I didn’t hear that comment at all. So I’m not doubting that the Richmond person says he heard it but I didn’t hear it.”
But if he said it, Price added that “he should apologise to everybody”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-are-investigating-claims-defender-bachar-houli-was-racially-vilified-by-being-labelled-a-terrorist-in-friday-nights-loss-to-melbourne/story-fni5f9jb-1227322265800
-
Why is it sad?
What IS sad is how poo a footballer he is.
-
It's sad this story made it to the papers. It's sad a richmond official didn't give the bloke the benefit of the doubt but it's criminal he has more focus on this vague insult than the clear bullpoo that was being served up on the ground.
-
LMAO
Stiff poo
How come there is always some side story that comes out of Punt Road after a bad loss. Its just a beat up I reckon.
-
I would have been offended if someone called him a footballer
-
It's sad this story made it to the papers. It's sad a richmond official didn't give the bloke the benefit of the doubt but it's criminal he has more focus on this vague insult than the clear bullpoo that was being served up on the ground.
JB would be one of the nicest people on radio, one of the few people I enjoy who can be entertaining without the need to be vicious about people. Hence why I believe if he did say it, it was in jest and probably not in the literal sense. Sad that people can't discriminate people's intentions these days and cannot understand black humour. Yes, I know it's not funny to call someone a terrorist these days, even in jest, but I agree with this post, give the bloke the benefit of the doubt FFS.
-
Understand your point froars but doesn't cut the other way too?
Doesn't the Richmond official deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt that what he says he heard was actually said?
-
Understand your point froars but doesn't cut the other way too?
Doesn't the Richmond official deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt that what he says he heard was actually said?
Every official at the club must be made to pay for our loss even if that includes a loss of benefit of the doubt.
-
Absolutely, and I think JB might be sheepishly admitting he said it, but I would more like to know the context in which it was said, whether it was just a cheeky aside or venomous. I think if I know JB correctly (and i could be well wrong), he is not that kind of person to do it maliciously. I would be locked up in jail for all the tongue-in-cheek stuff I say as well, but I don't mean any actual offence.
What worries me in this is that all freedom of expression is being downgraded to a level that I'm not comfortable with. I do like a joke or two, I hate racists and racism with a passion like most fair-minded people would, but I don't think I've lost my sense of humour yet and I will take the mickey out of most situations. I would hate to lose that.
-
Absolutely, and I think JB might be sheepishly admitting he said it, but I would more like to know the context in which it was said, whether it was just a cheeky aside or venomous. I think if I know JB correctly (and i could be well wrong), he is not that kind of person to do it maliciously. I would be locked up in jail for all the tongue-in-cheek stuff I say as well, but I don't mean any actual offence.
What worries me in this is that all freedom of expression is being downgraded to a level that I'm not comfortable with. I do like a joke or two, I hate racists and racism with a passion like most fair-minded people would, but I don't think I've lost my sense of humour yet and I will take the mickey out of most situations. I would hate to lose that.
Agree with all that
Fair call
-
There has been an extreme reaction on FB anti JB but without really knowing the circumstances of it at all. Based on what I've seen and heard of him over the years, he is worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt or an opportunity to come clean in what he meant.
The younger gen have been brought up differently to me, and what that guy thought he heard, or probably did hear, must have been totally abhorrent to him, whether joking or otherwise, and if he was that offended then he would feel in his own mind to say so. I am not denigrating him at all for what he did. I just think people like JB and my generation are prone to have a laugh or two about something that might be politically incorrect and I wouldn't even blink if something like that was said, unless, of course, it is just plain vile and disgusting, and I think we all can assertain that by the context.
-
Absolutely, and I think JB might be sheepishly admitting he said it, but I would more like to know the context in which it was said, whether it was just a cheeky aside or venomous. I think if I know JB correctly (and i could be well wrong), he is not that kind of person to do it maliciously. I would be locked up in jail for all the tongue-in-cheek stuff I say as well, but I don't mean any actual offence.
What worries me in this is that all freedom of expression is being downgraded to a level that I'm not comfortable with. I do like a joke or two, I hate racists and racism with a passion like most fair-minded people would, but I don't think I've lost my sense of humour yet and I will take the mickey out of most situations. I would hate to lose that.
Agree with all that
Fair call
Didn't need to make the paper - a convenient distraction from other matters perhaps?
-
SEN said who the RFC official on Morning Glory this morning. I haven't seen it published anywhere else so I am not prepared to post it. But I know the person involved and they are not young, they're about my age and knowing them for the limited contact I've had with them I don't doubt he has acted with the utmost of good intentions
They said they felt for him and suggested there appear to be double standards by 3AW. Last year they had no hesitation standing down Brian Taylor for his homophobic slur but not this time. Notice the HUN is reporting the Mitchell has gone Whackety, whack, whack this morning.
I think part of the problem is Burns has had the opportunity to come clean. Coming out yesterday with a statement of "I can't recall" and then temper it with clear legal speak (he is lawyer don't forget) has probably caused more angst than appeasing the situation.
Don't think there are any winners here
-
Yep, he did himself no favours.
-
Didn't need to make the paper - a convenient distraction from other matters perhaps?
The RFC didnt put the story our there in the public domain. Media got hold of it and the club confirmed.
One media outlets trying to get one up on another media outlet perhaps?
-
SEN said who the RFC official on Morning Glory this morning. I haven't seen it published anywhere else so I am not prepared to post it. But I know the person involved and they are not young, they're about my age and knowing them for the limited contact I've had with them I don't doubt he has acted with the utmost of good intentions
They said they felt for him and suggested there appear to be double standards by 3AW. Last year they had no hesitation standing down Brian Taylor for his homophobic slur but not this time. Notice the HUN is reporting the Mitchell has gone Whackety, whack, whack this morning.
I think part of the problem is Burns has had the opportunity to come clean. Coming out yesterday with a statement of "I can't recall" and then temper it with clear legal speak (he is lawyer don't forget) has probably caused more angst than appeasing the situation.
Don't think there are any winners here
Old as sin maybe?
-
You've got to have the ability to laugh at horrible situations and black humour is great for that. However, you have to select your audience and your words carefully.
My daughter is epileptic. I was shopping with my sister and I asked "Have you seen Mel?" She said, "Have you checked the floor."
i laughed my head off, my daughter laughed her head off when she heard and just said, "you biatch" lol.
I have no doubt that was all this was. We can't lose our senses of humour
-
SEN said who the RFC official on Morning Glory this morning. I haven't seen it published anywhere else so I am not prepared to post it. But I know the person involved and they are not young, they're about my age and knowing them for the limited contact I've had with them I don't doubt he has acted with the utmost of good intentions
They said they felt for him and suggested there appear to be double standards by 3AW. Last year they had no hesitation standing down Brian Taylor for his homophobic slur but not this time. Notice the HUN is reporting the Mitchell has gone Whackety, whack, whack this morning.
I think part of the problem is Burns has had the opportunity to come clean. Coming out yesterday with a statement of "I can't recall" and then temper it with clear legal speak (he is lawyer don't forget) has probably caused more angst than appeasing the situation.
Don't think there are any winners here
Was Simon Matthews....Mike Sheahan already named him on AFL 360 last night.
-
was great listening to elliot and burns on 3aw. I mean i couldnt care less either way, in fact im probably in the camp of mind your stuffin business to that RFC official tool, but IMO burns is guilty as charged.
He was either drunk or he he is suffering from dementia to forget what he said.
-
was great listening to elliot and burns on 3aw. I mean i couldnt care less either way, in fact im probably in the camp of mind your stuffin business to that RFC official tool, but IMO burns is guilty as charged.
He was either drunk or he he is suffering from dementia to forget what he said.
Or he is a Liberal voter (lying son of a prick)
:lol
-
was great listening to elliot and burns on 3aw. I mean i couldnt care less either way, in fact im probably in the camp of mind your stuffin business to that RFC official tool, but IMO burns is guilty as charged.
He was either drunk or he he is suffering from dementia to forget what he said.
Or he is a Liberal voter (lying son of a prick)
:lol
or that too.
i did laugh when it was mentioned who he was with.