It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AFL player sacked [fired] for controversial views

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Yes, just to reaffirm for people who don't know much about the sport ...

Weatherman and Troy are right, Aker was not fired for his opinion on gay people but just generally how he carries himself. Run a google search on him.

All players of any sports sometimes make controversial statements or have controversial opinions; Aker has been running his mouth and opinions for a while where they're generally unwelcome.

I imagine its not good for locker room morale either.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Yes, its not his job to be commenting on such issues, his job is to play footy, and nothing else.


That is true. He shouldn't have designated himself as a spokesman for the AFL, which is what he did saying that publicly.

He is entitled to his opinion, and if he believes what he said, he should have approached gay players in private and given them his advice that way instead.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Just saw an interview with Rodney Eade and David Smorgon. They both said that there were many incidents which they had never gone public with, and they were contributing factors to his dismissal



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
He was sacked because of ongoing issues, the same as at Brisbane...

The guy cant keep his mouth shut.

www.afl.com.au...

The team is bigger than any one player except in Aker's eyes..

I'm a Pie and I hope to ^%$% we dont pick him up...



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
At this point i feel it would be a good idea to rename the thread as AFL player sacked for repeated misdemeanors, as the title is a little misleading and paints Australians as a pretty backward thinking nation, most Australians are not like this at all, we are a multicultural society in general and . i also feel it has been firmly established that his right to free speech was not impeded in anyway what so ever if you will refer to my earlier posts, or you could just google his name, his "free speech" is in the media all the time, and should be all over google as well.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Just to add, I think every gay person knows that what this guy said is not something he pulled out of his personal thumb.
It is a common "compassionate conservative" opinion, which often hides the sheer hate of more extreme homophobia. It actually wants to turn back the time, to when homosexuality was manageable because it was illegal. It's supposed to reflect a moderate, reasonable position.
"Be gay, but keep it to yourself" is an anodyne, ridiculous statement, with no contemporary meaning outside its own referentiality. Of course everybody on a team wants to know about the other people. Heck, if a star comes out, or is outed everybody, especially the media and the homophobes WANT TO KNOW all about it. It's another name and topic for their obsessive discussions.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I just did some more reading on the colomn (I assume this was it:www.couriermail.com.au...). It is by no means as homophobic as some of the selective quotes have made it out. He admits he's had a gay team mate and described some of the existing difficulties in a very "macho" sport. He doesn't say he created or supports this situation. I'm not quite ready to eat all my words (he doesn't take an active stance against homophobia either), but he doesn't strike me as the biggest homophobe in sport, who should be singled out and have his car pelted with eggs either.
Certainly the topic has been sensationalized by the media again, but an interesting thread and debate nevertheless.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


This is another thing I wanted to bring up. Why is he viewed as Homophobic because he suggested players should keep their sexual orientation to themselves? I do realise there are Homophobes that will find any convenient excuse to promote their dislike of homosexuality. The thing is his comments were not exactly hateful and he was not calling for any acts of violence upon gay players.

If people's comments get called "homophobic" just because they talk about a minority, then where does the line get drawn? Is one Homophobic for saying they do not want Gay Parades in their neighbourhood? Is one Homophobic for saying they don't want billboards promoting Homosexuality near their homes?

[edit on 21/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 

This is what gets my goat now too, because by a lot of media articles on his column the selective quoting suggests that he prefers gay players stay in the closet because he has a personal dislike of homosexuality.
But by his article he actually says that he is concerned for any outed player in the context of the macho sport. Not only that, but he says that he has seen homophobic reactions before.
He is not telling players NOT to come out, but he advises them to think of the consequences, and he even fears a "witch-hunt" against them.
One can really read it in two totally different ways.
There's an implied warning, but it's from what he knows about the sport, rather than personal. He's not a gay activist who will tell people to come out no matter what the cost (some have, but many gays don't advise this in any case).
Ultimately it is a kind of double-speak that safegaurds the sport (with a hint of enough hanky-panky to justify a possible "witch-hunt" - flesh for fantasy?) and a kind of "gentlemanly" vow of silence.

Perhaps people just wanted to hear something more radical, like if my team buddy came out I'd support him all the way, and he could still shower next to me, and we'd go for beers in gay clubs. Not sure... it seems they have to keep a lot of people happy.
We don't have this sport here in SA, and gay issues in rugby are a major taboo. I cannot even imagine an article like that in local rugby.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by halfoldman
 


This is another thing I wanted to bring up. Why is he viewed as Homophobic because he suggested players should keep their sexual orientation to themselves? I do realise there are Homophobes that will find any convenient excuse to promote their dislike of homosexuality. The thing is his comments were not exactly hateful and he was not calling for any acts of violence upon gay players.

If people's comments get called "homophobic" just because they talk about a minority, then where does the line get drawn? Is one Homophobic for saying they do not want Gay Parades in their neighbourhood? Is one Homophobic for saying they don't want billboards promoting Homosexuality near their homes?

[edit on 21/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

I actually blame the media for misquoting and sensationalizing the original article he wrote.
On homophobia - it is a dogged term that means fear of the same sex, but more popularly fear or hatred of homosexuals. The two are actually intertwined. Take the sports' field, where men can touch each other in ways that would be considered pornographic in other contexts. In this ritualized spectacle the fear of touch in private regions and intimacy between men that usually applies is not only suspended, it is proclaimed to be fiercely heterosexual and masculine. During such games (say football or rugby) homophobia is totally suspended.
Yet, if men kiss and grope at a gay march it's a big political issue.
So the question arises, are people truly homophobic in the first place, or are they selectively homophobic? Are they othering a "minority" to deflect from their own same-sex issues?
What about nature? Is masturbating to Internet porn natural? How does one define nature as seperate from humans? Are animals behaving naturally when they engage in homosexuality? Is God in nature? Is religion natural? Are condoms and the pill natural? Is it racist to say some races are closer to nature (and therefore further removed from civilization)? Perhaps it is heterophobic to say straight people are closer to nature?
I live in a suburb, and here gay marches usually take place in urban centres, which have large gay enclaves. So unless there is a significant gay population of taxpayers, the chances of having a gay march are nil. A lot of straight people travel miles to attend them for the carnival atmosphere. So if you wanted to stop them in those areas that would be homophobic, and a lot of heterosexuals would be peeved as well.
You got me on the billboards - there aren't any promoting homosexuality here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join