Australia - you're standing in it
One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
Supafreak wrote:One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
I don't think many people care about a dead man either way, the interest and discussion seems more around Gina and then netball team & association, I've been quite surprised about Gina, I've never really taken much interest in her and been a bit silly and just assumed she was all that many make her out to be a rich selfish business women who has a poor relationship with her kids, and believed the lines about her paying no tax etc. (when she is actually one of the biggest tax payers)
Over the last week I've learnt while she may have some negative aspects to her she is a women of principles which you have to respect and actually does a lot of positive things too, stuff she doesn't have too do, its also been interesting to see many coming out in support of her.
I think the real winner out of his whole saga has been Gina.
Even Jacqui Lambie had some positive things to say in this article about her.
"Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie also lashed out at “picky” Australian netballers, saying they have “cooked the golden egg” following the loss of a $15m sponsorship deal.
Billionaire Gina Rinehart’s mining company Hancock Prospecting pulled the plug on its offer to Netball Australia on Saturday, jeopardising the sport’s financial future.
“I am not really sure what other options she had, I would say that those girls are going to be doing a lot of sausage sizzles at Bunnings and a lot of chook raffles,” Senator Lambie told the Today show on Monday morning.
“I think one should have been grateful they were getting the money. If they have backup and someone else is going to pick up that tab, that is good for them.
“I am not sure what Gina was supposed to do in the meantime, whether she was just supposed to sit there and be quiet, not say anything, take it. It was obviously starting to get quite political, so she has withdrawn it.”
Senator Lambie also said she had “no doubt that money would filter elsewhere into the community”.
Addressing the players, she said losing the sponsorship was unfortunate but “if you want a sporting career out there, at times you are just going to have to suck it up, unless you find someone else to pick up that tab”.
After Netball Australia suffered losses of more than $7m during the Covid-19 pandemic, the deal, which offered $15m over four years, appeared to be a lifeline for the sport.
But the players’ association has since confirmed its support of Indigenous player Donnell Wallam, who had flagged the company’s record on Indigenous matters dating back 40 years to offensive comments by Ms Rinehart’s late father Lang Hancock.
“The comments that Rinehart’s father made back in ‘84 were horrendous, racist and horrific,” Senator Lambie said on Monday morning.
“But how far back should you take someone’s responsibility? Why should Gina Rinehart pay for the sins of her father from almost 40 years ago?”
Senator Lambie defended Ms Rinehart, revealing she “spent $300m on Indigenous programs in the past seven years”.
“I was at a function four weeks ago, she was on the same table, (she) flew an aboriginal woman and her mother in from the Pilbara for an awards night- this is what she does in private and no-one sees that,” Senator Lambie said about Ms Rinehart.
“She has a commitment to Indigenous people because many Indigenous people work for her.
“She should not have to pay for the sins of her father,” she said.
Senator Lambie lashed out at Netball Australia about the four months of support they would still receive from Ms Rinehart to find another sponsor, saying they “don’t deserve that after they have dropped the ball”.
Senator Lambie also appeared on Sky News on Monday morning, saying “if you’re big enough to walk away from a $15m sponsorship, you should be big enough to have a fill-in sponsor”.
“We’re going through rough times guys, if you want to think that you can pick and choose who’s going to sponsor you, you are not looking to have millions of dollars in sponsorship,” she said.
“I just think they really need to go back to the drawing board notes and be a little bit more flexible about this because if you’re going to involve your teammates in that, then you’re all going to wear the consequences.
“It was pretty disappointing how it played out, I only pray that they have a backup sponsor right now.”
A statement from Hancock Prospecting lashed the players’ response as “virtue signalling”.
“Hancock and its executive chairman Mrs Rinehart consider that it is unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as the vehicle for social or political causes,” the statement read.
“There are more targeted and genuine ways to progress social or political causes without virtue signalling or for self-publicity.”
https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/suck-it-up-senator-jacqui-lambie-l...
Supafreak wrote:One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
Yep, you should never judge a child by the sins of their parent's.
However, how hard would it have been for Gina to make a public statement that she outright rejects the views of her father, and understands the hurt these comments would have caused to indigenous Australians?
Or is that too woke?
Her silence says enough.....
andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
Yep, you should never judge a child by the sins of their parent's.
However, how hard would it have been for Gina to make a public statement that she outright rejects the views of her father, and understands the hurt these comments would have caused to indigenous Australians?
Or is that too woke?
Her silence says enough.....
It's a deplorable idea to put that expectation on anyone. Her silence says enough? Really? So because she's silent she is what? Racist? Hates Indigenous people? A terrible person? Maybe she truly is all of these things but it's ridiculous to come to those conclusions based on the silence in this case.
andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
Yep, you should never judge a child by the sins of their parent's.
However, how hard would it have been for Gina to make a public statement that she outright rejects the views of her father, and understands the hurt these comments would have caused to indigenous Australians?
Or is that too woke?
Her silence says enough.....
Im really surprised she hasn't as it would very easy to even just say in an interview or statement of course i dont share my fathers views, or even just comment on the issue of people automatically not sharing views of relatives or friends etc.
But then again, by doing so you also kind of validate people having that mindset.
I think by ignoring it completely is the hard road and there isn't much to gain from it, as many will say silly things "like silence says enough"
But fk total respect lady for not pandering to those people, silence is the biggest fk you you can give it says your opinion has no value whatsoever, you want to think like that, thats your issue, because her having to explain herself should be the same as expecting some random person on the street to explain themselves.
Even her not coming out and saying do you really think i would have those views if i was spending millions on indigenous education is kind of cool, because again it would be so easy, but to not do this is kind of like, yeah fk you whatever, i dont need to explain myself to you.
flollo wrote:andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:One thing this netball saga has done is let the world know what type of man hancock was . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11346807/Gina-Rinehart-netball-...
Yep, you should never judge a child by the sins of their parent's.
However, how hard would it have been for Gina to make a public statement that she outright rejects the views of her father, and understands the hurt these comments would have caused to indigenous Australians?
Or is that too woke?
Her silence says enough.....It's a deplorable idea to put that expectation on anyone. Her silence says enough? Really? So because she's silent she is what? Racist? Hates Indigenous people? A terrible person? Maybe she truly is all of these things but it's ridiculous to come to those conclusions based on the silence in this case.
No, I didn't say that.
But she could reject view rather than issue a blah blah blah virtual signalling comment.
Geez what would have it taken for her to reject father's view?? That hard?
You down play what a terribly hurtful comment that was made by her father towards indigenous people. FFS he was promoting genocide when I was in high school, reckon I would not want to wear a logo bearing his name in my uniform if I was indigenous.
Lol
“Hancock and its executive chairman Mrs Rinehart consider that it is unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as the vehicle for social or political causes,” the statement read.“
So what do you reckon the point of the sponsorship was then, if it wasn’t a vehicle to reinforce the social license Hancock mining needs if they want the community to look away as it steadily depletes the mineral wealth belonging to the people of Australia?
Anyone up for some Saudi lamb on Ostraya Day?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-10-25/australian-lamb-compnay-sol...
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/humans-of-betoota/hordes-of-incels-whove...
my offer of returning all sport to amateur status is still there for The Advocate...
https://www.nineforbrands.com.au/media-release/the-financial-review-rich...
If my calculations are correct ( I could be wrong) then Gina generously donated (withdrew) 0.0004% approximately of her wealth ( inherited and earned from Australian resources ) to the Australian netball team.
Who would have thunk it? Shades of grey in this "debate".
"...[the] company’s chief executive said he welcomes any athletes who speak out on climate change and other social issues - even if that could bring them into direct conflict with their employers or corporate backers."
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/netball/really-good-thing-origin-energy-...
blackers wrote:Who would have thunk it? Shades of grey in this "debate".
"...[the] company’s chief executive said he welcomes any athletes who speak out on climate change and other social issues - even if that could bring them into direct conflict with their employers or corporate backers."
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/netball/really-good-thing-origin-energy-...
This is exactly what a good CEO would do. Come out proactively with some nice language but without any firm commitments or numbers that he can be held accountable for. It gives him a good platform to test the waters of public perception and be prepared for any upcoming onslaught. A very good move from a strategy perspective.
Agree totally flollo. Nice to see that he acknowledges there may be different views in the community, and encourages people to speak up for their beliefs, rather than just have a big ol' dummy spit. Unlike some others.
blackers wrote:Agree totally flollo. Nice to see that he acknowledges there may be different views in the community, and encourages people to speak up for their beliefs, rather than just have a big ol' dummy spit. Unlike some others.
Obviously he is just playing the good guy looking for positive publicity, if players refused to wear his company logo or play unless some other conditions his tune would be very different.
Personally i think politics and social issues in any form should be kept out of sports otherwise it gets way too messy, only time it should be okay is when the sport-person is off the field and not in uniform in their private life and then they should be free to have their two cents worth, but if you allow this you also need to respect their right to a view you might not agree with, for instance remember the Israel Folau saga.
Only exception should be if their view or actions is deemed illegal somehow.
Betoota making hay ....
Betoota making hay ....
Calabria may be "playing" the good guy Indo but corporate leaders of his ilk are required to help get the world out of the mess we have got ourselves into.
Try reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse-How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive".
It's quite a long book with expansive ideas so might not really be up your alley.
andy-mac wrote:https://www.nineforbrands.com.au/media-release/the-financial-review-rich...
If my calculations are correct ( I could be wrong) then Gina generously donated (withdrew) 0.0004% approximately of her wealth ( inherited and earned from Australian resources ) to the Australian netball team.
so what?
but that 0.0004% means $15m to an org that is losing money.
mattlock wrote:Calabria may be "playing" the good guy Indo but corporate leaders of his ilk are required to help get the world out of the mess we have got ourselves into.
Try reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse-How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive".
It's quite a long book with expansive ideas so might not really be up your alley.
The problem with this idea is it's totally subjective "what helping the world out is" politically or socially.
One companies view of a helping the world out or an idea of a better world is often completely different to another.
For some perspective Imagine a company like Sanitarium owed by Seventh Day Adventist church pushing their idea of a better world down your throat, im sure your wouldn't agree with them or appreciate it.
Id rather business do what they are suppose to do and provide products and services and make money and sports stars and sports organisations do what they are suppose to do and thats sport, and ideally keep out of politics and social issues where possible especially activism.
But at the same time that said you also need people to be able to have freedom of speech so outside of work or sport any person should be able to voice what they like (as long as legal) and not fear any negative consequences in their work or sports place.
BTW. We are kind of bordering on the topic of woke capitalism that many believe is dangerous and anti democratic.
Roadkill wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://www.nineforbrands.com.au/media-release/the-financial-review-rich...
If my calculations are correct ( I could be wrong) then Gina generously donated (withdrew) 0.0004% approximately of her wealth ( inherited and earned from Australian resources ) to the Australian netball team.
so what?
but that 0.0004% means $15m to an org that is losing money.
Just an observation....
Incredible amount of wealth for selling Australian resources....
Good luck to her and her family.
“ …, Id rather business do what they are suppose to do and provide products and services and make money and sports stars and sports organisations do what they are suppose to do and thats sport, and ideally keep out of politics and social issues where possible especially activism.…”
That also include the businesses that fund CPAC, the Sydney Institute and the IPA by any chance or are they different somehow?
“ …, Id rather business do what they are suppose to do and provide products and services and make money and sports stars and sports organisations do what they are suppose to do and thats sport, and ideally keep out of politics and social issues where possible especially activism.…”
That also include the businesses that fund CPAC, the Sydney Institute and the IPA by any chance or are they different somehow?
GuySmiley wrote:“ …, Id rather business do what they are suppose to do and provide products and services and make money and sports stars and sports organisations do what they are suppose to do and thats sport, and ideally keep out of politics and social issues where possible especially activism.…”
That also include the businesses that fund CPAC, the Sydney Institute and the IPA by any chance or are they different somehow?
You do have a point to degree there is a lot of different aspects to this and shades of grey when you start thinking about it, a lot of it to me also has to do with how it's done.
For instance we all learnt this week how Gina provides millions to Indigenous education, now you wouldn't want this prevented it's a good thing she should be able to provide this money, but i think its also good how she doesn't use this to big mouth herself or sell her brand.
Maybe I've missed an aspect but to me these are the different aspects
1. Business using their money towards a political or social cause with little fanfare.
2. Business using money towards a political or social cause with lots of fanfare.
3. A business using a social cause to make money often not even genuine like green washing.
4. A business not really making money or providing money for a political or social cause but using their position to have their say.
In an ideal world you would have none, but personally i view all four aspects different.
1. Just have to accept as part of life & pros and cons too.
2. Kinda sucks
3. Sucks big time
4. Maybe even sucks the most.
However in regard to number 1. many of us would like to know that we aren't supporting a business that goes against our ideals or politics or even support ones that do, so ideally we want some transparency too.
Sports is more straight forward as generally dont go giving money away and more often are asking for it, so there is no excuses just play we dont want to hear or know about your politics.
End of the day i think the precise always remains the same though, ideally where possible to keep politics and social issues out of business and sports.
Ah well times may be a changing.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/they-want-to-be-heard-cricketers...
blackers wrote:Ah well times may be a changing.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/they-want-to-be-heard-cricketers...
Kind of a recipe for disaster, there's not many organisations people couldn't find issues with if they wanted too.
Take the Diamonds again for instance their other sponsors.
Origin energy: Obviously players could be against that sponsor because they burn fossil fuels and contribute to global warming.
Nissan: Even worse, Nissan produced military engines, planes, trucks for Japanese military during world war 2, which was then used against us in airstrikes that resulted in 235 killed on our soil and 400 wounded.
They could even get upset and refuse to wear a uniform made in China if they cant be assured they weren't produced in a sweat shop or just purely because its from China a communist government who is responsible for all kinds of human rights abuses.
It's could easily be a complete shit show if you open that door, its just lucky most people aren't that way inclined.
Indo, you can keep arguing the toss, you are entitled to your view but things are changing whether you like it or not. These sports people want the same rights you enjoy here, to have their say. The difference being people will listen because they have a platform and profile. Not everyone will agree but that platform and profile gives them sway. More power too them.
Another pertinent example, different theme.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2022/oct/27/so...
Things have well & truly changed ... whether we like it or not!
The Socceroos have wiggled outta the pouch & are hoppin' mad.
truebluebasher wrote:Things have well & truly changed ... whether we like it or not!
The Socceroos have wiggled outta the pouch & are hoppin' mad.
good on em!
but tell em they're dreaming...
It’s funny how we think our worldview is right and that of the Islamic kingdom is wrong, and that they should bow to us. The Islamic kingdom has a population of about 2 billion and has been around for about 2,000 years.
What makes the soccer team think they can dictate and talk down to, and impose their views on, an entire independent nation and religious kingdom?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t make it out of there alive.
the only reason the world cup is in qatar is due to corruption no?
I find it most interesting that the world is in such political turmoil... at the very same time that the 'good guy' institutions are just so blantantly corrupt too...
be it the likes of the IOC and FIFA, or even the UN and theWHO... is it any wonder people have no faith in public institutions and politics generally, when those that seemingly once served for a greater good have also been gobbled up, twisted, and corrupted by the contemporary billionaire machine?
gsco wrote:It’s funny how we think our worldview is right and that of the Islamic kingdom is wrong, and that they should bow to us. The Islamic kingdom has a population of about 2 billion and has been around for about 2,000 years.
What makes the soccer team think they can dictate and talk down to, and impose their views on, an entire independent nation and religious kingdom?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t make it out of there alive.
or don't get let in initially...
bring it on!
I notice the soccer guys are doing nothing more than virtue signalling…they will still go and take the money.
I especially liked this beautiful piece of prose “ values that should define football values such as respect, dignity, trust, and courage”
FIFA….the most trusted & honourable brand in spirts since forever.
"I notice the soccer guys are doing nothing more than virtue signalling…they will still go and take the money."
So a better idea is to say nothing....like everybody else?
Amnesty International's report into Qatars labour abuses and FIFA's reply
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde22/5586/2022/en/
gsco wrote:It’s funny how we think our worldview is right and that of the Islamic kingdom is wrong, and that they should bow to us. The Islamic kingdom has a population of about 2 billion and has been around for about 2,000 years.
What makes the soccer team think they can dictate and talk down to, and impose their views on, an entire independent nation and religious kingdom?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t make it out of there alive.
Yeah but in this particular part of the Islamic Kingdom they found an extremely precious product some 80 years ago which sort of catapulted them and their archaic views 2000 years ahead into our modern world view. It’s not about dictating or imposing our views on anybody. It’s about being decent fucking human beings and treating all citizens of your country and visitors to your country with the respect they deserve.
Maybe get some tips from New Zealand about disrupting a few games. Maybe even rent a Cessna or two off Air Qatar.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/flour-bomb-test-ends-springbok-tour
The future is basically fucked for sport, more and more this shit will get mixed in with sport and it will become more of a shit fight.
The real problem is there no end to it, there's pretty much a reason to boycott any sponsor or country if your precious enough.
We can only hope this also gets into pro surfing and surfers find a reason to not be sponsored by brands or not surf in events in certain countries* and it destroys pro surfing.
But its probably wishful thinking as in individual sports if you have a hissy fit over a sponsor or event you just shoot yourself in the foot and everyone goes, yeah well see you latter better for me.
* Yeah i know Tom Carrol did this long ago with Souh Africa
garyg1412 wrote:Yeah but in this particular part of the Islamic Kingdom they found an extremely precious product some 80 years ago which sort of catapulted them and their archaic views 2000 years ahead into our modern world view. It’s not about dictating or imposing our views on anybody. It’s about being decent fucking human beings and treating all citizens of your country and visitors to your country with the respect they deserve.
But we in the Aus/US/UK/NZ/Can etc empire only catapulted into power by invading, raping, pillaging, plundering, exploiting, looting, and/or decimating and stealing the lands of, many indigenous populations of the planet, and indeed courtesy of the African slave trade.
Who has the cleanest history in their rise to their modern selves?
A proper, balanced, non Eurocentric reading of history reveals that the Islamic Kingdom is one of the truely great civilisations on this planet that made unbelievably and astonishingly valuable contributions to humanity via such things as science and mathematics, art, culture, political institutions, engineering, medicine, etc.
I'm confused about who has the moral high ground and authority on this planet to impose their worldview and belief system on other civilisations. We only currently have the ability to do so since the US currently has the largest military.
I don't really see any nation, civilisation or peoples on this planet that can claim to be "decent fucking human beings and treating all citizens of your country and visitors to your country with the respect they deserve." We certainly don't rate as one.
Should we list all the atrocities committed by us, all the wars we in the west have been in since WWII, etc? How are we in Australia going with our disadvantaged, marginalised outback Aboriginal communities? How is the US going with inequality, poverty, the disadvantaged, etc? Specifically regarding labour/working conditions and abuses, how is the track record of the west in terms of exploitation of foreign (slave) labour?
How are we any better than them?
We don't have a leg to stand on. No-one does.
The soccer team is really only demonstrating how hypocritical, and ignorant and blind to their own history and backyards, they are. They should shut the fuck up.
Letting people pursue consensual love between adults is pretty basic stuff. It’s a starting point for legitimate civilisation. The Western world has moved on from institutional persecuting of people on the basis of fundamental and irreducible aspects of their humanity. Whilst we may fail in other aspects at least we have made significant progress in the most essential areas. Qatar has not.
Putting people in prison because they’re same sex attracted is medieval shit. Sure it may only be recent history since we’ve evolved past that point ourselves but at least we got there.
We’re trying real hard, Ringo.
comparing current hardcore islamic regimes (e.g. Wahhabism ideology, taliban rule) to Australia or western democracies is non-sensical. Past or present. Not discounting the mass murder and mayhem inflicted on our indigenous nations.
rose tinted glasses with a dose of anti-west delusion if you think the arabs weren't murdering, enslaving africans, and killing everyone in their path in the name of allah.
I think gsco has a point
but for me, the issue is everyone knows the outrageous wealth in these countries. and everyome knows despite this, that these countries still use an extreme version of slave labour to build their megastructures - often using their supoosed muslim 'brothers' from places like bangladesh etc... full fucking rock ape behaviour...
but the world knows this, ...fifa knows this... they knew all too well how their stadiums would be built... but they put the cup there anyway... they are just as big a villians as anyone to me...
and that's where the players come across a bit weak and wishy washy... a bit virtue signally...
where the hell have they been the last few years since the announcement?
yes you can argue 'the west' still uses slave labour, with nike and the likes using forced uygher labor etc... but I am not really aware of any such damning aussie examples
and, the hypocrisy also burns because the woke corporation / clinton obama minion machine takes a very un-nuanced stance on what is and isn't ''islamaphobia' ...and what is and isn't 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' too....
all the while, knowing very well about the persecution of homosexuals etc. from their very own donors and partners in the region... saudi arabia giving millions and millions to the clinton foundation, and getting a lead role on the UN human rights commission... and they expect the plebs to just quietly suck it all up... yeh nah...
then there's the clinton machine essentially shoving transexual sex shows down the throats of primary school kids ... in some twisted effort to overcome 'transphobia' or some shit...
pretty sure the oil shieks are watching their much beloved cable fox news... and doing a bit of vehement 'yeh nah' themselves...
san Guine wrote:"I notice the soccer guys are doing nothing more than virtue signalling…they will still go and take the money."
So a better idea is to say nothing....like everybody else?
The better idea is to actually take a real stand..woke virtue signalling is doing nothing.
If they had balls and were serious they would refuse to play. But they won't do that because they like the benefits too much.
Ok, all these soccer experts judging the world cup in Qatar. A question; who is the World Cup played for? Only Western countries?
garyg1412 wrote:Maybe get some tips from New Zealand about disrupting a few games. Maybe even rent a Cessna or two off Air Qatar.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/flour-bomb-test-ends-springbok-tour
I was at this test match...amazing piece of history to have seen live.
flollo wrote:Ok, all these soccer experts judging the world cup in Qatar. A question; who is the World Cup played for? Only Western countries?
The world cup is played to fund the FIFA gravy train.
Ok, every other sport is played to fund the gravy train of the association governing it. What's your point?
flollo wrote:Ok, every other sport is played to fund the gravy train of the association governing it. What's your point?
I answered your question...you put a ? at the end.... not making a point.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.