What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Andrew Johns

voltron

Juniors
Messages
1,454
being offended is his own prerogative
but being unwilling to talk it out and sort things out
totally refusing to talk to Johns, to even bring it up to him
i dont think that was the right thing
some people just want to be offended i guess, and remain in it

i agree with bellamy that Tahu and Johns need to sit down together
and i guess Johns and Inglis as well
 

Ike E Bear

Juniors
Messages
1,998
I love how it's what Tahu should have done, never what Joey should have done....how about just calling Inglis a merkin? How f**King hard would that have been?

Tahu has acted fine, now people will think twice before being so ignorant and socially racist.

This. This. This. This. This.

The whole thing doesn't need to be blown out of proportion, but this is the crux of the issue.

This whole thread (and the other) demonstrates that a lot of people just don't get it.
 

Balmain Bug

Juniors
Messages
418
Andrew Johns is a person of very low intelligence. You only have to listen to him waffle on as a co-commentator on channel 9 to see how embaressing this person is when he opens his mouth. He is a Dumby with a capital 'D'.

The NSW RL is a disgrace. Johns should have been sacked. The selectors should have been sacked a long time ago and the coach should have been sacked as well and the fact he was not sacked for cheating the cap he should be sacked now as his co-coach has delivered racist instructions to his team.

Was this under Bellamy's instructions?? He must go as well.

if Johns comments were said in a public place he would have been breaking the law.

Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race. Specifically, the Act states:
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.


Johns and Bellamy must be sacked forever now.
 

Fibroman

First Grade
Messages
8,216
When we stop little kids calling each other names in the play ground we will be on our way to solving all these social issues.

Guess what? It's human nature to take the p155 out of each other, and sometimes taking the p155 involves the colour of a person's skin. It's been going on since Jesus played scrum half for Jerusalem.
 

kmav23

Juniors
Messages
2,014
i
oh yeh for the record (sorry dvd) this whole crock of trivial turd can b distilled down to one thing-complete and utter total lack of humour...ive seen it come up quite a bit with islanders...there good blokes but f**k me have a larf and lighten up...
and who hardens this lack of humour-modern media trying to be oh so fckn self righteous....sweet mutha of jesus tahu...how much are you paid a year...you earn in a week what i earn in a year....i owe $450,000-someone callin me a white cnt is the least of my worries..

If i made personal racist jokes tommorow at work about a co worker i would be sacked!

Also i would be sued by that person for defamation !!!
 

kmav23

Juniors
Messages
2,014
Where do you work?

Defemation laws
Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion

Inglis reputation was defamed....
 

boonboon

Juniors
Messages
734
Johns - said the wrong thing in making racist comments about both Black and White people (of their varying races - as black isn't a race and either is white). Johns shouldn't have said what he did because he should know better in today's society. However racial villification it wasn't as there was no intent to be offensive or in fact to discriminate on the basis of race - There was no crticism of Inglis on the basis of race it was actually commenting on how superior Greg Inglis was and how important to the opposition, hence it was part of a cpomplement

Tahu - has a right to be offended as does anyone by anything. The fact he didn't say anything to Johns, that he didn't do anything to improve the situation by talking to Johns and his teammates either at the time (especially at the time) or everyone in the squad -leaves me little respect for him either - he needs to be an adult and deal with the situation and speak to the people not run off without confronting the person - he really is setting a bad example

Interesting that there is no question as to why the other players haven't come out and said they were equally offended - ie - Beau Scott - obviously that language is offensive so why wasn't Beau offended - why hasn't Joey apologised to Beau as that was who he was talking too.
 

Mr. Fahrenheit

Referee
Messages
22,132
mostly agree with last post except for the Beau Scott point, why would he be offended? People take offense to different things based on context. If you think there is complete racial equality in this country you are so wrong its not funny, however as mentioned it wasn't intended to insult GI as much as it was used as a descriptive term, GI or Tahu weren't racially vilified, they were however segregated when Johns used "that black merkin" to B Scott, that showed 2 anglo australians referring to someone else in a derogatory fashion with 'black' used as a part of the insult. The difference is Johns can't offend B Scott if he called him a Black merkin, therefore by even bringing that phrase into it you are immediately ccreating an 'us vs them', this is what minorities have a problem with (something i agree with, seeing as i'm a part of a minority) - this could be why Tahu just walked out. THe only Us vs Them should've been NSW V Qld, instead of 'blacks' v 'whites.'

Having said that minorites often reactively employ the same attitudes, i'm saying this is wrong, but it is carnal human nature (as it is with johns to use 'black merkin') to notice an obvious physical difference, and be afraid/wary of this difference at all times. People with a higher intellect are able to transcend this primal tendency to promote an egalitarian society (much in the same way homosexual discrimination is triumphed), however idiots like A Johns don't recognise this and just meander along succumbing to natural reactions without much thought.
 

fuggitt

Juniors
Messages
31
" but unfortunately the law doesn't back us up on that one."

the law? the law? f**k the law in this country mate-we all know theres 'laws' (as you so quaintly put it0 in this country-but is there justice? Prob not and justice should've been dealt with there and then by the partys involved..
The law-gimme abreak...


Here's another question super hero - what would you or your Samoan mate do if the racist mouthing off was a woman, child or a person with a physical disability?

IGNORE IT LARFF AT IT OR BOTH...And wish like sht that we lived in a country where you can say whatever you fckn well like....USA the same but thats fast dissapearing thanks to people like you...
 

voltron

Juniors
Messages
1,454
mostly agree with last post except for the Beau Scott point, why would he be offended? People take offense to different things based on context. If you think there is complete racial equality in this country you are so wrong its not funny, however as mentioned it wasn't intended to insult GI as much as it was used as a descriptive term, GI or Tahu weren't racially vilified, they were however segregated when Johns used "that black merkin" to B Scott, that showed 2 anglo australians referring to someone else in a derogatory fashion with 'black' used as a part of the insult. The difference is Johns can't offend B Scott if he called him a Black merkin, therefore by even bringing that phrase into it you are immediately ccreating an 'us vs them', this is what minorities have a problem with (something i agree with, seeing as i'm a part of a minority) - this could be why Tahu just walked out. THe only Us vs Them should've been NSW V Qld, instead of 'blacks' v 'whites.'

Having said that minorites often reactively employ the same attitudes, i'm saying this is wrong, but it is carnal human nature (as it is with johns to use 'black merkin') to notice an obvious physical difference, and be afraid/wary of this difference at all times. People with a higher intellect are able to transcend this primal tendency to promote an egalitarian society (much in the same way homosexual discrimination is triumphed), however idiots like A Johns don't recognise this and just meander along succumbing to natural reactions without much thought.

i somewhat disagree with that
i can be offended by people being racist even if they arent being racist towards me. i can find the comment to be off colour (pun not intended)
much like people who are offended when people swear in their hearing, they might not be the subject of the swearing but it still offends

but i agree with the guy as well

tahu has every right to be offended, but refusing to try and right the situation or even talk to anyone about it, i lose some respect for him for that
just leaving doesnt help anyone
 

Ike E Bear

Juniors
Messages
1,998
" but unfortunately the law doesn't back us up on that one."

the law? the law? f**k the law in this country mate-we all know theres 'laws' (as you so quaintly put it0 in this country-but is there justice? Prob not and justice should've been dealt with there and then by the partys involved..
The law-gimme abreak...


Here's another question super hero - what would you or your Samoan mate do if the racist mouthing off was a woman, child or a person with a physical disability?

IGNORE IT LARFF AT IT OR BOTH...And wish like sht that we lived in a country where you can say whatever you fckn well like....USA the same but thats fast dissapearing thanks to people like you...

Sigh, I'm making the cardinal sin of arguing with an idiot. It's only a matter of time before you drag me down to your level and then beat me with experience.

Righty-o, outlaw.

Yeah, people should be able to just say and do whatever they want and if someone doesn't like it ... they should just knock them the frak out.

I wonder how the weak and innocent people in our community stand to fair in your cowboy system of law and justice? When some deadbeat dad beats (or much, much worse) his kids, who punches him in the mouth?

We have laws for a reason, jackass ... to protect the community - including people who aren't as tough as you.

I agree that the law doesn't always deliver justice.

In this situation the law isn't even involved. Tahu made a personal decision and that resulted in some consequences for Johns. Those consequences seem about right to me (there might be some validity to points that maybe Johns should have been sacked rather than allowed to gracefully resign but that's splitting hairs in my opinion). If Tahu had punched Johns in the head, however, the law probably would have gotten involved ... and guess who would be wearing the worst consequences?

You mightn't respect the law, but that doesn't banish it from reality.

Just because you think everyone should have the right to call people a "black c***" because of some anarchistic view of freedom of speech doesn't make it so either.

Just go back to making simple things with rudimentary handmade tools ... you're giving neanderthals a bad name with your moronic arguments.
 

fuggitt

Juniors
Messages
31
" idiot"
i'm not an idiot!! I'm a dckhead but there is a difference!!!

"We have laws for a reason, jackass"

Hmm good point..you mean like the multitude of laws that govern our roads (not working), our late nights out drinking (not working), our laws governing white collar crime (not working) our laws
governing drug importation and distribution (not working and WHOA our laws governing racial villification (not working)...is that enuff for ya?
You suggest I'm an anarchist-your right-but not by the definition you would go by ie the common folk definition...i go by the true definition..
You love laws dontcha..they make f**k all diff but hey lets bring em on...Did Orwell write 1984 with you in mind??

"It's been going on since Jesus played scrum half for Jerusalem."
well thats somfink i never knew...!!
 

Ike E Bear

Juniors
Messages
1,998
" idiot"
i'm not an idiot!! I'm a dckhead but there is a difference!!!

"We have laws for a reason, jackass"

Hmm good point..you mean like the multitude of laws that govern our roads (not working), our late nights out drinking (not working), our laws governing white collar crime (not working) our laws
governing drug importation and distribution (not working and WHOA our laws governing racial villification (not working)...is that enuff for ya?
You suggest I'm an anarchist-your right-but not by the definition you would go by ie the common folk definition...i go by the true definition..
You love laws dontcha..they make f**k all diff but hey lets bring em on...Did Orwell write 1984 with you in mind??

"It's been going on since Jesus played scrum half for Jerusalem."
well thats somfink i never knew...!!

So, the baby goes right out with the bath water for you, huh?

You'd rather we not have road rules, licensing regulations, laws against corporate crime, anti-drug legislation or laws prohibiting racial vilification (although you've kind of made that last one clear)?

I don't supposed you'd want heart surgery if you got heart disease either ... since it's not always 100 per cent successful.

You're right - you are a dckhead. :roll:
 
Last edited:

fuggitt

Juniors
Messages
31
bah minimal everything mate...minimal police, minimal judiciary minimal govt...
What we've got now is bllsht...and if you cant see that then, well god helps those eh...
The laws against racial vilification are the most sophisticated in the western world...fat lotta good they've done eh fella?
The anti drink driving laws are the strictest in the world-they dont stop drink drivers do they fella?
The entire legal system in australia (include any english speaking country in the world) is the most corrupted and twisted system extant...i re-iterate, if you cant see that then i think you'd best lie in bed tonight and think up some new behaviour that you dont like and that you think should be outlawed (how about shouting angrily at trees?), and in the morning go to YOUR local pollie (who will have a law degree surprise surprise) and really push to have that law introduced either locally, state or federally or better all three!! Yippee!!!
Another Law!!!

I may be a dckhead but at least i'm not a character lifted straight from Orwell...
 

Ike E Bear

Juniors
Messages
1,998
bah minimal everything mate...minimal police, minimal judiciary minimal govt...
What we've got now is bllsht...and if you cant see that then, well god helps those eh...
The laws against racial vilification are the most sophisticated in the western world...fat lotta good they've done eh fella?
The anti drink driving laws are the strictest in the world-they dont stop drink drivers do they fella?
The entire legal system in australia (include any english speaking country in the world) is the most corrupted and twisted system extant...i re-iterate, if you cant see that then i think you'd best lie in bed tonight and think up some new behaviour that you dont like and that you think should be outlawed (how about shouting angrily at trees?), and in the morning go to YOUR local pollie (who will have a law degree surprise surprise) and really push to have that law introduced either locally, state or federally or better all three!! Yippee!!!
Another Law!!!

I may be a dckhead but at least i'm not a character lifted straight from Orwell...

Egads ... some of this actually made sense to me.

I told you that you'd eventually beat me with experience. :lol:

Mate, in an ideal world I think your philosophy would be spot on. People should be good to each other - which would involve looking after those in need as well as not hurting each other. No need for government, laws or police then.

I agree with your observations about the unnecessarily complicated nature of the legal system and that it has lost sight of achieving justice and fairness ... it doesn't change the fact that I don't think Tahu should have just punched Johns to solve this particular problem. Hahaha.

I don't think discrimination laws are bad ... even if they aren't completely effective. Community attitudes are changing. In the past Johns wouldn't have felt the need to resign and no one would have given him the arse either.

I don't agree that our legal system is the most corrupt in existence. Not even close. But really, that and most of this has very little to do with the issue at hand.
 

kmav23

Juniors
Messages
2,014
http://letsgotothebigboy.blogspot.com/2010/06/andrew-johns-trash-part-was-right.html

Andrew Johns: The "trash" part was right.



Ever since Andrew Johns forearmed a prone Adam Dykes in one of the cheapest, most cowardly shots ever seen in Rugby League, in a magnificent Sharks victory against the knights in 01, Ive hated him. The act itself wasnt that bad, typical heat of the battle stuff and little sooky la-la Johns, ever the tenacious competitor was frustrated. It was the way he carried on afterwards that was disgraceful. Johns and perrenial good guy Preston Campbell (at the sharks at the time) were in a battle for the Dally M. Johns was subsequently and justifiably suspended by the judiciary for the shot that had badly concussed Dykes and left him in the hospital, putting Johns out of the running for the best and FAIREST medal.

The unknown part of this tale is Johns' private reaction. Generally in these instances, if a player lands another player in the infirmary, regardless of the circumstances (and in particular through foul play) they privately give them a bell to apologise. Hell, even though players are competitors on the field, they are still technically colleagues (and most of them mates) in the one organisation and NOBODY likes anyone else to get injured. Its the right thing to do, and a simple gesture. Johns did not call Dykes to apologise. What he did do was go public, stating that it was unfair that he couldnt win "his" Dally M now and the system should be changed.

Classy stuff.

We all know the rest of the story of his illustrious career:

-The drugs
-The meltdowns
- The marriage break ups (allegedly through cheating)
- The claims to taxi drivers that he shouldnt pay because he put Newcastle on the map
and now:

The black c### episode.

Wether or not you think TT was "precious" for walking out on the blues over this is irrelevant. None of us were there, and few of us have walked a mile in this subtly racist Australian society as a black man, so we are not in a position to comment on it.

What this blogger can comment on is that I am in no way surprised that Johns said it, that he didnt understand the gravity of these comments and this is the final chapter in a career of a bloke who was a great player, but a complete low-life, a racist, an idiot and a cancer on the game of rugby league (being a good player and a good bloke are not always mutually common traits, just ask Billy Slater).

That we have to put up with these Johns brothers on tv is an absolute national disgrace. Its no secret that football players are no brain surgeons, and thats ok , but the people who employ them to speak publicly or present in the media, and pay them well to do it, know about this building site mentality and actually give training to their presenters about what is and isnt acceptable. Johns has been trained and been a part of aboriginal and women in league education programs. Channel 9, the NRL and the Knights have payed for media training which is hilarious in its childishly simple explanations of "the rules".

Johns justification that these comments were somewhat lightened by the fact that he referred to himself as "White trash from Cessnock" is telling. It means that despite all the previous dramas, all the training, the gang banging sh*t with his brother, the conferences, the awareness workshops, he still got it hopelessly, pathetically wrong, and in doing so alienated his mate, the rest if the rugby league community and every ethnic minority in the country. The only thing right is that he is trash.

Im glad the blues shut the door on him and Channel 9, 7, fox and news ltd should do the same.
 

Latest posts

Top