But the return of Melbourne’s Liam Jurrah, who currently faces serious assault charges, raises some uncomfortable questions.
Jurrah, known as the Warlpiri Wizard, comes from a remote community in central South Australia and, earlier this year, was allegedly involved in a machete attack in Alice Springs. He faces six charges arising from the brawl, the latest outbreak of violence in an ongoing tribal feud. If convicted, Jurrah could face a 14-year jail sentence. Yet the Demons remain steadfastly supportive and the AFL, equally, took no issue with Jurrah’s selection.
In many respects, the AFL has been ahead of the curve on indigenous issues. Players suffered abuse for years, but the AFL, since resolving to confront the issue of vilification, has sent the message, relentlessly, that there is no room for racism. However, in being wedded to that noble agenda, in its attachment to ‘cultural sensitivity’ credentials, the AFL may have pulled the wrong rein on Jurrah, exposing itself to a charge of double standards.
Two years ago, St Kilda sacked Andrew Lovett, another indigenous player, after he was charged with rape and the AFL didn’t bat an eyelid. Lovett was subsequently acquitted but his career was over. Why, when Lovett was hung out to dry, is Jurrah free to play on? Would a white player charged with Jurrah’s crime be afforded the same ‘understanding’?
Jurrah is, of course, entitled to the presumption of innocence but there is, in the AFL’s willingness to let Jurrah play, a dog-whistle that, “sometimes Aboriginals have violent turf wars – we need to be understanding of that”. By soft-peddling on Jurrah, the AFL risks endorsing the view that indigenous players should sometimes be held to a lower standard of behaviour; that, for indigenous players, crime may be mitigated by culture. It is a condescending, backward assumption, one which jars against the AFL’s admirable work.
On the weekend, the AFL’s Indigenous Round continued the code’s impressive commitment to celebrating the contribution made by the game’s Aboriginal players. But the return of Melbourne’s Liam Jurrah, who currently faces serious assault charges, raises some uncomfortable questions.
Jurrah, known as the Warlpiri Wizard, comes from a remote community in central South Australia and, earlier this year, was allegedly involved in a machete attack in Alice Springs. He faces six charges arising from the brawl, the latest outbreak of violence in an ongoing tribal feud. If convicted, Jurrah could face a 14-year jail sentence. Yet the Demons remain steadfastly supportive and the AFL, equally, took no issue with Jurrah’s selection.
In many respects, the AFL has been ahead of the curve on indigenous issues. Players suffered abuse for years, but the AFL, since resolving to confront the issue of vilification, has sent the message, relentlessly, that there is no room for racism. However, in being wedded to that noble agenda, in its attachment to ‘cultural sensitivity’ credentials, the AFL may have pulled the wrong rein on Jurrah, exposing itself to a charge of double standards.
Two years ago, St Kilda sacked Andrew Lovett, another indigenous player, after he was charged with rape and the AFL didn’t bat an eyelid. Lovett was subsequently acquitted but his career was over. Why, when Lovett was hung out to dry, is Jurrah free to play on? Would a white player charged with Jurrah’s crime be afforded the same ‘understanding’?
Jurrah is, of course, entitled to the presumption of innocence but there is, in the AFL’s willingness to let Jurrah play, a dog-whistle that, “sometimes Aboriginals have violent turf wars – we need to be understanding of that”. By soft-peddling on Jurrah, the AFL risks endorsing the view that indigenous players should sometimes be held to a lower standard of behaviour; that, for indigenous players, crime may be mitigated by culture. It is a condescending, backward assumption, one which jars against the AFL’s admirable work.