VIC Discrimination Law on Banning Member from Sporting Club?

[Rod]

A pysch report in this context is not indicative of guilt or innocence so should be used as such. We don't even know if was tendered as evidence in court.

The law is a very blunt instrument at times and laws that stigmatise people for the mere watching of illegal content are quite harsh. I agree the act of possession should be punished to deter the making of such reprehensible content, but I don't agree that people should continue to be punished in what is a vigilante manner by ordinary citizens.

If the law does not make the act of joining or participating in sporting clubs illegal for certain types of offenders, then the clubs and office bearers of these clubs should not have the ability to discriminate based on a person's past behaviour.

Alienating people from society creates more problems than it solves. The Nazi's did it to Jews, whites did it to blacks in South Africa and the USA, Spanish Catholics did it the Moors and there are countless more examples throughout history.

Let's not repeat history and discriminate against people. Leave punishment to the law.

 

[Tim W]

This is not punishment for the offender, this is risk management for the club.

As to discrimination - it has a statutory definition.
To make out a claim of "discrimination", the acts alleged to be discriminatory
need fall within one of the definitions.
This doesn't.

 

[Gwynn]

Thanks again for the help guys.

The psych reports were tendered to court and in his sentencing comments, the judge acknowledged that the person would not re-offend based on the reports. The judge spoke about general deterrence when sentencing the person, which I have researched and from what I understand from Internet research, means that the sentence was to deter others from committing the same crime.

A lot has happened today. The club was alerted and the board have banned the person from club. The person is now threatening legal action as they claim we have breached their human rights and has also threatened legal action against me as I am a new member of Vic Pol (been in the service for two and a half months) and that is how I knew of the conviction.

 

[Iamthelaw]

Let's be clear.
He has been convicted, and has been placed on the Register.
Therefore, at law, he is a child sex offender.

I do not see any basis for a discrimination action.
In any event, the club's duty to the children who take part in its activities would prevail.

That your club would even contemplate his continued involvement is patently absurd.

This is spot on.

I'm not seeing any basis for a discrimination claim. If this person were to follow through with an action (I somewhat doubt they will) I would imagine it would be via the Equal Opportunity Act - This person would have a very difficult time in convincing a court that he's been discriminated on the prescribed basis; that is unless a court is prepared to accept that being a registered sex offender constitutes 'lawful sexual activity' and/or 'sexual orientation' for the purposes of the Act.

I'm not entirely sure what capacity this person is involved in your club but you ought to be aware that 'Sporting, recreational or cultural clubs, associations or movements' fall within the definition of 'child related work' pursuant to the Working with Children Act 2005.

Notwithstanding the above you're primary duty should be to that of the children.

 

[Rod]

'Sporting, recreational or cultural clubs, associations or movements' fall within the definition of 'child related work' pursuant to the Working with Children Act 2005.

I didn't see that definition in the Act. Office bearer yes, and then there are caveats on direct and indirect work, but not for an ordinary club member.

Let's ban all men teachers with AVOs for violence against their partners from teaching on the off chance they may assault students. Ban all men teachers from primary schools because men do most of the offending - both for violence and sex offences. While we are at it, ban all men from all contact with kids because the primary duty is the protection of children. This is a logical consequence of the reasoning being exhibited above.

Do you not see that if we, as a society, make decisions now on the what actions we may potentially do in the future based on past offending, then it is only one small additional step towards making decisions based on statistical analysis?

Matters like this should be left to the law to sort out, not individuals or groups of individuals. Mob justice and vigilante behaviour is a very ugly beast and should only be used in very exceptional circumstances when authorities have failed in their primary duties.

Theories of Justice should be mandatory reading for members in society wanting to apply their own form of justice against other members in society.

OP - BTW be careful of statements like being a VicPol member in a public forum. Misuse of police databases for private purposes is not exactly the right thing and in many cases is illegal. Hopefully you had someone else do the checking on your behalf

 

[Rod]

I also don't see discrimination as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 but then again I'm not all that knowledgeable in this area of law.

 

[MartyK]

Let's ban all men teachers with AVOs for violence against their partners from teaching on the off chance they may assault students. Ban all men teachers from primary schools because men do most of the offending - both for violence and sex offences. While we are at it, ban all men from all contact with kids because the primary duty is the protection of children. This is a logical consequence of the reasoning being exhibited above.

I think the difference here might be that this was a criminal charge which resulted in conviction. Also, In terms if the club itself, I expect the difference may be, that the club is for ages 16 plus? A 16 year old by definition is still a child.

In terms of the WWCC, although a person can usually observe any child related activities (non participant/spectator), the kind of charges as referred to in this thread, would precluded participation of the offender from participation. Most sporting bodies now fall in line with this requirement, AFL is an example.

My knowledge of discrimination law is very limited so I will leave the rest to others.

 

[Rod]

Most sporting bodies now fall in line with this requirement, AFL is an example.

Difference here is that while the AFL can't employ people on the sex offenders list to directly work with kids it doesn't mean the AFL cannot employ someone listed as a sex offender, just limits where they can be depployed within the AFL. Also the AFL clubs do not have restrictions on who can be a member based on criminality and past convictions.

 

[MartyK]

I believe I mentioned WWCC and 'child related activities' but for clarity sake Rod, my example of the AFL related to the requirement of a current WWCC (which would no doubt be denied by the dept of Justice to a Registered Child Sex Offender), and also required upon registration with bodies governed by AFL bylaws et al i.e Leagues, whether that be in the capacity of either a paid position or volunteer e.g coach, trainer

 

[Rod]

@MartyK - Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

My understanding is that the WWCC gives an indication about whether a job role needs a check to be done, and if so then people in that job need to pass the check.

The one employer can have some roles needing a WWCC, and other roles not needing a WWCC. These 2 roles can even be at the same location.

If the job doesn't need a check, then using the WWCC on a job applicant is a misuse of the WWCC.

Remember the OP wants a club member banned, not a worker, not an office bearer and not a volunteer. Under the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) there is no requirement for an ordinary club member to pass a WWCC.