What does Snoop Dogg's Grand Final invitation say about the AFL's commitment to preventing violence against women? - ABC Religion & Ethics
The pre-game entertainment garners almost as much attention as the final game. And this year is no different.
When the AFL announced last week that Snoop Dogg would be the pre-game artist, many of us involved in preventing and responding to men's violence against women and children were aghast and somewhat mystified. His lyrics are explicit in their misogyny and celebration of violence against women. While he has been called out for them by heavyweights of the music business and has described himself as reformed, he still often features these songs in his set lists.
The decision from the AFL has prompted Victorian organisations addressing violence, including our own Respect Victoria, to put out a joint statement last Friday questioning this decision and calling for the AFL to rethink it.
It's a deeply unsettling decision and has been made at a time when Victorians are mourning five women who have been allegedly killed by men they know in the last four weeks alone. Yes, this is the fatal tip of a national crisis of men's violence that continues to have devastating consequences across the whole Australian community.
We also know that the Grand Final is a time when calls to crisis support services and police spike because of increased instances of family violence. In Victoria, police data shows that family violence incidents consistently rise on Grand Final day and the day after, with some services reporting up to 30 per cent increase in demand. This is a predictable and preventable pattern — and one that makes the decision to platform an artist with a history of glorifying violence against women all the more alarming.
A general view of the 2024 AFL Grand Final match between the Sydney Swans and the Brisbane Lions at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on 28 September 2024 in Melbourne. (Photo by Adam Trafford / AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Over the last week, questions surrounding Snoop Dogg's selection by the AFL have sparked conversations about whether we should sanction an artist that has been called out for his misogyny by the likes of Dionne Warwick and Pharrell Williams, and who fans say has changed his ways. The question being asked online and in the media is: should we give Snoop Dogg a second chance?
To us the answer is simple: he continues to profit off a catalogue of songs that espouse violence — especially sexual violence against women. He still performs these songs and they are still highly popular and influential. So, it's not a question of giving him a second chance. The question is: should we give him arguably the biggest platform in the Australian sporting calendar when we are in the midst of a national emergency of domestic, family and sexual violence?
The answer is abundantly clear: No, we should not .
With so many talented Australian artists who champion respect and equality, this should be an opportunity to showcase performers whose values align with the AFL's stated commitment to ending violence against women. Platforming a performer with a public history of boasting about violence against women directly undermines the AFL's own commendable work in recent years to support violence prevention initiatives.
Dr Dre, Mary J. Blige and Snoop Dogg perform during the Super Bowl LVI Halftime Show at SoFi Stadium on 13 February 2022 in Inglewood, California. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)
Sport has enormous power to influence culture. By elevating an artist with a track record of degrading women, the AFL risks sending the message that misogyny is entertainment. The Grand Final regularly attracts a crowd of over 100,000 people at the MCG, and a television audience of millions — that's why the artists we choose for this event matters.
When questioned on the choice of entertainment earlier this week, AFL CEO Andrew Dillon described Snoop Dogg as culturally relevant after performing at the Paris Olympics and the Super Bowl. Culturally relevant to whom? In the midst of a national crisis of violence against women, relevance should be measured by the values we want to model for young men and boys, not by global fame built on a history of degrading women and disrespect.
For the AFL, this decision damages its credibility. It was only last year that Andrew Dillon declared that 'the only acceptable figure' for violence against women is zero, and that the AFL was committed to doing more to end it. Those words ring hollow when the league's actions point in the opposite direction. The AFL has an opportunity to align its entertainment choices with the culture it claims to champion — this decision misses that mark. It undermines the credibility of the AFL's own public commitments to preventing violence against women.
The AFL's decision to platform Snoop Dogg is a grave mistake and should be urgently reconsidered. Actions speak louder than words. It is time for the AFL's actions to match its rhetoric on championing equality and respect.
Kate Fitz-Gibbon is Professor (Practice) with the Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University and an Honorary Professorial Fellow with the Melbourne Law School at University of Melbourne. She is Chair of Respect Victoria.
Helen Bolton is the CEO of Respect Victoria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
11 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Record fine leaves Qantas with unwanted brand baggage
Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche." Qantas stands accused of betraying Australian values and undermining its reputation by illegally sacking baggage handlers. Experts warn the airline, which markets itself as the "Spirit of Australia", risks losing its place in the national psyche as a result of its recent indiscretions. Qantas was on Monday fined a record $90 million for outsourcing 1820 ground staff roles, a move the Federal Court ruled was designed to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations. It added to a $100 million fine it received for selling tickets to flights that were already cancelled between 2021 and 2023, against the backdrop of executives pocketing seven-figure bonuses. Trading on being the "Spirit of Australia" could mean the flag carrier might be held to "exceptional, indeed unique" standards, Justice Michael Lee noted as he delivered the fine. RMIT associate professor of finance Angel Zhong agreed, saying the positioning invited scrutiny of the airline's ethics, not only its performance. "Illegally sacking workers is seen as a betrayal of the very values Qantas claims to represent: fairness, mateship and respect," she told AAP. "If Qantas is the 'Spirit of Australia', then the public expects it to act with a conscience, not just a balance sheet." Illegally sacked Qantas employee Don Dixon said the company meant everything to Australians, but needed to behave with that in mind. "It's an Australian company. You go overseas and see that red kangaroo, you know 'that's my country and I'm going home, I feel safe' ... that's been lost," he told AAP. The embattled airline unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the High Court, paving the way for the penalty to be awarded. Justice Lee ordered Qantas to pay $90 million in penalties, with $50 million to be paid to the union that brought the proceedings and highlighted the illegal conduct. He cited the "sheer scale of the contraventions, being the largest of their type" as a reason to impose a penalty that would deter other businesses from similar conduct. Qantas will have to pay the hefty bill on top of a $120 million compensation payment it has made to the affected ground staff for their economic loss, pain and suffering following the outsourcing. Public frustration and disappointment with Qantas might have increased, Assoc Prof Zhong said, but it wouldn't necessarily change consumer behaviour with price, route availability and loyalty programs outweighing ethical concerns. "That said, sustained reputational damage can have long-term effects," she said. "If trust continues to decline, Qantas risks losing not just customers, but its privileged position in the national psyche."
Sydney Morning Herald
37 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A couple visiting Ho Jiak looked around in confusion. I can see why
Previous SlideNext Slide On a recent weeknight, a young couple was ushered into the spacious dining room at Ho Jiak Junda's Playground, Sydney chef Junda Khoo's Malaysian fine-diner. The restaurant sits in the middle of his ambitious three-storey complex − his first foray into Melbourne − in a laneway off Bourke Street in the CBD. Jaunty piano jazz played a little too loudly in a room that was brighter than you might expect for an upscale venue. The space is encircled by windows covered in drapes made of gold netting, set against light wood tables and brown banquettes. Female waitstaff wear black brocade cheongsam dresses. The young couple looked around, quizzically. 'This is the main restaurant?' the man asked his waitress. She explained that there were three: fast casual Da Bao on the ground floor, Ho Jiak in the middle, and beer hall Ho Liao upstairs. 'I think we meant to book that,' the man said. 'We were expecting something a little more lively.' They took a minute to peruse the menu, then decided to move the party upstairs. Which is a shame, because there's some truly delicious food to be had at Ho Jiak. But at the same time, I get it. There's something a little stiff about the feel of the place, of the nervous-seeming servers trying to find the wine you've ordered on their iPads, of the bright lighting and gold netting and tiled flooring. The menu is organised in familiar brackets – bites, entrees, mains, sides – and there are currently a bunch of truffle additions to the main offering. The most fun to be had is with the dishes where Khoo takes a Malaysian staple and throws a spanner in the works: warm, comforting curry puffs with a slurry of Stilton cheese for dipping or smearing (yes, it works). Rendang with stretchy roti, accompanied by two fat bones full of quivering marrow. The laksa bombs – chicken and prawn dumplings in a rich laksa broth with fistfuls of bean sprouts – are a signature at his Sydney CBD restaurant for a reason, delicate and bold, perfectly balanced. Some dishes are more creative, like a lovely slice of silken raw kingfish draped across a shiso leaf, then topped with pineapple salsa and a tamarind-heavy granita that mimics assam laksa. And some are traditional dishes with luxe ingredients thrown in, like a sticky rice with foie gras that accompanies rock lobster, or char kwai teow with a smattering of hand-picked mud crab that adds a sweet pop to the familiar noodles. Vegemite has long been known to Australian cooks as a vector for umami, and Khoo cleverly thinks to use it as a sauce for Angus beef short-ribs. But the result is a little too glossy, a little too much like the stuff you get at fast-food restaurants, not quite elegant enough to justify the $58 price tag. Other things felt wonky, too. I had two cocktails, both very pretty and very sweet (which I expected, given ingredients like lychee), that arrived almost warm – room temperature at best. On the other hand, white wine is served extremely cold, which is a pity because the selection is great. Of course, you can ask to keep it off ice; of course, this is a small quibble. But details matter in a setting like this. It's an easy (and insidious) trap to fall into, to profess that Asian food works best in more casual venues, or that Australian diners don't understand or want upscale Asian cooking. (It's also just not true, as a little spot you may have heard of called Flower Drum exists to prove, among others.) But any restaurant with luxury aspirations has multiple hurdles to clear, food being only one of them. A huge part of the fine-dining experience is being immersed in a space that feels magical, with service that's smooth. Vibe is not everything, but it certainly is important at the higher end of dining. As it stands, the vibe and service at Ho Jiak are a bit too reminiscent of an '80s hotel restaurant. I can't tell if that's intentional or not, but it doesn't come across as nostalgic, just weirdly out of date. Khoo ought to be commended for putting this kind of thought, investment and care into a temple for Malaysian food, and it is absolutely time that we had a restaurant that spoke to the higher ambitions of this cuisine. Unfortunately, being the first often means that you're the practice pancake, one that others learn from. My gut tells me that Ho Jiak needs to be more fun, more slick, a little darker, a little sexier, a little less corporate feeling – or at least a few of those things – to truly hit its mark.
The Age
37 minutes ago
- The Age
A couple visiting Ho Jiak looked around in confusion. I can see why
Previous SlideNext Slide On a recent weeknight, a young couple was ushered into the spacious dining room at Ho Jiak Junda's Playground, Sydney chef Junda Khoo's Malaysian fine-diner. The restaurant sits in the middle of his ambitious three-storey complex − his first foray into Melbourne − in a laneway off Bourke Street in the CBD. Jaunty piano jazz played a little too loudly in a room that was brighter than you might expect for an upscale venue. The space is encircled by windows covered in drapes made of gold netting, set against light wood tables and brown banquettes. Female waitstaff wear black brocade cheongsam dresses. The young couple looked around, quizzically. 'This is the main restaurant?' the man asked his waitress. She explained that there were three: fast casual Da Bao on the ground floor, Ho Jiak in the middle, and beer hall Ho Liao upstairs. 'I think we meant to book that,' the man said. 'We were expecting something a little more lively.' They took a minute to peruse the menu, then decided to move the party upstairs. Which is a shame, because there's some truly delicious food to be had at Ho Jiak. But at the same time, I get it. There's something a little stiff about the feel of the place, of the nervous-seeming servers trying to find the wine you've ordered on their iPads, of the bright lighting and gold netting and tiled flooring. The menu is organised in familiar brackets – bites, entrees, mains, sides – and there are currently a bunch of truffle additions to the main offering. The most fun to be had is with the dishes where Khoo takes a Malaysian staple and throws a spanner in the works: warm, comforting curry puffs with a slurry of Stilton cheese for dipping or smearing (yes, it works). Rendang with stretchy roti, accompanied by two fat bones full of quivering marrow. The laksa bombs – chicken and prawn dumplings in a rich laksa broth with fistfuls of bean sprouts – are a signature at his Sydney CBD restaurant for a reason, delicate and bold, perfectly balanced. Some dishes are more creative, like a lovely slice of silken raw kingfish draped across a shiso leaf, then topped with pineapple salsa and a tamarind-heavy granita that mimics assam laksa. And some are traditional dishes with luxe ingredients thrown in, like a sticky rice with foie gras that accompanies rock lobster, or char kwai teow with a smattering of hand-picked mud crab that adds a sweet pop to the familiar noodles. Vegemite has long been known to Australian cooks as a vector for umami, and Khoo cleverly thinks to use it as a sauce for Angus beef short-ribs. But the result is a little too glossy, a little too much like the stuff you get at fast-food restaurants, not quite elegant enough to justify the $58 price tag. Other things felt wonky, too. I had two cocktails, both very pretty and very sweet (which I expected, given ingredients like lychee), that arrived almost warm – room temperature at best. On the other hand, white wine is served extremely cold, which is a pity because the selection is great. Of course, you can ask to keep it off ice; of course, this is a small quibble. But details matter in a setting like this. It's an easy (and insidious) trap to fall into, to profess that Asian food works best in more casual venues, or that Australian diners don't understand or want upscale Asian cooking. (It's also just not true, as a little spot you may have heard of called Flower Drum exists to prove, among others.) But any restaurant with luxury aspirations has multiple hurdles to clear, food being only one of them. A huge part of the fine-dining experience is being immersed in a space that feels magical, with service that's smooth. Vibe is not everything, but it certainly is important at the higher end of dining. As it stands, the vibe and service at Ho Jiak are a bit too reminiscent of an '80s hotel restaurant. I can't tell if that's intentional or not, but it doesn't come across as nostalgic, just weirdly out of date. Khoo ought to be commended for putting this kind of thought, investment and care into a temple for Malaysian food, and it is absolutely time that we had a restaurant that spoke to the higher ambitions of this cuisine. Unfortunately, being the first often means that you're the practice pancake, one that others learn from. My gut tells me that Ho Jiak needs to be more fun, more slick, a little darker, a little sexier, a little less corporate feeling – or at least a few of those things – to truly hit its mark.
