I think Jetta is going to cop it in the next few weeks for backing Goodes.

Completely correct here. Russell Jackson put up a neat summation of the arguments in this article on the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/28/adam-goodes-why-his-critics-arguments-just-dont-stack-up

Basically this is a racially motivated attack on someone complaining justifiably for being treated appallingly.

The fact that people are still complaining about his treatment of the '13 year old girl'.

Here's a few facts.
She called Adam Goodes a rock ape.
Goodes pointed it out, not knowing who did this.

Let's remember again it was indigenous round (supposed to be a celebration of the indigenous cultures of Australia) and regardless of whether there should indeed be a round of this nature, the climate was a heightened one.

Goodes later met with the individual and helped her to understand the significance of her comments. He expressly was concerned for her (lack of) education about racial matters and not judgmental.

This is the A1 perfect response to deal with such an issue.
Identification. Education. No Judgment. Reconciliation (if possible)

For this, people call him a sook. What a crock of <what Ben used to write here>.

He's also been criticised for wearing an Invasion Day shirt. I think it's highly relevant that he did so. I'm not sure how the British arrived by I don't think it was bearing gifts of tea and cookies (apart from Batman...whose 'gifts' were misinterpreted as purchasing rather in the traditional gift exchanges of cultures meeting together for the first time...)

I could go further, but think that any actions that allow racists to do their thing unfettered is an issue.

I've got no problem with Goodes being booed for something he does during the game, or if he's playing against his old club (can't see him playing vs North Ballarat any time soon).

I boo Selwood for ducking which I think is technical and against the rules, but I don't boo every possession, and I think he's a class act, much like Goodes, even though at times he can look petulant when his team loses.

Goodes is getting done for being a vocal advocate for his race. It's not as though he is sooking and doing nothing about it either. He's setting up educational opportunities and doing his bit. He's in the habit of raising awareness of things we can all do to reduce disadvantage. Sook Sook Sook.

The issue is it's constant and it's got a racial edge.

Basically a message from the Australian people: 'If you're indigenous and you let us know about the fact that aboriginal people have 20 years less life expectancy, or have no formal recognition in the constitution of our country, you're a sook. Sit down and shut up and be our Uncle Tom Australian of the Year'

I'm sorry but the booing must stop.

Until of course he slides in with his feet and breaks the ankles of your full forward. Then - go to town on him. Make it footy and match context related and not race-based.

Yep he's certainly in the Leigh Matthews and Greg Williams class of snipers.

Hopefully not.

This week has already seen a massive uproar about the whole issue so with Goodes taking personal leave due to the effects whatever their reasoning before I think the majority will stop

The only thing I will say is freedom of speech is there to provide people with an outlet to say what they wish in an open forum so that they can stand by their comments without fear of reprisal.

There is a key element of the Goodes treatment that is a direct response to his comments on race issues, and is being delivered under a cover of darkness.

You are free to speak in this country so long as you do not break religious and racial vilification laws, which were written to protect minority groups from persecution for a very solid reason.

These crowd based actions are providing a cover for racial abuse to go on unfettered, and in so doing are actually diminishing free speech of those who disagree.

Goodes was awarded his AOTY award *due* to his work with the indigenous community!

He didn't just fly the indigenous flag afterwards, nor was he awarded it for being just a footballer.

Completely agree with him being targeted over other indigenous players for putting his head above the precipice though.

This is probably Lucas, and I mean absolutely no disrespect here (I actually enjoy most of the debates we've had), one of the only things that I agree with you on.

When the booing is coming from a motivation of racism, absolutely it should be stamped out.

If people do not know why they are booing, it should also stop.

In this particular case the fact that it has clearly had such a big impact on Goodes, whether we think it's racist or not, it should also stop. We do need to show some empathy towards other people.

My main point is that there are those people that are legitimately booing for reasons directly related to Goodes' actions while playing AFL, which means that I don't think we can simply label every single instance as racist and leave it at that.

They had a pretty bad run with Border, Tubby and Waugh getting their awards for Cricketing excellence.

Rafter though, set up a charity back in 1999 and donated a chunk of his winning to the Starlight foundation, but I can't seem to find anything on said charity, so it was probably just a tax dodge.

Tell you what though, next time I see Geoffrey Rush walking down the street, I'm gunna boo my lungs out!

(As a disclaimer I wrote something about this the other day - I thought I'd add it below FWIW)

You know what this isn't just about Adam Goodes.
In fact, the booing of Adam Goodes underpins a greater sickness we have in Australian society – this sickness that those in privileged positions in our so-called “lucky country” don’t like having their privilege, their position of power, challenged, called out, questioned by someone who is willing to stand up for their side of the story.
I look at this and relate it back to who has the 'positions of privilege in a society'.

Those positions of privilege stretch far wider than simple race.

In some countries, race is absolutely a determinant. In those countries there may be other determinants - gender, religion, socio-economic status.

To use (video) gaming terminology - being a 'white male' in many parts of the world is equivalent to 'easy mode'.

For centuries white males in many countries have held the privilege. Have held all the aces. Put the qualifier 'middle-class' or 'educated' on the front of 'white male' and that adds further privilege.

And of course, privilege is a compounding factor in many cases - being a white male for example often leads to easier access to education, a greater likelihood of being middle-class, etc etc.

So those that move to challenge this privilege, whatever part they might be challenging, can often be vilified.

Because there are plenty of people in positions of power and privilege who really don't like the idea of perhaps having to share that, or perhaps having to even surrender just a tiny little bit of it to allow someone less privileged to take a couple of well earned steps up the ladder.

Adam Goodes challenges those in positions of power and privilege. And many feel threatened by it.

Along similar lines, there are those of different religions that challenge the perceptions of those (mostly white Christian types) in positions of power/privilege.

There are women who challenge the perceptions of gender equality and can ask uncomfortable questions of those in positions of power and influence.

Even someone like Rosie Batty, who has stood up in recent times and said that more needs to be done to protect women, address domestic violence, etc etc ... there's criticism that has headed her way from some quarters.

(Strangely, the level of criticism for both Adam Goodes and Rosie Batty has increased since becoming Australian of the Year and thus having a platform from which they can express their challenging views)

Why? Because she has perhaps stuck her head above the parapet and dared to challenge entrenched dominant positions of certain people in society.

It is the challenging of people's positions that brings about this reaction. People don't like hearing uncomfortable truths. People don't like being presented with unpalatable parts of their psyche or their society and being told that, perhaps: 'You know, really you could do better'.

You speak truth to power and you'll get whacked down, because power doesn't like being challenged. Some will consciously doing the whacking, others will do it without thinking.

I don't pretend to know what Adam Goodes' experiences are. Nor would I ever know the experiences someone like Rosie Batty has endured.

But I respect the fact that they are willing to challenge those with power and influence. To ask questions, to seek out justice/fairness/a fair go/change/whatever on behalf of those whose experiences they share.

And if they have to keep repeating the message, I suspect it is because people aren't listening. Maybe by listening we can move from 'Oh, this same message again' to a position of 'OK, where can we actually go from here. What can we actually do?'

Further to this - if you stick your head up and say uncomfortable truths in this country, you often get whacked down.

And it doesn't just go for 'loud' voices like Adam Goodes either.

Bachar Houli isn't exactly a massively outspoken person in terms of his faith and the like, but you can bet there's a subsection of society that views him - his profile, his beard, his name, his religion - with suspicion.

And you bet that sub-section of society is waiting for him, ready to smack him down if they get the chance.

Thing is, Bachar hasn't given many people that chance. He is relatively quiet. Does his community work quietly, speaks quietly, etc.

But when he did give them the chance, when he did stick his head up above the parapet back in 2012 when he urged the AFL to set in place quiet places/prayer spaces at AFL venues that people of all denominations could use ... the critics lined up to wallop him.

He dared speak up, challenge the prevailing viewpoints. And people like Jeff Kennett and many others launched some really spiteful attacks.

Did he speak at the top of his voice about it? No. But he put his head above the parapet for a second or three - long enough to hear the bullets whizzing by.

Does Adam Goodes speak at the top of his voice about issues? Maybe yes. And the bullets whizz by his head too. Maybe the only difference is that there are more bullets because Adam Goodes is a louder, larger target.

But either way, this is the way things seem to work. Those that speak up, that challenge power and influence, they cop it.