The Israel Folau saga

[liquor box]

Julian Assange, is being charged and its a pretend charge of hacking when everyone knows its both to punish him for publishing. IMO the biggest attack on free speech and freedom of the press in my life time. This attack is coming from both the right and left as he showed up the US forces in their wars, and showed Clinton for what she was and how they robbed Sanders of votes. So lets not only charge him but stop revenue getting to him.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...pe-extradition-uk-politicians-letter/11001640

He is also an alleged rapist, how is it in the #metoo period of time this is forgotten?

 

[liquor box]

.

So, if I called an employee a fat useless slut, she shouldn’t be offended because it’s not really true?
Or, if I made a racist comment, based on stereotypes towards someone, they shouldn’t be offended because it’s not true?
What about terms like faggot and poof, which are derogatory terms for gays, should they not be offended or not offended in this regard?

why is the solution to this issue telling people they should just learn to not be offended, rather then telling people they should just stop being offensive? I mean, seems pretty simple, really.

So, if I called an employee a fat useless slut, she shouldn’t be offended because it’s not really true?

Yes you should be penalized if you direct it at a person, if you said I dont like overweight promiscuous people as a general statement then it would be free speech as opposed to hate speech.

 

[dru]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...pe-extradition-uk-politicians-letter/11001640

He is also an alleged rapist, how is it in the #metoo period of time this is forgotten?

Jumping sharks.

 

[Adam84]

Yes you should be penalized if you direct it at a person, if you said I dont like overweight promiscuous people as a general statement then it would be free speech as opposed to hate speech.

right, so hate speech is ok as long as it is aimed at the collective and isn’t targeted at any one individual?

So, Folau was just making a general statement for that all homosexuals have sinned and will go to hell. Are there consequences for general statements, or does free speech men we can make general statements with no consequence?

 

[sidelineview]

right, so hate speech is ok as long as it is aimed at the collective and isn’t targeted at any one individual?

Interesting point.

 

[sidelineview]

Ahh.the good old days, right. Pity society tends to move on. What may have been acceptable 10, 20 ,50, 100 years ago doesn't make it acceptable today. That's the world in which we all live. Like it or not that's not likely to change. In fact they are likely to continue do the current path of change. They have to otherwise it'll stagnate and die.

Do you think things may have gone too far though; in the aftermath of the SSM vote?
The controversial safe schools program, unisex toilets and transgenders being allowed to compete against females in sporting events for example......?

People are allowed to become offended now (and even encouraged to do so) and to take action against the offender (or perpetrator). Some cases are justifiable; I mean imagine if one of your kids was gay and was bullied at school or work. You'd want something done about it.

But is it offensive to say no to a muscle bound transgender woman with a noticable adam's apple to compete against biological females?

Folau is in hot water for using social media to air his religious beliefs about homosexuals, (forget about the other sinners like drunks, I know I wasnt offended), but what if he had given a sermon along the same lines and that sermon was recorded and found it's way onto social media?
That would be an interesting scenario.

 

[Strewthcobber]

In your scenario, would he be wearing his Waratahs jersey while delivering the sermon?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Gees why the media waste space reporting Alan Jones views as his usual anti RA rant where he basically lives in la la land that any professional sporting organisation would not be able to tolerate or continue the employment of players like Israel with the sort of social media posts he puts out. All pro sports pushing inclusive message and can't afford employees to have employees on their books who damage this position.

Alan Jones continues to be biggest waste of space for commentary on rugby in Australia as adds nothing to the debate but just random disjointed noise.

 

[sidelineview]

In your scenario, would he be wearing his Waratahs jersey while delivering the sermon?

No, just employed by

 

[shanky]

The transgender wrestler thing isn’t as straightforward as it seems, with it being the puritans who are preventing this athlete from changing teams, not the PC brigade

Highly moving and worth the watch

 

[Rugbynutter39]

One thing that for me where RA has shown incompetence (and disbelief from my side) is after the episode last year that why the heck they did not put a social media clause in his contract.

I guess just more evidence that you would not want RA running your organisation or the commercial side of things.

That does for me continue to show what a commercial inept organisation RA is to have not covered themselves contracturally by including a social media clause given this was biggest risk in resigning this player.

 

[liquor box]

right, so hate speech is ok as long as it is aimed at the collective and isn’t targeted at any one individual?

So, Folau was just making a general statement for that all homosexuals have sinned and will go to hell. Are there consequences for general statements, or does free speech men we can make general statements with no consequence?

If when NSW and QLD play rugby I make a post that "I hope it is a physical game and QLD get out there and hurt anyone wearing blue" then it would be considered ok.
If I said "I hope that it is a physical game and QLD get out there and hurt [insert name] " it is far different.

does free speech men we can make general statements with no consequence?

This already happens, it is called dog whistling. Politician do this all the time.

"We need to protect our borders from criminals coming here illegally" as opposed to "we need to stop [insert race or name of person] from coming here because they are a criminal" One would be libelous and the other is poor taste

 

[Strewthcobber]

One thing that for me where RA has shown incompetence (and disbelief from my side) is after the episode last year that why the heck they did not put a social media clause in his contract.

I guess just more evidence that you would not want RA running your organisation or the commercial side of things.

That does for me continue to show what a commercial inept organisation RA is to have not covered themselves contracturally by including a social media clause given this was biggest risk in resigning this player.

under the collective bargaining agreement with the players union RA (or the players) can't change the standard contract

The code of conduct, and inclusivity policy are included in every contract

 

[Braveheart81]

In a truly free society, people should be able to as the saying goes think what they like and say what they think without suffering adverse consequences. I think five years ago, not 50 or 100, we'd have been mature enough as a society to accept the occasionally quirky view being aired in public without breaking out in a huge moral panic. Then the rules changed about what you can say and how you can say it. We were never warned that the rules were changing, but heaven help you if you break them because there will be no mercy, no reprieve and no forgiveness.

They're not quirky views though. They're statements and actions that cause very real damage to people.

People who have never been held to account because they were in the dominant position of power are now to a small degree being called out for their actions and occasionally held to account.

We hear constant claims that this is political correctness gone mad or virtue signalling when basically all it is is an issue being seen from another perspective rather than that of the traditionally dominant.

It is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of confected outrage regarding what other people have said comes from the right wing commentators yet somehow many view this as sensible discussion and then complain that people are calling someone racist.

 

[Adam84]

If when NSW and QLD play rugby I make a post that "I hope it is a physical game and QLD get out there and hurt anyone wearing blue" then it would be considered ok.
If I said "I hope that it is a physical game and QLD get out there and hurt [insert name] " it is far different.

This already happens, it is called dog whistling. Politician do this all the time.

"We need to protect our borders from criminals coming here illegally" as opposed to "we need to stop [insert race or name of person] from coming here because they are a criminal" One would be libelous and the other is poor taste

Ok.. just so I understand your perspective... hate speech is ok when it’s directed at a collective, it’s not ok when directed at an individual?

I’m not sure the QLD v NSW sporting rivalry is on the same level as decades of persecution and homophobic discrimination though :/.

 

[Sully]

Does anyone think that this crap is going antwhere? Could be time to shut the thread down for a while.

 

[RugbyReg]

Does anyone think that this crap is going antwhere? Could be time to shut the thread down for a while.

not sure if there is a point. Today will be the 48 hour mark for Izzy to respond isn't it? Just going to ramp up again.

 

[KOB1987]

The context will change. The conversation will move from who’s right and who’s wrong to how much damage is going to be done

 

[Braveheart81]

There's a piece today suggesting that RA will be in a really tough place if Folau does ask for a code of conduct hearing and the hearing finds that he hasn't breached his contract. He would then be effectively free to keep posting the same stuff on social media without any repercussions from RA.

I tend to think that is an unlikely outcome but it's certainly a possible outcome.

 

[KOB1987]

There's a piece today suggesting that RA will be in a really tough place if Folau does ask for a code of conduct hearing and the hearing finds that he hasn't breached his contract. He would then be effectively free to keep posting the same stuff on social media without any repercussions from RA.

I tend to think that is an unlikely outcome but it's certainly a possible outcome.

This bloke pointed that out a year ago

https://mumbrella.com.au/qantas-and-rugby-australia-were-wrong-to-try-to-gag-israel-folau-512115