The Israel Folau saga

[James Pettifer]

Folau is by no means the first person to be fired by a company for posting inappropriate things on social media particularly those who have some sort of public focus. Remember Justine Sacco who was fired (and publicly shamed) for a single tweet which was just a bad joke intended to be shared with friends?

He isn't the first person to be fired by a company for posting anti-gay statements on social media.

The bottom line is that 3 QCs reviewed the case, having access to the contract, the code of conduct, all relevant documentation and cases put forward by both parties. Of course it is possible that they are wrong but based on their experience, knowledge and access to information none of us have, I'd be betting they are much more likely to be right than any of us are.

 

[Athilnaur]

Slim, you are going to need to work harder on your arguments, oftentimes you just resort to ad hominem attacks that smell of virtue signalling.

People can spout 'nonsense' about other people's views all they like, it does not make it so. Only sound argument can reveal such things.

The legal case will be interesting for those of us who care about rights (which is, by and large, both sides of the argument in this thread) but for the others who just want rugby to be rugby, well I fear Raelene has utterly failed us in not finding a better path forward last year. It has become a huge diversion for the game.

The thing about inclusivity is that it needs to be inclusive. I agree that Israel's post was not inclusive, and while I do not accept for a second it was hateful, it was provocative to many outside of his particular faith. But big picture it was one post by a known devout christian shared amongst his followers.

I reckon the best reaction to such posts is to unfollow, not call for them to be fired. Had it been incitement to discriminate I would have a very different view. Not the adulterer lot, they can suffer in their jocks alongside the idolators

 

[James Pettifer]

Slim

This is a very poor example but I will use to show what I am talking about.

Young man goes into shop and is caught shop lifting a bottle of milk to feed his young baby as he has no work. Court gives him a general warning not to do it again.

Same young man goes into the same shop next month and is caught shoplifting a bottle of milk for the same reason. Judge says 60 years jail.

Its crazy to say he stole a bottle of milk a second time, and he was warned, so 60 years in jail.

I accept my example is over the top so no need to tell me, but thats how I see it BTW not a simple and a silly as my example but showing how the court would over turn the 60 years jail as excessive . I see lost of career and income as excessive.

For Folau though, you need to add
- he was asked to return the bottle of milk and he said no, I'm keeping it (that is not pulling the post down)
- he said that he will not commit to not stealing milk again if he feels like it

Check out California's three strikes law ... One of the worst examples was Curtis Wilkerson who stole a $2.50 pair of socks in 1995. The prosecutor classed it as a felony and as he abetted 2 robberies in 1981, that was his third felony resulting in a mandatory life sentence. Or how about Kalief Browder who spent 3 years in Rikers (2 in solitary confinement) from the age of 16 accused of stealing a backpack. When it went to court, it was thrown out.

 

[half]

For Folau though, you need to add
- he was asked to return the bottle of milk and he said no, I'm keeping it (that is not pulling the post down)
- he said that he will not commit to not stealing milk again if he feels like it

Check out California's three strikes law . One of the worst examples was Curtis Wilkerson who stole a $2.50 pair of socks in 1995. The prosecutor classed it as a felony and as he abetted 2 robberies in 1981, that was his third felony resulting in a mandatory life sentence. Or how about Kalief Browder who spent 3 years in Rikers (2 in solitary confinement) from the age of 16 accused of stealing a backpack. When it went to court, it was thrown out.

Thats the USA and thank god we don't live there... our laws are far more European slanted

 

[Slim 293]

Slim, you are going to need to work harder on your arguments, oftentimes you just resort to ad hominem attacks that smell of virtue signalling.

That phrase smells of something..........

People can spout 'nonsense' about other people's views all they like, it does not make it so. Only sound argument can reveal such things.

OK..............

The legal case will be interesting for those of us who care about rights (which is, by and large, both sides of the argument in this thread)

But it's not, as there is no legal grounds for "free speech", and RA have clearly not impeded his religious freedoms........... he simply made a post that targeted gay people, and irregardless of whether that was due to his religious beliefs, targeting a group of people based on their sexuality was a breach of RA's code of conduct which he signed on to.

but for the others who just want rugby to be rugby, well I fear Raelene has utterly failed us in not finding a better path forward last year. It has become a huge diversion for the game.

So you've just got a chip on your shoulder against RA?

The thing about inclusivity is that it needs to be inclusive. I agree that Israel's post was not inclusive, and while I do not accept for a second it was hateful, it was provocative to many outside of his particular faith. But big picture it was one post by a known devout christian shared amongst his followers.

Shared among the general public........ and being inclusive doesn't mean including people that go against being inclusive.

I reckon the best reaction to such posts is to unfollow, not call for them to be fired. Had it been incitement to discriminate I would have a very different view. Not the adulterer lot, they can suffer in their jocks alongside the idolators

Just ignoring it is not a practical real world option........... major public organisations can't allow their high profile staff to go out and publicly state things that vilify groups of people whether it be based on sexuality, race, religion or gender and it not having serious repercussions.

 

[boyo]

Devout Christians In The All Blacks Somehow Able To Adhere To Faith Without Being Fuckwits

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/spo...188774841&mc_cid=3700f44716&mc_eid=5e19f61803

 

[sidelineview]

Sully if this were true it would have been a lot shorter discussion. There's no clause proscribing his soocial media use, just a generic conduct provision. As I understand it RA would not have been able to due to an agreement with RUPA about no additional causes being deleterious.

It can be argued it was covered by the general conduct clause though. But for my money RA would never have got him to agree to a more restrictive contract in 2019.

Nick Farr Jones after speaking with Israel:

An insightful view of Folau's side of the story by Farr-Jones.

 

[KOB1987]

An insightful view of Folau's side of the story by Farr-Jones.

Slim will stop watching it as soon as he hits play and sees Andrew Bolt

 

[sidelineview]

Perhaps the court will take into account the failure of our education system to equip our journalists with basic comprehension skills. You know the ability to read a post in it's entirety and report accordingly.why omit the bits about repentance and God loves you when it is more profitable to promote hate and sell papers. You have to love some Uni's admitting TER's of 40 to teaching and Communication degrees.

Nature of the beast I'm afraid.

 

[Adam84]

​

You know I don't think it really is, I think what actually offends some people is that the homosexual reference is included with behaviours that are still held in some disrepute by society and hence being associated with drunkards and adulterers is far worse than being threatened with a "hell" which is census is to be believed most Australians do not believe in anyway. I don't understand how someone can be offended by something they don't believe in. Oh that's right, 'don't include me in any group with those undesirables.'

No, it is...
You’re demanding tolerance, yet condemning people to hell for the way they’re born isn’t tolerance regardless of whether others believe in hell or not.

 

[sidelineview]

Yeah he lost his job because he did a thing that he contractually agreed not to do. Not because hes a christian. It really is that simple.

The UN doesnt guarantee you employment as a highly paid professional athlete, that comes with conditions.

It's not because he's a Christian; it's because he's a Christian and he referred to the Bible in his social media post.

He has commented on social media about topical issues and in relation to his faith.
Last year he answered a question about gays and answered honestly but which hit a raw nerve for obvious reasons, especially in the light of the SSM debate.
He commented on Tasmania's commitment to have gender neutral birth certificates and in accordance with his faith.

And then he referred to the Bible in his now infamous post about sinners going to Hell unless they repent.
Unfortunately he included homosexuals.

I wont argue the point about contractual issues because I'm not equipped to; I'll let the lawyers fight that one out.

 

[Sully]

Sully if this were true it would have been a lot shorter discussion. There's no clause proscribing his soocial media use, just a generic conduct provision. As I understand it RA would not have been able to due to an agreement with RUPA about no additional causes being deleterious.

It can be argued it was covered by the general conduct clause though. But for my money RA would never have got him to agree to a more restrictive contract in 2019.

Nick Farr Jones after speaking with Israel:

It's a bloody short conversation from where I'm standing.

 

[sidelineview]

Hmmmm...

You're assuming its about money from Folau's point of view.

 

[sidelineview]

Why is it that this sort of nonsense only gets spouted by the most privileged demographic in our society, that have never faced any real form of bigotry or discrimination?

Such as Margaret Court for example?

 

[sidelineview]

https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/

Have a read mate. Izzy wrote that article himself.

This has been said before, but it's probably not as simple as that.

He also stated that after he had that conversation with Castle, he watched her interviewed on TV and was disappointed that she had misrepresented his position and comments in order to appease other people.

So I guess his train of thought changed, not that I'm privy to his thought patterns.

He may have been naive to think he could sort it out himself without legal counsel.

 

[sidelineview]

I'm going to guess you're not a young, vulnerable gay person

This point has been overplayed.

Of course young gay people need to be understood and given support, but because the LGBT community has become so strong it's assumed (not that I know for sure) that these young people have access to adequate counselling and support.

However, it cannot be expected that they can be protected 24/7 from people who disapprove of their lifestyle and sexuality, as unfair as that may be. Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin but who hate the sin but love the ''sinner'' is a part of that.
Agree or disagree.
But unless they are personally threatened, it is what they will come up against. They need to be prepared for that because they will be exposed to it. It's a reality.

Let's face it, the LGBT community has become a protected species and Christianity is seen to be in opposition to its progress and acceptance.

It's a conundrum for society and in this case for RA.

 

[Adam84]

Well... clearly Christianity is against homosexuality, that much is clear

 

[sidelineview]

Well. clearly Christianity is against homosexuality, that much is clear

Pretty much, but not against homosexuals themselves. There are varying degrees of disapproval, acceptance, tolerance, understanding, empathy, social awareness, judgmental attitudes etc etc.

But it's not just Christians. Other people in society dont approve either but either accept it or dont accept it in their own way.

It wasn't just Christians who disagreed with changing the definition of marriage, but that doesnt mean any of those people were bigoted, hateful or homophobic.
It was just their belief or opinion.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

oh well, still got the car

​

 

[Adam84]

Pretty much, but not against homosexuals themselves. There are varying degrees of disapproval, acceptance, tolerance, understanding, empathy, social awareness, judgmental attitudes etc etc.

But it's not just Christians. Other people in society dont approve either but either accept it or dont accept it in their own way.

It wasn't just Christians who disagreed with changing the definition of marriage, but that doesnt mean any of those people were bigoted, hateful or homophobic.
It was just their belief or opinion.

Sure, and those other people, if they exist in Australian rugby have just managed to allow their professional careers and their personal beliefs work together..

Clearly though, there is a reason Christianity is the topic of discussion in this thread and not all those “other people”.