Israel Folau can send this thread to hell and no others

[Sully]

You've clutched at your straws move on from Alan Joyce.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I wasn't aware that RA had a policy on heaven and hell, whether they exist and who went there. Please enlighten me as to this policy.

I'd love to see that contract that binds employees to this.

And who gets millions of dollars in compensation from RA?

Don't players get paid for work performed?

No one ever say the ARU have a policy on 'heaven and hell'.
But people have pointed out that RA have a policy of inclusion, which clearly outlines Rugby Australia's policy for building an inclusive culture.

1. 1. 1.3 As an organisation, the ARU’s vision is to ignite passion, build character and createan inclusive Australian Rugby community. Our vision can only be achieved if our game is one where every individual participant, whether a player, official, volunteer, supporter or administrator feels safe, welcome and included.
   1. 1.4 ARU recognises that both intentional and unintentional homophobic behaviour exists within society in Australia, and that this can have adverse and potentially significant consequences for some individuals and our game.
   2. 1.5 Sometimes these consequences mean that individuals who want to play Rugby or be involved in our game, feel excluded and as a result cease their involvement or even hide their sexuality. In some cases, individuals who continue playing may be subjected to homophobic language or actions and are needlessly and wrongfully subjected to discrimination, thus reducing their enjoyment of Rugby. These outcomes are unacceptable and unwelcome in our game.
   3. 1.6 ARU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.
   4. 1.7 The overriding objective of this Policy is to make our position on inclusion clear. By doing so, we are signalling our commitment, as the governing body of Rugby Union in Australia, to make a stand to eradicate discrimination in all forms, including harassment and bullying toward gay, lesbian and bisexual people, individually and collectively with other sports codes.

​

. Who this Policy applies To
3.1 In line with the ARU’s Member Protection Policy, this Policy applies to the following, whether they are in a paid or unpaid/voluntary capacity:

1. (a) Individuals sitting on boards, committees and sub-committees;
2. (b) Employees and volunteers;
3. (c) Support personnel, including but not limited to, managers, physiotherapists, psychologists, masseurs and trainers;
4. (d) Coaches and assistant coaches;
5. (e) Athletes and players;

As for the contract which bind employees to this, well the Inclusion policy as above applies to both employees and players, but its also covered off in the ARU Code of Conduct, I'm sure there is a contractual obligation to either of those policies.

1. 1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

 

[Derpus]

He is allowed to have an independent mind and to hold his own views.

The carry on about his comments sadden me.

Democratic freedoms attacked by I don't like that view folk IMO is a cause for concern.

Lol 'democratic freedoms attacked'. Mate. There is no democratic freedom to be free of criticism when you say some shit 99% of the universe disagrees with.

 

[Gnostic]

No, its ok for someone to use his position as CEO of QANTAS to promote an inclusive policy and diversity in the workplace.



There is a difference between promoting exclusion and inclusion, i'l let you figure out which one Folau was preaching and which one Joyce was preaching.

I expect Joyce to use his position to promote the best interests of the business he runs within the social norms and responsibilities of the society he operates in. His personal opinions are just that unless they add value to the company and allow it to operate in a manner that maintains its "social licence" to use the modern catch phrase.

Now that could be taken to mean I do not promote an "open inclusive" workplace or society, which could not be further from the truth. Folau's position needs no defence, he has provided his opinion on a subject when asked a direct question, as seen in the recent vote his opinion is in the minority, but such is free speech, even if your opinion is a minority one, he did not incite violence or any untoward behaviour in any way. Disagree or argue about it fine, again such is free speech even for contracted players and representatives. If Joyce et al has a problem with free speech like this and wants to threaten the sponsorship deal he is a hypocrite and no really interested in Free Speech and expression unless it is of statements that fall within a controlled message scope they perceive as supporting their aims.

 

[Gnostic]

Lol 'democratic freedoms attacked'. Mate. There is no democratic freedom to be free of criticism when you say some shit 99% of the universe disagrees with.

There is no freedom from criticism regardless of the % that hold the contrarian view. However not very much of the "debate" if it can be called that is designed to criticise Folau or debate his views, it is designed solely to prevent him being able to express those views as allowed under law. And nothing he said breaches any "inclusivity" clause in the ARU document, unless of course one is a Lawyer looking to make some coin or big note themselves.

 

[The Honey Badger]

No, its ok for someone to use his position as CEO of QANTAS to promote an inclusive policy and diversity in the workplace.

TOCC,

What does that word "Inclusive" actually mean?

Surely people who might have deeply held religious views, also can be afforded inclusion and respect.

Or does inclusive actually mean selective inclusion?

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

TOCC,

What does that word "Inclusive" actually mean?

Surely people who might have deeply held religious views, also can be afforded inclusion and respect.

Or does inclusive actually mean selective inclusion?

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

It's not that fucking hard to be inclusive hey. It's basically where you have a thought like 'oh those fuckers, man i hate those fuckers' but you just don't say it and tolerate them instead.

Yeah, religious people should be included. But if they start telling fluffybunnys they are going to hell then they aren't being very inclusive eh?

 

[Derpus]

There is no freedom from criticism regardless of the % that hold the contrarian view. However not very much of the "debate" if it can be called that is designed to criticise Folau or debate his views, it is designed solely to prevent him being able to express those views as allowed under law. And nothing he said breaches any "inclusivity" clause in the ARU document, unless of course one is a Lawyer looking to make some coin or big note themselves.

Disagree, most people are just saying he should be reprimanded by the ARU. Which is true. He should be fined and/or sacked. I'd probably be in for the sack. Certainly be hearing from HR i tells ya.

Can say what you want but you can't do it expecting no consequence. Even if you are particularly stupid.

 

[TOCC]

He is allowed to have an independent mind and to hold his own views.

The carry on about his comments sadden me.

Democratic freedoms attacked by I don't like that view folk IMO is a cause for concern.

You know what saddens me; having friends feel ashamed of who they are and embarrassed to tell their friends and family that they find the same sex attractive because of the social pressures telling them what they feel is wrong.

I've spoken of my encounters with suicide quite openly in this forum as I think its something which needs to be discussed. What im now going to touch on is why one of my friends attempted suicide. For years one of my best friends was just one of the lads, we grew up looking at the same magazines, playing in the same rugby team and attending the same school. In his early 20's this mate of mine attempted suicide, not once but a few times, at the time I didn't understand why, I thought I did but I really didn't. It took another couple of years before he really opened up with me why.

About 2 years after the suicide attempt my mate came out to us, but he didn't do it in a collective environment as a subject to be celebrated, he asked one of our other friends to tell us as he didn't want to tell us to our faces. For us nothing changed, he was still our mate he just had different sexual interest. But it still took him another good 12months and plenty of coercing before he was comfortable talking about his homosexuality with us, this was one of our best friends from school who was too embarrassed to talk about a major part of his life with us.

When he finally opened up and explained his reasons why, that he believed the feelings he felt were wrong and that social pressure convinced him that he should be a straight male attracted to women. It wasn't a single comment that did all this, but a life of comments and social pressure, he couldn't put his finger on exactly what it was, but he could certainly highlight a few key moments and comments where he really felt embarrassed about who he was.

I realised my own words had played a part in one of my own best mates torment. As young immature kids my own joking comments of calling someone 'gay' as a joke was really a derogatory term which perpetuated the ideology that being gay was something to be embarrassed of. My own actions had contributed to one of my best friends attempting to take his own life. Its at that point in time you realise the impact of 'words', that jokes about homosexuality, or passing comments on gay marriage rights had a much deeper impact beyond what they meant to me.

I refute this suggestion that comments like Folaus have no impact, they do, they continue to perpetuate the concept that being gay is something which is wrong or something which they should be embarrassed about, the impact of these words is greater then just hurting someones feelings or a 'differing opinion'. Suicide rates in gay youth are disproportionately high for good reason, for all the reasons I listed above. Social pressure and the emotional toll of people objecting to what you are and telling you that you will go to hell for who you are.

Folau is entitled to hold any belief he likes, however he needs to consider the impact of his actions and the words he uses, when they impact on another group or individual then they have crossed the line. Inclusiveness isn't free speech to express your beliefs and criticise whomever you like, its about holding your own beliefs and being allowed to practice those beliefs without feeling embarrassed over the beliefs you hold.

 

[Kenny Powers]

No, its ok for someone to use his position as CEO of QANTAS to promote an inclusive policy and diversity in the workplace.

There is a difference between promoting exclusion and inclusion, i'l let you figure out which one Folau was preaching and which one Joyce was preaching.

An inclusive policy and diversity in the workplace is governed by numerous pages of legislation and case law, which all businesses operating in Australia must follow. I would be reasonably confident that Qantas are following these laws, which most would believe are adequate, fair and well constructed, prior to Alan Joyce becoming CEO.

If you believe that in someway current employment laws are inadequate, then by all means pursue the injustice it will have more positive impact than arguing about a footballers belief on who goes to a mythical place called hell be they gays, thieves, adulterers etc.

 

[sunnyboys]

TOCC. I would have liked your comment 100 times if I were allowed.

 

[Up the Guts]

Can’t believe this thread is 7 pages long.

Freedom of speech, in a free society, means that the state does not limit an individual’s speech but at the same time private organisations, who the individual works for or is contracted to, also have the freedom to reprimand, dismiss, or sanction an individual whose conduct violates their own principles or guidelines. Now I wouldn’t call Australia a free society given restrictions on some forms of speech but in this case Folau’s words have not contravened any Australian laws and he will not face sanctions from the state. Of course, this does not mean Rugby Australia as a private organisation cannot sanction Folau for breaking some sort of code of conduct, whether they do or not will depend on whether they believe that individuals belonging to their organisation should be free to express personal views in public or whether they should not express views that contravene RA’s position.

I say just let RA deal with it and let’s forget about it, this is dredging up too many memories of high school debating.

 

[cyclopath]

^^^^
If people keep it civil, and on topic, and avoid playing the man, it might even make 8 pages.
There is a hair trigger on this one.

 

[James Pettifer]

You know what saddens me; having friends feel ashamed of who they are and embarrassed to tell their friends and family that they find the same sex attractive because of the social pressures telling them what they feel is wrong.
...

Folau is entitled to hold any belief he likes, however he needs to consider the impact of his actions and the words he uses, when they impact on another group or individual then they have crossed the line. Inclusiveness isn't free speech to express your beliefs and criticise whomever you like, its about holding your own beliefs and being allowed to practice those beliefs without feeling embarrassed over the beliefs you hold.

I have to admit that I haven't had many close friends who have gone through this but I did read this tweet from an ABC presenter who grew up in a religious household and is gay

I have literally had YEARS of my life where I prayed that I wouldn't wake up in the morning because I didn't want to be queer. I didn't know how to live that life, and I wanted God to make it better. By ending my life.

And it made me feel sick to my stomach that anyone would have that sort of life experience based on just who they are.

 

[dru]

TOCC. I would have liked your comment 100 times if I were allowed.

No. he is personalising a much broader issue, important one, painful one - but then applying it in an overstretch and holding a single individual responsible accountable.

With this emotional bias, he is also missing the equally vexed issue of religious tolerance.

@TOCC. You are not on your own with having gay friends, indeed losing them to suicide. It's painful. I'd also suggest that issues today are not the same issues of, say, the 1980's. (Date plucked as a basis around my personal experiences related to this.)

As an atheist, without doubt Folau's religion says I also will burn in hell. Fine. I respect his right to his religious beliefs (including talking about them publicly) without accepting them. Nor do I feel a need to belittle his beliefs - as some have done on this thread. Certainly the issues being a heterosexual atheist do not have the attached emotion that the gay "cause celeb" does. But it's the emotion that is the key here. And we could and should do without it.

 

[Derpus]

Can’t believe this thread is 7 pages long.

Freedom of speech, in a free society, means that the state does not limit an individual’s speech but at the same time private organisations, who the individual works for or is contracted to, also have the freedom to reprimand, dismiss, or sanction an individual whose conduct violates their own principles or guidelines. Now I wouldn’t call Australia a free society given restrictions on some forms of speech but in this case Folau’s words have not contravened any Australian laws and he will not face sanctions from the state. Of course, this does not mean Rugby Australia as a private organisation cannot sanction Folau for breaking some sort of code of conduct, whether they do or not will depend on whether they believe that individuals belonging to their organisation should be free to express personal views in public or whether they should not express views that contravene RA’s position.

I say just let RA deal with it and let’s forget about it, this is dredging up too many memories of high school debating.

This sums it up fairly well.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

No. he is personalising a much broader issue, important one, painful one - but then applying it in an overstretch and holding a single individual responsible accountable.

With this emotional bias, he is also missing the equally vexed issue of religious tolerance.

@TOCC. You are not on your own with having gay friends, indeed losing them to suicide. It's painful. I'd also suggest that issues today are not the same issues of, say, the 1980's. (Date plucked as a basis around my personal experiences related to this.)

As an atheist, without doubt Folau's religion says I also will burn in hell. Fine. I respect his right to his religious beliefs (including talking about them publicly) without accepting them. Nor do I feel a need to belittle his beliefs - as some have done on this thread. Certainly the issues being a heterosexual atheist do not have the attached emotion that the gay "cause celeb" does. But it's the emotion that is the key here. And we could and should do without it.

This isn't about religion tolerance, nor is this me holding any individual responsible besides myself. This is me providing a perspective to counter those who have claimed 'words' mean nothing, to provide a real life example of how these social pressures which people dismiss so willingly impact on those that the words are aimed at.

Folau can practice whatever he likes and believe what anything he feels appropriate, and he can also do so without the fear that someone will tell him his beliefs are wrong. Likewise people should be allowed to be hold any sexual orientation that they please, be attracted to whoever they feel like without someone telling them that what they feel is wrong.

Why can't christians be christians and gays be gay without either of them telling each other what they are doing is wrong or deserves a life of eternal damnation.. It's a fucken simple concept that would make everyone happy.

 

[Omar Comin']

Folau can practice whatever he likes and believe what anything he feels appropriate, and he can also do so without the fear that someone will tell him his beliefs are wrong. Likewise people should be allowed to be hold any sexual orientation that they please, be attracted to whoever they feel like without someone telling them that what they feel is wrong.

Why can't christians be christians and gays be gay without either of them telling each other what they are doing is wrong or deserves a life of eternal damnation.. It's a fucken simple concept that would make everyone happy.

Why should Folau or anyone else be free from hearing others say that their beliefs are wrong? Society doesn't progress without criticism of bad ideas and wide debate over controversial topics. Homosexuality wasn't even decriminalised in Australia until the 1970's - that change, and the advances since certainly didn't result from people staying quiet and meekly accepting that people shouldn't have their beliefs challenged. The cost of a free society (or relatively free) is that virtually everyone has to put up with hearing things that offend them.

 

[dru]

Seems to me that someone chased down Folau with the full intent to push an answer like this.

BTW not you (@ TOCC), but I don't think the tone in this thread is "letting Christians be Christians". The concepts behind Folau's religion are not rocket science either and not hard to follow. And he is entitled to religious freedom. Seems to me people are unhappy about him talking about it.

It wasn't Folau prosyletysing. I suspect it was someone hunting Folau to create a problem. Crazy to let such an intent "win".

Time for us all to take a chill pill.

I'd be more than happy, in the right place (not really a rugby forum) to talk through in detail personal losses (it's an area I have scars) and where LGB etc recognition is in 2018 compared to it's recent history. Compared to the huge struggle that many of us went through to get things closer to where they are now. Generally it's going well, light years ahead of where it came from.

And we don't need to burn Izzie at the stake. He's not a witch. He's not weird. His intellectual and academic ability, including religious philosophy, is not his strong suit. Rugby is. Thankful we should be.

 

[The torpedo]

Free speech dictates that Izzy has a right to say what he wants.

Free speech also dictates that others can criticise what he says.