The Israel Folau saga

[dru]

Which I find interesting because parliamentary privilege is essentially free speech

Really? A right of Free Speech requires a right to be defamatory?

Odd view.

 

[cyclopath]

Really? A right of Free Speech requires a right to be defamatory?

Odd view.

But, is that what he said? I didn't read it as such.

 

[Gnostic]

Its quite sad that on both sides on any debate now days we have sunk to labelling anybody with a dissenting opinion as Far right of soft lefties or as some sort of ...ist depending on what that person's stance is. On both sides it is a tactic to control the debate and attack the individual instead of challenging the ideas and the POV. It speaks to the frailty of the argument that those doing the attacking/accusing.

 

[Pfitzy]

Equally, it is sad how people reached straight for the "freedom of religion" argument when it was perfectly obvious what Folau did wrong, why he was wrong to be unrepentant, and how utterly poor he was as an employee to go to ground instead of keeping an open dialogue.

 

[Rebelsfan]

Equally, it is sad how people reached straight for the "freedom of religion" argument when it was perfectly obvious what Folau did wrong, why he was wrong to be unrepentant, and how utterly poor he was as an employee to go to ground instead of keeping an open dialogue.

this is merely your opinion that what Folau did was wrong. It is merely your opinion that he was wrong to be unrepentant. You can't state your opinion as fact, mate

 

[cyclopath]

this is merely your opinion that what Folau did was wrong. It is merely your opinion that he was wrong to be unrepentant. You can't state your opinion as fact, mate

You have read a few threads on this site, I'm guessing?

 

[Pfitzy]

this is merely your opinion that what Folau did was wrong. It is merely your opinion that he was wrong to be unrepentant. You can't state your opinion as fact, mate

So, "mate", you're saying Folau was right, and his present status as an employee of RA proves this?

Oh wait, it's a fucking FACT that he's no longer an employee of RA and therefore he was WRONG.

Opinions don't matter. But mine does, because I'm right. Ipso facto etc

 

[Rebelsfan]

shut down by big swear words.

 

[Pfitzy]

And facts.

Don't forget the facts.

Sweary facts are the best kind.

 

[Gnostic]

Equally, it is sad how people reached straight for the "freedom of religion" argument when it was perfectly obvious what Folau did wrong, why he was wrong to be unrepentant, and how utterly poor he was as an employee to go to ground instead of keeping an open dialogue.

You have opened with the definition of what my first post was about.

Wrong is in the definition and unfortunately not clearly and absolutely defined by RA. Is it in his contract? Black and white, openly stated you cannot do X. No, it is not, because the RUPA negotiated contracting system prohibited the inclusion of any additional conditions which are not to the advantage of the player in the EBA, and Folau's contract is an EBA contract. Morally wrong is not an employment condition.​

​

Its perfectly obvious that Folau is a fundamentalist - and frankly this has always been clear and again it is RA that signed him to a contract knowing (unless they yet again had their heads in the sand) what that entails. Expecting some other outcome from the fundamentalist mind is just naïve as is expecting any sort of repentance from them given the absolute fact that the fundamentalist mode of thinking is incapable of considering alternate view points as valid.​

​

Was he a poor employee, that is debatable, until this latest episode there is no doubt that he was probably the highest profile Wallaby and Tah, bringing lots of attention to the game. Did I ever think he was a test or even super level fullback - absolutely not as you will see clearly in my past posts, a great winger and perhaps the only Wallaby who could genuinely push for a world XV. So until this fiasco it would have to be said that RA and Tahs were extracting value from him, nowhere near full value as he and others are grossly overpaid on performance and professional development grounds, but some value. ​

​

So is he now a poor employee - well yes because of the division exposed, I say exposed because simply the reaction here and generally on this issue shows that despite your and other's strident comments on this, the situation is not resolved and I doubt the determination of the Fair Work Commission will resolve it either though it will resolve the employment issue in a microcosm. He is also a poor employee because his published attitudes had the potential to severely damage the financial position of the employer - but with that last point we come back to the naivety of RA again in signing him to a contract knowing full well his fundamentalist beliefs and the absolute facts that go along with that. These facts are pretty incontrovertible but to terminate the contract they actually have to prove a breach, which they obviously believe they have done so through their process, which is subject to an external and far more rigorous appeal system.​

​

My views on free speech and whether what he posted is in fact derogatory or anything of the hyperbole generated on both sides is really moot, the above are the bare facts.​

​

This situation was avoidable by:-​

a) acknowledging Folau's belief system and not signing him due to that, as it will not change and is incapable of it.​

b) acknowledging Folau's belief system and requiring him to sign a contract on and individual basis outside the EBA including clauses on social media allowable under the Fair Work Act. If he refused so be it.​

c) last and least preferable - having signed him to an EBA contract (option a) make a statement accepting what he posted has occurred and stridently disagreeing with it making a statement along the lines of these are his fundamentalist views not shared by RA and not supported by them.​

​

These are simply the realities. What he has posted is not illegal and looking at comments from Parliament will never be made illegal, so if the employer wishes to constrain behaviour in addition to that legislated they need to contract that, in black and white. The Code of Conduct (CoC) is so broad as to be able to be applicable to an extremely broad range of issues, in fact only anonymity prevents many of us here who are active members of various Rugby Bodies being in breach of in just by commenting on games, including what is regarded as a very serious breach - posting on social media regarding the performance of Match Officials.​

 

[Gnostic]

Attached is the actual Code of Conduct as after 120 pages of this nobody has thought to post it that I've seen.

 

[Rebelsfan]

So, "mate", you're saying Folau was right, and his present status as an employee of RA proves this?

Oh wait, it's a fucking FACT that he's no longer an employee of RA and therefore he was WRONG.

Opinions don't matter. But mine does, because I'm right. Ipso facto etc

Fact - he is no longer an employee of RA.
You then state that therefore 'he was wrong' but that will be determined by FWC or the courts, so far, that is merely your interpretation of the fact, your opinion.

 

[Jiminy Cricket]

Equally it’s sad that people reached straight for the “hate speech” “he’s targeting & vilifying the gay community” when its not perfectly obvious that was his explicit intent.

RA knowingly re signed a fundamentalist Christien who’s beliefs they knew were in conflict with their code of conduct in the hope a “handshake” agreement would ensure the suppression of said beliefs. Way to manage a potentially disastrous situation involving millions in player contacts & sponsorship not to mention the loss of their marquee player.

 

[cyclopath]

Equally it’s sad that people reached straight for the “hate speech” “he’s targeting & vilifying the gay community” when its not perfectly obvious that was his explicit intent.

RA knowingly re signed a fundamentalist Christien who’s beliefs they knew were in conflict with their code of conduct in the hope a “handshake” agreement would ensure the suppression of said beliefs. Way to manage a potentially disastrous situation involving millions in player contacts & sponsorship not to mention the loss of their marquee player.

May not be hate speech, but how often would "My belief system says you are going Hell" be followed by "but I reckon you're a top bloke / girl though"?
I agree, that given how literal he seems to be in his approach to stuff, that a handshake deal was not ideal. I do like the concept of a handshake being as good as the written word, but maybe those days are gone.

 

[Jiminy Cricket]

Sorry I didn’t mean to repeat what was so well said up the page, I was sitting on that post for a while.

Anyone foolish enough to think handshake agreements are worth a squirt in the corporate world once things turn sour or there is a major disagreement is delusional. This isn’t school yard rugby.

I don’t agree with his actions but I can understand how he thinks it’s a loving act from a black & white fundamentalist interpretation that is obviously his POV.

This isn’t a moral dilemma any more, it’s a legal one.

 

[Kiwikrs]

You have opened with the definition of what my first post was about.

Wrong is in the definition and unfortunately not clearly and absolutely defined by RA. Is it in his contract? Black and white, openly stated you cannot do X. No, it is not, because the RUPA negotiated contracting system prohibited the inclusion of any additional conditions which are not to the advantage of the player in the EBA, and Folau's contract is an EBA contract. Morally wrong is not an employment condition.​

​

Its perfectly obvious that Folau is a fundamentalist - and frankly this has always been clear and again it is RA that signed him to a contract knowing (unless they yet again had their heads in the sand) what that entails. Expecting some other outcome from the fundamentalist mind is just naïve as is expecting any sort of repentance from them given the absolute fact that the fundamentalist mode of thinking is incapable of considering alternate view points as valid.​

​

Was he a poor employee, that is debatable, until this latest episode there is no doubt that he was probably the highest profile Wallaby and Tah, bringing lots of attention to the game. Did I ever think he was a test or even super level fullback - absolutely not as you will see clearly in my past posts, a great winger and perhaps the only Wallaby who could genuinely push for a world XV. So until this fiasco it would have to be said that RA and Tahs were extracting value from him, nowhere near full value as he and others are grossly overpaid on performance and professional development grounds, but some value. ​

​

So is he now a poor employee - well yes because of the division exposed, I say exposed because simply the reaction here and generally on this issue shows that despite your and other's strident comments on this, the situation is not resolved and I doubt the determination of the Fair Work Commission will resolve it either though it will resolve the employment issue in a microcosm. He is also a poor employee because his published attitudes had the potential to severely damage the financial position of the employer - but with that last point we come back to the naivety of RA again in signing him to a contract knowing full well his fundamentalist beliefs and the absolute facts that go along with that. These facts are pretty incontrovertible but to terminate the contract they actually have to prove a breach, which they obviously believe they have done so through their process, which is subject to an external and far more rigorous appeal system.​

​

My views on free speech and whether what he posted is in fact derogatory or anything of the hyperbole generated on both sides is really moot, the above are the bare facts.​

​

This situation was avoidable by:-​

a) acknowledging Folau's belief system and not signing him due to that, as it will not change and is incapable of it.​

b) acknowledging Folau's belief system and requiring him to sign a contract on and individual basis outside the EBA including clauses on social media allowable under the Fair Work Act. If he refused so be it.​

c) last and least preferable - having signed him to an EBA contract (option a) make a statement accepting what he posted has occurred and stridently disagreeing with it making a statement along the lines of these are his fundamentalist views not shared by RA and not supported by them.​

​

These are simply the realities. What he has posted is not illegal and looking at comments from Parliament will never be made illegal, so if the employer wishes to constrain behaviour in addition to that legislated they need to contract that, in black and white. The Code of Conduct (CoC) is so broad as to be able to be applicable to an extremely broad range of issues, in fact only anonymity prevents many of us here who are active members of various Rugby Bodies being in breach of in just by commenting on games, including what is regarded as a very serious breach - posting on social media regarding the performance of Match Officials.​

Nice try but neither a b or c are viable options

 

[Forcefield]

I don't accept a). You are saying his belief system would not change. Folau promoted the Bingham Cup back in 2014. Surely if his belief system was the same then as it is now, this is not something he would have done. It's unlikely that he would change his belief from being Christian, but how he interprets that can probably change a fair bit or already has.

 

[Rebelsfan]

The gift that just keeps on giving: "Devil is trying to instil into the world: Folau" - in the Australian today. But Pfitzy I strongly urge you not to read it, it wont do your heart rate any good.

 

[Pfitzy]

The gift that just keeps on giving: "Devil is trying to instil into the world: Folau" - in the Australian today. But Pfitzy I strongly urge you not to read it, it wont do your heart rate any good.

Israel Folau the person can say and believe whatever he wants. Regardless of how stupid, childish, or antediluvian (edit) I think it is. No skin off my nose.

He just can't be an employee of RA while promoting that kind of belief.

Why anyone is bothering to report on it - and from within the space of his congregation - is the puzzling part.

We already know he's not terribly bright. We already know what he thinks.

 

[liquor box]

I don't accept a). You are saying his belief system would not change. Folau promoted the Bingham Cup back in 2014. Surely if his belief system was the same then as it is now, this is not something he would have done. It's unlikely that he would change his belief from being Christian, but how he interprets that can probably change a fair bit or already has.

Maybe he wanted to promote Rugby no matter who was playing.

I don't think Folau dislikes homosexuals, he believes they are sinners and there is a massive difference.

Why wouldn't he promote a game that he plays? I dont think that the Bingham Cup is a recruiting ground for straight people to be converted to gay people so why not just enjoy the rugby on show?

It seems too many people want to believe that Folau hates homosexuals, I wonder if this makes it easier for those of no faith to be able to attack him rather than try to understand that he believes he is saving people through love.