The Israel Folau saga

[spikhaza]

I’d still like to caveat what I’ve written above by saying in my personal opinion he’s a moron for doing all this and it gives me utter dismay that we have to deal with shit like this instead of doing what we love and play rugby... but that’s life I guess

 

[Braveheart81]

We may have discussed social media posts, but you chose not to put it into the contract, so how can you enforce a clause that you chose not to put in the contract. Had you put it in the contract I could have received legal advice prior to signing the document.

We'll find out the legal ins and outs of it later but all the contracts stipulate that the behavioural requirements are in the code of conduct so effectively that code of conduct document forms part of their contract.

Clearly he could get legal advice on that.

 

[Derpus]

So fucking what. I get it, he has rights.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a dick move.

 

[spikhaza]

So fucking what. I get it, he has rights.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a dick move.

I think everyone here can all agree on this, he didn’t have to do it and it’s caused a stink over something dumb

This is different to the question of what the process and rights he should be entitled to is

 

[sidelineview]

I don't know. Policies are generally available online if you want to look.

I know the AFL have ummed and ahhed over letting a transgender player play in the AFLW. The first season they didn't let her play and then they said she could play in 2019 but she then withdrew from joining the draft.

It's all a bit of a s***tfight but its early days. Another spinoff to the SSM issue.
I assume clear guidelines will eventually be set.

 

[Derpus]

I think everyone here can all agree on this, he didn’t have to do it and it’s caused a stink over something dumb

This is different to the question of what the process and rights he should be entitled to is

Yeah i was just generally lamenting the situation.

 

[spikhaza]

I can see this dragging out and costing RA millions

Even though I’ll disagree with the way they handled it if that’s the case

I’ll still think look mate did you really have to do this

 

[barbarian]

do you then accept that silencing their leading public figure from making political statements will rankle conservatives, who make up between 32 and 38 percent of the population, and thus tarnish your brand with them? Because that’s what’s happening

The whole point is that politics offends people, and that Rugby AU should say it’s players have their own views that don’t reflect RA

But they are not 'silencing him from making political statements'. They told him that if he makes statements that vilify minority groups, he can be sanctioned. I believe there is a difference there.

There is no way that RA can extricate themselves from this. You want them to have no stance at all and let everything fly, but that is a stance in and of itself. They make a conscious choice to allow derogatory speech from its players.

Not to mention the idea that the Wallabies are a representative organisation, and generally we want them to represent all Australians. So if you've got one bloke who is publicly vilifying one group of Australians then that also causes problems.
.

 

[KOB1987]

I think everyone here can all agree on this, he didn’t have to do it and it’s caused a stink over something dumb

This is different to the question of what the process and rights he should be entitled to is

That’s the thing, absolutely no one here is saying he isn’t in the wrong. He wasn’t making threats against the groups on his list, on the contrary he actually thinks he’s helping them.

It’s the degree of the punishment and appropriate course of action beyond that which is the main subject of the debate.

 

[Lorenzo]

do you then accept that silencing their leading public figure from making political statements will rankle conservatives, who make up between 32 and 38 percent of the population, and thus tarnish your brand with them? Because that’s what’s happening

The whole point is that politics offends people, and that Rugby AU should say it’s players have their own views that don’t reflect RA

Um, what? If "conservatives" were in any respect consistent in their application of values, this situation ought to be a wet dream for them, in that it is playing out so far entirely without any kind of government intervention. This scenario is the very definition of the free market at work. Someone said or did something, and the marketplace reacted. If one or more of those market participants reacted poorly to the information available to them, the free market will handle that too, right?

If you are actual freedom-of-speech zealot, you ought to recognize RA's freedom of association rights too.

 

[Lorenzo]

That’s the thing, absolutely no one here is saying he isn’t in the wrong. He wasn’t making threats against the groups on his list, on the contrary he actually thinks he’s helping them.

It’s the degree of the punishment and appropriate course of action beyond that which is the main subject of the debate.

Very few people would get more than one warning in similar circumstances and Folau had his. Should he get more leeway because he can catch?

 

[Rebelsfan]

This is a flawed argument and is entirely based on how you think about the situation. As a gay man who grew up playing and refereeing rugby and hearing that sort of language it severely impacted on my mental health. It also severely impacted on most of my gay friends.

Language like that is harmful and as a referee I still struggle with it on the rugby field. When I hear the language I do my best to stop it, but there is a risk I feel of overstepping and losing respect of the players.

I am sorry to hear that you have been vilified during your rugby experience. I hope that you do not think that in any way I would want to add to that. I am sorry to hear of the impact on your gay friends.
I do not wish to play identity morality which is what happens when your feelings are brought into a discussion based on your demographic. As a society, we have accepted that homosexuality is legal and we have endorsed SSM. Izzy needs (imo) to join us in the 21st century and accept and embrace the morals of the day. (he can still adhere to his religious beliefs, but without the grandstanding)

 

[wamberal]

The weird thing is that, at heart, Christianity is supposed to be based on love. If Izzy really wanted to "save souls" he would have done a lot better to concentrate on the positive, not the negative, aspects of his faith.


Does he really think that hitting people over the head is the best way to bring them to seeking forgiveness?

 

[John S]

The weird thing is that, at heart, Christianity is supposed to be based on love. If Izzy really wanted to "save souls" he would have done a lot better to concentrate on the positive, not the negative, aspects of his faith.


Does he really think that hitting people over the head is the best way to bring them to seeking forgiveness?

https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-m...re-judgmental-christians-20190414-p51e0o.html

Exactly the point made by Brian Houston. Folau's post really missed the whole "grace", "forgiveness", "for God so loved the world...." message that most of us adhere to. (Yes I'm a happy clappy).

Who needs Christian's to be all judgemental? Doesn't help anyone.

That's my take, and I'm out.

 

[D-Box]

What about other sporting organisations such as the AFL or local track and field associations in the US?
What are their requirements?
Do they follow Olympic guidelines?

Basically yes - however it is harder at non-professional levels. This is all up in there air at the moment with a court case around testosterone levels for female athletes in races from 100m - 1500m (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...as-semenya-iaaf-legal-showdown-opens/10824968). If Semenya wins there is now a difficulty with those level. Can you force a transgender athlete below a certain testosterone level when other athletes could compete in the same race with higher levels?

 

[ACT Crusader]

As I’ve said before, rugby au should take no stance on social or political issues to avoid this

They should simply say his views are his own private political views

In terms of homosexuality being a political issue, it’s not up to us or governing bodies to define what’s political, it’s in the eyes of the people. 38 percent of people voting against gay marriage shows that there’s a legitimate plurality of people who think this is a political issue, as much as I personally find that distasteful.

I think you are conflating two issues there.

By that rationale wasn’t it the 62 per cent that supported a change to the Marriage Act the ones that made it political, given it is politicians that hold the power to make or amend laws? That’s about as political as it gets!

 

[Quick Hands]

We'll find out the legal ins and outs of it later but all the contracts stipulate that the behavioural requirements are in the code of conduct so effectively that code of conduct document forms part of their contract.

Clearly he could get legal advice on that.

But does the code cover the posting of something on social media, where the person making the post isn't claiming to be speaking on behalf of the game of rugby or any rugby club or organisation, isn't at any rugby related event, isn't wearing any clothing or items which could give the impression that they are representing the game or doesn't refer to the game of rugby or rugby participants in the post?

From the code:

“Rugby-related conduct” includes behaviour which occurs outside the playing enclosure that may damage the image of Rugby Football or which may impair public confidence in the integrity and good character of participants, including, but not limited to, conduct during travel to or from either Rugby Football games or authorised tours (whether within Australia or overseas), conduct when on tour, conduct at Rugby functions and promotional events and other conduct where a participant is involved in activities connected with the ARU or its sponsors; words in the singular include the plural and vice versa; and a reference to a gender includes the other genders.

http://www.redsrugby.com.au/Portals...ducation/Re-accreditation_Code_of_Conduct.pdf

EDIT: And I assume that they are relying on 3 (k) or 3 (m) as the alleged breach?

It's hardly a watertight case.

 

[fatprop]

Good summary

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1555569876

 

[Aurelius]

That was worth the watch, but I would be hesitant to label anyone ""puritans".
It seems to me that this transgender thing has emerged quite suddenly and guidelines are blurry.

"When does a boy become a girl and a girl become a boy"? Good question.
What tests are there to determine this? Testosterone levels . what else?

It shouldn't be based on "Ï identify as a girl, therefore I am"
There has been complaints from biological females competing against and being beaten by transgender/biological males.
In other words complaints from the majority regarding the small minority.

I'm not qualified to comment from a medical point of view but it might get sorted properly one day to provide a balance.

Well, this doesn't need to be complicated. In a saner world, sporting organisations would simply say that if you have a Y chromosome, you are biologically male and won't be permitted to compete against women.

Of course, in the world we actually live in, even a genuine LGBT hero like Martina Navratilova can't express such a view without getting accused of being an irrational bigot.

Talk about a crisis of its own making.

 

[Quick Hands]

Very few people would get more than one warning in similar circumstances and Folau had his. Should he get more leeway because he can catch?

One warning for a code of conduct breach and then you're out of the game?

Karmichael Hunt, James Slipper, James O'Connor, Danny Cipriani, Kurtley Beale, Digby Ioane, should I go on?