The Israel Folau saga

[spikhaza]

But barbarian, isn’t it better to bring people’s views out in the open and leave them liable for public critique and an open discussion?

Furthermore, to tell homosexual people there aren’t people in the community out there who don’t accept them is lying to them. They ought to know the truth so they can be prepared for these types of people. They should also know there’s a huge amount of people in the community who support them.

I spoke to one of my best mates who had a lot of trouble coming out about this and he said yes it can hurt but the only way to change these peoples views is to have a legitimate discussion with them.

The best way to deal with Folau isn’t to silence him and censure him - this only Martyrs him. It’s to say his views are just moronic because nobody chooses their sexuality

 

[Latts1992]

I have looked up the statistics and according to https://lgbtihealth.org.au/statistics/ gay youth are five times more likely to commit suicide. The site states that these young people are living healthy and happy lives. There is an argument to suggest that these people suffer from some mental illness - not related to their gayness - but coincidentally - and this could quite likely be the cause of the high rate. I don't think Izzy's comments contribute to mental illness.

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.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Re: the supposed lack of outrage from the "actual gay community", I've seen where Gareth Thomas & Nigel Owen have both commented. I'm not on FB or any other social media but I'm told that you don't have to look too hard to find "everyday" gays having their say, too.

 

[ACT Crusader]

It is possible to express your religion or political views in a way that doesn't vilify others. That is the basic substance of RA's policy, and the law more broadly.

If Israel came out and advocated for superannuation reform, nobody would really care. If he called for an end to Muslim immigration then we'd have problems, as he'd have likely breached the inclusion policy.

Likewise when he just posts about God's love or the glory of Jesus or whatever, it's all good. He can post bible verses for days. But once he starts doing anything that can be perceived to be vilifying minority groups he is in trouble.

I'd suspect we'd have the same issue if he started quoting bible verses on women being subservient to men.

So really this isn't about banning all religious speech, or all political speech. It's just a small subsection of both which involve the vilification of minority groups.
.

I’ll play along with this one. Let’s say Folau came out and said something about super reform that flew in the face of the ACTU and union movement position. So they started a campaign against him, lobbying Joyce and other corporates about it. They put public pressure on them and RA through ads and social media.

The union movement being a minority group, get all offended, feel absolutely marginalised by big corporates etc, there is animosity that the bargained gains they have made over years are being attacked through a public figure, sending a message to past strikers and unionists that all their hard work was now for nothing.

RA could find themselves in a bit of a bind on how to deal with this or would they just come out and say “that’s Israel’s views and not RA’s”.......

 

[Braveheart81]

The best way to deal with Folau isn’t to silence him and censure him - this only Martyrs him. It’s to say his views are just moronic because nobody chooses their sexuality

How do you separate Folau from Rugby Australia though?

How can Rugby Australia claim to be walking the walk of inclusiveness if one of their highest profile players and faces of the brand is actively undermining that?

Everything any high profile professional player says and does reflects on the teams they play for. There's no separating the two.

 

[Derpus]

I’ll play along with this one. Let’s say Folau came out and said something about super reform that flew in the face of the ACTU and union movement position. So they started a campaign against him, lobbying Joyce and other corporates about it. They put public pressure on them and RA through ads and social media.

The union movement being a minority group, get all offended, feel absolutely marginalised by big corporates etc, there is animosity that the bargained gains they have made over years are being attacked through a public figure, sending a message to past strikers and unionists that all their hard work was now for nothing.

RA could find themselves in a bit of a bind on how to deal with this or would they just come out and say “that’s Israel’s views and not RA’s”...

what

 

[sidelineview]

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

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.

 

[Latts1992]

Unionisation is a choice. Sexuality isn't. It's entirely different.

 

[spikhaza]

How do you separate Folau from Rugby Australia though?

How can Rugby Australia claim to be walking the walk of inclusiveness if one of their highest profile players and faces of the brand is actively undermining that?

Everything any high profile professional player says and does reflects on the teams they play for. There's no separating the two.

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.

The whole quagmire of this thread, the increasing blowback from conservatives (which now includes publicly elected MPs from the incumbent government of Australia), and the increasing division of fans proves my point. Wading in on political views, is going to get political, and Rugby AU doesn’t need to divide it’s fans by taking a stance one way or the other

This is also why corporate social responsibility is a joke

 

[sidelineview]

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

Excellent article.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

The current requirement at Olympic level is for testosterone levels of a male to female transgender person to be below a threshold for a year prior to competing. They are not required to have gender re-assignment surgery.

There is a lot of hysteria regarding this based on the misconception that a man just has to wear a dress and claim they're a woman and then they can start winning all these sporting events because they are physically stronger/faster. This is flat out wrong. The other one is that someone would transition to gain an advantage. Again, an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

The bottom line is that there are literally zero transgender athletes who have had any substantial success at international level that would indicate that there is a problem here.

 

[Braveheart81]

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

I don't think either of these things works in reality.

 

[sidelineview]

The current requirement at Olympic level is for testosterone levels of a male to female transgender person to be below a threshold for a year prior to competing. They are not required to have gender re-assignment surgery.

There is a lot of hysteria regarding this based on the misconception that a man just has to wear a dress and claim they're a woman and then they can start winning all these sporting events because they are physically stronger/faster. This is flat out wrong. The other one is that someone would transition to gain an advantage. Again, an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

The bottom line is that there are literally zero transgender athletes who have had any substantial success at international level that would indicate that there is a problem here.

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?

 

[Derpus]

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.

The whole quagmire of this thread, the increasing blowback from conservatives (which now includes publicly elected MPs from the incumbent government of Australia), and the increasing division of fans proves my point. Wading in on political views, is going to get political, and Rugby AU doesn’t need to divide it’s fans by taking a stance one way or the other

This is also why corporate social responsibility is a joke

Public*

True, i suppose they should stand by and let their brand get trashed, right? The point isn't that they have a position. The point is literally that they don't want to have to be seen as taking a position. They want to be all inclusive.

Having their leading public figure ragging on (or trying to save, whatever) LGBTQI folk cannot be extricated from RA's brand. To suggest otherwise is to be intentionally obtuse.

At the end of the day, what they ask for is extremely reasonable. Have your opinions but don't take the cash and act as brand ambassador if you want to slag on cnuts.

 

[Derpus]

Man i just can't get over what a shit move it is.

Promise not to do something to get fat wads of cash and then do it anyway. Promise to take the punishment on the chin and then drag RA and the public through a tribunal anyway.

Poor form lad.

 

[spikhaza]

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

 

[Derpus]

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

It won't. If he never said anything conservatives wouldn't be rankled.

Like i said, he takes the cash he can shut his mouth. I wholeheartedly agree RA should not be involved in politics. I just disagree that you can magically separate Folau from RA's brand.

As an aside, you are obfuscating the argument. Homosexuality is not a choice like being a conservative is (i presume).

 

[Braveheart81]

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?

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.

 

[KOB1987]

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

That’s why I say we need to see the substance of his defense before passing judgement. Personally I don’t think it’s about money for him, he wants to play footy.

 

[Quick Hands]

Man i just can't get over what a shit move it is.

Promise not to do something to get fat wads of cash and then do it anyway. Promise to take the punishment on the chin and then drag RA and the public through a tribunal anyway.

Poor form lad.

To present the counter-argument. He may well say, I offered to walk away a year ago if you wanted me to but you signed me anyway to a four year contract knowing my beliefs. This current dispute means that I would find it much harder to get a contract playing rugby anywhere else.

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 all have the right to go to law to protect our rights. Just because you don't like someone's opinion or conduct, doesn't mean that they don't have the same rights as you and I do.