The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
I think its crazy how far people are taking this.
Seemed pretty straight forward to me, from the start. A commercial decision driven by a breach of a contract.
It's obviously unearthed some pretty strong underling emotions.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
The 'Murcans would certainly agree with you, but that's not the law here.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
If anything America's workplace laws give employers the freedom to associate with anyone including termination
We saw this with the Caepernick move, which likely would have seen a lawsuit here and rightfully so
I'd fully support Colin Caepernick's right to protest and his right to a lawsuit if he was sacked for expressing a political opinion
Instead, the United States' workplace laws meant he could be fired on a whim because the employer didn't like it, which I think is nasty
As for what I outlined above - I don't want a first amendment in Australia, I think by and large our freedom of speech laws with respect to the government are good. Freedom of speech should not extend to inciting violence
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Yeah, he sued for Collusion because he was uncontracted, my mistake, he wasn't actually fired
I'm not a lawyer so it's hard to know how the case would have gone if it went to trial
I think the point stands that it is easier to fire people in the USA for a variety of reasons -- including opinions expressed
I don't think it does. The NFL has very clear rules regarding their contracts. The 49ers paid him over US$14m in the year they sat him out then released him.
Although he was contracted for 2017 as well, the 49ers don't have to pay him because he was released from their roster. You need zero grounds to release someone from your roster.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
I read a comment saying the thread has divulged to extremes, fair enough the thread was always going to get a bit emotional
I think most people here are reasonable and that there are some key points
> Folau seems to believe what he's posting
> Folau is intransigent/unreasonable about removing it, despite it clearly being quite offensive
> There is a lot of legal problems with the code of conduct and people are split about where it well end up
> A lot of people feel he's entitled to his opinion, but don't have that much sympathy given he did say 'gays will go to hell'
So given this (opinion time again), going forward
> I think perhaps moving to fire him straight away was an overreach
> Could a compromise solution involving a heavy fine have been the better first up move?
> Letting him get away with it entirely isn't right, because of the inflammatory nature of the post
> Why does he have to pick this hill to die on, particularly given sexuality isn't a choice?
> Is it acceptable that QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce run around clearly making public threats against RA in broadsheet newspapers?
I think the thread has been argued in good faith and there's been some good contributions
I think most people here are reasonable and that there are some key points
> Folau seems to believe what he's posting
> Folau is intransigent/unreasonable about removing it, despite it clearly being quite offensive
> There is a lot of legal problems with the code of conduct and people are split about where it well end up
> A lot of people feel he's entitled to his opinion, but don't have that much sympathy given he did say 'gays will go to hell'
So given this (opinion time again), going forward
> I think perhaps moving to fire him straight away was an overreach
> Could a compromise solution involving a heavy fine have been the better first up move?
> Letting him get away with it entirely isn't right, because of the inflammatory nature of the post
> Why does he have to pick this hill to die on, particularly given sexuality isn't a choice?
> Is it acceptable that QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce run around clearly making public threats against RA in broadsheet newspapers?
I think the thread has been argued in good faith and there's been some good contributions
Surely you meant to type that sexuality isn't a choice.
They didn't move to fire him straight away. He did it once and they spoke to him without any significant punishment. His only real punishment here was seemingly that Range Rover took away the car he was driving.
He did it again and then didn't answer calls from Rugby Australia for two days. They were dealing with a media shitstorm and couldn't get in contact with the player. They eventually said that after no contact for two days they intended to terminate his contract unless there are compelling reasons. It has become very clear that none of this would have happened if Folau had been at all conciliatory.
Alan Joyce said nothing until today as far as I can tell. He let the code of conduct hearing play out etc. He's the CEO of RA's major sponsor. He is absolutely entitled to leverage that and say what he wants.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Sorry, that was a typo, I've now corrected it
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
From your post #1393 (my bold)
My post was not about courts view but modern day corporate view so please respond to the correct context my posts were put in please.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Let it go son - let it go
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
And noting that the post is still up on instagram with it being reported that if he removed the post then that would show contrition and his charge would be less and that it is reported that he intends to breach the code of conduct in the future by doing the same thing again.
If the reports are correct, then RA appear to have given him opportunities to continue his rugby career but he is not interested.
I note that slightly ironically, the instagram post says that Liars also go to hell and his action since this post are completely in contradiction to his statements last year where he said
and
Sure he has admitted that he is a sinner too but I really struggle to have respect for someone who is so inconsistent in what he decides to stand firm on.
There are plenty of valid arguments in defence of Folau, some of which appear in that article.
However, 'Leaguies have beaten their wives/driven drunk/defecated in hotel hallways and still been allowed to play' is far from the best of those.
I am happy that rugby players are held to a higher standard, both on and off the field.
.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
The problem I have with that article, is that the post is still up and Folau refuses to commit to not doing it again.
Tomikin
Simon Poidevin (60)
Ive only read the past 3 pages, and I feel this thread should be locked again until we have some quality new on what Izzy's doing.. I dont care to hear about Alan joyce or Alan Jones or the others and have us bitch about it.
I did come in to catch up and see what was happening, but the threads in the shitter, I will steer clear for a few more weeks.
I did come in to catch up and see what was happening, but the threads in the shitter, I will steer clear for a few more weeks.
Finsbury Girl
Trevor Allan (34)
It's actually quite the opposite of straight forward. The fact that the hearing took many days to determine whether or not the code of conduct was indeed breached and the type of breach it represented is proof of that. That this will most likely be tested in court is a lay down misere.
It probably seemed simple to the CEO & board who certainly did themselves no favours acting prejudiciously. There is certainly a question as to whether the very public summary judgement and execution so to speak, by RA, did unfairly influence/prejudice the panel. Were they in fact under undue pressure by effectively having the verdict dictated to them beforehand?
Furthermore it seems there are quite valid questions on the legality/enforceability of vague codes of conduct such most certainly around the separation of professional and personal life, and far more importantly the restriction of rights (implicit and explicit) under statute, equity and common law et al.
Very very far from simple in fact & there are a huge number of legal questions on this issue.
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
Folau is never going to retract it, it is something he genuinely believes. The problem for RA is that this isn't a person who has stolen a laptop or snorted cocaine or punched a team mate that can be made to say 'oops, my bad'. It is a person who has strong Christian beliefs which include sharing the 'gospel' and Rugby Australia is quite literally making a martyr of him for it.
Worse, there are a lot of the rugby community, especially Pacific Islanders that will feel threatened by this decision because they are Christian.
RA has quite literally fallen into culture wars trap 101.
All of it would go away if we could all agree to let dumb comments on social media slide the way ABC let Magied's slide, but it won't happen. It will go to court, no doubt end up in the high court and either Folau will win causing major problems for RA's finances (likely) or a very controversial decision will be made that results in a lot of very unhappy Christians, Jews, Muslims and anyone else who worries their rights will now be trodden on by angry social media types.
Worse, there are a lot of the rugby community, especially Pacific Islanders that will feel threatened by this decision because they are Christian.
RA has quite literally fallen into culture wars trap 101.
All of it would go away if we could all agree to let dumb comments on social media slide the way ABC let Magied's slide, but it won't happen. It will go to court, no doubt end up in the high court and either Folau will win causing major problems for RA's finances (likely) or a very controversial decision will be made that results in a lot of very unhappy Christians, Jews, Muslims and anyone else who worries their rights will now be trodden on by angry social media types.
This is how it works though. RA's Integrity Unit comes up with a charge and potential punishment (in this case a high level breach with the desire to terminate his contract) and then the player can accept that or ask for a CoC hearing.
It has become very clear that if Folau had responded to RA within the first 48 hours and shown any contrition and removed the post it would have never got that far.
- Status