The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Am I alone? I feel that I am.
I am not the slightest bit offended by a post on social media.
Having been made aware of it by various media (this one firstly) I still Care little of the view expressed.
I think it is only misguided thinking from religious brain washing. I feel sorry for him but really dont care what he does on social media with whoever tunes into it.
Would love the world to move on and let Izzy get back to playing Rugby. Sadly, that's not going to happen.
Izzy, probably the cleanest living and polite and respectful player to wear the Gold Jersey. What crime has been committed other than stupidly?
I am not the slightest bit offended by a post on social media.
Having been made aware of it by various media (this one firstly) I still Care little of the view expressed.
I think it is only misguided thinking from religious brain washing. I feel sorry for him but really dont care what he does on social media with whoever tunes into it.
Would love the world to move on and let Izzy get back to playing Rugby. Sadly, that's not going to happen.
Izzy, probably the cleanest living and polite and respectful player to wear the Gold Jersey. What crime has been committed other than stupidly?
tragic
John Solomon (38)
Alcoholism and addiction in general probably have a genetic predisposition.
There is no doubt you have much higher chance if there is a family history.
For some people it’s no more controllable than their sexual preference.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
I agree with that, but so does One Nation and Fraser Anning.
Does this mean they are correct and immigrants should leave everything at the entrance point?
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
World Rugby is the closest formal organisation.
As a responsible employer would it be wise to send an openly gay man and top referee in Nigel Owens to Samoa, Namibia or Tonga and would he feel comfortable in travelling to these countries? What do World Rugby do?
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
Personally it doesn’t bother me, but I understand why it bothers others.
I get your point about stupidity, but in the current climate you cannot have people representing you in that manner.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
Simple. They are literally not choices that those individuals have. That's counter to the post I quoted.
I edited it for further clarification though because I knew some might struggle.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
RA left themselves in a bad position, why did they not just ban him from social media, or all forms of media? His views were well known and they continued his employment despite being an abhorrent person to many in society.
A lot of Christians believe that they have an obligation to spread the gospel, a quick look at Folau's accounts show that he also believes this is important, yet no alarm bells sounded.
I agree he should have been quiet to comply with his contract (which I am guessing nobody has actually seen in its entirety despite constant references to it) and have no issue with him being fired ( I do think he would have a wrongful dismissal case) for what he did.
It appears that RA is quite selective on when it enforces contracts and when it does not...this is my issue, if you walk past one breach then you have to walk past every breach or you lose credability.
When will the "likers" of his post receive their punishment, they also used social media to promote homophobic slurs to their followers. Remember their followers receive a link the the Folau post because the liked it. They should receive the same treatment. I am sure if Folau liked a westboro baptist church post he would be in trouble
smithandwesson
Peter Burge (5)
[/quote] When will the "likers" of his post receive their punishment, they also used social media to promote homophobic slurs to their followers. Remember their followers receive a link the the Folau post because the liked it. They should receive the same treatment. I am sure if Folau liked a westboro baptist church post he would be in trouble[/quote]
Liking a post is not quite the same as posting, you are not necessarily endorsing the content. You make like the post because it creates discussion, or because you think it's a good riposte to something that happened prior, or you may like the fact that the poster has finally come out of their shell and said something, or you may like the fact that the poster is shooting themselves in the foot with another dumb belief.
Liking a post is not quite the same as posting, you are not necessarily endorsing the content. You make like the post because it creates discussion, or because you think it's a good riposte to something that happened prior, or you may like the fact that the poster has finally come out of their shell and said something, or you may like the fact that the poster is shooting themselves in the foot with another dumb belief.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
RA stated today the “likers” of the post won’t receive any punishment, they deemed it not a severe breach of conduct. Which I agree with
RA also can’t ban someone from social media, contracts need to be aligned with the collective bargaining agreement. Hence why there was no provisions in Folaus new contract.
RA also can’t ban someone from social media, contracts need to be aligned with the collective bargaining agreement. Hence why there was no provisions in Folaus new contract.
Threatening an atheist with hell seems to be ridiculous at best. I'm not offended either. I'm at a stage in my life where I have less time for christians than I've ever had. But I can also see people in a vulnerable place could be confused by his post and support what RA has done.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Yes, there are plenty who wish to argufy this.
I don't think so.
It is about how two possibly competing human "rights" take favour or not, and otherwise are treated by an employer who has commercial reasons to skew in one direction.
And the grey line that divides those issues. And how popular opinion changes over time but always presumes a moral prerogative.
Izzie has pushed some boundaries, but what is interesting is the ethics/jurisprudence position. Which will out in time. (Likely but not guaranteed.)
duckbill
Sydney Middleton (9)
It has been interesting reading all the posts so far - my take on this whole thing is pretty simple - last year RA clearly drew a line in the sand on this issue as has been stated before and on TV today by Raelene Castle. Folau chose to step over that line which to me means his religion is more important to him than the game.
His choice but he has to bear the consequences and RA have for once done the right thing quickly and efficiently - all the various TV and radio sycophants are just that IMO
Time to move on and debate who the best fullback for the Wallabies is for the WC - my vote is DHP
His choice but he has to bear the consequences and RA have for once done the right thing quickly and efficiently - all the various TV and radio sycophants are just that IMO
Time to move on and debate who the best fullback for the Wallabies is for the WC - my vote is DHP
spooky
Frank Row (1)
Are you gay? My brother is and he was offended. It is attitudes like Izzy's that have kept him away from football his whole life. Also it's not my place to label anyone but from following them on social media a couple of high profile Olympic Gold Medalists are or have been in same-sex relationships. They are fellow employees of Rugby Australia. What message is sent to them if their employer allows comments directed at them to go unpunished?
half
Alan Cameron (40)
I am conflicted by this debate.
My reading of the tea leaf’s and tarot cards, is there is no simple solution, when you try and compare two rights. Subjective judgement, your personal bias effected by your internal value system will dictate were you finally arrive.
I am a huge supporter of free speech and the Julian Assange arrest scares the hell [no pun intended] out of me.
However free speech has its limits, like you can’t shout fire in a theatre or high jack on a plan.
Hate speech has become a weapon used by various groups who have mastered today more than ever the ability to get people to support them. Talk back radio is the perfect example when started there was genuine discussion mostly. Today its run by hard core right wingers who run their agenda’s.
As I see it both the hard core left and right have moved further to both the left and right, and by golly when things don’t go their way, they make their voices heard.
I am not a religious person at all, don’t like them.
Yet I am aware of many people especially people from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, India, PI nations who are quite religious, and of various faiths.
Another aspect is what is free speech, if they don’t put you in jail but you lose your job. Lost of income for most is a huge thing and to take away your job and income is close to banning speech. Yep you’re not locked up but you lose your job.
I don’t have an answer nor at this stage have I decided which is the greater good or the greater bad.
What I do feel is;- while I accept the right of people to be offended and wish to punish the person or group that says something you don’t agree with. I am more concerned about who gets offended next over what. I feel this issue is much bigger than rugby and TBH I think to date RA seem to be doing a good job at handling it.
The post was not in breach of any law, and in line with the known values of many churches and faiths, who are protected to practice their faith. I dare say, Rudd, Abbott and SoMo are all practising Christians so its not like some secret society.
The gist of it is, as I see it, no law broken, a known value system, and we take away a person job and earning capacity, and I wonder aloud is that the proper response and further what happens when I call the fat guy in the scrum, fatso and put up a post and say we beat ##### and their props boy are they fat.
Still no answer, except I rate free speech very highly and because someone is offended by whats said, is that reason to ban it or greatly punish the person who said it.
Can of worms stuff.
My reading of the tea leaf’s and tarot cards, is there is no simple solution, when you try and compare two rights. Subjective judgement, your personal bias effected by your internal value system will dictate were you finally arrive.
I am a huge supporter of free speech and the Julian Assange arrest scares the hell [no pun intended] out of me.
However free speech has its limits, like you can’t shout fire in a theatre or high jack on a plan.
Hate speech has become a weapon used by various groups who have mastered today more than ever the ability to get people to support them. Talk back radio is the perfect example when started there was genuine discussion mostly. Today its run by hard core right wingers who run their agenda’s.
As I see it both the hard core left and right have moved further to both the left and right, and by golly when things don’t go their way, they make their voices heard.
I am not a religious person at all, don’t like them.
Yet I am aware of many people especially people from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, India, PI nations who are quite religious, and of various faiths.
Another aspect is what is free speech, if they don’t put you in jail but you lose your job. Lost of income for most is a huge thing and to take away your job and income is close to banning speech. Yep you’re not locked up but you lose your job.
I don’t have an answer nor at this stage have I decided which is the greater good or the greater bad.
What I do feel is;- while I accept the right of people to be offended and wish to punish the person or group that says something you don’t agree with. I am more concerned about who gets offended next over what. I feel this issue is much bigger than rugby and TBH I think to date RA seem to be doing a good job at handling it.
The post was not in breach of any law, and in line with the known values of many churches and faiths, who are protected to practice their faith. I dare say, Rudd, Abbott and SoMo are all practising Christians so its not like some secret society.
The gist of it is, as I see it, no law broken, a known value system, and we take away a person job and earning capacity, and I wonder aloud is that the proper response and further what happens when I call the fat guy in the scrum, fatso and put up a post and say we beat ##### and their props boy are they fat.
Still no answer, except I rate free speech very highly and because someone is offended by whats said, is that reason to ban it or greatly punish the person who said it.
Can of worms stuff.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
He wouldn't be the first to place his religious beliefs higher than a game. Michael Jones used to refuse to play on a Sunday (including for the All Blacks), Terry Curley retired from playing to pursue a religious life despite being a Wallaby at the time. They are just two I can think of. I'm sure there are others.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
We already know you can objectify obese women and vilify them because of their size to the point they feel “humiliated” and just receive a rap on the knuckles
The precedents been set
A $45,000 rap over the knuckles...
I agree that was significantly worse than Folau's first breach but so was the punishment.
This isn't Folau's first breach on this issue though. Clearly that is why things are now significantly different.
Anyway, this is very much off topic.
- Status