• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Israel Folau


Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,263
And you are perfectly entitled to this view - that's free speech after all - and in fact I agree more with you than I do with Folau, but I also believe that:
  • He is entitled on his personal social media account to express a conventional religious view;
  • That what he said is not hate speech (otherwise we'll need to shut down the Abrahamic faiths - or at least make then comply with some people's sensibilities);
  • That what he said does not contravene the RA's Code of Conduct (we don't know what his contract says);
  • That is biggest "sin" has been to offend the easily outraged and the RA executives fearful of the commercial consequences.
Arguably, it's not a conventional mainstream religious view and one that is confined to the fruit loop religious extremists and not one promulgated by the mainstream Christian religions any more. Could you imagine the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any significant Christian leader tweeting or re-tweeting that.

He is fully aware that because of his status in society as a Wallaby that anything posted on his personal social media account has a traction far beyond immediate friends and family so I don't buy that excuse. He has been called out on this before so he knew exactly what he was doing. All he had to do is to call on people to repent, accept the sweet lord Jesus as their saviour and nobody would have a problem with him living his religion and calling on people to be saved and live forever with him in paradise.

Whether it qualifies as 'Hate Speech' or not, I wouldn't be definitive on. I don't think it is, but I am quite sure that it is in contravention of RA's code of conduct. It would make gay people feel unwelcome if it is not condemned by RA and if action is not taken by them. Rugby is an inclusive sport.

Were Asics within their rights to tear up their sponsorship contract with Israel Folau? Absolutely.

Are Qantas entitled to review their sponsorship of RA in light of his comments and RA's reaction to his comments? Absolutely.

He is entitled to freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech. You can talk about the 'easily offended' and 'snowflakes' all you want, but professional rugby depends on sponsorship and if Israel goes out of his way to test the bounds of his contract, knowing that sponsors do not want to be associated with his views, then he has to live with the consequences of that.

As already discussed, his post rugby options have been extremely curtailed by this.
 


AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
646
My comments were in response to a document cited by petaljam.

I would simply say that it is the belief of the UK's small business association that they can, via contract/code, exercise control over an employee's personal social media activity.

I do not know it this has been tested in the courts.
You are probably right to be very specific. Incredibly, it does seem there are no black and white answers.

It makes a whole load of sense to me that if an employee is relinquishing rights to express themselves outside work, then it should be a contractual matter i.e. signature and review and affirmative agreement by both sides. That's an opinion of mine but, only a lunatic would disagree with that.

Another opinion: Code of conduct and employee handbooks are really not ideal places for restricting employee rights to expression outside work. This is because they can change every few months and these changes need to be done without any employee buy-in i.e. it is impractical to ask every employee to approve every change. Also, FoE (freedom on expression) is too important to be treated in such a shoddy manner.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,648
Again, that fails the real world test. Code od conduct is a term of employment. Its not optional.

He is a unionised employee. Changes to code of conduct may be agreed with them and they are certainly notified.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,217
How do you explain him changing religion then. Then you're choosing which religon suits you. He might deside to embrace Islam tomorrow or Buddhism, or become a Jew.
The breach of religion is that Folau pronounces judgement and foreshadows what is reserved for God in the Christian faith. Thus any pronouncements on that basis are outside the Faith, and are not religious.

How about this then:

I believe in the bible as the word of God. In the bible Moses said gays should be killed. I agree with what is said in the bible.
But he did not say in reference to the bible. He was asked straight up many times, and made many pronouncements independently of scripture.

And even taking your statement, this would also be wrong and not true to the christian Faith. Not only is it recognised that many of the bible statements were written and edited far after the fact with much political influence, the inherent goal of the Faith is to offer forgiveness and a path to redemption. It does not allow you to judge as an affront of God, something which many bible stories do, and are actually contravening the commandments in doing so. But if he did do as you say, a religious argument could be had.
 
Last edited:

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,217
You are mistaken. It's about Folau's legal right to freedom of religion.

He has said so himself.

And where in Aussie Rugby's policies does it say that players have to be discreet about their personal views on issues?
Except it is not a religious freedom issue.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,217
If it weren't a religious view, if he'd said that his personal view was that homosexuals were disgusting perverts, say.
But it is not a religious view. Go through his tweets and the absence of reference to scripture is quite evident. He brought religion into it later. He has been asked directly and has pronounced.

Indeed his first tweet in this sorry saga had no reference to anything but his opinion against gay marriage. No issues but from there the descent into judgement came to the fore as his hatred was let loose.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
646
Again, that fails the real world test. Code od conduct is a term of employment. Its not optional.

He is a unionised employee. Changes to code of conduct may be agreed with them and they are certainly notified.
Definitely notified but very seldom agreed is my experience. I never worked in unionised areas.

Just trust that I am right and take the example of a person who moves his family for a new job. One month into the new job, a code of conduct change is rolled out that forbids any communication on social subject X in public. Subject X is important to the employee and he communicates on it regularly. He would not have moved his family if he had known this was going to happen.

If this ever happens, I contend that this is really unfair to the employee. Do you agree ?
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,493
But it is not a religious view. Go through his tweets and the absence of reference to scripture is quite evident. He brought religion into it later. He has been asked directly and has pronounced.

Indeed his first tweet in this sorry saga had no reference to anything but his opinion against gay marriage. No issues but from there the descent into judgement came to the fore as his hatred was let loose.
You are on the wrong platform. This has nothing to do with Twitter.

Look at his Instagram account:

The vast majority of his posts (to 357,000 followers) refer to religion and/or religious beliefs.

He is a deeply and genuinely religious person.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,648
Definitely notified but very seldom agreed is my experience. I never worked in unionised areas.

Just trust that I am right and take the example of a person who moves his family for a new job. One month into the new job, a code of conduct change is rolled out that forbids any communication on social subject X in public. Subject X is important to the employee and he communicates on it regularly. He would not have moved his family if he had known this was going to happen.

If this ever happens, I contend that this is really unfair to the employee. Do you agree ?
Yes. But alas, thats life.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,031
Only someone who hasn't read the Code could think that it is as clear as day.

Please, cite the provision you think Folau has breached. And while you are at it, explain why RA was unable to cite a specific provision.

You'll find a link to the Code here:
All Policies and Guidelines
From the Code of Conduct for Players .....

1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.

1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit.




Seems to cover Folau, imho.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,493
From the Code of Conduct for Players .....
Seems to cover Folau, imho.
I've already answered this, but here goes again:

1.3 Applies to this world only, not to the afterlife, Folau said that in the afterlife God will discriminate against gays. RA should take that up with God (possibly even Moses). AFAIK nobody has ever suggested that Folau has personally treated gays other than equally, fairly and with dignity.

1.6 The attitude of society to homosexuality is none of the business of Rugby Australia (or Qantas for that matter). The fact that he holds these beliefs does not reflect in any way on rugby generally, nor on Rugby Australia.

1.7 I think this is the one that comes closest to landing a punch on Folau, but the "expectations and requirements" is vague and sloppy wording, and IMO you couldn't build a legal case on it.

1.8 If believing in old fashioned religion, and expressing those beliefs in public, brings rugby (or any other sphere of life) into disrepute then we have a bigger problem. Our passion for inclusivity for one group (gays) cannot come at the price of excluding another group (those who are deeply religious).
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,031
I've already answered this, but here goes again:

1.3 Applies to this world only, not to the afterlife, Folau said that in the afterlife God will discriminate against gays. RA should take that up with God (possibly even Moses). AFAIK nobody has ever suggested that Folau has personally treated gays other than equally, fairly and with dignity.

1.6 The attitude of society to homosexuality is none of the business of Rugby Australia (or Qantas for that matter). The fact that he holds these beliefs does not reflect in any way on rugby generally, nor on Rugby Australia.

1.7 I think this is the one that comes closest to landing a punch on Folau, but the "expectations and requirements" is vague and sloppy wording, and IMO you couldn't build a legal case on it.

1.8 If believing in old fashioned religion, and expressing those beliefs in public, brings rugby (or any other sphere of life) into disrepute then we have a bigger problem. Our passion for inclusivity for one group (gays) cannot come at the price of excluding another group (those who are deeply religious).
What you are saying is that a person has a right to treat others with no respect, decency or dignity if he or she can point to a religious tenet that justifies it. And everyone else has to put up with it.

Rugby Australia are saying Folau has no right to use their sport as a platform to issue fatwas about homosexuals, or anyone else. Either he desists or gets the f**k out. Folau's defence of faux-naivete lacks any integrity whatsoever. It is dog-ate-my-homework standard.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,493
What you are saying is that a person has a right to treat others with no respect, decency or dignity if he or she can point to a religious tenet that justifies it. And everyone else has to put up with it.

Rugby Australia are saying Folau has no right to use their sport as a platform to issue fatwas about homosexuals, or anyone else. Either he desists or gets the f**k out. Folau's defence of faux-naivete lacks any integrity whatsoever. It is dog-ate-my-homework standard.
Please don't paraphrase me to create a straw man. What I am saying is what I say, not what you'd wish I'd said.

Have you thought for a moment how people who are devoutly religious feel about the Folau case? Do you think they will consider that Folau has been treated with respect, decency or dignity? Are people of faith not entitled to that same treatment?

As someone who lives in the Middle East I know what a fatwa is (most of them are harmless) and what Folau said is nothing like a fatwa.

Also, AFAIK, Folau has not claimed naivete. Another straw man.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
646
Two protected groups are in conflict. I guess it was bound to happen. Why are we surprised ?

Summing up..

You have people who are either supportive of the homosexual group and/or disdainful of the religious group. Most of these folks can be simultaneously:
1. dismissive of the freedom of religion rights listed by the UN and cannot fathom how losing your job for expressing religious doctrine could be discrimination on religious grounds
2. convinced that expression of religious doctrine is discriminatory to homosexuals
3. approving or apologetic of businesses restricting personal freedom outside of work

The other people on this thread are concerned about erosion of basic freedoms i.e they believe the bar for getting in trouble over ones expression is way higher than the one jumped by Folau and that business/sport organisations should have as little power as possible on restricting ones freedom.

Have you noticed that there is nobody actually speaking up directly for the religious group ? Why so ?
 

Breanainn

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,870
Please don't paraphrase me to create a straw man. What I am saying is what I say, not what you'd wish I'd said.

Have you thought for a moment how people who are devoutly religious feel about the Folau case? Do you think they will consider that Folau has been treated with respect, decency or dignity? Are people of faith not entitled to that same treatment?

As someone who lives in the Middle East I know what a fatwa is (most of them are harmless) and what Folau said is nothing like a fatwa.

Also, AFAIK, Folau has not claimed naivete. Another straw man.
They are fully entitled to their religious beliefs, but shouldn't bring them into their professional careers.
 

Northsideman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
9,496
They are fully entitled to their religious beliefs, but shouldn't bring them into their professional careers.
The odd thing about that is that many who say that and I am not saying you but for many it only applies to Christians and Jews but not Muslims.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,493
They are fully entitled to their religious beliefs, but shouldn't bring them into their professional careers.
Why?

Rugby Australia and Qantas both publicly espouse particular doctrinal beliefs, beliefs that are not universally shared - why are they entitled to have public beliefs? What has gay marriage got to do with rugby administration or flying planes?

Not only have Rugby Australia and Qantas promoted their beliefs, but they seek to censor and punish someone who disagrees with their beliefs.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,723
The odd thing about that is that many who say that and I am not saying you but for many it only applies to Christians and Jews but not Muslims.
Source please? Preferably a quote from someone who actually holds these two entirely contradictory opinions.

My own view is that it is extremely dangerous to allow special rights to any religious group, including Christians, partly because that will inevitably lead to fundamentalist Muslims requiring the same special rights for their own religious views about issues like separation of men and women in everyday life or the necessity for women to be covered from the male gaze.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,723
Why?

Rugby Australia and Qantas both publicly espouse particular doctrinal beliefs, beliefs that are not universally shared - why are they entitled to have public beliefs? What has gay marriage got to do with rugby administration or flying planes?

Not only have Rugby Australia and Qantas promoted their beliefs, but they seek to censor and punish someone who disagrees with their beliefs.
Because RA and Qantas are promoting beliefs about equality. The fact that some people still think it's acceptable to consider other people as inferior because morally flawed or whatever is no more a justification of that inequality than the crowds objecting to black pupils being admitted to white schools justified their bigotry against black children.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top