Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

So they are an organised group?

Are you always a wanker or just most of the time? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, more said:

Are you always a wanker or just most of the time? 

You never answer questions and make stuff up sorry that offends you 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, more said:

Are you always a wanker or just most of the time? 

Haha. barry is always a wanker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

You never answer questions and make stuff up sorry that offends you 

Journalist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Peter said:

Haha. barry is always a wanker. 

Thank you Peter by the way I’m still running the wrong way round the track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

Thank you Peter by the way I’m still running the wrong way round the track

with a lean to the left....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, more said:

The crux of the matter is this-we should be free to write things that people choose to be hurt or offended by. 

 

Sorry, disagree strongly, there are lines drawn over what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. As time changes this line moves, it is refined by the part of society we are in.

If a work colleague put a poster of the Folau post in your work lunchroom would that be okay?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rory-dognz said:

Sorry, disagree strongly, there are lines drawn over what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. As time changes this line moves, it is refined by the part of society we are in.

If a work colleague put a poster of the Folau post in your work lunchroom would that be okay?

 

Who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable though?

The 18c saga showed us it can now be illegal to hurt someone's feelings - where does it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this Saga about free speech, which it seems like it's becoming? Or is it about an employee that breached his companies social media guidelines within his employment contract and was dismissed?  

I don't like what he said, and while I don't think he should say it, can't he say it if he wants to?  Plenty of people say things I don't like.  

I have no problem with people giving him a serve for what he said either.  You poke the bear.........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its been blurred into Christians versus the rest. 

Maybe the judge should first make Izzy prove god is real before allowing him to use him as an excuse for his behaviour, wonder how that woudl work out? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roxii said:

I think its been blurred into Christians versus the rest. 

Of course it has

If anyone doubts this, imagine if Folau was a muslim and he tweeted verse 2:191 of the Quran (the one about killing nonbelievers wherever you find them)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, roxii said:

I think its been blurred into Christians versus the rest. 

Maybe the judge should first make Izzy prove god is real before allowing him to use him as an excuse for his behaviour, wonder how that would work out? 

I like your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, goughy said:

Is this Saga about free speech, which it seems like it's becoming? Or is it about an employee that breached his companies social media guidelines within his employment contract and was dismissed?  

I don't like what he said, and while I don't think he should say it, can't he say it if he wants to?  Plenty of people say things I don't like.  

I have no problem with people giving him a serve for what he said either.  You poke the bear.........

Well that's the thing. They would have you believe it's about him breaching social media guidelines.

But his wife didn't breech any social media guidelines as stated by Netball NZ and Aus. The attack mob said the response wasn't good enough, and then ANZ the major sponsor also stepped trying to bully the Ferns into taking action. 

It is very much about free speech. 

Edited by more
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, roxii said:

I think its been blurred into Christians versus the rest 

Ask Magda 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, more said:

Well that's the thing. They would have you believe it's about him breaching social media guidelines.

But his wife didn't breech any social media guidelines as stated by Netball NZ and Aus. The attack mob said the response wasn't good enough, and then ANZ the major sponsor also stepped trying to bully the Ferns into taking action. 

It is very much about free speech. 

But it’s only an issue because shared hate speech. None of Izzy’s other religions posts (and there are heaps) are under question or bother anybody, only the one In question. That post alone is what this issue is about.

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

It only an issue because shared hate speech. None of Izzy’s other religions posts (and there are heaps) are under question or bother anybody, only the one In question. That post alone is what this issue is about.

And I'll revert to my original question-if the CEO of Qantas was a Christian and Falou posted some insulting/hurtful remarks about the church (as many have done on this site) would the CEO be justified in pressuring the Wallabies to sack him as has occurred in this instance?

Id imagine a young kid grappling with his existence/religion/meaning of life could feel pressured into committing suicide if one of his sporting heroes said the religion he felt so deeply was nothing more than fairy tales about sky goblins and pedophiles.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, more said:

Well that's the thing. They would have you believe it's about him breaching social media guidelines.

But his wife didn't breech any social media guidelines as stated by Netball NZ and Aus. The attack mob said the response wasn't good enough, and then ANZ the major sponsor also stepped trying to bully the Ferns into taking action. 

It is very much about free speech. 

But all his wife posted was info about his fundraising. Pretty sure there was nothing on there that could be construed as Homophobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

But all his wife posted was info about his fundraising. Pretty sure there was nothing on there that could be construed as Homophobic.

"ANZ Bank has approached Maria Folau’s employer, New Zealand’s Silver Ferns netball team, to condemn her and then issued a public statement distancing itself from her “views”.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/maria-folau-slapped-down-by-anz-bank-over-link-to-izzys-fundraiser-on-social-media/news-story/185f7e0350f90836444fbce9adf657ba

 

"First it was ANZ now another one of netball’s major partners has issued a negative statement on Maria Folau.

Health Insurance company HCF, who sponsor Folau’s Super Netball side, the Adelaide Thunderbirds, on Wednesday reportedly told Netball Australia: “We do not support Maria Folau’s stance.”

Further to that they expressed to Netball Australia the need for “a strong, clear and well-enforced social media policy and education amongst its players and staff.”

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/hcf-becomes-second-netball-sponsor-to-distance-themselves-from-maria-folau/news-story/7a73e27189837adb88758d74289f4506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

"ANZ Bank has approached Maria Folau’s employer, New Zealand’s Silver Ferns netball team, to condemn her and then issued a public statement distancing itself from her “views”.

What 'views??'  That she supports her husband?

Piss weak...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

"ANZ Bank has approached Maria Folau’s employer, New Zealand’s Silver Ferns netball team, to condemn her and then issued a public statement distancing itself from her “views”.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/maria-folau-slapped-down-by-anz-bank-over-link-to-izzys-fundraiser-on-social-media/news-story/185f7e0350f90836444fbce9adf657ba

 

"First it was ANZ now another one of netball’s major partners has issued a negative statement on Maria Folau.

Health Insurance company HCF, who sponsor Folau’s Super Netball side, the Adelaide Thunderbirds, on Wednesday reportedly told Netball Australia: “We do not support Maria Folau’s stance.”

Further to that they expressed to Netball Australia the need for “a strong, clear and well-enforced social media policy and education amongst its players and staff.”

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/hcf-becomes-second-netball-sponsor-to-distance-themselves-from-maria-folau/news-story/7a73e27189837adb88758d74289f4506

Sorry, must have misread the original post, however it is good to see both sporting bodies are standing by her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, more said:

And I'll revert to my original question-if the CEO of Qantas was a Christian and Falou posted some insulting/hurtful remarks about the church (as many have done on this site) would the CEO be justified in pressuring the Wallabies to sack him as has occurred in this instance?

Id imagine a young kid grappling with his existence/religion/meaning of life could feel pressured into committing suicide if one of his sporting heroes said the religion he felt so deeply was nothing more than fairy tales about sky goblins and pedophiles.... 

 

??? How is any of your reply relevant to Izzy’s case for unfair dismal?  The Fair Work Commission will decide if hate speech was enough to breach Izzy’s contract. He has been exercising his free speech on instragram fo years, RA only took action when he crossed the line. It’s RA that Izzy and his leagal team have named. 

 

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

??? How is any of your reply relevant to Izzy’s case for unfair dismal?  The Fair Work Commission will decide if hate speech was enough to breach Izzy’s contract. He has been exercising his free speech on instragram fo years, RA only took action when he crossed the line.

 

Plus there is a shit tonne more evidence that the religion they felt so deeply about IS only about tax breaks, pedophiles and fictional sky goblins than there is that gays, drunkards, adulterers etc are going to go to hell....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

But all his wife posted was info about his fundraising. Pretty sure there was nothing on there that could be construed as Homophobic.

Go Liz Ellis!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/wallabies/liz-ellis-takes-aim-at-those-in-charge-of-netball-australia-over-maria-folau-statements/news-story/74e185c430bcb583698efc0e8cf1a891

 

Quote

 

“I understand that my tweet was interpreted to mean specifically that Maria was not welcome. I get it. It was poorly worded from that point of view,” she wrote.

“I would like to think we are well past the time where a woman is held to account for things her husband says. Just because Maria is married to a man who publicly states things that cause huge controversy, and that many people (myself included) find abhorrent, doesn’t mean that she has to answer for him.

“Until, of course, she re-posted something that is clearly related to those views.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

??? How is any of your reply relevant to Izzy’s case for unfair dismal?  The Fair Work Commission will decide if hate speech was enough to breach Izzy’s contract. He has been exercising his free speech on instragram fo years, RA only took action when he crossed the line. It’s RA that Izzy and his leagal team have named. 

 

Because this is about 'hate' speech isn't it? So where do we draw the line?

 

11 minutes ago, pieman said:

Plus there is a shit tonne more evidence that the religion they felt so deeply about IS only about tax breaks, pedophiles and fictional sky goblins than there is that gays, drunkards, adulterers etc are going to go to hell....

If piemans employer had a social media policy should  he terminated for 'hurtful' comments about the church like above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

Because this is about 'hate' speech isn't it? So where do we draw the line?

 

If piemans employer had a social media policy should  he terminated for 'hurtful' comments about the church like above?

We don’t draw the line, the Gov has. People with agendas (even some in Gov) try and grey that though. 

 

Re Piemans post

As you’re basing your position on the Izzy / RA issue on assumptions, if’s, and hyperpheticols rather the what has actually happened you’ll need to explain ..... what does Piemans employment contract say about social media? What does it say about hurtful comments? How is hurtful defined in legislation in your world?

Where something is posted and how many people see it, and therefore how much damage it causes  Piemans employer will have a huge bearing on if they can take action. Also I’ve never heard of anyone dismissed for anything as tame as piemans post anyway, but hey.... it’s your ferry tale 

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike Del said:

But it’s only an issue because shared hate speech. None of Izzy’s other religions posts (and there are heaps) are under question or bother anybody, only the one In question. That post alone is what this issue is about.

which wasn't 'hate' speech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Del said:

We don’t draw the line, the Gov has. People with agendas (even some in Gov) try and grey that though. 

 

Re Piemans post

As you’re basing your position on the Izzy / RA issue on assumptions, if’s, and hyperpheticols rather the what has actually happened you’ll need to explain ..... what does Piemans employment contract say about social media? What does it say about hurtful comments? How is hurtful defined in legislation in your world?

Where something is posted and how many people see it, and therefore how much damage it causes  Piemans employer will have a huge bearing on if they can take action. Also I’ve never heard of anyone dismissed for anything as tame as piemans post anyway, but hey.... it’s your ferry tale 

the government? 

If Pieman posted his comments directly on one of his fellow employees facebook page, then he may be lucky to stay employed.? but posting in general, he is free to do so. ? A post on his own facebook is generalising religion like that is narrow minded and is hateful, but he is well within his rights to do so if he worked in my company.   If he was a teacher and in other certain occupations, he would be as guilty as falou and could rightly be disciplined, if not dismissed. 

 

what has really opened my eyes about this whole Falougate thing is that on the surface it appears some people are simply no longer 'allowed' to have some conservative views whether it be against homosexuality or climate change or no longer having gender on birth certifcates etc. etc.  I personally prefer to follow our current laws and show respect for others views. 

 

I would also bet on here that there would be a large majority that speak hard against religion being so 'evil' that were married in a church. I would simply ask why if you don't strongly believe in religion??

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a self employed abortion practitioner so I wrote the social media policy...

Thought my comments were largely factual or repeating names that the 'pro religion lobby' used.. 

 

I'll give myself a written warning now

Edited by pieman
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pieman said:

Im a self employed abortion practitioner so I wrote the social media policy...

Thought my comments were largely factual or repeating names that the 'pro religion lobby's.. 

 

I'll give myself a written warning now

nah, sack yourself and file an unfair dismissal claim.  you could get up to 6mths salary. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Prince said:

nah, sack yourself and file an unfair dismissal claim.  you could get up to 6mths salary. 😂

My boss is a tight ass.. he'd fight that on principle

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pieman said:

Im a self employed abortion practitioner so I wrote the social media policy...

Thought my comments were largely factual or repeating names that the 'pro religion lobby's.. 

 

I'll give myself a written warning now

You should appeal that warning 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

the government? 

In that I was actually referring to the Governments legislation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

what has really opened my eyes about this whole Falougate thing 

I don't know about gays but I do know that anyone that puts 'gate' on the end of any scandal is going to hell and take any fcuker that uses the term 'brifter' with you. :gun_bandana:

Edited by FatPom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FatPom said:

I don't know about gays but I do know that anyone that puts 'gate' on the end of any scandal is going to hell and take any fcuker that uses the term 'brifter' with you. :gun_bandana:

At the end of any scandal?

Wouldn't you accept it if the scandal involved Walter Mitty? At least under certain circumstances?

Edited by Paul Every
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

At the end of any scandal?

Wouldn't you accept it if the scandal involved Walter Mitty? At least under certain circumstances?

I would only accept it if it involved a 90s space/time travel show. :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatPom said:

I would only accept it if it involved a 90s space/time travel show. :lol:

Or a scandal involving small goods shops 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, goughy said:

Is this Saga about free speech, which it seems like it's becoming? Or is it about an employee that breached his companies social media guidelines within his employment contract and was dismissed?  

Yes..... it’s about his breach of the employees code of conduct. People keep forgetting this and turn in into all about free speech.

I work in an environment where I have to sign and abide by a certain code of conduct. Most (a lot of) people do these days in some form. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, more said:

Well that's the thing. They would have you believe it's about him breaching social media guidelines.

But his wife didn't breech any social media guidelines as stated by Netball NZ and Aus. The attack mob said the response wasn't good enough, and then ANZ the major sponsor also stepped trying to bully the Ferns into taking action. 

It is very much about free speech. 

Hers was, his isn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today he goes to the fair work commission. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also said that RA offered him money to take down his post, which he refused.  RA has denied this.  So one of them is lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, goughy said:

He's also said that RA offered him money to take down his post, which he refused.  RA has denied this.  So one of them is lying?

The state that Australian Rugby is in, and coming into a WC year, i reckon they offered him something to take it down and therefore keep him in the fold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, goughy said:

He's also said that RA offered him money to take down his post, which he refused.  RA has denied this.  So one of them is lying?

If Izzy lied would he go to hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goughy said:

He's also said that RA offered him money to take down his post, which he refused.  RA has denied this.  So one of them is lying?

You'd think they would ask him to take it down but to offer money is just weird? Someone on 1 mill a year does not put a post up like that to get money. 

I'd be asking him,

1. Who offered him the money

2. How did they ask?  TEXT? phone call?  

Then I'd investigate it.

I do find it amusing the Alan Jones is supporting him and he is gay. I suppose anything for ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peter said:

You'd think they would ask him to take it down but to offer money is just weird? Someone on 1 mill a year does not put a post up like that to get money. 

I'd be asking him,

1. Who offered him the money

2. How did they ask?  TEXT? phone call?  

Then I'd investigate it.

I do find it amusing the Alan Jones is supporting him and he is gay. I suppose anything for ratings.

I said that a while ago but nobody engaged with it.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Peter said:

You'd think they would ask him to take it down but to offer money is just weird? Someone on 1 mill a year does not put a post up like that to get money. 

I'd be asking him,

1. Who offered him the money

2. How did they ask?  TEXT? phone call?  

Then I'd investigate it.

I do find it amusing the Alan Jones is supporting him and he is gay. I suppose anything for ratings.

I reckon Izzy is telling the truth-RA would have known the sh!t storm that was coming so a hundred grand or two would have been seen a cheap solution..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe RA should have just ignored the post to start with.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Prince said:

Maybe RA should have just ignored the post to start with.  

They certainly do seem to have a Labor-esque penchant for punching themselves square in the balls, don't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Prince said:

Maybe RA should have just ignored the post to start with.  

They couldn't-they had a gay CEO threatening to pull sponsorship. And I guess that's what it all comes down to-a person of significant power and influence has a personal interest in this and has flexed his muscle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

They certainly do seem to have a Labor-esque penchant for punching themselves square in the balls, don't they?

Please, this subject is going around in circles enough without bringing in more politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...