Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

Reckon he's just trying to remind us all the reason for Easter isnt for a camping trip..  #jesusisthereasonfortheseason

#curioustiming

Share this post


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

It will be an interesting legal case. Not sure where this policy fits in relation to his contract of employment. i don't condone what he did, but not sure they can legally sack him. I would think they are just better paying his contract out anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nealo said:

He also needs to do some homework on homosexuals and what is written in the bible. Find me a passage that says a woman can't have a relationship with another woman...........

I believe that the reference usually quoted for this is: Romans 1:26–27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will have to bring his own lawyer, Im pretty sure all the church's lawyers have their hands full at the moment.  (Ironically trying to defend their own after committing some of the acts Falou has spoken out against)  :eek:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when he was treasurer:

- The federal treasurer, Scott Morrison, has backed Wallabies star Israel Folau’s “strong character” in standing up for his religious belief that gay people will go to hell unless they repent their sins. "I think he’s shown a lot of strength of character in just standing up for what he believes in and I think that’s what this country is all about.”

Now that he's PM in an election:

 - “I thought they were terribly insensitive comments and obviously that was a matter for the ARU and they’ve taken that decision,” Mr Morrison told ABC News on Friday. “It is important that people act with love, care and compassion to their fellow citizens and to speak sensitively to their fellow Australians.”

Edited by XCOM.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

I believe that the reference usually quoted for this is: Romans 1:26–27

Ah yes but the Bible is all about interpretation isn't it.

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature."  quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)"

 

https://www.gaychristian101.com/does-romans-126-condemn-lesbians.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, nealo said:

Ah yes but the Bible is all about interpretation isn't it.

I'm an Atheist, and no authority on the nuances of Bible interpretation, which seems an art-form in itself. I seem to recall something in Leviticus (that barrel full of laughs book) where God commands that you are not to tattoo yourself... that must be a bit awkward for Izzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

I'm an Atheist, and no authority on the nuances of Bible interpretation, which seems an art-form in itself. I seem to recall something in Leviticus (that barrel full of laughs book) where God commands that you are not to tattoo yourself... that must be a bit awkward for Izzy.

Leviticus 19:28: ”You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.”

It's in the context of not being a pagan though... so he's probably alright. 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" though might be a bit trickier.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be interesting times at Rugby Australia if Izzy wins the case.  Could be some awkward moments in the dressing rooms - Considering that both his state and County captains have condemned his comments and congratulated RA on sacking him.

My guess is that he'll win the case but never be selected again.

Share this post


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

Could be interesting times at Rugby Australia if Izzy wins the case.  Could be some awkward moments in the dressing rooms - Considering that both his state and County captains have condemned his comments and congratulated RA on sacking him.

My guess is that he'll win the case but never be selected again.

I would just take the money instead, as its too awkward as you said.  In normal workplace cases they give the employee the option of compensation or reinstatement, but if the employee says reinstatement, the employer can say 'no'.  

Share this post


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

I would just take the money instead, as its too awkward as you said.  In normal workplace cases they give the employee the option of compensation or reinstatement, but if the employee says reinstatement, the employer can say 'no'.  

I'm genuinely interested... my contract with my employer would count this as gross misconduct... What's the angle for him getting off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gross misconduct?  If you or I tweeted what he did, it would take a brave HR manager to even issue you with a warning letter. If you mentioned the company you worked for, possibly harsher discipline, but sacking, no way. Religious views, no matter how misguided, are not illegal.  

He breached the ARU code of conduct for sure. but maybe not his employment contract. it depends how it is written. It also depends how they implemented the code of conduct. Simply handing it out one night after training wouldn't be enough. Also his tweet wasn't vile, it was simply paraphrasing in todays language of his religious beliefs, (no matter how stupid and divisive this thinking is) so, the ARU might be accused of being h'arsh or unjust' or worse, being discriminatory.   It will be an interesting case. I do hope it makes it to court, as it will be interesting. 

Edited by Prince

Share this post


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

gross misconduct?  If you or I tweeted what he did, it would take a brave HR manager to even issue you with a warning letter. If you mentioned the company you worked for, possibly harsher discipline, but sacking, no way. Religious views, no matter how misguided, are not illegal.  

We have fired somebody for something similar and there was literally no comeback... I guess we're a weird business (similar to this case) in that my social media presence (on Twitter and LinkedIn, not Facebook) is very much linked to us as a company.

The angle I understand is whether it's provable that he was aware of these restrictions and the contract then is really irrelevant it's about de facto behaviour. What they can't do is move the goal posts halfway through but if there was clear instruction and guidance about what he couldn't post on social media then I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

 

E2A: My direct experience was under UK employment law not Australian.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, monkie said:

 

The angle I understand is whether it's provable that he was aware of these restrictions and the contract then is really irrelevant it's about de facto behaviour. What they can't do is move the goal posts halfway through but if there was clear instruction and guidance about what he couldn't post on social media then I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

 

E2A: My direct experience was under UK employment law not Australian.

my understanding is that the code of conduct was introduced well after he was on contract. That is why a good contract will make it clear, that "policies are changed/introduced from time to time"....etc.   If they have signed evidence he has 'read and understood'  the code of conduct, he will be in trouble. But the case also revolves around if he is allowed to express his religious views in a public forum, and if so, where is he allowed to do this. Does that prohibit him from standing up in his church saying similar things?, according to the code of conduct it does. 

Share this post


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

my understanding is that the code of conduct was introduced well after he was on contract. That is why a good contract will make it clear, that "policies are changed/introduced from time to time"....etc.   If they have signed evidence he has 'read and understood'  the code of conduct, he will be in trouble. But the case also revolves around if he is allowed to express his religious views in a public forum, and if so, where is he allowed to do this. Does that prohibit him from standing up in his church saying similar things?, according to the code of conduct it does. 

Interesting. So this would be a test case as to whether the code of conduct is enforceable?

Share this post


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

Interesting. So this would be a test case as to whether the code of conduct is enforceable?

yes, but also if the punishment was too harsh, and remember, its not like he can really get another job easily in his chosen career, certainly not in Australia. 

Share this post


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

yes, but also if the punishment was too harsh, and remember, its not like he can really get another job easily in his chosen career, certainly not in Australia. 

Ooo. That's another interesting angle. I shall watch with interest! Thank you for your insight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nealo said:

This isn't a "freedom of speech" thing. He wasn't arrested and thrown in jail.

He signed a contract. He has allegedly breached that contract OR the Rugby Australia's Code of Conduct. He signed that contract and in acceptance of said contract took an amount of money reported to be $4 million.

He wasn't asked to not be religious. He wasn't sacked for his beliefs.

He also needs to do some homework on homosexuals and what is written in the bible. Find me a passage that says a woman can't have a relationship with another woman...........

ABC sport said there is not a clause in his contract saying he can’t say what he did.  

And if rugby is inclusive, they have to be inclusive of all religions too. 

He farked up. Sure. 

But I don’t see him getting sacked now. 

Share this post


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

He farked up. Sure. 

But I don’t see him getting sacked now. 

I can't see Qantas sponsoring them past this current contract then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I can't see Qantas sponsoring them past this current contract then.

Agreed. Actions have consequences. Freedom of speech aye but also freedom of repercussion. I think Prince's suggestion will be what happens, he'll get paid out but never play again. Shame.... as a pom this is brilliant. As a decent human I hope he suffers financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ARU (and Raelene Castle) screwed up the social-media contract terms that they said they'd put in place for his contract, and he claims unlawful termination of his contract for expressing his religious beliefs, he is then potentially going to open up a whole other can of worms with the NSW Anti-Discrimination act, which I understand would apply in this case and which could override any workplace arguments, and could expose the ARU to a vilification claim from the LGBTI community. 

Edited by XCOM.!
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Different sport FP.

It didn’t sound right when I typed it. Old age.:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FatPom said:

Has Ian Roberts said anything?

 

6 hours ago, nealo said:

Different sport FP.

Shows that Rugby Union Australia has more issues if not one player that is gay feels comfortable to "Come out" and therefore make a statement.

You can't tell me that in all of Australia there isn't one gay player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

If the ARU (and Raelene Castle)

Is this her? 

images-3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Izzy once asked Alan Joyce to explain to him what LGBTI+ meant, he couldn't get a straight answer...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, what a surprise....next thing you know they will tear up his contract. 

Share this post


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

GUILTY

But not over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wronggenes said:

Will be signed by Souths to replace Inglis.

I would.

 

Share this post


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

Will be signed by Souths to replace Inglis.

 

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

I would.

 

NRL boss Peter Beattie says he won't be allowed.

Would an ex-politician even lie?

Share this post


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

 

NRL boss Peter Beattie says he won't be allowed.

Would an ex-politician even lie?

Wont be allowed? Gee they are really out to finish this guy aren't they.

I think the whole thing is a load of bullshit. The PC brigade are constantly shaming us, saying we are supposed to be tolerant of peoples views, beliefs and way of life no matter how weird it is or uncomfortable it might make us feel. 

I don't like Muslim women being forced to cover up-I think its the ultimate form of humiliation and sexism. But I have to accept it or risk be called racist (even though religion isn't a race...)

Yet this bloke has just repeated his beliefs-that gays (and alcoholics etc) will go to hell and he is being absolutely crucified for it. Whats wrong with him having his opinion and people disagreeing with it and moving on like adults?

Censorship is taking over bit by bit.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya and agree with you Mr more.   Unfortunately, the mitigating factors are that he was in breach of one of his employers policies and had been given several warnings. You have to remember that someone with such a high profile has to be almost neutral in their opinions as they are role models etc. 

however, is such a policy even fair because as you rightly point out, we are encouraged to have some freedom of speech, and why are his views and thousands of others treated as some kind of criminal offence, and the post itself wasn't vile in any way. It will be fought out in the courts and will certainly be an interesting case. I would think that a number of law firms will be knocking on Falou's door to represent him at no cost as it will be a highly publicised case. 

I personally think the ARU handled this badly and had decided he was guilty and the punishment decided the day after the post. 

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be interesting in this case are the parallels Falou's actions/comments draw to the exemptions the Government put into the same sex marriage laws allowing people to refuse to participate/conduct ceremonies based on their religious beliefs.

Share this post


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

Yet this bloke has just repeated his beliefs-that gays (and alcoholics etc) will go to hell and he is being absolutely crucified for it. Whats wrong with him having his opinion and people disagreeing with it and moving on like adults?

 Censorship is taking over bit by bit.

It’s on the tame end of the scale as far as inflammatory statements go, but it’s part of a pattern of behaviour he has been warned about by his employer. 

It may be that the ARU guidelines need more clarity, or it might be that Falou just can’t be told.

Some people would have seen it, disagreed and moved on, but you’d be incredibly naive to think everyone would do that. It’s also easy to say “Just move on” when you aren’t part of a group that gets targeted a lot. 

He is paying the price for ignoring his employment obligations, not his religious beliefs. There are probably a billion things he could post that don’t target minority groups, but he chose poorly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard an interesting thing on the radio the other day. It said his original contract had nothing about Social Media commenting. It was added to the contract after he signed on and he refused to sign that amendment. Apparently the ARU thought mentioning it would be enough to stop him. This, of course, is just what they reported and may be incorrect.

As to what he said, I agree it's tame  - he simply posted what he believes to be true. Let's be fair dinkum about it, the only issue is he mentioned gay people. You're not hearing drunks, thieves and adulterers complaining. As an atheist, I'm not at all offended. He's talking about the consequences of peoples behaviour so I wonder if he'd be in court if he said "Rapists will go to jail!"

Put simply, the ARU is receiving pressure from Alan Joyce threatening to pull Qantas sponsorship. I suspect if AJ wasn't gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) this would be far less of an issue. I'm getting tired of people going out of their way to be offended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tyno said:

It’s on the tame end of the scale as far as inflammatory statements go, but it’s part of a pattern of behaviour he has been warned about by his employer. 

It may be that the ARU guidelines need more clarity, or it might be that Falou just can’t be told.

Some people would have seen it, disagreed and moved on, but you’d be incredibly naive to think everyone would do that. It’s also easy to say “Just move on” when you aren’t part of a group that gets targeted a lot. 

He is paying the price for ignoring his employment obligations, not his religious beliefs. There are probably a billion things he could post that don’t target minority groups, but he chose poorly. 

He wasn't talking in an official capacity. He is paid to run into blokes and put a ball over a white line. What he says off the field shouldn't be really anyone's concern unless it's calling for the harm of someone.

Anthony Mundine said gays should be hung, now thats a comment worthy of sacking and getting worked up over.

But as for saying someone's going to hell...who gives a shit. I bet you would find it hard to find any gay person who honestly cared. And why should they?

Is banning people from saying what they believe going to stop them believing it? 

The world is a crazy place, it's fine to show people being murdered or the most gruesome violence you could imagine on TV when kids are awake, to have them playing computer games where they are literally trained and rewarded for killing people. 

But some bonehead rugby player says we are all going to hell and includes gays in that sentence and everyone looses their shit...crazy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough this thread was started by comparing Mundine's views to Folau's views.

Mundine has now come out and stated his support for Folau, saying its a stand against racism. 

My questions, is he implying racism because of the colour of Folaus skin, or his religious beliefs?

I grew up believeing racism is directed as races of people being targeted as superior or inferior (very basic explanantion). Now i am reading that racism can include religious views, sexual preference etc...... am I mistaken or is the later incorrect?  Im honestly not sure.

Edited by Pencil_Towel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pencil_Towel said:

My questions, is he implying racism because of the colour of Folaus skin, or his religious beliefs?

This is what Mundine said

"People are missing the point here, it’s not about the Bible or the Biblical quote that Izzy put up, it’s a black man expressing it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nealo said:

This is what Mundine said

"People are missing the point here, it’s not about the Bible or the Biblical quote that Izzy put up, it’s a black man expressing it"

Has Mundine EVER not played the race card?

Share this post


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

This is what Mundine said

"People are missing the point here, it’s not about the Bible or the Biblical quote that Izzy put up, it’s a black man expressing it"

Yeah i understood it to be race related as in Folaus skin colour, have just seen some commentary where using your religious views or the like to denounce any group (outside of race ie skin colour) you can be considered/called a racist.  I didnt think that was the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pencil_Towel said:

Yeah i understood it to be race related as in Folaus skin colour, have just seen some commentary where using your religious views or the like to denounce any group (outside of race ie skin colour) you can be considered/called a racist.  I didnt think that was the case.

It's seen a lot in social media where people use racist when talking about people who are against Muslims. I suppose it comes from the misguided idea that if you are Muslim you are Middle-Eastern.

Share this post


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

He wasn't talking in an official capacity. He is paid to run into blokes and put a ball over a white line. What he says off the field shouldn't be really anyone's concern unless it's calling for the harm of someone.

 

Yeah, it crosses a few different areas of employer/employee relationship. As a professional athlete, how do you differentiate what comments are made with his Wallabies hat on and what comments are made with his private opinion hat on?

Only people coming out winners here are lawyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, Izzy didn't hold a pressa.  

He did an instagram photo.

He didnt do it from the official ARU site.  Or NSW or whoever he plays for.

If you can get sacked for instagram photos, there are a heap of people out there that need to delete instagram fast.

 

Edited by Peter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that as a public profile person with thousands of followers, including kids, and as one of the Australian team members, you influence a lot of people, so you definitely have to be careful what you post. 

The question is really if his post 'brought the game into disrepute' i guess. The ARU says it did, but they are clearly incorrect. 

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...