Australian Rugby / RA

[Gnostic]

Funny that the comments about the "locked thread" are ones of derision from people who shout loudest into their own echo chamber.

We then had a very short lived thread objected to the locking, that was deleted altogether after some very civil and well made posts.

How far we have fallen.

 

[Derpus]

You should sue for a breach of your freedom of speech.

 

[Derpus]

Interesting that somebody so concerned about an offensive internet post, would post something like this. It's possibly the most offensive thing that I've read on these threads in the years I've been part of it.

Fortunately i didnt sign a contract with a code of conduct

 

[Gnostic]

You should sue for a breach of your freedom of speech.

Why I am exercising it? I am puzzled by your post, was it a poorly constructed attempt at sarcasm? I must be old, I don't under stand the significance of the stupid head thingy.​

 

[barbarian]

Interesting that somebody so concerned about an offensive internet post, would post something like this. It's possibly the most offensive thing that I've read on these threads in the years I've been part of it.

I don't know, we once had a bloke who thought David Croft was better than Phil Waugh.
.

 

[Derpus]

Why I am exercising it? I am puzzled by your post, was it a poorly constructed attempt at sarcasm? I must be old, I don't under stand the significance of the stupid head thingy.​

Because the moderators are preventing you from exercising it........

 

[Gnostic]

Fortunately i didnt sign a contract with a code of conduct

Codes of conduct are everywhere though. I cannot recall anywhere a report of somebody being sacked for breach of one that doesn't involve a criminal offence or behaviour that would amount to such if that action was taken.​

 

[Quick Hands]

Fortunately i didnt sign a contract with a code of conduct

Although these threads have a code of conduct, which were once universally enforced. I see from one of your likers that there is little hope of that occurring.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't know, we once had a bloke who thought David Croft was better than Phil Waugh.
.

I hope you don't think that this post reflects well on you. Even though we've often disagreed, I've always thought you worthy of respect.

 

[Derpus]

I will delete it when i get home if you want, in the interests of civility.

Edit: deleted

 

[barbarian]

Although these threads have a code of conduct, which were once universally enforced. I see from one of your likers that there is little hope of that occurring.

It's been reported, and the mods will take a look at it, not just me.
.

 

[Gnostic]

Although these threads have a code of conduct, which were once universally enforced. I see from one of your likers that there is little hope of that occurring.

Yes interesting that. Though such people have always had flexible ethics and integrity.​

​

This is actually a very good example of my objection to the Folau saga. I don't give a shit about what Folau posted. I actually don't care about what Derpus posted above beyond its ability to convey the very point I was making in my whole stance on this matter. The ability to be offended and achieve sanction against the offender is obviously now restricted to "abuse" directed at approved minority groups. The problem then becomes who approves what is offensive and who can be offended.​

​

Much better if as Haidt has says we become resilient and learn to live outside.​

​

​

​

 

[Tex]

Interesting that somebody so concerned about an offensive internet post, would post something like this. It's possibly the most offensive thing that I've read on these threads in the years I've been part of it.

Clearly you haven't read some of dismal's best work.

 

[Tex]

Seriously guys, this culture war shit belongs on twitter and facebook. You're all sounding like the (very articulate) mad uncles who don't know how to filter their posts on the internet.

Let's focus on bashing the all blacks and poms, in this, the sacred world cup year

 

[Braveheart81]

Much better if as Haidt has says we become resilient and learn to live outside.

It's amazing how it's always people who have faced little or no discrimination in their lives suggesting that people should just be more resilient.

 

[KOB1987]

It's amazing how it's always people who have faced little or no discrimination in their lives suggesting that people should just be more resilient.

It's been suggested that the most discriminated against group on the planet currently is white, anglo saxon, heterosexual, professional males.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah but they arent though.

 

[zer0]

Guess this seems to be the most appropriate place to post it unless something changes with the other thread, someone on Reddit claiming to be an Australian lawyer doesn't believe he'll have much of a leg to stand on.

Without seeing the application I would assume he'll likely claim unfair dismissal or alternatively workplace discrimination. Lots of problems will arise in him proving this including that he already admitted to a high level breach of contract for his use of social media and the numerous other religious posts on his public social media that did not cause issue with RA.

Dismissal law doesn't require a pattern of behaviour for the termination to be unlawful, only the singular act of termination is relevant. The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement. The FWC [Fair Work Commission] doesn't operate under the same laws of evidence as proper Courts do so they'll definitely take that into account despite it being a private dispute resolution procedure (normally findings in those kinds of things are not admissible evidence). I don't see the FWC reaching a decision too different to what the panel did.

Discrimination is a harder ground to assess as it's much more open in what the Commission can consider. I still think he's got nothing as RA can demonstrate the numerous posts by both him and other players that didn't cause any issue.

https://old.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion..._takes_fight_against_rugby_australia/eq59dz2/

In regards to termination on the basis of religion.....

He'll be arguing that RA have breached the prohibition in s 772(1)(f). Technically this part is just an addition to the unfair dismissal laws in part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act. The important part for Folau's argument is that under this section RA could have followed proper procedure in terminating his employment but if the primary motivating factor for the termination is deemed to be his religion then it's unlawful under this provision.

He'll still run into the above issues: he has many other religious posts on social media that weren't an issue, he was made aware of what kinds of posts were not allowable, RA hasn't shown any discriminatory behaviour in regard to their treatment of him.

 

[Slim 293]

It's been suggested that the most discriminated against group on the planet currently is white, anglo saxon, heterosexual, professional males.

It’s also been suggested that the earth is flat, and that you can add cream to a carbonara.............

 

[Slim 293]

Since this has temporarily become the de facto Folau conversation, I figure I’ll share a couple of passages from the Tele’s article the other day.........

It was the moment that sunk Israel Folau’s rugby career.

Under intense cross examination from top lawyer Justin Gleeson SC on the first day of his code of conduct hearing, Folau made the fatal acknowledgment.

Asked if he understood that his social media posts could offend people, Folau, who had been expertly manoeuvring around the admission by repeatedly pointing back to the words being from the Bible, finally said he did.

The next morning, a Sunday, Folau’s lawyers walked into the hearing and stunned Rugby Australia’s silks by admitting to a low-level breach of the player’s code of conduct.

Gleeson then continued to grill Folau over the remaining two days as to whether, having admitted to the breach, he could take his post down and guarantee he would not make a similar post in future.
Folau, already believing he would go to hell if he deleted his post, could guarantee neither.

He admitted guilt to an offence, but would not take steps to rectify that offence, and gave no promises he would not commit another offence.

The case was done at that moment.

The judicial panel consisted of John West QC (Quade Cooper), Kate Eastman SC, and John Boultbee AM.

Folau’s legal team had attempted to get Eastman removed from the panel, because she’d represented Australian rugby in their case to terminate the contract of Kurtley Beale in 2014.

Ironically, Boultbee, the Folau team’s pick for the panel, had sat on the tribunal of that Beale hearing, ruling on the sexually explicit image he’d sent ARU staff member Di Patston, and had voted against terminating Beale’s contract. Beale was ultimately fined $45,000.

Eastman was kept on this panel because under the rules of assembly, both sides could only rebut the chair, and both agreed to West.

The panel recognised the impossible position of Folau’s employers RA and the Waratahs if Folau remained employed and continued his religious social media crusade, resulting in the loss of millions in sponsorship dollars.

By 2pm on Tuesday, May 7, the third day of the hearing, after Folau had reiterated he would not remove his Instagram post, the panel ruled that Australia’s highest-paid rugby star was guilty of a high level breach.

They did not hand down the sanction of contract termination until 10 days later, but termination was the inevitable outcome.

When Folau finally relented and conceded an understanding that his post would offend, his lawyers rallied to put together a new strategy, admitting to a low-level breach the next morning and offering new solutions to save his career.

Folau and his wife Maria secretly met with a religious leader on the Monday – the day between the second and third sitting of the tribunal — seeking guidance about social media use that would allow him to express his beliefs without putting his employers in jeopardy.

All of it was in vain because of Folau’s refusal to take down his post, which the panel deemed an “ongoing breach” because while ever it remained up, it continued to damage his employer.

RA’s lawyers eventually dropped their pursuit of Folau breaching their code in relation to “discrimination, harassment and bullying”, and also in “duty to co-operate”.

But they argued he was guilty of a total of 10 breaches of the code.

The panel ruled that Folau was not guilty of three; behaving in a manner inconsistent with the values of the game, disrespecting people, and acting against the best interests of the game.

However, they deemed him guilty of seven breaches, which included bringing the game into disrepute, not taking reasonable action to protect the game from discredit and criticism, and making public comment detrimental to the interests of the sport.

It was also reported yesterday that Folau has told the NRL he would be happy to let them vet all his social media before posting, if they offered him a contract.