The Israel Folau saga

[Sully]

when?

After we’d all talked, I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately.
https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/

Seems like a pretty good place to start.

 

[Quick Hands]

Seems like a pretty good place to start.

At the risk of taking us in a giant circle, I’d just point out that the comment was made before he signed his most recent contact. The context being that he would have gone somewhere else or walked away as he put it should Raelene have thought that his views could be a problem. History records that RA signed him anyway in the full knowledge of his religious views.

 

[sidelineview]

The best chance Folau and his team have of making any way is to muddy the waters as much as possible. It’s more likely that the leak came from them.

Geez, the conspiracy theories are making an appearance now

 

[Joe Blow]

Geez, the conspiracy theories are making an appearance now

Well, the first signs of them from the honourable side

 

[Slim 293]

The leak was ultimately God's will.........

 

[Quick Hands]

Although I’m not so sure that Fair Work Commissioners or Federal Court judges will be swayed by media leaks or PR spin.

 

[Breakaway In The Backline]

The leak was ultimately God's will...

Your comment is plainly an attempt to ridicule faith, and it is consistent with your prior comments of this nature. I ask that you speak with more respect for the beliefs of others even if, like me, you do not share those beliefs.

 

[wamberal]

Your comment is plainly an attempt to ridicule faith, and it is consistent with your prior comments of this nature. I ask that you speak with more respect for the beliefs of others even if, like me, you do not share those beliefs.

Really? This is the essence of what Izzy has said on a few occasions, claiming that an event was "God's will". The post you object to might have been made in jest, but do you or do you not believe that all this is God's will?


Serious question.

 

[gel]

Seems like a pretty good place to start.

Wrong.

Comprehension.

 

[Ignoto]

Like it or not the Judeo-Christian belief system is the basis for all of western society. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire it has been the basis of the rise (and fall with a Dark Age, then rise again) of the Western world. It has provided the environment for the scientific and social advances we have made since that time. Sure it has massive failings, some huge ones, but if you want to undermine the whole basis of society and throw it out better have something to replace it. Secularism won't do it as it doesn't fit with the freedoms we have come to regard as a right, that requires laws enacted by consent under the system built that judeo-christain system, remove the consent and rule must be maintained by force, and that in itself restrains those freedoms we are talking about.

Again Gnostic, you're proving the point. That the Churches have had a huge impact on society and the beliefs/stances on issues of society. There's absolutely no difference between them and the big bad corporations that Sideline is not happy with dictating the discourse.

I trust no reports, and if you go back and read what I actually posted it doesn't matter if its about the shit show around Folau or some other problem.

Ok that's fair enough. But at the same time, you pick and choose the reports on what fits your agenda particularly around RA/Ralene's handling of the contract situation. I fear your objectivity is lost in this entire situation because you've obviously have an agenda against RA.

 

[Quick Hands]

Proud to say that I make four of the list on Israels post so as hell awaits me I will weigh in.
Israel stupid , RA stupider.
Can't wait for the disclosure documents on the way to the court. Should make interesting reading and will the board stand down if they lose?

Although the Bible doesn’t say that hell awaits anyone on the list posted by Folau. Even the list itself is different depending on which translation is used. However, none of the translations use the word hell or similar.

 

[wamberal]

Although the Bible doesn’t say that hell awaits anyone on the list posted by Folau. Even the list itself is different depending on which translation is used. However, none of the translations use the word hell or similar.

I would have thought that this fact is something that a good barrister could make a bit of impact with. "Could you read the quote to us from your Bible, Mr Folau?" "Mumble mumble mumble". " The word "hell" does not seem to be in that reading. Is that something you made up?"

It is also bloody obvious that if he was really interested in reaching out to people he could have talked about what was really in the reading. The Kingdom of God, the meaning of which might be a bit too nuanced to use as part of an insult.

 

[Quick Hands]

Well, the first signs of them from the honourable side

I don’t think either side is going to emerge from this with their reputation intact. I said in my first post on this thread that there will be no winners and that stands.

The post in question was unwise and was a paraphrased quotation of an isolated passage from the Bible. While I think that Folau’s motives are well-meaning, he clearly doesn’t have the theological qualifications needed to understand the deeper meaning of what he’s reading. As noted previously, prior to signing his contact he openly said to RA that if his beliefs were a problem and things were untenable then he would walk away and go somewhere else.

RA not only resigned him but made him their highest paid player and the face of the game. It’s acknowledged that this situation is complex and RA have shown over the years that they are barely capable of running the game on a day to day basis, let alone a major crisis. To that extent they have my sympathy. However, once they publicly announced their intention to terminate before speaking to Folau and before any hearings then any hope of an amicable and mutually agreeable end to the matter became impossible. We may never know the reason for their undue haste, but we can suspect.

So now we’re in a knock down drag out legal battle.

 

[Quick Hands]

I would have thought that this fact is something that a good barrister could make a bit of impact with. "Could you read the quote to us from your Bible, Mr Folau?" "Mumble mumble mumble". " The word "hell" does not seem to be in that reading. Is that something you made up?"

It is also bloody obvious that if he was really interested in reaching out to people he could have talked about what was really in the reading. The Kingdom of God, the meaning of which might be a bit too nuanced to use as part of an insult.

As I’ve said all along he doesn’t have the training or education to understand what these passages mean.

 

[todd4]

The confidential letter to RA is on TWF.com.au forum discussion thread post 365.

https://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=40694&page=25&p=468051#post468051

 

[James Pettifer]

At the risk of taking us in a giant circle, I’d just point out that the comment was made before he signed his most recent contact. The context being that he would have gone somewhere else or walked away as he put it should Raelene have thought that his views could be a problem. History records that RA signed him anyway in the full knowledge of his religious views.

You don’t think that maybe his articulation of this made it clear that he understood that it was not appropriate what he said and that he wouldn’t do it in future and that led to RA deciding to resign.

I’m sure if he came out with his current view and made it public, he wouldn’t have been signed.

 

[Kiwikrs]

I don’t think either side is going to emerge from this with their reputation intact. I said in my first post on this thread that there will be no winners and that stands.

The post in question was unwise and was a paraphrased quotation of an isolated passage from the Bible. While I think that Folau’s motives are well-meaning, he clearly doesn’t have the theological qualifications needed to understand the deeper meaning of what he’s reading. As noted previously, prior to signing his contact he openly said to RA that if his beliefs were a problem and things were untenable then he would walk away and go somewhere else.

RA not only resigned him but made him their highest paid player and the face of the game. It’s acknowledged that this situation is complex and RA have shown over the years that they are barely capable of running the game on a day to day basis, let alone a major crisis. To that extent they have my sympathy. However, once they publicly announced their intention to terminate before speaking to Folau and before any hearings then any hope of an amicable and mutually agreeable end to the matter became impossible. We may never know the reason for their undue haste, but we can suspect.

So now we’re in a knock down drag out legal battle.

There is nothing wrong with terminating Folau without a CoC hearing.

The CoC hearing is not a requirement of termination. RA can terminate a player. The player can either accept the termination and move on, or, contest either the wrong doing or the severity of the punishment. If they contest then a CoC hearing is called to adjudicate impartially.

In the same way you must be charged with a crime before you can go to court you must be charged prior to a CoC hearing.

The hearing is a players option that they can use under their EBA not an RA requirement

 

[Gnostic]

Again Gnostic, you're proving the point. That the Churches have had a huge impact on society and the beliefs/stances on issues of society. There's absolutely no difference between them and the big bad corporations that Sideline is not happy with dictating the discourse.

Sideline might not be happy abut it, but it is too just a fact of life and in fact a key goal of advertising is to sway the market toward a product or outcome, mostly benign, it can have very serious outcomes at times. Where I have issues is where market forces are perverted by vast sums of money in Political advertising such as the Mining Resources Rent Tax campaign, cash for a party (in the form of a donation of course it is so gauche to call them bribes) various polies time etc and in this case saying X company gives so much in Sponsorship it then gets to dictate policy and not only that influence outcomes. The church just has a long more obvious and possibly insidious role in the debate. I argue for transparency only, I see the money in politics and the controls from corporations as corrupt because they are under the table by their nature and the messages are often half truths and at times outright falsehoods. The church on the other hand is pretty open about what its message is, and each brand is slightly different but it is very very easy to see what their motivations and goals are. Don't like the message its pretty easy to avoid I do it all the time. That said, I must say they have been learning of the political manipulators though and are moving deeply into this area now and that is great concern for me, make no mistake.


My point though is that the tenant that underpin the Judeo-Christian faith are the basis of our society including the legal framework we line under. As I said if we as a society want to dump that or relegate it to something of trivial importance, of significance only to a few and restricted in what people can do and say in public (when not directly impacting or inciting actions against others) then we better replace that underpinning with something because our system will not stand without broad-based consent to laws.

Ok that's fair enough. But at the same time, you pick and choose the reports on what fits your agenda particularly around RA/Ralene's handling of the contract situation. I fear your objectivity is lost in this entire situation because you've obviously have an agenda against RA.

I do not see how you have come to this conclusion. All I want is a professional managerial approach to the issues. My rant on this issue goes back to the appointment of Robbie Deans as Australian Coach by JON the Great. The issue is exactly the same in this matter as it was then. The systems have no integrity and are not robust to any challenge. Essentially the ARU now RA have failed consistently to produce such systems and that is their only role. A refresher - a selection procedure was undertaken which Deans did not participate in and he was appointed by decree to the position. So the system was not even really valid to make an appointment. It is rule by decree, time flows on and we have the Beale issue as I've outlined plus multiple other issues and management decisions. A no stage have we seen a consistent effort by ARU/RA to actually build systems with rigor and integrity. Everything is pliable and can be "adapted" to provide the outcomes that are deemed (by decree of committee or sponsor) that are most desirable in any given situation. A system with integrity and rigor will at times produce outcomes that the individuals in power do not desire, but are for the long term good for the integrity of the process which will in itself produce confidence and faith in the system. It is much like the Legal system, it must have that integrity to be able to function and produce valid results. (I hesitate to call it a Justice system because these days all I hear in my mind is The Hound speaking to Dondarion "There is no Justice you dumb C%$#@!!!")

 

[Gnostic]

Everybody, corporations or otherwise, uses press leaks. It has become a legitimate (if occasionally reprehensible) tactic. All's fair in love and war. The ends justify the means. Etc etc.

Actually under a Legal system not all is fair, and press leaks of confidential papers have been deemed a criminal matter in many jurisdictions with some very notable matters currently before the courts.

 

[cyclopath]

Your comment is plainly an attempt to ridicule faith, and it is consistent with your prior comments of this nature. I ask that you speak with more respect for the beliefs of others even if, like me, you do not share those beliefs.

But you can't have it both ways. If you defend Folau's right to make statements, albeit based on writings from some period over the past 1500-2000 years, that clearly are offensive to some people, you cannot claim the high ground that your beliefs cannot be questioned / ridiculed or indeed, offended. Do you see how it works?