The Israel Folau saga

[The Honey Badger]

^^^^ Mark Latham Tweet. I gather this means it is likely to become law in NSW.

Not sure what that means for Izzys case and any retrospective handling of it.

 

[Derpus]

I still don't think that law would protect him, but it would definitely make it a more complicated argument.

 

[barbarian]

^^^^ Mark Latham Tweet. I gather this means it is likely to become law in NSW.

It won't become law. Just a notice of motion in the Upper House. Purely a sentimental thing.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

Latham would love for there to be a law that exempts him from defamation proceedings if he did the defamation from the privacy of his own home.

 

[fatprop]

It's only been broadened if you accept that there was fault in the contract, i.e. if the code of conduct is unenforceable or some such, and then it becomes an issue of general law. i.e. can you dismiss someone for certain comments even though their contract doesn't specifically prohibit that behaviour.

Otherwise it remains a discreet contract issue. And anyway, if there is a flaw in the contract Izzy is probably in the clear without having to delve further into the social or legal implications of the matter.

I think there will be a pull back on some of these dubious codes of conduct and those dear misguided woke HR departments

Something like ...................

"In an open and tolerant society there will be differences that have to be tolerated"

Needs to be the cornerstone IMHO

 

[wamberal]

Tolerant eh. Can mean just about anything. Does tolerance extend, for example, to allowing an extreme rightist to call for the extermination of the Jews, for example?


Sounds like a lawyers' picnic to me.

 

[fatprop]

Tolerant eh. Can mean just about anything. Does tolerance extend, for example, to allowing an extreme rightist to call for the extermination of the Jews, for example?


Sounds like a lawyers' picnic to me.

Standard rule is call for violence = bad, even the US has worked that out

 

[formerflanker]

Tolerant eh. Can mean just about anything. Does tolerance extend, for example, to allowing an extreme rightist to call for the extermination of the Jews, for example?


Sounds like a lawyers' picnic to me.

That sounds like an incitement to violence, and is therefore illegal.

 

[ShtinaTina]

If it gets to that stage I hope one of our resident GAGRs in Sydney with a little time can go down to the court and be a real reporter. Not one of the media outlets that appear to have an agenda on this.

Bags not. I went to the Force hearing as I was interested in the injustice, this is just moving deck chairs & is going to cost Rugby & RA a lot.

 

[Number 7]

That sounds like an incitement to violence, and is therefore illegal.

Thats right, incitement of violence against a well defined set of minority groups (including homosexuals) is expressly illegal under the Crimes Act in NSW which was ammended to capture broad groups of minorities by bipartisan agreement in 2018. Just as homosexual vilification is expressly illegal in NSW under the Anti-Discrimination Act, which co-incidentally includes social media posts as a form of communication by which a crime can be committed. That would be the same Anti-Discrimination Act that most workplace codes of conduct are based upon. Just like Israel's

I would raise the following interesting circumstantial things about his appeal:
1. He has chosen to have the case heard in the Fair Work Tribunal and not Federal Court. Under the Fair Work Act the legal burden of proof is reversed making it easier on the applicant (Israel).
2. He is using a 2nd tier law firm to try the case rather than a higher profile workplace employment legal specialist.
3. They are claiming a loss of possible earnings number of $10m which is way beyond his actual contactual earnings.

Circumstantially I would suggest that his case is weak and his team are just rolling the dice; Israel looks like he is trying to keep his costs down so is taking an easier, cheaper legal route and by making an (outrageously) over-the-top damages claim, is hoping for a pre-tribunal settlement. Typical damages negotiation where you sense your opponent hasn't the appetite for a fight.

 

[Tex]

Thats right, incitement of violence against a well defined set of minority groups (including homosexuals) is expressly illegal under the Crimes Act in NSW which was ammended to capture broad groups of minorities by bipartisan agreement in 2018. Just as homosexual vilification is expressly illegal in NSW under the Anti-Discrimination Act, which co-incidentally includes social media posts as a form of communication by which a crime can be committed. That would be the same Anti-Discrimination Act that most workplace codes of conduct are based upon. Just like Israel's

I would raise the following interesting circumstantial things about his appeal:
1. He has chosen to have the case heard in the Fair Work Tribunal and not Federal Court. Under the Fair Work Act the legal burden of proof is reversed making it easier on the applicant (Israel).
2. He is using a 2nd tier law firm to try the case rather than a higher profile workplace employment legal specialist.
3. They are claiming a loss of possible earnings number of $10m which is way beyond his actual contactual earnings.

Circumstantially I would suggest that his case is weak and his team are just rolling the dice; Israel looks like he is trying to keep his costs down so is taking an easier, cheaper legal route and by making an (outrageously) over-the-top damages claim, is hoping for a pre-tribunal settlement. Typical damages negotiation where you sense your opponent hasn't the appetite for a fight.

Thanks for the considered input #7. Regarding point 3, how does the ambit claim stand up when RA (reportedly) offered him $2m to settle a month or so ago? Curious as I have no experience in this area.

 

[formerflanker]

Thanks #7.

 

[Derpus]

Thanks for the considered input #7. Regarding point 3, how does the ambit claim stand up when RA (reportedly) offered him $2m to settle a month or so ago? Curious as I have no experience in this area.

Do you have a link for this? i missed that entirely.

 

[Number 7]

Thanks for the considered input #7. Regarding point 3, how does the ambit claim stand up when RA (reportedly) offered him $2m to settle a month or so ago? Curious as I have no experience in this area.

Good question. Unlikely it would impact the FWC hearing unless there was some action by Israel that constituted acceptance.

 

[Tex]

Do you have a link for this? i missed that entirely.

I think it was on SMH/Rugby Heaven, if not then try Fox.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ Danny Wiedler in the SMH about a month ago, I think.

 

[I like to watch]

^ Danny Wiedler in the SMH about a month ago, I think.

Oh, so zero substance.......

But when I read the quotes,it seemed consistent with how RA works.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day day so,maybe it’s got legs?

 

[Derpus]

Granted they were starting from a very low place, i think RA have performed above average so far this year. A few people tried to stick the Folau bidness on them, but i don't really see how it could be their fault.

 

[I like to watch]

History says it always is......

 

[barbarian]

A few people tried to stick the Folau bidness on them, but i don't really see how it could be their fault.

They need to own a part of this saga, though maybe not all of it.

After Folau's first blunder, they needed an ironclad plan as to how they would react if it happened again. They had a golden opportunity to actually safeguard themselves against this given he was at that time negotiating his next deal.

But they didn't do this adequately, which has partly resulted in the mess we have seen.

So while Israel has to own his actions, RA should have created a black-and-white world for him (in a legal sense) if he transgressed again. Unfortunately it's been very grey.
.