The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Never thought I'd say this but Growden has nailed it flush with one hit.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I'm not, but there's a world of difference in difrectly quoting something and thus people may read it and make up their own minds and paraphrasing in which people (either deliberately or through ignorance) can tailor what they say to their own meaning.
For example using Jeremiah (writing c 620BC) to teach people that Christmas trees are idols and by extension those who have one are bound for hell. It's pure fantasy and an example of what can happen when people try to interpret things without the appropriate education and professional training. It's bad enough he thinks that without trying to convince other potentially vulnerable people that it's rational.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
Good article. Yes, author's being vaguely facetious but I still suspect he's grossly overestimating the degree of thought that went through Folau's tiny boneheaded noggin at tweet time. "Hey, cool pic", click.
dillyboy
Colin Windon (37)
You don't need to be ordained to baptise anyone - technically anyone who has been baptised can perform the ceremony on someone & it's just as valid...
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Vunipola has now been sacked by Channel 4, and is awaiting a meeting with the RFU in which I expect he'll get the same talking to Folau received last year..........
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...bic-social-media-post-channel-4-a8868126.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...bic-social-media-post-channel-4-a8868126.html
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Seen a coupla articles now suggesting Folau could sue for being terminated due to his religious beliefs. Can our resident lawyers advise if, should he go down that road, it's up to him to prove it's a religion thing, or for RA to prove it's not. And how would one go about proving such a thing?
S
sidelineview
Guest
Dont give up your day job to become a comedian. You'll starve to death.
True story .... the internet makes these purchases quite easy
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
The issue he is likely to face travelling down that path is that he wasnt sacked due to his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs have been broadly known for sometime, and indeed his employer gave him a new contract when they were fully aware of these beliefs. So its not his religion or his beliefs that are the issue here, its making public remarks that his employer seems to think were expressly forbidden by his contract.
If an agnostic, atheist, jew, muslim or sikh had made the same posts they would have been treated in exactly the same fashion (in fact id wager an agnostic or atheist would have been given less leeway).
If 'religious beliefs' could be used as a shield in this fashion, it would be pretty much open season on public remarks for everyone. Like you could say pretty much anything on LinkedIn that you want, and your employer can't touch you for it as long as you can cite 'religious beliefs'.
Can't see that happening for obvious and good reasons. If folau had an ounce of integrity surely he should be working for an employer more sympathetic to his views.
If an agnostic, atheist, jew, muslim or sikh had made the same posts they would have been treated in exactly the same fashion (in fact id wager an agnostic or atheist would have been given less leeway).
If 'religious beliefs' could be used as a shield in this fashion, it would be pretty much open season on public remarks for everyone. Like you could say pretty much anything on LinkedIn that you want, and your employer can't touch you for it as long as you can cite 'religious beliefs'.
Can't see that happening for obvious and good reasons. If folau had an ounce of integrity surely he should be working for an employer more sympathetic to his views.
I think you're funny.
S
sidelineview
Guest
Bullshit. The Bible's full of references for people to stay on the right path or there will be consequences. It's not interpretative.
Exactly what he preached on social media, albeit in a less than desirable way.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Onus would be on Izzy. Not an employment lawyer but i think it falls under the Fair Work Act:
351 Discrimination
(1) An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to action that is:
(a) not unlawful under any anti‑discrimination law in force in the place where the action is taken; or
(b) taken because of the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned; or
(c) if the action is taken against a staff member of an institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed—taken:
(i) in good faith; and
(ii) to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.
385 What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and
(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
Fair bit of discretion there. Izzy's lawyers would have to convince whoever is hearing the matter than his dismissal satisfies those points. Im sure there's oodles of case law about this.
The NSW anti-discrimination legislation doesn't mention religious discrimination in the workplace, mostly focusing on racial vilification.
There is no religious discrimination act, state or commonwealth. Interesting extract from commentary on discrimination act:
The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 in New South Wales
Discrimination purely on the basis of religion is explicitly not prohibited by the Anti- Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) ('the ADA'). Instead, complainants must formulate their complaints on the basis of race discrimination.
The ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate against another person on the basis of race. The word 'race', under the Act, is defined to include 'colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin'.
As a result, those who complain that they have been discriminated against on the basis of religion, must establish that their ethnicity coincides or is strongly associated with their religion.
He could argue that being Christian is intimately linked with being an Islander and this therefore constitutes racial discrimination.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
He could argue that being Christian and Islander are inexorably connected but its not likely to help. There's absolutely no evidence that he was discriminated against on account of his religion, and plenty of evidence that his religion was of literally no impact when he was hired. Both teams he plays for are likely half full of people that would publicly declare themselves christian and notably, their contracts remain on foot.
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I think we can forget about the whole free speech thing, because it's not really the point. As I see it, anyone has the right to go on social media and say my business stinks, it's unethical, lazy, deceptive etc etc, as long as they don't specifically lie or make defamatory statements that are simply made up, I just have to cop it.
However, if one of my employees were to post it, I would be perfectly within my rights to counsel them, make it clear that it is unacceptable, and to do so again would jeopardise their job. If I then clearly set that out in writing to the employee and made my expectations quite explicit, and he again posted highly damaging posts of my business on social media, I think I would be pretty comfortable in terminating his employment.
This is how I see the situation here.
However, if one of my employees were to post it, I would be perfectly within my rights to counsel them, make it clear that it is unacceptable, and to do so again would jeopardise their job. If I then clearly set that out in writing to the employee and made my expectations quite explicit, and he again posted highly damaging posts of my business on social media, I think I would be pretty comfortable in terminating his employment.
This is how I see the situation here.
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
Does the baptisee need to be actually present?
Thinking of baptising Cyclo into The Church of The Auckland Blues 7th Day Adventurous 7 Win Season fraternity
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Yes I don't even see anything complicated about the scenario. He got warned, didn't heed the warning, and has to go.
Seperately, I think RA could use this as a watershed moment if they play it right. Like this could be the start of an actual no-dickheads policy, and the end of paying mercenary recruits because we think they'll bump the TV ratings for a season or two. Maybe we start letting 7 figure guys walk when they are marginal selections at their preferred position.
Seperately, I think RA could use this as a watershed moment if they play it right. Like this could be the start of an actual no-dickheads policy, and the end of paying mercenary recruits because we think they'll bump the TV ratings for a season or two. Maybe we start letting 7 figure guys walk when they are marginal selections at their preferred position.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Being devils advocate, doesn't he argue:
a) i was fired for the things i posted
b) i posted those things in the act of practicing my religion
∴ I was fired for being an Islander (lol)
- Status