The Israel Folau saga

[tragic]

Are you aware that not all employment opportunities in Australia are administrated by Rugby Australia? Folau is free to work anywhere that will have him, and if there's so many people in his corner, finding suitable employment ought to be trivial. If he can't get a job, maybe he's wrong .

Now I’ve heard it all
He’s a professional sportsman whose done nothing else his entire working life.
It’s why insurance policies stipulate the ability to work in “own profession” when deciding on a payout rather than “any profession”.
By removing his ability to play sport (and the other codes realistically have no choice but to follow suit) then you are removing his ability to support his family.
At least stand by your convictions and accept that this is what you are advocating.

 

[Aurelius]

Now I’ve heard it all
He’s a professional sportsman whose done nothing else his entire working life.
It’s why insurance policies stipulate the ability to work in “own profession” when deciding on a payout rather than “any profession”.
By removing his ability to play sport (and the other codes realistically have no choice but to follow suit) then you are removing his ability to support his family.
At least stand by your convictions and accept that this is what you are advocating.

Mark Steyn's way ahead of you:

Nothing Israel Folau said is illegal (yet), but it is nevertheless sufficient to get him banned from plying his trade anywhere in his native land - although presumably he is not yet enjoined from working at a meat-pie shop or as an outhouse-cleaner in Alice Springs. And all this for views that would have been regarded as utterly unexceptional for the first century of the Wallabies' existence, even by those who were fitful adherents to the strictures of Galatians 5.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Mark Steyn's way ahead of you:

Ahh...the good old days, right. Pity society tends to move on. What may have been acceptable 10, 20 ,50, 100 years ago doesn't make it acceptable today. That's the world in which we all live. Like it or not that's not likely to change. In fact they are likely to continue do the current path of change. They have to otherwise it'll stagnate and die.

 

[Adam84]

Now I’ve heard it all
He’s a professional sportsman whose done nothing else his entire working life.
It’s why insurance policies stipulate the ability to work in “own profession” when deciding on a payout rather than “any profession”.
By removing his ability to play sport (and the other codes realistically have no choice but to follow suit) then you are removing his ability to support his family.
At least stand by your convictions and accept that this is what you are advocating.

He is free to play in any sport or code which will take him

 

[Aurelius]

Ahh.the good old days, right. Pity society tends to move on. What may have been acceptable 10, 20 ,50, 100 years ago doesn't make it acceptable today. That's the world in which we all live. Like it or not that's not likely to change. In fact they are likely to continue do the current path of change. They have to otherwise it'll stagnate and die.

And that, right there, is exactly the problem. "They have to change or otherwise it'll stagnate and die..."

In a truly free society, people should be able to as the saying goes think what they like and say what they think without suffering adverse consequences. I think five years ago, not 50 or 100, we'd have been mature enough as a society to accept the occasionally quirky view being aired in public without breaking out in a huge moral panic. Then the rules changed about what you can say and how you can say it. We were never warned that the rules were changing, but heaven help you if you break them because there will be no mercy, no reprieve and no forgiveness.

Play along, or else you'll stagnate and die...

People have mis-characterized Folau's original post as some kind of threat here, more than once. What's been done to Folau, to Billy Vunipola and to anyone else who dared like his post is far more of a threat than anything Folau posted. And it's intended to be.

 

[half]

How are we closing down issues though? No one is suggesting players shouldn't pray on the field before and/or after games. When teams have done that together, the rugby world has celebrated it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Rugby Australia has a business to run and they need to look after their employees and stakeholders, some of which are gay.

I never once even hinted there should be no consequences, what I posted and questioned was is the taking away his ability to earn income the right response.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when you posted "How are we closing down issues" you can't be serious. Like talk about X and you get fired.

I understand what the gay community is saying about their past miss treatment, they have been a discriminated minority, no one is questioning this.

What many are doing is saying the right of group one is greater and more important than group two. This judgement is based on selective judgements .

As I posted I am conflicted I see both sides and my questions remain the same, is taking away his income the correct response, and secondly the degree of the response would close down open debate within certain communities and that is never good long term.

 

[Ignoto]

Well, based on the verdict that's just come in on the Peter Ridd vs James Cook University case we might have more free speech in this country than you suppose. Thank God for that.

I'll wait and read the judgment, the only two news organisations reporting about it is The Australian and The Courier Mail. You should understand my reservations for taking one take of the decision.

I think five years ago, not 50 or 100, we'd have been mature enough as a society to accept the occasionally quirky view being aired in public without breaking out in a huge moral panic.

No, you only think that because people who had contrary views to yours were afraid to voice those opinions otherwise they would end up based because they were a 'poof'.

 

[Aurelius]

No, you only think that because people who had contrary views to yours were afraid to voice those opinions otherwise they would end up based because they were a 'poof'.

That's rubbish and a baseless slur, but I'm not going to take offence because it sort of backs up what I'm saying about the parlous state of free speech in this country. Defend a homophobe, and you must be a homophobe ... the concept that you can argue for someone's right to free speech without necessarily agreeing with what they say shouldn't be an alien concept.

It also turns out that not taking offence isn't all that complicated. I know what you're saying about me isn't true, therefore I don't take it seriously and this can end right here. Simple, really.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I wouldn't be so sure of RA's processes if I were you. Regardless of any oral agreements, if RA didn't specifically put clauses about social media activity in the signed contract then things aren't as clear cut as you and others think.



You realise that he gives half his money away?

I would assume that in this instance as there is a legally binding contract that he'll receive no more and no less than which he is entitled to at law. I can't see how you can describe that as a money grab.

I actually did not know he gave half his money away. I guess I am perplexed as to fighting this then as I guess for me it was very clear this was outside of what he agreed to stop per the last episiode but yes perplexed now come out that RA did not add any specific new clauses in his contract relating to social media. RA been a bit dumb there and just relied on verbal conversations and documentation outside of that of discussion of last incident and what was agreed informally (note - not legal instrument).

The comment about the money grab yes perhaps I should not have stated that as must admit he comes across as very much keeping to his principles but many other in the public eye asked the same question as equally perplexed like me I suspect trying to work out why he would fight it thinking he must of known doing this would lead to his contract being ripped up.

 

[Adam84]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences

I can’t tell if you’re suggesting the gay community should just learn “not to take offence”, and whether that would really solve the issues and impact of homophobia or same sex discrimination. Would appear to me that’s painting over the cracks in our society.

 

[Ignoto]

That's rubbish and a baseless slur, but I'm not going to take offence because it sort of backs up what I'm saying about the parlous state of free speech in this country. Defend a homophobe, and you must be a homophobe . the concept that you can argue for someone's right to free speech without necessarily agreeing with what they say shouldn't be an alien concept.

It also turns out that not taking offence isn't all that complicated. I know what you're saying about me isn't true, therefore I don't take it seriously and this can end right here. Simple, really.

I honestly don’t think you read anything I posted if that’s your takeaway. The social environment 10/20/30+ years ago clearly demonstrated many minority groups were persecuted because they were different. The blasé attitude you have about Israel’s post highlight how oblivious you are to those groups perils, why they chose to not rock the boat and how in recent years that more noise is coming in support for these groups is appearing.

 

[Adam84]

.

It also turns out that not taking offence isn't all that complicated. I know what you're saying about me isn't true, therefore I don't take it seriously and this can end right here. Simple, really.

So, if I called an employee a fat useless slut, she shouldn’t be offended because it’s not really true?
Or, if I made a racist comment, based on stereotypes towards someone, they shouldn’t be offended because it’s not true?
What about terms like faggot and poof, which are derogatory terms for gays, should they not be offended or not offended in this regard?

why is the solution to this issue telling people they should just learn to not be offended, rather then telling people they should just stop being offensive? I mean, seems pretty simple, really.

 

[Aurelius]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences

And when those consequences are so harsh and so disproportionate that no one else dares to express a similarly controversial view, then freedom of speech effectively doesn't exist.

I'm not going to tell anyone gay or straight how they should react to Folau's post. But just because someone takes offence - even a great deal of offence - that doesn't mean that the rest of society has to move heaven and earth to ensure that they will never be offended again, or that we're justified in victimising the offence-giver in turn.

As I said days ago, if we all just collectively shrugged our shoulders at Folau's post, offended people vowed never to cheer for him again and unfollowed him on Instagram, this would have all blown over days ago instead of becoming another huge crisis that Australian rugby just doesn't need.

 

[Aurelius]

I honestly don’t think you read anything I posted if that’s your takeaway.

Well, you said "you only think that because people who had contrary views to yours..." so I certainly took it that you were making assumptions about me.

But if I misrepresented you, I apologise. I certainly don't want to let a potential flame war get in the way of an actually pretty interesting debate here.

 

[tragic]

No, you only think that because people who had contrary views to yours were afraid to voice those opinions otherwise they would end up based because they were a 'poof'.

No.
What you don’t seem to understand is we do not share those views but have the maturity to accept that some people do without being filled with moral outrage.
We are in the midst of a period where people are so easily offended that everything is couched in pc language. There is a sense of moral entitlement not to feel offended. Simple comments are misconstrued and blown out of proportion resulting in back-pedalling and public apologies for the most benign statements that once would have been seen as showing some personality (and for the record I’m not referring to Folau here) Politicians are paralysed from making good policy due to fear of a backlash and media storm that may ultimately have them voted out of office.
The end result is paving the way for disasters like Trump with his apparent disregard for political correctness.

 

[Slim 293]

And when those consequences are so harsh and so disproportionate that no one else dares to express a similarly controversial view, then freedom of speech effectively doesn't exist.

Well, it wasn't....... and I doubt RA want one of their employees expressing a similarly controversial view......... and it's still not about freedom of speech.

I'm not going to tell anyone gay or straight how they should react to Folau's post. But just because someone takes offence - even a great deal of offence - that doesn't mean that the rest of society has to move heaven and earth to ensure that they will never be offended again, or that we're justified in victimising the offence-giver in turn.

So, effectively what you're saying is we shouldn't protect the vulnerable, and defend the victims in these situations........ but instead the perpetrator given a hug?

As I said days ago, if we all just collectively shrugged our shoulders at Folau's post, offended people vowed never to cheer for him again and unfollowed him on Instagram, this would have all blown over days ago instead of becoming another huge crisis that Australian rugby just doesn't need.

Yes, you live in a bubble........... and Folau is the only person responsible for this crisis.

 

[Aurelius]

So, effectively what you're saying is we shouldn't protect the vulnerable, and defend the victims in these situations.... but instead give the perpetrator a gold medal?

Well, that just took the gold medal for intellectual dishonesty in this thread so far.

Additional style points for the use of the word "perpetrator" too.

 

[Slim 293]

Well, that just took the gold medal for intellectual dishonesty in this thread so far.

Additional style points for the use of the word "perpetrator" too.

I changed it to "a hug," to be more fair.

And perpetrator is an appropriate term.

 

[tragic]

And perpetrator is an appropriate term.

Ironically you appear to be exhibiting some of the same traits as the person you are calling out

 

[Slim 293]

Ironically you appear to be exhibiting some of the same traits as the person you are calling out

Erm, yeah.......... ok.