The Israel Folau saga

[Strewthcobber]

You're right to say the source is questionable but I'd also like to see the methodology, which will reveal if they've tried to bug it
If it's stratified by voting intention and asks questions that aren't loaded I really do think it's a legitimate poll

You're missing the key issue - it's not how they weight the responses, it's who they are asking in the first place

 

[The Honey Badger]

Did I read somewhere that Israel has been asked to provide a response before the sanction is handed down.?

Just looks like they are leaving the door open for a sanction other then Termination.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I do find it odd that he has left the post up on Instagram, as it's seemingly contrary to showing any remorse and you would think that would be cornerstone to any defence of his case. So I wonder if he was advised to to provide context, he has written 3 passages beneath the offending image, and in one of them mentions all of the other groups from the images and many more, but not homosexuals. I.e. in his own writings he doesn't actually mention homosexuals.

Anyway, I'm going to jump out of here, speculating on the outcome won't affect it, I'm in favour of a big sanction but not dismissal as I think it opens up too big a can of worms and will ultimately do more harm than good.

I can only assume that he has been advised to leave it up.

He put it there because of his beliefs, maybe even God told him to post it.

If you take it down because your employer threatens to terminate your employment, then maybe your belief isn't that strong.

Perhaps it's staying there to reinforce the level of his religious beliefs.

At the end of the day, that is the core of his argument.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think I pretty clearly explained it Derpus, but I'm more than happy to explain it again

In designing any code of conduct document, you're clearly explaining what your expectations in the community of your employees are

Now Rugby AU has said it wants to reflect the communities values, also, as a Community Organisation (It does not aim to profit shareholders, but benefit the Rugby Community), it should reflect the communities values

Therefore, Rugby AU's expectations of how its players behave in the community should reflect community values, and I fail to see what is so controversial about this statement.

Are people on here saying player expectations should not reflect community values? Why? Shouldn't they be at all times reconciled by the communities values?

Now the community has spoken and even if you include the margin of error for a sample of 800, its still clear that the majority don't support sacking him

So sacking him is out of touch with community values and they SHOULDN'T do it

Now they still have the power to sack him pending legal challenge, I'm sure they can and would have a claim that they can sack him.

But if they do, they're out of touch with the community, and it's the wrong decision. Simple as that

This is a "should" debate, not a "can" debate. The difference is moral rather than legalistic

You're conflating two issues here. Whether or not the public thinks Folau should be sacked is a separate issue to whether or not employees of Rugby Australia should be subject to a code of conduct.

Whilst the majority of the public might think Folau should not be sacked, the majority of the public probably agree with the fact that you shouldn't vilify others based on their sexuality.

The public are largely irrelevant with what they think the punishment for Folau should be because they don't have all the information. They haven't sat through three days of a hearing. This is exactly the same as the public not being very useful in deciding the guilt of a criminal defendant or what sentence they should receive.

You're effectively saying that community organisations should crowd source their decision making. That is completely ludicrous.

 

[brokendown]

I wonder what the general reaction would have been if Folou was muslim and quoted something similar from the Koran?

 

[fairplay]

sigh....shut it down again

 

[Set piece magic]

Don't know why people are obsessed with shutting this debate down

I've thoroughly enjoyed it and think a lot of people are making some great contributions in what has been a lucidly argued debate

If you're not interested, perhaps read another thread

 

[Derpus]

I wonder what the general reaction would have been if Folou was muslim and quoted something similar from the Koran?

 

[Quick Hands]

What issue of law do you think they will appeal on? I can't see any issue that will cause the NSWCA to grant leave to appeal to the HC.

I don't know. I would assume that if they take the matter to the Equity Division the Supreme Court then Folau's team would be arguing that there wasn't a breach of contract or that there were problems with the contract itself. They would need grounds to take the matter to court. Appeals would need to establish grounds for appeal in the original decision.

Losing cases at those levels tend to be quite expensive, so the loser could expect significant costs (their own and the other side's)

 

[fairplay]

Glad your enjoying it. Read the comment before mine. Shut it down.

 

[James Pettifer]

I wonder what the general reaction would have been if Folou was muslim and quoted something similar from the Koran?

Probably the same from most of those who think he should be sacked. My personal view is that many of those who are pro keeping him would change their view to that he should be sacked. I would be surprised if Alan Jones would be defending similar comments from a muslim with the same intensity.

 

[Quick Hands]

I hope RA rethink that position and agree to a lesser (but still severe) penalty.

Maybe 50% of 1 years pay as a fine. $500K and 6 months on the sidelines, Plus lots of community work.

And Izzy gets to play again for Tahs and Wobs.

That would have been a sensible option from day 1, possibly even with 50% of fine and suspension being suspended to be invoked later.

I suspect that we've gone beyond this point now and it's a knock down drag out legal battle ahead.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The thing is here that if they did not terminate him and just did a fine and/or suspension there is no reason he would not do it again. He has shown zero acceptance that his employer has the right to stop him posting which after last warning is very clear, and no reason to believe he would not continue to do this. That is the problem as there is no clear acceptance even after the verdict of doing anything wrong or indeed needing to abide by RA requests (requests which he said he previously agreed to).

Sorry I know if I had done the same thing after a warning for posting something like this on say linkedin or facebook I would be sacked by the company i work for which is a large US multinational. What is the difference - IF a big high profile public figure and therefore able to be excluded by such rules by his employer....?

Alan Jones needs to zip it as he is a complete oxygen waster who will blame RA for everything to suit his personal vendetta and agenda against RA. Can you imagine the outcry if RA had not taken the action they did?

 

[Derpus]

Alan Jones needs to zip it as he is a complete oxygen waster who will blame RA for everything to suit his personal vendetta and agenda against RA. Can you imagine the outcry if RA had not taken the action they did?

Here, at least, is something we can all agree on.

 

[Dctarget]

Seems like the defense Folau is running with is Castle did not explain properly the first time what he can and can't do.

Castle met with Folau in London prior to November’s Test against England and he was advised on writing about his beliefs in a respectful, non-offensive way, according to Farr-Jones.
“She proposed to him, say something like ‘heaven awaits those who repent from their sins.’

So, sounds like she didn't sit down with him and say, "listen up and listen good. DO NOT POST ANTI-GAY SHIT. end of story". Instead tried to twist it in a way he'd like, which is what you'd expect from the CEO trying to please her best employee.

Good luck to him, but can't see that argument holding water.

 

[Slim 293]

I wonder what the general reaction would have been if Folou was muslim and quoted something similar from the Koran?

He wouldn't have had the backing of News Corp's George Pell fan club.........

 

[Ignoto]

Seems like the defense Folau is running with is Castle did not explain properly the first time what he can and can't do.

While I doubt it will happen, from a transparency perspective, it'd be great if the decision ruling was made public. That'll then allow everyone to clearly see what was put forward and how they determined it being a High level breach and why any punishment is necessary.

 

[Quick Hands]

The thing is here that if they did not terminate him and just did a fine and/or suspension there is no reason he would not do it again. He has shown zero acceptance that his employer has the right to stop him posting which after last warning is very clear, and no reason to believe he would not continue to do this. That is the problem as there is no clear acceptance even after the verdict of doing anything wrong or indeed needing to abide by RA requests (requests which he said he previously agreed to).

Sorry I know if I had done the same thing after a warning for posting something like this on say linkedin or facebook I would be sacked by the company i work for which is a large US multinational. What is the difference - IF a big high profile public figure and therefore able to be excluded by such rules by his employer..?

Perhaps, but there's a long way between a warning and dismissal from employment/termination of contract. Normally in our society the law doesn't jump from almost nothing for a first offence to the maximum penalty for a second offence. That may or may not turn out to be a problem for RA down the track.

 

[Tex]

If anything this case is a wonderful collision between the identity left and the labor/IR left.

It's not often you see people who would readily accept they sit on that side of social and economic spectrum calling for workers (albeit $1m pa workers...) to be sacked by their corporate employer for asocial media post that offends a portion of the community.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Interesting that IF sought out Nick Farr Jones.

Gives a different perspective on this - I guess the one thing is that I don't have all the facts around what Castle and RA said and did not say - hence for me just have to trust the process around this - which may at this point also include a legal process.