The Israel Folau saga

[Derpus]

Breakaway - some interesting points. I think you are making a big error in saying that Israel Folau's social media account is private communication.

It's already established that it is not. It's public communication. There have been examples of employees being fired successfully for badmouthing their employers on social media. (if you really seriously definitely want me to, i can find the cases but i'd rather not).

So in that sense, RA are not overstepping. Israel Folau as a public figure for Rugby made a public communication.

Im a huge advocate of the 'who gives a fuck if you are offended' line. It's true and offence absolutely should not be the basis upon which free speech be curbed.

The thing is, this isn't a free speech issue. Its a terrible argument because a) that kind of free speech just does not exist in the legislation (or constitution) - there is no Religious Discrimination Act like there is for, say, race and b) he voluntarily entered into the contractual situation that would mean he couldn't say certain things in a public forum.

Israel wants to have his cake and eat it. No one is saying he cant rag on gays all day every day. They are just saying he cant do it after voluntarily entering into a legal contract which requires him to not rag on gays. And yes, unless there is legislation that expressly prohibits contracting out of a right, you can contract out of a right.

Its a contract issue rather than a civil liberties issue.

Academics have contemplated, discussed and written about all the above issues for centuries. No one ever asks them though. This is hardly a new debate.

 

[wamberal]

Just a small dissenting voice. It is bloody ridiculous to claim that "all Christians" believe the same thing when it comes to these questions of sin and hell.


The Pope seems to have a more nuanced view. And he is the only person who is supposed to pontificate (this is a joke, by the way).


It is a sad day when the "good news" ends up being so divisive, vicious, and self-righteous. There are lots of Pharisees around today, ready to tell others what they should believe and how they should act, and showing little or no concern for the real life problems that some people undergo. This lack of compassion was criticised by Jesus.

Compassion. Now there's an idea. Maybe Izzy could tweet something about what it means in the context of this controversy.

 

[Ignoto]

Great post mate. Spot on. Much research and many speakers are talking about this now, Haidt was in the van of this somewhat radical thought.

I would recommend his book "The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"

I've read the Coddling of the American Mind and listened to a couple of podcasts Johnathn has been on. I don't think what we're talking about here is quite the points he was trying to get across. The main points he and Greg are trying to demonstrate is, we need to build our children up and expose them to the issues they'll face in the real world.

Where I see a distinction in this situation is, Folau is contributing to a section of society that believes the LGBT community is worthless than the hetero world. You could substitute White People instead of Homosexuals in Folau's post and the issue would have kicked up an even bigger storm.

 

[Dctarget]

Not going to lie, I really rate it when my rugby forums delve into the Eastern Roman Empire and the nuances between old world languages. We should have a GAGR trivia night.

 

[James Pettifer]

I've read the Coddling of the American Mind and listened to a couple of podcasts Johnathn has been on. I don't think what we're talking about here is quite the points he was trying to get across. The main points he and Greg are trying to demonstrate is, we need to build our children up and expose them to the issues they'll face in the real world.

Where I see a distinction in this situation is, Folau is contributing to a section of society that believes the LGBT community is worthless than the hetero world. You could substitute White People instead of Homosexuals in Folau's post and the issue would have kicked up an even bigger storm.

Or Jews ... although the Jews are better resourced to fight anti-semitism as they have lots of practice in being discriminated against

The issue I have is that, like it or not, Izzy is a high profile public figure who has influence. He is paid a huge amount of money partially due to that. When he says something, people listen. His statements
- discourage the gay sportsman to come out and actually feel comfortable being himself amongst his team mates
- tell the gay teen struggling with his sexuality that being gay is wrong and they will go to hell - one of the people on twitter I follow who was raised in a religious house and is a lesbian said that she kept on praying that she would die overnight so that she wouldn't have to deal with working out how to deal with who she is
- reinforce the homophobic that it is alright to verbally abuse gays as they are wrong and are going to hell

He used to be supportive of the gay community (Bingham cup, comments after the homophobic slurs between the Waratahs and the Brumbies) but definitely seems to have changed

 

[The Honey Badger]

Great post mate. Spot on. Much research and many speakers are talking about this now, Haidt was in the van of this somewhat radical thought.

I would recommend his book "The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"

Nice Avatar Gnostic. Might be inappropriate for this thread though.

 

[Dctarget]

Yeah genuinely good question there:
If instead of referring to homosexuals, he specifically referred to Jews, would his contract still have been torn up?

 

[Slim 293]

News corp reporting that Folau was told if he simply took down that one Instagram post his breach would’ve been downgraded to a low level, and his contract then wouldn’t be terminated.........

Folau not interested.........

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12229540

 

[Derpus]

He's martyring himself.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Not going to lie, I really rate it when my rugby forums delve into the Eastern Roman Empire and the nuances between old world languages. We should have a GAGR trivia night.

I actually think we have found our New Hotel California in this thread.



(For those unfamiliar, it was the term use for the now closed School Scholarship thread a similar place where opposing views clashed. Funnily enough I am agreeing with posters I wouldn't have in that thread )

 

[James Pettifer]

Yeah genuinely good question there:
If instead of referring to homosexuals, he specifically referred to Jews, would his contract still have been torn up?

There is a lot less support in the community for antisemitism - I doubt he would have got as much the support from the right wing commenters - and the antisemitism groups are very aggressive with regards to anything that could be considered antisemitic.

 

[sidelineview]

News corp reporting that Folau was told if he simply took down that one Instagram post his breach would’ve been downgraded to a low level, and his contract then wouldn’t be terminated...

Folau not interested...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12229540

"If sacked from the national team, Folau would be the first Australian athlete dismissed for expressing religious beliefs".

No wonder its such a big deal and one that has the wider community involved.

 

[Braveheart81]

- Employers have over-reached in curtailing private time activities and communications, but no-one has yet been adequately funded or motivated to fight that incursion.

As others have said, this isn't a private activity. It's a very public statement made by a very public figure who generates a large amount of his earnings through his public image.

And as for the ARU? I think they have blundered cataclysmically in putting themselves front and center here. Society very much needs this; Australian Rugby very much does not. The ARU board has no particular mandate or basis of wisdom to claim the lead in grappling with these issues, let alone at the cost to the game that this debacle will impose in terms of money and disharmony.

I don't think they're really leading the way here. They're dealing with an issue that they have been forced to deal with.

It would have been perfectly adequate for the ARU to make a public statement that in no way does it endorse the views espoused by Israel Folau.

They could maybe do this once and they did, but they also can't position themselves that it is totally fine for Folau to say these things and expect that saying they disagree with it absolves them of any issues relating to it. That's not how the world works. Folau is very much a representative of RA.

Doing nothing is taking a position.

 

[Tex]

Yeah genuinely good question there:
If instead of referring to homosexuals, he specifically referred to Jews, would his contract still have been torn up?

I reckon the pertinent question would whether the selective free speech brigade of Latham and Jones etc would still have his back. He's going to become a pawn in the unending culture war, which is a shame for all.

Sami Shah co-hosts Melbourne's ABC breakfast program and has a podcast out on free speech. It's worth a listen, particularly as it's from the perspective of a person of colour. The episode I've linked is great and includes an interview with Andrew Bolt on his view of free speech and how it pertains to one of the last furors aimed at Jasmin Abdel-Magied.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/getting-yasmined/10985988

 

[Tex]

News corp reporting that Folau was told if he simply took down that one Instagram post his breach would’ve been downgraded to a low level, and his contract then wouldn’t be terminated...

Folau not interested...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12229540

What a cnut. Forget all the back and forth about religious freedoms, free speech, contract law etc, this bloke turning the pedestal that we rugby supporters have built him into his martyr's pulpit is fucking balls.

Fuck him.

 

[Dctarget]

So, if we agree that IF couldn't fight this the same way if instead he said all Jews are going to hell, then why are we having this discussion? I am equating this wrongly?

 

[Derpus]

So, if we agree that IF couldn't fight this the same way if instead he said all Jews are going to hell, then why are we having this discussion? I am equating this wrongly?

I think you are equating this incorrectly.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Civil liberties are heavily focused on human characteristics that are largely pre-determined and can't be changed (easily), i.e. race, sex, age etc.

Religious belief is a choice and doesn't enjoy the same level of protection. Although, i suppose this can be murky as being 'Jewish' is often a conflation of race and religion.

 

[Dctarget]

I think you are equating this incorrectly.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Civil liberties are heavily focused on human characteristics that are largely pre-determined and can't be changed (easily), i.e. race, sex, age etc.

Religious belief is a choice and doesn't enjoy the same level of protection. Although, i suppose this can be murky as being 'Jewish' is often a conflation of race and religion.

Wait, that reinforces my point more. I might not have explained myself.
I'm suggesting that if he said it about Jews instead of homosexuals, no one would protect him and he'd be quickly hung out to dry, with little support.

So, if he can't get away with attacking the Jews (a group you suggest has less protection), he shouldn't be able to do the same to gays.

 

[Samson]

So, if we agree that IF couldn't fight this the same way if instead he said all Jews are going to hell, then why are we having this discussion? I am equating this wrongly?

The difference as I understand it is IF used a bible verse to support his post. He would not be able to find a verse to support 'all Jews are going to hell'. I think the bible would suggest many old testament Jewish prophets and NT Jews such as John the Baptist are heaven bound

 

[Set piece magic]

Folau's intransigence is a bit ridiculous, I think he's pretty unreasonable at times here

At the same time, i find Alan Joyce's comments abhorrent

“They have to manage it . . . and shame on you if it happens a second time. That’s the way we approach it in the aviation industry, and we expect these organisations to be the same.”​

This is a comparison of a social media post to airline accidents which take the lives of hundreds of people. It's a completely ridiculous analogy and its insulting

QANTAS' feral behaviour in this whole saga is abominable and makes me embarassed to have them as our national airline. If I was a shareholder, I'd be bringing these issues to the AGM and telling Joyce to get his hands off it