The Israel Folau saga

[Set piece magic]

Thanks for the mods for keeping this thread open to date

It's important we are able to have these discussions

I was pretty disappointed when the previous threads were locked because this is an important issue for rugby and how we manage to all get along. Just shutting down threads doesn't help it

The key difference everyone needs to remember is the difference between free speech as a legal, constitutional issue and free speech as a contractual issue. That is to say the difference between expressing your opinion as a private individual and that as the corollary of your employer.

People who enter into contracts can regularly sign away their speech - for example, I know that if I were to publicly criticise my employer I would be fired almost instantly (no I'm not stating my employer). I agreed to this in the contract

Folau posting to his public instagram is expressing his opinion within the context of being a professional athlete, employed by RA. His page is followed by rugby fans. He made the decision to sign the contract saying he wouldn't bring the game into disrepute (which this clearly does). He CAN still express his opinion in private

So the question thus is what exactly RA should decide is disrepute. I think a reasonable opinion, like a political opinion, or most opinions don't bring the game into the mud, even if people don't agree with them.

But this just clearly says homosexuals will go to hell. It's hating on a big section of our fan base. Most people I know that are gay think he's more of an idiot than offensive, but it doesn't help.

It also doesn't help that we're desperate to keep our sponsor Qantas, a known advocate for gay rights, happy. But really, Folau knew the rules, he's been given a warning not to do this because it crosses the line. It's now a challenge to RA's authority and legitimacy

I'd fine Folau his next match fee, but don't tear up his contract - this would be too controversial. But you need to set the precedent that people can't get away with something like this. Then if he does it again, fine him three match fees. Keep it going.

Folau can have his cooked opinions, just don't express them in the context of your role as a pro athlete

 

[Derpus]

It's not persecution - can people stop using that term.

I know you have me on block, but fuck it.

persecution
/pəːsɪˈkjuːʃn/
noun
noun: persecution; plural noun: persecutions
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression

Highlighted key parts

 

[liquor box]

This is a person who person who publicly disagrees with some peoples lifestyles/choices. He can believe/think whatever the hell he likes, I couldn't care less.

I think it is a long bow to draw to call this persecution of gays.

I find it interesting that is somehow OK to call people "thick", "stupid", "nutter" and "nutjob" if their views are not aligned with the current zeitgeist.

He may also truly think he is doing the right thing.

Put yourself in his shoes for a second, he actually believes he can save tens of thousands of people from eternal hell.
If you had this belief would you just be quiet and let these people go to hell? How would you live with that knowing you could have made a difference?
I find his beliefs laughable but if I thought by posting a picture on twitter that I could improve the lives (and afterlives) of tens of thousands of people I would do it in a second.
Maybe he is willing to sacrifice his job for his cause, or to be a martyr for the cause.
Lets face it, some devout people will even strap bombs to themselves because of their beliefs that they will improve the world.

He believes what he believes and who are we to criticize him? I guess ultimately we could just not follow him on social media, not report his posts, not have headlines about him and basically ignore him altogether and just be realistic that society includes all sorts of people.

 

[liquor box]

Anyone reckon he just wanted to break the try record. Get to the top, claim GOAT, then drop this bomb and says I've done it all.

I think he is planning to take up boxing, on the same day he does this Mundine tells us after researching vaccinations that they are bad and makes the headlines.

He may be the new "Man" and bring Mundine out of retirement for one last fight.

 

[dru]

So the question thus is what exactly RA should decide is disrepute. I think a reasonable opinion, like a political opinion, or most opinions don't bring the game into the mud, even if people don't agree with them.

Personally I thought the RA reaction last time excessive and contrary to my thoughts on religious freedom. This time however, they painted themselves into a corner. They really dont have a choice but to act.

The real questions relate to what happens next? It's quick slippery dip the Folau sticking to his guns and his rugby days are over. What about the players who have publicly supported him? What happens to player morale among the others who share his beliefs or similar beliefs? We are led to believe there are a few of them.

It is a mess whatever happens now.

 

[liquor box]

Mate, the difference with the other things is that they are choices.

we are all born Muslim according to the Koran, so this means religion is not a choice

On a side note this is why you cant actually convert to Islam as our media always tells us when talking abut terrorists, you actually "revert" to Islam.

 

[PhilClinton]

I'd fine Folau his next match fee, but don't tear up his contract - this would be too controversial. But you need to set the precedent that people can't get away with something like this. Then if he does it again, fine him three match fees. Keep it going.

Well written mate - but I disagree with this point.

The bloke clearly has no regard for the best interest of RA, or the Waratah's, or his fan base. It was a pretty simple outline he was left with the first time - happy for you to have controversial opinions, but keep them away from public scrutiny and media outlets. He's broken that. He needs to be sacked. Issuing a fine isn't setting any sort of precedent - it just means that if other players think they can afford it, they'll do the same thing. I'm not happy about it but as a business, RA needs to show some backbone here.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This is just so disappointing for as a rugby player you want to watch the folau’s and really wish he could keep away from social media and now looked destined to lose one of the truely appealing oz rugby players to watch.

Gees we can’t ever seem to get it right with big time league players we bring over to our game which is a pity as there are plenty of top line league players I would pay to watch in union.

 

[Set piece magic]

Remember that sacking him will offend people with a conservative philosophy which would be quite a few Rugby fans

I think the best solution is a reasoned, material fine. Think between 20 and 50-thousand dollars

I think you're overestimating his thought process when you say its a deliberate up your to RA

The bloke is a religious theologian who probably thinks what he's saying is right

He just needs to be told not to do it on RA property and fined appropriately

 

[Shaker]

Remember that sacking him will offend people with a conservative philosophy which would be quite a few Rugby fans

I think the best solution is a reasoned, material fine. Think between 20 and 50-thousand dollars

I think you're overestimating his thought process when you say its a deliberate up your to RA

The bloke is a religious theologian who probably thinks what he's saying is right

He just needs to be told not to do it on RA property and fined appropriately

Im 99% sure hes already been told the last time he did it.

 

[Set piece magic]

Im 99% sure hes already been told the last time he did it.

Yes but notice the fined appropriately element

 

[PhilClinton]

Remember that sacking him will offend people with a conservative philosophy which would be quite a few Rugby fans

I think the best solution is a reasoned, material fine. Think between 20 and 50-thousand dollars

I think you're overestimating his thought process when you say its a deliberate up your to RA

The bloke is a religious theologian who probably thinks what he's saying is right

He just needs to be told not to do it on RA property and fined appropriately

I never said its a deliberate up yours to RA - I said he has no regard for them

That means he's willing to put his beliefs and personal opinions before anything else, including his career. So fining him isn't going to do much.

 

[Braveheart81]

I feel like this isn't a sackable offence. It's clearly a breach of his new contract but a breach doesn't necessarily equate to termination.

I expect it will result in a fine and suspension.

 

[dru]

I feel like this isn't a sackable offence. It's clearly a breach of his new contract but a breach doesn't necessarily equate to termination.

I expect it will result in a fine and suspension.

Hey BH. What would amount to sackable? It's a key point here I think. There has to be some kind of threshold and having visibility around this is going to be important for RA going forward.

 

[barbarian]

If RA were smart, they would have set out in his contract the penalty for doing what he's just done.

Then they penalise him accordingly. Not for posting a slur on social media per se, but for breaking a clause set out in his contract.

Whether that's a fine, a ban or sacking, whatever. They just invoke the clause they had written in there previously.

If they don't have that, or the clause is vague then it becomes more difficult.

And I speak as someone with no idea about contract law in the slightest, so this all may be impossible to do.

 

[Braveheart81]

Hey BH. What would amount to sackable? It's a key point here I think. There has to be some kind of threshold and having visibility around this is going to be important for RA going forward.

I don't really know. Taking it further than he already has or doing it at least once more.

 

[PhilClinton]

We haven't really addressed what Izzy's point of view might be after these last 24hrs either.

RA and the Tah's have come out saying it is unacceptable. He might come back and say, you're right, your constraints and my religion can't co-exist anymore, I wish to leave. Then we won't have to argue about what is deemed the correct punishment!

 

[Tex]

Man I reckon he's a fucking simpleton who posts bad happy clapper memes without reasoning through the consequences.

A stellar athlete he may be, but a strategic thinker he ain't.

Spikhaza's contribution makes the most sense to me. Well reasoned.

 

[Dan54]

The other thing I wonder about, doesn't the bible say it hard for a rich man to enter heaven? So perhaps he will give away his money?

 

[fatprop]

Remember that sacking him will offend people with a conservative philosophy which would be quite a few Rugby fans

I think the best solution is a reasoned, material fine. Think between 20 and 50-thousand dollars

I think you're overestimating his thought process when you say its a deliberate up your to RA

The bloke is a religious theologian who probably thinks what he's saying is right

He just needs to be told not to do it on RA property and fined appropriately

and use his wife's account for these posts in the future