The Israel Folau saga

[tragic]

Being homosexual isn't a character flaw that can be worked on and being religious isn't an excuse to suggest as much in a secular society.

Neither is alcoholism - which is a smaller minority group, with with a higher mortality.
But it’s ok to brand them as sinners because they are not currently a group experiencing positive discrimination as society sees it largely as their own fault.
My point is that he was fine to be a religious zealot and his rantings were tolerated until he mentioned a taboo group.
It’s either wrong for everyone or it’s acceptable under the guise of freedom of speech and religion.
You can’t pick and chose who to be offended on behalf of.

 

[Slim 293]

Actually, alcoholism is a health disorder that can be worked on.........

It’s called rehab.

Let’s not keep trying to equate homosexuality with these other groups.........

 

[Lorenzo]

Neither is alcoholism - which is a smaller minority group, with with a higher mortality.
But it’s ok to brand them as sinners because they are not currently a group experiencing positive discrimination as society sees it largely as their own fault.
My point is that he was fine to be a religious zealot and his rantings were tolerated until he mentioned a taboo group.
It’s either wrong for everyone or it’s acceptable under the guise of freedom of speech and religion.
You can’t pick and chose who to be offended on behalf of.

You make these remarks as if they are unimpeachable truths, yet most people actually think that there are grey areas and that some things are worse than others. I.e that going after gays is not ok on the basis that you don't choose to be gay, and that, whilst going after alcoholics isn't particularly nice either, it probably isn't as bad as going after gays. I agree that taking shots, whatever the format, at those with addictions is pretty uncool. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why RA drew the line where they did. Imagine the uproar on FB (or here) if he was sacked after one of his earlier rants? Half the donkeys on the internet think he is the aggrieved party as it is.

Why should 'freedom of speech and religion' either give you unlimited licence to say what you want or no licence at all? Maybe it's ok in society to say some things and not others. Maybe somethings are on the wrong side of the line and some things aren't.

I mean, that's actually reality, as we have seen. You seem to think that it was unjust that Folau was permitted to post whatever he was posting before yet not permitted to go after gays.

Can you sincerely say that you would have been ok with RA banning him from Social Media altogether? I dare say you would have had a problem with that, too.

 

[Samson]

Rugby may be the game they play in heaven but looking at the posts it is doubtful G&G will have the numbers to field a team.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Neither is alcoholism - which is a smaller minority group, with with a higher mortality.
But it’s ok to brand them as sinners because they are not currently a group experiencing positive discrimination as society sees it largely as their own fault.
My point is that he was fine to be a religious zealot and his rantings were tolerated until he mentioned a taboo group.
It’s either wrong for everyone or it’s acceptable under the guise of freedom of speech and religion.
You can’t pick and chose who to be offended on behalf of.

Alcoholism is not something your born with and cannot alter. There are a lot of other factors that goes toward alcohol abuse than biology. I would know as there's a very long line of alcoholics down my father's line that according to your definition would all but doom anyone in that line to a life of alcoholism. Except neither one of my father's parents are alcoholics, nor was my father or any of his siblings. In fact, neither of my parents really drank/drink.

And while there very may well be a disposition toward it. Most people tend to fall into alcoholism thanks to environmental factors.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Rugby may be the game they play in heaven but looking at the posts it is doubtful G&G will have the numbers to field a team.

Why is that exactly?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Neither is alcoholism - which is a smaller minority group, with with a higher mortality.
But it’s ok to brand them as sinners because they are not currently a group experiencing positive discrimination as society sees it largely as their own fault.
My point is that he was fine to be a religious zealot and his rantings were tolerated until he mentioned a taboo group.
It’s either wrong for everyone or it’s acceptable under the guise of freedom of speech and religion.
You can’t pick and chose who to be offended on behalf of.

It was fine until he breached his employer's code of conduct and inclusion policies

For the second time

 

[Adam84]

He also didn’t say alcoholism, he said “drunks”, pretty sure that would cover off a significant portion of Australia’s population

 

[tragic]

Alcoholism is not something your born with and cannot alter. There are a lot of other factors that goes toward alcohol abuse than biology. I would know as there's a very long line of alcoholics down my father's line that according to your definition would all but doom anyone in that line to a life of alcoholism. Except neither one of my father's parents are alcoholics, nor was my father or any of his siblings. In fact, neither of my parents really drank/drink.

And while there very may well be a disposition toward it. Most people tend to fall into alcoholism thanks to environmental factors.

Like many illnesses genetic factors merely make you susceptible. The rest is a complex interplay between social and environmental circumstances.
For some unfortunate individuals the ducks line up and they have no more ability to control it than to chose their sexuality.
Your post just confirms what I said - the general attitude is that it’s a life choice and therefore less deserving of sympathy or support.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Like many illnesses genetic factors merely make you susceptible. The rest is a complex interplay between social and environmental circumstances.
For some unfortunate individuals the ducks line up and they have no more ability to control it than to chose their sexuality.
Your post just confirms what I said - the general attitude is that it’s a life choice and therefore less deserving of sympathy or support.

I never said people suffering from alcoholism didn't deserve sympathy but the facts are that a predisposition to something doesn't mean that it's fate as opposed to something that isn't a predisposition but an actual biological fact.

 

[Adam84]

It’s merely an attempt to deflect the argument..

Homosexuals in Australia have been a heavily discriminated minority for generations, suffering persecution and public ridicule purely because of their sexual orientation.

Drinking alcohol on the other hand has long been considered part of Australia’s social fabric and something regularly celebrated,it is well accepted in the Australian social structure and those who drink alcohol represent a significant majority in Australia, they are not a discriminated minority nor is drinking alcohol something you are born with.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

It’s merely an attempt to deflect the argument..

Homosexuals in Australia have been a heavily discriminated minority for generations, suffering persecution and public ridicule purely because of their sexual orientation.

Drinking alcohol on the other hand has long been considered part of Australia’s social fabric and something regularly celebrated,it is well accepted in the Australian social structure and those who drink alcohol represent a significant majority in Australia, they are not a discriminated minority nor is drinking alcohol something you are born with.

Yeah. If he cannot distinguish the difference between the two then he probably doesn't want to. Ultimately, if Folau had posted a similar message but without the implicit mention of a minority group as he did this would be a complete non-issue.

 

[Derpus]

Rugby may be the game they play in heaven but looking at the posts it is doubtful G&G will have the numbers to field a team.

 

[zer0]

 

[half]

Thanks for clarifying Half.

Regarding the highlighted part. What happens in a world were RA doesn't terminate Israel's contract, docks him a few weeks pay and the status quo remains.

However, the largest sponsor RA has (and one that heavily subsidizes the largest cost the Wallabies and Super Rugby team have in travel) walks away from renewing and as a result RA has a huge financial hole to fill. That may cause jobs to be lost at RA, or grass root sponsorship being pulled, top ups for our Wallabies being reduced all so one bloke can spout nonsense that most Australian's don't agree with?

I agree that this is an extremely complex issue and there are no winners in this situation. Even coming from Israel's perspective, where he would give most of his money away to family members and even his church. By knowingly posting what he did, he should have known he would jeopardize his ability to provide for all those people. With a terminated contract, there's a lot of mouths that will go unfed because of whoever got these ideas into his head.

I think you miss understand where I am coming from and this post is complex to the extent it draws on areas outside rugby to illustrate my point,

Hang with me

Let me start by giving four names, three from sport and one non sport. Colin Kaepernick, Julian Assange, Mohamed Salah or Mo Salah, Israel Folau.

Colin Kaepernick knelt during the playing of the American nation anthem over his stance on "Black Lives Matter" he was not resigned and you could argue it was lets call them the right wing, hard right or whatever name you care to give. But a person was essentially sacked for his belief and statement about the treatment by the police when arresting black people.

Julian Assange, is being charged and its a pretend charge of hacking when everyone knows its both to punish him for publishing. IMO the biggest attack on free speech and freedom of the press in my life time. This attack is coming from both the right and left as he showed up the US forces in their wars, and showed Clinton for what she was and how they robbed Sanders of votes. So lets not only charge him but stop revenue getting to him.

Israel Folau has posted something a discriminated minority say on the left don't like and so lets take away his income.

I put free speech very high as a right, no one wants or supports hate speech. However who decides whats hate speech. Hate speech can be closed down by existing laws to some extent.

My fear is where is this leading to and whats next as I said, I personally have no issues with gays and if I am honest far more issues with religious people.

We seem to be creating a system whereby if the hard right and hard left and government don't like something, then lets take their income away and that scares me.

Now to Mohamed Salah, he is a Muslim and a practising Muslim. He plays in the EPL for Liverpool and is said to be one of the worlds best players. Every time he scores a goal he kneels down in the Muslim pray position and gives thanks not to different to many players in sport after a try or goal who make the sign of the cross.

Rather than attack him, the press has embraced his stance, so have the fans and they now sign songs about him and he has brought its said a much closer relationship between Muslim & Christian in both the UK & Egypt . So much so that many former say hot headed Muslim leaders are saying look Salah's message of peace and understanding and simply explaining things works.


I mention Salah only because the reaction could have been so different and it shows closing down issues is IMO not the answer. google Mo Salah song its a very interesting response and very different .

Its a very complex issue and I still question whether taking a persons income away is a reasonable response or is it Ponitus Pilate a response to satisfy a mob.

As I said my take is purely about free speech and how both the left and right are attacking and trying to close down anything they disagree with

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

 

[wamberal]

I keep coming back to the enormous societal changes in attitudes towards sexual preference in my lifetime. No doubt there are some who are nostalgic for the good old days of p****** bashing (and killing), and imprisonment for "unnatural" sexual activities.


And here we are, having recently voted overwhelmingly for equal marriage rights. But there is still a minority who voted against (some for reasons of principle, some out of bigotry or fundamentalist religious beliefs").


That progress is worth keeping. One of the elements of keeping it is to ensure that hate speech (and that is what Izzy perpetrated) is kept out of the public space as much as possible. Particularly when the speaker is a well know sportsperson.


Amazing that all the local sports seem to be in lockstep about this, innit?

 

[Ignoto]

Let me start by giving four names, three from sport and one non sport. Colin Kaepernick, Julian Assange, Mohamed Salah or Mo Salah, Israel Folau.

Perhaps I'm not articulating myself all that well so I will try to talk to your examples.

Colin I think is the only true example of a person being persecuted for their beliefs. Him kneeling doesn't cause any harm to anyone or perpetuate an environment that could cause harm. Him kneeling doesn't make any other class of people feel worse off than if he stood.

Julian Assange - I don't think is all that applicable in this situation. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, however, the issue is how he in some instances has obtained information. The charges he's currently facing in the USA have to do with breaching a classified government computer. In America, if proven to have occurred, that's a crime. Him publishing the information isn't a problem, the problem is how he got the information. This example is completely different to Israel.

Salah - I haven't seen any issue about him praying (he's not the only Muslim who has and does the pray after a goal, Demba Ba did the same thing).

As I said my take is purely about free speech and how both the left and right are attacking and trying to close down anything they disagree with

But, you know in Australia we don't have a freedom of speech right? There are reasons and limitations our Government and Judicial Officers have put on things we can and can't say.

I've explained earlier that this isn't just a left vs right attack. It has to do with the environment that's created by spokespeople like Israel. As Reg pointed out earlier, there are two fantastic podcasts that go through this minefield from what it was like for a gay Rugby player in Australia, and also why RA may be entitled to tell Israel to shut up.

 

[Lorenzo]

Its a very complex issue and I still question whether taking a persons income away is a reasonable response or is it Ponitus Pilate a response to satisfy a mob.

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 after all?

It is not, in fact, a complex issue, and walls of irrelevant text don't make it seem any more so.

Folau was hired for his marketing potential as much as he was any ability to catch, run, pass or kick (definitely not those last two). He certainly isn't getting 7 figures for his match-winning ability.

Very clearly, he has self-sabotaged his ability to appear on breakfast cereal boxes now.

Can you explain to us why you think Rugby Australia, and by extension it's sponsors (Qantas) and customers (us), ought to continue paying Folau when he is not willing to maintain his end of the bargain? Does RA owe him a living?

Are you happy to point at which provisions of the contract you think Rugby Australia is entitled to break without it being terminated by Folau, since you seem to think Folau should be able to break his end of the bargain?

Your constant description of this as complex reminds of the two decades worth of 'debate' that plums like Tony Abbott told us we needed any time someone suggested we be permitted to vote (either in parliament or in a referendum) on the gay marriage issue. It was just stalling in an ultimately futile attempt to prevent the inevitable.

 

[Aurelius]

But, you know in Australia we don't have a freedom of speech right? There are reasons and limitations our Government and Judicial Officers have put on things we can and can't say.

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.