Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Because nobody here or anywhere else has said it. But it's a nice straw man to set up and knockdown though.
The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Because nobody here or anywhere else has said it. But it's a nice straw man to set up and knockdown though.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
QANTAS weren’t the only company who voiced concern about the brand value of the Wallabies and their sponsorship been devalued. Some sponsors pulled out after the first incident, yet the spotlight and discussion now seems to be stuck on muslims and the QANTAS CEO, not Izzy.. it’s become ridiculous
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
A Qantas spokesperson told foxsports.com.au that “as a sponsor of Rugby Australia, we’re supportive of their approach towards tolerance and inclusion, which aligns with our own. “We’ve made it clear to Rugby Australia that we find the comments very disappointing.”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...t/news-story/f07078359a825370785d0285068adb7d
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But there's no need to imagine though what Qantas thought.
A Qantas spokesperson told foxsports.com.au that “as a sponsor of Rugby Australia, we’re supportive of their approach towards tolerance and inclusion, which aligns with our own. “We’ve made it clear to Rugby Australia that we find the comments very disappointing.”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...t/news-story/f07078359a825370785d0285068adb7d
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
It was all about freezing him out
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
The definition of bigot is someone who is intolerant of other opinions, so I imagine all of us are bigots about one thing or other.
There is no evidence at all Israel Folau is a bigot about gays, quite the reverse. His expressed view is that that way of life damns you, but his actions seem to be more accepting, which I suppose isn't all that strange if your religion preaches forgiveness and love.
On secularity, I am not completely certain we agree on the definition of a secular society if your definition of one holds people are not allowed to express a religious view that conflicts with the majority.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
One of the side effects of Izzy's crusade is the damage that it does to more mainstream Christian denominations.
The really sad thing is that the Bible contains enough material to allow almost any assertion to be made and backed up by an obscure verse.
I have been through an awful experience in which members of the same congregation attacked each other using biblical verses as their tools.
The really sad thing is that the Bible contains enough material to allow almost any assertion to be made and backed up by an obscure verse.
I have been through an awful experience in which members of the same congregation attacked each other using biblical verses as their tools.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Okay, we can agree to differ. But for me Izzy (and his ilk) does far more harm than he does good. My post just before this one is pertinent to this observation.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I can't agree with Quickhands' forgiving stance on RA. That have completely F^%$ed this one up again, just as they did with Beale, except worse.
1) The total shambles that the Collectively Bargaining agreement is should be apparent to all. What kind of employer allows an group contract that basically sees them lose control of the terms of employment with them. The independent tribunals are not even truly independent, but skewed to the player. I would suggest that a truly prudent ARU/RA management group would have had in place an appeals system more reliant on the Judicial process that all other employees go through. This system is a sham. That is even before we contemplate the ridiculous (reported) clause that sees RA from including anything in a player contract that is not beneficial to the player.
2) We should not forget the continued skew on the RA board towards people who are or have been executives of RUPA. The incestuous nature of Rugby management in Australia means that the lack new ideas and genuine external input leads directly to these situations where we see continual repetitions of outcomes.
3) Australian Rugby continues to be led by people from the finance industry, despite us knowing for years and now it being undeniable that the industry wouldn't know what an ethical outcome is. Adapt at only stealing/misappropriating other's money they take no responsibility for the abject failures they make along the way instead thinking themselves worthy of nice bonuses. It shouldn't be a surprise that after 2.5 decades of being run by bankers RA is nearly broke and continues to have these sorts of management issues.
I have no doubt about the outcome of the independent hearing, really there is only one outcome that is possible, and it is not the one that the mob wants to see. The uncomfortable fact for the PC brigade for whom free speech is something that is OK as long as it is not confronting in anyway is that nothing Folau posted is actually anything different than you would hear at most conservative churches/mosques/synagogues if anybody happened by. It is also common knowledge that such is the case. Freedom of religion (any and all) means that to prohibit that message, as uncomfortable and confronting as it may well be for some, is expressly prohibited in UN charters which Australia is signatory to (but has failed to enact domestic laws to enact in Australia and its states).
A few points that even the most limited lawyer representing Folau will bring up in his defence of these posts:-
1) The allegation it is hate speech - This cannot be proved or even implied. Simply the posts were not made targeting any single group or individual and requesting or urging any action be taken against these groups. In fact from the Conservative religious viewpoint the message is the standard evangelical preaching for the sinner to repent of their "sins" so they can be "saved". Personally I have always despised the arrogant preaching and have often used the reply "you must be born again because nobody can be that much of a F^%$wit" the first time around" but it is the common mode or the sermons from most religions and simply does not meet any definition of "Hate Speech".
2) The allegation that its "Homophobic". Really. FFS. See point 1. The statement that an act committed would preclude an individual from that particular version of "Heaven" is pretty universal. The list he posted was pretty extensive and his "Heaven" will be a very select place, and somewhat boring, but look at the definition that the prosecution is attempting to prove, and it simply cannot be made. That I think the Religions are hypocritical and fundamentally corrupt is moot, the statement is not "phobic".
3)That points 1 & 2 have been argued and lost on a legal direct definition basis, and taking into account the UN charters that Australia is signatory to, and finally the very "Inclusiveness" message that RA has stated IF breached and how it applies to his freedom of religion there is only one outcome from this hearing and that is RA will lose. Again.
Now given this fact and the virtue signalling from RA, Cheika, Hooper, Phipps and others IF's position is untenable regardless of the outcome. That then means IF will most likely have to be paid out the entirety of his contract.
In the unlikely event of the hearing finding for RA, to my mind it then kicks off the next phase of the matter, which IMO is a worse outcome. The fact is from the Conservative religious view point IF has been effectively martyred and it is quite likely that there will be very significant backlash from conservative, players and fans to such an outcome. I would also think that civil action against RA a very likely outcome.
The idiocy of the management of RA Officially making statements as to the future of the player, and allowing senior players to make comment as well, while the matter has not been resolved formally is beyond belief. This speaks to utter incompetence at the most senior levels. I have no doubt that a sponsor brought great pressure to bear on them to take public action, but the actions they have taken means that they have dug yet another hole from which the outcomes they sought are unattainable.
How many times can Clyne and Co fail in their management of Rugby in this country and still collect their fat pay checks?
1) The total shambles that the Collectively Bargaining agreement is should be apparent to all. What kind of employer allows an group contract that basically sees them lose control of the terms of employment with them. The independent tribunals are not even truly independent, but skewed to the player. I would suggest that a truly prudent ARU/RA management group would have had in place an appeals system more reliant on the Judicial process that all other employees go through. This system is a sham. That is even before we contemplate the ridiculous (reported) clause that sees RA from including anything in a player contract that is not beneficial to the player.
2) We should not forget the continued skew on the RA board towards people who are or have been executives of RUPA. The incestuous nature of Rugby management in Australia means that the lack new ideas and genuine external input leads directly to these situations where we see continual repetitions of outcomes.
3) Australian Rugby continues to be led by people from the finance industry, despite us knowing for years and now it being undeniable that the industry wouldn't know what an ethical outcome is. Adapt at only stealing/misappropriating other's money they take no responsibility for the abject failures they make along the way instead thinking themselves worthy of nice bonuses. It shouldn't be a surprise that after 2.5 decades of being run by bankers RA is nearly broke and continues to have these sorts of management issues.
I have no doubt about the outcome of the independent hearing, really there is only one outcome that is possible, and it is not the one that the mob wants to see. The uncomfortable fact for the PC brigade for whom free speech is something that is OK as long as it is not confronting in anyway is that nothing Folau posted is actually anything different than you would hear at most conservative churches/mosques/synagogues if anybody happened by. It is also common knowledge that such is the case. Freedom of religion (any and all) means that to prohibit that message, as uncomfortable and confronting as it may well be for some, is expressly prohibited in UN charters which Australia is signatory to (but has failed to enact domestic laws to enact in Australia and its states).
A few points that even the most limited lawyer representing Folau will bring up in his defence of these posts:-
1) The allegation it is hate speech - This cannot be proved or even implied. Simply the posts were not made targeting any single group or individual and requesting or urging any action be taken against these groups. In fact from the Conservative religious viewpoint the message is the standard evangelical preaching for the sinner to repent of their "sins" so they can be "saved". Personally I have always despised the arrogant preaching and have often used the reply "you must be born again because nobody can be that much of a F^%$wit" the first time around" but it is the common mode or the sermons from most religions and simply does not meet any definition of "Hate Speech".
2) The allegation that its "Homophobic". Really. FFS. See point 1. The statement that an act committed would preclude an individual from that particular version of "Heaven" is pretty universal. The list he posted was pretty extensive and his "Heaven" will be a very select place, and somewhat boring, but look at the definition that the prosecution is attempting to prove, and it simply cannot be made. That I think the Religions are hypocritical and fundamentally corrupt is moot, the statement is not "phobic".
3)That points 1 & 2 have been argued and lost on a legal direct definition basis, and taking into account the UN charters that Australia is signatory to, and finally the very "Inclusiveness" message that RA has stated IF breached and how it applies to his freedom of religion there is only one outcome from this hearing and that is RA will lose. Again.
Now given this fact and the virtue signalling from RA, Cheika, Hooper, Phipps and others IF's position is untenable regardless of the outcome. That then means IF will most likely have to be paid out the entirety of his contract.
In the unlikely event of the hearing finding for RA, to my mind it then kicks off the next phase of the matter, which IMO is a worse outcome. The fact is from the Conservative religious view point IF has been effectively martyred and it is quite likely that there will be very significant backlash from conservative, players and fans to such an outcome. I would also think that civil action against RA a very likely outcome.
The idiocy of the management of RA Officially making statements as to the future of the player, and allowing senior players to make comment as well, while the matter has not been resolved formally is beyond belief. This speaks to utter incompetence at the most senior levels. I have no doubt that a sponsor brought great pressure to bear on them to take public action, but the actions they have taken means that they have dug yet another hole from which the outcomes they sought are unattainable.
How many times can Clyne and Co fail in their management of Rugby in this country and still collect their fat pay checks?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
What you have been saying is we cannot. And what RA has said is we cannot publicly express such differences. The fundamental fact of free speech and freedom is that people are then free to say uncomfortable things. But to counter that I am free to call them F%$#wits and nut jobs.
The real danger to this whole saga is the mob rule that Social media is bringing to western society. In direct relation to this matter look at the crowd response to Billy Vunipola in last night's game. There is some religious hate right there, directed at an individual. Anybody who has had to manage crowds will know that to go from the booing to outright action is a small step and requires only a few well placed zealots to tip the response. It is no secret that I despise Lawyers and the profession of Law in general because I have on far too many occasions witnessed unethical use of loopholes to facilitate injustice, BUT and it is a huge BUT, civil society requires the Rule of Law, and this matter has opened a bag of worms prioritising the perceived (because it is based on a point of view) Rights of one group over the actual enacted Rights of another. What a great way to create division in a society when a better response would have been to say, "Yeah OK Israel, you're a barely literate rugby player, good at carrying a ball around a footy field, your profile comes from this, if you want to play here we have a zero social media policy. Don't like it fine, don't play here, go and play somewhere else or try to do something else." BTW that social media policy should be universal.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Barnaby Joyce saying Nixon pursued communists less than RugbyAU has gone after Folau
This is the guy that made his name destroying people on the house unamerican activities committee alongside Joe McCarthy and using terms like Red China, and staring down soviet leaders like Kruschev
Great comparison and a sad indictment on the ability to share ideas in 2019.
This is the guy that made his name destroying people on the house unamerican activities committee alongside Joe McCarthy and using terms like Red China, and staring down soviet leaders like Kruschev
Great comparison and a sad indictment on the ability to share ideas in 2019.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
LOL. The Beetrooter expressing his support for IF, doesn't he know that he is assured of his place in Hell now. He is an both an Adulterator and by dint of his politician ways and unabashed Liar.
S
sidelineview
Guest
You didnt include my entire reply to a post that mentioned Jews and Muslims. My post was in context, yours isn't.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
dru
David Wilson (68)
Thanks Gnostic - amusing that my Apple auto-correct insists on changing your user name.
The modern social media approach is to shout down loudly any dissenting opinion with sophistry. It’s not all fascile of course, but the combination is often an intentional drowning of dissent from the zeitgeist.
IF’s actually are, to me, repugnant. And between you and I, Gnostic, I think there is a threshold where some certain religious views cross a line and we should NOT be tolerant. I am not at all sure that IF has crossed it, but it’s a perhaps. And how you set that boundary is complex both in ethics and jurisprudence.
The conviction by many here, that IF has made a clear transgression - I don’t feel is an accurate summary at all.
Time will tell.
The modern social media approach is to shout down loudly any dissenting opinion with sophistry. It’s not all fascile of course, but the combination is often an intentional drowning of dissent from the zeitgeist.
IF’s actually are, to me, repugnant. And between you and I, Gnostic, I think there is a threshold where some certain religious views cross a line and we should NOT be tolerant. I am not at all sure that IF has crossed it, but it’s a perhaps. And how you set that boundary is complex both in ethics and jurisprudence.
The conviction by many here, that IF has made a clear transgression - I don’t feel is an accurate summary at all.
Time will tell.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Yes it is, I merely pointing out that you bringing in Islam, and ok Jews etc has nothing whatever to do with what Izzy did or didn't do wrong, and how far off the track everyone is getting, even Gnostic is saying that one of the defnces is against hate speech, I have heard absolutely noone from RA accusing him of hate speech, merely what his rights are regarding social media posts while he employed by RA.
If you want to go off track what happened to the Aussie soldier who made comments about gays in the army? He was booted out took it to court and was booted out there too. That has more in common than what Jews, Muslims etc thinks etc which has nothing to do with this case!
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Not really, my sarcasm doesn't really come through, I was attempting to both express my personal absolute disdain for Joyce and the great irony that he, as one about whom this so called "hate speech" targeted, is defending him. No fallacy created and not really a personal attack as he is by strict definition an adulterer, it is a fact and such things being uncomfortable doesn't change them from being factual and stating such things does not make the statement ad hominem, it is simply a fact, though one that if uttered in public can impolite and anti-social but being a very uncouth individual I don't give a shit about that.
- Status