The Israel Folau saga

[Athilnaur]

There are a number of people in this thread who take the position it isn't that Israel can't think those things, he's just not allowed to SAY them because we don't agree with them and if he doesn't stop he must be punished.

For those of you who think this way, that people who say things you resent must be stopped, I ask you to think carefully about what you are asking for. What kind of societies in the world repress those who do not adhere to the approved mainstream view?

And what will happen to you when you find that your beliefs are now forbidden and you try to tell others why your beliefs have value?

 

[fatprop]

So if a Wallaby tweets "All Muslims will go to hell unless they repent" that would be okay with you? What about ditto for "all Jews"?

I am OK with it, I may not agree with it, but is the cornerstone of Christian, Muslim & Jewish beliefs, you follow one of the other teams and you ain't going to their version of heaven

We seem to want religious people to ignore all the tenants of their beliefs that don't fit into some consensus group think, whereas I don't care what any of them believe, their words don't matter

 

[wamberal]

Okay, this is a complex question. The answer you arrive at will depend to a large extent on the framework of your beliefs.


There are some Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have exclusivist beliefs. But I would bet big money that the majority of adherents are moderate in their beliefs, and see their religious faith as a thing of community and inclusion.


It is very easy to throw stones at others. Stones do not heal people, they damage them.


If you are not damaged by what Izzy said, good for you. But you cannot speak for others who were damaged. Fortunately there is no "group think". We are not a planet of mindless robots, we all have brains, we can all think, we all make choices.


But it is not a choice to be born same sex attracted. Why should such a person be told that if they choose to live out a full life that includes sexual relationships, they are doomed to hell?


This is straight out of the stone age, this sort of stuff. It does not belong in a civilised society.

 

[Slim 293]

There are a number of people in this thread who take the position it isn't that Israel can't think those things, he's just not allowed to SAY them because we don't agree with them and if he doesn't stop he must be punished.

No, they have not and that’s frankly another very disingenuous claim you’ve put forward..........

Much like if I suggested that everyone defending Folau does so because they agree with his homophobic views.

Each claim is a simplified, dishonest view of both sides of the argument.

 

[Aurelius]

Okay, this is a complex question. The answer you arrive at will depend to a large extent on the framework of your beliefs.


There are some Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have exclusivist beliefs. But I would bet big money that the majority of adherents are moderate in their beliefs, and see their religious faith as a thing of community and inclusion.


It is very easy to throw stones at others. Stones do not heal people, they damage them.


If you are not damaged by what Izzy said, good for you. But you cannot speak for others who were damaged. Fortunately there is no "group think". We are not a planet of mindless robots, we all have brains, we can all think, we all make choices.


But it is not a choice to be born same sex attracted. Why should such a person be told that if they choose to live out a full life that includes sexual relationships, they are doomed to hell?


This is straight out of the stone age, this sort of stuff. It does not belong in a civilised society.

Wamberal, I can't believe I have to say this, but if you spend enough time interacting with the outside world, you will inevitably come across views that confront, shock or even - gasp! - offend you.

But you're right. We all have brains, we can all think, we all make choices. Whether or not to take offence at weird stone-age views is one of them. How we react to our feeling of offence is another. Deciding to counter or simply ignore those views that offend you is a mature way to react. Trying to destroy the life and livelihood of the person who's offended you is not just immature, but when it's done by someone in a position of power (say, a sporting administrator or corporate sponsor) then it becomes downright sinister.

 

[Forcefield]

An interesting analysis by Stephen Chavura in today's Australian, who says

Folau incited no violence and expressed no gross obscenity, notwithstanding the offence that many people would have taken.


The main point of the article is
Folau’s enemy is neither the government nor the people but corporate activism.
A key focus of the analysis is that You can live under the most liberal democratic state in the world, but if your employer can sack you for speaking your mind outside of your workplace or if a colleague can lodge a complaint because of a social media post, and your only alternative is another corporation with the same speech regulations, then your freedom of speech is an empty right. You are free to speak so long as nearly no one hears you.

People make a big deal of the right to freedom of speech. Here is an interesting point- in the US, at least, you are not protected legally under freedom of speech for shouting "Fire, fire" when there is no fire. I would assume the same is true for "They've got a bomb". The premise I suppose is that public safety over rides freedom of speech when society agrees to the context. Particularly where what is said adds no value. Does public safety relate in this case? Yes, LGBTI people are over represented in suicide statistics. Does it outweigh the value of what Folau has said? I don't know. What I do know is that he could have expressed the same beliefs in a more respectful way. Freedom of speech needs to remain respectful.

Clinging to concepts like absolute freedom of speech is dangerous. To me, in much the same way clinging to the right to bear arms is dangerous in the USA.

 

[Aurelius]

Just read this piece by David French of National Review. The article's in an American context but seems applicable here:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/dehumanizing-speech-is-still-free-speech/

If you don't want to read the whole thing the last couple of paragraphs are a cracker:

It’s time to recognize the American culture war for what it is — a religious dispute — and incorporate it into America’s existing religious pluralism. A Christian no more “dehumanizes” a gay man when he believes in traditional sexual morality than a gay man “dehumanizes” a Christian for believing that the theology he’s based his entire life upon is nothing but an ancient fiction. A proposed limit to freedom of conscience is no more “dehumanizing” than a proposed limit to the reach of a public-accommodation statute.


Finally, is speech really free if it can’t touch on the weightiest matters? Debates about the worst Star Wars movie (it’s still Phantom Menace, but Last Jedi is close) or even about economics or foreign policy may be interesting, and they can certainly be important, but absent debate about first principles, the First Amendment is but a trifle — a cosmetic protection for cosmetic speech. Every American should be able to handle a challenge to his or her most foundational values. Healthy pluralism requires nothing less.

 

[fatprop]

Just read this piece by David French of National Review. The article's in an American context but seems applicable here:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/dehumanizing-speech-is-still-free-speech/

If you don't want to read the whole thing the last couple of paragraphs are a cracker:

A Christian no more “dehumanizes” a gay man when he believes in traditional sexual morality than a gay man “dehumanizes” a Christian for believing that the theology he’s based his entire life upon is nothing but an ancient fiction

The argument in a nut shell

 

[Forcefield]

Would it not be better then to keep the dehumanising out of the public sphere?

 

[dru]

Would it not be better then to keep the dehumanising out of the public sphere?

The argument being made is that there is no dehumanising going on.

 

[Forcefield]

But homosexual people feel dehumanised. You can't say this groups beliefs offend this groups and vice versa so noone should feel offended and its all open season for a public spat. Be mature, be respectful and keep inflammatory opinions outside public discussion. If you feel the need to discuss, discuss in a non inflammatory way.

 

[Aurelius]

But don't you see that how people feel is entirely subjective, and therefore impossible to regulate for? Homosexual people feel dehumanised by Israel Folau's religious beliefs, so RA has to drive him out of the public square. A transgender cyclist felt dehumanised by Martina Navratilova's views on transgenders competing in women's sport, so Cambridge University de-platformed her. Christians felt dehumanised by The Life of Brian so it couldn't be shown in several towns in Britain. Radical feminists felt dehumanised by Bettina Arndt's views on the incidence of sexual assault on campuses, so she can't speak. Where does it stop?

And it's no good saying that people just have to express their controversial views in a non-imflammatory way. Margaret Court was perfectly polite and respectful in explaining why she'd boycott a certain airline over their corporate activism, and look at the good it did her. Bettina Arndt is polite and well-spoken, so's Jordan Peterson - it never makes a difference to the offence-takers. Yes, respectful debate should be encouraged over rhetorical bomb-throwing, but let's not pretend it's tone that triggers the offenderatti.

 

[fatprop]

People make a big deal of the right to freedom of speech. Here is an interesting point- in the US, at least, you are not protected legally under freedom of speech for shouting "Fire, fire" when there is no fire. I would assume the same is true for "They've got a bomb". The premise I suppose is that public safety over rides freedom of speech when society agrees to the context. Particularly where what is said adds no value. Does public safety relate in this case? Yes, LGBTI people are over represented in suicide statistics. Does it outweigh the value of what Folau has said? I don't know. What I do know is that he could have expressed the same beliefs in a more respectful way. Freedom of speech needs to remain respectful.

Clinging to concepts like absolute freedom of speech is dangerous. To me, in much the same way clinging to the right to bear arms is dangerous in the USA.

As you clearly stated, the US model does have minor limitations, but it is still the best model

I like Fry's position

 

[Forcefield]

How individuals feel is subjective and you can't keep everyone happy, but you can't convince me that you can't reasonably predict that telling a population of over 100,000 people that they are inherently wrong and will go to hell (now I'm paraphrasing: unless they pray the gay away). Also, don't mistake polite for respectful. Regarding regulation, Folau had been warned about social media use. A prudent person would have consulted with his employers and said "Hey, I know this has been an issue in the past. I want to express my beliefs on social media. Let's work out how we can do this in a way that fits for my needs and your inclusion pllicies". He marginalised himself and gave RA very little to work with. If you believe Folau's words that he is happy to walk away from his contract if his views cause conflict, he is not exactly a victim in this.

To underline the point: The issue is not Folau's beliefs, the issue is how he chooses to express them.

 

[half]

As time is moving forward, where i was once quite conflicted in that the rights of a community who have been / are marginalised and on the other hand the right to express an opinion. I have harden my opinion and come to my conclusion, detailed down a bit.

The other issue I have had is, even if we agree some great misdemeanour has occurred, then does the penalty even come within light years of being reasonable. Would the punishment pass the reasonable man test.

My belief has always been trying to balance the right to speak freely and any attempt to stop or inhibit free speech is beyond dangerous. As for the argument this is not about free speech I cry because it clearly is by almost any definition.

But as has been posted, free speech should not be without consequences.

To loose your income, your place in society, is a mega to the power of mega consequence and should be for only the worst kind of things.

Another issue raised and I endorse those who have posted we seem to be giving organisations huge power by saying if we act outside the organisations code of conduct even if minor we can be sacked and that scares the the hell[no pun intended] out of me.

So let me give you my considerations and conclusions, first we have two groups, one a church group and the other a marginalised group only starting to come to grips with changes. The next issues is a "Code of Conduct" and finally judgement and penalty by RA.

Does a "Code of Conduct" have legal standing above common law' tis a very interesting question?

The key question for me is "intent" & 'size of the issue"

My reading of the tea leafs is the 'intent" was not to attack but to state a belief, second a person has a right to free speech and freedom of religion has legal backing. However, I can also see how similar statements could cause harm to certain people especially if struggling with their circumstances.

It becomes a question of balance, no one side wins all. For me there should be consequences, however they needed to be based on what a reasonable person would do.

RA IMO has totally over reacted and if they get away with this based on their "Code of Conduct" argument then don't upset your boss, as you will have little protection

 

[gel]

If you believe Folau's words that he is happy to walk away from his contract if his views cause conflict, he is not exactly a victim in this.

Where did he say that about this particular incident? I haven't seen that yet, i'd like to read that article.

 

[Forcefield]

Clutching at straws.....

 

[Athilnaur]

Love Stephen Fry.

It seems to me the thread has run the gamut. In a few days we will see how the code of conduct hearing goes. I doubt it will rest there if the decision is in favour of RA and I think it is highly likely a court decision will vindicate Israel given he had not entered into a specific contractual undertaking. Had he entered a paid contract where he agreed not to post controversial religious beliefs I would be far less confident. These players are well paid and well represented, so arguing a contract was oppressive would be difficult.

But he didn't. RA has to rely on a code of conduct disrepute clause.


Had he repeatedly said such a thing in a team environment with the intention of making a player who is homosexual unwelcome; gone. That isn't free speech, it's actions to bully and good riddance. I think it is important to note no one suggests Israel is anything other than a first class gentleman in team environments.


Should RA be allowed to restrict a player from posting offensive remarks on social media in their contracts? Not in my opinion but it remains to be seen whether a court would see such a clause as oppressive.

Should they be able to stop a player bringing Rugby into disrepute? Absolutely. But a controversial religious post by a player doesn't bring rugby into disrepute, it brings the player into disrepute. All RA has to do is repudiate the view in strong terms - which it has.

Finally, does Cheika have to select him? No, but he'd be wise to ensure it was because of a team morale issue, not the choice to make the post itself or more damages are incoming.

 

[dru]

Where did he say that about this particular incident? I haven't seen that yet, i'd like to read that article.

Not sure this gives you what you are after but it might help (From round 1 not the current scenario)

https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/#v6kF5ig8CQCyhCJB.97

Extract:

After we’d all talked, I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately.

I feel I need to explain this part in more detail because at no stage over the past two weeks have I wanted that to happen.

There have been things written about me angling to get a release from my Rugby Australia deal to pursue an NRL contract. That simply isn’t true. There have been rugby offers from the UK, Europe and Japan that are way above anything I could earn in Australia.

This is not about money or bargaining power or contracts. It’s about what I believe in and never compromising that, because my faith is far more important to me than my career and always will be.

After the meeting I went home, turned on the TV and was really disappointed with some of the things that were said in the press conference.

I felt Raelene misrepresented my position and my comments, and did so to appease other people, which is an issue I need to discuss with her and others at Rugby Australia.

That aside, I hope Raelene and Andrew appreciate my position, even if it differs with theirs.

I love rugby union. It has allowed me to travel all over the world and meet some fascinating people along the way.

It is one of the best things about the game in my opinion.

I do not want to bring hurt to the game and want as many people playing it as possible, so when I spoke to Raelene about walking away, it was to help the game, not harm it, in the event we couldn’t come to an understanding.

I used to believe I was defined by my actions on the footy field, but I see now that’s not true.

Read more at https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/#qzLLzhWKLPX1FWMw.99
For what it is worth, there is a characterisation by some here that suggests Folau does not value rugby (inference being that any payout, if required, should be desultory). It is not what he has said. He has however firmly stated he values his church more.

 

[gel]

Yep, I've seen that one.