The Israel Folau saga

[Dry Rot]

Dunno where to post this, so I'll try here since he once played for the Giants.

What is our take on all this? Defend his right to free speech or use the old role model argument and he should not do it?

What if an AFL player tweeted the same? Or liked his post, like Ablett and the Blue's Kennedy did?

And I suppose while I'm at it, what about the NRL Saints player charged with rape who is not allowed to play but is currently innocent until proven guilty?

I know neither are directly AFL, but it's a matter of time before similar circumstances arise with AFL players.

[Dry Rot]

His actual Instagram post lists a eight claimed bad folk going to Hell:

Drunks
Homosexuals
Adulterers
Liars
Fornicators
Thieves
Atheists
Idolaters

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

How many categories do you fit into? I'm in an least 6/8.

Interesting that the ARU case is only about one of those.

[Grantysghost]

His actual Instagram post lists a eight claimed bad folk going to Hell:

Drunks
Homosexuals
Adulterers
Liars
Fornicators
Thieves
Atheists
Idolaters

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

How many categories do you fit into? I'm in an least 6/8.

Interesting that the ARU case is only about one of those.

I'm more concerned about this hell place I actually believed was fictional.....
Don't tell me it's just the 97 prelim fourth quarter on loop...! Arghhhhhhhh

[Ghost Dog]

If he loses his job for re-posting something like that, his lawyers will be rubbing their hands.


I heard one commentator make two points. Qantas has deals with Emirates, which is Dubai, very anti-gay and strict. Don't see them making too much noise about that....A huge proportion of rugby players are islanders with uber-religious beliefs. Surely we are tolerant enough as a society just to try and sit down with him and work it out with them rather than start sacking people, which I think will make it worse. I also think having players wear rainbow jumpers, shoelaces and that kind of thing is well intentioned but ham-fisted. I'm always pleased to see a few rainbow flags at the footy, and it should be indivudual's right to express themselves. But if AFL or NRL house is determined to demonise those who see it differently I think it will bring about more harm than good.
I hope the first AFL gay player comes out as soon as possible. It will be better for the game.

[Dry Rot]

I'm more concerned about this hell place I actually believed was fictional.....
Don't tell me it's just the 97 prelim fourth quarter on loop...! Arghhhhhhhh

At least that fourth quarter holds some hope for part of it.

But what if Hell is individualised? e.g. say for TwoDogs, he has to watch footage of Ben Harrison playing for the Dogs....for eternity.

[Dry Rot]

If he loses his job for re-posting something like that, his lawyers will be rubbing their hands.
A huge proportion of rugby players are islanders with uber-religious beliefs. Surely we are tolerant enough as a society just to try and sit down with him and work it out with them rather than start sacking people, which I think will make it worse.

I heard one commentator point out that Qantas has deals with Emirates, which is Dubai, very anti-gay and strict. Don't see them making too much noise about that....

Agreed - there's some interesting hypocrisy going on here.

[jeemak]

His problem is that the governing body pulled him into line specifically for the same thing last year, he's signed a contract that specifically advises he can't disseminate this type of thing on social media as an Australian contracted player and he's ignored it and done it again.

It's not an issue that should be conflated with free speech. It's a breach of contract issue, the governing body realised this was damaging to their brand last time so they tied it off and thoroughly warned him off doing it again.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

[Ghost Dog]

His problem is that the governing body pulled him into line specifically for the same thing last year, he's signed a contract that specifically advises he can't disseminate this type of thing on social media as an Australian contracted player and he's ignored it and done it again.

It's not an issue that should be conflated with free speech. It's a breach of contract issue, the governing body realised this was damaging to their brand last time so they tied it off and thoroughly warned him off doing it again.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Good points. Of course, if its in his contract, he should loose his job. Gay men are four times more likely to commit suicide than hetrosexual men. These kinds of comments are not needed.

[jeemak]

Good points. Of course, if its in his contract, he should loose his job. Gay men are four times more likely to commit suicide than hetrosexual men. These kinds of comments are not needed.

If he was a regular Joe, or retired and not bound by contract then so be it he's expressed his opinion for better or worse.

The issue is certain elements of the commentariat (i.e. the IPA) are trying to conflate this matter with free speech during an election campaign and people are swallowing it.

[Ghost Dog]

That's right. If you sign a contract you sign it.

[hujsh]

Freedom of speech only really protects you from the government. If you want to speak out about these things you aren't free from all consequence. Folau was warned and apparently agreed/signed a contract saying he'd not publicly express these views so I guess there's not much room left for him to move in.

That said I'm only really comfortable with the situation because I disagree with his views. If he was a Kaepernick-like figure I'd probably be rather unimpressed and the people defending Folau would be gloating about how athletes should shut up about politics.

[Axe Man]

His problem is that the governing body pulled him into line specifically for the same thing last year, he's signed a contract that specifically advises he can't disseminate this type of thing on social media as an Australian contracted player and he's ignored it and done it again.

It's not an issue that should be conflated with free speech. It's a breach of contract issue, the governing body realised this was damaging to their brand last time so they tied it off and thoroughly warned him off doing it again.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Actually it's been reported that the bolded part is not true. RA screwed up and forgot to insert the social media clause, they tried to insert it after Folou had signed, but he refused. This will be one of the keys to his appeal.

[Jeanette54]

Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will forever defend your right to say it".

No doubt these are his genuine beliefs, sincerely held, so why should he not be allowed to share them.

So much of the media these days pander to the politically correct, left wing driven censorship which is the modern way.

We talk about the left and the right as a diametrically opposed straight line, but I see it as a globe. If you go far enough to the left you eventually arrive back to the extreme right (fascism). Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of true democracy.

If you don't like someone's genuinely held opinions, don't look to silence them, look to debate them and prove that they are wrong.

And, yes, I am probably going to hell.

[Grantysghost]

Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will forever defend your right to say it".

No doubt these are his genuine beliefs, sincerely held, so why should he not be allowed to share them.

So much of the media these days pander to the politically correct, left wing driven censorship which is the modern way.

We talk about the left and the right as a diametrically opposed straight line, but I see it as a globe. If you go far enough to the left you eventually arrive back to the extreme right (fascism). Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of true democracy.

If you don't like someone's genuinely held opinions, don't look to silence them, look to debate them and prove that they are wrong.

And, yes, I am probably going to hell.

Intelligent debate has been usurped by social media outrage....It's the era of outrage. There's nothing better than destroying ignorant beliefs with well researched educated arguments.

[Daughter of the West]

Intelligent debate has been usurped by social media outrage....It's the era of outrage. There's nothing better than destroying ignorant beliefs with well researched educated arguments.

Sadly in this day and age, shouting "FAKE NEWS!!!" and sticking fingers in ears shuts down any educated argument. :(

[Happy Days]

Yeah the argument of "free speech" doesn't really wash when it's used as a thinly veiled guise to trumpet hate speech, particularly in a world where some of the largest countries continue to purge the members of their LGBTQIA communities, and being forced to conceal your identity as a homosexual person is one of the main reasons for refugee flight outside of war.

As pointed out, there's a bit of hypocrisy in Rugby AU's stance, but this is a really cut and dry case.

[Happy Days]

That's right. If you sign a contract you sign it.

Not necessarily - if both parties act in a manner to indicate that it's on foot then Rugby AU is entitled to act like it actually is.

[Jeanette54]

Yeah the argument of "free speech" doesn't really wash when it's used as a thinly veiled guise to trumpet hate speech, particularly in a world where some of the largest countries continue to purge the members of their LGBTQIA communities, and being forced to conceal your identity as a homosexual person is one of the main reasons for refugee flight outside of war..

What rubbish, almost without exception the countries people are fleeing, do not have any basis in democracy. For them freedom of speech and open debate are just an unobtainable dream. Oddly enough free speech would go a long way to breaking the oppressive bond between church and state in these countries. Just as it has done throughout the history of Judean-Christian Europe.

I do not question your assertion that certain sections of these communities are very badly treated, but the difference between us is in the method that we would use to address this.

And the term "hate speech" is just a SJW tactic to shut down considered debate.

[hujsh]

What rubbish, almost without exception the countries people are fleeing, do not have any basis in democracy. For them freedom of speech and open debate are just an unobtainable dream. Oddly enough free speech would go a long way to breaking the oppressive bond between church and state in these countries. Just as it has done throughout the history of Judean-Christian Europe.

I do not question your assertion that certain sections of these communities are very badly treated, but the difference between us is in the method that we would use to address this.

And the term "hate speech" is just a SJW tactic to shut down considered debate.

The term SJW is just a tactic to shut down considered debate.

[Happy Days]

Yikes. You know we legislate against making public representations against groups of people based on immutable characteristics right? As a matter of international and domestic law? It's not a "SJW tactic" it's a standard that our democratic process has chosen to uphold.

Yearning for the days of "considered debate" is just a dog whistle for yearning for the days of a monocultural echo chamber in regard to social issues where you didn't have to deal with the annoying rights of minority groups and people "wouldn't complain" about being vilified for existing without concealment. It comes from an incredible place of privilege and from a totally undesirable and anachronistic time.

Also bookending a response with "what rubbish" and "considered debate" is pretty good.

[boydogs]

I don't buy the contract argument. What's his alternative to signing it, miss out on playing?

[Happy Days]

I don't buy the contract argument. What's his alternative, miss out on playing?

There's actually an interesting procedural fairness argument - Rugby AU have already clearly expressed a desire to never pick him again, so it probably isn't possible for him to get a fair hearing at their internal body. Now that he's chosen to not just walk it'll probably end up in the courts.

[Jeanette54]

Yearning for the days of "considered debate" is just a dog whistle for yearning for the days of a monocultural echo chamber in regard to social issues where you didn't have to deal with the annoying rights of minority groups and people "wouldn't complain" about being vilified for existing without concealment. It comes from an incredible place of privilege and from a totally undesirable and anachronistic time.



I can at least recognise that my "incredible place of privilege" came about because of the freedoms won by incredibly brave people coupled with the principles of democracy. Free speech is one of the cornerstones of those principles.

I also do not believe that I have vilified anyone, but I do accept that I denigrated your reasoning.

I consider that any argument which endeavours to use what happens in countries which do not have democratic principles, as a reason to restrict our democratic rights, is exactly that; rubbish.

[hujsh]

I can at least recognise that my "incredible place of privilege" came about because of the freedoms won by incredibly brave people coupled with the principles of democracy. Free speech is one of the cornerstones of those principles.

I also do not believe that I have vilified anyone, but I do accept that I denigrated your reasoning.

I consider that any argument which endeavours to use what happens in countries which do not have democratic principles, as a reason to restrict our democratic rights, is exactly that; rubbish.

One of the principles of Liberal Democracy is that your freedoms extend to the point that it harms other people. Active demonization of a current and historically persecuted minority easily counts as harm to others.

[Grantysghost]

Yikes. You know we legislate against making public representations against groups of people based on immutable characteristics right? As a matter of international and domestic law? It's not a "SJW tactic" it's a standard that our democratic process has chosen to uphold.

Yearning for the days of "considered debate" is just a dog whistle for yearning for the days of a monocultural echo chamber in regard to social issues where you didn't have to deal with the annoying rights of minority groups and people "wouldn't complain" about being vilified for existing without concealment. It comes from an incredible place of privilege and from a totally undesirable and anachronistic time.

Also bookending a response with "what rubbish" and "considered debate" is pretty good.

Interesting point, my concern is the very thing you are advocating is the point you are also condeming. Do we immediately assume all minorities are stand up citizens ? No. Do we immediately assume everyone who advocates for educated debate is a homophobic white nationalist. No. We are mostly reasonable people, it's the sentiment that we are not that I struggle with .I like hearing your opinion, if I don't agree I'll say so. I enjoy our country exactly because it is multicultural, multifaith and a safe place for people of all genders and sexual preferences to be themselves. I totally disagree with Falou's beliefs but also believe he should be able to express them, otherwise you are attacking the very thing that makes us great.

[bornadog]

Peter Gordon was on SEN this afternoon discussing amongst other things the Israel folau issue. From a legal perspective, Peter believes Israel is in trouble. I missed some of what Peter said, so can't explain much further.

[hujsh]

Interesting point, my concern is the very thing you are advocating is the point you are also condeming. Do we immediately assume all minorities are stand up citizens ? No. Do we immediately assume everyone who advocates for educated debate is a homophobic white nationalist. No. We are mostly reasonable people, it's the sentiment that we are not that I struggle with .I like hearing your opinion, if I don't agree I'll say so. I enjoy our country exactly because it is multicultural, multifaith and a safe place for people of all genders and sexual preferences to be themselves. I totally disagree with Falou's beliefs but also believe he should be able to express them, otherwise you are attacking the very thing that makes us great.

There's a limit though.

'I don't agree with gay marriage' is different to 'Homosexuals are deviants who go against God and will face eternal damnation'

Then at the farthest end there's 'Kill all Jews.' Can we agree that that the last one at a minimum is dangerous and an acceptable limit to speech?

[Grantysghost]

There's a limit though.

'I don't agree with gay marriage' is different to 'Homosexuals are deviants who go against God and will face eternal damnation'

Then at the farthest end there's 'Kill all Jews.' Can we agree that that the last one at a minimum is dangerous and an acceptable limit to speech?

Fair point if you believe in eternal damnation. How many cans of worms can we open in one debate :cool:

Godwins law is correct. Might be my fault, I used white nationalist.....

[bulldogtragic]

Well if that's the list of things heading a great deal of us to eternal hell, I'm doing what The Bloodhound Gang said:

I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye and Lawrence Welk, and Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist.

Sounds fun, and I won't have to hear Falau bang on about it anymore. If he wants to preach, be a preacher. Start up a Hill Song band, Not Falau'ting The Ten Commandments.

I'm giving a shout out seperate to the above to the current and former addicts to alcohol and other drugs (there were 8 types of people identified). At our lowest we need respect and support, and telling folks they're off to hell because of their affliction (which maybe God did or didn't do for a reason) goes against modern teachings. The current Pope has said God created everyone and loves them the way they are, heterosexual or homosexual. He preaches tolerance, forgiveness and service to the down trodden etc. Basically, the opposite of Falau. Falau might do well to reassess how he preaches his God's word.

I don't begrudge people their faith and belief systems, but I was re-watching the war movie Jarhead the other night. One marine complains to his commanding officer that it was censorship of being told what to tell the media. The response was 'There is no such thing as speech which is free. You must pay for everything that you say.' I can't really sum it up better than that. Freedom to say something, versus, suffering consequences of saying something (ESP. When there's a contract) are very different issues.

P.S. I'm off to his hell too. Nice to know there's a good doggies social club building there.

[hujsh]

Fair point if you believe in eternal damnation. How many cans of worms can we open in one debate :cool:

Godwins law is correct. Might be my fault, I used white nationalist.....

The actual existence of hell is less important than the idea that a particular set of people are hated by the god they believe as that opens up the door to treat them as less than human.

The Godwins law use was just meant to create an example that anyone can agree with and see how far the commitment goes to 'free speech'.

[Grantysghost]

That door is only open to fools.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Well if that's the list of things heading a great deal of us to eternal hell, I'm doing what The Bloodhound Gang said:

I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye and Lawrence Welk, and Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist.

...and don’t forget Webster (Emmanuel Lewis) because he’s the antichrist.

[Jeanette54]

Peter Gordon was on SEN this afternoon discussing amongst other things the Israel folau issue. From a legal perspective, Peter believes Israel is in trouble. I missed some of what Peter said, so can't explain much further.

If I were Folau's defence Lawyer (although Israel wouldn't like the defence) I would be challenging the prosecution to establish the existence of God, heaven and hell beyond any reasonable doubt. If they can't do that, then any "punishment" which he suggests might meted out for all eternity to those named, is indeed null and void.

Therefore no harm, no foul.

[hujsh]

That door is only open to fools.
Plenty of fools about who'd be happy to walk through it.

[AndrewP6]

The constant argument of "freedom of speech" bugs me. Here in Australia, there is nothing in our Constitution that provides for freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, yes. FOS is part of the U.S constitution, not Australian. As others have stated, speech comes with consequences, and there is a law in NSW specifically addressing this issue.

Have your religious beliefs, but put them out in the open (when they deride a large number of people as sinners) and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Think of the young kid, a rugby fan, grappling with his/her sexuality. Looks up to Folau, only to be told he/she is a sinner. That could be the catalyst for disastrous circumstances.

[bornadog]

The constant argument of "freedom of speech" bugs me. Here in Australia, there is nothing in our Constitution that provides for freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, yes. FOS is part of the U.S constitution, not Australian. As others have stated, speech comes with consequences, and there is a law in NSW specifically addressing this issue.

Have your religious beliefs, but put them out in the open (when they deride a large number of people as sinners) and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Think of the young kid, a rugby fan, grappling with his/her sexuality. Looks up to Folau, only to be told he/she is a sinner. That could be the catalyst for disastrous circumstances.

Even though we don't have a constitution that provides for Freedom of speech, what we do have is Hate Speech laws.


The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Israel, gawn, ie goodbye $4 million contract.

[hujsh]

We also have limits on speech through defamation and libel law.

[Ghost Dog]

Actually it's been reported that the bolded part is not true. RA screwed up and forgot to insert the social media clause, they tried to insert it after Folou had signed, but he refused. This will be one of the keys to his appeal.

Foolish on their part. Thanks

[GVGjr]

I think we're right off topic so I'm closing the thread