Israel Folau

Yawn.  Boring.  Next.

TAFKAS is sick and tired and tired and sick of this whole Folau speech business.

For those windbags alleging some role by Qantas in exerting its sponsorship will on Rugby Australia, you would have a touch more credibility were you to publicly and loudly surrender your very valuable and very free membership of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge.  Perhaps you might also exercise your right to announce publicly and loudly that you will no longer fly with Qantas.  How about donating you Qantas Frequent Flier points to charity.

Until you do any of those things, shut up.

The problem we have is that Folau is being used as a pawn in a larger battle.  A battle against the broader Rugby Australia administration and against the marketing prerogatives of a private company.  If it were not for these broader battles, one suspect that this matter would have been long and quietly resolved.

Yes.  Folau has the right to say whatever he wants.  After all, he has not been jailed or had his property confiscated by force.

What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it.  And paid $1m per annum.

This matter was a contractual matter pure and simple.  Just because it is wrapped in a religious bow does not take that away.

Again.  If there was not a broader agenda being run by others, this matter would have been put to bed quickly and quietly.

In the interest of disclosure, TAFKAS does not fly with Qantas.  Not because he has an issue with their policies (he does not care less) but because they are too expensive.  Perhaps their expensiveness is a consequence of their policies, but that is another matter for discussion.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Israel Folau

  1. Roger

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it.

    What Folua lawfully does in his own time is his business.

    And freedom of religion, which includes the right to publicly manifest religious beliefs in speech and writing, is guaranteed by several international covenants to which Australia is a signatory which covenants have influenced our own laws and their interpretation.

    RA cannot impose a contract upon a player which terminates those rights, as they will find out if and when Folau takes this into a real court.

  2. woolfe

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it.

    You have obviously seen his contract, can you post it please?

  3. stackja

    Bible quotes are against RA policy?

  4. John A

    For those windbags alleging some role by Qantas in exerting its sponsorship will on Rugby Australia, you would have a touch more credibility were you to publicly and loudly surrender your very valuable and very free membership of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge. Perhaps you might also exercise your right to announce publicly and loudly that you will no longer fly with Qantas. How about donating you Qantas Frequent Flier points to charity.

    Been there, done that. I would never be eligible for the Chairman’s lounge, I have ceased to travel by Qantas (as also my family) and I no longer have any points to disperse.

    Now to the substance. How can a quote from the Bible in the context of an explanation of how to avoid the consequences of certain actions constitute a High-Level Breach of his contract (note that the actual offence is not declared clearly)?

    And how is it that this has gained such notorious negative publicity for Rugby Australia, who initiated the whole saga?

    I call it iatrogenic behaviour by the RA administration and CEO because if they had not made a public fuss it could have been dealt with as you suggested. All the huffing and puffing has come from RA not from Izzy. If the administration
    a) truly believes that religion is not the issue
    and
    b) truly acts in the best interests of the playing of the game (rather than the finances aka Qantas sponsorship)

    then why the hell are they making such a damn fuss and parading themselves as fools to all the world for doing so?

    To your other point: again based on points a) and b) above, how do Izzy’s statements bring the game into disrepute to such an extent that he has been adjudged (in a kangaroo court) guilty of a heinous breach of his contract, such that it may be terminated? Has he refused to play a game? Has he played dead and so cost them a win? Has he sold out to some opposition?

    I was never a fan of a brawl over a ball, organised on an oblong section of grass but I would never ever recommend anyone to this farce of a game now.

  5. Ubique

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it.

    This is far too broad a restriction. It could be extended to virtually anything at all – say eating meat in public; using a plastic straw; handing out Liberal how to vote cards; driving an ICE vehicle; not participating in Earth Hour; or refusing to attend the Gay Mardi Gras. Who knows what?

  6. Infidel Tiger

    Weren’t you quitting posting on this blog?

    Pity you didn’t before you embarrassed yourself.

    Peter Fitzsimons makes more sense.

  7. Old School Conservative

    TAFKAS, you conveniently miss the point that freedom of speech and freedom of religion both trump contract law.

    Or to put it around the other way, companies and sporting codes use contracts to supercede freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    That issue is not boring.

  8. Infidel Tiger

    A real court of law will almost certainly find in Folau’s favour.

  9. Is that you Malcolm. And so the high court will so find.

  10. Whether it should have been in his agreement is not the point. He did not have to enter into the agreement. That is what freedom actually is.

    Don’t sign and say what you want to say. If you want the money take the conditions.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    Maybe if you had actually ascertained the facts rather than gobbing off, you would know he had no such clause in his contract regarding social media.

    It would also be illegal to put a religious test in any such contract.

    He has been found guilty by a kangaroo court. If any real courts still exist he will win easily. Not only that, he has won in the court of public opinion.

  12. Roger

    Whether it should have been in his agreement is not the point.

    Um…yes it is. It’s the only point that really matters to anyone outside the circle of Folau & RA.

    Or do you want your employer to have the right to dictate what you say?

  13. It would not have been a religious test. It would be a test along the lines of social media content. Like 95% of salaried employees have in their contracts.

  14. lotocoti

    Have we heard from the fornicators, adulterers and drunkards yet?

  15. vicki

    The problem we have is that Folau is being used as a pawn in a larger battle.

    A lot of assumptions made in this opinion piece – most of which have been admirably dealt with in subsequent posts by Cats.

    But your belief that Folau is being used as a mere pawn by…..(???) suggests that you are unfamiliar with a) the character and beliefs of Israel Folau and, b) evangelical Christianity.

    Folau has made the various religiously oriented posts on his Facebook & Twitter pages because, as an evangelical Christian, he is compelled “to bear witness” to his faith. In this secular age, few people seem to comprehend the nature of such devotion, and it is quite painful to see this young man suffer the barbs that are coming his way.

    As many have noted, he has not thrown any bombs, committed any atrocity, or incited any violent acts. Yet his simple testament has invoked the wrath of the politically correct, as well as the scorn of the secularists.

  16. Roger

    It would not have been a religious test. It would be a test along the lines of social media content. Like 95% of salaried employees have in their contracts.

    You seem to have difficulty grasping the point, TAFKAS.

    Folau posted nothing illegal; he exercised his right to freedom of religion and speech via social media and his employer does not have the power to limit those rights.

    Not yet, anyway, which is why this case is potentially so important.

  17. Des Deskperson

    ‘It would not have been a religious test. It would be a test along the lines of social media content. Like 95% of salaried employees have in their contracts.’

    We have been through all this before. to spell it out simply:

    the only social media content proscription we are aware of is in cl 1.7 of the RA Cod of Conduct

    this is linked through the phrase ‘expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code’ to to the ‘respect clause’ in the code –

    ‘Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.’

    In the absence of any other evidence, we must provisionally assume that the RA’s ‘religious test ‘ is based on an application of these rather poorly and ambiguously worded clauses to Mr Folau’s actions.

    To my mind, to use these to dictate what an employee can or cannot text in his/her private time as a private person using their own resources is a bit of a stretch

  18. Tim Neilson

    There’s two separate issues – legal and moral.

    There’s no doubt that, legally, some contractual provisions can be held void as a matter of public policy. That’s why some restraint of trade clauses are unenforceable.
    So the initial question is whether such a restriction is lawful.
    Even if it is, the next question is the one Des has alluded to – is there actually a clause in his contract that really prevents him quoting the bible on social media? The one Des has referred to looks very vague.
    I don’t know the answer to either of those questions, but it’s not as simple as “ARU says they meant to ban that kind of posting online, therefore they can sack him with impunity”.

    Then there’s the moral issue. The ARU has an effective monopoly on paid rugby in Australia. Should they use their market power to suppress free speech in this way?
    And why does upper middle class white boy David Pocock get to shoot his mouth off on every issue under the sun – and even get arrested at protests – without being sanctioned, while non-white Folau from a non-affluent background gets told to keep his opinions to the privacy of the servants’ quarters?

    As for Qantas, what would they do if Folau put out a post endorsing the attitude of their business alliance partner Emirates’ owner towards gay conduct?

  19. lotocoti

    If Izzy did a Sonny Bill, not one word would be said.

  20. calli

    Until you do any of those things, shut up.

    Oh, goody! A tyrant!

    So unless I have skin in the game my opinion is worthless?

    Oh, and in answer to your “order” – No.

  21. Nick

    Let’s have some perspective, he posted a meme on Facebook. He didn’t say that he wouldn’t play with others in the team owing to their beliefs, which, strangely, has happened to him!

    If RA was really serious and consistent, it would have punished Pocock for being arrested and convicted, or torn up the contracts of other players who have done far worse things than post a meme.

  22. Arky

    Don’t sign and say what you want to say. If you want the money take the conditions.

    ..
    Stop being a coward and post your real name, occupation and employer, and allow us to test your theories about employer’s right to terminate you over your opinions.

  23. duncanm

    TAFKAS’s employer takes umbrage at his cat posts – will he keep his job ?

  24. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    TAFKAS is quite right. In fact this gilded employee is paid partly as a marketing person so his salary is not simply a function of whether he plays. Another fact is that he has already had one round on this issue and gave assurances to his employers that he has broken. He refused their calls when they sought to discuss the latest issue. In short the guy knew perfectly well what his obligations were and he broke them.
    When the various foghorns of liberty demonstrate that they aren’t merely hitching a ride for the “celebrity” value, I’ll take notice. As a rugby fan, I’m always pleased to see the back of people who don’t honour the commitments they make.

  25. 2dogs

    Under what circimstances does an employer have the right to censor an employee’s public statements?

    Could an employer paying minimum wage do this? What if minimum wage and only two hours per week?

  26. Arky

    I don’t happen to agree with Israel Folau’s opinion on homos, but I give them more weight as a true expression of a thought out and genuinely held position, than those of anonymous posters with absolutely nothing on the line.
    Wanker.

  27. Infidel Tiger

    TAFKAS is quite right. In fact this gilded employee is paid partly as a marketing person so his salary is not simply a function of whether he plays. Another fact is that he has already had one round on this issue and gave assurances to his employers that he has broken. He refused their calls when they sought to discuss the latest issue. In short the guy knew perfectly well what his obligations were and he broke them.
    When the various foghorns of liberty demonstrate that they aren’t merely hitching a ride for the “celebrity” value, I’ll take notice. As a rugby fan, I’m always pleased to see the back of people who don’t honour the commitments they make.

    So many lies.

    Repent now.

  28. Steve

    “This matter was a contractual matter pure and simple.” Really? So you know what was in his contract?

    “Until you do any of those things, shut up.” So you want to silence those you disagree with?

  29. Atoms for Peace

    Only the progressive left gets to choose who will go to hell.

  30. bespoke

    Imp is TAFKAS’s sock.

    Confirmed.

  31. candy

    It sounds like the contract was not very well crafted to begin with. Some employers do prohibit their employees from posting negative things about the company on social media etc. I’m not sure this is much different in a sense.

    Folau sounds certainly very earnest in his beliefs and it is at the core of his life. You’d think the RA could work this out like mature adults so the general public don’t lose him from the game.

  32. mundi

    Imagine what a clown show you have to be running to think that a twitter post is “a high level breach”.

    Drugs = ok.
    Drinking = ok.
    Abuse = ok.
    Swearing = ok.
    Rape = ok.

    Players have done all the above and somehow not committed “high level breach”.

    Oh and it just so happens a ‘high level’ is the level needed to fire him. Everyone other level is something else.

    If I were him i’d just accept a contract over seas and fight it in high court, because I seriously doubt he has breached his contract in a way that would stand up in court.

    The recent Rudd decision has shown that the courts hold very little regard for made up codes of conduct and rules outside of the employment contract.

  33. Tim Neilson

    You’d think the RA could work this out like mature adults so the general public don’t lose him from the game.

    You’re an incurable optimist candy.

    In an ideal world you’d be right – but welcome to 21st century Australia, land of the virtue-signalling “progressive” narcissist.

  34. Diogenes

    ‘Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.’

    STOP IT OR COP IT ….

    Oh no I am being bullied and harassed by the NSW Police Farce!

  35. Crazyoldranga

    I’m an adulterous fornicator and a drunk, but do not take offence from Mr Folau’s post. As to this FWITFKNASwhatever, I always thought it might be a bit of a fwit, but a, now convinced. Up itself, conceited, non self aware t-urd.

  36. Leigh Lowe

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it. 

    Does RA have any solid evidence that Folau’s statements have or could cause economic damage?
    Yes, yes, I know the toxic leprechaun threatened to withdraw sponsorship, but all roads eventually lead to the consumer.
    That is, in turn, does the whiny Qantas foggat have any tangible evidence that travellers would refuse to fly Quaintarse if RA didn’t sack Folau?
    I predict that RA will suffer economically by sacking Folau and giving in to a bunch of trolls who threatened never to watch Rugby again … having watched precisely zero rugger games to date.
    The economic impact on Qantas is probably marginal and short-term either way.

  37. Nick

    It would be interesting to see how consistent RA have been in disciplining it’s players, especially those judged to have offended at the level that Folau is accused of breaching. Oh wait.

  38. PK

    Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging

    Do any of our legal people have any advice on the legitimacy of a contract which forbids a signatory from posting a quote from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians?

  39. woolfe

    Mundi you forgot theft, Quade stole some computers in his yoooof

  40. None

    The only economic damage here has been done by ra administration.

  41. Rococo Liberal

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it.

    Unless his contract says that he has given up his right to anything lawful that he pleases, then that statement is wrong.
    I just can’t see how expressing silly views about pooves is a problem.
    If you are a homosexualist, then you should know that most of us don’t think you will go to hell for buggering blokes. You should know that Mr Folau is factually wrong. In that case why would you give a damn? I’m sure that 99% of gay people couldn’t give a toss. It’s only a few activists who take things like thgis seriously.
    It proves the point that homosexualist activists are illiberal bastards who should be scorned and driven from the public square with maximum prejudice.

  42. DaveR

    As an atheist I have a slight annoyance with Folau’s statement that I will go to hell unless I repent. But I’ll get over it. It would be better if he kept his views to himself.

    But I take significantly greater offence at Rugby Australia saying that their Employment Contract with its embedded Code of Conduct is more superior than a persons natural rights under law, particularly the right to freedom of expression (in particular quoting 1 Corinthians 6).

    To imply this is a “high-level offence” and more serious than the previous activities of, eg Beale is ludicrous. You have to ask what’s next?

    By the way, as a lifetime Qantas gold member, I have ceased to use Qantas completely. Not for anything to do with the Folau issue (no Qantas involvement is yet proven) but for the ongoing use of the Qantas brand by the hypocrite Joyce for his personal PC crusades.

  43. Seco

    This is the problem with Western society – when it comes to the crunch on social policy, all the influencers (even the supposed Centre Right) ALWAYS veer left. It’s usually because they always know or work with someone who is [email protected] or Moooooslum and they don’t want to miss out on the dinner party invitations.

    For shame on you all!

  44. Behind Enemy Lines

    Libertarianism needn’t be a suicide cult. So it’s heartening to see most Cats coming out in favour of real, practical liberty. Instead of taking a ridiculously narrow philosophical reading of the Folau case, ‘private companies yadda yadda yadda’, an argument which eases the left’s goal of putting us all up against the wall.

  45. John Comnenus

    So the TAFKAS position is that you can have all The freedoms in world but if you want to stay employed you can’t exercise any freedom that might clash with the boss man’s view. Some freedom. So if this is the case, I take it an employee of the ACTU is not allowed to donate to, publicly support or Even vote for the liberal party because these actions are detrimental to the employers interests. Welcome to the Gulag TAFKAS, enforced by the wealthy elite who get to decide what rights you can exercise if you want to stay employed.

  46. Old School Conservative

    Powerful performance by Nick Farr-Jones on Bolta tonight.
    Crisp, concise explanation of the issues and a strong defence of Izzy.
    Offered to sell his RWC tickets cheap.

  47. None

    As an atheist I have a slight annoyance with Folau’s statement that I will go to hell unless I repent. But I’ll get over it. It would be better if he kept his views to himself.

    Why? Why don’t you keep your atheist views to yourself?

  48. Atoms for Peace

    Keeping my powder dry until Izzy starts a Go Fund Me page. I’m somewhat enamoured of that platform after donating to Peter Ridd.

  49. Empire 5:5

    Possibly the worst post I’ve ever read on this blog. An odd mixture of ignorance and hubris.

    Why did you abandon retirement? You said yourself at the time the quality of your commentary had declined and was no longer worthy of the Cat. I disagreed at the time, but you have proven yourself right.

  50. Cassie of Sydney

    “Old School Conservative
    #3007857, posted on May 8, 2019 at 7:35 pm
    Powerful performance by Nick Farr-Jones on Bolta tonight.
    Crisp, concise explanation of the issues and a strong defence of Izzy.
    Offered to sell his RWC tickets cheap.”

    Agree. I am really glad that Nick Farr-Jones has spoken out. What is clear is that RA is more concerned with leftist identity politics and ideology than rugby. I am also glad that Nick has revealed that RA decided to back SSM without consulting the players…..typical.

    I could see the despair on Nick’s face…he is heartbroken. Thanks to the gothic vampire, rugby is now dead in this country…maybe Twiggy can start a new rugby competition.

    I also believe that Nick Farr-Jones agrees with Izzy. I stand with Israel Folau.

  51. Nighthawk the Elder

    Was the account the post was sent from provided by, or in the name of RA? Or was in Folau’s name?
    Did Folau use any branding or linkage associated with RA?
    Was RA even mentioned in the post?
    Was it sent during the agreed work hours with RA or in his own down time?

    If this was a private post by an individual on his own time and no link to RA other than the very person of Israel Folau himself, which itself is a rather tenuous link, then how does this bring the game into disrepute? Surely you’re not going to tell me that RA owns every waking and sleeping moment of Folau’s life under contract including every thought and every act. Controlling another person’s beliefs is a form of emotional abuse and believing you can contract such control over an individual is utterly abhorrent and morally and ethically corrupt.

    RA are paid to administer rugby, not administer social commentary. Israel Folau is paid to play rugby and hopefully win a game or two, not execute RA’s idea of social commentary. It’s RA that have soiled their own brand.

    I personally don’t give a stuff what he posted. Like him or unlike him. Cheer him, debate him or just totally ignore his comments, I don’t care. But never silence him, because eventually the bastards come for the rest of us.

    Hope Izzy cleans up in court.

  52. Indolent

    This is not so much about sport as it is about how far an employer can interfere in someone’s private life, in areas completely separate from their area of employment. They don’t – or shouldn’t – own you because you are contracted to do a job of work.

    Apparently, bad behaviour gets a slap on the wrist but quoting the bible is a capital crime. What have we come to?

  53. Cassie of Sydney

    “But never silence him, because eventually the bastards come for the rest of us.”

    Those bastards are at the gates…..I have no doubt whatsoever that the likes of Dick Di Natale already have lists drawn up.

  54. Infidel Tiger

    Powerful performance by Nick Farr-Jones on Bolta tonight.
    Crisp, concise explanation of the issues and a strong defence of Izzy.
    Offered to sell his RWC tickets cheap.

    NFJ is a very decent man.

    I remember being so stressed he was injured in the lead up to ‘91.

  55. Infidel Tiger

    Do any of our legal people have any advice on the legitimacy of a contract which forbids a signatory from posting a quote from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians?

    Would have about the same standing as banning homos or niggas from playing.

  56. Nighthawk the Elder

    Those bastards are at the gates…..I have no doubt whatsoever that the likes of Dick Di Natale already have lists drawn up.

    Hear, hear Cassie. We must remain vigilant.

  57. Chris M

    Spacticus knows that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are worthless and of no interest to Spacticus who finds such notions trivial and boring while he searches cheap flights and discount coupons.

  58. Fisky

    Libertarianism needn’t be a suicide cult. So it’s heartening to see most Cats coming out in favour of real, practical liberty. Instead of taking a ridiculously narrow philosophical reading of the Folau case, ‘private companies yadda yadda yadda’, an argument which eases the left’s goal of putting us all up against the wall.

    But that’s how libertarianism works, sadly. Consistent application of libertarian principles always leads to the destruction of liberty.

  59. Fisky

    Libertarians have this idea that if they can pander to the Left and constantly be their strategic enablers, the Left won’t turn on them and shut down their cushy think tank sinecures. Oh yes the Left will. Once the Left have dealt with their real opponents, they will then turn on the useful idiots – every last libertarian will be pushed out of regular employment and left to the mercies of the gig economy, and soon banned from that as well once the tech giant boycott machine swings into action.

  60. Tel

    this is linked through the phrase ‘expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code’ to to the ‘respect clause’ in the code –

    Incorrect. It applies to the players AND everyone else including all administrators, board members, committee members, the whole lot of them, including everyone at RA. It applies equally to all people involved, right down to the ticket holders, not just the players.

    ‘Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.’

    Yes, that applies every bit the same when discussing the way Israel Folau was treated and all the comments made ABOUT Israel Folau by anyone involved in rugby. I see a very strong case that some people in Rugby are allowed to put forward their particular social beliefs, while others are not … hardly inclusive.

    Also this applies:

    Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, competition or a Union.

    You think there might have been a handful of comments critical of Israel Folau somewhere in that mix?

    As for “detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game” … I mean, that’s a no brainer isn’t it?

    How it Australian rugby going to go after this incident? All the Christian schools offside, all the other islanders. I couldn’t think of much worse that could have been done to the game. The more they draw this out, the worse it ends up.

  61. candy

    If a Muslim player, a great and well known respected player, started posting parts of the Koran and indicating Christians should repent so they can join Allah in Paradise, what would the reaction be of libertarians? Get that contract sorted quick smart or the player’s free speech is endangered?

  62. RA have consistently proved that they are incompetent both in administration (projected losses of $6m over the next financial year alone) and player management (Beale, Pocock, Hunt, etc). Attendance at Super Rugby games is down and dropping, player numbers overall are dropping it is questionable if the game has a future in Australia at an international level. Izzy might be better to take the money and get out before the whole thing goes belly up.

  63. C.L.

    What Folau does not have is the right to do is engage in activity that his employer considers economically damaging and then demand to be paid for it. And paid $1m per annum.

    What a peculiar, ridiculous statement. Speech is not some exotic form of “activity.” And he hasn’t ‘demanded’ to be paid for speaking.

  64. TAFKAS outs zherself. What a tosser!

  65. candy

    If say a Mu….m player, a great and well respected player, took to posting parts of the Koran and indicating infidels should repent to Allah and then be allowed in Paradise – would libertarians say the same thing about free speech and that the employer had no business interfering, or would they say get that contract sorted out immediately so everyone knows what’s what about the player/employer relationship and responsibilities because the comments/posting were offensive to many Australians?

    just asking.

  66. mh

    Spasticus, you told us you were leaving.

    What happened?

  67. A reader

    Raelene Castles has a rather interesting career in sports management behind her. I wouldn’t consider it showered in glory and this certainly hasn’t helped.

    For me it comes down to this: Folau posting a biblical paraphrase is a high level contractual breach but Pocock being arrested isn’t. I want my sports apolitical not virtue signalling pricks. I ripped into Netball Australia when they let Shorten use an international match as a party political and I have deliberately intervened and made my views known in other sports that I’m involved with to try and stop this bullshit.

    I’m praying hard for Israel. May God protect him and our country

  68. dover_beach

    Israel Folau

    Yawn. Boring. Next.

    Australian libertarianism in a nutshell.

  69. Tezza

    well, ‘spartacus’, I never thought I’d read such illiberal crap on a libertarian site.

  70. mh

    I’d like to hear what John Eales thinks about it all.

  71. Penguinite

    Homosexuals et al may not like what The Bible says about their ultimate destination but they can’t disprove it!

  72. Mindfree

    TAFKAS

    It’s more than that

    Fitzsimian and that POS Joyce are white supremacists. they will not rest until all non-whites are excluded from the Wallabies.

    Yes, its more than just Israel Folua!!

    And that is is from a high up, well credentialed person (no names no pack drill) in the Australian Rugby service

  73. Phill

    I have no view on whether Israel Folau breached his contract. I am more concerned about the idea that what he posted was offensive. There must be battalions of lunatics out there with nothing better to do than find some snippet that someone, somewhere might find offensive. Well, I didn’t get the memo, and apart from what my mother taught me about good manners, I have no definitive basis to judge what others might find offensive, and to what degree.

    Our ABC chooses to depict Falau’s bible quote as “homophobic”, rather than as a well meaning religious doctrine that all “sinners”, if they repent, will be saved. It is because they deliberately want to find anything at all that could be spun as “offensive” even if that was never the intent. In other words, they lie to push an agenda.

    Are we meant to acknowledge that fornicators (nearly all of the adult population) and drunkards (same), not warranting “protected” group status, cannot be offended, whereas our protected gay community WILL be offended? If so, is that merely asserted by our self identified elites, out of some sense of warped altruism, or is it a provable fact? Have we trotted out representatives of that community and actually asked them? If so, to what degree were they actually offended? Did they see it as “poor form, but I will survive” or was it a PTSD inducing event? Did they swoon? Did they need counselling? Did they see it as “fighting words”?

    You know, I saw a bloke from time to time in my childhood. Very tough looking character, who commonly wore a wig and a short red dress around town. I was told he did so only to make it easier to get into fights. He wanted as many opportunities to engage in his favourite pastime without needing to put in much effort. A sideways look from a passerby was enough for this bloke to take pretended umbrage, and the fists would fly.

    Don’t know, but it seems to me that the self proclaimed elites, the SJWs, the wannabe Pol Pots of this world that go so far out of their way to find stuff on the internet that can be spun as offensive to some protected group, which more often than not they don’t belong to themselves, can go to hell, if they don’t manage to create it on earth beforehand. No amount of repenting can help people like that.

    If an individual wants to be offended by almost any trivial matter, then they have every right to do so. Don’t expect me to see their choices as sensible, rational or even sentient.

    No offense meant.

  74. Jannie

    TAIAFWIT posted something interesting.

    Alan Joyce is an AFL asset. Pocock is a little prick. RA has got woke and gone broke. QANTAS to follow.

  75. Infidel Tiger

    Joe Norman
    @normonics
    ·
    May 7
    Part of why I don’t call myself libertarian. Today’s libertarianism mistakes corporatism for liberty.

    The “a private corp should do whatever it likes” mantra is disastrous and is unable to address the emergence of novel public spaces (among other things)

    So true.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/normonics/status/1125776384713007105

  76. Northshore Redneck

    I think TAFKAS is majorly wrong on this one.

    But I enjoy many of his posts and was happy he came out of retirement, the blog was getting a bit stale in my view.

    Smash him on the argument, but don’t be a dickhead and chase him away.

  77. JohnJJJ

    You are all missing the point.
    The question is “Are the aforementioned going to Hell?”. If the answer is affirmative, there is no case. We need to focus on the kernel of syllogism. So whatdoyarecon?

  78. Buccaneer

    I’m flying Virgin on Monday. I have not flown Qantas for years. More importantly, I won’t be watching the Rugby championship and I am considering switching my son to soccer.

  79. Seth

    Can’t we have more C.L. instead of this guy?

  80. John of Mel

    I think this situation just proves that without Christianity there won’t be any liberty.

  81. The BigBlueCat

    Probably been said before … too many posts to go through …

    I’ve read RA’s Code of Conduct:

    Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.

    Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

    Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.

    These will be clauses upon which RA will rely upon. The question will be has Israel Folau breached any of these. It does not say “don’t post religious views”, and so the breach is purely one of interpretation. While the independent hearing concluded there was a “high-level breach”, I wonder if that is actually true considering:

    1. The message wasn’t specific to homosexuals, or anyone in particular
    2. The message wasn’t one of hate, but of concern for their eternal status (in the Christian context)
    3. Folau did not criticise RA, it’s players, its administrators, its rules, other players in as far as the game of rugby is concerned. In fact, he directed his comment to the world-at-large.
    4. RA apparently prides itself on diversity and inclusion, yet the first sign of non-conformity (in their view) it makes the decision to punish and ostracise rather than to allow the player concerned to express deeply-held religious convictions without recourse – RA could have ignored it and no-one would have cared (other than the PC Stassi, who should also be ignored)
    5. The comments in-and-of themselves cannot be construed to be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union. There is a large proportion of the population who agree with Folau. Perhaps the actions of RA themselves has been detrimental and they need to be held to their own standard!
    6. That other players have come out against Folau indicates their intolerance, their lack of diversity, their lack of inclusion (they’ve been in the news) – will RA sanction those players? If not, why not?
    7. Should we not now conclude that Rugby, as a sport, is the bastion of homosexuals and the sexually insecure, the sexually aggressive, the bigots and the intolerant? Perhaps it has always been that way (who knows, I’m in Victoriastan and I’m not a general watcher of AFL, Rugby (both kinds) or other ball sports).

    While Folau may have been warned on a prior occasion, that warning also could be seen to be unlawful or a breach of Folau’s human rights. RA has set the diversity and inclusivity expectations themselves – either they accept that their players have opinions, interests and concerns outside of the playing arena or they don’t and they need to be constrained. We don’t expect sporting heroes to be role models except in what they do in the playing arena. In other areas of their lives they are flawed individuals, just like the rest of us. Let them be humans and not programmed robots. I’m sick of being told that Folau was wrong to post what he posted – is he really???

    All Folau was doing was promoting the Judeo-Christian view of the impact of destructive behaviours and what can be done about it. It’s his deeply-held religious conviction and the essence of the Christian message of salvation. He wasn’t being specific to anyone in particular. That the sensitive types collect themselves into groups and express their confected outrage is itself outrageous – they don’t believe that God, Hell, Sin, etc exist, so why should they be concerned about Folau’s post. If they do believe what Folau said is true, then they have no cause for alarm but have a call to action if they so decide.

    I’ve read and heard other commentators say that Folau’s comments will cause young gay Australians to commit suicide. What is the evidence for this? Why should they care what Folau thinks, says or posts if they don’t believe the Christian message? And if they do, they (logically) should want to preserve their eternal lives. If Folau’s views tips them over the edge, that edge was reached long before Folau entered the scene. And that’s the issue that needs to be addressed, not Israel Folau and his social media posts.

    To be clear, what Folau posted is not a controversial Christian (and other religions) viewpoint. Now he is being punished for saying it. And therein lies the issue – he is not allowed (by RA, his employer) to express his religious views. Good luck with that, RA, and those calling Folau wrong. You bastards.

  82. The BigBlueCat

    I’ve been alerted to RA’s Code of Conduct para that says:

    Treat everyone equally regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

    In what way has Folau not treated everyone equally? Making a statement based on Biblical values is not a treatment, is it? And quite frankly, bullying is a part of the game of rugby – one side bullies the other side into submission through physical force, confrontation and dexterity. There are winners and losers. That’s life. Will RA now declare both sides winners in a contest?

    This is not a boring, inconsequential issue – this issue speaks to the fundamental rights of individuals to express their religious beliefs freely and without recourse from their government or their employer unless they have actually broken a law (eg. incitement to violence, libel/slander, etc). Atheists are more than able to express their religious beliefs without fear or favour (even if that belief is a non-belief) – surely those holding deeply-held, actual religious convictions should be able to do the same – if not, most of us are in trouble right now!

  83. Bar Beach Swimmer

    From TAFKAS’s Post: Green Eggs & Sham:

    ‘Both socialism and fascism are about the state control of people, speech and commerce (where commerce is allowed). There is no opposition. There is no free thought. There is no free inquiry. There is an unopposed leader(ship) who governs through force, fear and caprice’.

    How does TAFKAS reconcile this statement with this post about Israel Folau & RA? And please don’t argue that, because of a contract to play rugby, Israel’s free thought & speech can be constrained. Because of its market control & direct support it receives from the State, RA is behaving like a fascist state minion of govt.

  84. Insert witty name here...

    What RA has overlooked is that Israel Folau is preaching to the converted (working class islanders). Who are by and large, as much devout Christians as they are devout Rugby followers. David vs Goliath and Christian love of martyrs come to mind. The ecenomic impact on RA from the “winning” vs Folau will be greater than any donation withdrawal.

  85. Bronson

    RA should have taken Twiggy’s money when he offered it to save the Force. He is now expanding his competition to RA’s detriment. If he does manage to pick up Izzy how many other’s currently contracted to RA may consider following him?

  86. Mindfree

    BigBlueCat

    That’s the best critique I have read so far on this subject

    And having said that, I do believe from close sources this is part of a wider agenda to weed out Pacific Islanders from the Wallabies and possibly bring down Australian Rugby. Given the financial shit they’re in this would not be too hard to achieve
    As an aside I live in Victoria and if the Victorian Rugby Union is any guide, this bringing down would happen anyway given the sheer incompetence of these rabbles. They do not need Folau to help out

    There is theory that Folau planned all this knowing full well what the outcome would be to get out of his contract but I have to see more evidence of that not just the conversation he had with RC before the England test last November.

    The worst you could say about Folau is that he lacks the defensive capability of a fullback hence his constant re-positioning on the wing

  87. W Hogg

    How many cis hetero fornicators have suicided since the comments?

  88. Rob

    My son used to play rugby and in the course of his playing days met many islander players and their families. They were very gracious people, who were investing a lot of time and resources in their sons in the hope of them having a better life. Kind of like the values that used to be admired in this country. They also were very much Church orientated, the often oversized kids mixed talent with humility.

    In supporting rugby I have run across Israel Folau on a number of occasions, some times when he was supporting kids club rugby other times when he was attending charity fundraisers (at these charity events I more than qualified for his biblical list). Folau was always more interested in others rather than himself and always humble and gracious. I have never come across a better ambassador for any sport.

    The values of the Islanders were the values that made Australia great, but RA has got with the times. I look forward to the next couple of weeks when they begin to face the wrath of the left over their failure to select transgender players to the Wallaroos.

  89. Pingback: No Place for Christian Men

  90. Megan

    When I was forced to work in the blazing hell of HR I was constantly having to remind my betters the basic rule of an employment contract – you cannot contract out of your legal obligations. For me at the time, it mostly about former staff members quitting and going to work for the opposition, which their contact expressly forbade. You might have got away with 3 months but one contract in particular specified that they could not work in the industry for 2 years. Totally unenforceble and a Dan Andrews Not Worth the Paper etc Contract because it constituted restraint of trade and would be thrown out if we attempted the expense and time wasting pursuing anyone who breached it in a court of law.
    If our laws protect Israel’s freedom to practice his religion (which they do, at the moment) then whatever RA have in the contract, even if they had a specific clause that he could not post a religious meme condemning homosexuals et al, is not enforceable in a court of law.
    And I’ve just tossed by ASICS tennis shoes in the bin. Gutless wonders.

  91. None

    Has ASICS already withdrawn s*** I just posted them an email. Well I was about to buy new running shoes so they can go to hell as well.

Comments are closed.