Tim Andrews on donating to Israel Falou

It was not my original intention to donate to this. After all, I generally believe that an employment contract can be terminated at will by either party, if the agreed terms are followed. However, upon reflection several things have made me change my mind and donate – and why I think you should too, as it is the principle at stake far more than the actual factual scenario here:

  1. Israel Folau’s contract was terminated using the clause that he essentially brought his employer into disrepute because he posted a bible verse (Corinthians 6: 9-10) (prefixed with the word “warning”) on social media. It sets an extraordinary legal precedent that quoting the Bible is something that can be used to trigger the provisions in a contract that it brings the employer into disrepute as RA is claiming here.
  2. As a firm believer in contract law I have no other choice other than to agree that RAs actions are unconscionable and they have clearly breached their contractual obligations. I can not accept that quoting the Bible is grounds for breaking the contract in that it brings the game into disrepute etc. I note that RA did not follow the stipulations in the contract as to his payout were they to break it. This is an important point: they should be allowed to terminate the contract if they so wish but if they wanted to do so they should have paid out as per the agreed terms and not tried to claim he breached it by posting a bible verse.
  3. Israel’s wealth is irrespective to the question of right and wrong here. Whilst he could probably afford a defence, it is immoral to expect someone to sell their house and other assets just to afford the chance to take in their multi billion dollar former employer in court hence donating is a moral option.
  4. The anti-Christian bigotry I have seen on social media over the last 48 hours in particular has been sickening and I think it is our moral responsibility to fight bigotry no matter the situation (which is why I have previously donated to legal defenses of people of other religions).
  5. No matter what you think of the specifics here, there is a wider precedent at play regarding the principle of being able to use someone’s religious opinions as grounds to break contract. If this is allowed to stand, the wider implications are horrific and this is why I strongly feel it just be fought.
  6. I would also note that RA, whilst technically private, for all intents and purposes is essentially a government agency (given their subsidies and the regulatory regime they follow) and as such should be held to an even higher standard regarding such things than a private company or organisation.

Donations here.

This entry was posted in Gratuitous Advertising, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Tim Andrews on donating to Israel Falou

  1. C.L.

    All good arguments.
    I’ve shifted ground on this now too.
    I was already all-in for Folau but now I’m all-in for his fund as well.

  2. stackja

    ACL have $438,868.00 raised

  3. Infidel Tiger

    I think it’s important that a 3rd party administers the funds too.

    You never know what malarkey could take place otherwise.

  4. Lilliana

    I’m an atheist and I donated.

    I’m sick to death of being told by my betters what I can say, think, see, do. The fascist left need to be challenged at every opportunity. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

    We are in a cultural war people – fight back or be enslaved.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    Well said Tim. The Left regularly goes into pogrom mode. It looks like that is happening again.

    Report: Christian Persecution 2019 a Scourge of ‘Mammoth Proportions’ (23 Jun)

    June 2019 is an “especially menacing time” for Christians both on the domestic and international fronts, writes Christian persecution expert John L. Allen in a report Sunday.

    “Just as one didn’t have to be J-wish to sympathize with the plight of dissident J-ws in the Soviet Union, and didn’t have to be black to be outraged by apartheid in South Africa, similarly today one shouldn’t have to be Christian to recognize anti-Christian persecution as a human rights scourge of mammoth proportions,” Allen writes.

    Saturday marked the beginning of the U.S. bishops’ yearly “Religious Freedom Week,” which runs this year from June 22-29.

    I can’t but help to notice that Religious Freedom Week has received none of the publicity of Pride month.

  6. Andre Lewis

    Its not just about religious beliefs as the media intend us to think. Anyone with an opinion that homosexual behaviour is immoral note> the behaviour not just a dislike of the person/s involved is liable to be vilified by the left cabal of pc activists. I am surely not the only one that has no religious affiliations but is disturbed by the homosexual lobby pushing their agenda into schools and sporting bodies.

  7. Roger

    I generally believe that an employment contract can be terminated at will by either party, if the agreed terms are followed.

    Before we even come to that the terms of any contract and their enforcement have to comply with our (i.e. Australia’s) undertakings to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion as enshrined in several instruments of international law we have signed, including an ILO covenant specifically protecting the rights of employees. If it goes to the courts, which I hope & expect it will, this aspect of this matter will receive due attention.

  8. TPL001

    Even if you are not a Christian, nor sympathetic with that worldview, that it postulates its views is one thing. Why do such people get upset? Why not simply ignore 1 Cor 6:9-10?

    Why the vitriol toward a position you do not agree with? Seems like a lot of wasted energy – perhaps we could tap it and use it to power our homes, then power prices might fall for a change!

    If you disagree, ignore it or debate it, but so what? If it means nothing, then move on. Get on with life. Those who are making a mountain out of a peanut are illogical and intolerant. And all of this from those who preach tolerance! Their actions evidence their ethics.

  9. Craig Mc

    i’m not sure about Folau’s contract and how it wiould play out in the courts. I wouldn’t surprised in the least if he lost and every penny raised went towards new BMW leases for lawyers.

    However, it’s time to draw a line where an employee’s duty to his employer ends, and his personal life begins. Every employee shares a piece of that fight. The reactionary left’s glee at temporarily preventing financial support for the conflict only made me double my donation. As far as they’re concerned opinion is a one-way street.

    F**k ’em.

  10. Helen

    Would you take the same view if a comparably challenging verse of the Koran had been quoted?

    My sticking points are:
    1. There are more loving and encompassing verses of the Bible that could have been used if Folau’s aim was to bring people to Jesus. The carrot is more effective than the stick.
    2. Homosexuality is something you are born with, not something bad you do, like theft and adultery. If homosexuals are born that way then presumably God has some reason. Perhaps to test whether professed Christians really follow Jesus – love your neighbour, love your enemy, treat others the way you’d like to be treated?
    3. Homosexuals have suffered much prejudice, violence and murder because of how they were born. (Thieves and adulterers don’t seem to have produced quite the same outrage!) Anything that could be seen as justifying such treatment, even if it’s in the Bible, needs to be discouraged.

    So, regarding free speech, my view is that publically preaching that homosexuals will go to hell is a bit like crying Fire in a crowded theatre – free speech, but with the potential to result in or encourage harm to others. Not because they will go to hell, but because someone might get the idea that it’s OK to send them there.

  11. Karabar

    No issue illustrates the power exercised by corporate bullies than this one.
    Paul Collits expresses the issue brilliantly at the Quadrant.
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/06/why-israel-folau-must-be-destroyed/#comment-48509

  12. Mrs B

    I donated this morning, simply because GoFundMe did this. I am a Christian. I put my 💰 where my 👄 is.

  13. None

    Andre- correct. This affects everyone with an opinion about anything. I don’t share Izzy’s Pentecostal Christianity that I’ve donated and hey Alan Jones doesn’t share it either and he’s been backing Izzy 110 percent. Paul Collits’ article which Karabar linked to is a must read.

    I had suggested right from the get-go that a lawyers trust account would be the best place for these funds and also the safest and I’m glad to see that’s been the way it’s being done now.

  14. None

    Err typos. Stupid phone.

  15. thefrollickingmole

    On the upside it has lot of bible verses being thrown around the web by people whove never looked at one for years.

    He copped a donation from me and I hope he nails the swine good and hard.

    It is always an excellent idea to read a corporations guidelines so you can screw them over with “this is your policy why didnt you follow it” in court.

    I got to do it many years ago in an industrial dispute where the defending corporation was castigated in court for their piss poor practices.

    Let a top flight lawyer in on badly written or inconsistent application of policies and procedures and its going to be a bloodbath.

  16. Mrs B

    The link in the post does not go to the donation for Izzy page. Here is the link. https://www.acl.org.au/donate_izzy

  17. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    A most impressive article, especially when the real issue is not just Israel Falou. On searching Michael Smith News just now found and interesting article on GoFundMe. They have a segment where faith based issues can be supported and the first article on that section is they support the building of a mosque in Perth. I think most people that read the material on this site would know that Islam has a far stricter stance on homosexuality than Christianity. We have all read over the past two or three years about gays being thrown off high rise buildings and under ISIS far worse, yet never a whimper from the loony left. Yet these same people are abusing and attacking because of a scriptural quote. Hypocrisy rules in Oz.

  18. Iampeter

    Finally a post trying to approach the issue from something other than the leftist/SJW position of Rafe.
    Still this falls apart at the following bit:

    It sets an extraordinary legal precedent that quoting the Bible is something that can be used to trigger the provisions in a contract that it brings the employer into disrepute as RA is claiming here.

    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.
    Any contractual issues will be determined by application of objective legal tests, not determined by whether the content of this or that is Christian.

    The only precedent being set here, is that Christians will have special priveledge because of their beliefs.

    That’s the kind of leftist/SJW mess those of us who are actually on the right wing side of politics want to avoid.

    It’s amazing that there is zero support for this on what is meant to be Australia’s leading Libertarian and Centre-Right blog.

    It’s like I’m on some leftist blog, just change the victim group.

  19. Bruce of Newcastle

    The only precedent being set here, is that Christians will have special priveledge because of their beliefs.

    Also Mus lims, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, Gaia worshippers, Jains and even Satanists. Atheists too most like. It think that covers most if not all of the population.

  20. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    There is no such thing as bigotry towards non-protected classes. Even the protected marxist class are permitted to eat their own offsprings should they stray from the gospel of diversity and inclusion. In fact they must do so lest they become tainted with wrongthink.

    diversity and inclusion is the foundations of the Great Replacement. Soon even mention of the Great Replacement will bring the full force of the state apparatchik down on one.

  21. Fat Tony

    Iampeter
    #3052863, posted on June 25, 2019 at 12:03 pm
    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.

    Errr….you haven’t actually ever had a job, have you.

  22. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway..

    you clearly live in a land far far away from our galaxy

  23. No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.

    That’s not how civil societies work Iampeter, but then again there is nothing civil about an obtuse person like you.
    People are lured, recruited and or encouraged by employers to come work for them, that’s how it starts. An employer first announces that he is employing.
    People then may, and often do, change much in their lives to work for the employer.
    Moving house, changing kids schools etc are but a few of these changes. (ever worked for a miner?)
    If an employer can then fire you just because he got up on the wrong side of the bed, well, then we won’t have a civil society for long.
    Third world practices don’t mix with modern civil societies. Employing someone doesn’t mean owning someone.

    As for Izzy, good luck to him. I hope he hurts RA and hurts them bad. I also hope that little prick at Qantas suffers in some way over this.

  24. A Lurker

    It’s not nicknamed the Gaystapo for nothing.

    Notice how attacks upon Christians and Christianity have been amping up since SSM was written into law.

  25. Harpo of Wolli Creek

    Like Craig above, I also doubled the amount I had given to Gofundme. The progs are always oblivious to the unintended consequences of their wokeness.

  26. Rebel with cause

    I’m doubling my donation to Folau. And I will never donate to any cause on gofundme ever again.

    This is an important case and deserves to go to the High Court. If Folau loses it will confirm we live in a totalitarian shit hole run by left wing extremists.

  27. Iampeter

    Also Mus lims, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, Gaia worshippers, Jains and even Satanists. Atheists too most like. It think that covers most if not all of the population.

    Yes, dividing people into victim/special interest groups, then having them fight for privileges and handouts, has been the method of operation of the left for ages now.
    I understand the position, I just don’t understand why everyone is supporting it on what is meant to be a right wing blog.

    Moving house, changing kids schools etc are but a few of these changes. (ever worked for a miner?)
    If an employer can then fire you just because he got up on the wrong side of the bed, well, then we won’t have a civil society for long.

    Heh, then you accuse me of not having sufficient life experience. What you’ve described is routine. It’s not even the worst of it. Freedom means you’re rights are protected, not you get free stuff from people and never get inconvenienced in any way.
    You boomers really have no clue.
    Not only do you know nothing about politics and spout long debunked, commie nonsense, but you also have zero life experience and no idea how the world works.
    Yet still try to lecture those of us who do, as if you’re experts or something. SMH.

    It’s embarrassing how little knowledge there seems to be of anything, among what is on average an older readership here. Just embarrassing.

  28. None

    Over 700000 already. Those beautiful bastards might crack the million by the end of the day. Suck on that lefties.

  29. Des Deskperson

    ‘Israel Folau’s contract was terminated using the clause that he essentially brought his employer into disrepute because he posted a bible verse’

    I’m assuming, unless further details of Folua’s contract have been publicly released which I was in Shanxi Province for a couple of weeks, that it’s a reference to this clause in the RA Players; Code of Conduct: ,

    ‘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.’

    This sort of stuff is subjective, vague and can lead to victimisation. In my experience – the APS, foe example – a clause like this is normally only invoked when an employee is convicted of a serious criminal offence where the ‘dispreute’ is obvious. .

    Which brings us to the last sentence of this lease. Committing a criminal offence is ‘likely’ to adversely reflect on the game.

    ‘Likely’?? But quote the Bible and it’s a certainty.

    And aren’t there a number of past and present RA players who have committed serious criminal offences – some involving violence – and were never sacked?

  30. notafan

    someone still wailing because people are exercising their free wills?

  31. Damienski

    Some person called Red Bandana* just donated to Mr Folau’s ACL appeal. Total now $711k. Paul Collits’ Quadrant article is a must-read. Inspirational.

    GoFundMe has provided an invaluable service by poking the bear.

    *may be Damienski’s newly-acquired nom de plume

  32. Chris

    WOW! Instapundit linky!
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/334192/
    at the top right now.

    JUNE 24, 2019
    FIGHT THE POWER: Australian Christian Lobby sets up new donation site for Israel Folau’s legal bid against Rugby Australia.

    Punters are pouring more than $1000 a minute into Israel Folau’s new Australian Christian Lobby fundraising website prompting supporters to declare Australians are refusing to “bow to the gods of political correctness”.

    Donations have surged passed $400,000 this morning and at this rate, by the end of the day, Folau will have earnt back more than the $765,000 he lost when GoFundMe banned him from their platform.

    GoFundMe should be ashamed.

    28 Posted at 10:47 pm by Glenn Reynolds

  33. Perth Trader

    Des Deskperson…..all good points. $3mill is good war chest and I suspect RA would be looking at having to match that amount , if they go to court.RA have to prove that a biblical text written 2000 years ago can bring a sport into disrepute

  34. J.H.

    Yep. As far as I am concerned this is not much different that the Peter Ridd case. In Ridd’s case it was Freedom of Speech and scientific enquiry versus JCU’s code of conduct….. The judge ruled on all counts in favor of Frees Speech and scientific enquiry.

    Israel Folau’s case is even simpler considering he quoted verses from the Bible rather than his own writing. It is an open and shut case of Religious Freedom versus RA’s code of conduct…..

  35. Big_Nambas

    I am an atheist and I doubled my donation due to GoFundMe’s actions. this is only about freedom, if we can no longer state our beliefs why bother living?

  36. J.H.

    NO Iampeter…. An Employer should be able to fire you for any GOOD reason, not just any reason. Secondly, they can’t sack you beyond the terms of the contract.

    Contract law is a cornerstone of Western society. Christianity is also a cornerstone in the ethics of Western jurisprudence. Freedom of speech and Freedom of Religion are also rights of Western civilization….. Quoting a verse from the Bible is part of Religious freedom and the rights of Religion cannot be expunged by being ‘written out’ in a contract.

    RA is on a hiding to nothing here now…. They just expected Israel Folau to be intimidated into silence. They were wrong.

  37. Megan

    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.

    Ignorance writ large.

  38. None

    Agree big Nambaa. Freedom is for everyone not just for a few and there is no life without freedom.

  39. politichix

    So now need an alternative to anz. Any banks an option? Small and regional would be fine…

  40. jupes

    It’s embarrassing how little knowledge there seems to be of anything, among what is on average an older readership here. Just embarrassing.

    Every single person on this site is dumb. Except for one.

    LOL

  41. Megan

    Every single person on this site is dumb. Except for one.

    And yet every post lays out his supreme ignorance for all to see. Even Einstein was humble enough to know the more knowledge you gain over your lifetime of experience, the more you realise how much you don’t and cannot know.
    This is the kind of intellectual blindspot you expect to see in know it all adolescents. Oh, wait…

  42. Mother Lode

    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.

    Ignorance writ large.

    Given his undoubtedly ‘unique’ genius, I wonder how long 1amp would last in a society where an employer was able to treat an employee not as someone with whom they had entered into a contract, but instead like a stale ham sandwich.

  43. Iampeter

    NO Iampeter…. An Employer should be able to fire you for any GOOD reason, not just any reason.

    Yes this is what unions and leftists in general have been arguing for ages. I know you are leftists.
    It’s YOU guys who seem to be struggling with this.

    Secondly, they can’t sack you beyond the terms of the contract.

    There’s more too it than that, but that’s what I’M saying.
    It’s the confused leftists here that are stubbornly refusing to see that this is nothing more than a contractual dispute. Not a “free speech” or “religious freedom” issue.

    Quoting a verse from the Bible is part of Religious freedom and the rights of Religion cannot be expunged by being ‘written out’ in a contract.

    Quoting something is an individual right, not a “religious freedom” because that’s not a thing. Neither is “gay freedom” or “womens freedom” or “insert-your-collective-here freedom.”
    It’s like I’m talking in circles with confused SJW’s.
    In any case, you’ve just proved my previous point and made this about his religious babble requiring some kind of special treatment, instead of it being just a contract dispute, his religiosity not being relevant to anything.

    Every single person on this site is dumb. Except for one.

    Like I always say here, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
    You guys are beyond parody.

  44. BTW the Australian Christian Lobby actually give you a Receipt No. for your donation – unlike GoFundMe.
    Says it all.

  45. iamagreeingwithpeter.

    TAFKAS has to say, begrudgingly and with great pain, that he agrees with iampeter on this one. On principle.

    We are all working on an information asymmetry with the Folau contract not being available for general review. However, a couple of points.

    Des makes some good points about referencing the Players Code of Conduct. However, it is possible and probable that Folau’s contract had additional and specific clauses related because of prior his prior posts. Whether such clauses did exist and whether they are unconscionable and unenforceable, that will be left to a court to assess (assuming it goes that far). However, the recent “tribunal” was probably the dispute resolution mechanism that was stipulated in his contract and as history shows, Folau was unsuccessful there. He has taken this matter to the FWC and we will see what will be. One suspects, that irrespective of “winner” in the FWC, it will go to the next step. The ARU will not be able to let this matter sit and Folau, with his legal fund will keep on keeping on.

    As an aside question, if the ARU has effectively terminated his contract, is Folau allowed to play rugby overseas while this dispute proceeds? Are there any transfer rules. Or will be be precluded from rugby union and be limited to, say rugby league or soccer (he has not tried that one).

    The references to the Ridd matter are just wrong. The essence of the Ridd matter was that the enterprise agreement, which is a quasi-statutory contract, cannot be changed by reference to a code of conduct. JCU tried to over rule the enterprise agreement, which requires sign off by the FWC – by JCU trying to enforce their code of conduct above the enterprise agreement, they lost. A no no. TAFKAS notes also that the Ridd matter (apparently) cost $250K and that was in the Federal Court, and not $3m to the FWC. Ridd also had QCs/SCs working pro-bono – another revealed preference not demonstrated for Folau.

    @ J.H. – Civil society has no relevance to this. This is a contractual matter between Folau and the ARU. Subject to unfair dismissal legislation, the economic poison that it is, an employer has every right to dismiss someone for any reason they like as long as the termination provisions of the contract are applied – whether that be notice period, termination payment, garden leave etc. We don’t live in the Soviet Union where employees own and control the means of production. Not yet at least.

    As for GoFundMe – they are a private company. They have the right to offer or not offer their services to whomever. You may not like it, TAFKAS may not like it, but as per the above, the Australian people don’t yet collectively own the means of production. Don’t like it – don’t buy it – don’t use it. That the ACL set up a parallel fund raising sit is HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. This is called competition.

    In the end, this matter has significantly damaged both Folau and the ARU. Folau will likely go off to Europe or Japan and earn plenty more but the ARU will be a major sponsor free zone for a while which will damage the livelihood of other players and their families; those of lesser means that Folau. Not to mention the fan and brand damage. The NRL and the AFL must be rubbing their hands with glee.

    It is also telling that none of Folau’s former team mates have come to his support.

    An interesting question also is the tax status of all these transactions. Given the association with the ACL, are donations tax deductible? If Folau donates surplus funds to charity, will he get a tax deduction?

    And with regard to Tim’s comment that “for all intents and purposes is essentially a government agency (given their subsidies and the regulatory regime they follow) ” – are you kidding me? Are you frikken kidding. By that logic most Australian businesses and individuals are government property.

    Has Australia become the Soviet Union of 6 states and 2 territories and has Catallaxy become the New Green Left Daily?

  46. Davey Boy

    Those who donate are notified that it is not tax deductible.

  47. Lee

    Originally donated $50 to gofundme, increase it to $$100 and galvanised family into another $100. We should be thanking Gofundme for the PR they generated.

  48. A reader

    So close to 900k in 16 hours. That’s epic

  49. bosnich

    TAFKAS ….” It is also telling that none of Folaus former team mates have come to his support”.
    Hardly surprising really.Do you honestly think that any RA player is going to stick his head up above the parapet in support given the bile etc coming from the Alphabet people and the media. If you do I suggest you need medication of some sort.

  50. John A

    The Artist Formerly Known As Spartacus #3053134, posted on June 25, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    iamagreeingwithpeter.

    And TAFKAS makes the case which pebble could not.

    At least now we can debate the issue. I have looked at the Code of Conduct under which the tribunal made its decision to assess the “breach” at Level 3 (IIRC) which put the offence into the area where termination was possible.

    To the extent that the tribunal relied on the Code of Conduct, they have put themselves and RA into an equivalent position to the Peter Ridd case.

    And to that extent, Izzy has a reasonably arguable case.

  51. Major Elvis Newton

    So when politicians and those in the judiciary swear an oath or allegiance on the Bible concluding with “So help me, God” are they not tacitly endorsing the content of the aforementioned tome, including (Corinthians 6: 9-10)?

    Or are they hypocrites.

  52. @bosnich

    Do you honestly think that any RA player is going to stick his head up above the parapet in support …

    Yes TAFKAS does. This is apparently about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is it not?

    @John A

    To the extent that the tribunal relied on the Code of Conduct, they have put themselves and RA into an equivalent position to the Peter Ridd case.

    TAFKAS does not thing you are correct here. He will leave it to the industrial lawyers, however, Folau had a contract rather than the entire team being subject to a FWC approved enterprise agreement.

    It is common for individual agreements to reference to codes of conduct which may change time to to. It is impractical to “re-paper” every employee to deal with technological and societal evolutions.

  53. I_am_not_a_robot

    Prof Peter Ridd case is different, who goes to hell could be a matter hotly discussed at RA after-match meetings but not in the theological sense.
    People sign away their freedom of speech every day when they sign employment contracts that specifically contain conditions on making public statements.
    Freedom of speech is not the issue neither are St Paul’s letters to the Corinthians that contain many admonitions that offend contemporary standards.
    Whether Folau breached his contract of employment is, and that apparently depends on how specific the RA Code of Conduct is worded and whether any subsequent written warnings in effect modified of added to his employment contract.

    RA may lose more revenue by not having Folau playing than by any loss of sponsorship.

  54. @Major Elvis Newton

    Or are they hypocrites.

    What the hell has this got to do with this matter? What the hell are you talking about?

    If you are suggesting a legislative response, be careful what you wish for. Very careful.

    Come next Labor government, which will come at some point, what about an amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act to empower it to force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes?

    Be careful. Very careful.

  55. Rebel with cause

    Considering the Wallabies are captained by left wing virtue signaller par excellence David Pocock it is unsurprising that Folau’s team mates aren’t falling over themselves to come to his aid. LOL.

  56. Major Elvis Newton

    Be careful. Very careful.

    Quite.

    Don’t swear on anything until you’ve read it first would be good advice too.

  57. @Major Elvis Newton

    Don’t swear on anything until you’ve read it first would be good advice too.

    And don’t sign a contract if you don’t understand what it means.

    PS – are there any Cats out there prepared to sell their public speech rights? This is the deal. $1m per year for 4 years. No public comments. No social media. No media appearances. You also have to run around a park and miss plenty of tackles. Uniform provided.

    Any takers? It’s a voluntary agreement. No torture, capital punishment or imprisonment for breech. Just terminations with prejudice.

  58. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    As for GoFundMe – they are a private company. They have the right to offer or not offer their services to whomever. You may not like it, TAFKAS may not like it, but as per the above, the Australian people don’t yet collectively own the means of production. Don’t like it – don’t buy it – don’t use it. That the ACL set up a parallel fund raising sit is HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. This is called competition.

    tell that to the people who sued the bakers in Oregon and the state gov that fined them USD135k

  59. jupes

    TAFKAS has to say, begrudgingly and with great pain, that he agrees with iampeter on this one. On principle.

    You idiot.

  60. Rafe Champion

    Be careful. Very careful.

    Amen!

  61. Rebel with cause

    TAFKAS – where this line of reasoning ultimately goes is that it is ok for all employers to fire all Christians, J— or gays en masse if they feel like it. That’s not a society I want to live in, it is not a society most people want to live in.

    If Folau has signed a watertight contract saying he will never post anything on social media about his religion then fair enough. I imagine it will be a short trial.

    On the other hand, if his contract is not so clear cut it will be a good test to see if an employer can fire you just because you say something in a private capacity that the left wing offence police find offensive – and given they find almost everything offensive that is a low bar indeed.

  62. A reader

    I wonder what all the Lefties think about the whole Fijian Rugby 7s team singing a hymn when they won the Olympic Gold?

  63. Diogenes

    People sign away their freedom of speech every day when they sign employment contracts that specifically contain conditions on making public statements.

    And this is a very very slippery slope…
    Lets for a moment assume I am a computer programmer working for say the Diogenes Bank …
    1. I know I cannot appear on say Alan Jone’s show as an official representing the Bank and say “We will decrease interest rates by 1% as of midnight tonight”. This is as right and as it should be.
    2. Lets now say I appear on Alan Jones as a whistleblower and say the Diogenes Bank is overcharging customers because of a bug in the code – and I am wrong. It would be reasonable to be sacked.
    3. Lets now say I appear on Alan Jones as a whistleblower and say the Diogenes Bank is overcharging customers because of a bug in the code – and an investigation finds I am right . Again it would be reasonable if I am sacked.
    4. Lets now say I ring Alan Jones – in my own time, using my own resources and only identify myself as TAFKAS2 , never mention the bank, and say ‘all members of the greens party should be shot on sight’ . The bank knows nothing about it and so I am safe…
    5. Assume scenario 4 …some fwit ‘doxs’ me. I have not mentioned my employer or used any of his resources – Have I really signed away my right to state an opinion publicly ? Does my employer own my free time ? If so I want to be paid for it !

  64. Hugh

    “Hi Rugby Australia, I’ve just started managing an incredible new prospect for the Wallabies.”

    Rugby Australia (R.A.). “Great! Where’s he based?

    “Well, he’s originally from Nazareth, Galilee, and, yeah, we’ve all wondered if anything good can come from there, but hear me out …”

    R.A. “Go on”

    “Well, he’s just such an instinctive player! He seems to be really ahead of the game, it’s as if he knows what’s in the opposition’s mind at any stage, he ghosts through defences even better than Stephen Larkham, and in the wet, well, he moves across the turf like it’s solid ground!”

    R.A. “Wow! But is he a dirty player? Is he likely to give away penalties?”

    “Not at all! I’ve watched him over several games, and never seen him break so much as one jot or tittle of the rules! And he never, ever, gets into scrapes! A few times he’s been punched up, ‘cos he’s so unstoppable, but he always seems to turn the other cheek! That’s so shocking it defuses things. Oh, and whenever there have been injuries on the field, he’s just gone over and fixed them up with a touch or a bit of spit! He’s out of this world, I tells ya!”

    R.A. Well! It seems like he might be someone we’re looking for! Maybe we can start him off in the junior Wallabies.

    Great!

    R.A. Send us his contact details. Oh, … just a formality, you understand … can you think of any downside?

    Absolutely not! Off the field he’s also a very loveable and loving person, impeccable, I’d say …

    R.A. (interrupting) Terrific! We’ll look forward to …

    (interrupting) … a man of thoroughgoing integrity, you know, practices what he preaches, and …

    R.A. (interrupting) Wait! Did you say “preaches”? What do you mean by that?

    Well, being from Nazareth, his background is Jewish, as you’d guess …

    R.A. … go on …

    … so he is just as observant of that law as he is of the laws of rugby union.

    R.A. Hmmm. … All that law?

    Of course!

    R.A. Including, say, the bits about homosexual acts?

    *sigh* Why do you ask? As I said, he is a man of integrity. He believes in the laws of his religion and their rationale, almost as if he created it himself! So of course he condemns theft, and adultery, and fornication, and all the rest, including homosexual acts, and he tells people up front why those acts are so self-destructive, and how important it is to repent of them. And he stressed to me recently this law should be followed even if following it separates a man from his father or a daughter from her mother. So he’s not afraid of offending anyone, if his message might help them realise the plight they’re in! Which is why he’s such a good team player … see, he’d make a great coach, too at the end, and …

    R.A. (interrupting), well, thank you for calling us. We’ll get back to you if we’re interested. But you must understand: we’re all about inclusion and diversity and tolerance and above all not offending at R.A., and there might be a concern that this prospect of yours falls a little short of our standards.

    *click*

  65. Lilliana

    The Folau issue highlights the general issue of the intrusion of your employer into your private life.

    I know people will say you if you don’t like the terms of your employment contract then don’t take the job. This is well and good if you have the financial capacity to make such a choice. In most cases people don’t have that luxury. Companies know this and therefore companies woke policies are increasingly impacting on our lives. The separation between private life and work life is being eroded and this is not good. This has nothing to do with prohibitions related to producing a good or service eg a pilot not being able to drink alcohol for x hours before flying – in this case this is because it affects their ability to safely do the job they are hired to do.
    The Orwellian ability of companies to impact on your private life is a threat to any free society as it is all about control and power. This is, I believe, the nexus between what is happening to Folau and free speech.

  66. Jannie

    Tafkas, you are becoming a bit wobbly and agreeing with Ianpeter makes you a fuckwit.

    Are you suggesting that no other rugby players support Folau? Idiot, they are in fear of their careers and futures, because supporting Folau makes them a target. Dumb arse.

  67. @Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    tell that to the people who sued the bakers in Oregon and the state gov that fined them USD135k

    You tell them. They lost in the US Supreme Court.

    @jupes

    You idiot.

    Back at ya baby. You ignorant idiot.

    @Rebel with cause

    where this line of reasoning ultimately goes is that it is ok for all employers to fire all Christians, J— or gays en masse if they feel like it. That’s not a society I want to live in, it is not a society most people want to live in.

    And here boys and girls is the essence of the argument. There is a difference between a societal standard and a law – a-la the 18c.

    Having the right to sack people for any reason does not mean the obligation to. Legal is not necessarily moral and moral is not necessarily legal (although the later should be).

    We live in a liberal society because we have no other choice with our diverse society. The only other alternative is totalitarianism.

    It is not the role of the state to pick sides in this matter. It is up to civil society. The government should not pick between Hitler and Hume, civil society should. And if the society picks Hitler, it does not really matter what the law is.

    Jim Crow laws in the US made it illegal to serve black people. If another business set up next door to a while only restaurant, the police would come and shut them down. It was one group of people imposing their will one the rest.

    A democratic liberal society is not about the 51 pissing in the corn flakes of the 49%. It is not about the 51% taxing the 49% into destitution.

    This is a healthy debate – albeit in an unhealthy tone. But for those who are seeking a legislative response to this, it is time for you to leave the island.

  68. DaveR

    …. a biblical text written 2000 years ago

    Not quite right Perth Trader.

    Folau effectively quoted the King James bible translation of the original texts written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The King James version is a 17th century translation into older English, slightly amended in parts, but generally reflecting the speech, social values and conventions of those times. I would think that a new translation of the original source texts would be different if done today.

  69. John Dee

    I would have been 12-14 years old – living in Hawthorn Vic way before it turned commie.
    Saw a real live beggar- rags for clothes, sack on his back, huge unkempt beard.
    I raced home got 2 shilling bit from my pathetic savings and pedalled as fast as I could back to the area.
    Found him- offered my hard-earned only to see him sneer and turn away although he did pocket the money.
    I am forever indebted to that bloke – taught me a wonderful lesson.
    To cut it short – now 77 I have never given a bloody zac to anyone since.
    Damn.
    This is different.
    If the wankers win this we all all stuffed- somehow, someway.
    But I give direct – too many smarties out there.

  70. Jannie

    Tafkas, my apologies, I had a brain snap, off my meds. I stand by my point, withdraw the abuse.

  71. Bruce of Newcastle:

    The only precedent being set here, is that Christians will have special priveledge because of their beliefs.

    Also Mus lims, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, Gaia worshippers, Jains and even Satanists. Atheists too most like. It think that covers most if not all of the population.

    Oi!
    What about us agnostics?
    My only belief is that I should have another drink.

  72. J.H.

    TAFKAS….. Folau’s termination was over a code of conduct breech…. This is literally Freedom of Religion versus Australian Rugby Union’s Code of Conduct.

    Secondly, as I understand it ARU didn’t honor the contract and invoked their Code of Conduct to renege on paying Israel Folau’s full contractual severance.

    Which, TAFKAS, goes to your assertion that an employer can fire anyone anytime for any reason….. They can, but they have to pay for it, because of contracts and workplace agreements. We are literally playing semantics there. Of course an employer can sack someone, they pay the penalties in the contract when they do.

    Which brings us to the Crux of the matter…. If ARU could sack Folau with no reason. Then why didn’t they? No TAFKAS, they trumped up charges against Israel Folau in a cynical attempt to make a political issue and to dodge their contractual obligations towards Israel Folau.

    Quoting the Bible cannot be a violation of the ARU’s code of conduct, because I bet you, that it is not specifically written in their code….. Plus Freedom of Religion would trump and code of conduct in any Supreme court.

    Lastly, Folau has not committed a crime. A crime has been committed against him….. under the discrimination laws as they exist.

  73. J.H.

    correction….. would trump ANY code of conduct….

    I have fat fingers sometimes…. sigh.

  74. Infidel Tiger

    It is also telling that none of Folau’s former team mates have come to his support.

    You mean apart from Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others. Plenty more would, but are worried about being fired.

    You have been owned on this issue constantly. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  75. @ J.H.

    Of course an employer can sack someone, they pay the penalties in the contract when they do.

    Correct. And if Folau did breech the contact, he can be terminated for cause.

    a cynical attempt to make a political issue and to dodge their contractual obligations towards Israel Folau

    Could it also be that Folau did what he did to elicit the reaction he got so that he could get a higher paying contract overseas but now it has blown up in his face?

    Lastly, Folau has not committed a crime. A crime has been committed against him….. under the discrimination laws as they exist.

    Please name the crime.

    @Infidel Tiger

    You mean apart from Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others. Plenty more would, but are worried about being fired.

    Others are worried that they would be fired except that Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others weren’t apparently. Which is it?

    Ps There are only, what 20, on the team. Take out Folau, the fellow who was mentioned above and I can’t remember, “Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others” – who else is left fearful of being fired?

    There has been a breech of contract – either by the ARU or Folau. If it is found that that it was the ARU, they will pay. If it is found that it is Folau then things will remain. This is a contract matter.

  76. @ J.H.

    Of course an employer can sack someone, they pay the penalties in the contract when they do.

    Correct. And if Folau did breech the contact, he can be terminated for cause.

    a cynical attempt to make a political issue and to dodge their contractual obligations towards Israel Folau

    Could it also be that Folau did what he did to elicit the reaction he got so that he could get a higher paying contract overseas but now it has blown up in his face?

    Lastly, Folau has not committed a crime. A crime has been committed against him….. under the discrimination laws as they exist.

    Please name the crime.

    @Infidel Tiger

    You mean apart from Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others. Plenty more would, but are worried about being fired.

    Others are worried that they would be fired except that Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others weren’t apparently. Which is it?

    Ps There are only, what 20, on the team. Take out Folau, the fellow who was mentioned above and I can’t remember, “Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others” – who else is left fearful of being fired?

    There has been a breech of contract – either by the ARU or Folau. If it is found that that it was the ARU, they will pay. If it is found that it is Folau then things will remain. This is a contract matter.

  77. J.H.

    I’ll clarify “crime”….. Israel committed no crime, ie, no assaults, robbery, drugs, etc. The ARU code of conduct is clear on those. Israel Folau is a law abiding citizen and pillar of his community. Indeed he is a respected member of his community. He quoted biblical texts.

    As for my assertion that a “crime has been committed against him”….. Let us say he has grounds for complaint that he has been discriminated against and persecuted for his Christian beliefs. He was sacked because he tweeted Biblical quotes.

    I’m pretty sure you agree that he has grounds for discrimination as our laws currently stand?….. We’ll have to see if Christians have the same rights, to have offenses committed against them heard in the same way as the QWERTY crowd have theirs. Hmmmm?

  78. vagabond

    I’m not a sports fan, a believer or even a xtian but I’ve donated. I’m very angry about what happened to him.

    If he’s successful against RA I’d love to see him take on Qantas and that malignant gnome who turfed him from the chairman’s lounge.

  79. 2dogs

    Please name the crime.

    Section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Vic) 2001

  80. DaveR

    $1.22m donated as at 7:20pm

  81. @J.H.

    I’m pretty sure you agree that he has grounds for discrimination as our laws currently stand?….. We’ll have to see if Christians have the same rights, to have offenses committed against them heard in the same way as the QWERTY crowd have theirs. Hmmmm?

    Again, TAFKAS is not a lawyer, but that is not one of the protections afforded under whichever Human Rights Act blah blah. WHICH IS A BLOODY GOOD THING. Because if you have such religious protections comes next being the criminalisation of blaspheme and all the same protections afforded to all religions. Again be careful what you wish for.

    As I understand, it is illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion but that did not stop him getting hired.

    If this comes down to a discrimination matter, it will come down to whether termination was because he of his religion or because of the breech of a provision of his agreement. Subtle difference but important.

    All will be ventilated in due course one imagines.

  82. @2dogs

    Section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Vic) 2001

    Did you notice the Vic in that law you quote?

    but

    Religious vilification unlawful

    (1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious
    belief or activity of another person or class of
    persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred
    against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or
    severe ridicule of, that other person or class of
    persons.

    Vilification? Ridicule? Put blasphemers in jail?

    So you support 18c then? How about an expansion of the Australian Human Rights Commission?

    Fair dinkum. Is iampeter onto something here?

  83. DaveR

    @JH

    surely its not about Folau’s Freedom of Religion, RA are not saying he can’t be a Pentecostal Christian.

    Its about Folau’s Freedom of Expression – his ability to quote from his key religious text (the Bible as it is written) .

  84. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Great post, Tim.

  85. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3052863, posted on June 25, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    Finally a post trying to approach the issue from something other than the leftist/SJW position of Rafe.
    Still this falls apart at the following bit:

    It sets an extraordinary legal precedent that quoting the Bible is something that can be used to trigger the provisions in a contract that it brings the employer into disrepute as RA is claiming here.

    No it doesn’t. An employer should be able to fire you for any reason anyway.

    You are a concern trolling leftist. No one is this insane. If you have a contract: “employee can wear blue ties” and you get fired for WEARING A BLUE TIE, then the invidious fuckwits who are your employers are liable.

    If you’re not a concern trolling leftist, you are too dumb to understand what a contract is or why your belief actually would never result in a contract ever being formed.

    I am sorry if you are being genuine, but this matter cannot be dumbed down any further. Even a small child could probably understand this better than you.

  86. Rebel with cause

    $1.24 million in less than a day. This is huge.

    The Folau case has tapped into a feeling more broadly.

    Fans are absolutely sick of highly paid sports administrators turning the weekend game into a political statement.

    Fans that work all week to afford the extortionate ticket prices to turn up and support the boys, and for the privilege get lectured that what they think isn’t right, isn’t welcome and their very presence at the game is taken as implicit endorsement of whatever cause administrators are pushing that week (gay week, multicultural week, stop beating your wife week etc etc).

    Folau is giving a black eye to the administrators that get paid millions of dollars a year to do the same jobs that are done for free by volunteers just a few rungs down the hierarchy.

    Folau is a stand in for every sports fan that wants to tell administrators to piss off and let the game be played. That’s why he is being backed in with $ by so many.

  87. Old Lefty

    Folau was employed by Rugby Australia to score tries and kick goals, or enable others to do so. What can quoting bible verses have to do with that?

  88. Infidel Tiger

    Others are worried that they would be fired except that Samu Kerevi, Sekope Kepu and numerous others weren’t apparently. Which is it?

    Kerevi just quit to play in Japan. Kepu just retired. Maybe that’s why they felt the freedom to support him.

    You are no good at this stuff. I pray you aren’t a lawyer.

  89. Old Lefty

    And as for the PC crap oozing from Castle and her backers (we stand for inclusion, tolerance diversity etc etc): this inclusion and tolerance obviously don’t apply to primitive superstitious darkies, do they?

  90. J.H.

    DaveR
    #3053492, posted on June 25, 2019 at 7:36 pm
    @JH

    surely its not about Folau’s Freedom of Religion, RA are not saying he can’t be a Pentecostal Christian.

    Its about Folau’s Freedom of Expression – his ability to quote from his key religious text (the Bible as it is written) .

    I understand what you are saying, but no, I would actually have to disagree. He can’t really be a practicing Pentecostal Christian if he is not allowed to criticize, discuss or speak out in the context of his religious beliefs. So expression and identity are the same thing in a an atmosphere of repression.

    Example: China also “allows” Catholicism…. but the faithful are not really allowed to proselytize, discuss or publicly display their Religion…. Which begs the question of Chinese Catholic clergy. Are they Catholic clergy or Chinese Communist propagandists?…. How would one know unless they publicly uphold Christian doctrine? Hence Identity is commensurate with expression.

  91. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    I am wanting some footy star offended by the cruelty of certain priests to declare that all Catholics will go to hell. Especially if they are Bombers fans.
    This lover of contract law will be mortally offended if a club found that sort of language to breach the player marketing obligation on the grounds of religious freedom.
    Folau is a poseur. A not smart one. Now being used by a lot of faux libertarians.

  92. Sinclair Davidson

    Weren’t papists all going to hell anyway?

  93. candy

    I like Helen’s comments above.

    A person is born gay. What the plan is and why God organises such is unknown but to consign them to Hell is wrong. In no way can I believe in such a harsh God.

    The problem is the wording of the contract though. Fair Work could sort that in a day surely.

  94. Notafan

    Folau made that clear enough in his other sermon.

    RA said that was perfectly fine with them, apparently.

  95. Notafan

    A person is not born gay.

    I wish I wish grig trolls would go away.

  96. Notafan

    Otherwise identical twins would always both be gay and they are not.

  97. candy

    \A person is not born gay.

    They are Notafan. This is life for some . There are folk who are homosexual. They did not choose.

  98. J.H.

    Candy…. A child is not a sexual being. They don’t even have the hormones to be thus. They feel love, but not lust.

    So children are not going to be sexually attracted to anyone. They are not born “gay”. They are born human.

    It’s not a smart way of thinking about children…. It’s a fraught position to be even associating children with sexual behavior. But it’s a position that the Homosexual lobby is happy in promoting…. Children are born gay, so it’s okay to think of them as sexual beings….. Nah. I won’t buy it. Smacks of deviancy.

  99. Fat Tony

    J.H.
    #3053630, posted on June 25, 2019 at 9:14 pm
    Candy…. A child is not a sexual being. They don’t even have the hormones to be thus. They feel love, but not lust.
    It’s not a smart way of thinking about children…. It’s a fraught position to be even associating children with sexual behavior. But it’s a position that the Homosexual lobby is happy in promoting…. Children are born gay, so it’s okay to think of them as sexual beings….. Nah. I won’t buy it. Smacks of deviancy.

    I think the word you are looking for is “reeks”.

  100. Tim Neilson

    They are Notafan. This is life for some . There are folk who are homosexual. They did not choose.

    Candy, its a pity you didn’t read what Notafan wrote.
    As I understand it there’s been plenty of research done on identical twins which has found that there’s not a correlation between genes and gayness.

  101. Craig Mc

    Section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Vic) 2001

    Postulating on what would happen to someone in an afterlife pretendyland is not a crime.

    I’m quite sure some Viking thinks I’m not worthy to enter Vahalla. I doubt I’d get that case up.

  102. Helen

    If children are born gay they are also born straight, born peddlefiles, born intimate lovers of animals.

  103. Helen

    Looks like msm and gofuckyourself have well and truly kicked the hornet’s nest. 1.49M and rising by the minute.

  104. The BigBlueCat

    There are folk who are homosexual. They did not choose.

    But I can understand why people who are homosexual say they were born that way, because there is no memory of a conscious decision to become homosexual. Just as heterosexuals have no conscious decision to become heterosexual. What of those who do make a conscious decision to “change sides”?

    But Folau’s post doesn’t speak to the inclination towards homosexuality or same-sex attraction, it speaks of conscious behaviours. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, in fact, speaks to behaviours that fall short of the moral standard to attain the “Kingdom of Heaven”, not the thoughts or presdispositions. The Apostle Paul states “as you once were” – kind of gives us a clue. The behaviours can change.

    And again in terms of Folau’s post, he is not condemning anyone – he is pointing out how they self-select their own exclusion by not repenting of their behaviours and turning to God. You don’t even have to believe in the Bible of God or anything like that to understand this – just read the text that Folau is quoting from and it’s all there. But those who seek to be offended will always read it the other way; “you’re damning me to hell!!!” No, he isn’t, he’s just saying what he believes their self-selection does, and says they can change if they want!

    As for TAFKAS and Iampeter – you are right in part, but many others here are right much more substantively. What you are talking about is “free agency” to decide to terminate a contract, whether that termination is lawful or not. Others are talking about the legitimacy of terminating a contract without cause or wrong cause. Of course an employer can terminate a contract for any reason, or even no reason. But if they have acted unfairly or outside the terms of the agreement or in breach of contract or employment law, there ought to be consequences, and there are. While you can sack an employee “just because” (trust me, employers do it all the time), unless you have a legitimate reason then you can and should be subject to a complaint or legal action against you. I would bet if you ever are sacked without cause, you would want to complain or take legal action.

    To me, and without knowing the details of Folau’s agreement with RA, he has a prima facie case in his favour. The RA Code of Conduct actually says very little about the posts that have got up RA’s collective noses. RA would need to argue that his post breached (in particular) clauses 1.3 and 1.6, but equally, Folau could make a case (due to RA’s handling of the information) that RA has treated Folau unfairly because of the expression of his deeply-held religious beliefs, and in doing so have also breached their own code of conduct (clause 8.1) in bringing a case against him and terminating the contract. And worse considering the egregious breaches of confidentiality shown by RA.

    RA have brought this on themselves, with a lot of coaching from the side by Alan Joyce of Qantas. They could have (and should have) ignored the posts and not brought attention to them, or they could have said they were Folau’s opinion and not shared by RA. Folau did not bully, harass or discriminated against anyone in particular, and his post was to the world at large. So at one level this is an employment dispute. But it was RA’s actions that has brought the dispute into the world of religious freedoms – they (and those who have backed them) have shown such intolerance, bigotry and lack of inclusivity that they fail to view the situation objectively and dispassionately. Instead, they have gone full retard. FitzSimons is the classic example here. Players who have support Folau have been cautioned, warned, sanctioned and generally influenced to stay away from expressing their support for Folau’s religious expressions. There’s a rights breach right there!

    If Folau can prove that RA has actively sought to influence the expression of his deeply-held religious convictions, I would say Folau will win the case – their reason for terminating his contract is unlawful. And if Folau can also prove that RA is also seeking to restrict the expression of deeply-held religious convictions of others by using him as an example, Folau wins again.

    RA will have to prove that Folau has egregiously breached RA’s code of conduct repeatedly and unfairly, bringing the game and it’s administrators, umpires and others into disrepute, or used his expressions to intimidate or influence a player, an official or a decision, or has sought to bring RA generally into disrepute through his post. They would also need to prove their sanctions were proportionate to the breach they claim (their rules, not the law). I suggest it’s RA that has the uphill battle here.

  105. The BigBlueCat

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3053569, posted on June 25, 2019 at 8:27 pm

    Folau is a poseur. A not smart one. Now being used by a lot of faux libertarians.

    No, he’s a victim of religious intolerance (allegedly). He believes he has a legitimate grievance and there are many who support him. Fairwork Australia will decide. And perhaps AHRC also.

  106. Up The Workers!

    Good to see that the new Folau fund total now stands at a phenomenal $1.53 million – over half way to the $3 million target, in just one day and is now more than double what the anti-Christian Leftards at ‘Go Defund Me’ stiffed him for.

    The $800,000.00 p.a. Rugby Goth loudly gillards that Rugby Australia – operating in an overwhelmingly Christian country – is all for inclusion, diversity, caring and sharing, yet she unilaterally excludes all Christians from her bigoted version of “inclusiveness”.

    Maybe the Rugby Australia dills on the Board, would prefer to watch all their future matches not only without their best player, but also without any crowds and sponsors as well?

    Surely, with such awesome decision-making talents as theirs, the Rugby Australia Board must be comprised exclusively of avid Labor-voters!

  107. DaveR

    @JH

    So if I understand it, you are saying that Folau’s Freedom of Religion rights also include Freedom of Expression (Speech) rights in regard to talking/writing etc about his religious views.

    Put another way, I presume you believe without these embedded Freedom of Expression rights, the underlying Freedom of Religion rights are incomplete or just symbolic?

    It is clear that RA took exception to Folau posting (publishing) his views on a public forum, not simply privately holding his views about his religion.

  108. J.H.

    Folau’s fighting fund is now $1 543 523. 00…. Not bad for a day. 🙂

    A commenter on Rita Panahi blog wrote the below comment, which struck me as a wonderful point….

    Peter
    Once in the witness box and he places his hand on the bible and swears to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. His legal team should rise and say ‘We rest our case’. That is the book he was quoting

    Gold, just Gold. 🙂

  109. J.H.

    DaveR…. Well you don’t really have the right of religion if you are not allowed to proselytize, discuss or support your religion…. do you?

    It’s best to just keep things simple.

  110. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Helen at 10:44 am:

    “…
    2. Homosexuality is something you are born with, not something bad you do, like theft and adultery.”

    Is this true or is it a bought and paid for opinion from East Anglia University?

    A Google search “Is sexuality genetic” turns up this response first:

    Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions.
    McGuire TR1.
    US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

    Author information
    Abstract

    Genetic analysis of behavioral differences among human beings requires both careful experimental design and appropriate genetic models. Any genetic study must be (1) valid and precise measures of individual differences, (2) appropriate methods to ascertain biological relationships, (3) research subjects who have been randomly recruited, (4) appropriate sample sizes, and (5) appropriate genetic models to interpret the data. In addition, the researchers must exercise caution in interpreting biosocial effects from the observed phenotypic correlations. To date, all studies of the genetic basis of sexual orientation of men and women have failed to meet one or more or any of the above criteria.

    I see the assertion used more and more frequently by the orchestrated internet blog flash mobs, to bludgeon hom oph ob ic posters with wrong thoughts. It goes hand in glove with the widely known, evidently, true truth that bundle of sticks young men are necking themselves by the score in the absence of public endorsement of their lifestyle by prominent sports stars.

  111. Iampeter

    TAFKAS has to say, begrudgingly and with great pain, that he agrees with iampeter on this one. On principle.

    Thanks Spartacus, I know it’s hard to go against everyone.

    I will add though, if you can only agree with one of the few people putting forward the actual right wing arguments (and pretty basic ones too), in a begrudging and painful manner, then it shouldn’t be surprising that the cat is becoming the “New Green Left Daily.”

    What else do you call a website where the dominant viewpoint is represented by nothing but stale leftist talking points and identity politics?

  112. Iampeter

    Be careful. Very careful.

    Amen!

    Amen? Rafe, you’ve spent a few days now arguing against this position and in favor of forcing the cake baker (in this case the ARU) to do business with the same sex couple (in this case Falou). Why are you now saying “amen” to someone pointing this out to you?
    You’ve donated money and encouraged others to do so, in the name of identity politics and trying to force a business to do something they don’t want to.

    Are you going to now make a post conceding you were on the wrong side of this issue? That you now understand this has never been a free speech, or “religious freedom” issue and you agree that just like the Christian cake baker, the ARU should not be forced into business they don’t want?
    Are you going to cancel your donation and explain that others should too?

    If not, why are you saying “amen” in agreement with the point that was being made in post #3053209?

  113. stackja

    Just now $1,591,551.55 raised support Israel Folau

  114. Up The Workers!

    J.H. at 12.53am said:

    “A commenter on Rita Panahi blog wrote the below comment, which struck me as a wonderful point….

    Peter
    Once in the witness box and he places his hand on the bible and swears to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. His legal team should rise and say ‘We rest our case. That is the book he was quoting’.

    Gold, just Gold. 🙂”

    Agreed – but the Prosecution team would probably also jump to their feet at the same time and say exactly the same thing about exactly the same book.

    It will just come down to a question of whether or not the beak on the Bench is as virulently anti-Christian and anti free-speech as the $800,000.00 p.a. imported Rugby Goth and the brainless, knuckle-dragging meatheads who employed her, are.

  115. Entropy

    Why I am funding Folau, as expressed by River Tam:

    “People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.”
    ― River Tam – Serenity

  116. Entropy

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3053569, posted on June 25, 2019 at 8:27 pm
    I am wanting some footy star offended by the cruelty of certain priests to declare that all Catholics will go to hell. Especially if they are Bombers fans

    You know damn well that if some player did do that, absolutely nothing would happen to them.beyond a bit of friendly chat at game next time he played the bombers ( the chatterers would subsequently subject to the attention of the zampolit behavioural officers).

  117. Entropy

    It is clear that RA took exception to Folau posting (publishing) his views on a public forum, not simply privately holding his views about his religion.

    No, to be precise they took offence at him suggesting practising homosexuality meant you won’t walk through the pearly gates. They didn’t worry about the fornicators, adulterers thrives and liars. The RA are OK with those types going to hell. Just the gays appear to be the worry. They were only worried about the claim the gays won’t get into heaven.

    That is amazingly selective offence taking right there.

    Especially as I doubt any of them believe in heaven or hell. Why do they care what anyone says, let alone a happy clapper? In any case, Folau is harmless, unlike the meddlers demanding control of what people are allowed to think.

  118. Perplexed of Brisbane

    I wonder how this would have played out if Emirates and not Qantas was the major sponsor of RA?
    Would RA have sacked Folau?
    Would Emirates have had a quiet word and all would have been forgiven?

    Interesting who would win: QWERTY or RoP when there is money at stake.

    Would Emirates give a stuff?

  119. Iampeter

    If you have a contract: “employee can wear blue ties” and you get fired for WEARING A BLUE TIE, then the invidious fuckwits who are your employers are liable.

    Yea but being liable doesn’t mean your freedoms have been violated.
    I’m the one arguing that this is merely a contract dispute, not a free speech, or “religious freedom” issue.
    You’ve completely missed the point I’ve repeatedly made here and have come in with the usual huff and bluster of a confused idiot and triggered leftist.
    Your post is the equivalent of stepping on a rake.

    Why I am funding Folau, as expressed by River Tam:

    If you’re funding Folau then you are in favour of people being meddled with.
    You have the issue backwards.

  120. The BigBlueCat

    Yea but being liable doesn’t mean your freedoms have been violated.

    If you’ve been told by the boss beforehand, then your rights have most definitely been violated.

    I’m the one arguing that this is merely a contract dispute, not a free speech, or “religious freedom” issue.

    You are only arguing one side, and fail to see how this is an influence on others not to say the things they might otherwise want to say. Therefore it is a religious freedom / free speech issue and therefore also a rights issue. ICCPR Article 19 says so. Why can’t you see that?

    If you’re funding Folau then you are in favour of people being meddled with.
    You have the issue backwards.

    No, if you don’t fund Folau you are definitely in favour of people being influenced to behave in ways contrary to, say, their deeply held religious beliefs and their ability to freely express themselves, share ideas etc without recourse (other than if they break an actual law).

    RA have acted like arseholes – they need to be held to account so other employers will think before they act.

  121. The BigBlueCat

    Entropy
    #3057603, posted on June 26, 2019 at 8:07 am

    Exactly. You are spot on. Well done you!

  122. The BigBlueCat

    Fund balance is now $1.8m … suck on that, GoFundMe!!

    God does seem to work in mysterious ways …..

  123. Pyrmonter

    @Iampeter
    @TAFKAS

    Agreed.

  124. Pyrmonter

    Late to the thread, and only linking, but Simon Longstaff’s piece on the ABC is a sound survey of the issues. And as TAFKAS and Iamp have noted, the ‘right’ emulating the left’s culture of complaint is wrought with both unforseen consequences, as well as, well, simply foolish.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-25/israel-folau-crowdfunding-free-speech-simon-longstaff-analysis/11245082

  125. WHO cares

    Sad day for Christians when a cause like this can raise so much money for an over indulged Rubgy player and people who were abused by the Catholic church have fight to get any meaningful recognition .
    Please just give all the money raised to Folau, let RA get on with managing Rubgy instead of giving it to Lawyers,let him go play Rubgy in France and preach to the French .
    And get on with things that really matter in this country e.g Homelessness . Land degradation ,
    All the Left , Right , Quiet Australians , conservative , and whoever go take a deep breath suck it in and grow up, because everyone is different.

  126. The BigBlueCat

    In terms of rights, it’s the threat of employment termination and the implication that if one sticks their head up and says something from their deeply-held religious convictions that somehow makes it a sackable offence that it the rights issue. Simon Longstaff didn’t explore that. An employer punishing an employee via termination for something he has lawfully said as an expression of his deeply-held religious convictions shows how far down the drain we’ve come. The common approach is to debate the statement, not strong-arm the person into submission.

    The left like to use phrases like “what is it that you want to say under your right to free speech?” – a tactic implying the free speech might be offensive, discriminatory or otherwise illegal. That is a deflection tactic. The answer is, of course, “anything that is lawful”. Which is what Folau has done – he has posted something which some consider being distasteful, even offensive, but not illegal. Yet his post has cost him his job. RA has treated him very shabbily – the media also. Most have verballed him, or denigrated Folau’s faith and those who follow the same faith.

    Folau must seek his remedy – his reputation as a player has been tarnished by those who have said they won’t play in the same team as him or have him in the competition – it has nothing to do with his playing, but everything to do with his beliefs. RA have terminated his contract possibly unlawfully, and certainly with intent to discriminate against Folau because of the expression of his beliefs. It’s not hard to understand. Time will tell if he is right.

    So if you think this is not a rights issue, think again. Quite literally, the next one could be you, but if you are fearful of saying something that is lawful (ie. someone like your employer of their staff has unduly influenced you not to), your rights have been attacked. Whichever way this goes, it will universally be called “the Folau Test”.

    BTW – donations are up to $1.9 million – people are putting their money where the heart is. Good on them!

  127. Iampeter

    Please just give all the money raised to Folau, let RA get on with managing Rubgy instead of giving it to Lawyers,let him go play Rubgy in France and preach to the French .

    I think RA should be exploring all their legal options. The best defense has always been a good offence.
    Not to mention that the horrible precedent created here, means that any religious person can now claim prosecution when they are unhappy about their business affairs and start whipping people up into a religions frenzy to collect their money. Then have their lobby group start hitting up the Prime Minister himself to intercede on their behalf. What a farce.
    This mess is going to cost businesses millions if not dealt with decisively.
    RA should find out just how far you can misuse accusations of religious prosecution before you cross into defamation territory and demonstrate the damages caused to their business by these events

    It’s high time there was push back on collectivist nonsense of SJW’s and what better place to start than with the original protected class in Western Civilization? Christians have been playing this game since long before modern leftists started copying them.

  128. WHO cares

    Maybe it will turn out to be a case of unfair dismissal who knows, do anyone honestly think the so called Folau case will change any thing for the average person who is treated unfairly in the work place everyday.
    He had a chance with his position to embrace different people in a gentle way and show them the way according to Folau,he had a chance too soar with the eagles and take others with him but he has relegated himself to the Bin chicken variety who is picking up chips from the Macdonalds carpark to fund him self .

  129. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    It would appear now that any remarkably well paid person who gets fired for breaking the terms of a contract on any grounds that may appeal to some niche religious grouping (cashed up) can expect to raise $2m in quick time to “fund” their legal claims.
    This novel and a sign perhaps of how silly the social media world can be.

  130. Pyrmonter

    @ Iamp

    Disagree with your last comment. RA have, at least, walked into Folau’s brand-promoting trap. They’ve a right to do what they’ve done, but that doesn’t mean it was wise to.

  131. Jannie

    Hey Elderly White dude, WHO cares about Iampeter?

  132. None

    Elderly white man from Skipton – Izzy appealed to the general public through a well-known fundraising site. It was only when the fundraising site pulled the campaign that a lobby group offered to host it. The Christian Lobby group is simply providing the infrastructure for people to make donations and a legal trust account into which to place the monies . This organisation has two partss, one part is the charity that lobbies and petitions whereas the other part is not a charity but rather a legal service. Even so this organisation is not running Israel’s legal defence but merely providing the service to collect the donations and placed them in a trust account. All of this is perfectly normal. There is no law saying that you can’t raise money to pay your lawyers through donations.
    No person not even Izzy himself knows any details about the donors. He would not know who is the Christian and who is not a Christian, he will not know how rich or poor they are, what job they have, he would not know even why people are donating, whether it’s because they’re pissed at rugby Australia or whether they are pissed at corporate bullies or whether they want to defend a fellow ChristIan or whether they are simply annoyed that someone can lose their job because they posted something on Instagram. And so all your speculations about who is supporting him it’s just that: you making stuff up.

  133. Up The Workers!

    At 11.00pm, the “Go Fund Issy” Fund is now approaching $2.1 million in just 48 hours.

    Only $900,000 to go till it hits its $3 Million target.

    Couldn’t have happened without the totalitarian intervention of deservedly-despised anti-Christian Lefties.

  134. Infidel Tiger

    Great to see libertarians aligning with corporations over the rights of individuals.

    Very strange ideology.

  135. Simon

    Response from Rugby Australia:
    On 26/06/2019 02:10, Customer Service wrote:
    >
    > Hi Simon,
    >
    > Thank you for sharing your feedback with us.
    >
    > Rugby Australia supports the rights of all players to their own beliefs and supports all players sharing their beliefs in a respectful way.
    >
    > All Rugby Australia employees sign up to the universal values of the game, which include inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork when they join the organisation.
    >
    > All players are bound by a Code of Conduct, which sets out the expectations around on and off-field behaviour as a professional Rugby player.
    >
    > Of Israel’s several religious posts on his social media accounts, there has been three – one in April 2018, and a further two in April 2019 that Rugby Australia believes did not align with the values of inclusion and respect, and placed Israel in breach of his obligations as a Rugby Australia employee.
    >
    > These specific posts were disrespectful to some members of the Rugby community.
    >
    > After the 2018 post, Israel was warned of his contractual obligations both verbally and formally with regards to respectful social media use and it was explained that the nature of his post was offensive to certain members of the community.
    >
    > Despite these warnings and Israel’s understanding of the distress that his 2018 post caused to some members of the Rugby community, he chose to make posts of a similar nature in April 2019, leaving Rugby Australia with no choice but to seek disciplinary action.
    >
    > Israel has had an opportunity to state his case before an independent tribunal and the Tribunal found that his posts constituted a high-level breach of the Code of Conduct and directed Rugby Australia to terminate his contract.
    >
    > We are saddened to lose the services of a wonderful Rugby player but will not compromise on the values of inclusion and respect that have and will continue to make Rugby a game for all.
    >
    > Our game needs to continue to be a safe and welcoming environment for people of any race, gender, religion, sexuality or background.
    >
    > Rugby Australia CEO, explains in more detail the reasoning via this link: https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2019/05/17/castle-interview
    >
    > We respect the views of all members of our community, including those that disagree with the action taken by Rugby Australia.
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Molly

    Hi Molly,

    Thanks for your quick and full reply.

    With respect, I find your stance on a passage from the Bible to be offensive to me and, patently obviously from the backlash, to many others. Christians believe we are all sinners. Israel has not singled out anybody in particular and is perfectly entitled to express his religious beliefs.

    Rugby is not a game for all, as you mistakenly state. You have excluded a talented player on his free right to express his beliefs. Your belief that this is acceptable (or even that you are in some way fostering a safe and welcoming environment) is more than hypocritical! It also makes a mockery of rugby as a game if you exclude one of the most talented players in it.

    Frankly, just who do you think you are to effectively dictate who can and cannot play rugby?

    I am so angry about this that I will now double my donation to his cause.

    In my opinion you really are dangerously undermining the concept of what it is to live in a free and democratic society. I don’t like many views and opinions (including yours), but the principle of a democracy is that we can voice our views. What you are trying to do, however, is censor and suppress views you don’t like – it is basically social engineering!

    I sincerely hope Israel successfully challenges you in the courts and wins. For my part, I will keep supporting his legal fund until he succeeds.

    Kind regards

    Simon

  136. Iampeter

    They’ve a right to do what they’ve done, but that doesn’t mean it was wise to.

    You’re right of course. They don’t need the drama and probably want this to just go away ASAP.

    Great to see libertarians aligning with corporations over the rights of individuals.

    Very strange ideology.

    Urgh, cringe.

    There is no conflict between the rights of individuals and corporation. Obviously.

    What’s actually very strange, is to see how many politically illiterate leftists, like Infidel Tiger, spend their time on a right wing blog, embarrassing themselves trying to discuss politics.

  137. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    None (and others above): As you can tell I don’t believe that Izzy is in fact running this charade. Now, it appears, we have plain evidence. The man is in fact a willing promoter of gay rights and interests: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/margin-call/ra-adviser-has-form-with-folau/news-story/6e47ed2aa47c6db24d01234a7c16a68f

    Speechless. HE MUST GIVE THE MONEY BACK>

  138. John A

    Elderly White Man From Skipton #3058265, posted on June 26, 2019, at 7:59 pm

    It would appear now that any remarkably well-paid person who gets fired for breaking the terms of a contract on any grounds that may appeal to some niche religious grouping (cashed up) can expect to raise $2m in quick time to “fund” their legal claims.

    He has not as far as we know breached his actual contract terms (to do with playing in the team), despite the RA statement copied by Simon above. RA is using the Code of Conduct to define a posting as a private individual (albeit with a public profile), posted without reference to RA or the game as if it was a sackable offence of bringing discredit on RA and the game of rugby. Note also that he has a separate somewhat public profile in his lay preaching activities outside the game of rugby.

    So the legal question hinges on the extent to which employment contracts can overrule and encroach into a person’s private life without consequences (legal or financial). The fact that some of Izzy’s actions distress some people is fluff – gracious me, he is paid to play so as to distress the opposition by having them lose the game!

    Another aspect of the issues not canvassed in that Simon Longstaff article but visible in the reproduced image of the Biblical quote is the unanswered question: what of the other sins quoted: lying, drunkenness and theft, for example? Where are the distressed and offended examples of such sinners? RA has made this a VERY selective and discriminatory case.

  139. Iampeter

    what of the other sins quoted: lying, drunkenness and theft, for example? Where are the distressed and offended examples of such sinners?

    Probably because even the simplest person knows that those actions will ruin your life. There’s no need for supernatural babble to explain why they shouldn’t be done. No one disagrees on those points.

    But comparing self destructive acts and criminal acts with sexual preferences and other beliefs (atheism is listed a sin that will take you to hell, LOL!), is the mark of evil people that want to control other peoples lives. Not to mention, very unintelligent people who don’t grasp what the subject of morality is even about.

    On that note, it’s funny that Slimy and Dishonest Scumbags, didn’t make that list of “sins.”
    You know, people that will be asked by their employer to stop causing them problems, commit to doing so and then go back on that commitment.
    The kind that will continue to make this commitment, while refusing to sign to it and make it official.
    The kind that will shake on it, but then go back on it again and again.

    Where do these kinds of people go?
    Oh never mind. Those are the kind of people that make good Christians, right?

  140. John A

    On that note, it’s funny that Slimy and Dishonest Scumbags, didn’t make that list of “sins.”
    You know, people that will be asked by their employer to stop causing them problems, commit to doing so and then go back on that commitment.

    I thought that was called “lying”. Maybe that’s been expunged because so many politicians and high-flying business & media types get away with it, so it can’t be called “self-destructive” and “criminal” anymore. Or do you simply have a comprehension problem?

  141. Iampeter

    Oops you’re right. Liars is indeed on the list.

    Maybe that’s been expunged because so many politicians and high-flying business & media types get away with it, so it can’t be called “self-destructive” and “criminal” anymore.

    Lying can definitely be called self destructive, but that doesn’t make it criminal.
    It’s a different topic, but you don’t know why certain actions are criminal and why others aren’t, do you?
    You guys really have no idea how anything works, huh?

    In any case, I trust I’ve explained why people aren’t worked up about the idea of liars and thieves going to hell, as opposed to people with merely different lifestyle choices?

  142. WHO cares

    So fizzy is going to free Australian’s so can say what we want .
    Well I can say Poo poo poo, But I would not be stupid enough to say Poo Poo if my Employer who pays me one Million a year and asked me not to say it as poo poo poo offends our customers who pays the bills.
    Fizzy you do not have to save me as I am average Joe blow, I can almost say what I like but I am a decent person and I am part of a multicultural and multi religious and non believer Society and respect words have a lot of power and I am care full with this Word power.

  143. Roger

    Great to see libertarians aligning with corporations over the rights of individuals.

    Very strange ideology.

    Indeed.

  144. WHO cares

    I don’t think I am aligning my self with corporations over the rights of individuals , we all have freewill not to sign the contract and there fore not take their money if we do no not agree with the term and conditions .

  145. Rupert

    Given all the recent obscene hate mail including death and bomb threats against ACL, Folau supporters etc.. the gays (who ironically preach tolerance and acceptance) have at last revealed their true colours and outed themselves as THE single most vindictive intolerant hate-filled minority group in the country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.