Folau: Competing Interests are at Stake

The Israel Folau saga is a complicated mess and is not as simplistic as made out.

It is easy to jump on the free speech and freedom of religion bandwagon but this is mostly about an employment contract. Which is to say this also a debate about freedom of enterprise and the rights of organisations.

In this case it is complicated by the fact the enterprise in question is a monopoly and it is part business, part administrator and part regulator. This makes the penalty on Folau extremely harsh because he is effectively being denied employment in Australia by a kangaroo court that is judge, jury and executioner.

Notwithstanding the above, a critical issue in this case is what rights does an organisation have to hire and fire and under what circumstances?

If a business believes that a particular person would be a bad cultural fit why should they be compelled to hire him/her? If an employee upsets customers or sponsors causing commercial harm why shouldn’t the business be allowed to fire the offender?

While people should be free to practise their religious beliefs in private, pontificating on social media makes your private life public, and if your public life comes into conflict with your working life is it really that unreasonable for an employer to take action?

This is where Folau has come unstuck. If he had confined his view to church preaching to the converted he would have been fine. That said, I maintain that if you don’t like Folau’s views you are free to ignore his social media content. You don’t have to read it and be offended. So I am conflicted on this one.

That said, I don’t believe you can hide behind religious freedom, say what you like, and be immune from the fallout. This becomes obvious if take Folau and christianity out of the equation.

Instead lets consider a hypothetical case of a rugby player called Ali.

Ali is a devout muslim and likes to share his religion on social media. He posts on Twitter:

“If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be stoned to death.” 

He gets called up by Rugby Australia to explain himself. He says he is just being a good Muslim. He defends his post on the grounds of religious freedom. He argues that Islam views homosexuality as a crime and he is merely quoting from the hadith, i.e. words attributed to Muhammad.

Rugby Australia tell him that his religious views are offensive to many people including its players, sponsors and fans and demand that he stop.

A few months later Ali posts another quote from the hadith:

“If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

He gets hauled up again by Rugby Australia to once again explain himself and once again Ali claims religious freedom arguing that he is merely quoting the words of Muhammad. He says he will continue to express his deeply held religious beliefs, so Rugby Australia sack him.

I am wondering under this hypothetical scenario whether quite so many media commentators who are sympathetic to Folau would be as sympathetic to Ali? I am wondering whether the argument about freedom of religion would extended to this hypothetical case? After all, both involve quoting religious texts they claim as sacrosanct. I seriously doubt it.

Hence, I don’t think the right to religious freedom is as absolute or as straightforward as people make out. If a court was to rule that quoting from a religious text makes one more or less untouchable watch out. The Christian lobby should also be careful about what they wish for in terms of religious discrimination laws.

The Folau case is ultimately about competing freedoms and how we reconcile rights and freedoms at an individual level with rights and freedoms at a collective level, and in particular whether the expansion of corporate policies to include social justice causes violates principles of freedom of association (for and against).

Hence, the main issue as I see it is that companies are increasingly defining their brands or tying their brands to political and social justice causes that have little if anything to do with their core business or express purpose for being, and are then using those social justice causes to strip employees of their of their basic individual rights, or worse still effectively enslaving their employees to their own political causes (e.g. Qantas staff being coerced into wearing SSM rings).

In relation to Folau, the argument is that same sex relationships have nothing to do with the core business of playing rugby and the express purpose for which Rugby Australia exists. To deny Folau employment violates his right to freely participate in the sport of rugby and hence is to also deny him employment. To unjustly deny someone “membership” is to take away their right to freely associate with a particular organisation.

Rugby Australia will presumably need to clear a pretty high bar to establish a link between Folau’s views on same sex relationships, which have nothing directly to do with playing rugby, and the impact his comments have had on their core business of sport and rugby. To do so it will presumably need to establish damages directly caused, or foreseeable to be caused, by Folau (e.g. loss of sponsorship, loss of club memberships, loss of crowd attendance, loss of players).

I don’t think they have a great case (from a moral or logical point of view, which granted has nothing do with law) but I do think they have an arguable case. If they didn’t then our hypothetical Muslim player Ali would be free to spew toxic bile to the rugby community at large with religious impunity and employers faced with hostile employees on a whole range of issues would be powerless.

For example, I would be sympathetic to a Jewish kosher deli owner terminating the employment of a noisy, Green BDS activist that was killing his business. I would also be sympathetic to a renewable energy company firing an employee that rose to public prominence as a skeptic calling for an end to climate subsidies. This is because the respective employee’s actions do have a direct impact on the respective company’s core business. That is fair and reasonable.

If you ask me Folau is bit of a goose and to the extent he is the pin up boy for free speech and religious freedom he is an accidental martyr that arrogantly bumbled into something bigger than himself, corporate bullying, which does impact on a free society. We better hope for a very sensible judge that carefully frames and balances the competing freedoms at stake.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

153 Responses to Folau: Competing Interests are at Stake

  1. If you’re suggesting that no person can say anything, anywhere, other around their kitchen table (if that); for if it offends someone or some group, they can complain to the person’s employer and have the person sacked.

    Your attack on the beliefs of Christian and Muslims has offended me. I request Sinclair terminate your ability to post on this forum.

  2. Jock

    The difference between the Muslim post and Folaus is that the Muslim posts are of course extremely violent. A call to repent otherwise you would not enjoy Gods grace but rather go to hell (which is not a place but rather being without god). No violence, no insult.

    Also I understand Folau went to pains to only post on his own church accounts and these had nothing about Rugby.

    So that raises the question. Where does work stop. Where does my private life begin. If for example I am a card carrying member of a Climate Sceptic organisation and “like” a blog post of theirs. Will I be hunted out by my employer AGL or Origin or the Australia Institute or James Cook Uni?? At work I say nothing. But outside I have my own thoughts.

    This is a conundrum for companies etc. It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with it.

  3. Muddy

    How did Folau’s contract define ‘disrepute?’
    How has case law defined disrepute, and how has it been measured?

  4. pete m

    Nonsense this is about Christians and not Ali. It covers all religious practise versus employer mandating what is allowed to be said.
    You bet RA would have ignored the Ali ones. In fact in trying to create a hypocrite out of us you just prove how hypocritical RA and the rest of the gaystapo have been when it comes to that faith.
    How dare any employer say to employees you cannot express your faith on social media. F off!

  5. JohnJJJ

    I got no problem with Ali. If they were that honest, we would know where they stand.
    This has to do with belief and the liberal view that it can all be accommodated in a society. It can’t.
    All the gobbledygook about rights and freedom is just undergraduate cheap chardonnay.
    We tolerate other faiths and beliefs as long as it doesn’t interfere with our belief, which, like it or not, is Christianity.
    AR leadership and the rest of bureaucratic cage are so used to pushing people around, compromising any morals they may have had, they just don’t know how the handle it.
    This is fundamental. It won’t go away.

  6. DaveR

    Notwithstanding the above, a critical issue in this case is what rights does an organisation have to hire and fire and under what circumstances?

    And you should have added:

    What right does an organisation have to override an employee’s fundamental rights under law?

  7. GC

    ‘Ali’ is advocating violence. Folau is not.

  8. Tezza

    I think Ali should be free to preach from his holy book, and free to play rugby. Because he is advocating people be stoned to death, I think he should be arrested and charged with inciting violence.

    See, for example, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-threaten-or-intimidate-someone/

    There is no comparison between Ali’s and Israel Folau’s actions.

    All we need to do is to abolish s18C and remove the leverage for people to compete in being thin-skinned and taking offence at commonplace views.

    I agree with your identification of the evils of CEOs using public companies as their personal fiefdoms, and their staff as serfs.

  9. Robbo

    What is interesting to me is that the ARU have, allegedly, been told by major sponsor Qantas to dump Folau or they will dump their sponsorship of the ARU. If that is correct then it is nothing more than standover bullyboy tactics bordering on blackmail. Those in charge at Qantas should be concentrating all their time and energy on running their airline business. Sticking their noses into social issues, no matter how personally involved they may be, has nothing to do with the business and certainly their sponsorship power should not be used as they are, allegedly, doing to run Folau out of playing rugby. Therefore this does come down to the basic issues of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Persecuting someone and removing their right to earn a living because you do not like what they say or the religious beliefs they have is an abuse.

  10. Davey Boy

    x is cool, dontcha know, and we’re all expected to celebrate it, even in the workplace, lest we be branded y

    Too bad that a majority of people Might be very Uncomfortable even thinking about x, yet are repeatedly told they must accept, respect and celebrate those who practise x Because being branded y Will see you out of your livelihood.

    (Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to solve the above equation for x and y)

  11. Goanna

    Pontificating?

    You give yourself away.

  12. Karabar

    There is no similarity in the case of Israel Folau and your hypothetical.
    The reason is that Israel’s quote from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is an invitation into the Kingdom of Christ, so long as a sinner repents and ceases his misbehaviour. It is not a threat. Rather it is a warning. It is more akin to advertisements that warn “don’t drink and drive”. Both are messages that specific behaviours lead to misfortune. In a very real sense it is positive reinforcement. One can avoid misery in the afterlife by refusing to continue to sin and repenting sins committed. All people are sinners.
    In your hypothetical case, the message is clearly that unwarranted behaviour by an individual will result in death in this life by lapidation, of not only the perpetrator but the victim as well. This is clearly a threat to the well-being of a person in this life as opposed to anything that might happen after death. As such this is an obvious compliance with the law of the land.
    Your other examples have to do with discrimination. Such violations that are dealt with by the human wrongs commission are illogical. It is not logical to hire a Muslim to teach in a Christian school, or a Jew to teach in a madrassah. As for “renewable energy”; it is illogical in its own right.

  13. Tezza

    Incidentally, if Rugby Australia tries to prove loss from the Folau case, they will have to face the fact that they are losing crowds not because of what Folau said, but because of what they did to him.

  14. YoungParisian

    The difference being is that Folau didn’t call for homosexuals (the focus always seems to be on them – haven’t heard a peep from thieves, liars and drunks etc.) to be stoned to death or harmed in any way. In fact, he called for them to repent and be saved. And if you believe in that, good luck to you; if you don’t, ignore him!

  15. Wayne From Perth

    Folau is suggesting a punishment in the hereafter which is only an issue if you believe in the hereafter.

    Your Ali is suggesting a death sentence in the here and now.

    I consider there is absolutely no comparison between these two.

  16. A Lurker

    Wise words found on an internet meme:

    “Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God in which you do not believe, said in a book you did not read, that unless you repent of the sin you do not care about, you will go to a place you do not believe in.”

    p.s. Ali, in your analogy, would be wishing harm on actual living people – which is rather different to warning of consequences in the afterlife.

  17. none

    Rugby Australia does not own Instagram and has no jurisdiction over that platform. If rugby Australia wanted to post pictures of naked rugby players on Instagram as a promotional exercise they would find themselves flatly banned.
    The content policing on that platform is done by Instagram and so far no one has breached their terms of service.
    If rugby Australia wants to argue that Instagram represents part of their workplace then I would argue they’ve been very negligent in providing a safe workplace given the amount of abuse Izzy has copped on that forum.
    Was Izzy sacked because of that post? Everything points to yes even if I can’t exactly figure out what exactly the breach was. Was that post a form of religious expression? From where I sit the person, content, immediate, broader and historical context, and intent all say yes.

  18. BoyfromTottenham

    If Folau had written a letter to a newspaper saying the same thing he said on Twitter and had it published, would RA (and Qantas) have reacted the same way? If not, why not?

  19. Frosty

    Comparison between Folau and mythical Ali is very poor, as Tezza and Wayne From Perth have already pointed out. I hear that the government are planning to introduce legislation guaranteeing religious freedom. Will be interesting to see exactly what that legislation entails. Don’t particularly like they idea of having stuff legislated. Whatever happened to Common Law and Common Sense?

  20. Iampeter

    This is a pretty good post, but it still gets the fundamental question wrong. You say:

    The Folau case is ultimately about competing freedoms and how we reconcile rights and freedoms at an individual level with rights and freedoms at a collective level

    All of this is wrong.
    There is no such thing as “competing freedoms.” Freedoms do not clash with freedoms. That’s the point.
    Rights and freedoms do not need to be reconciled. Rights protection IS freedom.
    Freedom at the individual level does not conflict with freedom at the collective level. Again, that’s the point.

    In short, the only question that needs to be asked is, do you understand that rights are a freedom of action?
    Once you understand that, you will understand that no one has a right to a job, so firing someone is not a rights violation and should be perfectly legal.
    The end.

    But because no one understands how rights work and why that’s important, just like you can haul someone to a Human Rights Commission for hurting your feelings, so can haul someone to Fair Work for firing you.

    I will not bother going into the staggering ignorance, from even professional conservative commentators, who have all gone on in on the side of Folau and therefore against free speech, property rights and individual rights, marking themselves out as the clueless leftists they’ve always been.

  21. Russell

    Does anyone else think it odd that Folau is perfectly within his rights to speak in the caring public space of his church but not granted those same rights in the wonderful world of “social media”? The latter surely has a more vile and despicable communication reputation compared with any Christian church.

  22. Iampeter

    Rugby Australia will presumably need to clear a pretty high bar to establish a link between Folau’s views on same sex relationships, which have nothing directly to do with playing rugby, and the impact his comments have had on their core business of sport and rugby. To do so it will presumably need to establish damages directly caused, or foreseeable to be caused, by Folau (e.g. loss of sponsorship, loss of club memberships, loss of crowd attendance, loss of players).

    They should go on the offensive and look into the possibility of a counter lawsuit, accusing Folau and ACL of defamation and incitement. Proving damages caused to their business by this circus shouldn’t be too difficult.
    But like all of today’s businesses, they are just abuse victims and will probably be mealy mouthed and apologetic through the whole thing.

    It’s good that this has finally gone to trial, because these shake downs almost always settle outside of court, as businesses don’t have time for this. Now there’s a chance that a proper precedent can be established protecting individual rights, not the group rights of religious people, like conservative SJW’s would like.

    Having said that, there’s every chance it’ll go the other way too.
    Like I said, today’s businesses are not used to fighting for their rights, since not even the supposed “capitalists” of the conservative movement will have their backs. They may lose. Bigly.

  23. Justinian the Great

    Tezza, I am not saying the comments are equivalent. Far from it. I deliberately escalated the hypothetical to be consistent with religious beliefs but comments that would be considered unacceptable. I am only saying that the resort to religious freedom and quoting sacred texts (i.e. bible and Hadith) is equivalent which therefore implies that unless as a nation we are going to affirm the primacy of Christianity over Islam then a defence based on religious freedom is not very helpful and fraught with danger. It is precisely because this amounts to incitement of violence but is also orthodox Islamic belief that running an argument in Folau’s case about religion is not particularly helpful. The issue that a number of people have failed to grasp thus far is about competing freedoms and where the boundaries are set. Total freedom is anarchy so is a pointless debate. The issue is where do you a draw a line between legitimate corporate (including I might add the thousands of small business owners that are most vulnerable to all this) interests and freedoms versus individual freedoms. In a civil society respect needs to flow both ways and there will always be a need for give and take. Anarchy might be absolute freedom but in the words of Hobbes it is also “nasty, brutish and short”. This is an employment dispute and there is an important balance that cuts both ways.

  24. a happy little debunker

    But imagine how little brouhaha if the same said ALI warned,

    Under the auspices of my faith those participating in Sodomy would be put to death.

    And then later,

    Take heed and be warned that the un-remorsed activities undertaken as per the residents of Lot will result in righteous anger & divine retribution from the heavens.

    In both instances Falou advised those identified to repent and allow jebus to save them, in the latter he warned of the divine consequences (in the former he was a tad more direct, as was the question put to him).

    In my last workplace ‘religious diversity’ actually meant that if a person had to pray ‘6 times a day to the west’ or wear some special form of headgear to meet the obligations of their faith, then the workplace would accommodate their needs – and this was for frontline counter staff.

  25. Charles

    There is no comparison between the two, Ali is inciting violence and hate, Israel Folau was putting out a friendly warning and showing compassion and concern.

    In my view, the list of sinners in Folau’s post was written 1500 – 2000 years ago and designed to cover everyone, because when I look at the whole list I do not know anyone who doesn’t fit one or some of the categories. He does not denigrate anyone on the list, he does not single out any particular category, he just advises them they must seek redemption if they want to sit at the right hand of God. It applies to everyone including himself.

    If he had said all men, women and children must repent or they’ll go to hell, then you could bet your best dollar some rug rat would have piped up and said ‘why are you picking on me?’ Or in this case some gay bloke running a big business who is on a hair trigger for finding offence where none might necessarily exist has found fault with it. That’s just humans being humans.

    In addition he had 300 plus posts up on his Instagram, they had to trawl through them all to find this one, so I hardly think you could call it high level proselytising.

    It’s a simple case that we have corporates and sporting bodies who think they must promote a social agenda (re: Gillon MCLachlan last weekend) and they believe they can use their resources to enforce their political and social views on their employees and customers. Once you’ve been to a few Welcome to Country ceremonies (a faux ritual dreamed up by a couple of aboriginal comedians in the ’80’s), you’ll work out who is having the last laugh here.

  26. Nighthawk the Elder

    I am wondering under this hypothetical scenario whether quite so many media commentators who are sympathetic to Folau would be as sympathetic to Ali? I am wondering whether the argument about freedom of religion would extended to this hypothetical case? After all, both involve quoting religious texts they claim as sacrosanct. I seriously doubt it.

    And I’m wondering if all the self righteous woke brigade currently condemning Folau and now even his wife for daring to “stand by her man” would have the cohones to condemn the mythical Ali? I’d bet they would cower under their blankets whilst publicly dismissing it as just irrelevant social media noise.

    Hypocrites.

  27. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    On the goose front, let’s note that the same Folau was fronting promotion of the Bingham Cup – played for exclusively by you know whoms.
    On the freedom front, let’s note that the guy continues to make similar comments freely.
    On the Christian front, let’s note that quite a few prominent Christians have taken exception to his views.
    On the contract front, let’s note that this was a second occasion and he had given undertakings to his employer that he would note repeat such remarks.
    Like Justonion, the Grate, I await similar $2m gifts to Muslims and Buddhists who run up against the Folau issue.
    It’s a trope.

  28. I_am_not_a_robot

    The freedom of speech matter depends on contractual obligations that will ultimately be resolved one way or another by the courts.
    The Christian Lobby claiming the ‘freedom of religion’ defence has me puzzled.
    As far as I can recall the only occasion in the Gospels, i.e. accounts by eyewitnesses, when Christ mentioned anything to do with sexual behaviour was to admonish those preparing to stone the woman taken in adultery because of their hypocrisy.
    Instead of following the simple precepts contained in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance the parable of the Mote and the Beam, self-described ‘christians’ scour the Epistles (Paul was born after Christ’s death) for references that they think confirm their deep prejudices.

  29. Jock

    A thought just occurred to me. Companies employ people on the basis of a “fit” set of criteria. But in Rugby that comes down to physical talent. Lets face it if Warne couldnt bowl he would have been pushing a broom at the Council. The “fit” criteria in rugby or any sport is can you play the game really really well. The rest is an add on.

    But if a Company employs say a climate sceptic unbeknownst to it because the person wants a job. Is that lying? As an old fart these things were not even thought of when I got my first job in 1977. But now, is the company accepting that 50% or more of their employees do not agree with their recently changed “values”. Are the employees lying or has the company changed the ground rules for what is acceptable in its own eyes. Its complicated by technology and social media these days. Companies and others can find out about what you do or say online. They spy on you. Muddy raised the issue of what disrepute meant? I can posit that RA was bringing the game into disrepute by not being inclusive of christians or spying on Folaus social media pages or not being truthful about being inclusive when they clearly arent or changing the values to suit themselves but not allowing players the right to disagree or abjectly following sponsors orders but not the players or the patrons. They would of course argue otherwise.

    Fascinating stuff. I could be a lot older by the time the courts sort it out.

    BTW if this is disrepute and gets you the sack, then all of those Wallabies, and All Blacks and Lions from the 70s. 80s and 90s should be properly investigated. They better hoped what was done on tour stayed on Tour!!! But things will out even now.

  30. Publius

    I’ll type this slowly so the author can understand.
    An employer is free to fire ANY employee they want. Just for pleasure. Just for spite. Because it’s a Tuesday in May. Just pay the contractual dolleros.
    Pls explain why RA did not just pay out the best rugby player of his generation per the terms of the contract?

  31. Again, iamwithpeter.

    Freedom is freedom is freedom.

    Folau’s freedom of speech and expression has not been curtailed by the ARU. His freedom of speech at the expense of the ARU has been curtailed.

    And the ARU is not a monopoly as evidenced by the fact that Folau has played for great sums for both the NRL and the AFL. Not to mention there are plenty of other jobs out there – TAFKAS read this morning that the unemployment rate is 4%.

    And @Russell:

    same rights in the wonderful world of “social media”?

    Social media is a private square and not a public square. The owners of whichever site can let him in or throw him out on whatever terms they choose. If throwing him off damages their business, that is the price and their choice.

    This is not about religious freedom. This is about religious privilege.

    Folau can say whatever he wants, short of inciting violence or other criminal action, all day every day. What he can’t do is expect people he works for to carry the can for it if they don’t want to. And it would be just as wrong for the state to force the ARU to do so as much as it was wrong for the state of Colorado to try to force Jack Phillips to bake a cake for a gay wedding he did not agree with.

  32. @Publius

    Just pay the contractual dolleros.

    The ARU believed that they did pay what was required under the contract. Folau disagrees. The Federal Court will arbitrate.

    PS Folau is also seeking damages – he wants the ARU to compensate him for his lost sponsors rather than going after the sponsors. He is doing this be cause his legal team presumably believe that he does not have a leg to stand on for that one. One imagines that ASICS and Landrover have deeper pockets than the ARU.

  33. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The Artist Formerly Known As Spartacus
    #3065164, posted on June 28, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    Again, iamwithpeter.

    Freedom is freedom is freedom.

    Are you kidding?

    On a previous thread, he said employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason.

    When challenged if that meant the employee actually following the contract, he dodged the question.

    He is a concern troll trying to make libertarian ideas distasteful, and nothing more.

  34. @Frank Walker from National Tiles

    TAFKAS has not and does not read every post and comment on this site so does not necessarily endorse or agree (or dis-endorse and disagree) with every comment.

  35. Getting impatient

    I won’t be bothered by Ali’s Hadith quotes as Islam is an idiotic religion anyway. He has a right to express his belief no matter idiotic and repugnant it may be.

    I’ll be bothered if he converted his quotes giving the impressions of a clear and present danger , directed at a specific individual. That’s the limit of religious freedom for me.

    Nothing of Folau’ s instagram posts were inciting violence, unless someone has evidence that there’s such a place called hell raging with fire and brimstone. Besides, his posts were not directed at a specific individual.

    Atheists homosexuals couldn’t have it both ways, not believing in Christianity’s assertion of hell and getting offended by something they don’t believe anyway.

    In the same way that “homosexuality advocates” say people should not mind what people do in their bedrooms, I’d say employers shouldnt snoop on what their employees say in their private lives in their own time. Private lives include Folau expressing his religious belief in the church and then a journalist reporting it in the media.

    Qantas should get their butt out of this issue. Even people that believe in hell fly on Qantas.

  36. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    PS Folau is also seeking damages – he wants the ARU to compensate him for his lost sponsors rather than going after the sponsors. He is doing this be cause his legal team presumably believe that he does not have a leg to stand on for that one. One imagines that ASICS and Landrover have deeper pockets than the ARU.

    No.

    This is what happens with economic torts such as inducement to breach, relational loss and tortious interference.

  37. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter is always pulling this kind of shit. It is not a one-off thing.

  38. @Frank Walker from National Tiles

    This is what happens with economic torts such as inducement to breach, relational loss and tortious interference.

    Perhaps. But general legal strategy is to drag in the people who have the deepest pockets. Not to mention that those sponsorship terminations would have also been with the context of contractual relations.

    It is also possible that the contractual drafters for ASICS and Landrover were better than the ARU. But such details is not public-ally available.

  39. Publius

    TAFKAS- if RA thought that, they would not have offered him $2m which is actually a sum of money they cannot afford. They hoped to get away with a cut-price deal but got called. That’s what happens when you bluff and the other player knows it and calls you.
    Izzy’s sponsors pay him to play top flight rugby and then be seen with their logo; ie the sponsorship is downstream from his playing. Try and keep up buddy.

  40. Diogenes

    I would have no issue if Izzy had been sacked for putting on social media that the ARU is run by a mob of incompetents, or that ref of the last game was a bald headed flog, or the opposition ‘s captain’s mother was hamster and smelled of elderberries or if he said he would never fly QAINTARSE because the seats are too close together, or don’t use HCF because they denied his last claim, ie directly bashing his bosses, the game or sponsors.

    As a natural person, he should have more free speech rights than a corporation, and able to comment on anything that is NOT illegal, without fear of punishment from his/her employer. OTOH corporations must be obliged to follow the law in regards to EEO, but be banned from making public comment or supporting any organisation that advocates for any social position, be pro/anti gayness, pro/anti transgenderness, pro/anti abortion , pro/anti metoo etc

  41. Infidel Tiger

    Once again we see “libertarians” siding with corporations over the individual.

    They have replaced the State with corporatism.

  42. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Yes. Iamputrid is a “libertarian”.

    I am a libertarian.

    See the difference, IT?

  43. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Perhaps. But general legal strategy is to drag in the people who have the deepest pockets.

    Um yeah little buddy you actually have to sue to the tortfeasor and not innocent third parties if you want a judgment in your favour.

  44. @Frank

    See the difference, IT?

    Actually TAFKAS does not. Is he missing something.

    TAFKAS has been (in his opinion) unjustly and incorrectly hit by iampeter also. But he agrees with him on this one.

  45. none

    Diogenes

    #3065185, posted on June 28, 2019 at 5:42 pm

    I would have no issue if Izzy had been sacked for putting on social media that the ARU is run by a mob of incompetents, or that ref of the last game was a bald headed flog, or the opposition ‘s captain’s mother was hamster and smelled of elderberries or if he said he would never fly QAINTARSE because the seats are too close together, or don’t use HCF because they denied his last claim, ie directly bashing his bosses, the game or sponsors.

    If only.

  46. @Frank

    Can we take pls iampeter, Folau and Ali out of this. It is the principle at issue.

  47. Caveman

    Peter Beattie (NRL) doesnt have anything to do with Izzys contract and has denied him work . Izzys on field performance is not in question although the way some of the soft cock wallabis are making out he was to blame for their poor performance from his postings.

    I dont know why you would belittle him, by calling him a goose,hes making a stand and is prepared to hold his ground. More power to him, im prepared to put in additional coin for him.

  48. Craig Mc

    Ali is a devout muslim and likes to share his religion on social media. He posts on Twitter:

    “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be stoned to death.”

    This is a poor analogy, because this statement could reasonably be construed as a threat to kill.

    Whereas saying someone will go to a hypothetical hell in a hypothetical afterlife is merely empty postulation.

  49. Publius

    Caveman- when you add up all the ‘pro-active nay sayers’ it prob meets the threshold of conspiracy to deny ones civil rights. Batty is a spineless worm. Time to drag him into this as well. Let them all pay with their budgets depleted. Can’t cause trouble when they are all broke and unemployed.

  50. Natural Instinct

    If a business believes that a particular person would be a bad cultural fit why should they be compelled to hire him/her? If an employee upsets customers or sponsors causing commercial harm why shouldn’t the business be allowed to fire the offender?

    But Rugby Australia is a government supported monopoly, so it not as if RA is an “employer” in the ususal sens of the word and the offending employee can find a job somewhere else.
    Does this matter?

  51. Roger

    Spectacularly missing the point.

    Is Justinian a Liberal Party member?

  52. Sinclair Davidson

    Not sure. To my mind the issue here isn’t the hypocrisy of lefties vis a vis Christianity and Islam.

    The principle is to what extent your employer owns your soul (bad terminology I know) as opposed to renting your physicality or human capital?

  53. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    I don’t trust the courts they are infested with career leftoid activist judges

  54. Lee

    It’s good that this has finally gone to trial, because these shake downs almost always settle outside of court, as businesses don’t have time for this. Now there’s a chance that a proper precedent can be established protecting individual rights, not the group rights of religious people, like conservative SJW’s would like.

    Utter bollocks.
    The left has a complete monopoly on “SJWs”.

  55. Some History

    Can anyone make sense of this?

    According to RA CEO, Castle, and she’s now on the public record for making this claim, Folau’s termination had nothing to do with his religious beliefs or their expression in public – “he’s been posting religious material freely and openly over the last few years”:

    “I thought I could offer some clarification on where Rugby Australia stands,” Castle’s statement read.
    “I want to make clear that Rugby Australia has acted with complete professionalism and integrity at all times through the process by which Israel was found, by an independent three-member tribunal panel, to have made multiple, serious breaches of the Professional Players Code of Conduct.
    “The panel found the breaches constituted a high level and directed Rugby Australia to terminate Israel’s contract.
    “This is an employment matter and does not concern his religious beliefs or his ability to express them freely. If some of you follow Israel’s social accounts, you will have noticed he has posted religious material freely and openly over the last few years.
    “The media attention it has garnered is obviously distracting as it means that we aren’t talking about, and celebrating, all the great things going on in our game.”

    https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/rugby-australia-chief-executive-raelene-castle-addresses-israel-folau-saga/news-story/f86088cc378eca7aceb2fbf4ad93ec03

    Castle is claiming that his high-level violations of the player code of conduct have to do with something other than his religious beliefs/socia media postings. But what is this “something else”? Am I reading this correctly?

    Folau surely must have been informed why he was being sacked, what violations he was being charged with. He seems convinced that it had to do with a religious post that included a reference to homosexuals. The vulgar, obscene pile on that has occurred over the last few months involving social commentators and large corporations (e.g., ANZ) that has attempted to character-assassinated Folau and get his wife, Maria, sacked, too, seemed to be driven by the belief that the violation(s) concerned Biblical references to homosexuals. Quantas (major sponsor of RA) CEO, Joyce, seemed to be convinced that the violation had to do with specific religious post that included a reference to homosexuals. Joyce even refers to Folau’s social media post as a wrongdoing (producing “controversy”) on a par with the recent wrongdoing of ball-tampering in the cricket:
    https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/outrageous-qantas-boss-alan-joyce-responds-to-explosive-folau-allegation/news-story/d9ad04a6f6debbb268f0faf871ca06b3

    All of these believe that it has to do with this social media posting. Yet Castle is saying, no, it doesn’t have to do with that. It has to do with something else altogether. Someone is lying here. Or maybe Castle still doesn’t understand the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    Who to believe? Hopefully this will all come out in the wash in Federal Court.

  56. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Ali is a devout muslim and likes to share his religion on social media. He posts on Twitter:

    “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be stoned to death.”

    This is a poor analogy, because this statement could reasonably be construed as a threat to kill.

    Whereas saying someone will go to a hypothetical hell in a hypothetical afterlife is merely empty postulation.

    it makes no difference in oz, as the homosexual protected class may not be vilified, the definition is basically disparaged in anyway.

    NSW anti-discrimination law defines vilification as a public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people because of the above characteristics.

    these protected class homosexuals are now above and have more rights than ordinary non protected-class citizens who can be disparaged, insulted, ridiculed and humiliated.

    Even pointing out that protected class homosexuals are a protected class could be seen as encouraging hatred and thus an act of vilification and thereby an illegal act.

    sick to death of hearing about lgbtqp+ shit. the marxists that passed this law should be on the end of piano wire.

    The vilification law only covers acts that are in public. It does not cover acts that are not public, for example abuse over a back fence that no-one else can hear.
    Public acts could include the following:

    remarks in a newspaper, journal or other publications
    remarks on radio or television
    material on the internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter
    graffiti
    putting up posters or stickers
    verbal abuse
    making speeches or statements
    making gestures
    wearing badges or clothes with slogans on them.

  57. @Sinc

    Yes. This is a challenging issue and not one for the heavy hand of the state. Rather than have a Religious Rights Commissioner, let’s just get rid the AHRC and associated legislation.

    The principle is to what extent your employer owns your soul (bad terminology I know) as opposed to renting your physicality or human capital?

    Don’t like the contractual terms – don’t sign.

    We can have a debate about workers whose labour is more fungible and there is/may be a power asymmetry.

    Consider it from a risk perspective also. If Folau did not want constraints, he would have had his rem adjusted down. He wants to have his cake and to eat it. And like Jack Phillips, he wants to force the ARU to bake it to his specs.

  58. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Castle is claiming that his high-level violations of the player code of conduct have to do with something other than his religious beliefs/socia media postings. But what is this “something else”?

    Because he has scored the most tries ever in Super Rugby.

  59. Tim Neilson

    As far as I can recall the only occasion in the Gospels, i.e. accounts by eyewitnesses, when Christ mentioned anything to do with sexual behaviour was to admonish those preparing to stone the woman taken in adultery because of their hypocrisy

    And then he said to the woman “go and sin no more”.

    The passage is a crystal clear endorsement that there is such a thing as a moral code and that God commands us to obey it. Are you seriously suggesting that it’s wrong for a Christian to encourage people to follow God’s commands?

    (Paul was born after Christ’s death)

    I don’t think that’s right. There’s actually no clear evidence either way as to whether Paul actually ever saw Jesus during Jesus’ earthly life. As best I recall there’s one passage in Paul’s letters which implies that he did, though certainly isn’t conclusive.

  60. Roger

    Can anyone make sense of this?

    In the dim recesses of Castle’s mind Folau should have tempered his social media posts to reflect RA’s doctrines of “inclusion” and “diversity”.

    At the time she said , “Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.”

    In short, she thinks an employer has the right to determine what freedom of religion and speech means, not the law, which is corporate over reach.

  61. Perth Trader

    Some History, Your missing nothing. I think Castle is playing ‘deflection’ here and trying to drum up new allegations unknown to all parties.

  62. Roger

    Don’t like the contractual terms – don’t sign.

    And if the contractual terms or your employer’s interpretation of them don’t abide by the law?

  63. Roger

    The freedom of speech matter depends on contractual obligations…

    The opposite, in fact: contracts must reflect legal protections of freedom of speech and religion.

  64. Perth Trader

    [ Don’t like the contractual terms – don’t sign.]

    Sparticus, Thats silly. If a employer wants me to work 100 hours a week at $10 a hour and he sacks me for falling asleep on the job , its he who broke the law, not me.

  65. Some History

    If anyone wants a look at the Professional Players Code of Conduct that Folau has allegedly “fallen foul of” (high level violations), you’ll find it here:

    https://australia.rugby/about/codes%20and%20policies/integrity/code%20of%20conduct

  66. Dr Fred Lenin

    Well the PC lying is having its plannned effect,detroying criticism of the march to global crony capitalist /communist domination . The old Roman “divide et impera “ move , divide and rule .
    If Folau doesnt like poofs hes got millions of mates of many religions and non religous too who agree , ,probanly more than those who do ,mussos teach them to fly from tall buildings and theres no mention of that .why ? Because mussos bite back and the left are cowards. Get over it Snowflakes .

  67. Tim Neilson

    PS Justinian, good post, even if I don’t agree with all of it.

  68. I_am_not_a_robot

    Tim Neilson @ 6:38 pm
    You are correct, I was thinking of his reported conversion.

  69. Tel

    Don’t like the contractual terms – don’t sign.

    The contractual terms would be fine … if the management followed their own rules, and if it wasn’t applied by an “independent” one sided committee with a guaranteed outcome based on political correctness.

    Problem is that words like “discrimination” can be interpreted rather randomly. If you were literally to say no discrimination whatsoever then I could demand to play rugby for Australia tomorrow.

  70. Beachcomber

    Castle is claiming that his high-level violations of the player code of conduct have to do with something other than his religious beliefs/socia media postings. But what is this “something else”?

    Cruella deRugby is saying that it is OK to for practicing Christians to express their faith publicly, BUT, they must never criticize homosexuals. They must never say anything negative about sodomites and sodomy. She won’t say it directly, because this is actually very disturbing and unacceptable for many people. The sordid consequences of forcing people to endorse sodomy through legal ‘marriage’ are becoming more apparent.

  71. JohnJJJ

    Perhaps everyone needs to understand belief. It’s not contracts, not freedom, not rights,… You saw it all when ISIS destroyed the combined armies of Iraq and Syria. 5000 of them was up against almost a million. Belied and faith strengthens through adversity.
    Belief is why you think the sun will come up in the morning. Why you think your typing will produce comments on this site. There is no proof, you just believe it will happen. Why? Because it fits with your hope.
    Folau has faith in what he wrote.
    That is it.
    Now what do AR and the rest of the circus have faith in? Their minds are an inchoate mishmash of opinions and superficial entrée. A desperate attempt to keep QANTAS and their dinner companions happy.
    Faith rules brothers.

  72. Some History

    In short, she thinks an employer has the right to determine what freedom of religion and speech means, not the law, which is corporate over reach.

    So it does have to do with his religious beliefs and their expression on social media. As long as his posts don’t conflict with RA “values”, he does have religious freedom. When there is a conflict, e.g., homosexuality, he does not have religious freedom. So her public statement that Folau’s termination had nothing to do with his religious beliefs/expression is a load of crap.

  73. Nob

    Have hotels started removing Gideon’s Bibles and Korans from their rooms yet ?

    Vulnerable people could read these things!

  74. Nob

    After booking the room wth Qantas points!

  75. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    LOL @ nob.

  76. Old School Conservative

    Some History
    #3065247, posted on June 28, 2019 at 6:33 pm
    Can anyone make sense of this?

    According to RA CEO, Castle, and she’s now on the public record for making this claim, Folau’s termination had nothing to do with his religious beliefs or their expression in public – “he’s been posting religious material freely and openly over the last few years”:

    For all the quadrillion interpretations of the saga, the simple fact is that Israel mentioned homosexuals.
    That’s all there is to this whole imbroglio.
    He must be destroyed.

  77. A Lurker

    For all the quadrillion interpretations of the saga, the simple fact is that Israel mentioned homosexuals.
    That’s all there is to this whole imbroglio.
    He must be destroyed.

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.” – Quote, author unknown.

  78. Some History

    homovexuals – men that are annoying.

    lespians – B-grade actors

  79. Beachcomber

    Old School Conservative at 7:18 pm and A Lurker at 7:20 pm

    Exactly

  80. Publius

    Think it’s imp to note for the benefit of the ‘don’t sign if you dont agree to the terms’ crowd…Israel insists no such restrictions exist in his contract.
    Given that RA and Castle literally haven’t said a consistent thing so far in this saga, Israel has steadfastly maintained this and the 5 part Daily telegraph story also said the same; that they wanted to insert said restricting clause post execution of the contract and Falou wasn’t having a bar of it.
    Ps. This isn’t an employment contract dispute. It’s a culture war wearing a costume. Think we all know that except a couple of really thick libertarians on this blog.

  81. Dr Fred Lenin

    I see one of the US decromat presidential contenders promises free abortion for transgender men ,tht would be the cheapest political promise ever ,if it werent for th administration costs. The dickhead who proposed this was actually applauded by the idiots in the audience ,and no other contender challenged him !,would you believe it ? . Wonder what the deranged turnbull s involvement in this was ?

  82. Roger

    So her public statement that Folau’s termination had nothing to do with his religious beliefs/expression is a load of crap.

    Yes.

    Not only is she an ignoramus out of her depth, she is accepting extraordinarily poor legal advice.

    RA is going to rue her appointment.

    A massive mea culpa will be required just to begin to restore confidence in their administration.

    Or, they could double down on their idiocy, which will be a test for the LNP government, a major source of their funding.

  83. Beachcomber

    Publius at 7:36 pm

    This isn’t an employment contract dispute. It’s a culture war wearing a costume.

    100+

  84. Some History

    So let me get this straight. There are corporations galore bending over backwards (or forwards most likely) to gain the approval of the Gaystapo which gets them a “Rainbow Tick”. Said corporations then treat the homosexuals as a fully protected class – no-one is permitted to say anything unfavourable about them: Rainbow rights trump all other rights.

    WHAT A MESS!!!!

  85. jupes

    I am wondering whether the argument about freedom of religion would extended to this hypothetical case?

    The obvious difference is that one is advocating the murder of homos and the other is trying to save them.

    But that aside, here we see the problem with I*l*m*c immigration. Their stupid “religion” is inherently violent. They are just sitting quietly at the minute, not poking their head up, waiting for Folau’s case to result in religious protection laws that they will use against us.

  86. The BigBlueCat

    Some History
    #3065271, posted on June 28, 2019 at 6:52 pm
    If anyone wants a look at the Professional Players Code of Conduct that Folau has allegedly “fallen foul of” (high level violations), you’ll find it here:

    https://australia.rugby/about/codes%20and%20policies/integrity/code%20of%20conduct

    I’ve read it. I am astounded that RA is relying on that. In their handling of the matter of Folau, they have breached their own code of conduct clause 8.1.

  87. Iampeter

    On a previous thread, he said employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason.

    That’s correct. If you disagree that’s fine. But it means you think people have a right to a job, which means you are on the left wing side of politics.

    When challenged if that meant the employee actually following the contract, he dodged the question.

    What kind of a challenge is that? I don’t even know what that means.
    Accusing me of dodging a question is also pretty dishonest.

    He is a concern troll trying to make libertarian ideas distasteful, and nothing more.

    I’m not a Libertarian. Neither are you. You’re a confused leftist.

    Iampeter is always pulling this kind of shit. It is not a one-off thing.

    Pulling what kind of shit? Knowing what I’m talking about and making right wing arguments on what is meant to be a right wing blog?
    Guilty as charged, I guess.

  88. J.H.

    Your hypothetical is apples to oranges Justinian…… Folau did not advocate the stoning of anyone. He quoted scripture that simple says homosexuality is a sin and that sinners go to jail… It includes drunks, adulterers, etc too. Saying someone is going to hell for their sins in not the same as saying the worldly penalty for sin is death.

    …. and now that You have put this matter forward as concerns the Political ideology of Islamofascism. Your hypothetical is exactly why Islam is a political ideology and not a religion….. Just like Communism shot those who tried to leave its oppression, Islam also shoots those who try to leave its oppression.

    Folau and the Christians aren’t shooting anyone, indeed Christian doctrine espouses that Christians must denounce the Sin, but love the Sinner.

    This is an open and shut case of Folau’s religious freedom and Rugby Australia’s code of conduct….. and there is no mention of religion in that code of conduct.

  89. Iampeter

    Don’t like the contractual terms – don’t sign.

    Also, don’t like your place of employment – resign.

    I mean just think about this case for a minute…
    No one was forcing him to work for a salary of over a million dollars at that notoriously bigoted organization of Rugby Australia. What hell that must’ve been!
    In fact, it was so bad, that Folau did not even resign.
    He had to be fired. Practically dragged from the place kicking and screaming, leaving grooves from his fingernails in the floors and walls.
    That’s how much he couldn’t wait to get out of there.

    Now he’s taken them to Fair Work for a nice pay day.

    Makes sense.

    Like I said, if RA had any guts, they’d be the ones suing here.

  90. Michael

    The comparison I like to use is less with Islam and more with Scientology.
    If a certain Tom were to warn me on his Instagram that I won’t move on to the after life unless I participated in auditing and expensive self improvement courses, his opinions would be water off a duck’s back to me. I may think he was a bit loopy, but I’d still go and watch his movies because I enjoy them, I think he’s a good actor and I can differentiate between the artist and the character.
    So too should Izzy have the ability to air his beliefs publicly, and I still be free to watch him play rugby because he is one of (if not the) best players in the world. His thoughts, whether private or made public, and his ability to play a sport and represent his country are independent.
    By definition, Folau’s post has condemned me on a couple of counts, unless I repent, but I’m not complaining. And for the record, I have pledged to fund Izzy’s case via the ACL, as I am free to do.
    As the industry super funds may say: compare the pair. Kurtley Beale and his history of controversy: still playing. Israel Folau tweets (no assaults/drunkeness/drugs etc.: sacked.

  91. Some History

    Like I said, if RA had any guts, they’d be the ones suing here.

    Are you spending too much time on your head, i.e., upside down?

  92. mh

    It seems no one is listening to Dear Leader

    I think that the issue has had enough oxygen

    —Prime Minister Scott Morrison

  93. JohnJJJ

    Publius at 7:36 pm
    This isn’t an employment contract dispute. It’s a culture war wearing a costume

    More than that, it is a war of belief and faith. Contracts, freedom, rights, blaah de blaah – all that works when society is of a similar faith. People are so immersed in it , they don’t realise.
    This is asymmetric warfare.
    On one side a person who is strengthened by adversity. 2000 years of history with martyrs and saints to assist. On the other are figment people without inner strength, hired by HR departments, they are simulacra, NPCs, relying on ‘what people think’. Chaotic, worried, non-ethical, confused, bureaucratic, ultimately pathetic, they are dead in the water. I know the sort. They have the strength of a single sheet of wet toilet paper.
    If it was on Sportsbet, I’d put $10oK on Folau to win.

  94. Infidel Tiger

    Hey Nigga! Don’t like the terms? Fuck off and die!

  95. Buccaneer

    Talk about whether or not an employer has the right to dismiss Folau for any reason is fatuous. We have workplace law in this country, Folau has a contract with his previous employer who contends they have enforced the contract to terminate his employment. He disagrees and the case will likely be tested. No one here knows what the contract says.

    This case is interesting because it really is a test as to whether or not someone can say something unfashionable and be punished for it.

    Why do I say unfashionable and not offensive? Folau did not exclude anyone, he did give a warning for their actions and a pathway to redemption, to join him in his heaven.

    The problem for Folau is this, I like getting drunk, my version of heaven doesn’t include not getting drunk, so I wont be joining him there, that would be hell for me. I rather suspect that any committed homosexual person would likely feel exactly the same way. I also suspect a large part of the AUstralian population who have been named in the list likely feel the same in some way or another should they think about it. Had this been handled better by the offenderatti, Folau would be just another religious nut job and the gay community would be “one of us”. Now Izzy has $2mill in his skyrocket and a serious legal challenge on the horizon for RA.

    The problem for RA is that no one is proposing Folau be prosecuted for hate speeech or any other actual offence. They simply claim he offended a section of the community by saying something mean, he claims he restated a passage in the bible.

    Folau may still lose, but Nick Phipps was recently fined for peeing on a bar while dressed in an animal suit by RA. He still has a job. Hard to see an objective court being able to back up such a big contrast in outcome.

  96. Max

    Folau is like the doctor who tells people they have cancer and points them to the only cure but also warns them that if they don’t take the cure they will die. Ali is like a doctor who tells people they have cancer then takes a knife and instead of cutting out the cancer, cuts their throats.

  97. J.H.

    Grrr… correction. “Folau did not advocate the stoning of anyone. He quoted scripture that simple says homosexuality is a sin and that sinners go to jail”
    Sheesh….. I meant to write, sinners got to Hell… not jail.

    Comment writing during rugby league half time is not the best idea…. sigh.

  98. mh

    Iampeter
    #3065382, posted on June 28, 2019 at 8:55 pm
    On a previous thread, he said employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason.

    That’s correct. If you disagree that’s fine. But it means you think people have a right to a job, which means you are on the left wing side of politics.

    Iampeter argues that not believing that employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason equals believing that people have a right to a job.

    Just silly word games inspired by ideas of Ayn Rand that nobody here cares about.

    Even Ayn Rand had to leave her fantasy world when she got clobbered with the reality bat. That will happen to Peter eventually.

  99. Sheesh, the idea that someone modelling themselves after Justinian the Great would write this paen to anti-Christian appeasement is shameful. Although, during the Nika riots he did need Theodora to provide some backbone.

    Folau is damn well entitled to freely exercise his religion as he sees fit, provided he advocates no violence.

  100. rickw

    While people should be free to practise their religious beliefs in private, pontificating on social media makes your private life public, and if your public life comes into conflict with your working life is it really that unreasonable for an employer to take action?

    You can express your views privately or publicly, what sort of logic makes a distinction?

    Your public life is not secondary to your working life, we are not slaves.

    The apparent conflict has been generated by the employer, Folau did no more that quote The Bible, and a quote that did no more than point out a long existing set of rules.

    What a load of rubbish this article is!

  101. Chris M

    Once again we see “libertarians” siding with corporations over the individual.

    Indeed, they both love to censor alternative views.

    Hell awaits the anti-Christian censors? Like Israel’s post hat pre-supposes you know what hell is of course…

  102. none

    The rainbow tick sounds awfully like halal certification.

  103. Perth Trader

    Why achieve Rainbow Tick accreditation?
    LGBTI people have the same right to access services as anyone else within the Australian community. However, not all service providers understand or respond well to the needs of the LGBTI community. For some LGBTI people, the experience of exclusion and discrimination can contribute directly to poorer health and well-being, particularly mental health.

    The Australian Human Rights Commission states that ‘respect for human rights is the cornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feel included.’

    Research in Australia and globally demonstrates that LGBTI people have poorer health outcomes than the general population because of the discrimination that they experience. In terms of mental health in particular, LGBTI people experience markedly higher levels of depression, anxiety, emotional distress and for some, self-harming and attempts of suicide.

    The actual or perceived discrimination by services also means LGBTI people are more likely to avoid or delay seeking care. Consequently, LGBTI health consumers want to know that they can access services where their sexual orientation or gender identity and/or intersex status will be valued and where service providers understand their needs.

    Becoming Rainbow Tick accredited with QIP supports organisations to reassure members of the LGBTI community that they will be welcomed and provided with LGBTI-inclusive care and support in a safe and quality-focused environment.

    Rainbow Tick provides a benchmark for LGBTI inclusive practice throughout Australia.

  104. Perth Trader

    Sorry its so long. I didnt know this existed.

  105. Leo G

    While people should be free to practise their religious beliefs in private, pontificating on social media makes your private life public, and if your public life comes into conflict with your working life is it really that unreasonable for an employer to take action?

    A policy only to hire Christians who don’t express Christian faith is a policy not to hire Christians.

  106. Publius

    ‘…at that notoriously bigoted organization of Rugby Australia’.

    I wonder if you need a bit of a rest. It seems that you are rambling incoherently like a man possessed. Can you please provide a scintilla of evidence that Israel has called RA or anyone at all bigoted? Have you had the privilege of hearing him in private that you know it ‘was so bad’? That a man who took such obvious pride, respect and joy in wearing the green and gold jersey felt like he was being forced to play for his rice bowl?
    What else do you know that would enlighten us all. Please write an essay length tell-all article for our benefit or take a chill pill and space out till this blows over.

  107. none

    That lgbti tech stuff is absolute codswallop. No federal law discriminates against govt not a single one. How it started removing any remaining discrepancies among I think about $49 and then Kevin Rudd finished the job. Even when these factors were bleating about marriage equality there was no marriage inequality. Marriage law was not dependent on your sexual preference. Even Tanya Plibersek accepted that. This notion now that they’re being discriminated in services as stuff is bullshit. As it is ABS stats show that homosexual couples have higher than average education standards and higher than average incomes, we have openly gay politicians, ministers, mayors and we have openly gay ceo’s so they are not being discriminated in the workplace. As to the the idea that there are psychological basket cases there is no proof that it is directly related to anything but their own personal issues. If anything suicide is more of an issue among men in general and for particular groups like ex-servicemen regardless of sexual preference.
    This absolutely fascist idea of a glbti tick should be resisted just as the halal certification should be resisted. It is a disgraceful and discriminatory initiative promoted by activists.

  108. none

    That lgbti tech stuff is absolute codswallop. No federal law discriminates against govt not a single one. Howard started removing any remaining discrepancies among I think about 49 laws and then Kevin Rudd finished the job ( the gay lobby and activist light Rodney croome had promise that they would make no further demands if these changes were made as they effectively made glbt couples equivalent in law with non glbt couples but of course they lied). Even when these f***** were bleating about marriage equality there was no marriage inequality. Marriage law was not dependent on your sexual preference. Even Tanya Plibersek accepted that. No federal law discriminates against glbt people and all businesses are required to follow federal law.

    This notion now that they’re being discriminated in services is stuff is the stuff of authritarian bullshit.
    As it is ABS stats show that homosexual couples have higher than average education standards and higher than average incomes, we have openly gay politicians, ministers, mayors and we have openly gay ceo’s so they are not being discriminated in employment all access services that enable them to do so well.

    As to the the idea that there are psychological basket cases there is no proof that it is directly related to anything but their own personal issues. If anything suicide is more of an issue among men in general and for particular groups like ex-servicemen regardless of sexual preference.

    This absolutely fascist idea of a glbti tick should be resisted just as the halal certification should be resisted. It is a disgraceful and discriminatory initiative promoted by activists based on half truths and outright lies.

  109. none

    Why is Australian rugby being run by two New Zealanders?

  110. Jannie

    none
    #3065502, posted on June 29, 2019 at 12:02 am

    Why is Australian rugby being run by two New Zealanders?

    You have hit on it. They are deep state undercover saboteurs working for the All Blacks.

  111. Ian

    Having read all of the comments, one stands out, Michael at 9.14pm, he has it in a nutshell.

  112. The BigBlueCat

    The Artist Formerly Known As Spartacus
    #3065164, posted on June 28, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    This is not about religious freedom. This is about religious privilege.

    Folau can say whatever he wants, short of inciting violence or other criminal action, all day every day. What he can’t do is expect people he works for to carry the can for it if they don’t want to. And it would be just as wrong for the state to force the ARU to do so as much as it was wrong for the state of Colorado to try to force Jack Phillips to bake a cake for a gay wedding he did not agree with.

    I agree that the issue is not about religious freedoms – Folau can say what he likes, where he likes, and seems more than capable of defending what he says. And speech generally may have consequences if it breaks the law (eg. incitement to violence). It shouldn’t have consequences if someone is merely offended by it. It’s more to do with the question of whether the expressions by Folau are a high-level breach of RA’s code of conduct or not. And high-level enough to warrant contract termination. Folau isn’t admitting he’s breached the code of conduct (why would he?) – so this is a contractual dispute based on the application and interpretation of the rules that govern the sport and the conduct of its participants.

    It has nothing to do with religious privilege. That Folau’s post was religious in nature and RA saw it as a breach of their code of conduct doesn’t necessarily make RA anti-Christian – just intolerant of certain expressions contained within the Christian faith. Folau has no more rights or privileges as a Christian than any other player and isn’t demanding it either. All he wants is the same treatment as anyone else – that is to be treated fairly, and under RA’s own code of conduct, have his religious views respected.

    The state only acts as an independent adjudicator in the matter between Folau and RA, as the contract will state under which jurisdictions any dispute may fall (both parties will have agreed to that). They shouldn’t force Folau to remove his post unless it is egregious (which it isn’t in my view), or force RA to reinstate him against their will. This is a civil action that amounts to damages – has RA terminated Folau’s contract unlawfully? And if so should Folau be compensated and/or apologised to?

  113. John Comnenus

    The reason you find this issue complex is because you are both ignorant and an idiot. You are ignorant of the facts, Folau’s post was on a Christian social media channel, so it was like saying it in Church. It may have even been a private page. You are an idiot because saying you should stone a sinner is potentially incitement to murder which is a crime. Folau was saying if you don’t repent you will end up in hell in the afterlife, which is not a crime, not even potentially a crime. Ali is saying you should be stoned in this life. Our laws and courts have jurisdiction over this life, but none over the afterlife, if such a thing exists. Folau was referring to the afterlife.

    You clearly think that just because you work for the man, he can dictate every part of your life, what you can say, what you can do, regardless of whether you are at work or not. And how could Folau go to Church when his boss disagrees with what is preached there? Surely he will say things in a group there that the boss might find offensive.

    This is a form of slavery or serfdom where you are permanently indentured to your boss. In America where they have the 1st amendment this would not be complicated, even for your simple mind, because they believe in freedom of speech.

    Unlike you, the netball people have learned from the epic idiocy of the ARU. They effectively said what our players do on their own time with their private views is their own business.

    I wonder where you work Justinian? Does your boss approve of all your posts here? If not, you are suggesting he should be able to sack you because you are not a good cultural fit or your views are contrary to his or her corporate right think. No wonder you use a pseudonym.

  114. PB

    “In America where they have the 1st amendment this would not be complicated, even for your simple mind, because they believe in freedom of speech.”

    True, but I’m convinced that their is now an active generation of Americans who no longer understand what that is, hence the epidemic of digital “doxxing” of anyone who steps outside the tent of socially-regulated opinion.

  115. Win

    If Rugbywin this will it set the precedent for all employers to spy on their employees private lives. Next thing they will be employing private detectives surveillance cameras and tracking devices on cars. Seems the Rugby crew are one step away from the Stazi .

  116. Iampeter

    Once again we see “libertarians” siding with corporations over the individual.

    They have replaced the State with corporatism.

    Deep stuff.
    Always good to see boomer conservatives spouting teenage leftist talking points.

  117. Iampeter

    If Rugbywin this will it set the precedent for all employers to spy on their employees private lives.

    If RA loses this, it will be a massive blow to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, property rights and individual rights in general.
    It’ll set a precedent that people can’t be fired if they are religious.
    Just another massive blow to our freedoms implemented by the religious leftists of the conservative movement.

    In America where they have the 1st amendment this would not be complicated, even for your simple mind, because they believe in freedom of speech.

    The 1st Amendment restricts the government from interfering in speech and religion, not private actors. Because private actors can’t.
    It doesn’t protect special privileges for Christians, as so many seem to misread it.
    The 1st Amendment properly applied to this case, would be protecting Rugby Australia from you Christian SJW’s.

  118. Anonymous

    An interesting piece, except that you’re forgetting that Qantas would not have demanded Ali’s execution by the ARU, due to their commercial arrangements with extremist islamic regimes.

    This entire shambles was started by Qantas piling pressure on the ARU, because Folau js an easy target.and Alan Joyce is a gay power broker Simple as that.

  119. candy

    It boils down to that contract and whether Folau breached it. Quite possibly not. I can’t see that it has much to do with freedom of speech or anti Christian motives at all.

    If a Muslim player posted something from the Koran about Paradise and 72 virgins, RA might just as well find that a breach of their contract.

    One thing I wonder is if Folau’s legal people believe that by posting some words from the New Testament is not necessarily the same as him posting it in his own words, that he is just copying and pasting in a sense for general viewing. Maybe that is a fine line.

  120. Pyrmonter

    @ Iamp – pip pip.

    @ Justinian. Pyrmonter is nearly completely ignorant of sportsball, and was raised in a state that played another nationalist code*, but does Rugby A have the control of the market its counterparts have? Is the Rugby League not about the closest substitute employer you could find in the fields of sportsball.

    (For the record, Pyrmonter’s childhood SANFL team was Sturt, which could at the time be relied on to be at the bottom of the league table and flirted with that old fashioned, noble idea that the players played for the love of the game, not the money, if only because the club teetered on the edge of insolvency most years).

  121. Ben

    The difference in this example is the advocation of violence.

    Folau repeated the bible’s view that the souls of sinners are going to hell (mythical, fantasy or unavoidable destination – whatever) and that he’ll could be avoided by undertaking Christian repentance.

    That is a long way from affecting an individual’s earthly presence, like stoning would.

  122. Angus Black

    This seems to me not to be fundamentally a religious matter. I’m with RA is seeing it as an employment matter.

    The question is whether an employer (worse a monopoly employer) can reasonably set conditions on what an employee is able/unable or required to do when he is not at work…or, alternatively, this could be formulated as considering that the employee is “at work” 24/7/365 and the only employment available (remember this is a private monopoly employer) requires the employee to be “at work” 24/7/365.

    Remember, this is rugby. The game lasts 80 minutes per week, training and PR simply cant reasonably be construed as taking the remaining 7*24*60-80 minutes of each week.

    The question in my mind is: For a private employer who has monopoly control of an industry is it constitutional and otherwise legal to offer only temporary slavery as an employment contract? It is not clear how, in principle, the contract which RA appears to offer differs from a four year period of slavery (albeit at a decent rate of pay)

    I’d like to hope the High Court will rule on this matter and clarify the situation. I’d also hope that, should RA win, the government might pass laws to make such contracts illegal and ideally go the referendum and make them unconstitutional.

  123. Tel

    It’ll set a precedent that people can’t be fired if they are religious.

    You mean like the law that already exist and has been there for decades? That precedent?!?

    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/protections-at-work/protection-from-discrimination-at-work

  124. candy

    It’s a pickle for RA.
    It seems unsophisticated to think that Folau’s views on homosexuals going to Hell etc represents the views of RA or their sponsors.

    On other hand if a player of a particular culture posted parts of a religious transcript about paradise and vir..ns, or a Mormon player posted statements supporting a return to polygamy, should that be an issue for RA? Or anything controversial along those lines. The contract wording seems at the heart of the problem.

  125. stackja

    Israel in court will be interesting. RA questions?

  126. stackja

    Real Mark Latham
    @RealMarkLatham
    Confirmation Big Corporates are running Rugby Australia: Folau sacked “otherwise we’d have no sponsors at all”
    In fact, biggest sponsors of sport are State/Fed Govts who must intervene to ensure no player excluded due to religious views.

  127. MikeO

    Ali is making death threats this is something that is normally dealt with by our law. A person’s employer stays out of it. Personally I believe if your personal activities do not impinge on your function to do a job this must not impinge. To allow this is a principle has many downsides and must stop. At the moment this seems to apply to sportspeople and politicians. It is quite obvious one or more people were looking for something to bring Falou down. None of us are without fault but if any fault can be used to deny one’s livelihood that truly is the road to hell. I think this is driven by those that hate Christianity and will use anything they can possibly find to attack it. Unless one is convicted for a crime the employer must stay out of it. In the case of Rugby Australia they have given the power to someone else to destroy it. A number of their players are Christian and believe the same there will be people watching and waiting for any comment from confirming this. Then they will pounce.

  128. Rococo Liberal

    The Rugby Union bosses remind me of Groucho Marx
    “Those are my principles, and you don’t like them …
    I have others.”

  129. Iampeter

    You mean like the law that already exist and has been there for decades? That precedent?!?

    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/protections-at-work/protection-from-discrimination-at-work

    That’s the description of the law, not a precedent. Folau should have no case under Fair Work for religious discrimination.
    But, if Folau wins, a precedent will be set that the most nonsensical claims of religious discrimination can now get you money.
    It’ll make it too risky to fire religious people.
    Which means, it’ll be too risky to hire them in the first place.
    Everybody will lose, as they always do when leftists and their ideas win.

    But what’s your position, tel? Do you support laws that prevent businesses from firing people?
    Are you another one of the “capitalists” here that wants to tell businesses who they can or can’t hire and fire?

  130. Tel

    That’s the description of the law, not a precedent. Folau should have no case under Fair Work for religious discrimination.

    So you accept that the law exists, but you don’t like the idea of the law being followed, and you somehow believe that up until now no one else has noticed.

    Did I miss anything?

  131. Iampeter

    Just to add, there are actually very few precedents for these cases precisely because most get settled out of court. This is exactly what organizations like Fair Work and the Human Rights Commission count on.
    These organizations exist to shake people down when there is no legitimate legal case to be made, because no rights have been violated and there are no damages. People just want to sue because, “no fair! waa waa!”

    They don’t want to actually have cases reach courtrooms as that risks revealing what they’re really about.

    This is a very public case, so it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. It could be a chance to really set back these leftist organizations and laws, or it could go the other way and our freedoms will be further constrained in this country.

  132. Iampeter

    So you accept that the law exists, but you don’t like the idea of the law being followed, and you somehow believe that up until now no one else has noticed.

    Did I miss anything?

    Well, you missed the question I asked. Dodged it, in fact.
    You also didn’t know what the differences between “precedents” and “laws” are.
    So, you’re previous post was basically wrong and nonsensical.
    But in true Cat fashion, you’re rephrasing what you’ve said and just doubling down as if my previous response doesn’t exist.

    As for my position, it’s pretty clear: I don’t like leftist laws and want them defeated and repealed.

    Do you disagree? Are you supporting the existence of laws that dictate to business who they can or can’t fire and why?

    Like the many other crazies constantly having a go at me here, what are you even trying to say?

  133. Tel

    But what’s your position, tel? Do you support laws that prevent businesses from firing people?

    First and foremost the existing law should apply to all in a very evenhanded way. This is most important because if there’s easy ways for any group to say, “Oh but this doesn’t apply to me!” then they can use that law to their own advantage without worrying about it biting them. Especially this applies to police, and government administrators, and any nominally private business that collects a lot of government money and has the benefit of a non-competitive position … which is exactly the position RA is in. So that’s the number one priority, force EVERYONE to live with the rules they have made for others. The very worst outcome we can have is selective enforcement used as a political tool.

    Once we apply the law systematically, some people might say, “Oh I think there’s room for improvement we can change this law.” No problem, there’s a Parliament for that and a process.

    Overall Australia puts too many restrictions on business, and we could go through the long list. We also have fairly strict anti-discrimination laws by global standards so if you are looking at places to change the law by all means we could talk about that. Personally I believe in taking incremental steps so get rid of 18c for starters, and abolish the RET which is forcing power prices up, and making trade unions into regular not-for-profit corporations under the standard corporate law would be a good set of changes. Beyond that, cutting government spending would be massively more useful than encouraging business to fire religious people.

  134. Tel

    Well, you missed the question I asked. Dodged it, in fact.

    So here’s the question once again that you dodged: do you understand that Australia has protection against employers discriminating on a bunch of things (including religion) which I linked to above. Yes or No?

    But in true Cat fashion, you’re rephrasing what you’ve said and just doubling down as if my previous response doesn’t exist.

    There’s a link to the FWA website. Is that real? Have you heard of the concept of bringing this thing called “evidence” to a debate? You should try sometime. Might work for you.

  135. None

    The person who created this mess is Raelene Castle because her first instinct was to pick up the phone and ring Qantas less than 24 hours after the Instagram post was published. Look how swiftly, cleanly and maturely the CEO of Netball SA handled it. Yes we are all inclusive but let’s get some perspective and fairness here. People are free to share aspects of their lives with family fans and the public on social media. The really interesting be is whobsnitched on Folau to Raelene.

  136. Tel

    As for my position, it’s pretty clear: I don’t like leftist laws and want them defeated and repealed.

    No problem, there’s a Parliament and a process for that.

    That’s not what you advocate for above though, you advocate that the existing law not be applied in this case, as you clearly stated in Iampeter #3065910, above.

    Do you disagree? Are you supporting the existence of laws that dictate to business who they can or can’t fire and why?

    The existence of the law is what it is, I support those laws being followed for the duration of the time that they exist.

    I guess at least I have finally got you to a point where you admit the law does exist small steps for one day. I do understand that your schtick is to be deliberately obtuse at all times, so it’s a kind of little victory even when you never ever admit you are wrong just because by implication you now do indirectly admit you must have been wrong since you changed your position.

  137. Tel

    The person who created this mess is Raelene Castle because her first instinct was to pick up the phone and ring Qantas less than 24 hours after the Instagram post was published.

    I’m not sure whether a formal discovery process can be part of FWA arbitration. Would be very nice if that happens and the detailed history comes out.

  138. None

    The Gate II is the initiative of the Victorian gay and lesbian lobby. If it’s been taken up officially by any government agency and it may well be in Victoria given that is now a full on marxist-leninist gaystapo state then watch out. It really is nothing more than a weaponized form of halal certification. It needs to be resisted.

  139. None

    Indeed Tel. A bit about Raylene ringing Qantas came out during the code of conduct hearing because that is where the information comes from and Alan Jones quoted it the other night.
    The other thing is that her letter stating her understanding is that Israel’s religious expression must conform to her gay tick agenda more or less suggest that religious expression must conform to political ideology and perhaps she has realised this and is now trying to present this as non religious expression.

  140. None

    Based on the facts in the public square so far my own thought is that someone snitch Ed on Folau and Raelene castle went full knee-jerk and went straight to Qantas now why was she hitting herself so much about Qantas. Because she would have had her ears chewed out in the past or threatened with loss of sponsorship? I very much doubt that sort of stuff will be in writing because m*********** corrupt CEOs and senior managers only issue those warnings and threats through intermediaries and always verbally in situations where it is a he says and she says. It’s a bit like this money offer to Israel to take the tweet down. You can bet that came through back channels.

  141. Iampeter

    Tel, nothing in post #3065945 is in dispute or answers the question I asked.

    You don’t know how to answer what I asked because like the others who get triggered by my posts here, you have no understanding of the subject and can’t state anything clearly.

    So here’s the question once again that you dodged:

    No, I didn’t dodge any questions. On top of being clueless, you are also very dishonest.
    This is not the question you asked. This is a different question. Your first question was nonsensical, although instead of being rude, I still made the effort to post a clarifying response.

    do you understand that Australia has protection against employers discriminating on a bunch of things (including religion) which I linked to above. Yes or No?

    Yes. Much more than you do. And?

    That’s not what you advocate for above though, you advocate that the existing law not be applied in this case, as you clearly stated in Iampeter #3065910, above.

    No, that’s not at all what I said in that post.

  142. dover_beach

    I see IamMengele is, true to form, being a dishonest coward.

  143. mh

    Iampeter
    #3065382, posted on June 28, 2019 at 8:55 pm
    On a previous thread, he said employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason.

    That’s correct.

    Anyone that has worked in a masculine environment such as construction or engineering for even a short time knows that legislated rights and responsibilities of both employer and employee is why workplace loss of limbs or death are not commonplace in first world nations like Australia.

    Iampeter’s fantasies becoming reality would rapidly take us back to a non first world nation where life is cheap. But of course if you don’t like his ideas, you are a leftist. Ayn said so!

  144. Iampeter

    Anyone that has worked in a masculine environment such as construction or engineering for even a short time knows that legislated rights and responsibilities of both employer and employee is why workplace loss of limbs or death are not commonplace in first world nations like Australia.

    That’s right folks. Unions and government regulations is what keeps work sites safe.
    Keeps us as a first world nation, no less!
    Everybody knows this, apparently.

    Can’t see why anyone would think you’re a leftist, mh…

  145. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Anyone that has worked in a masculine environment such as construction or engineering for even a short time knows that legislated rights and responsibilities of both employer and employee is why workplace loss of limbs or death are not commonplace in first world nations like Australia.

    This is left-wing nonsense not backed up by any real-world data.

    Workplace deaths were not common in 1890, 1900, etc.

    India is a socialist country – the Bophal disaster (1984) happened with the company being half owned the socialist government.

    God forbid the workers paradise that created Chernobyl and the KGB covering up electronic switches that never worked.

  146. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3065382, posted on June 28, 2019 at 8:55 pm
    On a previous thread, he said employers should be able to fire employees for ANY reason.

    That’s correct.

    That’s insane, Putrid.

    You’re trying to say employers can breach contracts but employees can’t – are you sure you’re not a far left-wing caricature of a libertarian?

  147. mh

    This is left-wing nonsense not backed up by any real-world data.

    Workplace deaths were not common in 1890, 1900, etc.

    Dot are you referring to the industrialised world or Australia?

  148. Paul Farmer

    This is a great post and a thoughtful contribution . The author is right , there is more here to consider than simply freedom of religion and the analogy he drew of a Muslim is valid. You cannot view one right , freedom of religion in a vacuum without considering other rights and how they might conflict . Freedom of association is just as important a right in our society as freedom of religion and arguably it stands right next to freedom of speech in importance in a functioning liberal and market orientated democracy . The entire basis of our contract law which in turn underpins our entire economic system , collapses without freedom of association that can be enforced by the rule of law. Life is all about trade offs and contracts are about free individuals without coercion agreeing to trade offs they can live with for compensation by the other party .

    There have been far too many right wing commentators with whom I normally agree on most things simplistically arguing this is all about freedom of religion and freedom of speech and Rita panahi is one that comes to mind . She is normally excellent but on the issue here she is wrong . Their simplistic arguments while I have some sympathy for the motivations, are misguided and missing some of the bigger issues at play here around the importance of letting individuals freely agree to their own terms and conditions in contracts and as argued in this piece there are legitimate times when employers need to curb the rights of people they are paying . If you don’t want your rights curbed then don’t sign the contract. For high profile figures like Folau getting paid millions who become ambassadors for the sport in general this is not unreasonable , particularly if your espousing views in public upsetting sponsors who are fronting the cash to pay your salary !

    Folau has every right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and RA acknowledges that . However once he signs a contract of his own free will and agreed to voluntarily by him , emphasis on the word voluntarily ! , he agrees to conduct himself to their required codes of conduct which can be whatever they want them to be and are prepared to write into the contract . That is the end of the story when to comes to freedom of speech and religion which are nonsense arguments and all of these questions dissolve down to simply one of what did both parties actually agree to ?

    Having read the clauses that RA are relying on , and agreeing with their right to protect themselves , I think however they are going to lose simply as a matter of contract law . The clauses in codes RA are relying on are poorly drafted and for mine I don’t see in a strict literal sense that Folau has run foul of them . From the point of view contract law alone I hope Folau wins as RA have unfairly applied their own clauses . Analogies with the Ridd JCU case are large as both are relying on codes of conduct which are implied into the underlying employment agreements where the employer applies these codes in narrow and one sided way . Like Ridds case you could drive a truck through it and if Folau lawyers up well he will probably win .

    The irony here is the very thing that is likely to bring a victory for Folau is our system of contract law which itself depends on freedom of association and the idea that people know themselves what’s in their own best interests and can agree to curbing their own rights if need be if they have an economic rationale to do so .We don’t need big government interfering , let’s the courts sort it out as a matter of contract law and let’s all leave the over the top moral posturing which is usually reserved to the woke left out of this issue .

  149. mh

    India is a socialist country – the Bophal disaster (1984) happened with the company being half owned the socialist government.

    God forbid the workers paradise that created Chernobyl and the KGB covering up electronic switches that never worked.

    Dot, you have got everything ass backwards here. These are examples of nations we do not want to be, and political systems we do not want to have. But we are heading towards that, only more of a Beijing political system. The Folau story makes this crystal clear. There is the state – nothing else exists outside of the state.

  150. Iampeter

    You’re trying to say employers can breach contracts but employees can’t

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. You can’t have contracts that prevent you from firing people.
    That’s called slavery.

    are you sure you’re not a far left-wing caricature of a libertarian?

    You need to take it down a couple of notches. You are a very confused leftist and don’t know what you’re talking about. Only to throw ad hominem at anyone taking the time to explain things to you.

    Calm down.

  151. dover_beach

    You’re trying to say employers can breach contracts but employees can’t

    No, that’s not what I’m saying

    You did indeed, IamMengele. If there is a contract between the employer and the employee then the employer cannot terminate the contract for any reason but only where the employee has breached one of the contract’s conditions, which is the matter under dispute.

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.