Some History: Thoughts on Falou

First some background from the ABC:

“Hopefully Rugby Australia will accept that my termination was unlawful and we can reach an agreement about how they can fix that mistake,” Folau said in the video.
“First and foremost I am hoping for an apology from Rugby Australia and an acknowledgement that even if they disagree with my views, I should be free to peacefully express my religious beliefs without fear of retribution or exclusion.”
Shortly after he made the comments, RA issued a statement saying: “Any suggestion that Rugby Australia offered Israel Folau money to remove a post made on April 10, 2019, is completely untrue.”
The spat will today be heard in the Fair Work Commission — the first step in what appears likely to end in a protracted legal battle in the Federal Court.
Folau brought the action, and wants RA to acknowledge his contract was terminated because of his religious beliefs.
His sacking and the subsequent slanging match has ignited a debate about free speech.
A settlement appears unlikely and the former full-back has already crowdfunded $2 million to pay his legal fees.
RA chief Raelene Castle emailed fans to defend the organisation’s conduct.
“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,” she wrote.
“The panel found the breaches constituted a high level and directed Rugby Australia to terminate Israel’s contract
.”

What is this “Professional Players Code of Conduct”? You can get a copy here.   The section(s) at the root of the problem seem to be (the language is so vague/broad that it could also involve other sections):

Code of Conduct – Players (p.6)
1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

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

These sections are sloppy and incompetent. Although there is a reference to fair treatment of “religious background”, this does not appear to be interpreted by RA as the right to freedom of religion. RA does not acknowledge/accommodate the greater context of rights such as freedom of religion (which includes the expression of religious belief in public) and freedom of speech. No-one at RA seems to comprehend these rights as critical to a relatively free society. In its obliviousness of these fundamental rights, it seems that RA found Folau’s internet posting of a Biblical reference that included homosexuality, and possibly other posts of a similar content, as being unfair treatment of gender or gender identity and sexual orientation, and using social media to do so. In other words, RA interpreted Folau’s posting(s) as “wrongdoing” and, therefore, a violation of the Professional Players Code of Conduct. RA is actually in breach of Folau’s right to freedom of religion, either ignorantly/intentionally.

Worse still is that a 3-member panel that included an experienced lawyer, concluding that high-level violations were committed by Folau, also had no concept of the rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech. As such, any questioning of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. that can be construed as detrimental/unfavourable, whether founded/unfounded, would constitute a violation of the player code. In Folau’s case, he was eventually sacked for these “violation(s)”.

This circumstance at RA, and which may be the case for other codes, is appalling. The wording of the sections in question and the implications in the greater context of rights have not been thought through at all. The result is that RA, in violating the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, has acted as a bully, the very thing that it claims it abhors.

The rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are foundational. The major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) all have issues with homosexuality. These religions have existed for at least 1500 years. In assigning rights to gender/gender identity/sexual orientation it would be understood that on some issues there would be a clash between these newly assigned rights and the right of freedom of religion. This produces a stalemate of rights. In these instances, each side would simply have to agree to disagree. In the instance of someone having no religious affiliation, they may still have questions regarding claims of the LGBTQI lobby, e.g., SSM. Their questioning would be covered by the right of freedom of speech.

Due to sloppy wording and a failure to comprehend foundational rights, RA would find anyone questioning LGBTQI as violating the Player Code of Conduct.

Here is where it goes “pear-shaped”. 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:

“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.”

Castle is claiming that his high-level violations of the Player Code of Conduct have to do with something other than his religious beliefs/social media postings. But what is this “something else”?

Folau surely must have been informed why he was being sacked, what violations he was being charged with. Surely there’s a hard copy of these, including the panel deliberations/conclusions. Folau 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-assassinate Folau and get his wife, Maria, sacked, too, seemed to be driven by the belief that the violation(s) concerned Biblical references to homosexuals. Qantas (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.

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.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Some History: Thoughts on Falou

  1. stackja

    Rugby once we were told it was the game played in heaven.

    Rugby School Motto Latin: Orando Laborando
    (I prayed, I worked / Through prayer I work)

  2. C.L.

    Angry Chinaman Tim Sourpossumass has lashed out at Folau and “free speech” in the SMH:

    Let me speak freely: our freedom of speech ‘crisis’ is culture warriors’ codswallop.

    Everyone stop, and repeat after me: There is no crisis of free speech. Freedom of religion has not been suppressed. Political correctness has not gone mad.

    Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

    He admits that he had hoped that a Shorten government would be jailing dissenters by now:

    Many of us had hoped, of course, that the May federal election would have reset the political debate. That it would have helped put a close to the old, tired ideological contests that have marked the past six years.

    That still seems to be some way off. The Morrison government has yet to find for itself an agenda beyond its tax cuts. It seems content to focus the post-election attention on a Labor opposition still grappling with what it stands for. This leaves a vacuum that culture warriors are only too happy to fill.

    We’ve seen it on the education front, with a push for a free speech code for universities. And then there’s Rugby Australia’s controversial sacking of Israel Folau …

    He wants the black man to restrict his speech to his own home:

    Folau can still say what he likes about homosexuals and sinners. It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make. It’s hard to see how Folau is a victim.

  3. Shy Ted

    Geraldine Doogue’ big, g ay replacement this morning finds some religious lawyer this morning on RN and they compare Aust Christian Lobby to GetUp. Lots of weasel words and circuitous arguments but lawyer just can’t see the problem and won’t be invited back but you can almost hear her rubbing her hands together seeing the coming fees.

  4. None

    And so Souphead just goes to prove some Histories’ point. These idiots don’t understand that you can’t contract away fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion or else they do, but are desperately trying to push the RA argument that this is about employment contract and not religious freedom.

    As an aside: Morrison is muttering about a religious Discrimination Act. Is anyone aa fearful as I am of such an apparatus? Is Christian Porter so dull?

  5. None

    Soupy is Laotian. Given there is no problem in Laos anymore and Soupy quite happily goes home to Laos for visits can we cancel his residence and deport him now on the basis that he is an extreme burden on Australian taxpayers?

  6. Fred

    Complaints by white Australians under s18c (such as David Leyonhelm) get dismissed straight away.

    No doubt under a Religious Discrimination Act, complaints by Christians will be treated the same way.

    A Religious Discrimination Act will just become a weapon for the religion of peace to target its critics.

  7. C.L.

    Soupy is Laotian.

    Whatever.

  8. Tel

    What is this “Professional Players Code of Conduct”? You can get a copy here.

    They try to make it sound like this applies only to players. That’s false … it applies equally to all employees. Discrimination against Folau by putting him out of a job is every bit against the Code of Conduct that all of the RA execs agreed to. The bullying and harassment they have been applying to Folau is also against their own Code of Conduct.

  9. a happy little debunker

    there would be a clash between these newly assigned rights and the right of freedom of religion

    A certain ‘word salad’ lobby group would claim their newly assigned rights overwhelm and overrule all other rights.

    Crikey on a cracker – just yesterday British Men? are now able to access cervical smear tests to address problems with their non-existent cervixes.

    My Advice – Take your word salad and spell something useful!

  10. Robbo

    The whole issue is being covered in bullshit by morons like Soupspoon and others like him when it is clear that this is a case of RA doing the bidding of bullying sponsors like Qantas and ANZ. They have powerful figures at the top of their organisations who do not like what Folau says about homosexuality so they tell RA to dump him or they will dump RA. This debacle is a blatant attack on freedom of speech and no one should be duped into believing that it is not. Folau has said things that I do not agree with but he has every right to say them and I have every right to disagree. Disagreeing with his publicly stated views should never be allowed to extend to denying Folau the right to play rugby because to do so is blatant bullying.

  11. None

    Correct Fred, and who wants another kangaroo Court to administer the religious Discrimination Act. I keep wanting you Morrison is as bad as Turnbull if not worse.

  12. P

    Greg Sheridan covers a lot of ground in his article in the Oz today Israel Folau: errors of judgment (paywalled).

    But even though I think Folau made a couple of mistakes, he is manifestly a good person. He was trying to help people, not hurt them. And the disproportion of his punishment to his offence is absolutely insane. The idea that he should lose his ability to earn a living for the rest of his life for expressing his beliefs is truly shocking. Similarly, that he is censored on social media, which generally runs like an open sewer through society, is grotesque.

    And the double standard in what is tolerated is also manifestly unjust. ABC personality Benjamin Law is generally a civilised person. However, he famously said he would be happy to “hate-f..k” Coali­tion politicians to show them the virtues of gay marriage. He claimed the words had a particular meaning that was not offensive. Many people certainly did find them offensive. Not only did Law never apologise, he was rewarded with new and extra ABC television opportunities.

  13. None

    Good point tell me how do you lodge a complaint under the code of conduct against a RA official and who can Lodge such a complaint? Do you reckon any player would try that on?

  14. dam

    To my understanding as we do not have a bill of rights, we do not have freedom of speech protection (besides political speech)

  15. None

    Between now and when the federal case is heard every luvvie in the media is going to push the contract law line and the “he has free speech he just isn’t immune from the consequences of free speech” line. They will avoid the freedom of religion and religious expression line at all costs. Sheridan has drawn a good analogy between Benjamin Law who actually I don’t find generally civilized (certainly not on Twitter) hate f***er and Folau. They should pile lots of other examples where lefties get away with offensive speech.

  16. `

    Well said Robbo @ 11:17am.

    The fact that Izzy raised 0ver $2M in less than 48 hours is a clear indication that the Quiet Australians are fed up to their back teeth with the posturing, virtue signalling and lecturing by the likes of Qantas, ANZ and taxpayer funded Rugby Australia.

    Just as the AFL, through it’s head Gillian Bouffant, wants to impose some social agenda on fans instead of just looking after the game

  17. candy

    It might be to do with RA worried about being in the same position with a different religion.

    My question is whether we would all hold the same opinions if 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.

    Would freedom of religious expression extend to that? I can see RA’s point of view but would they be consistent with their contracts or choose who to support. Or are we all a bit biased in this regard.

  18. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Well I for one am heartily sick of all this posturing. Folau plainly broke an agreement that arose explicitly from an earlier incident. His principles allowed him to appear in a Bingham Cup promo and to take the RA cash, knowing as he did that at least some part of the money was RA marketing spend.
    No one has said that he may not say what he believes. Rather it would appear that some people demand that no one demur. When the various antagonists exhibit concern for all religious expressions I might turn an ear. Though I have to say that even Christians appear to be somewhat split over this case.

  19. The BigBlueCat

    a happy little debunker
    #3065888, posted on June 29, 2019 at 11:17 am
    there would be a clash between these newly assigned rights and the right of freedom of religion

    A certain ‘word salad’ lobby group would claim their newly assigned rights overwhelm and overrule all other rights.

    Crikey on a cracker – just yesterday British Men? are now able to access cervical smear tests to address problems with their non-existent cervixes.

    My Advice – Take your word salad and spell something useful!

    It’s potentially getting worse in the US … at the Democratic Party debate for their next POTUS candidate, one of them was calling for free abortion for trans-gendered women – that is, free health-care involving abortions for women-who-were-men. You say “crickey on a cracker” – I say FMD!!!

    We are living in a time where the gaystapo will happily see you lose your job, your entitlements, your rights just so they won’t feel offended. They are happy for you to fund their efforts too! In fact, they demand you do. For them, it’s “like us and we’ll like you, hate us and we’ll destroy you”. My, how very totalitarian of them.

    And the double standard in what is tolerated is also manifestly unjust. ABC personality Benjamin Law is generally a civilised person. However, he famously said he would be happy to “hate-f..k” Coali­tion politicians to show them the virtues of gay marriage. He claimed the words had a particular meaning that was not offensive. Many people certainly did find them offensive. Not only did Law never apologise, he was rewarded with new and extra ABC television opportunities.

    How can “hate-f..k” not be hate speech? Benjamin Law is a disgusting weasel … it has little to do with him being gay, but that just makes him all the worse for it. If you want to see real contempt, go see what Dan Savage had to say about Rick Santorum … stomach-churning stuff indeed, but the alphabet-salad set was cheering him on.

    The truth is, the gaystapo are not just wanting acceptance, they are demanding it. They want non-gays to be slaves to their agenda. The sad thing is, many non-gays are doing just that.

  20. J.aramithea

    Where are the churches in all this? The letters of St Paul are part of Christian Scriptures and proclaimed regularly in services. Also where the private schools? In Qld at least, the main feeders into adult Rugby are private schools, most of whom are notionally Christian. Should they switch from Rugby because it holds their foundational texts to be hate speech. Sadly, I am sure that they won’t stand up for their principles.

  21. Folau plainly broke an agreement that arose explicitly from an earlier incident.

    Has any RA employee been advised what this ‘agreement’ was, so that they won’t find themselves breaking that same agreement? Does anyone contemplating employment with RA know what ‘agreement’ was broken so that they can consider whether they are now excluded from applying, because they may have done something in the past that’s considered unacceptable?

  22. Leigh Lowe

    Check your headline.
    Who is Falou?

  23. P

    Check your headline.
    Who is Falou?

    I know this one, ‘easy flower’.

  24. egg_

    “This is an employment matter and does not concern his religious beliefs or his ability to express them freely.

    A total contradiction of a previous public statement.
    RA lawyers have advised: “Deny, deny, deny…”?

    Castle’s “I did not have sex with that woman.” moment?

  25. Karabar

    Robbo at 3065889
    “Folau has said things that I do not agree with but he has every right to say them and I have every right to disagree.”
    Many say they do no “agree”. But what is it that you find disagreeable?
    The Folau tweet that seems to be in question quotes or at least refers to a passage in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
    Is it that you disagree that these thoughts are expressed in 1 Corinthians 6:9. You need only open your Bible and look it up. Or is it that you disagree with Paul’s concern for sinners? Or is it that you disagree with Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians?
    It would not be the first time over the past 2,000 years that people refuse to believe the Word of God.
    But if that be the case, you have nothing to worry about, do you? Until Judgement Day, at least.

  26. egg_

    How can “hate-f..k” not be hate speech? Benjamin Law is a disgusting weasel …

    An ABC stablemate.
    Far Left extremist, much?

  27. A Lurker

    In this brave Neo-Feudal world it is easily to see who are the masters, and who are the serfs.

    The serfs are Christians, male or female, of any ethnicity. The serfs (seen but not heard) must bow down and tug their forelocks each time their lords ride by.

    The lords are clad in resplendent leather and diamante g-strings and chaps, riding upon rainbow unicorns which every step, fart clouds of sparkly multi-coloured glitter into the air.

    Cross them at your peril, for if you do, it is “off with your head”!

  28. Some History

    The truth is, the gaystapo are not just wanting acceptance, they are demanding it.

    The critical problem is that the wanting-to-be-celebrated lifestyle is a house of cards.

    The homosexualists hijacked the word “gay”. It used to be a nice word connoting joy. Then they hijacked the rainbow colours. Then they hijacked the word “marriage”. Then they hijacked the word “phobia” (as in “homophobia”) to deal with “dissenters”.

    If it’s such a grand lifestyle why does it need a thick veneer manufactured through hijacking positive symbols? Highlighted is that the lifestyle is not just sexual but given over to much fakery for self promotion.

  29. None

    “[The alternative] would be that we’d have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort and that includes government, because we’ve also heard from them,” he said.

    “We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we’re not providing a work place that is safe or respectful.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/this-is-bigger-than-israel-folau-ra-chair-opens-fire-20190628-p522d5.html

    Fat chance of the board sacking Raelene in fact they are doubling down. Read the entire article. One would like to ask who they have heard from and what was said by government. or are we talking fifth columnist case typo in some anti discrimination board who has no right to speak on behalf of the government?

    By the same token Christian players like Israel Folau can say that if you believe my social media account is part of the workplace and therefore subject to your regulations then you also have failed to provide a safe and respectful workplace given the abuse easy has popped on social media.

    He then goes on to say he hopes for a quick settlement and remind people of Israel’s promised to walk away from the game if he is hurting it in anyway. The subtext here is that they want Israel to go away and they are prepared to pay for it because they don’t want to go all the way to the High Court. The way I read the Folau camp at this point in time anyway is that they are prepared to go all the way. This is why is he keep stating he has been grateful for the opportunity of playing for his country . It is almost as if he is recognising that he will never played for Australia again regardless. What an absolute outrage is Injustice: the sacrifice on the altar of political correctness and The Cult of Antinous. The only thing that will stop them will be activist federal court judges.

  30. Some History

    Terms such as “homophobia”, “i slamophobia” are concocted. They have no actual meaning. It’s just one example of the bastardizing of language to push agenda.

    Phobia typically refers to an extreme, abnormal/irrational fear; it’s a type of anxiety disorder. An excellent example occurred a few years ago on the Australian “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here”. It turns out that a legend of the sport of cricket is arachnophobic. To his despair, one of the trials involved having a spider (tarantula) placed on his open hand for some 30(?) seconds.

    From the time the trial was announced, the celebrity was in a nasty mental battle. Part of his mind said that it was just a short time to endure the spider; all would be OK. Another part was in utter panic. By the time he had to hold the spider, he was already a mess. But since his successfully holding the spider was to the benefit of all players, hold the spider he did. And he was battling himself all the way through that 30 seconds, at one stage reduced to tears. It took hours after the event for him to calm down. Asked straight afterwards what it felt like, he replied that it felt like he was going to die.

    Phobia involves clinically identifiable psychogenic physical reactions, e.g., heart palpitations, dizziness, shaking. Phobics are aware that their extreme visceral reaction is abnormal/irrational, but the feelings of dread, of impending doom/death are overwhelming.

    Disapproval of homosexuality is not a phobia. People may have coherent ideas for their disapproval. There is typically no extreme anxiety reaction when there is contact with homosexuals. I don’t know of any documented case of anyone receiving therapy for phobic reactions to homosexuals. There is no “homophobia”. It’s contrived. Yet the term is bandied about ad nauseam as if it’s a well understood clinical phenomenon.

    Homophobia is a contrivance by the “gay” lobby. The preference for the term “phobia” is the intent to reduce/dismiss all opposition to homosexuality as irrational. But phobia refers to more than just irrationality as indicated above. Unfortunately, the term is now abused to silence opposition in a variety of areas. Another example is “I slamophobia”.

  31. None

    Sorry my autocorrect has gone bizarre again

  32. Adelagado

    C.L.
    #3065847, posted on June 29, 2019 at 10:52 am

    Angry Chinaman Tim Sourpossumass has lashed out at Folau and “free speech” in the SMH:

    “Everyone stop, and repeat after me: There is no crisis of free speech.”

    It would be hard to beat that statement for irony.

  33. None

    Some History

    #3065998, posted on June 29, 2019 at 12:41 pm

    Another Liberty post Sinc. Let’s not go to the fact that homophobia is a term was originally coined by psychologists in the 60s to refer to self loathing gays.

  34. Tel

    “Everyone stop, and repeat after me: There is no crisis of free speech.”

    You see Tim … the general idea of this “free speech” concept is that other people are not compelled to repeat whatever you tell them.

  35. Tim Neilson

    Folau plainly broke an agreement that arose explicitly from an earlier incident.

    You’re going full [email protected]! here aren’t you? All Folau is asking is the right to test that exact proposition in Court according to the law of the land. What’s wrong with that?

    His principles allowed him to appear in a Bingham Cup promo and to take the RA cash, knowing as he did that at least some part of the money was RA marketing spend

    Exactly! It’s demonstrably false to suggest that Folau has any animus against gays. And nothing in his post suggests otherwise – quite the contrary in fact.

    Rather it would appear that some people demand that no one demur.

    Give me just one example. BTW, “demur” is not a synonym for “deny someone the right to exercise their trade for having expressed their view”.

    When the various antagonists exhibit concern for all religious expressions I might turn an ear.

    OK, give me an example of someone from another religion being punished merely for expressing a view on a purely moral/spiritual issue and any of Folau’s supporters saying that that punishment was a good thing.

  36. Some History

    You see Tim … the general idea of this “free speech” concept is that other people are not compelled to repeat whatever you tell them.

    +1 LOL

  37. egg_

    In this brave Neo-Feudal world

    Narcissistic leadership – “my way or the highway”.
    IIRC a Cat described homosexuality as a form of narcissism and I’ve read that the two are not mutually exclusive in reality.

  38. egg_

    Depends will pick up Qantas’ sponsorship?
    “You never know when you’ll need them” could be their logo?

  39. egg_

    Angry Chinaman Tim Sourpossumass has lashed out at Folau and “free speech” in the SMH:

    Kim Il Sourpossumass is not happy?

  40. None

    Would freedom of religious expression extend to that? I can see RA’s point of view but would they be consistent with their contracts or choose who to support. Or are we all a bit biased in this regard.

    Academics post all sorts of s*** all the time and even publish on it but they don’t lose their job. It just has to be the right leftist sort of s***

  41. None

    So how much is left on the Qantas sponsorship clock until it comes up for renewal next year? 6mill? Sexy are a ball sack Raelene ring bag easy, and I’m happy to ask that my donation to Izzy be sent to ra to make up for lost sponsorship and I’m pretty sure the public or other small businesses or make up all the shortfall. Stipulation is that you just stick to playing rugby and not promote any political or social agenda and stay out of employees and please Private Lives.

  42. None

    Can you foi the government advice given to RA?

  43. None

    Actually didn’t the rugby chamond just vilify or Christian’s by suggesting guys are not safe if someone express Christian belief?

  44. Muddy

    2.2 (e) The burden of proof will be on the party seeking to impose a sanction or penalty on the Participant or Rugby Body (as applicable) and the outcome will be determined on the balance of probabilities.

  45. Muddy

    3.2 (a) vi. the conduct would, if publicly known, more than likely breach Rugby Australia’s core values being Passion, Integrity, Discipline, Respect and Teamwork …

    As Some History has noted above, very few of the terms used are defined, and open to interpretation. I’m by no means legal minded, however I would imagine that the ambiguities will not help Rugby Australia’s case?

  46. Muddy

    I may have missed it, or perhaps there are other documents which deal with this, but there does not seem to be a definition of what type of behaviour constitutes a low, mid, or high level breach of the code.

  47. Leigh Lowe

    C.L.

    #3065877, posted on June 29, 2019 at 11:11 am

    Soupy is Laotian.

    Whatever.

    They all look same.
    ‘Specially fat one.

  48. Entropy

    As an aside: Morrison is muttering about a religious Discrimination Act. Is anyone aa fearful as I am of such an apparatus? Is Christian Porter so dull?

    The biggest problem in modern politics today is that it is chock full of that second most contemptible category of the bottom feeders of the human species, lawyers.

    These dullards’ approach to every single problem is a New Law. Never mind that no one can remember all the laws that went before. The mark of success of course is Royal Assent of the Bill. Then it is time to claim victory and move on. Never concern themselves with how effective it is, or what are the unintended consequences of their Very Important Piece of Paper.

    Mysteriously, the only new laws that seem to ever work as intended are the ones giving the politicians and their mates new sources of feed for the trough.

  49. rickw

    But even though I think Folau made a couple of mistakes, he is manifestly a good person. He was trying to help people, not hurt them. And the disproportion of his punishment to his offence is absolutely insane. The idea that he should lose his ability to earn a living for the rest of his life for expressing his beliefs is truly shocking. Similarly, that he is censored on social media, which generally runs like an open sewer through society, is grotesque.

    Anyone who has been exposed to the full mayhem and madness of the homo lifestyle knows exactly how much these people need help.

    I was discussing this issue with the missus this morning and apparently it is now becoming more and more common for “parents” to designate the sex of a particular child. She knows at least 4 in our immediate area that have done this to children in the 2-5 year age range. I was completely unaware of this.

    Careering down a slippery slope.

  50. Entropy

    The taxpayer will end up picking up the burden of these childrens’ mental issues inflicted by their parents.

  51. Some History

    The [fake] term “homophobia” needs to be addressed by Folau’s team. The term has been heavily worked by the dumbed-down, compliant media. The term is bandied about in formal proceedings. Now going to Federal court, Folau’s team needs to have some experienced professionals in phobia on hand to explain what “phobia” actually refers to and that “homophobia” does not fit. It’s made up, concocted.

    You can do a google search of phobias. There are a number of sites with long lists of phobias. For a recent search of 4 such sites, only one [improperly] listed “homophobia”.

  52. Some History

    You can do a google search of phobias. There are a number of sites with long lists of phobias. For a recent search of 4 such sites, only one [improperly] listed “homophobia”.

    IIRC None of them listed “i slamophobia”, and rightly so.

  53. littledozer

    Folau plainly broke an agreement that arose explicitly from an earlier incident.

    It is not as simple as this.

    All bodies, especially monopolies such as RA write catch all clauses/requirements into their policies such as “bringing the sport into disrepute”.

    The issue is how this is interpreted and as the OP rightly points out even RA own policies are basically a dogs breakfast. In effect the courts must decide if these wide clauses open to interpretation allows termination at the employers or governing bodies behest.

    On balance, do these clauses give too much power to the employer will be an issue.

    The courts need to decide if these catch all clauses pass the “reasonable person test” in relation to contract law and being used to reduce rights to other freedoms around religion and free speech.

  54. egg_

    The courts need to decide if these catch all clauses pass the “reasonable person test” in relation to contract law and being used to reduce rights to other freedoms around religion and free speech.

    Presumably, Folau has had advice in this regard?

  55. Bar Beach Swimmer

    candy
    #3065922, posted on June 29, 2019 at 11:46 am
    It might be to do with RA worried about being in the same position with a different religion.

    There are a number of examples of sporting people expressing religious or political positions who seem to be able to claim a “heigher purpose” without reputational or financial damage. (David Pocock; Fawad Ahmed; Papiss Cisse; the two Rugby League players who would not sing the national anthem; Colin Kapernick).

    In such cases accommodations have been and are continuing to be made for certain people and their circumstances. But only one person of recent times has been sacked for his beliefs and their expression. This person is an outstanding rugby player, a modest man of, by all accounts, exemplary character who has not asked for any special treatment from his superiors like these other cases.
    So it seems that only Christians must answer for affecting team solidarity, for being at odds with the particular heavy-handed COC or, worse still, for upsetting the sponsors and/or related parties.

    My question is whether we would all hold the same opinions if 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.Would freedom of religious expression extend to that? I can see RA’s point of view but would they be consistent with their contracts or choose who to support. Or are we all a bit biased in this regard.

    We have the AFL allowing prayer rooms at the MCG. Dispensations for cricketeers to not have to wear the logos of the products of the sponsor. Rugby League allowing political statements to be made before landmark games. Spectators being “culturally challenged” before, and on occasion, during AFL matches. Not to mention the number of players of all codes and sports for disgracing themselves in every distasteful way imaginable with very little censure from the governing organisation and a path back to playing the game in the no-to-distant future.

    As to the particular image of paradise for certain people or the asymmetry of human connections for others. In the former, the scenario is the afterlife, as long as those adherents do not seek ways to hurry their enjoyment of the promise then no concern. In the latter case, acting out these tenets is illegal under Australian law. And btw, the latter group renounced that particular social setup in the 19th century, so unlikely to be any worries there. It should be that unless a crime has been committed then there is no concern for a sporting organisation. But even then we find that certain codes will ignore the transgression; I’m thinking of the AFL’s three strikes policy.

    Finally, it always gets me that furphies like p01yg4my are proffered as legitimate counters to the right to preach and teach Chr1st1an1ty’s precepts. This is a straw man argument. The right to teach and preach the tenets of a faith should not be expunged because of another individual’s hurt feelings or because of their support for an alternate view. But if those teachings do more and enable behaviours that are crimes under Australian Law, like p01yg4my or underage marriage or encourage and incite vi0l3nce against anyone then that is entirely different. We should always keep in mind that there is a big difference between having an argument about ideas and acting out ideas. That it is people who commit crimes

    This is why the Israel Folau case is so important for all Australians and why his donations exceeded $2mill in just a couple of days. Freedom of speech, freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, the rights of workers to have a private life beyond work are sacrosanct for Australians. While the role of social media to control communication between law abiding people and for government and/or business to exert onerous control over our lives is anathema to all right-thinking Australians. And in these things historically it is the Bible’s teachings that has shown Western liberal democracies the way.

    The politicians are on notice. 18c must go.

  56. Nighthawk the Elder

    Does anyone know if the code of conduct is specifically part of the contract? Or is it one of those catch all HR type policy documents that sometimes get referred to in employment contracts and employers can (and do) change unilaterally and without consultation? Many employers do have codes of conduct and ethics, but are usually not in the contract themselves, rather, they are buried in a statement about abiding by the company’s policies and procedures.

    Could also be a factor in the upcoming court case a to whether he indeed did breech his contract (and had he actually signed on to the specific clauses) or he breeched a policy that is at the whim of RA and was told if he wanted to play he would have to suck it up. I’m no legal expert by any means, and I’m wondering if the courts might not just look at the alleged breech of contract but whether it was a properly constructed contract in the first place. RA may have invited even more scrutiny that they bargained for.

  57. dopey

    The best option now is penalty shoot-out. Castle to kick for RA.

  58. It doesn’t take much to find examples where rugby players have truly done tings that any reasonable person would likely consider those acts as bringing the game into disrepute. However, little has happened except maybe a fine or time off. Just some recent news stories:

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/players-behaving-badly-should-have-pay-limited-stuart-20190313-p513xk.html

    https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/the-66-scandals-in-four-years-that-have-rocked-the-nrl/news-story/61bc26cdb901a29fa70defc8c7ba01b5

    https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/rugby-league-players-behaving-badly/b4d0113c-b8f0-46d4-81d6-9410fb1d428b

  59. Some History

    The homosexualists hijacked the word “gay”. It used to be a nice word connoting joy. Then they hijacked the rainbow colours. Then they hijacked the word “marriage”. Then they hijacked the word “phobia” (as in “homophobia”) to deal with dissenters.

    We could go on. They’ve hijacked the term “gender” and mangled that, too. There’s now an ever-growing list of “gender identities”. There are even those that believe they are past gender and identify as mythical creatures (other kin) such as unicorns and dragons. It’s a derangement-fest. And the deranged want to be celebrated; the greater the derangement, the greater the celebration.

    And corporations have bought into this crap where the crap has been redefined (mangled) as “virtue”. Someone who thought they were working at the ANZ for their banking skills finds that they have to buy into (degrees of coercion) the corporate “virtue”-signalling. Folau thought he was signing up with RA to play rugby but found that he was required to buy into the corporate “virtue” program that has nothing to do with rugby.

    And it doesn’t end with direct employment. Sponsor’s “virtue”-signalling is imposed on the sponsored, e.g., Qantas sponsorship of RA. In the case of Qantas sponsorship of RA, it becomes heavily amplified “virtue”-signalling.

  60. Bar Beach Swimmer

    dopey
    #3066115, posted on June 29, 2019 at 2:50 pm
    The best option now is penalty shoot-out. Castle to kick for RA.

    +1

  61. Some History

    Does anyone know if the code of conduct is specifically part of the contract? Or is it one of those catch all HR type policy documents that sometimes get referred to in employment contracts and employers can (and do) change unilaterally and without consultation? Many employers do have codes of conduct and ethics, but are usually not in the contract themselves, rather, they are buried in a statement about abiding by the company’s policies and procedures.

    I’m no expert either. I think the Professional Player Code of Conduct is a general document covering all staff employed by RA. There are sections in the document pertaining to employees other than players. I don’t think it’s specific to Folau.

  62. MagaRex

    Quite apart from the looming case – where ARU may well lose – there’s also clear evidence already out there, that Folau’s dismissal was determined before the tribunal even met.

    Castle, who is clearly way out of her depth, emailed Qantas’ Vanessa Hudson that Folau was going to be dismissed.
    This was 36 hrs before Folau was informed.

    The entire process was corrupt and this ‘tribunal’ no more than a rubber stamp kangaroo court.

    The fix was in and it’s all going to be revealed. Folau will get the better of this and the ARU are in huge trouble.

  63. stackja

    RA decided to play the man.

  64. None

    Bar Beach Swimmer

    #3066109, posted on June 29, 2019 at 2:44 pm

    +10000000

  65. None

    Some history they will just go buy the ordinary everyday understanding of homophobia and the left has been throwing that term around so much that most people will think it means hating days. Mind you if they were honest it would be a termite racist in that it’s been thrown around so often it’s now meaningless.

  66. It is almost as if he is recognising that he will never played for Australia again regardless…… The only thing that will stop them will be activist federal court judges.

    Sadly, None, it is extremely doubtful that he will ever play for the Wallabies again. The unwise (but deliberate?) criticism of Izzy by Cheika, Phipps & co, surely prohibits his selection in a team of current players. It is also almost certain that UK & other Rugby sides will be too PC to sign him up.

    Perhaps Twiggy Forrest’s new Rugby competition may allow us to continue to enjoy this stunning athlete’s skills. But somehow I think that there are Higher plans for him. And these would elevate him far beyond the sniping, spiteful words of his detractors.

  67. Perth Trader

    It just got worse people…’Skimpies banned at Kalgoorlie Diggers and Dealers Mining Forum’….This has gone to far.

  68. None

    Some History, they will just go by the ordinary everyday understanding of homophobia and the left has been throwing that term around so much that most people will think it means hating gays. Mind you if they were honest it would be a term like “racist”, in that it’s been thrown around so often it’s now meaningless.

  69. JohnJJJ

    Well I convened my own independent three-member tribunal panel. The local council street cleaner, Norm for the pub and one of my neighbours. They all agreed that Folau is correct, that mob go to heel if they dont repent.

  70. stackja

    None – Many words are now meaningless.

  71. Disapproval of homosexuality is not a phobia. People may have coherent ideas for their disapproval. There is typically no extreme anxiety reaction when there is contact with homosexuals. I don’t know of any documented case of anyone receiving therapy for phobic reactions to homosexuals. There is no “homophobia”. It’s contrived

    What a fantastic post, Some History! I have thought the same thing for years. It is really annoying that most people have accepted an incorrect meaning of the term & it has been used so successfully to enforce behavioural change throughout our society.

  72. Leigh Lowe

    Like so many issues recently, this also needs to be viewed through the prism of the election.
    Shorten was going to win, the Happy Clapper ScoMo despatched and there would be no pesky debate about religious freedoms.
    RA probably got a wink-nudge indemnity from the Liars on funding, should things get ugly.

  73. stackja

    None – Change the language as shown in 1984.

  74. Perth Trader

    ‘Gay Mardi Gras’….I’ve often wondered how popular a ‘Hetro Mardi Gras’ would be. A street parade of bare breasted mums , dads wearing tight fitting shorts and displays of simulated sex performed in front of kids….yeah nah. I think it would be banned.

  75. None

    O’Neill ( click on the link in the Australian’s Twitter feed to get access to the article)

  76. None

    We have a Gay in the family. She’s pretty good natured about it when she has to introduce herself: hi I’m Gay.
    Especially resent them using the rainbow image as it’s long been symbolic for many people in many cultures.

  77. Fair shake of the Sauce bottle

    It was the best of times It was the worst of of times.
    Mate vs Mate, white vs brown, CEO vs worker, SJWs vs the religion, sinners vs saints, the right to free speech vs the right to play, the Father and the Son vs the Feministas, this is a story of our time. It’s got drama, comedy, highlights and low lights, love and hate. Come see ‘The Rugby of our Discontent’ the musical.

  78. None

    I go back to RA chair

    Since this issue has emerged I’ve asked those who’ve said we should have taken a different response to suggest what that alternative was and so far no one has been able to do that.

    “But to those who are saying you should bankrupt the game and allow religious freedom, well we do allow religious freedom but what we don’t allow is disparagement and that’s clear under [Folau’s] contract

    where is the subsequent headlines make clear it doesn’t matter if you disparage and drunk or a adulterer but it’s not ok to disparage a sodomite because as is apparently clear from the rest of his statement and the subsequent headlines it is gay employees who were threatening to sue. In which case I go back and say well great there is he also sue you for not providing a safe workplace because people have been bullying him on social media. If you want to include social media as the workplace then make it across the board. If social media is not part of your workplace then end of story. Stop giving social media power which only and Powers the mob and ridiculous situations like this where you can snort coke, bash a woman and piss in your mouth and keep your job but don’t you dare quote the Bible.

  79. Fisky

    Many of us had hoped, of course, that the May federal election would have reset the political debate. That it would have helped put a close to the old, tired ideological contests that have marked the past six years.

    But this is exactly what has happened. The election is over, the Left lost, and the debate has been reset – with the Left losing the argument and surrendering!

  80. Fisky

    The Left put every fantasy on the ballot at the federal election – open borders, massive spending, energy austerity, bans on free speech. Everything. They got thumped. Now’s the time for the Left to shut up and surrender.

  81. None

    Try again:

    What his subsequent statements and headlines make clear is that it doesn’t matter if you disparage a drunk or an adulterer, it’s not ok to disparage a sodomite because as is apparently clear from the rest of his statement and the subsequent headlines that it is gay employees alone who were threatening to sue.

    In which case I go back and say well great Izzy can also sue you for not providing a safe workplace because people have been bullying him on social media. If you want to include social media as the workplace then make it across the board. If social media is not part of your workplace then end of story. Stop giving social media power which only empowers the mob and ridiculous situations like this where you can snort coke, bash a woman and piss in your mouth and keep your job but don’t you dare quote the Bible.

  82. Cassie of Sydney

    “Fisky
    #3066168, posted on June 29, 2019 at 4:19 pm
    The Left put every fantasy on the ballot at the federal election – open borders, massive spending, energy austerity, bans on free speech. Everything. They got thumped. Now’s the time for the Left to shut up and surrender.”

    Except that the left don’t shut up and they don’t surrender. And it is completely bizarrre…..we now live in a world where the supposed right can win elections…as in the US in 2016, as in the UK in 2010, 2015 and 2017 and as in Australia in 2013, 2016 and 2019…and yet the left doesn’t shut up because they are forever emboldened and the left still continues to wreak havoc on society because it is the right who shut up and it is the right who surrender….despite being in power. You couldn’t make this up…..the only exception is in Trump’s USA where there is some push back…..but still not nearly enough…but at least in the USA they have a leader who is willing to throw some of the garbage back….I mean, look at Morrison this week on Folau…not a peep of support, not a whisper of support. A total disgrace.

  83. None

    “disparagement” ” and that’s clear under
    Folau’s contract.”

  84. None

    So according to the er a Chairman did is his contract have a clause on disparaging the game or disparaging other people?

  85. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Australia won’t win the Rugby World Cup again until 2039.

    We’ll be lucky to win 1/5 of the Bledisloe contests until then.

    The issue is mission creep. Win some football games you jerks. Normies don’t read twitter.

    I couldn’t care what people’s personal beliefs are unless they are literal Nayzees, Stalinists, Nambla-ists or a representative of Daesh.

    The shame is we have the best talent pool and best “nursery” – strong country and city clubs and the big skirted marlin lure of rugby lea$$$e.

    What we need is a glorious son of our summers sports…a man prepared to lose his kingdom for a bourse.

  86. bespoke

    stackja
    #3066143, posted on June 29, 2019 at 3:30 pm
    None – Many words are now meaningless.

    Yes it’s like no one cares and just shrugs.

  87. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Fisky
    #3066168, posted on June 29, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    The Left put every fantasy on the ballot at the federal election – open borders, massive spending, energy austerity, bans on free speech. Everything. They got thumped. Now’s the time for the Left to shut up and surrender.

    This is the kind of insane nonsense that justifies Iamputrid’s ridiculous trolling.

    Every single Liberal government since 1975 has ruled as a pro-immigration, high energy taxing, non-supporting free speech socialist clusterfuck.

    Howard never repealed the PRRT and allowed MORE excise indexation.
    Howard saw the greatest increase in immigration until now.
    Abbott (DLP lite) and Turnbull and their plant Brandis fucked us all over re; “the right to be bigoted”. A total sham that was.

    Abbott then changed Howard’s detention policy into towbacks – which Howard should have done all along, but no, he had some electioneering to do.

  88. Old Lefty

    Would any of these strictures apply, one wonders, to the use of ‘breeder’ as a sneering put down? Or if a player indulged in the Red Bandana’s adolescent insults against Christians?

  89. Iampeter

    These sections are sloppy and incompetent.

    They’re as clear as they need to be. You just shouldn’t have legal disputes over these sorts of things.
    The issue is that regulations and organisations, like Fair Work, exist to provide means for lawsuits that shouldn’t otherwise happen. The wording of the Code of Conduct is not an issue.

    RA does not acknowledge/accommodate the greater context of rights such as freedom of religion (which includes the expression of religious belief in public) and freedom of speech.

    Of course they don’t. RA can’t violate your freedom of religion, or freedom of speech. Only the government can do that. For example, when they pass anti-discrimination laws.
    Like most people today screaming about “free speech” and “religious freedom,” you don’t grasp the concepts and are the one actually advocating for their violation.

    The result is that RA, in violating the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, has acted as a bully, the very thing that it claims it abhors.

    It’s the exact other way around. By not understanding the concepts of “freedom of religion and freedom of speech” you are misreading the entire situation. It is Folau that has behaved as a bully, along with the ACL, who even tried to involve the PM, and the feckless, politically illiterate and unprincipled conservative commentators, that have hopelessly taken the totally wrong side on this.

    Conservatives claim to oppose SJW’s and identity politics, but have now shown that they either never understood the concepts involved, and are themselves just religious versions of the same thing.

  90. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    It is Folau that has behaved as a bully

    LOL

    The ARU have acted like chumps who just fired the highest ever try scorer in Super Rugby 100 days before the 2019 RWC.

  91. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Am I the only person on this absolute nuthouse of a forum who actually plays/watches/barracks “roots” for rugger?

  92. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Tim Nielson: I see you have gone for the N word. Usually the resort of losers.
    No one has demonstrated that Folau’s free speech is under any threat whatsoever. In fact the plain evidence is opposite. Get over it.
    Frank Walker: I am a lifelong fan, sad at the Brumbies’ poor outing, who thinks the game is played is indeed heaven and that Israel Folau may be denied entry due to unChristian behaviors and poor field position (not to mention a tendency to hog the ball in winning positions).

  93. Crossie

    Or maybe Castle still doesn’t understand the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    It’s staggering how many even in the legal profession have no conception what constitutes freedom of speech. So many even elite lawyers seem to think that free speech means approved speech when in fact it’s the other way around. These are usually the younger generation who were taught so by the Baby Boomers?

    The real culprits here are the activists from the Boomer generation who used freedom of speech to promote and finally get accepted their points of view and then they taught the current power players the wrong thing.

  94. a reader

    This is Rugby Australia’s nightmare: a Fijian Rugby Win Celebration which means giving thanks to God!
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ParyHNZ_JIQ&w=560&h=315%5D

  95. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Frank Walker: I am a lifelong fan, sad at the Brumbies’ poor outing, who thinks the game is played is indeed heaven and that Israel Folau may be denied entry due to unChristian behaviors and poor field position (not to mention a tendency to hog the ball in winning positions).

    Troll harder you obscene wrongologist fuckwit.

    Your bandana is cutting off the circulation to your cerebral cortex.

    “Most tries ever in Super Rugby”, you fucking chump.

  96. Percy Popinjay

    If “Folua” was a moosley, none of these gazillions of electrons would ever have been expended trying to defend him.

    Of course, he would never have been jobsacked (or accused of anything even remotely untoward) in the first place. The offending sewer droppings would have been conveniently ignored.

    It’s the hypocrisy, imbeciles.

  97. C.L.

    Actually, the word “homophobia” was invented by the homosexual lobby in the 1970s and relentlessly pushed into phony etymological conventionality in the midst of the AIDS catastrophe. They needed a concept to silence people – more specifically, heterosexual men – who were (understandably and justifiably) criticising a ‘lifestyle’ that was killing tens of thousands of people, many innocent recipients of blood products etc. The original idea was to admonish (really, mock) such critics as, ipso facto, unrequited sub rosa homosexuals themselves. In other words, straight men would be less inclined to excoriate the bath house weasels who had wiped out more people than Typhoid Mary if you called them closeted gays. The “phobia” was the critic’s fear of his own closeted sexuality.

    The irony here is stupendous. Homosexuals relied on the natural aversion to homosexuality to shut down the conferral of scientifically undeniable culpability. And it worked. Sodomy was decoupled from epidemiology at the level of public discourse and then, inexorably, at the level of official policy. The more macho the celebrity or sports star, the more ostentatious and craven was his support for ‘non-judgmental’ AIDS charities and – eventually – ‘gay rights’ more generally.

    So yes, there is no such thing, clinically, as “homophobia.” Nor does its original (sinister) gas-lighting usage any longer predominate in common usage (though it is still occasionally heard). Now it simply means anybody who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality, doesn’t accept homosexuality as equivalent to (if not superior to) heterosexuality or who laments its poisonous effect on culture.

  98. C.L.

    Actually, the word “homophobia” was invented by the homosexual lobby in the 1970s and relentlessly pushed into phony etymological conventionality in the midst of the AIDS catastrophe. They needed a concept to silence people – more specifically, heterosexual men – who were (understandably and justifiably) criticising a ‘lifestyle’ that was killing tens of thousands of people, many innocent recipients of blood products etc. The original idea was to admonish (really, mock) such critics as, ipso facto, unrequited sub rosa homosexuals themselves. In other words, straight men would be less inclined to excoriate the bath house weasels who had wiped out more people than Typhoid Mary if you called them closeted gays. The “phobia” was the critic’s fear of his own concealed sexuality.

    The irony here is stupendous. Homosexuals relied on the natural aversion to homosexuality to shut down the conferral of scientifically undeniable culpability. And it worked. Sodomy was decoupled from epidemiology at the level of public discourse and then, inexorably, at the level of official policy. The more macho the celebrity or sports star, the more ostentatious and craven was his support for ‘non-judgmental’ AIDS charities and – eventually – ‘gay rights’ more generally.

    So yes, there is no such thing, clinically, as “homophobia.” Nor does its original (sinister) gas-lighting usage any longer predominate in common usage (though it is still occasionally heard). Now it simply means anybody who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality, doesn’t accept homosexuality as equivalent to (if not superior to) heterosexuality or who laments its poisonous effect on culture.

  99. All of this forced ‘tolerance’ is having an effect and it’s been coming for a long time. But this is only the beginning:

  100. And for anyone who can remember far enough back, this is what I meant by the previous post:

  101. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    AFAIK most gays don’t even like the store bought *homosexualism* as it were, normal people don’t create their identity solely around their sexual preference.

    There are plenty of gays who think the whole “flaming queer” thing and outrageous gay nightclubs just make them look like freaks. They just want a nice flat in Lavender Bay and a Shih Tzu.

    I’m not even sure that a lot of gays are comfortable with the whole transvestite thing (which can be a non-gay fetish), let alone the transsexual stuff.

    Could a gay person reading this comment?

  102. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Frank Walker: I doubt you ever played the game. Certainly no judge. But easily angered it seems.

  103. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Frank Walker: your last post suggests to me you may have unresolved issues. Take care.

  104. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Surely the reciprocity of voluntary associations is that the right of each side to suspend or end the association must be respected. You must leave my home if for any or no reason there is something you have said that makes me disinclined to host you there any further.

    When companies offer employment contracts that require all sorts of nebulous undertakings, some of which explicitly extend beyond the workplace, the regular working hours, and beyond the regular production activity, and require sacrifices of what might normally be the person’s private activities, the prospective employee would be wise to get ongoing clarification of when they have to make that sacrifice and when they don’t, and particularly to require some form of compensation for taking on such extra commitments. From a work conditions perspective, RA’s expectation of restraint in social media commentary seems very much like most technical support staff going “on-call” over a weekend and being expected to refrain from alcohol and remain within 1 travelling hour of the workplace so that they can effectively respond if needed. This is not required, it is voluntary, and extra remuneration is given for a minimum number of on-call hours regardless of whether the person is called upon. In both cases any person who agrees to such restraint can expect to be disciplined or fired if they break the voluntary agreement.

    The Sourpossum is correct, there is no free speech crisis here. The right of free speech was created to defend people against the encroachment of a uniquely powerful entity in the nation, that being the government. No censorship has taken place here because Folau was not in fact prevented from saying anything, nor were his communications filtered or edited after the fact. RA has reacted to Folau’s unofficial communications in a way that inhibits further expression of a particular type. The inhibition against totally free speech which is operating here is the de-association consequences of breaking a voluntary agreement. This is no worse than making a social faux-pas in any other business or private setting, but is more clearly wrong here because the agreement is written rather than merely unstated (or commonly understood) as the cause of most faux-pas are.

    The real underlying problems are fivefold:
    • What Folau said fails to “treat everyone with dignity regardless of sexual orientation” and it remains homophobic no matter where he got the text from. If the Bible says what he said then it looks bad for both Folau choosing to repeat it and for Christianity generally for having devised and promulgated that opinion in the first place. No religion that lays claim to universal truth can logically demand to be free from criticism. Proponents of its pre-humanist advice should expect the same shunning as anyone else who vociferously defends a bad idea.

    • Given the Bible goes on to say “that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified”, one could equally say Folau was misrepresenting Christianity by omitting the path to redemption apparently offered by that religion, although this is weak sauce compared to the apostle declaring a moral judgement about homosexuality in the first place.

    • The possibility that the average rugby fan is so stupid as to believe something a player says on a biological or religious topic is somehow reflective of Rugby Australia’s business reputation, or that the RA management have such a low opinion of their fans as to believe their fans would do that.

    • The code of conduct is an atomic package in which one must agree to all or none of it and be paid for adhering to all of it or not be paid at all, and this agreement is permanently full-time and is not reviewed and renewed frequently, and therefore the credibility of the very property of volition that I’ve relied on in my criticism above is therefore diminished in a way that one does not find in the similar undertakings of on-call tech support staff.

    • The very existence of the social media opinions clause in the code of conduct is itself a strategic error. As one of the selling points of sport as a societal institution generally is that people all over the world can indeed set aside their other differences for 90 minutes and just play a game of football, it is a total own-goal by Rugby Australia to effectively decide that people cannot even play rugby with each other unless they first agree on every other possible point of religious, political, and social contention. Amusingly I can quote Corinthians in support: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.”

    Progressive Social Justice Warriors are still creating chasms of division and victims of injustice in our society, and Rugby Australia has screwed their players here but not due to any infringement of freedom of speech. The incident has been reframed as an attack on freedom of speech because Christians are unwilling to defend Christianity on this particular point.

  105. Bosnich

    C L at 7.00pm. Ref tainted blood products.My eldest son was involved in a very serious Moto Cross accident at the time that the AIDS epidemic was beginning to kick off.. early 90’s .He received 11 units of blood which thankfully saved his life.Shortly after it was revealed that the Australian Red Cross had been using blood transfusions from homosexuals because they were afraid of ‘causing offence’ in the Gay community.Blood checks revealed that my Son was clear of anything untoward which was a better outcome than the one in U.K. where haemophiliacs at a home for children suffering that illness were all transfused with tainted blood which has resulted in many of them dying .This case has recently surfaced in the U.K. press and can be read about on line.

  106. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Ah yes, “take care”, saying “Folau is shit at rugby and won’t go to heaven” is like saying Nick Faldo was a shit golfer. Get a grip you insane left-wing activist.

    Lying your arse off and then acting morally superior at being blown apart for your lies is what psychopaths do.

    “Take care” indeed.

  107. Cassie of Sydney

    It’s the hypocrisy, imbeciles.”

    Yep…nailed it Percy. Recall that buffoon Fitzsimian constantly defend Mundine.

  108. Tel

    “Take care” indeed.

    Sounds like what an SJW would say … he probably isn’t even really elderly.

  109. Cassie of Sydney

    EWMFS is a moron and a sanctimonious one at that.

  110. Cassie of Sydney

    “Tel
    #3066331, posted on June 29, 2019 at 7:57 pm
    “Take care” indeed.

    Sounds like what an SJW would say … he probably isn’t even really elderly.”

    My thoughts too. He is just a patronising sanctimonious nobody.

  111. Crossie

    … sponsors like Qantas and ANZ. They have powerful figures at the top of their organisations who do not like what Folau says about homosexuality so they tell RA to dump him or they will dump RA.

    That’s what it’s all about, the powerful against the powerless. That window of freedom was rather narrow and now humanity is back to the feudal way of life.

  112. Crossie

    None
    #3065891, posted on June 29, 2019 at 11:17 am
    Correct Fred, and who wants another kangaroo Court to administer the religious Discrimination Act. I keep wanting you Morrison is as bad as Turnbull if not worse.

    No, Morrison is not as bad as Turnbull but that is not a high bar. He is still dangerous in that he is feckless and doesn’t seem to have a fellow feeling for Christians other than those of his own denomination.

  113. None

    Well Crossie neither does Clyne Cameron the chairman of rugby Australia who is a St Dominic’s boy
    https://www.stdominics.nsw.edu.au/alumni/cameron-clyne/

    ( he’s also part of the ex National Bank of Australia kibble that seems to have found a home in rugby Australia)

  114. None

    Really what Cameron should have done is openly made it a religious Freedom issue and pointed out that everyone at rugby Australia both employees and players are employed on the basis of merit and not on the basis of religion or sexual orientation and no employment contract can override the right to religious expression well at least not outside of the workplace and especially not on a social media platform which rugby Australia neither owns nor can control. Like Netball SA he should have said that they also believe in Justice and perspective. If sponsors did not want to support freedom of religion which is one of the most fundamental rights then they are welcome to walk away and if enough walk away he will simply shut down RA and then even the gays, fornicators, adulterers, liars, drunkards and whoever else threatening to sue will have no job anyway. What is it that we always say? Escalate.

  115. None

    Berka – your first point is highly debatable, your second point is actually incorrect ( I suspect you haven’t looked at easy centre post but relied simply on the half baked reports in the media), your third fourth and fifth points make some good arguments.

  116. C.L.

    Bosnich, that’s a true horror story. Thank heavens your son was OK.

    Son was clear of anything untoward which was a better outcome than the one in U.K. where haemophiliacs at a home for children suffering that illness were all transfused with tainted blood which has resulted in many of them dying .This case has recently surfaced in the U.K. press and can be read about online.

    Incredibly, I hadn’t heard of this; viz: the contaminated blood inquiry, currently underway.
    I think we know why.

    Read all about it here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Clearly the NHS contaminated thousands of people for ideological reasons.
    They killed more than 12oo people. No government or state entity has ever accepted liability or paid compensation to any person or family.
    This is why we here at Catallaxy HATE the state.

  117. a reader

    It’s amazing how many people fail to understand the very basic Christian tenets in Folau’s post. The bible on multiple occasions lists examples of the sins of humans-as Folau did in his post. Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near is surely not that hard to understand. I’m starting to think it’s wilful from the left media and Gaystapo in the hope that there is some people who haven’t heard it before.

    BTW why haven’t we heard a single voice in the media who has said Folau’s biblical postings are correct? Even folks like Peta Credlin that I fully respect are seemingly afraid to actually just agree with him. It always seems to be a case of ‘I don’t agree with him.’ It’s not like anything Folau has said isn’t taught in Sydney Anglican churches, Assembly of Confessing Congregations of the Uniting Church (i.e. the part that aren’t full on lefties), Catholic Churches and a myriad of others.

  118. Beachcomber

    C.L. at 7:00 pm
    You said it!
    Sodomy has been decoupled from the entire public discourse on homosexuals. The sordid practices of homosexuals, and their terrible consequences for individuals and society, are actually too disgusting for polite discourse and they are effectively ignored.
    We must all celebrate homosexuals and endorse homosexuality. Do otherwise and you will be destroyed.

  119. Beachcomber

    Apparently Canadians must celebrate homosexuality for an entire month of ‘Gay Pride’ in June.

    Miles McInnes is so awesomely woke that he has gone ‘gay’ for the month, although even for him it is a bit of a challenge.

  120. John A

    Colonel, as someone has briefly pointed out already:

    The real underlying problems are fivefold:
    • What Folau said fails to “treat everyone with dignity regardless of sexual orientation” and it remains homophobic no matter where he got the text from. If the Bible says what he said then it looks bad for both Folau choosing to repeat it and for Christianity generally for having devised and promulgated that opinion in the first place. No religion that lays claim to universal truth can logically demand to be free from criticism. Proponents of its pre-humanist advice should expect the same shunning as anyone else who vociferously defends a bad idea.

    • Given the Bible goes on to say “that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified”, one could equally say Folau was misrepresenting Christianity by omitting the path to redemption apparently offered by that religion, although this is weak sauce compared to the apostle declaring a moral judgement about homosexuality in the first place.

    1. The Christian church is not afraid of criticism but sacking a bloke from his job is not “criticism,” that’s “bullying censorship.”
    2. The Bible’s statement is not an opinion as you claim, but a logical moral assertion based on a chain of logic that goes back to Genesis where God created male and female.
    3. Folau did not misrepresent the path to redemption, because that path begins with repentance, and damn it all the media pile-on is making sure it forgets that he did actually say that in his posts. If you want to raise the issue of misrepresentation, then start with that, please.

  121. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Would anyone like to discuss similarities and differences between Folau’s case and the recent case of Brian Leach in the UK, who was sacked from Asda after re-sharing on his own Facebook account 2 months ago a Billy Connelly comedy video which mocked and decried all forms of religion.
    As some starting points, here’s a local news article
    https://lincolnshirehighlights.com/news-asda-sacks-supermarket-worker-for-sharing-billy-connolly-jokes-on-religion-and-suicide-bombers/
    and a description plus commentary starts at 24:55 mark of the 28th June Spiked Podcast. https://youtu.be/W9Lxq3GyvEE?t=1491 .

    To me this doesn’t seem fair at all, it is wrong, and aside from morality I’m sure there must be wrongful dismissal laws in the UK that Asda has breached here, but I don’t know enough of the detail to know if this move was actually illegal.

    Different from Folau… yes and no. In both cases it is wrong to create upsetting consequences spitefully where none would naturally have arisen. For Folau, there were restrictions on how he could behave even on his personal social media account that he agreed to. Asda also claim Leach breached Asda’s social media policy but we’ve no idea what that policy said. At least Rugby Australia doesn’t profit from anti-Christian propaganda activities, but Asda sells Connelly’s videos. Apparently it would look bad if anyone posted the video for free, but it doesn’t look bad if Asda profits from it? Weird.

    Again a whole bunch of lawyers have decided that even asking for this encroachment on liberty is okay, and certainly that enforcing it in absurdly tenuous connections after it has been agreed is totally above-board. This is wrong, and I’d like to see the law realigned with community sentiment such that freedom of speech remains fundamentally protected not just from government but from other inducements, and cannot be contracted away. That doesn’t seem to be the case at the moment.

    Is there any limit on the power an employer has over an employee, even extending to social activities? Apparently the shift of a lowly till worker never fully ends. England was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery. Are they now intent on reintroducing it?

  122. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Hello, John A, 11:19.

    sacking a bloke from his job is not “criticism,”

    Correct, and I never said his sacking was a form of criticism. He was shunned by his employer, by firing him, as a rather cowardly substitute for criticism. It was bad for all of the other reasons given too.

    that’s “bullying censorship.”

    Did you just make up that term? Anyhow, no that part is not the censorship, but the chilling effect on free speech occurred when he signed the contract and code of conduct years earlier. It was a ticking time bomb.

    2. The Bible’s statement is not an opinion as you claim

    LOL. The bible was written by fallible humans, and all claims of unimpeachable supernatural providence are not to be believed except by the gullible and the desperate. That specific judgement about gays is totally an opinion, an earthly opinion, and an odious one.

    3. Folau did not misrepresent the path to redemption, because that path begins with repentance, and damn it all the media pile-on is making sure it forgets that he did actually say that in his posts.

    I did not know that. I was mistaken. The media made me do it.

  123. Mark A

    Colonel Crispin Berka
    #3066536, posted on June 30, 2019 at 2:14 am

    LOL. The bible was written by fallible humans, and all claims of unimpeachable supernatural providence are not to be believed except by the gullible and the desperate. That specific judgement about gays is totally an opinion, an earthly opinion, and an odious one.

    Yes,an opinion, based on observing an unnatural odious, disgusting practice.

  124. J.H.

    It’s an open and shut case between Folau’s Right to freedom of Religious expression versus Rugby Australia’s code of conduct….. Freedom of Religion will trump any code of conduct.

    Peter Ridd’s case against the JCU has shown that codes of conduct do not trump fundamental rights.

    Rugby Australia needs to sack it’s CEO or whoever is leading it, replace them with a new face….. and then apologize to Folau and give him back his job….. and move on.

  125. Empire 5:5

    Code of Conduct – Players (p.6)
    1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

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

    This clearly demonstrates the impossibility of identity politics and the danger of corporatism.

    The case has the potential to smash the big lie and lay waste to an army of parasites. They know they’re in check now and have severely FU.

  126. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Frank Walker: you might well be a stable human, but writing stuff like “I’m not even sure that a lot of gays are comfortable with the whole transvestite thing (which can be a non-gay fetish), let alone the transsexual stuff” reads like you spend your days drinking from a bucket of pus.
    Not to mention calling someone a liar or leftist because they don’t agree. (Folau’s positional play is poor IMO and he has cost the Wallabies tries through hogging the ball. In fact he cost us a test.)
    Take care.

  127. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Where are the churches in all this?

    They’re worrying about climate change.

  128. Empire 5:5

    Colonel Crispin Berka
    #3066318, posted on June 29, 2019 at 7:43 pm
    Surely the reciprocity of voluntary associations is that the right of each side to suspend or end the association must be respected. You must leave my home if for any or no reason there is something you have said that makes me disinclined to host you there any further.

    Yes, freedom from association is an essential condition of the natural right.

    Thing is, the state is an indirect participant to the dispute. The intrinsic value of Qantas arises from a history of state ownership and regulatory arbitrage. RA is a recipient of state funding. State policy is now pro-homosexualist.

    Even if we confine the relationship to citizen Folau v. QAN-RA, who is the corporation?
    Did QAN shareholders consent to disassociate?
    Is the choice of their legal agents legitimate?
    Are the directors and officers acting in the interests of all shareholders?
    Likewise for RA officers and their beneficiaries?

    This isn’t just another employment contract termination dispute. Discovery would be epic.

  129. Des Deskperson

    There is, of course, a third clause in section 1 – the Player’s Code – of the RA Code of Conduct that could and presumably may well have been used against Folau:

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

    In my view, an employer would need to be very careful indeed in using this sort of clause as basis for dismissal, as this sort off stuff is vague, subjective and difficult to prove in court. Indeed, as this clause pretty much implies, you can only usually get away with it when an employee has been convicted of a serious criminal offence where the odium is therefore obvious.

    There is a clause with similar intent in the APS Code of Conduct. So far as I am aware, it has never been successfully applied. The last time I looked, there were APS employees in jail as a result of criminal convictions but still employees, presumably on leave without pay. One used to apply for promotions from his prison cell.

    And while I don’t have the details – apart from the case of ‘Bwana’ Pocock – my understanding is there is a number of RA players the been convicted of criminal offices but were never sacked.

  130. None

    I remain intrigued by the RA chairman’s statements yesterday that he had “heard from the government”. I’d like to know which government body he heard from – including the specific person- and what was their advice. I also want to know if they initiated contact or whether he did and why. Given that rugby Australia has received taxpayer money and the RA cairman implied that government advice either demanded or confirmed the necessity of sacking Folsu and / or being sued by gay people I think he should be asked to disclose details of the government advice in the public interest.

  131. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3066263, posted on June 29, 2019 at 6:40 pm
    Tim Nielson: I see you have gone for the N word. Usually the resort of losers.
    No one has demonstrated that Folau’s free speech is under any threat whatsoever. In fact the plain evidence is opposite. Get over it.
    Frank Walker: I am a lifelong fan, sad at the Brumbies’ poor outing, who thinks the game is played is indeed heaven and that Israel Folau may be denied entry due to unChristian behaviors and poor field position (not to mention a tendency to hog the ball in winning positions).

    To your first point (to Tim Nielson) – of course Folau’s free speech is under threat. If no organisation will employ him, his own or others (NRL), ipso facto his common law rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are under threat. He is being crushed body and soul by RA and others because his conscience demands of him the claims of his religion, which is to speak freely to others from a place of love. And what about the treatment of his wife, Maria? Has her freedom of speech not been under threat this last week?

    To your second point (to Frank) – I don’t know if that response was an attempt to be funny? Or, instead, maybe an attempt to claim your credentials as a rugby supporter? But either way, asserting that its “the game played in heaven” and in the same sentence that Folau will be denied entry because of his “unchristian behaviours”, lacks any awareness of the Christian concept of heaven and what behaviours are unchristian. Perhaps the churches should seek reparations from RA for misappropriating one of their central trade marks!

  132. Iampeter

    To your first point (to Tim Nielson) – of course Folau’s free speech is under threat.

    No it’s not. It is RA’s free speech and that of all businesses that is under threat by this case.
    If firing people, or not wanting to employee people, could violate their free speech, or anything really, then it would be impossible to fire anyone. We would be living in the soviet union where everyone has a right to a job.

    You don’t need to know anything about politics to see how grossly you and others are misusing terms like “free speech” and how you are supporting it’s violation on a massive scale, by supporting Folau.

  133. candy

    I can’t see that corporations have “free speech”, it’s an individual thing surely. I don’t think that’s a meaningful concept at all. There are laws about hiring, bullying or not bullying, the anti discrimination, work contracts etc that is fundamental and longstanding and familiar to most.

    Perhaps Folau’s lawyers are relying on the contract not having wording specifically pertaining to social media posts about religious views. If it did he would not have a leg to stand on.

  134. Bar Beach Swimmer

    No it’s not. It is RA’s free speech and that of all businesses that is under threat by this case.

    An organisation can not have freedom of speech because it is not a natural person. Only individuals, because they have a conscience, have freedom of speech. Neither do organisations have voting rights in a democracy, for the same reason.

    Organisations like, for example, corporations are controlled by corporate law, which are statutes that the state grants them to operate in the jurisdiction. At the moment there are noises about deregistering the CFMMEU for many examples of breaking the law, which would be forever. People, of the other hand, can not be deregistered. Yes, they can be sent to gaol for breaking the law, but they remain citizens with the rights of citizens.

    An organisation cannot grant itself concessions, only the state, or the shareholders, if its a public company, can do that. And then only, if those concessions comply with the law. A reason why many organisations in the country were very disappointed that Labor did not win the election because if they have won, further concessions would have been granted them by the state. People, on the other hand, have intrinsic rights because they are human.

    How can an organisation have a conscience, when it has no body to be kicked or soul to be damned.

  135. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Bar Beach Swimmer: In all, I would recommend reading Katrina Grace Kelly in the current Weekend Australian on this. She makes plain and sensible points that I have held from the start. In short, I think the whole thing is a giant farce, escalated by various lobbies and blowhards with a not very smart celebrity as the lever. Kelly’s most sharp point is the risk to churches should the public realise through this case that they currently have rights in law that no one else has. That is, they are able to sack people who they do not agree with on religious grounds. Irony abounds.
    As for Frank, why be serious? He needs cheering up.( Good luck with that church trade mark case.)
    BTW: I always hated Bar Beach: crap surf and way too many rocks.

  136. None

    The person with the rather awful moniker of “elderly white man from Skipton” ( no one here gives a s*** about your age, your skin colour, or your origin EWMS but it seems you want to signal your own prejudices) seems to think religious belief (which includre belief in no god) is just a matter of belonging to another cooperation. Beyond Stalinesque.

  137. None

    The person with the rather awful moniker of “elderly white man from Skipton” ( no one here gives a s*** about your age, your skin colour, or your origin EWMS but it seems you want to signal your own prejudices) seems to think religious belief (which includes belief in no god) is just a matter of belonging to another corporation. Beyond Stalinesque.

  138. Bar Beach Swimmer

    LOL! Bar Beach has more surf than does Skipton!

  139. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    You got me BBS.
    None: I can’t be a Stalinist. My mate above has already nailed me as a National Socialist. (And it wasn’t me that went down the trade mark route, though I do subscribe to the view that the established church is more corporate than most corporations.)

  140. Bar Beach Swimmer

    At least Rugby Australia doesn’t profit from anti-Christian propaganda activities,

    I think we could safely say it does because it receives taxpayer monies from the state. None’s point further up the thread that RA (Castle) spoke of communications between RA and certain govt depts.

    It also receives sponsorship from Qantas, an organisation that has shown a definite anti-Christian stance in the Israel Folau matter.

  141. Tel

    None: I can’t be a Stalinist. My mate above has already nailed me as a National Socialist.

    The difference is only a few million murders and small variation in how those murders were committed.

    Other than that, pretty much same either way.

  142. The Big Blue Cat:

    We are living in a time where the gaystapo will happily see you lose your job, your entitlements, your rights just so they won’t feel offended. They are happy for you to fund their efforts too! In fact, they demand you do. For them, it’s “like us and we’ll like you, hate us and we’ll destroy you”.

    Today Bernard Gaynor, tomorrow the world.
    This is the boot of the the Gaystapo Fascists, stamping on a human face forever.

  143. Lurker:

    The lords are clad in resplendent leather and diamante g-strings and chaps, riding upon rainbow unicorns which every step, fart clouds of sparkly multi-coloured glitter into the air.

    I would pay good money to see this photoshopped.

  144. Alan

    Hundreds of opinions, and not one breathing a word of the actual law applied?
    Assoc Prof of Law Neil Foster:
    (1) Possible breach of contract claim? Israel “may argue that what he did, did not amount to a breach of this provision, and that by terminating his employment they have breached their obligations.”
    (2) Remedy under the Fair Work Act? “under s 772 of that Act: An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons: (f) … religion.

    And then Michael Cheika, coach of the Wallabies, tells us Israel never agreed to “shut up”.
    Watch from 7:45.

  145. None

    The RA Chairman is Cameron Clyne. The trans Goth is the CEO.
    This is Grace Kelly’s article which you can access freely through the Australian’s Twitter feed.

    Never mind hell, the heat in this Israel Folau saga threatens to burn us all. Here we are with two opposing camps mustering their armies and screaming at each other from across the divide, while the rest of us look on with growing alarm.

    I need to speak about this furore like I need a shotgun blast to the face. But there is no basic information out there about employment law, and it is about time some facts were made clear. Plus friends tell each other the truth, and I think of all of you as my friends, even when we disagree.

    I have been involved in the employment relations area for more than 25 years. I have worked for three unions and multiple employers, and started several businesses. I know the unfair dismissal system intimately.

    Seven years ago, I founded a specialist business that acted for unfairly dismissed employees, and also helped employers dismiss people fairly and according to the law. That business is no longer mine but it has gone on to become the largest unfair dismissal business in the country. Those are my credentials and they inform my commentary.

    This case has become a hill where some want to plant their flags and wage a war. However, this case is, at law, a simple employment dispute: an unlawful dismissal case.

    There is an application brought under the Fair Work Act — the cost of which, in ordinary circumstances, should be less than $20,000.

    The applicant (Folau) was dismissed using legislation passed in 2009 — meaning nothing has changed recently; specifically, the same-sex marriage legislation has not eroded religious protections enshrined in workplace law.

    The act says that employers must not dismiss employees unlawfully, defined as for their race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s ­responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin

    In two or three years, when the matter gets to court — it will take that long to get a hearing — the judge will not consider any issues of free speech or freedom of ­religion. The judge simply will decide whether the applicant was sacked (a) because he is a Christian and his employer discriminated against him because of his religion, or (b) for some other ­reason.

    Please note that an employer can legally dismiss any employee who fails to comply with a lawful and reasonable instruction, and these do not have to be in writing. In addition, there are other Christians remaining in the workplace.

    Further, in every unlawful dismissal case I have ever run, we have been asked for “incontrovertible proof” that the dismissal occurred for an unlawful reason and not some other reason.

    Here are two recent examples of successful unlawful dismissal cases where the applicant had incontrovertible proof:

    • A young woman with an employment separation certificate filled out by the employer, where the reason given for dismissal was “she’s pregnant”.

    • A man with a letter of dismissal that stated, “since your epileptic fit occurred in the office, people do not feel comfortable and we cannot keep you on”.

    Spare a thought now, please, for these two workers; they are not highly talented, photogenic, privileged and wealthy, with powerful friends.

    A lot is being said about the applicant’s freedoms and rights. Employers have freedoms and rights, too.

    There is a freedom to employ or not employ. The employer has a right to protect their brand and are obliged to protect the interests of the business and other employees. Companies have the freedom to sponsor or not.

    In a free society, if someone is saying something in a public square, we can stand alongside them in solidarity, we can shout out our disagreement or, if we do not want to hear or be associated with the message, we can simply walk away.

    Commentators have been saying that Scott Morrison’s “quiet Australians” are behind the applicant in droves. This is a long bow to draw.

    In 2017, a McCrindle report on faith and belief in Australia was based on a survey of 1024 Australians. When exploring perceptions of Christianity, the “top repellent” to it was listed as “hearing from public figures and celebrities”.

    The single largest “issue blocker” that prevents non-Christians from exploring Christianity was the Christian condemnation of homosexuality (33 per cent) and the second biggest was talk of “hell and condemnation” (24 per cent).

    The top four “behaviour blockers” that prevent non-Christians from exploring Christianity were church abuse (57 per cent), hypocrisy (47 per cent), religious wars (45 per cent) and judging others (43 per cent).

    Despite everything, thanks to our free society, the applicant is still able to preach his religion as he likes, and post on social media to his heart’s content.

    Further, religious bodies — such as the church the applicant preaches in — are allowed by special exemption to dismiss employees for unlawful reasons. Religious bodies are allowed to sack people for their sexual orientation as long as it is in accordance with religious views.

    So a final word of caution to those standing under the flags of war counting their arrows: this employment law matter may not be the best spark for a crusade on new laws for religious freedoms.

    When the issue of religious freedom is dragged into the sunlight, the general public will be taken aback at the special privileges that religious bodies have right now, and this could cause a windback, resulting in a loss of religious freedom overall

    The McCrindle report only shows that leftist propaganda has been very successful in some quarters and grace’s argument there just read like veiled bigotry and a veiled threat to me. I think Ms Kelly knows better than that but who knows the destruction of our humanities departments means that a lot of people don’t understand religion nor do not realise that Homo sapiens is a religious animal and it is one aspect that which distinguishes him or her from the rest of the animal kingdom.

    The majority of Australians still self identify as religious and the majority religion remains Christianity and the largest group among the Christians are now the Catholics. Also the breakneck pace of Immigration means that Australia will get more religious not less just not the religions that promote freedom and social equality.

    Clearly, the majority of Australians still do not find Christianity to be a barrier to self identity. Moreover if a gay or lesbian wants to go to church and not be bothered about sexual morality or hell they have many options for example the Uniting church, large slabs of the Anglican church or even 100% gay founded and gay friendly churches like the MCC. Lord knows they need the numbers. They could even start their own mosque or temple. My neighbours have.

    Anyway Grace has had skin in the game and she would represent the RA camp’s POV quite well.

  146. None

    …the destruction of our humanities departments means that a lot of people don’t understand religion nor do they realise that Homo sapiens is a religious animal and it is this aspect which distinguishes him or her from the rest of the animal kingdom.

  147. hzhousewife

    I would pay good money to see this photoshopped.

    Book your ticket to the next Mardi Gras parade.

  148. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Tel: a man after my own heart, dismissing these silly labels.

  149. Percy Popinjay:

    Of course, he would never have been jobsacked (or accused of anything even remotely untoward) in the first place. The offending sewer droppings would have been conveniently ignored.

    Ignored?
    Bullshit!
    There would be a special person added to the team with the sole responsibility of gathering these nuggets of delight, arranging them to be gold plated, then worshipped on the Alter of Multicult and Genderism.

  150. Tel

    Tel: a man after my own heart, dismissing these silly labels.

    I never dismissed the use of labels. I pointed out that two historic schools of thought were both quite similar in both basis and outcome. The broadly correct label is “Socialism” whether that be of the “National Socialist” variety or the “Communist” variety but either way, central power ruling by force and terror, resulting in murder and social destruction.

    Nothing silly about using labels appropriately … the word “Fascism” has a meaning, and the leaders at the time carefully documented what they meant by it, and how it operates. The State above all other things … with loyalty to the State being the ultimate moral value. When silly people use labels in a silly manner, that is tragic … but can be improved with continuous education and correction.

  151. Iampeter

    An organisation can not have freedom of speech because it is not a natural person. Only individuals, because they have a conscience, have freedom of speech.

    Organizations are just more than one individual and restrictions on the organization restricts those individuals. So, if organizations are told who they can or can’t fire, their free speech (meaning the free speech of the individuals that make up the organizations) will have been violated. Among numerous other violations.

    Would freedom of religious expression extend to that? I can see RA’s point of view but would they be consistent with their contracts or choose who to support. Or are we all a bit biased in this regard.

    Yep everyone here is guilty of playing identity politics. Conservatives have shown themselves to be on the same side as the SJW’s.
    A lot of people keep trying to suggest RA are being hypocrites because they wouldn’t have fired him if he was of a different religion, but that’s not hypocrisy on their part. They are SJW’s and treating people differently because of the groups they belong to is the whole point of their beliefs.
    It’s conservatives, who claim to be an alternative to these leftists, but are nothing but a Christian version of them, that are the true hypocrites in this saga.

  152. Iampeter

    (1) Possible breach of contract claim? Israel “may argue that what he did, did not amount to a breach of this provision, and that by terminating his employment they have breached their obligations.”
    (2) Remedy under the Fair Work Act? “under s 772 of that Act: An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons: (f) … religion.

    That makes sense. Because when I’m being religiously discriminated against in my job, I want to keep working there.
    See the glaring problems with things like Fair Work and “unfair dismissal laws?”

    Kelly’s most sharp point is the risk to churches should the public realise through this case that they currently have rights in law that no one else has. That is, they are able to sack people who they do not agree with on religious grounds. Irony abounds.

    Yep, this might backfire on the Christian SJW’s bigly, but I doubt it.
    Given that everyone supports identity politics, Folau is in with a good chance to win.

  153. None:

    I remain intrigued by the RA chairman’s statements yesterday that he had “heard from the government”. I’d like to know which government body he heard from – including the specific person- and what was their advice. I also want to know if they initiated contact or whether he did and why. Given that rugby Australia has received taxpayer money and the RA cairman implied that government advice either demanded or confirmed the necessity of sacking Folsu and / or being sued by gay people I think he should be asked to disclose details of the government advice in the public interest.

    My opinion was that the statement about “someone from government” was a throw away line before the shit hit the fan, when it was thought by RA the whole thing would just blow over. However, RA decided to up the ante and is now hoping the statement will go away.
    Like the festering splinter that it is, it ain’t goin’ nowhere, and it just may become the torpedo that hits SS RA below the waterline.

  154. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Tel: you equated Nxzism with Stalinism. You conflated them, which is to homogenise or dismiss them. I’m all for that, since most users of labels simply lack the ability to express their view and resort to abuse. Of course what happened in Germany and the USSR is particular and can’t really be a label. Unless referring to an actual participant.

  155. EWMFS:

    None: I can’t be a Stalinist. My mate above has already nailed me as a National Socialist.

    The only difference between a Stalinist and a Nazi is the colour of the uniform.

  156. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Iampeter
    #3066920, posted on June 30, 2019 at 4:19 pm
    Organizations are just more than one individual and restrictions on the organization restricts those individuals. So, if organizations are told who they can or can’t fire, their free speech (meaning the free speech of the individuals that make up the organizations) will have been violated. Among numerous other violations.

    No it doesn’t restrict the individual as an individual. It restricts the organisation to operating in respect of the laws that apply. The individuals within those organisations are private citizens when not performing their responsibilities as agents of the organisation, who in their own time away from their employment or responsibilities acting on behalf of the organisation have freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When, however, they act on behalf of the organisation there is the Principal-Agent Relationship. The Principal-Agent Relationship requires that the agent when operating on behalf of the principal should not have a conflict of interest in carrying out their responsibilities. In the case of a certain airline the agent seems not to be acting in the principal’s interests.

  157. Tel

    Tel: you equated Nxzism with Stalinism. You conflated them, which is to homogenise or dismiss them.

    Bull Crap.

    I didn’t equate them, I’m well aware of the similarities and differences but mostly (as already explained) the outcome is central power and mass murder, which . If you want to discuss this then try some historical specifics. Don’t think that by misrepresenting what I said you score any points, go and actually provide some material for the debate.

    Name one thing from above that you have offered that gave any positive contribution.

  158. Colonel Crispin Berka

    State policy is now pro-homosexualist.

    They aren’t pro-homosexual, they’re more counter-anti-homosexual. There is a difference.
    Homosexuality is optional, and it cannot be any more than that since it is not a deliberate choice anyone makes.

  159. None

    Homosexuality is optional, and it cannot be any more than that since it is not a deliberate choice anyone makes.

    People can barely explain sexuality much less homosexuality so I categorically reject this idea that homosexuality is not a deliberate choice. There is no acceptable irrefutable evidence for that. It’s just a f****** Lefty meme that’s it.

  160. None

    Like the festering splinter that it is, it ain’t goin’ nowhere, and it just may become the torpedo that hits SS RA below the waterline.

    I hope so, Winston.

  161. P

    None
    #3066860, posted on June 30, 2019 at 2:29 pm

    The RA Chairman is Cameron Clyne. The trans Goth is the CEO.
    This is Grace Kelly’s article which you can access freely through the Australian’s Twitter feed.

    Thank you for the link through Twitter. Easier to read and to forward on to others.

    Grace Kelly (formerly known as Grace Collier) will be on Q&A on Monday July 1.
    I will not be watching it tomorrow.

  162. New South Holland

    Been a WA lurker for about five years now and am finally “coming out”, mainly because of the Izzy thing. Donated too and got my family to do likewise.
    IT and LL are really funny and love Tom’s cartoons and Joanna’s posts.
    I just go to this site for my news first nowadays . Please don’t stop. You really should put up a paywall for this entertainment,.

  163. Mark A

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3066938, posted on June 30, 2019 at 4:44 pm

    You give a bad name to Skipton it does not need.

  164. Publius

    With due respect to the expertise of Grace Collier in matters of unfair dismissal, the Folau sacking is a freedom of speech/religion/personhood matter masquerading as an employment contract dispute; so designed to give RA the best shot they can to get away with it. It’s a classic 1st Amendment case, not Labor Law.
    As a practical matter, the chilling effect of this RA action alone make this worth the battle. Who owns us? When did we stop owning ourselves because I was reparations on that basis. Are we chattels of our employer? Am I paid enough (were I willing to be monitored 24/7) for the new state of affairs? My contract states 40hrs a week. For 24/7, no public holidays or annual leave I might need 100x my current pay. Let’s have this ‘discussion’ then. Etc etc etc. Is God dead??
    The lack of depth perception of people like Grace etc is staggering.

  165. Publius

    …and…to quote the instapundit…this ganging up of major corporations in the matter of mr AND mrs Folau, looks suspiciously like a ‘conspiracy to deny ones civil rights’.
    The proceeds of discovery will be fascinating. Hope it goes all the way to trial just to see what went on in the Boardroom of our biggest corporations.

  166. Alan

    Publius has touched on an interesting development that Andrew Bolt discovered a few days ago.
    It seems our legal overlords have been dropped in a politics bath: the floodgates argument.
    And have glimpsed who may lose. Watch from 4:30.

    As to the first half of Bolt’s commentary, if Folau is harming certain young people by consigning them to the naughty corner in an afterlife that he does not think exists, why does he not wonder what RA is doing to teenage Christians in this life that certainly does exist?
    Young Christians would surely catch wind of the mockery, disgust, disdain and looming unemployment thrown Folau’s way and begin to wonder.

  167. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Mark A: Ye wouldn’t know, ye dozy twonk.

  168. Mark A

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3067412, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:28 am

    Ye wouldn’t know, ye dozy twonk.

    some of my mates who race greyhounds might.

  169. Mark A

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3067412, posted on July 1, 2019 at 10:28 am

    PS
    It’s a small world. and you fill the bill.

  170. Mark A

    Sorry Doomlord, delete my last post.
    Sincere apologies.

  171. Bar Beach Swimmer

    New South Holland
    #3067311, posted on July 1, 2019 at 8:15 am
    Been a WA lurker for about five years now and am finally “coming out”, mainly because of the Izzy thing.

    Hello, NSH, how do you do!

  172. dover_beach

    Grace Kelly’s article

    It’s terrible and what she says makes the case for ARU look even worse.

  173. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    This old fuckwit from Skipton is giving gays a bad name. Yep sure mate, they all love cross dressers and cutting their dicks off.

    Way to totally generalise, maaan.

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.