Israel Folau saga.

Forums › Sports › Israel Folau saga.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 26

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2263495 24-Jun-2019 15:33

surfisup1000:

He has had his means of making a living taken away from him, just because he quoted from the bible.

well, that's not quite true. he can still play rugby wherever he will be accepted in. his means of making a living is still his. just not with his current employer.

i suspect that anybody working for coke, who preached that pepsi is better, would get the same treatment from his current employer.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263497 24-Jun-2019 15:34

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

I was not stating he was making political statements, that was purely an example. It is common in contracts for high profile positions such as international sports representatives that they are limited in what they can say and cannot bring his employers in disrepute. He would have been aware of that when he freely signed the employment contract and received payments. He had also been very clearly warned and appraised of his obligations under that agreement. His rights have not been infringed.

This is your problem, you are quoting employment law, Folau will be quoting human rights law. I think Folaus rights to express his religious views will be stronger than the employers rights to control his outspoken religious views.

You agree to limit all sorts of rights when you sign an employment contract. You agree to limit your movements, you associations and your speech. You agree to follow instructions. You agree to do this on the basis that you are compensated for this.

Folaus freedom of religion is in no way impinged. He is free to believe whatever he wants and there has been no limit to his private worship.

What he did was public, not private. He was also previously warned for similar behaviour. The issue wasn't his religion (he, and many other players, have made many religious posts which no one has a problem with), the issue was an offensive post.

Your religion doesn't enable you to say whatever you like in public and not have employment consequences.

Below is a except from reddit from an actual lawyer.

He'll be arguing that RA have breached the prohibition in s 772(1)(f). Technically this part is just an addition to the unfair dismissal laws in part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act. The important part for Folau's argument is that under this section RA could have followed proper procedure in terminating his employment but if the primary motivating factor for the termination is deemed to be his religion then it's unlawful under this provision.

He'll still run into the above issues: he has many other religious posts on social media that weren't an issue, he was made aware of what kinds of posts were not allowable, RA hasn't shown any discriminatory behaviour in regard to their treatment of him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/bxc5vy/israel_folau_takes_fight_against_rugby_australia/

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2263500 24-Jun-2019 15:39

MikeB4:

You have to accept that freedom of speech does not exceed all other legal requirements. Here is an example, if the management of this Forum chose to delete the views expressed in this thread are they breaching freedom of speech right? answer, no they are not.

Sure, complex issues like freedom of speech and employment and religion are forever going to be arguable.

What you describe is 'deplatforming', which is not illegal. eg, Massey university prevented Don Brash from talking on campus, masquerading the reason as 'security' when emails clearly showed it was because they disagreed with his views.

Personally, if folau had posted here, and mods deleted it, he wouldn't be too worried :)

But, when it comes to losing your income and employment, it is a very different situation.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2263501 24-Jun-2019 15:40

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

You have to accept that freedom of speech does not exceed all other legal requirements. Here is an example, if the management of this Forum chose to delete the views expressed in this thread are they breaching freedom of speech right? answer, no they are not.

Sure, complex issues like freedom of speech and employment and religion are forever going to be arguable.

What you describe is 'deplatforming', which is not illegal. eg, Massey university prevented Don Brash from talking on campus, masquerading the reason as 'security' when emails clearly showed it was because they disagreed with his views.

Personally, if folau had posted here, and mods deleted it, he wouldn't be too worried :)

But, when it comes to losing your income and employment, it is a very different situation.

Then he should have found new employment or zipped it. One reaps what one sows.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263502 24-Jun-2019 15:41

mm1352000:

ShinyChrome: My problem with the free speech argument is when it is used to somehow make hate speech OK because FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Assuming you accept the previous assertions that Folau was quoting the bible, the implication of what you're saying is that the bible contains hate speech. Seems to me there is a fundamental conflict in values if a society is going to allow freedom of religion and disallow hate speech.

The bible does contain all sorts of nonsense that has no place in a modern society. Men are not free to sell our daughters as slaves anymore.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences. You are free to say whatever you like but there are consequences to what you say.

A simple example is that if you libel someone they can pursue damages against you.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263503 24-Jun-2019 15:45

The main issue here is that he knew what the reaction of his post would do (after being warned and media covering it last time). This all just looks like he wanted out of the game and was hoping for a big payout. The big payout did not happen so now he is crying about how unfair it all is.

If your employer says "you stuffed up but fix it and we will issue you a warning" then you go and do it again then you're going to get fired or a contract ripped up.

Then after all this he goes and asks people with less money than him to fund his legal team (and a note at the bottom that says the funds can be used anyway he wants and may not fund the legal team at all). All this under a cloud of religion.

Remove the religion from this and you have a crying sports start throwing his toys because he was warned and then did it again. He just wants out of the game and a payout.

Also just google something that should not be done in the bible with his name i.e. "israel folau eating shellfish" See you in hell mate.......

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2263504 24-Jun-2019 15:45

Handle9:

You agree to limit all sorts of rights when you sign an employment contract.

Yes, but you can't waive your human rights.

Folaus lawyers that rugby australia tried to do that.

The court will decide. I wouldn't like to put money on the outcome, but I suspect that Folau will win.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263505 24-Jun-2019 15:47

surfisup1000:

Handle9:

You agree to limit all sorts of rights when you sign an employment contract.

Yes, but you can't waive your human rights.

Folaus lawyers that rugby australia tried to do that.

The court will decide. I wouldn't like to put money on the outcome, but I suspect that Folau will win.

Do you have any evidence for your opinion or are you just making it up?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2263506 24-Jun-2019 15:47

tripp:

He just wants out of the game and a payout.

That's a theory being thrown around.

I doubt it is one that could be proved.

To date, it looks like he has loves rugby and religion. Nothing suggest otherwise.

How could you prove that one?

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263509 24-Jun-2019 15:51

surfisup1000:

tripp:

He just wants out of the game and a payout.

That's a theory being thrown around.

I doubt it is one that could be proved.

To date, it looks like he has loves rugby and religion. Nothing suggest otherwise.

How could you prove that one?

Would not be surprised if there is some injury that has not been disclosed but will get worse over time.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2263511 24-Jun-2019 15:52

surfisup1000:

I don't believe in the views of the islam religion either. Does that mean I can refuse to hire muslims who are far more extreme in their views on homosexuality.

You can refuse to hire people who won't stop making hateful statements in the media if those statements impact on your business.

Your sentence above is ambiguous; can you clarify your grammar for me? Is the highlighted section intended as the object of the sentence? Or should there be a comma after "muslims"?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2263514 24-Jun-2019 15:53

Handle9:

Do you have any evidence for your opinion or are you just making it up?

Not opinion. Folau has stated he is taking Rugby australia to court. So, usually a court does decide on cases.

tyronne

33 posts

Geek

#2263517 24-Jun-2019 15:55

Handle9:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences. You are free to say whatever you like but there are consequences to what you say.

A simple example is that if you libel someone they can pursue damages against you.

I wish more people would understand this simple concept. Do we really need so many analogies to get this point across?

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263518 24-Jun-2019 15:56

surfisup1000:

Handle9:

Do you have any evidence for your opinion or are you just making it up?

Not opinion. Folau has stated he is taking Rugby australia to court. So, usually a court does decide on cases.

Ignoring your trolling, it appears you don't have any legal evidence for your opinion that his rights have been impinged?

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2263524 24-Jun-2019 16:03

Handle9:

mm1352000:

ShinyChrome: My problem with the free speech argument is when it is used to somehow make hate speech OK because FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Assuming you accept the previous assertions that Folau was quoting the bible, the implication of what you're saying is that the bible contains hate speech. Seems to me there is a fundamental conflict in values if a society is going to allow freedom of religion and disallow hate speech.

The bible does contain all sorts of nonsense that has no place in a modern society. Men are not free to sell our daughters as slaves anymore.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences. You are free to say whatever you like but there are consequences to what you say.

A simple example is that if you libel someone they can pursue damages against you.

I agree on all of your points. However, I'm interested in the bounds of freedom of religion rather than freedom of speech.

To clarify, it seems like what you're saying is that freedom of religion equates to the right for people to [internally] hold whatever beliefs they like. However, public expression of those beliefs is subject to consequences, in the same way as with freedom of speech.

Have I understood you correctly?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 26