-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@No-Quarter said in Are you watching the death rattle of all authentic sports?:
@Crucial said in Are you watching the death rattle of all authentic sports?:
@No-Quarter said in Are you watching the death rattle of all authentic sports?:
@Crucial said in Are you watching the death rattle of all authentic sports?:
@NightmareHitter said in Are you watching the death rattle of all authentic sports?:
I feel greatly saddened and wanted to express this. Not sure others feel the same way but....
After almost 38 years of passionate (and i mean passionate) sports following of Rugby, league, cricket and boxing etc I feel we are now watching the death of true competitive sports.
-
Politics has fully taken over now.
-
Freedom of speech no longer exists
-
Money dictates the ruling opinion
Politics has NOT fully taken over - Massive overstatement.
Freedom of speech still exists - anyone (in most countries) - anyone is free to say anything. What happens as a consequence is the debated point
The consequences are always the debated point, no matter what. Otherwise you can claim people had freedom of speech in Nazi Germany, it was just what happens as a consequence that was up for debate.
Simply put, if the consequences are disproportionate then the value of free speech is eroded.
I am curious though, where the line can/should be drawn regarding public statements from a high profile employee and who decides what a proportionate consequence is. eg if Folau was expressing extreme racist views doesn't that come under the same definition of free speech? Therefore someone gets to decide whether that is intolerable or not.
If the concept of free speech is the same and the view of the consequence decider the same are people therefore just really arguing that some things claim immunity because they are religious beliefs?
Yeah of course it's subjective, but we need to find some middle ground - the outrage culture (and it's not just on the left) has definitely led to very disproportionate consequences for a number of people in recent times.
On Feelauw, after the media reported on his post, he's had widespread public condemnation, and article upon article attacking not just his views but his character as well. On top of that his employer has stated they will tear up his $4 million dollar contract.
Do you think that's a proportionate punishment for quoting the bible? Personally it makes me feel pretty uneasy, as the line between what is/is not acceptable is getting pretty blurred in the age of the internet and social media.
Would Fillhow even been censured if he'd just stuck to attacking the rest of us (alcoholics, fornicators, atheists etc.)? That could potentially offend most of the sports watching fraternity, not to mention major sponsors (alcohol). I'm just curious as to why that is just being ignored, yet the gay thing is apparently massively damaging and offensive. If Foolho has such enormous sway then surely his other comments are equally damaging. What about the kids with atheist parents who are married or divorced and who regularly drink alcohol? No need for protection there?
Probably has no contract language stating it?
Whether it’s legally binding or not - different story.
Insulting pretty much every fan doesn't seem very inclusive. I thought it was all about being inclusive.
-
-
I don’t disagree. Although I’m certainly not insulted.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Instead we have a remarkable level of consensus.
.....Except on how to spell his bloody name, apparently.
All we know is that it is definitely not spelt: F.O.L.A.U.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
I don’t disagree. Although I’m certainly not insulted.
The gay people I've spoken to (admittedly only 3, but which is probably 3 more than most) couldn't give a stiff shit either.
-
Was thinking about how the ARU handled this earlier today. Seems to me they've created a rod for their own back with jumping to wanting to tear up the contract, and saying he won't be picked for the Wallabies. If the tribunal doesn't sack him, where the hell do they go from here?
A more measured approach would leave room for discussion and negotiation -- and still allow him to be managed out of the Wallabies if that's what they really wanted. Now it's a high stakes brawl to the death; if he doesn't get sacked, it's straight into a payout -- or watching him collect $100k a game for the Waratahs for the next three years.
For the sake of rugby, it woudl be good to have a reconciliation, but I"m really not sure it's going to happen
-
Good commentary in Sydney Morning Herald this morning written by lesbian activist Dawn Grace-Cohen decrying “queer fascism” that is trampling speech.
Silencing Folau with queer fascism betrays our gay marriage victory
I think Israel Folau's views make him a Neanderthal; he thinks I am a sinner. I should be able to say so and keep my job. So should he.
Marriage equality activists won over Australians not by silencing the opposition but by winning the argument. I was one of them, and last year I married my fiancee, Robyn Grace, after a 34-year engagement.
Resorting to bully tactics now against people who oppose us betrays that victory. We have asked the country to celebrate our diversity, but that means we must also celebrate diversity of opinion.
[...]
-
Dumbasses who can’t find their own zippers didn’t see this a mile away...
Rugby Australia reportedly face financial ruin in Israel Folau case
[...]
AMATEUR BLUNDER COULD SAVE FOLAU MILLIONS
Israel Folau has reportedly been armed with a legal loophole that could see his legal team tear down Rugby Australia's argument that he breached the terms of his contract significantly.
Preliminary, widespread reports initially claimed Folau's contract was terminated on the grounds that his Instagram post breached the terms of his individual playing contract and the players' code of conduct.
It was reported that Folau's 2018 contract extension included a personalised social media clause that held Folau to a certain standard of acceptable public comments after he last year caused uproar across Australian rugby with social media commentary ahead of the marriage equality vote.
It was reported at the time that major sponsor Qantas had threatened to walk away from its multi-million dollar deal with Rugby Australia unless action was taken to discipline the 30-year-old star.
Fresh reports, however, claim Rugby Australia failed to get Folau to sign off on the social media clause in his playing contract, weakening the governing body's claim that Folau's social media post constitutes a high-level breach of his contract.
[...]
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12227817
-
@Salacious-Crumb Surely even RA aren't that incompetent?
-
Does NZRU have social media and/or morality clauses for all players under contract to the degree that Folau was expected to sign; and if so, is it all the same clause for everybody or are they customized to the individual?
-
I think we already know where he stands, but here’s Alan Jones’ commentary in yesterday’s The Australian:
Israel Folau’s religious freedom the defining issue of our time
(EDit. Sorry, just saw it was behind a paywall. I’ll copy & paste it later from my PC....)
-
Jamie Padaharam from the Telegraph on Radio sport this morning who reported the ARU offered a 1+ million settlement which was turned down. With a better part of $4 million on the line Ezrail Fawlaow will roll the dice.
He also said there are further appeals to go so the first result is unlikely the end of the story.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Thing is, with the way Facebook is now all the ARU had to do was give him a slap on the wrist wait a week and he would have been booted off for hate speech. No more social media problems!
A snarky reply from the official ARU account in the commments section would have sufficed.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Thing is, with the way Facebook is now all the ARU had to do was give him a slap on the wrist wait a week and he would have been booted off for hate speech. No more social media problems!
A snarky reply from the official ARU account in the commments section would have sufficed.
Yep, a simple statement distancing themselves from Farlauwes views would have easily sufficed, the majority of people would not have cared. This is turning into a real mess for RA, it's very difficult to see them coming out in top especially if it goes to court.
-
@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Thing is, with the way Facebook is now all the ARU had to do was give him a slap on the wrist wait a week and he would have been booted off for hate speech. No more social media problems!
A snarky reply from the official ARU account in the commments section would have sufficed.
Yep, a simple statement distancing themselves from Farlauwes views would have easily sufficed, the majority of people would not have cared. This is turning into a real mess for RA, it's very difficult to see them coming out in top especially if it goes to court.
After the last time, perhaps they didn't want to look weak? Either way, Folau seems to be quite happy to drag this into court
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
With a better part of $4 million on the line Ezrail Fawlaow will roll the dice.
Well I hope Fillo gives it all away - it being harder for a rich man to enter a camel than for a needle to enter the kingdom of god (or biblical words something like that).
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions