-
@ACT-Crusader said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel the Australian law around this is pretty ambiguous so not sure that something could be inserted into a contract to prevent this and actually stand up under current laws.
My crystal ball is if there is an appeal and even if it goes to a Full Court or to the High Court, there will be calls for legislative change. I do agree with Raelene in one regard, this is a test case.
For what it’s worth and as a spectator in all this I certainly don’t have any qualms with how things transpired last year - contract and dealing with social media issue - my only criticism of RA has been how they went public so early and so hard. I don’t think it was necessary.
Tbh I don't think they had much of an option. It was really a bit of a Truman vs Macarthur situation. They would have looked ridiculously weak if they'd done anything less than sack him. But they should never have allowed themselves to be in that situation and should at the very least have had something on paper that limited Phalanx's social media use.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel yeah I think I recall a post or three :face_with_stuck-out_tongue:
Then again maybe we shouldn't be too harsh on them, he is a talent and they've been a bit desperate of late
-
How would RA deal with it again hindsight?
What have we learned?
Hopefully not be so quick to publically pass verdict without a few private meetings?There is some schadenfreude here as they puffed out their chests, cherry picked the homosexuality victims ( blatant double standards not speaking for the other groups who've got destination hell to look forward to - adulterers anyone??) and now, arguably, have let their enthusiasm for virtue signalling taint this mole hill that's become a mountain.
Less posturing more processing me thinks
-
@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian if you think we can just move on from the mis-spelling joke then you are grossly underestimating the number of cringe-worthy Dads that post here.
A mate who is a new Dad keeps messaging me about some bloke bankrupting the ARU called [don’t be a] Stink FullaAu.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Why would fans rally behind RA? If they cared so much about this matter then why was Foongcha happily welcomed back into the fold last year?
Because he apologised, said he wouldn't do it again. People took him at face value and assumed he'd learnt his lesson.
Not only has he done it again, he's doubled down. He's refused to compromise, he's blocking calls from the coach, he's not answering his door when RA staff come to his house.
A section of the public may still be angry at RA, but I think there would be plenty of fans who would think that RA has taken a logical course of action given Folau's behaviour throughout this process.
Are you joking??
I am surprised he hasnt said more as his name and beliefs were dragged through the mud by his employer. QANTAS and the ARU treated him like complete crap, his coach publically disparaged him and his selection chances... and somehow he is supposed to bend over and treat these ass clowns with respect? Fuck.Right.OffAs for the impact, that remains to be seen, but ARU have taken a side, might be the side of the majority, but that doesnt mean they can afford to lose a minority over virtua; signalling, arrogant and likely illegal anti free speech bullshit.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Seems a lot of the current orthadoxy is based more on emotion than rationalism. The sooner organisations realise that the cultish 8% of twitter users (and the media who amplify it) that drive online discourse are not actually representative of normal every-day folk the better.
FWIW, most of the people I speak to in the Aussie rugby community are supportive of RA in this.
These aren't twitter people, they are blokes on the sidelines of rugby matches in suburban Sydney.
I'd actually guess in this case it's the pro-Folau crowd who have been overestimated in their size, due to a few mouthpieces in the Murdoch press and on talkback radio.
I don't doubt many people support the stance of being against homophobia, that's a reflection of society today which is great.
I guess my question to those people is did they immediately want him sacked, or would a simple statement from RA saying his comments don't reflect their organisation have sufficed? If they'd just pointed out people are free to express their own beliefs and then moved on, would those same people be taking to social media to demand his contract be cancelled? Starting petitions etc?
I suspect not, given his views were already well known to everyone. The actions from QANTAS and RA were an attempt to appease the social media mobs once the mainstream media had made a big deal of his posts. Which IMO has led to a disproportionate punishment.
The court cases will be very interesting.
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
How would RA deal with it again hindsight?
He's one of their best players and they were willing to take the gamble that he would be a good boy. Seemingly without a net that clauses in writing would have provided. Perhaps next time they would be wise to remember that no one player is bigger than the game?
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
He has been judged by an independent panel to have breached the code of conduct.
If the panel has to be labelled "the independent panel" that should have tipped you off.
The ARU appointed one panel member (who found in the ARUs favour), the RUPA appointed a member (who found in Izzy's favour) and a chair. There is limited information on how he was appointed (mutually agreed by both parties as part of bargaining perhaps?). At best it was a one-person independent panel.
I invite you to look at the ARU's selection Kate Eastman SC and come to your own conclusions as to why the ARU felt she would be a good candidate for the panel.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel seems there were differing reports on whether he apologised to Castle or not, and whether he committed to no further posts of that nature. But one thing I reckon they should have caught is his increasing devotion to his church and faith. Sure he was already strong on that around the time of the first contentious post, but now he's actively preaching and surely will go on to be a minister or something.
I may have mentioned the same thing once or twenty times
It was obvious that he was a fullblown God botherer by that stage and not the half-arsed Irish Catholic variety either. An inclusive organisation does not want someone representing them who said gays will go to hell. Even if he promises to not tweet about it why would you hire him if you were fairdinkum about inclusiveness. You wouldn't hire a racist who promised to keep quiet about it so why hire a dude who thinks being gay is a deadly sin.
It's a tricky case. Because
a) your are right, he has outed himself as somebody who isn't inclusive as they want
b) you are wrong, he has not outed himself at all, he sends these messages "with love" as part of his religous beliefs.He doesn't think he's telling gays to go to hell. He think he's helping people because he loves them. It's fucked up.
To your second point, you can't hire / fire people on their with held beliefs. I'm pretty sure I'd be fired if a lot of my innter thoughts / views were exposed (without context).
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Why would fans rally behind RA? If they cared so much about this matter then why was Foongcha happily welcomed back into the fold last year?
Because he apologised, said he wouldn't do it again. People took him at face value and assumed he'd learnt his lesson.
Not only has he done it again, he's doubled down. He's refused to compromise, he's blocking calls from the coach, he's not answering his door when RA staff come to his house.
A section of the public may still be angry at RA, but I think there would be plenty of fans who would think that RA has taken a logical course of action given Folau's behaviour throughout this process.
Nice to hear the view of the general rugby public.
I don’t get the whole “it wasn’t in his contract thing”
Our firm recently updated our code of conduct to include pretty strict rules on posting political and religious views on social media. This was reviewed pretty comprehensively by our lawyers and circulated to staff via email.
Essentially it says if we post inflammatory stuff on social media it has to be with a disclaimer that this is our view and not that of our employer.
Nobody was required to sign anything, but as I understand it. It’s still enforceable.
-
Jeez there is still a lot of people spinning their wheels on the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" thing on this topic in the media I've seen today.
The best quote I saw on GAGR in relation to "freedom of <whatever>" :
The UN doesn't guarantee you employment as a highly paid professional athlete, that comes with conditions.
Not sure it is much deeper than that.
-
@SammyC said in The Folau Factor:
I don’t get the whole “it wasn’t in his contract thing”
Our firm recently updated our code of conduct to include pretty strict rules on posting political and religious views on social media. This was reviewed pretty comprehensively by our lawyers and circulated to staff via email.
Essentially it says if we post inflammatory stuff on social media it has to be with a disclaimer that this is our view and not that of our employer.
Nobody was required to sign anything, but as I understand it. It’s still enforceable.
Absolutely. And when you talk to various sources, NOBODY in the Rugby Union Players Association would have allowed a specific clause to be signed off on, anyway.
RA took a risk, and it didn't pay off. Saying sinners will go to hell is pretty standard I guess, but suddenly all the bits about not needing wealth and passing a camel through the eye of a needle aren't required.
If we're relying on one (fairly dim) guy to be a rugby force at international level, we're fucked anyway. Might as well make it fast.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel seems there were differing reports on whether he apologised to Castle or not, and whether he committed to no further posts of that nature. But one thing I reckon they should have caught is his increasing devotion to his church and faith. Sure he was already strong on that around the time of the first contentious post, but now he's actively preaching and surely will go on to be a minister or something.
I may have mentioned the same thing once or twenty times
It was obvious that he was a fullblown God botherer by that stage and not the half-arsed Irish Catholic variety either. An inclusive organisation does not want someone representing them who said gays will go to hell. Even if he promises to not tweet about it why would you hire him if you were fairdinkum about inclusiveness. You wouldn't hire a racist who promised to keep quiet about it so why hire a dude who thinks being gay is a deadly sin.
It's a tricky case. Because
a) your are right, he has outed himself as somebody who isn't inclusive as they want
b) you are wrong, he has not outed himself at all, he sends these messages "with love" as part of his religous beliefs.He doesn't think he's telling gays to go to hell. He think he's helping people because he loves them. It's fucked up.
To your second point, you can't hire / fire people on their with held beliefs. I'm pretty sure I'd be fired if a lot of my innter thoughts / views were exposed (without context).
Yes you can if they can potentially harm your organisation. What inner thoughts would get you fired?
-
With held. Get my drift?
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side?
I don't think people are afraid to support Folau here (btw I reckon we can move on from the mis-spelling joke now), or more to the point people are certainly unafraid to beat up Rugby Australia about all manner of things.
My feeling is that RA has the broad support of the rugby community here in the way they have acted, and they don't have that on many issues these days.
Certainly there are people who disagree, but in his actions post-sanction Folau has erased the small amount of goodwill he had left I reckon.
Next you'll be saying not to boo Quade
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side?
I don't think people are afraid to support Folau here (btw I reckon we can move on from the mis-spelling joke now), or more to the point people are certainly unafraid to beat up Rugby Australia about all manner of things.
My feeling is that RA has the broad support of the rugby community here in the way they have acted, and they don't have that on many issues these days.
Certainly there are people who disagree, but in his actions post-sanction Folau has erased the small amount of goodwill he had left I reckon.
Good luck with that, it’ll be years before people get sick of this. Some jokes having been going for 13 years here.
I blame Deans
(16 years)
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
With held. Get my drift?
Yes, I just want to know what bigoted views you have in your evil mind.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
With held. Get my drift?
Yes, I just want to know what bigoted views you have in your evil mind.
Only Veal, really.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions