-
@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.
-
@SammyC said in The Folau Factor:
@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.
I guess if Farlauaw takes this all the way then we'll find out whether this sort of thing is actually enforceable, or if it's a meaningless attempt by companies to try and control what their employees say to protect their brand.
I would prefer the letter.
-
@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:
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?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me. It happened last time he did it. If RA just put out a statement like that I think it would have angered a lot of people, and certainly would affect the way Folau was supported by Tahs and Wallabies fans.
-
Who’s going to stand up for us drunkards and fornicators?
-
Ultimately beliefs including religious ones change over time and they should reflect societies norms and values. I'm pretty sure Christianity found the bible was ok with slavery as blacks were sinful etc etc. Once society no longer deemed slavery moral the church changed their interpretation of the bible.
I would like to believe society has now accepted that homosexuality is not a choice and is definitely not a sin. Therefore society no longer tolerates hateful discriminatory speech towards Homosexuals regardless if it was once interpreted that way. This is why you don't see every other religious celebrity shouting Gays are going to hell.
Folau would have to be stupid not to understand the implications of his actions.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
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.
Probably as a result of legal advice considering he'd been told he was going to be sacked and then had to front a code of conduct hearing.
-
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
Ultimately beliefs including religious ones change over time and they should reflect societies norms and values. I'm pretty sure Christianity found the bible was ok with slavery as blacks were sinful etc etc. Once society no longer deemed slavery moral the church changed their interpretation of the bible.
I would like to believe society has now accepted that homosexuality is not a choice and is definitely not a sin. Therefore society no longer tolerates hateful discriminatory speech towards Homosexuals regardless if it was once interpreted that way. This is why you don't see every other religious celebrity shouting Gays are going to hell.
Folau would have to be stupid not to understand the implications of his actions.
You're speaking about a bloke that's given up a $4million contract to quote bible passages...
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
How would RA deal with it again hindsight?
Call it a potential breach of the code of conduct and that the parties would deal with it rather than state the outcome and hastily convene a mechanism to achieve it?
If this does progress as it certainly looks it will, one thing to keep in mind in the panel may have been looking at specifically whether his actions breached the code of conduct - not whether it itself has any force. It all depends on their brief.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
Ultimately beliefs including religious ones change over time and they should reflect societies norms and values. I'm pretty sure Christianity found the bible was ok with slavery as blacks were sinful etc etc. Once society no longer deemed slavery moral the church changed their interpretation of the bible.
I would like to believe society has now accepted that homosexuality is not a choice and is definitely not a sin. Therefore society no longer tolerates hateful discriminatory speech towards Homosexuals regardless if it was once interpreted that way. This is why you don't see every other religious celebrity shouting Gays are going to hell.
Folau would have to be stupid not to understand the implications of his actions.
You're speaking about a bloke that's given up a $4million contract to quote bible passages...
Not just any bible passages. A stuff article reported that his religious themed social media posts have been on the increase over the last couple of years and no one at RA said a thing. He only crossed the line with two posts and that's how he finds himself in the position he's in. So RA have been tolerant of his views and his expression of those views.
I think i read that Polynesians make up 45% of RA players? Was that at rep or Super level and higher? Am I free to assume, because no one else has been called out like this, that all of those other players of faith have not seen fit to spread anti-social religious based views in public?
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions