-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
His termination had nothing to do with him being a christian though did it, otherwise half of rugby players would be terminated. He was terminated because he breached the code of conduct. Surely saying my religion gives me a free card to use hate speech at work doesn't fly in today's society.
Depends if you think quoting religious texts is hate speech. I doubt he'd be quoting it in earnest belief if he wasn't a Christian.
What if I was an extremest and I was saying all non believers will die a fiery death, all non "insert religion" will die if they don't believe "my religion". If I approached a non believer in my work place and said John, sorry to say but you will die a painful fiery death unless you join my religion, you are a horrible person for not believing, you are sentencing you and your family to a horrible death. Do you think that would be tolerated?
Anyway I think it will be a good case to set a precedent and hopefully stop others spreading hateful speech in name of their religion.
I accept the nobler intentions of what you say, but who is to determine the extent of religious speech versus hateful speech? Does the Federal Government now step in and determine what passages can remain in the bible/ koran/ torah etc? Section 116 of the Constitution specifically prohibits such action: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"
I must say this whole debacle only serves to highlight to me how much I abhor the Brand values bullshit of commercial Rugby. It's going down somewhat of the same route as e.g. Apple, where the creation of an Apple persona, with its associated plethora of 'right-on' values, is a mechanism for gouging excess profits from its fan base (customers in old money).
I don't watch rugby as some sort of moral endeavour and I certainly don't implicitly sign up for the various rugby unions' 'values', which are spouted in such situations.
The level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. Anyone with any awareness realises that some of the pro's are women beaters and general psycho's/arseholes, having values which don't appear to be part of rugby union ideals.
The ARFU would do itself a favour if it adopted a code of conduct which didn't pontificate on which legal off field values were acceptable (or not) and just stuck to promoting the entertainment and athleticism of the sport.
That way IF repeating Christian beliefs would just be one man's view. Those who don't agree can simply chose not to be Christians, in much the same way I chose not to be Muslim, or Hindu, etc..
End of rant.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.
Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ACT and VIC have almost copied the Covenant into their State legislation
The UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 16 December 1966.
ICCPR Article 19 states:
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.There are also Anti-Vilification Laws that work adjacent to the implied freedom of expression ones.
I think this will go into the basket of carefully constructing a decision to support the actions of the ARU while avoiding the bigger picture.
-
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
His termination had nothing to do with him being a christian though did it, otherwise half of rugby players would be terminated. He was terminated because he breached the code of conduct. Surely saying my religion gives me a free card to use hate speech at work doesn't fly in today's society.
We didn't sack the player in question because he is a Muslim - we sacked him because he wouldn't follow the team ordered nutrition program over Ramadan.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
He's suing the game that has given him millions/fame/fortune/opportunity, with the potential to bankrupt it completely.
He is suing the ARU, not the NRL or AFL. Don't get it twisted as to what the ARU/Folau relationship was. The ARU gave him money in exchange for his profile, that's it.
-
@pakman said in The Folau Factor:
I must say this whole debacle only serves to highlight to me how much I abhor the Brand values bullshit of commercial Rugby. It's going down somewhat of the same route as e.g. Apple, where the creation of an Apple persona, with its associated plethora of 'right-on' values, is a mechanism for gouging excess profits from its fan base (customers in old money).
Yep I agree, however they are in a catch 22 as they want the best players, and the majority of players only play for the most "Money". So Rugby Unions have to generate as much profit as they can to keep players. Having the largest fanbase is one way to do that and if one of your products is alienating and turning away your subscribers then you would do best to cancel that show so to speak.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
His termination had nothing to do with him being a christian though did it, otherwise half of rugby players would be terminated. He was terminated because he breached the code of conduct. Surely saying my religion gives me a free card to use hate speech at work doesn't fly in today's society.
We didn't sack the player in question because he is a Muslim - we sacked him because he wouldn't follow the team ordered nutrition program over Ramadan.
Well if he signed a contract that stipulated said nutrition plan and he refused to eat and follow it which meant he could not play then yes I would think his employer would have some issues with that.
I suspect they would not be employed in the first place, much like Michael Jones missing the 95 WC due to not playing Sundays.
These grown men sign big arse contracts for huge sums of money we could only dream of. They know what is expected of them in return. There is a reason Folau is the only one sprouting these specific bible versus all over social media. The others know they would lose their lottery ticket if they did.
-
-
@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
I think he's made a bit of a mis-step by asking for $10m though. Is this about religion or about money?
He's suing the game that has given him millions/fame/fortune/opportunity, with the potential to bankrupt it completely.
Not sure how much public sympathy he will have in this fight, or support outside of the religious/libertarian community.
They always go in super high. Even if he wins he won't get close to $10m.
Yeah there is always a fair amount of ambit when a party first files. When it comes to awarding damages the courts have some fairly well established precedent and principles.
There is a compulsory conciliation process with the Commission that must play out and if not settled then is referred to the Federal Court. Most unlawful termination applications are resolved at that stage. Given both sides will be heavily lawyered up, it is doubtful it will be sorted then.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
He is suing the ARU, not the NRL or AFL. Don't get it twisted as to what the ARU/Folau relationship was. The ARU gave him money in exchange for his profile, that's it.
I'd suggest the ARU and rugby more broadly gave Folau access to money and opportunity he never could have gained in the NRL or AFL.
His profile has grown exponentially around the world since he moved to rugby.
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
No. There's a limited form of free speech implied but that's political, not religious.
Folau's legal team have made the smart move in framing this in the Federal Court as an unfair termination. That's the primary issue for the court to decide on given religion is a protected attribute.
I expect that the Federal Court will determine the extent of this protection, i.e. whether identifying as Christian, Buddhist, etc. prevents you from being fired or actually exercising your religion to the extent of preaching. And if you can preach, is this restricted to your own time etc.
-
@pakman said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
one of your products is alienating and turning away your subscribers
I suppose one question is whether or not because of his comments anyone has declined to watch a game IF is playing in?
I could only assume if RA did nothing and allowed all their players to say whatever they wanted, be it homophobic, sexist or racist comments it would soon have an impact. However maybe Christians will now boycott because IF is not playing.
-
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
@pakman said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
one of your products is alienating and turning away your subscribers
I suppose one question is whether or not because of his comments anyone has declined to watch a game IF is playing in?
I could only assume if RA did nothing and allowed all their players to say whatever they wanted, be it homophobic, sexist or racist comments it would soon have an impact. However maybe Christians will now boycott because IF is not playing.
"Christians" is a pretty broad brush. I'd assume that there's a hell of a lot more Christians that disagree with Folau than do.
-
Worth posting this from a lawyer on Reddit:
Without seeing the application I would assume he'll likely claim unfair dismissal or alternatively workplace discrimination. Lots of problems will arise in him proving this including that he already admitted to a high level breach of contract for his use of social media and the numerous other religious posts on his public social media that did not cause issue with RA. Dismissal law doesn't require a pattern of behaviour for the termination to be unlawful, only the singular act of termination is relevant. The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement. The FWC doesn't operate under the same laws of evidence as proper Courts do so they'll definitely take that into account despite it being a private dispute resolution procedure (normally findings in those kinds of things are not admissible evidence). I don't see the FWC reaching a decision too different to what the panel did. Discrimination is a harder ground to assess as it's much more open in what the Commission can consider. I still think he's got nothing as RA can demonstrate the numerous posts by both him and other players that didn't cause any issue. 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.
-
The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement.
Where did this information come from?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement.
Where did this information come from?
I read this article that infers RA asked him to delete the offending post and he refused as his Dad told him he would go to hell if he did. Maybe that is his admission?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
No. There's a limited form of free speech implied but that's political, not religious.
Folau's legal team have made the smart move in framing this in the Federal Court as an unfair termination. That's the primary issue for the court to decide on given religion is a protected attribute.
I expect that the Federal Court will determine the extent of this protection, i.e. whether identifying as Christian, Buddhist, etc. prevents you from being fired or actually exercising your religion to the extent of preaching. And if you can preach, is this restricted to your own time etc.
So do you reckon the content of his tweets has any bearing?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
Where did this information come from?
It is in this article here: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/inside-the-hearing-the-fatal-mistake-that-crucified-israel-folau/news-story/17236a1054b653d8b51a9a92c00afdab
The key paragraphs:
Under intense cross examination from top lawyer Justin Gleeson SC on the first day of his code of conduct hearing, Folau made the fatal acknowledgment. Asked if he understood that his social media posts could offend people, Folau, who had been expertly manoeuvring around the admission by repeatedly pointing back to the words being from the Bible, finally said he did. The next morning, a Sunday, Folau’s lawyers walked into the hearing and stunned Rugby Australia’s silks by admitting to a low-level breach of the player’s code of conduct. Gleeson then continued to grill Folau over the remaining two days as to whether, having admitted to the breach, he could take his post down and guarantee he would not make a similar post in future. Folau, already believing he would go to hell if he deleted his post, could guarantee neither. He admitted guilt to an offence, but would not take steps to rectify that offence, and gave no promises he would not commit another offence. The case was done at that moment.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions