-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
I don't have a problem with him doing this, he's within his rights to seek donations for whatever he wants.
But I'm also within my rights to call him a selfish, greedy, money-grabbing dickhead. He's a multi-millionaire, and instead of asking people to donate to the millions of worthy causes in the world, he's asking us to bankroll a legal defence he should be able to easily afford.
I can also criticise him on a fundamental religious level too, because to me is at odds with the general vibe of the New Testament.
Amen to that. No issue with him raising money if he likes, but equally there can be no issue with me calling him whatever I like. What a prick.
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
The will of the people I guess
And Drew Mitchell tweet is actually aimed at the donors. Nothing wrong with asking for money
Israel isn't allowed to publically criticize the actions of others but Drew is?
Everyone is allowed to publicly criticise the actions of others. No doubt people will criticise Drew. You might even do so yourself, and no-one will censor you for doing so.
-
Must we all always explain the rules about free speech as a prelude to all opinions?
"I'm within my rights to point out that opinion conflicts are not a zero sum game. No opinion beats another, it's just an indicator of knowledge and intelligence"- is that how it works?
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
Must we all always explain the rules about free speech as a prelude to all opinions?
"I'm within my rights to point out that opinion conflicts are not a zero sum game. No opinion beats another, it's just an indicator of knowledge and intelligence"- is that how it works?
No idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could rephrase.
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo Drew Mitchell is definitely casting a slur on the donors though. Smug superiority
Is he? The tweet that I read is speaking directly to Folau. I agree with Drew. If Folau wants to go to court on what is essentially a civil lawsuit for money, he should fund it himself.
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo you have an opinion of Folau, do you have an opinion of the donors?
Cool if you don't mateNot really. They aren't harming anyone to any great degree I don't think. At least they are contributing their own cash to something they believe in.
-
@Damo yep, same here.
I just can't be fucked judging someone breaking no laws, who I've never met. I don't know his set up
I do find corporate ARU more culpable for escalating this mess, their hurried first response bordered on hysterical. Should have been negotiated privately like any "family" dispute -
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
@Kirwan seriously tho a lot of the hardcore Bible bashers here are throwing cash into it, like this is the pinnacle of free speech/religion judgements; an existential threat or something
He's probably not the hero people want but I think many will be looking to this as someone making a stand. There is definitely a lot of pent up angst in Australia at the excesses of the progressive movement especially over the events of the last 2-3 years and the refusal of many to call it out, Folau might just be the symbol of a resistance even if it might look like he is money grubbing to many.
I have read that three times now, and really have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you saying that the conservative government with a conservative prime Minister (an evangelical Christian no less), who have had run of the country for 6 years, are - along with the wider society - somehow being hounded to the point where they need some greedy fucking idiot who pissed away his professional sporting contract, in order to somehow re-establish an imaginary balance that conservatives have somehow been denied?
Or is it just coincidence that Folau's actions have arisen in conservative Australia's hour of need?
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo yep, same here.
I just can't be fucked judging someone breaking no laws, who I've never met. I don't know his set up
I do find corporate ARU more culpable for escalating this mess, their hurried first response bordered on hysterical. Should have been negotiated privately like any "family" disputeI disagree. My understanding is that RA made their position clear about the conduct they expected from Folau. Folau showed he did not agree to abide by that conduct. Folau made it clear he was unrepentant and would carry on posting as he chose - even going so far as to refuse to remove the offending post. I don't see there was any room for negotiation or settlement under these circumstances. Settlement requires will from both sides, which was not present here.
My only criticism of RA was the early statement that they would most likely terminate the contract. They should have said that they would commission an inquiry to determine sanction. I think that was a little naive.
I have no problem judging Folau. If he wants to be thought of as a martyr then he should be a martyr and fund his own legal battles, particularly given if he wins he stands to make millions.
-
isnt Folau suing because he was sacked due to his Religious beliefs rather than free speech, because IMO there is a big difference.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Folau Factor:
isnt Folau suing because he was sacked due to his Religious beliefs rather than free speech, because IMO there is a big difference.
He's suing because he wants 10 million bucks. He now has no reason to back down because others are going to pay his bills for him.
FWIW, I believe Folau is saying that he was sacked due to discrimination against his religious beliefs. He can't sue for "free speech" because that isn't a cause of action against a private entity.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Folau Factor:
isnt Folau suing because he was sacked due to his Religious beliefs rather than free speech, because IMO there is a big difference.
I'm not sure quite what his defence is but that would seem the logical avenue. To me the whole thing is quite simple and can be boiled down to;-
-
Is what he tweeted a dick thing to have said?
I think in this day and age, many people would say yes. -
Should he be able to articulate such views?
Absolutely. -
Did he violate an agreement between himself and the ARU?
Well they say yes. -
If the answer to 3 is yes does that trump his right to freedom of expression and/or his religious beliefs?
I'd guess that is what will be decided by the legal process and is really what separates most opinions on this thread. For me, the agreement (if it properly exists), trumps all.
I guess we'll see in due course.
-
-
Am I the only one surprised the Folau hasn't had multiple offers from qualified lawyers to take this on pro-bono simply due to the profile of the case? Surely the Venn diagram between rugby enthusiast and conservatives sympathetic to Folau's views (or at least his right to express them) converge enough for a couple of dozen?
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
Am I the only one surprised the Folau hasn't had multiple offers from qualified lawyers to take this on pro-bono simply due to the profile of the case? Surely the Venn diagram between rugby enthusiast and conservatives sympathetic to Folau's views (or at least his right to express them) converge enough for a couple of dozen?
Interesting point as if he does win then this would potentially open the floodgates for more litigation and $$$$ for the lawyers.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions