The Folau Factor



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    The fact that the people who decided the appointees on the independent panel.. had already indicated his guilt and hung him out to dry. It was a kangaroo court with a pre determined outcome.

    Nobody doubted what the outcome was going to be. There was nothing much 'independent' about the tribunal.

    Do you think the tribunal was independent?

    If I answer "yes" are you going to accuse me of being naive? 🤔

    Nobody should have doubted the outcome because he did something he was expressly told to avoid doing by his employer. After doing it, he was incommunicado and then unrepentant. He put himself in that position.

    Was RA stupid for jumping on the "terminate" wagon before actually going through the process? No doubt, whatsoever.

    But they didn't make an idiot out of Folau - perfectly capable of doing that himself.



  • I had no doubt he was in breach of the Code of Conduct, so the finding that he was in breach was inevitable and really just a waste of everyone's time.

    The point I'm interested in is whether it infringes on freedom of speech and if an employer can legally terminate someone's contract based on expressing their religious beliefs, because that is a fair can of worms they're opening if they can.



  • Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Why not. Qantas picks and chooses the bigots they like to do business with.



  • @Virgil said in The Folau Factor:

    @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    He didnt get a fair trial the first time, logical for him to assume he wouldnt get a fair appeal either.

    Interesting viewpoint, given nobody here has read anything about the details of the CofC hearing, and nor will they due to confidentiality.

    So I'll ask: what was unfair?

    The result.

    I think it's a prima facie case he violated the code of conduct given they specifically have an inclusion policy.

    As to allegations of a stitch-up:

    RA confirmed on Friday morning that John West QC will chair the three person panel along with RA representative Kate Eastman SC and RUPA’s John Boultbee AM.

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I had no doubt he was in breach of the Code of Conduct, so the finding that he was in breach was inevitable and really just a waste of everyone's time.

    The point I'm interested in is whether it infringes on freedom of speech and if an employer can legally terminate someone's contract based on expressing their religious beliefs, because that is a fair can of worms they're opening if they can.

    There is no freedom of speech in Australia. At best the High Court has determined there is an implied freedom of political speech. That's it.

    As to the second, I agree.



  • @antipodean said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I had no doubt he was in breach of the Code of Conduct, so the finding that he was in breach was inevitable and really just a waste of everyone's time.

    The point I'm interested in is whether it infringes on freedom of speech and if an employer can legally terminate someone's contract based on expressing their religious beliefs, because that is a fair can of worms they're opening if they can.

    There is no freedom of speech in Australia. At best the High Court has determined there is an implied freedom of political speech. That's it.

    As to the second, I agree.

    Yeah, it's surprising but you're right. This case will be very interesting as it will likely set a precedent.

    This link talks about protection under common law.

    https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-right



  • @antipodean said in The Folau Factor:

    @Virgil said in The Folau Factor:

    @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    He didnt get a fair trial the first time, logical for him to assume he wouldnt get a fair appeal either.

    Interesting viewpoint, given nobody here has read anything about the details of the CofC hearing, and nor will they due to confidentiality.

    So I'll ask: what was unfair?

    The result.

    I think it's a prima facie case he violated the code of conduct given they specifically have an inclusion policy.

    As to allegations of a stitch-up:

    RA confirmed on Friday morning that John West QC will chair the three person panel along with RA representative Kate Eastman SC and RUPA’s John Boultbee AM.

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.

    And Falou? Did he get to agree?



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.



  • I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.



  • @MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.

    Yeah but 50 odd low level breaches must add up to something bigger? 🙂



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I had no doubt he was in breach of the Code of Conduct, so the finding that he was in breach was inevitable and really just a waste of everyone's time.

    The point I'm interested in is whether it infringes on freedom of speech and if an employer can legally terminate someone's contract based on expressing their religious beliefs, because that is a fair can of worms they're opening if they can.

    It shall be an interesting case alright ... Regardless of anybodies leaning, it's Folaus actions which caused this, so I have little sympathy for him.



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    @MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.

    Yeah but 50 odd low level breaches must add up to something bigger? 🙂

    per game, you mean?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    And Falou? Did he get to agree?

    🤔 so you're saying that even the player's union was against him?

    @antipodean said in The Folau Factor:

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.



  • @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    And Falou? Did he get to agree?

    🤔 so you're saying that even the player's union was against him?

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.

    Nope. I think they played it straight. But the other half of the decision makers did not.

    Do you think the ARU played it straight?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    Nope. I think they played it straight. But the other half of the decision makers did not.

    Your implication is either RA had undue influence over the Players Union, or that something went wrong in the actual hearing itself.

    If there was some kind of procedural issue, then it was up to Folau's representation to point that out, and get the entire thing thrown out.

    Clearly they couldn't, either through incompetence / lack of knowledge (which amounts to the same thing), OR maybe just because it was a breach.

    Edit: Occam's Razor.

    They didn't appeal, so either (again) they're incompetent or they know they can't win there.

    On the assumption this is going to court, the case they choose to test will be interesting.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    Do you think the ARU played it straight?

    Ah - you added this after the original quote.

    Yes, I do. Because, while they may have a shithouse record at running the game into the ground, they weren't about to fuck this up, leave themselves bankrupt, and deserted by fans.

    I'm still not sure why you posit some kind of conspiracy going on here.

    Do you think this is a larger issue?



  • @NTA The Players union are there to protect Folau no? I would have thought it was their duty to dispute the panel selections if they felt their man was being railroaded



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

    Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.



  • @canefan said in The Folau Factor:

    @NTA The Players union are there to protect Folau no? I would have thought it was their duty to dispute the panel selections if they felt their man was being railroaded

    Bingo. Like most unions, RUPA aren't afraid to pick a fight. While the players' cut of the pie is guaranteed, it's nice to have fewer people you need to represent for the slice 😉


Log in to reply