General Rugby Discussion II

sydthebeat

swiwi_ wrote: »

I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.

any reports ive heard on this seem to be pretty clear that there are specific clauses in his contract in relation to his use of social media, and that his latest rants definitely break these clauses.... so the case for termination may be cut and dry.

however perhaps its the search for "compelling mitigating factors" by the ARU that is reason they havent straight up fired him.

swiwi_

sydthebeat wrote: »

any reports ive heard on this seem to be pretty clear that there are specific clauses in his contract in relation to his use of social media, and that his latest rants definitely break these clauses.... so the case for termination may be cut and dry.

however perhaps its the search for "compelling mitigating factors" by the ARU that is reason they havent straight up fired him.

Does he really need to be fired for this though? Can it not just be accepted he has alternative views and voila? He’s not asking for people to buy a gun and go out and shoot “sinners” he just says in the afterlife they will go to hell.

Squidgy Black

swiwi_ wrote: »

Does he really need to be fired for this though? Can it not just be accepted he has alternative views and voila? He’s not asking for people to buy a gun and go out and shoot “sinners” he just says in the afterlife they will go to hell.

Think it's a bit more complicated in that he's done this before where he's drawn heat on the ARU for publicly posting his beliefs (which a lot of people will find offensive for various reasons), and presumably was asked to practice his faith in private and not bring the spotlight onto the ARU as a result. But he's done it again, and this time was refusing to co-operate and ignoring contact from the ARU.

Akrasia

swiwi_ wrote: »

I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.

If Falou had said 'Muslims are all going to hell' or 'Jews are all going to hell'

Or if he was a catholic rugby player in Northern Ireland and said 'Protestants are all going to hell' then he would be alienating huge numbers of his own teammates and supporters of his own rugby team.

It's objectively wrong what he did, and just because it's the official doctrine of several world religions doesn't mean it's acceptable to say it in public.

The fact that it's doctrine and yet largely unspoken in enlightened society is just more evidence of how backwards and irrelevant these religious beliefs are in modern society.

The worst thing is that Falou has decided to put his prospective 'afterlife' before the life he is living now. He has achieved more in his chosen field than the vast majority of people could ever dream of achieving. He has risen to the very top of an elite group of elite sports stars through his own hard work, his own dedication and the help of his family, school, coaches and support networks, and instead of enjoying it and gaining satisfaction from his achievements and giving credit to himself and his mentors, he is throwing it all away because he has been indoctrinated into a lie about which god gave him 'gifts' what that god dictates that he has to believe and say and do in order to avoid eternal damnation in an afterlife for which there is no evidence even exists, and even less evidence about what 'god' expects people to do to avoid this punishment. (ie:, should he really even be playing rugby on 'the sabbath' given that working on that day is punishable by death and damnation and is against one of the 10 commandments)

aloooof

swiwi_ wrote: »

I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.

Can't help but feel there's a certain irony in this choice of phrasing.

It's not just about Folau here. It's about the teams he plays for and who he represents.

molloyjh

swiwi_ wrote: »

Does he really need to be fired for this though? Can it not just be accepted he has alternative views and voila? He’s not asking for people to buy a gun and go out and shoot “sinners” he just says in the afterlife they will go to hell.

The people that play for your national team represent your country in more ways than just the sport that they play. It's the very same reason I dislike McGregor. Part of the job is to positively promote your country, like it or not. And that's one of the reasons I'm okay with foreign players (Ireland is a multicultural society these days and our sport should reflect that).

Sports people, especially in team sports, have often been subject to limitations in their behaviour outside of the sport too, and many have been disciplined for various things, e.g. recreational drugs, consensual dwarf throwing etc. This isn't anything unusual or different really. Continuing to employ him would be to say that the sport doest care about homophobia. That things like that are none of its business. Try telling that to gay people involved in the game.

What damage would have been done to guys like Gareth Thomas had he been playing alongside someone like Folau. It's not about the community at large being affected, it's about vulnerable individuals being affected and a message that is harmful to them going unchecked.

And that doesn't even touch on the Quantas factor.

Pudsy33

swiwi_ wrote: »

Does he really need to be fired for this though? Can it not just be accepted he has alternative views and voila? He’s not asking for people to buy a gun and go out and shoot “sinners” he just says in the afterlife they will go to hell.

Homophobia isn't an "alternative view", it's akin to racism or sexism. I honestly can't understand people defending this.

sydthebeat

swiwi_ wrote: »

Does he really need to be fired for this though? Can it not just be accepted he has alternative views and voila? He’s not asking for people to buy a gun and go out and shoot “sinners” he just says in the afterlife they will go to hell.

hes not being fired for holding his particular view, however warpped it is.

hes being fired for expressing his view publicly as a ARU employee

swiwi_

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Homophobia isn't an "alternative view", it's akin to racism or sexism. I honestly can't understand people defending this.

But is he homophobic in the strict sense of the term? Did he say he hates them or can’t stand being in their company? He says he thinks it’s a sin and that they go to hell. Along with other sins like fornication and alcoholism etc. It’s basically fundamentalism but is it hate speech??

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Not really, sponsors are more than welcome to pull their sponsorship if their association can negatively harm their image.

It's the sole reason Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were canned (but I bet you that they got a nice payoff to not fight it)

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

hes not being fired for holding his particular view, however warpped it is.

hes being fired for expressing his view publicly as a ARU employee

Exactly.. I'd say most people will find that there is a clause somewhere in their employment contract saying something about behaviours that impact your employers reputation etc/ - I know mine does.

This is exactly it , He's an employee of the ARU and his actions are causing direct & indirect reputational damage to them.

I'm a nobody , so if I posted something distasteful on my social media (including here on boards) my employers probably couldn't do anything about it.. But If I posted using my work email address or if I had a profile with my employer that clearly and definitively connected me to them in public , then everything I say or do ,whether on Company time or not is subject to the terms of my contract.

It's as simple as that..

Pudsy33

swiwi_ wrote: »

But is he homophobic in the strict sense of the term? Did he say he hates them or can’t stand being in their company? He says he thinks it’s a sin and that they go to hell. Along with other sins like fornication and alcoholism etc. It’s basically fundamentalism but is it hate speech??

I'm not sure it qualifies as hate speech, but it is clearly homophobic to say being gay is a sin.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly.. I'd say most people will find that there is a clause somewhere in their employment contract saying something about behaviours that impact your employers reputation etc/ - I know mine does.

This is exactly it , He's an employee of the ARU and his actions are causing direct & indirect reputational damage to them.

I'm a nobody , so if I posted something distasteful on my social media (including here on boards) my employers probably couldn't do anything about it.. But If I posted using my work email address or if I had a profile with my employer that clearly and definitively connected me to them in public , then everything I say or do ,whether on Company time or not is subject to the terms of my contract.

It's as simple as that..

Is it that simple when it comes to religion (and not illegal actions/comments made) and freedom from "religious persecution". Because that is how I would see the christian fringe reacting.

Pudsy33

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I'm not sure it qualifies as hate speech, but it is clearly homophobic to say being gay is a sin.

Don't they also go one further

Being gay is not a sin, having gay sex is the sin?

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.

He has thousands of followers. He is suggesting that it's god's will that homosexuals burn for all eternity. He chooses to worship a hateful deity but in my opinion it's a cheap way to hide behind something to excuse his own innate prejudices.

Either way, it gives legitimacy to the belief and all it takes is one person to read it and decide to act out god's will on the gay community themselves.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

He has thousands of followers. He is suggesting that it's god's will that homosexuals burn for all eternity. He chooses to worship a hateful deity but in my opinion it's a cheap way to hide behind something to excuse his own innate prejudices.

Either way, it gives legitimacy to the belief and all it takes is one person to read it and decide to act out god's will on the gay community themselves.

Yes and if the ARU come out and say what you have, they will be seen as attacking religion (and impinging on freedom of religious expression).
What should be a simple case of "You're a hate filled f*ck and we do not want to be associated with you" is not as clear cut as people would like/assume it to be

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it that simple when it comes to religion (and not illegal actions/comments made) and freedom from "religious persecution". Because that is how I would see the christian fringe reacting.

Yes , it is.

The fact that his statement was religious in nature is entirely secondary.

His contract will have a form of words that basically says " Do not do anything that has a negative reputational or financial impact on your employer"

I don't think that the ARU would have any difficulty whatsoever is showing that Folaus statements had material or potentially material impact on either their reputation or their finances.

As other have said - Freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean "freedom from consequence".

He is free to believe/say whatever he wants , but by accepting that freedom he also has to own the consequences.

Legally speaking , I don't think the ARU are at any risk whatsoever in cancelling his contract here.

Will a certain % of people react negatively to that? of course , but the ARU will be of the view that they will be dwarved by the potential negative impact of not firing him.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yes , it is.

The fact that his statement was religious in nature is entirely secondary.

His contract will have a form of words that basically says " Do not do anything that has a negative reputational or financial impact on your employer"

I don't think that the ARU would have any difficulty whatsoever is showing that Folaus statements had material or potentially material impact on either their reputation or their finances.

As other have said - Freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean "freedom from consequence".

He is free to believe/say whatever he wants , but by accepting that freedom he also has to own the consequences.

Legally speaking , I don't think the ARU are at any risk whatsoever in cancelling his contract here.

Will a certain % of people react negatively to that? of course , but the ARU will be of the view that they will be dwarved by the potential negative impact of not firing him.

And does the freedom of consequence also stronger than of employers responsibility to freedom of religious expression (and freedom from religious persecution)?
Australia has no one law covering this AFAIK, rather it's a jumbled mess of local laws and national amendments to existing laws.

Is that where ARU are having difficulty?

I would rather that they take their time and work this out correctly than giving him a stick to beat them with.

Former Former

Saracens statement on Billy Vunipola

Club Statement regarding Billy Vunipola
Saracens proudly embraces diversity and warmly welcomes everyone to the Club regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

Our sport is open to all and we strive for it to be free from all forms of discrimination. We recognise that people have different belief systems and we expect everyone to be treated equally with respect and humility.

As representatives and role models, Saracens players have a responsibility not only to themselves but to the Club and wider society. Billy Vunipola’s recent social media posts are inconsistent with this and we take this matter very seriously. It will be handled internally.

The sentence about players having a responsibility beyond themselves is nail on the head. If Folau or Vunipola want to be free to post whatever they want on social media, then great, go be a nobody and you can say whatever you want. Problem solved. By the wider standards of the internet, what Folau posted is pretty mild, it only matters because of who he is.

You can't enjoy the fruits of being a star athlete and opt out of the parts you don't like.

Squidgy Black

Good statement from Saracens, clear and precise that they don't support his actions, can't really ask for any more than that.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Larbre34

Its easy to say Billy crossed the road to stick his nose into this when any eejit wouldve told him he should have walked on by, but you have to understand the brand of evangelical Christianity common in the South Seas. Its overt, its pro-active, its missionary and pretty fanatical. Look at lads like Bundee Aki paying huge reverence to God every time they come on or leave the pitch or score. Vunipola probably saw it as his role to defend it, even if he might not have gone as far as Folau in the first instance.

The so-called transgressions that Folau referenced are indeed sins if you accept scripture as he does, the problem is he has weaponised it and framed it as an incitement to hatred. That isn't compatible with any job really, other than being a minister or a preacher of that brand of faith, although if you take it to the extremes of the Westboro Baptist Church and the likes, its not compatible with any kind of decency.

By all accounts Folau has been radicalised by an agent or manager of his who introduced him to this stuff, but he's a big boy and if he can't figure out that you either practice your faith privately or you find a job that facilitates being so overt about it, or you shut up generally, then he deserved to be shut out of sport which at first principles should be inclusive and leave faith and politics at the gate. I suspect Vunipola will have that choice presented to him in pretty stark terms by Sarries and if necessary the RFU soon also.

Laphroaig52

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As other have said - Freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean "freedom from consequence".

He is free to believe/say whatever he wants , but by accepting that freedom he also has to own the consequences.

Rubbish! If the consequence of exercising freedom of speech is loss of your job, then there is no freedom of speech in any practical sense.

It's interesting how much focus there is on the homophobic nature of the tweet when 'homosexuals' represent only one of the eight groups he targeted and I suspect that few of us reading this thread have escaped his wrath.

Personally, I'm going to hell on at least 5 counts.
Am I 'offended'...? Not really.
Amused..? A bit.
Is Folau a bit cracked....? Oh Yeah!
Still think he's a fine rugby player though....

Squidgy Black

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

Rubbish! If the consequence of exercising freedom of speech is loss of your job, then there is no freedom of speech in any practical sense.

It's interesting how much focus there is on the homophobic nature of the tweet when 'homosexuals' represent only one of the eight groups he targeted and I suspect that few of us reading this thread have escaped his wrath.

Personally, I'm going to hell on at least 5 counts.
Am I 'offended'...? Not really.
Amused..? A bit.
Is Folau a bit cracked....? Oh Yeah!
Still think he's a fine rugby player though....

Because you don't 'choose' to be gay. And you can't just change and 'repent your sin away' if you're gay.

sydthebeat

Laphroaig52 wrote: »

Rubbish! If the consequence of exercising freedom of speech is loss of your job, then there is no freedom of speech in any practical sense.

bullsh!t

no workplace in a modern society allows their employees to spout any kind of crap without consequences. If what you are broadcasting is against the ethos of the company you can certainly expect your contract terminated.

If what you are broadcasting is a kin to hate speech... you can have no argument when your contract is terminated.

swiwi_

Philosophically, I still don’t think the majority view should be the only view allowed to be aired. TBH if he’d left the gay side of it out his list of condemned sinners he’d probably be fine. I doubt alcoholics united or whatever would want him sacked. Some people would argue alcoholism is in the genes (and there is some evidence for that) and therefore not a choice. I suppose he’s targeted a group that has had a lot of injustice through the years but I don’t like taking what is the stance of most people and saying it’s the only stance allowed. If we turn on it’s head and had a prominent gay rugby player making derogatory social media comments about fundamentalist Christians would that cause the same reaction? Would that player be sacked? I doubt it. I don’t think his highly conservative religious views automatically equates to hate speech. It’d be interesting to see this go to the Aussie high court for a ruling.

stephen_n

https://twitter.com/joemarler/status/1116717777874767872?s=21

Joe Marler’s response to Billy V, I’m really starting to warm to Marler.

Stheno

What did Billy V say? Seem to have missed it

Edit found it

Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of consequence.

If your friend launches into a complete gutting of you in front of your friends and family, tears you down, reduces all of your achievements and exaggerates your weaknesses in an effort to ridicule you, you would be an interesting person if you simply shrugged and said "well, I guess you're entitled to say that without anything whatsoever coming of it".

Freedom of speech is a right.
Rights are balanced with responsibilities.

You are always entitled to ignore your responsibilities when you seek to exercise your rights, but you are certainly not entitled to expect that everyone ignores you doing this, and continues as if nothing happened.

Hermy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and if the ARU come out and say what you have, they will be seen as attacking religion (and impinging on freedom of religious expression).

I wish they could do just that.
It's well past time that religion was called out for the made up nonsense that it is.
And similarly those who use their 'faith' to malign and belittle those they disagree with.

Guy:Incognito

swiwi_ wrote: »

But is he homophobic in the strict sense of the term? Did he say he hates them or can’t stand being in their company? He says he thinks it’s a sin and that they go to hell. Along with other sins like fornication and alcoholism etc. It’s basically fundamentalism but is it hate speech??

I cant be racist, sure dont I have black friends.......