General Rugby Discussion II

Guy:Incognito

stephen_n wrote: »

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

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

Him and Haskell have been great on all this. Top notch.

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

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.

So do I but they are not going to do that (and risk anti discrimination laws themselves)

VayNiice

I've noticed the rugby media in different countries have been highlighting players from other countries liking Folau's post but ignoring their own players doing the same.

I read a NZ rugby article naming the Aussie players who liked it but made no reference to Naholo or Francis Saili. Similarly I haven't heard any of the Irish media mention that one of our own players (supposedly) liked it before unliking it.

Unclebumble

Interesting article in NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12222066

molloyjh

swiwi_ wrote: »

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.

So does that mean we should allow rugby players post racist and sexist comments without response or reaction? And if not, what's the difference between those and homophobic comments?

In many ways having a singular view can very much be a bad thing. But when it comes to bigotry, which this is, then I think a singular view is completely acceptable. Any other view condones it.

stephen_n

swiwi_ wrote: »

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.

So if SBW started posting that all infidels (Christians) will die screaming, you don’t think there would be a backlash in NZ? He would just be stating what his religion believes. Wether it’s the minority or the majority doing it, hate speech is still wrong. You’re entitled to believe what ever you want and live according to those principles. You are not entitled to attack others for not doing so though.

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

So does that mean we should allow rugby players post racist and sexist comments without response or reaction? And if not, what's the difference between those and homophobic comments?

In many ways having a singular view can very much be a bad thing. But when it comes to bigotry, which this is, then I think a singular view is completely acceptable. Any other view condones it.

stephen_n wrote: »

So if SBW started posting that all infidels (Christians) will die screaming, you don’t think there would be a backlash in NZ? He would just be stating what his religion believes. Wether it’s the minority or the majority doing it, hate speech is still wrong. You’re entitled to believe what ever you want and live according to those principles. You are not entitled to attack others for not doing so though.

I'm just playing devil's advocate TBH. I'm not really supporting Folau, but someone has to take the side of free speech, otherwise the thread is boring :P

I think if Folau was Muslim rather than fundamentalist Christian, he'd have an easier time of it TBH. Likewise if he was gay attacking fundamentalist Christians, I'd say he'd also have an easier time of it.

I just don't like the most prevalent (socially acceptable) view being the only one allowed to have any airtime. What is acceptable now will be outmoded in a few years, history shows that. Only a few decades back, Folau's views would have been the vast majority of opinion, and the view most people hold on the forum now would have been the distinct minority. I'd like to think that expressing views can be taken outside the social conditions in which they exist. As I've already said, he's expressed his views about what happens to his version of sinners after they die. He hasn't incited anyone to violence, verbal abuse etc.

I mean if he said all Kiwis were going to hell (I was born Kiwi, wasn't a choice..), would I want him fired...?

Anyway, I'm fairly sure he WILL lose his contract, and everyone will be happy enough, Folau excepted.

Eod100

swiwi_ wrote: »

I'm just playing devil's advocate TBH. I'm not really supporting Folau, but someone has to take the side of free speech, otherwise the thread is boring :P

I think if Folau was Muslim rather than fundamentalist Christian, he'd have an easier time of it TBH. Likewise if he was gay attacking fundamentalist Christians, I'd say he'd also have an easier time of it.

I just don't like the most prevalent (socially acceptable) view being the only one allowed to have any airtime. What is acceptable now will be outmoded in a few years, history shows that. Only a few decades back, Folau's views would have been the vast majority of opinion, and the view most people hold on the forum now would have been the distinct minority. I'd like to think that expressing views can be taken outside the social conditions in which they exist. As I've already said, he's expressed his views about what happens to his version of sinners after they die. He hasn't incited anyone to violence, verbal abuse etc.

I mean if he said all Kiwis were going to hell (I was born Kiwi, wasn't a choice..), would I want him fired...?

Anyway, I'm fairly sure he WILL lose his contract, and everyone will be happy enough, Folau excepted.

I'm not quite sure what the bold bit means in this context? I would think the majority of people are tolerant of same sex relationships and don't see that changing in next few decades.

If you mean in terms of religion, again I think most don't have an issue. I wouldn't expect certain religions which have relied on the same doctrine for centuries to change anytime soon.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

but someone has to take the side of free speech

This isn't a free speech issue.

He is entirely free to say what he wants.

And people are entirely free to think that he is an ignorant, prejudicial ass hole and he can enjoy his free speech somewhere else.

swiwi_ wrote: »

I think if Folau was Muslim rather than fundamentalist Christian

I hate this attitude to be honest. Muslims get a terrible time of it from large swathes of society. I've Muslim friends who are modern in their outlook and completely reasonable decent people. They still can first hand describe the prejudice they experience in public spaces. I tend to be more sensitive to criticism of Islam simply because it's a poorly treated minority in Europe and they are defensive as a result. That's a problem of our society's making and not one that christian's experience in Europe or Australia.

But to suggest that Muslims get an easier time is nonsense, just some people are hyper sensitive to it because of the overt and wide spread racism on display in Europe. Boris Johnson called Muslim women post boxes for f sake and he was foreign minister in the UK up until a few months before that.

There is definitely some compensation at play among liberals in terms of their defence of Islam but that doesn't mean there is a subsequent ignorance of the right wing of that religion, just a desire to even out the hate that is so patently evident in society, especially in the UK.

swiwi_

Eod100 wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what the bold bit means in this context?

What I mean is that issue that are taboo now, might well be totally not taboo in a few years.

I mean what is acceptable now was considered totally taboo a few decades back.

Morals and mores change with time.

TBH, people don't believe in hell...but are annoyed Folau is saying people on his list are going there...

Former Former

Unclebumble wrote: »

Interesting article in NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12222066

That is very interesting.

At the time of the previous controversy, Folau made a big virtue of being willing to walk away from his contract if he was asked or had to compromise his beliefs. Of course, that contract had nearly expired.

Now he has three years left on a more lucrative deal and he's a lot less chilled about the prospect. Funny that.

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

That is very interesting.

At the time of the previous controversy, Folau made a big virtue of being willing to walk away from his contract if he was asked or had to compromise his beliefs. Of course, that contract had nearly expired.

Now he has three years left on a more lucrative deal and he's a lot less chilled about the prospect. Funny that.

RUPA claims, under the terms of the CBA, that "the only additional clauses that can be inserted into a standard player contract are those that are beneficial or potentially beneficial to the player"

That seems extremely flawed to me also, that the RUPA are stating that a contract can only be changed from a standard contract if it benefits the player?

VayNiice

swiwi_ wrote: »

I'm just playing devil's advocate TBH. I'm not really supporting Folau, but someone has to take the side of free speech, otherwise the thread is boring :P

I think if Folau was Muslim rather than fundamentalist Christian, he'd have an easier time of it TBH. Likewise if he was gay attacking fundamentalist Christians, I'd say he'd also have an easier time of it.

I just don't like the most prevalent (socially acceptable) view being the only one allowed to have any airtime. What is acceptable now will be outmoded in a few years, history shows that. Only a few decades back, Folau's views would have been the vast majority of opinion, and the view most people hold on the forum now would have been the distinct minority. I'd like to think that expressing views can be taken outside the social conditions in which they exist. As I've already said, he's expressed his views about what happens to his version of sinners after they die. He hasn't incited anyone to violence, verbal abuse etc.

I mean if he said all Kiwis were going to hell (I was born Kiwi, wasn't a choice..), would I want him fired...?

Anyway, I'm fairly sure he WILL lose his contract, and everyone will be happy enough, Folau excepted.

Being gay isn't a choice either...

I think the argument for freedom of speech is total naive bull****. People can think whatever they want but it is not acceptable to harm others with their views. Some young person struggling with their sexuality could read Folau's post and feel totally hopeless. This could push someone over the edge into harming themselves.

People can worship melons for all I care, but once it reaches these extreme views they need to keep it to themselves.

Eod100

swiwi_ wrote: »

What I mean is that issue that are taboo now, might well be totally not taboo in a few years.

I mean what is acceptable now was considered totally taboo a few decades back.

Morals and mores change with time.

TBH, people don't believe in hell...but are annoyed Folau is saying people on his list are going there...

I still don't get what it means in this context tbh. Like what in particular?

Guessing a lot of adults don't believe in hell, fair enough. But what are gay people meant to think when they hear that? It's grand so cause they don't believe in hell... Don't think so. And gay kids who hear his comments who are brought up in faith, could still believe in it obviously.

Fairly ironic that some Christian types always mention people forcing their lifestyles on others. Not like growing up in Ireland, kids have a say whether they want to be baptised, christened, or even make their confirmation but that seems fine to these people.

Akrasia

swiwi_ wrote: »

TBH, people don't believe in hell...but are annoyed Folau is saying people on his list are going there...

So what if people don't believe in hell. It's the fact that Falou himself does believe, very strongly, in hell, and he believes that it is morally acceptable and just for someone to be tortured for all of eternity simply because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults of the same sex.

It's this attitude that people are outraged about. That someone considers others to be so fundamentally immoral that they deserve to be punished in the worst way imaginable for all of eternity.

That, and Falou groups homosexual people in the same category as liars, drunks and cheats. It's extremely offensive.

Former Former

Squidgy Black wrote: »

RUPA claims, under the terms of the CBA, that "the only additional clauses that can be inserted into a standard player contract are those that are beneficial or potentially beneficial to the player"

That seems extremely flawed to me also, that the RUPA are stating that a contract can only be changed from a standard contract if it benefits the player?

That's a bit mad, because the contract would be binding, but the only way to enforce a collective bargaining agreement like that is by industrial action.

Are the rest of the Australian players going to strike in support of Folau?

errlloyd

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Being a highly paid rugby player is a privilege. Anyone who thinks their pay is proportional to the work they do is delusional. Theyre an entertainment product depending on fans and TV rights. If Folou was a musician people would have boycotted him by now. If he was an actor his studio would have cut him a long time ago.

People talking about free speech etc are acting like we're calling for Folou to be imprisoned for his beliefs. We're clearly not. We just don't want to employ him in our sport anymore. Bernard Jackman (of all people) said it best on the Balls podcast. When asked "what happens if this is just a ploy for him to get an NRL contract" he said "it doesn't matter if does well out of it, we don't wan him in our game anymore".

It's not about Folous rights at all really. (In Australia he doesn't even have a right of Free Speech). This is purely a question of contract law. In fact, from a law point of view the NRL saying they won't take him is much more likely to result in a law suit because its anti competitive and might infringe on his right to earn a livelihood.

Bazzo

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but isn't "freedom of speech" in terms of having the right to say absolutely anything you want more or an American concept?

Former Former

Bazzo wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but isn't "freedom of speech" in terms of having the right to say absolutely anything you want more or an American concept?

No, it's a basic right for everyone under UN Convention on Human Rights.

But no-one is denying Folau his right to free speech. Total red herring.

Eod100

Bazzo wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but isn't "freedom of speech" in terms of having the right to say absolutely anything you want more or an American concept?

I think people conflate it with being able to say anything you want and not facing criticism/consequence from it. Freedom of speech basically means state can't punish/censor your speech unless it's hate speech or similar.

b.gud

Hopefully this isn't backseat nodding but I wonder is it time to split the Folau chat into a separate thread?

errlloyd

Former Former wrote: »

But no-one is denying Folau his right to free speech. Total red herring.

Well actually I am. Almost nowhere in the world has a right to unlimite free speech. Even Ireland has an exception written into the constitution. But Australia have a particularly restrictive definition of what speech is protected and the post would not count. (the Un Declaration is not law).

Dog Botherer

If anyone wants a more in-depth Australian view into this omnishambles, Morgan Turinui’s Rugby Ruckus podcast has a special episode out with an Australian employment lawyer discussing Folau and what the Australian union’s options are. Interesting stuff.

Clegg

Shaun Edwards has agreed to stay with Wales as defence coach. That's huge for them and for Pivac.

riffmongous

When he comes demanding his contract someone needs to quote Matthew 19:23 to him ( camel, eye of needle ), call out these hypocrites

joeguevara

There is actually no need for a debate about freedom of religious expression versus hate/discriminatory speech because it has been decided so many times in legal precedent. Firstly it is strange that someone would hide behind freedom of religious expression while espousing violence on a group of people but at the same time forgetting basic tenets such as love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, there is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? And the most important of all ‘
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that gay people will burn in hell’. If freedom of religious expression is a defense then the religious expression has to be correct. You can’t make stuff up and then proclaim religious expression.

So if it’s not religious expression, then it’s hate speech.

Now the issue is whether his contract has a procedure for dismissal for hate speech. And what precedent exists with others. If it has been allowed in the past then it will be difficult to go straight to misconduct.

But it can be sorted out in a relative straightforward fashion. If they want him gone then all it would take is pay off the contract. Similar to Kapernick (? Sic) in NFL. He won his settlement but unlikely to play again.

Hermy

joeguevara wrote: »

You can’t make stuff up and then proclaim religious expression.

Making stuff up is the foundation on which all religion is built.

joeguevara

Hermy wrote: »

Making stuff up is the foundation on which all religion is built.

Valid point. But if a person is going to rely on freedom of religious expression then unless you are professing yourself as a deity or a prophet (which in this instance he is not) that expression must come from existing sources which he proclaims is the Bible. So although it can be argued is itself made up (I abhor organized religion and have no allegiance to any religious text written by man) it cannot be relied upon as a defense where no such verse regarding homos3xuals burning in hell exists.

Former Former

People are confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom of speech with no consequences".

Folau is absolutely entitled to post what he did. No question about that. It's no worse than what millions of people say, print or post every day all over the world. The earlier suggestion that he's broken the law is absolutely wrong. He's not exhorting anyone to go out and kill gays or beat up idolaters, so he's grand. He hasn't libelled or defamed anyone, so he's grand.

However, if he wants to post or say things like this, then he has to be prepared to live with the consequences and that's what we're seeing now. He's entitled to his beliefs but others are entitled to disagree. When that disagreement affects his employer, then he's in trouble.

If I posted a load of negative tweets about my company, even after getting a previous warning, I couldn't hide behind free speech, I'd be fired.

BonnieSituation

Unclebumble wrote: »

Interesting article in NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12222066

That was a decent read.

I did like this sentence though about RA chief exec Raelene Castle trying to get through to him:

"He (Moses) did reach Israel, however I was unable to speak with him"

:cool:

Top quality from the journo there.

Folau's agent is Isaac Moses.