nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

BTW - would it be ok to sack him if he was only mediocre?

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

Oh stop.

If it had been a 'thought crime' no one would have known he thought it.

Folau deliberately and publicly repeated an action he had previously been warned was in breach of the Code of Conduct he agreed to uphold when he signed his lucrative contract. The first time he escaped with a warning.
Perhaps he thought he was 'too good' to be held accountable.
Turns out he was wrong and his pride cometh before his fall.

Being religious or being 'very good' does not give an individual the right to willfully and knowingly break faith with the contract they have willingly signed.
It is ironic that it appears Folau can't keep his word.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but at least it would be clear he was being dropped from the team for being mediocre, and not for some perceived thoughtcrime.

If it was thoughtcrime we wouldn't know it occurred.
:rolleyes:

Instead he posted his views on a public place for potentially billions to see.
If somebody posted that all black people should burn in hell we simply would not be having this conversation,we'd rightly expect action to be taken against him.

His comment directed at gay people is no different,

To claim its thoughtcrime is 100% inaccurate, it also shows you don't understand the difference between thinking something and actually expressing something outside your head.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Kind of ironic though, when you use an inclusion policy to judge Folau (on the basis of his "outdated" religious beliefs) and then exclude him from playing the game he loves and is so good at.

It's not ironic if you are trying to avoid the paradox of tolerance.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not ironic if you are trying to avoid the paradox of tolerance.

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

He hasn't been charged with anything by anybody.
He lost his job for being in breach of the Code of Conduct set out in the terms and conditions of his employment.
The first time he received a warning.
The second time his employers sacked him.

If an atheist player under contract to the ARFU posted on their social media that all religious people were deluded fools they should also be dismissed. Although it must be noted that being religious is a choice - being homosexual isn't.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

To claim its thoughtcrime is 100% inaccurate, it also shows you don't understand the difference between thinking something and actually expressing something outside your head.

Its not as simple as that. For one thing you can express opinions in a private group that might constitute incitement to hatred if expressed standing on a soap box in the street.

For another thing, you can believe that gays, atheists, drunks etc.. are on the road to hell, and say in public that you believe it, without it actually being hate speech. Because you are not inciting other people to go out and burn them. You are just stating your belief. If it was hate speech, then your typical imam and christian preacher would be jailed for it.

Its a bit different in places like Pakistan, where some people do actually incite the crowd to go out and harm other people, without waiting for judgement day.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He hasn't been charged with anything by anybody.
He lost his job for being in breach of the Code of Conduct set out in the terms and conditions of his employment.

Exactly, which is why I posted the text of said player Code of Conduct yesterday, as a discussion point. Which of the 10 points do you think he is in breach of? (we would just be guessing obviously, but just for the purposes of the discussion)

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to have missed these:

They are part of the code under Inclusion.

1.5 Sometimes these consequences mean that individuals who want to play Rugby or be involved in our game, feel excluded and as a result cease their involvement or even hide their sexuality. In some cases, individuals who continue playing may be subjected to homophobic language or actions and are needlessly and wrongfully subjected to discrimination, thus reducing their enjoyment of Rugby. These outcomes are unacceptable and unwelcome in our game.

1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

https://www.rugbyau.com/about/codes-and-policies/all-codes-and-policies

recedite wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I posted the text of said player Code of Conduct yesterday, as a discussion point. Which of the 10 points do you think he is in breach of? (we would just be guessing obviously, but just for the purposes of the discussion)

I'm getting a distinct feeling of deja poo about this...

You posted part of the code of conduct yesterday.

I pointed out that you missed a whole significant part of that code.

You agreed you had missed it.

Here we are today with you asking which bit he was in breach of... it's the bit that says:

1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

Telling people that unless they repent the way they were born they will burn in Hell for eternity is homophobic. You might not want to accept that but it is.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I pointed out that you missed a whole significant part of that code.
You agreed you had missed it.

Not quite. I pointed out that the player's code of conduct is a separate document to the inclusion policy.

This might seem pedantic, but it has been reported that he is in breach of the player's code of conduct, whereas you are citing a paragraph in the inclusion policy (as a reason for excluding him). To my mind, that would be a paradox and an abuse of the inclusion policy. I'm guessing that's why RA have cited the former document and not the latter.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Not quite. I pointed out that the player's code of conduct is a separate document to the inclusion policy.

This might seem pedantic, but it has been reported that he is in breach of the player's code of conduct, whereas you are citing a paragraph in the inclusion policy (as a reason for excluding him). To my mind, that would be a paradox and an abuse of the inclusion policy. I'm guessing that's why RA have cited the former document and not the latter.

It's part of All Codes and Policies.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's part of All Codes and Policies.

But they didn't say he was in breach of all codes and policies, they specifically cited the players code of conduct.

Instead of thinking solely in the abstract, why not give your opinion on my two practical questions;

1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.

2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

But they didn't say he was in breach of all codes and policies, they specifically cited the players code of conduct.

Instead of thinking solely in the abstract, why not give your opinion on my two practical questions;

1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.

2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.

My opinion is that you are bending over backwards to excuse Folau's beheaviour.

1. Telling people they are going to burn unless they repent is harassment. IF the ARFU had not sanctioned Folau then they may as well have torn up their inclusion policy which would have certainly discouraged LGBT people from both playing and supporting the game.

2. You have zero evidence of this. Folau was not sanctioned for his religious views. He was sanctioned for a social media post that infringed this policy which is part of the code for the second time:
1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

Ya, I strongly suspect the average teenager who's coming to terms with their sexuality would view his tweets as inclusive...

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

But as I pointed out, Folau did not seek to discriminate against any LGBT person or to prevent them from playing rugby.
And if your definition of homophobia includes a well known and fairly standard belief of Christians and Muslims, then you are seeking to exclude a large number of people from the game (unless of course they are willing to hide or deny their beliefs, which seems an unreasonable demand)

Why is it unreasonable for an employer to wish that an employee in a very public position refrain from publicly broadcasting views that are in contravention of the published policies of that employer?

The fact that his target was LG (h said homosexuals - not Bisexuals or Transgender) people is actually immaterial. He deliberately issued a public statement (this was not a quiet conversation between friends or a slip of the tongue to a wily journalist) that contravened his employers anti-discrimination policies. He was warned. He did it again. If he had targeted Native Australians his "crime" would have been the same. Or women.

Folau is not the victim here as much as you wish him to be. He was a highly paid public figure who felt the rules set down by his employers didn't apply to him.
As a private individual he is free to post what he wants.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Folau is not the victim here as much as you wish him to be.

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

He was a highly paid public figure who felt the rules set down by his employers didn't apply to him.
As a private individual he is free to post what he wants.

Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

Can you name another person who twice posted what he did?

Look - he signed the contract of his own free will. There were terms and conditions. He chose to break them, got a warning, then chose to break them again.
It was his choice to be a public figure. His choice to have his profile photo of himself in the uniform associated with his employment. His choice to go on social media.

Seems you want a return to the days when if you were 'important' enough then the rules don't apply.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

He's as much a victim as the immensely foolish Gerald Ratner was when he decided to announce in public what he really should have kept to himself.

SoundsRight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you name another person who twice posted what he did?

Look - he signed the contract of his own free will. There were terms and conditions. He chose to break them, got a warning, then chose to break them again.
It was his choice to be a public figure. His choice to have his profile photo of himself in the uniform associated with his employment. His choice to go on social media.

Seems you want a return to the days when if you were 'important' enough then the rules don't apply.

Can you point out where in his contract it says he's forbidden from expressing his religious beliefs?

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.Not sure you can really separate the public figure from the private individual, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of forcing people to hide their private persona in a closet.

By your above logic, David Irving was the ultimate victim of holocaust denial as you can't directly attribute a victim even though it's a wide ranging impact. Plus it destroyed his reputation.

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

Can you point out where in his contract it says he's forbidden from expressing his religious beliefs?

Can you point out where it says his religious beliefs allow him to ignore the Code of Conduct?

Because that is what you are saying he should be allowed.

Now, do you apply that logic to fundamentalist Muslims? Are they not simply expressing their religious beliefs all over other people's rights?

SoundsRight

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you point out where it says his religious beliefs allow him to ignore the Code of Conduct?

Because that is what you are saying he should be allowed.

Now, do you apply that logic to fundamentalist Muslims? Are they not simply expressing their religious beliefs all over other people's rights?

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

He got the slap on the wrist last year.
This year he got the sack.

Odhinn

SoundsRight wrote: »

You claimed he broke the terms of his contract. That's not true. If he breached some code of conduct regarding social media, that's a slap on the wrist job. No need for him to be hung out to dry. Didn't his teammate David Pocock make comments about homosexuality in the run up to their gay marriage referendum? Don't remember him being threatened with the sack.

"Israel Folau’s future in Australian rugby is looking increasingly grim after a independent panel determined that the Wallabies superstar committed a “high level” breach of his contract."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day

SoundsRight

Odhinn wrote: »

"Israel Folau’s future in Australian rugby is looking increasingly grim after a independent panel determined that the Wallabies superstar committed a “high level” breach of his contract."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day

Well I'm just going by what Rugby Australia said in the actual press release.

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/05/07/code-of-conduct-hearing-for-israel-folau-concludes

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract, and he hasn't been sacked. Whatever the outcome, he'll have his honour intact. Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

splinter65

SoundsRight wrote: »

Well I'm just going by what Rugby Australia said in the actual press release.

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/05/07/code-of-conduct-hearing-for-israel-folau-concludes

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract, and he hasn't been sacked. Whatever the outcome, he'll have his honour intact. Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

One mans “professional code of conduct” is The Guardians “professional contract” I see.

robindch

SoundsRight wrote: »

"The panel has today provided a judgement that Israel Folau committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct" .

He hasn't broken his contract [...]

Professional contracts usually require the signatory to abide by the appropriate professional code of conduct, so if a signatory breaks one, he breaks the other.

It's fairly straighforward.

robindch

Mod:

SoundsRight wrote: »

Not sure I can say the same for the crybabies looking for his scalp.

I'm going to be generous and assume that "the crybabies" you're referring to here are not your fellow-posters. If I thought they were, you would be carded for this juvenile slur. Regardless, please improve your tone.

batgoat

robindch wrote: »

Professional contracts usually require the signatory to abide by the appropriate professional code of conduct, so if a signatory breaks one, he breaks the other.

It's fairly straighforward.

Yep if I violated my workplace code of conduct than that would be an automatic breach of my contract. Similar for a load of other documents.