Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

robinph wrote: »

He could have kept his mouth shut.

Indeed. But thankfully we live in a world where people are allowed to express different opinions. Its called Free Speech.

We draw the line at hate speech or incitement to hatred. If he had crossed the line, he would have been charged as such by the police.

But he didn't, and he wasn't.

sydthebeat wrote: »

and thats the crux of the matter

it wasnt a private view, it was broadcasted to hundreds of thousands of people.

You're broadcasting your private view right now.
You need to brush up on the difference between what is private and what is not.

Did he say at any point he was giving the official views of Rugby Australia?
And no, wearing a rugby shirt doesn't mean that, not when its his normal daily attire.

recedite wrote: »

Indeed. But thankfully we live in a world where people are allowed to express different opinions.

and thankfully we live in a world where business can choose what kind of person works for them and thus represents them. so when someone say something which doesn't comply with their inclusiveness policies... thankfully they have the right to end that persons employment and thus not have them misrepresented by their employees.

and also thankfully Folau has not had his "free speech" hindered in that he is as free to say what he wants today as he did back in April.... absolutely no one is stopping him from saying what he wants.... which is the basis of "free speech" isnt it

recedite wrote: »

You're broadcasting your private view right now.
You need to brush up on the difference between what is private and what is not.
.

LOL

i absolutely am broadcasting my private views right now...

and im FULLY BOUND by the policies of boards.ie in doing so. They control what is allowed to be said on their platform or they can be subjected to legal action....

the irony in that post is hilarious.

sydthebeat wrote: »

and thankfully we live in a world where business can choose what kind of person works for them and thus represents them.

And thankfully, just as freedom of speech is limited by incitement to hatred laws, the ability of an employer to sack people who's religious views they disagree with is also limited - by anti-discrimination and unfair dismissals legislation.

recedite wrote: »

And thankfully, just as freedom of speech is limited by incitement to hatred laws, the ability of an employer to sack people who's religious views they disagree with is also limited - by anti-discrimination and unfair dismissals legislation.

completely, great that Folau has the right to appeal along legals lines.

lets see how the case is viewed in court, and hope he doesnt run away with an out of court settlement as that would see him only interested in money.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i absolutely am broadcasting my private views right now...
and im FULLY BOUND by the policies of boards.ie in doing so. They control what is allowed to be said on their platform or they can be subjected to legal action....

Yes. What is ironic about that?
We're not talking about censorship by the platform here. Folau is still active on the same social media platforms.
You insinuated that it was not a "private" view because he broadcast it, instead of "keeping his mouth shut".
I pointed out that you can broadcast your own private views, which then become public, but they remain your own private views as opposed to the views of your employer.

sydthebeat wrote: »

lets see how the case is viewed in court, and hope he doesnt run away with an out of court settlement as that would see him only interested in money.

I also hope that won't happen, because then everyone will have their own interpretation of the result.
I'd much prefer to see him win the case, and see RA having to apologise to him.

Folau wasn't sacked for his religious views, he was sacked for breaking a contract (which he had prior warning over).

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You're broadcasting your private view right now.

Anonymously. And no offence to the good folks her on the boards Christianity forum but I'd rather doubt that any of these posts have readerships in the hundreds of thousands. Not exactly comparable to a famous international athlete posting alongside pictures of himself in the national team strip now is it?

robinph

recedite wrote: »

I also hope that won't happen, because then everyone will have their own interpretation of the result.
I'd much prefer to see him win the case, and see RA having to apologise to him.

Unless it is found that they should have given him three warnings rather than two before sacking him I can't see any scenario where they will be apologising to him. Certainly not going to be a case of RA having to say that it was OK for him to make those postings whilst on their payroll, or that they have no say in the way that he conducts himself publicly.

robinph wrote: »

Unless it is found that they should have given him three warnings rather than two before sacking him I can't see any scenario where they will be apologising to him. Certainly not going to be a case of RA having to say that it was OK for him to make those postings whilst on their payroll, or that they have no say in the way that he conducts himself publicly.

I'm not sure you understand what it means to win an unfair dismissals case. One of the things it means is that the employer apologises for the wrongful dismissal of the employee.
Of course, he hasn't won yet...

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

And thankfully, just as freedom of speech is limited by incitement to hatred laws, the ability of an employer to sack people who's religious views they disagree with is also limited - by anti-discrimination and unfair dismissals legislation.

you think this case succeeds?

smacl wrote: »

Anonymously. And no offence to the good folks her on the boards Christianity forum but I'd rather doubt that any of these posts have readerships in the hundreds of thousands. Not exactly comparable to a famous international athlete posting alongside pictures of himself in the national team strip now is it?

Numbers is nothing to do with it. Neither is fame.
The question is whether an individual can express (publicly) their own private religious views, even when their employer has told them not to.
That is the principle of the matter.

Deleted User wrote: »

you think this case succeeds?

I hope so.

recedite wrote: »

Numbers is nothing to do with it. Neither is fame.
The question is whether an individual can express (publicly) their own private religious views, even when their employer has told them not to.
That is the principle of the matter.

The employer didn’t just tell him not to IF signed an agreement not to.

salmocab wrote: »

The employer didn’t just tell him not to IF signed an agreement not to.

So what. If a clause in a contract is deemed to be illegal or unfair, then it is void or unenforceable.
That's if a specific clause was clearly breached, which hasn't even been shown AFAIK.

recedite wrote: »

So what. If a clause in a contract is deemed to be illegal or unfair, then it is void or unenforceable.
That's if a specific clause was clearly breached, which hasn't even been shown AFAIK.

Look you want him to have consequence free free speech that’s fine but he was sacked for breaking a contract that he signed with his employer, they are two different things. If it’s found to be illegal he’ll get his few quid his apology and maybe a book deal. If it’s found to be perfectly legal he’ll be out of work and hopefully broke. A man who can’t stick to his word isn’t worth the name.

salmocab wrote: »

A man who can’t stick to his word isn’t worth the name.

Before you make that allegation, can you tell us the exact clause that he broke? My understanding is that its all a bit wishy washy, and comes under the general but rather vague term "homophobia". Which is obviously good enough for you, and many others.
But as I said, I don't see any actual victim of this homophobia. Unless you mean random people on the internet who are offended by his religious viewpoint.

recedite wrote: »

Before you make that allegation, can you tell us the exact clause that he broke? My understanding is that its all a bit wishy washy, and comes under the general but rather vague term "homophobia". Which is obviously good enough for you, and many others.
But as I said, I don't see any actual victim of this homophobia. Unless you mean random people on the internet who are offended by his religious viewpoint.

No I can’t tell you the exact clause because as you well know none of us have seen the contract. Not sure there has to be an actual victim for something to be homophobic beyond the gay community as a whole. Yes the term homophobia is good enough for me, maybe not for you and many others but I’m satisfied that what he tweeted falls under homophobia. If what he done damaged his employers reputation or even financially then like most companies I’m sure RA have a strong case for termination but just like the contract none of us have seen and don’t know the details of I’m sure that pretty much none of us know much about Australian employment laws or their interpretation of free speech.
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want that’s not hate speech and have no consequences.

salmocab wrote: »

No I can’t tell you the exact clause because as you well know none of us have seen the contract. Not sure there has to be an actual victim for something to be homophobic beyond the gay community as a whole. Yes the term homophobia is good enough for me, maybe not for you and many others but I’m satisfied that what he tweeted falls under homophobia. If what he done damaged his employers reputation or even financially then like most companies I’m sure RA have a strong case for termination but just like the contract none of us have seen and don’t know the details of I’m sure that pretty much none of us know much about Australian employment laws or their interpretation of free speech.

I've seen the players "code of conduct" but its all a bit vague. Beyond that, there is a lot of uncertainty as you point out.
Hopefully the court will tease these things out, and clarify them.
What these things usually come down to is an examination of competing rights, and whether one right can trump another. So the personal rights of the employee, the rights of the employer to make money, and the (very weak) right of randomers on the internet not to be exposed to something that gets them offended.

I suspect it will come down to whether Folau can convince the court that he is entitled to some "down time" ie time off in the evenings when he can just be himself and post his own opinions on social media. I think everyone is entitled to that, even people who don't work regular 9-5 jobs.

salmocab wrote: »

Free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want that’s not hate speech and have no consequences.

It kinda does. Obviously you might get a punch in the face if you said something in the wrong place or at the wrong time, but in general it does.

It doesn't actually.

Free speech does not mean you can say what you want without consequence.

recedite wrote: »

It kinda does. Obviously you might get a punch in the face if you said something in the wrong place or at the wrong time, but in general it does.

No it doesn’t, instead of the punch in the face after you say something untoward and one of your friends decides it’s ageist and no longer wants to be your friend. You can’t claim free speech and they have to be your friend. I’ve purposely made the example as bland as possible. You won’t be prosecuted for saying the possibly ageist thing but you have suffered consequences.

sydthebeat wrote: »

It doesn't actually.

Free speech does not mean you can say what you want without consequence.

Give us a few examples of when you can justifiably shut down some other person's opinions, outside of school or work situations, or when you own the premises or the platform they are speaking on.

recedite wrote: »

Give us a few examples of when you can justifiably shut down some other person's opinions, outside of school or work situations, or when you own the premises or the platform they are speaking on.

No you can’t shut down their opinions but that doesn’t mean the person can’t suffer consequences.

Donnielighto

recedite wrote: »

We're still waiting here for somebody to name one single victim of this so-called homophobic abuse.
Folau has his general views on homosexuality, which he is entitled to, and which happen to be backed by the religious texts of the 3 main world religions.
He has not verbally or physically abused, or discriminated against, any homosexual player AFAIK. If he had, I think we would know about it.

Do the Hindus believe that?

salmocab wrote: »

No it doesn’t, instead of the punch in the face after you say something untoward and one of your friends decides it’s ageist and no longer wants to be your friend. You can’t claim free speech and they have to be your friend. I’ve purposely made the example as bland as possible. You won’t be prosecuted for saying the possibly ageist thing but you have suffered consequences.

Well you're stretching the meaning of the words "suffered" and "consequences" there. The ex-friend has not been able to do anything except ignore the "offender". Which is what the gay lobby should have been content to do with Folau. Instead of pushing to get him sacked.

Everything has consequences. A butterfly taking off from a leaf has consequences. Nothing worth worrying about though.

recedite wrote: »

Well you're stretching the meaning of the words "suffered" and "consequences" there. The ex-friend has not been able to do anything except ignore the "offender". Which is what the gay lobby should have been content to do with Folau. Instead of pushing to get him sacked.

Everything has consequences. A butterfly taking off from a leaf has consequences. Nothing worth worrying about though.

I purposely used a silly example but the point is the ageist person has suffered a consequence. There is nowhere in the world that people are entitled to consequence free free speech.

recedite wrote: »

Give us a few examples of when you can justifiably shut down some other person's opinions, outside of school or work situations, or when you own the premises or the platform they are speaking on.

so outside of work, education and employment???

nice caveats to include

I cant call my friends wife a phat cnut without getting a box in head for it

calling her a phat cnut = free speech
box in the gob = consequences

get it yet??