He should absolutely dodge the question on the grounds that it's got absolutely nothing to do with rugby.
That is not what i asked. If you are interested in an honest answer read on. If you are going to avoid the question then let's not waste each other's time and stop the conversation.
I will rephrase: in a country with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, if the player wants to answer the question, how does he do so?
I think a person should, at the very least, know whether he can or cant answer something. If he cant answer it then he should have the right to say "i cannot speak about my beliefs as per my contract, i am not allowed to". Lets have the intelectual honesty to call a spade a spade
Here is how i see it. I see one right conflicting with two others. On one hand freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which give the player the right to quote what his religion teaches him, and on the other his contract.
Not sure how much experience you have dealing with legal stuff, but the first two rights tend to be pretty high up when it comes to pecking order.
If the player wants to answer the question, he has two options: either he can or he can't
If he can answer the question, as per what has been written here, he would be violating the terms of his contract with his RA and club.
In case he can't answer the question, then it is a case where either his freedom of speech and/or his freedom of worship is/are violated.
And this is not some NDA thing where u cant tell an employee not to reveal confidential stuff. This is a quote from his religion's scripture.
I will try to sum it all up in one line:
unless it is specifically stated in your contract (which in folau's case it appears it isn't) you cant ask someone not to quote his religion's scripture without violating his freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion.
3987th time. This is not how i think things should work. It is what, given my understanding of the laws that apply should be the outcome. You dont like the outcome and neither do i. But you attack Folau, i attack the law.
Cruz - if Folau agree to a code of conduct (Which all employees of RA agree to abide by) that conflicts with his religion, that's on him.
Good point, i like the argument. Short answer: i am not sure it works like that, i dont know.
I repeat, i do not know. I have a gut feeling of how it works tho. Long answer, there are other rights in play. Saying someone cannot do a particular job because of his religion is a pretty big statement, legally speaking. My first thought when i read your argument was "how about playing on a holy day". Think Erik Liddel in 1924 Olympic games (Chariots of fire thingie). The difference is that there are other rights in play here, freedom of speech in particular.
The main reason i like the argument is that i fundamentally agree with the principle and imo not all religions are equal (some religions preach things that go against other fundamental rights, some dont). Unfortunately that is not how the law works.
The issue here, the quid, is very, very simple: on one hand we tell people to believe whatever they want and we tell them that speaking about your beliefs is a right too. But on the other hand we tell them that hate speech is wrong and it should be ilegal.
The inevitable question becomes: what if your belief IS hate and speaking about it is hate speech? This is what's happening here.
The problem here, the big bloody elephant in the room is not Folau. It's that we give protective legal status to religions preaching hate.
You could end up in a situation where hate speech is protected because it is part of your religion.
I would love to live in a world where reason beats belief but that is not the world i live in. Saying a religion's scripture is hate speech would open a can of worms the size of mount everest that no one wants to face. It would mean you could scrutinize a religion's scripture,
any religion's, and deemed it hate speech. What would you "ban" if anything? The line? The verse? The book? How do you enforce it? Who would enforce it?
I'd be political suicide for any politician to go that way.
Cruz - if Folau agree to a code of conduct (Which all employees of RA agree to abide by) that conflicts with his religion, that's on him.
Just thought of something else about this. Maybe i can use this as an example to illustrate why it's not that black or white. Not sure it applies 100% but you'll get the picture.
In continental Europe a couple of years ago it was very common in certain lines of work to make people sign specific non-competition clauses. It meant that if you worked for say, a clothing/finance/tec/etc company, if you resigned or if your contract was terminated, you couldn't work for another clothing/finance/tec/etc company for a certain amount of time, generally 2/5/10 years, depending on position and seniority. It was very, very common to have this clause in your contract.
The problem was, that a lot of people tend to become specialists in their industries/fields and if you prevent them from looking to the competition you are indirectly preventing them from working.
One guy realized he couldnt find work outside his field and he couldnt work in his field due to this clause, so he was basically unemployeable. So he took the company to court.
Long story short, everyone signed those clauses. Following your argument, you could say: if people signed a contract then that's on them". Well, many (not all but a LOT) courts said no. They said that the companies did not have the right to ask those things in the first place and that the right to work was more important. They said that even when you signed that contract its effects were null and void.
