Izzy Folau

[BobbyM]

Don't need to. Falou is protected by religious freedoms. Rugby Australia can implement policies regarding hate speech etc, but that doesn't override existing laws. They can tear up his contract, it just won't be legal.

Can I cautiously suggest that you're taking an overly simplistic view of this Bean? Or if you are speaking with some authority or knowledge on the matter perhaps expand on your comments?

If the case was as simple as you are suggesting in your two comments, it is unlikely we would have reached a third day of the hearing.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't need to. Falou is protected by religious freedoms. Rugby Australia can implement policies regarding hate speech etc, but that doesn't override existing laws. They can tear up his contract, it just won't be legal.

Everyone in the western world has their religious freedom gauranteed. That is not at issue here.

What IS at issue here are two things

1. Does this religious freedom extend to allowing, with impunity, any adherent to religion to publicly voice or write hate speech?

2. Is it illegal for an employer curtail such hate speech with a clause in an employment contract?

I hope the answer to both these questions will be no. If it isn't, and Folau wins this, then it is going to set back years of hard work to make rugby union an inclusive game for everyone... the message will be clear - the religious are welcome; gays and lesbians need not apply.

Another point I have seen discussed here is the matter that there may not have been a specific "social media clause" in his contract. Well, even if there was not, its irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether there was or was not a specific "social media clause". Every rugby player who signs a contract for their country, signs for having read and understood the Code of Conduct (I would be enormously surprised if RA did not have one of those its contracts - even our junior Rugby Club, and our Pony Club has a Code of Conduct that all players/riders and parents must sign as a condition of membership).

Folau breached the Code of Conduct last year, he was warned not to do it again, and he did. It should not matter what he did. For example, if he publicly...

- peed in a shop doorway
- call a black person a "n-word"
- attacked a person for being gay
- committed a petty crime

...if it was a breach if his Code of Conduct, and he received a warning, and then did it again, he should be goneburger.

 

[Bill]

According to the source I'm looking at, he tweeted an image which contained the following message,

"Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters. Hell awaits you. Repent. Only Jesus saves." (emphasis added)

I wonder if Folau might argue that his intention was only to approve the general theme of the message, which he took as meaning that people who need to repent should repent and be saved by Jesus, rather than intending to suggest that he considered specifically that homosexuals will go to hell. One might argue that the later interpretation - which seems to have been assumed by the vast majority - is ambiguous at best and potentially somewhat strained.

Moreover though, out of interest, why aren't we hearing more about the rights of atheists ? Are they not up in arms about this too ? If not, why not ?

 

[smartcooky]

According to the source I'm looking at, he tweeted an image which contained the following message,

"Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters. Hell awaits you. Repent. Only Jesus saves." (emphasis added)

I wonder if Folau might argue that his intention was only to approve the general theme of the message, which he took as meaning that people who need to repent should repent and be saved by Jesus, rather than intending to suggest that he considered specifically that homosexuals will go to hell. One might argue that the later interpretation - which seems to have been assumed by the vast majority - is ambiguous at best and potentially somewhat strained.

Moreover though, out of interest, why aren't we hearing more about the rights of atheists ? Are they not up in arms about this too ? If not, why not ?

There are plenty of Christian gays out there, and I think they would probably care ifs someone said they were going to hell for being gay.

I have yet to meet a Christian atheist.

 

[BobbyM]

I have yet to meet a Christian atheist.

Exactly this. Telling an atheist they're going somewhere that they believe doesn't exist is meaningless.

 

[Bill]

Exactly this. Telling an atheist they're going somewhere that they believe doesn't exist is meaningless.

OK, but let's assume that that's what he did mean in the post. On the one hand he'd be telling some people that they would be going to somewhere they don't believe exists, and on the other hand he'd be telling some people they would be going to somewhere they don't believe they are going to. What's the difference ? And what about drunks ? There must be drunk Christians too. Why aren't they up in arms about it ? I'm not saying there's an equivalence between drunks and homosexuals, but are drunks not capable of getting offended ? where are the offended drunks ?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why are people so adamant on excusing bigotry?
It's mental

 

[smartcooky]

OK, but let's assume that that's what he did mean in the post. On the one hand he'd be telling some people that they would be going to somewhere they don't believe exists, and on the other hand he'd be telling some people they would be going to somewhere they don't believe they are going to. What's the difference ? And what about drunks ? There must be drunk Christians too. Why aren't they up in arms about it ? I'm not saying there's an equivalence between drunks and homosexuals, but are drunks not capable of getting offended ? where are the offended drunks ?

Let me make this clear for you...

Drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators are not part of any social demographic that has been persecuted, marginalized, tortured, outcast, oppressed and disadvantaged for being something THAT THEY CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT. Being a drunk, an adulterer, a liar, a fornicator, a thief, an atheist or an idolator is a choice; being homosexual is not. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice; you don't wake up one day and suddenly decide to become gay. If you come to realise you are gay, then its because you always were. There is no therapy that can change you, no cure or little pill that can fix you. Coming out is a deep emotional and mental struggle, especially for young people

I don't know if you have ever heard of Ian Roberts. He is a retired Aussie Rugby League star, known for being an "enforcer" in the brutal times of 1980 Aussie league. Turns out he was gay, and he came out in 1995. Have a listen to what he has to say about it on Nine Sunday Sport

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/rugby/roberts-speaks-out-on-folau-comments/cjva78h9t001q0go9aot570st

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Exactly this. Telling an atheist they're going somewhere that they believe doesn't exist is meaningless.

Not exactly. I may not think hell exists and thus don't care about it nor see it as a threat. However if I know the person saying it thinks it exists then what I think about it is besides the point, what they are trying to convey isn't changed by what I think.

Imagine someone tried to fat shame someone by calling them a whale. The fact the fat person may have thick skin and thus not be affected by it (pun intended) in any way change the fact that the person saying it was attempting to harm them? A religious person telling me they hope I burn in hell is still a message of hate even if I don't believe hell exists.

 

[Bill]

Why are people so adamant on excusing bigotry?
It's mental

I wasn't adamant about anything, I'm just asking a question.

I don't have any particular views about it one way or the other (which I appreciate many people might find unacceptable in itself), I'm just inquisitive.

Tbh, I don't think I've seen anyone saying that they are homosexual and offended, just lots of people saying that they are offended on behalf of homosexual people. That's fair enough, but I just wonder whether we over react sometimes.

Obviously saying that homosexuals are going to hell isn't desirable or acceptable. That's not really what the tweet seemed to say though, and to me arguably a better reaction in any case is to just ignore it and if anything just laugh at him, rather than getting angry and kicking up a fuss about it.

 

[Bill]

Let me make this clear for you...

Drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators are not part of any social demographic that has been persecuted, marginalized, tortured, outcast, oppressed and disadvantaged for being something THAT THEY CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT. Being a drunk, an adulterer, a liar, a fornicator, a thief, an atheist or an idolator is a choice; being homosexual is not. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice; you don't wake up one day and suddenly decide to become gay. If you come to realise you are gay, then its because you always were. There is no therapy that can change you, no cure or little pill that can fix you. Coming out is a deep emotional and mental struggle, especially for young people

I don't know if you have ever heard of Ian Roberts. He is a retired Aussie Rugby League star, known for being an "enforcer" in the brutal times of 1980 Aussie league. Turns out he was gay, and he came out in 1995. Have a listen to what he has to say about it on Nine Sunday Sport

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/rugby/roberts-speaks-out-on-folau-comments/cjva78h9t001q0go9aot570st

I would have thought that being gay could be a choice in some instances, just as being a drunk might not be a choice in some cases.

Either way, I'd refer you additionally to my comments in my post of a few moments ago (but I also otherwise accept your comments and appreciate the further explanation).

 

[ncurd]

Just a point of order being a drunk or more specifically an alcoholic is not a choice anyone who thinks it is has never really dealt with alcoholism in thier lives.

However it can be treated but that person need to accept they need help first, which doesn't always happen.

Being gay is also not a choice at all ever you either are or you arent you can be bisexual but that's still not choice because we don't chose the people we fall in love with.

 

[Bill]

Fair points ncurd.

Tbh, if I've got a view on the matter it's that I feel sorry for the player holding the views. Clearly he adamantly believe in what he's saying. I don't believe that he expresses the views to try to cause offence to anyone, but it's because it is what he truly and passionately believes.

To me - controversial as it sounds - that makes HIM the victim, and noone else.

I get the point that he is a public figure and that as such he shouldn't be expressing controversial etc views, and I understand and respect that. It's just as shame for him that his beliefs are incompatable with that responsibility.

Obviously I don't know the contractual (or legal situation), but I think that the Australian union should be entitled to sack him, assuming that it was his intention to say that homosexuals will go to hell - which so far as I'm aware he hasn't denied.

To me though, everyone else's reaction should just be to pity him, and perhaps to try to help in rehabilitating him.

I don't see that it's something that any of the groups of people identified in the tweet should bat an eyelid about it, but I appreciate that as a non-religious person I may not appreciate the feelings involved (as someone else fairly argued in response to one of my previous queries).

 

[BobbyM]

Not exactly. I may not think hell exists and thus don't care about it nor see it as a threat. However if I know the person saying it thinks it exists then what I think about it is besides the point, what they are trying to convey isn't changed by what I think.

Imagine someone tried to fat shame someone by calling them a whale. The fact the fat person may have thick skin and thus not be affected by it (pun intended) in any way change the fact that the person saying it was attempting to harm them? A religious person telling me they hope I burn in hell is still a message of hate even if I don't believe hell exists.

Interesting take on it, and perhaps I was letting some personal bias influence what I was saying. I'd suggest that saying you hope someone burns in hell isnt the same as saying someone will burn in hell. But I could buy the argument that the statement could still be considered hate speech as the person who is saying it believes it.

On the fat shaming point I like the analogy. I think there's perhaps a difference as one can form an objective view on a persons appearance but not on their beliefs. As I said though I do like the analogy.

 

[BobbyM]

Just a point of order being a drunk or more specifically an alcoholic is not a choice anyone who thinks it is has never really dealt with alcoholism in thier lives.

However it can be treated but that person need to accept they need help first, which doesn't always happen.

Being gay is also not a choice at all ever you either are or you arent you can be bisexual but that's still not choice because we don't chose the people we fall in love with.

Aye I touched on the alcoholism point in a previous post in this discussion regarding addiction, and one that I've immediate family experience of. One could argue that the first sip is a choice, making it a conscious action, rather than a state of existing. As I said though with regards to addiction there's limited opportunity for choice in the matter.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I wasn't adamant about anything, I'm just asking a question.

I don't have any particular views about it one way or the other (which I appreciate many people might find unacceptable in itself), I'm just inquisitive.

Tbh, I don't think I've seen anyone saying that they are homosexual and offended, just lots of people saying that they are offended on behalf of homosexual people. That's fair enough, but I just wonder whether we over react sometimes.

Obviously saying that homosexuals are going to hell isn't desirable or acceptable. That's not really what the tweet seemed to say though, and to me arguably a better reaction in any case is to just ignore it and if anything just laugh at him, rather than getting angry and kicking up a fuss about it.

How would you know that those who take offence, are homosexual or not? Unless they openly said that "I'm gay, and I take offence". Stop making assumptions!

I would have thought that being gay could be a choice in some instances, just as being a drunk might not be a choice in some cases.

Either way, I'd refer you additionally to my comments in my post of a few moments ago (but I also otherwise accept your comments and appreciate the further explanation).

I am shocked that people in this modern day still have this viewpoint that sexual orientation is a choice. and @ncurd is correct, alcoholism & depression is also not a choice. In most cases it's even genetic!

By just ignoring remarks which are bigotry of nature, would make the world a much worse place than it already is. People have the right to take offence, you can't take it away from them.

This wasn't a minor thing, and it isn't treated as a minor thing. Hence widespread outrage, the disciplinary hearing and the whole debate on this forum for one. It's not going to be swept under the rug.

Also, there are christians who are both for and against to what Folau said....

 

[Bill]

How would you know that those who take offence, are homosexual or not? Unless they openly said that "I'm gay, and I take offence". Stop making assumptions!

I am shocked that people in this modern day still have this viewpoint that sexual orientation is a choice. and @ncurd is correct, alcoholism & depression is also not a choice. In most cases it's even genetic!

By just ignoring remarks which are bigotry of nature, would make the world a much worse place than it already is. People have the right to take offence, you can't take it away from them.

This wasn't a minor thing, and it isn't treated as a minor thing. Hence widespread outrage, the disciplinary hearing and the whole debate on this forum for one. It's not going to be swept under the rug.

Also, there are christians who are both for and against to what Folau said....

Hmmmm.

OK, well...

1. You are probably right on reflection where you say I don't know who or who isn't gay. I'm not sure whether I assumed that people aren't gay, take your point. There are hundreds of millions of gay people in the world though, and I would have thought at least 10s of millions who are openly gay, and so far I'm only aware of one person saying I am gay and I am offended (the link provided above by another poster to the ex player). Fair enough though and I largely accept your point.

2. You're the 2nd poster who has appeared to criticise me for saying that alcoholism is a choice. In fact it was me who was the first to say that it isn't. I'm not sure why you both pile on me rather than the poster who implied the contrary when I expressed the opposite view.

3. There are people in the world who in recent years have blown people up and cut off their heads because of their religious views. Folau has tweeted an image which says that a lot of people - including homosexuals and alcoholics - will go to hell unless they repent. To me - as neither an alcohol, a homosexual or someone who believe in hell - I'm not convinced in the scheme of things that that is necessarily a major thing. What's made it a major thing imo is the coverage of it, rather than the initial tweet.

4. I find the nature of people having "a right" to take offence absolutely repulsive. You don't take offence because you have a right to take offence, you take offence at something because it is offensive. I am of the view that our society encourages people to find offence in things, and I think it's both absurd and detrimental. Whilst I accept that certain things are inherently offensive and even accept that to homosexuals and alcoholics - particularly those who are religious themselves - could be offended by someone saying that they will go to hell, I strongly object to the notion of them being considered as having "a right" to be offended.

5. I don't agree with you that ignoring it would be detrimental. In most cases the best way to make someone ineffective is to ignore them. Clearly Folau's religious beliefs are the most important thing to him, and responding aggressively to him is not going to make him change his mind, or discourage others who hold the same views from doing the same. As I've said, the best course of action is to try to tackle the views arising in the first place, and that's done by looking at how religion is taught, not by showing aggression and hate to those who hold misguided beliefs. Expressing anger and hatred does not as you suggest help the situation, it only inflames it, as history has taught the world time and time and time and time again.

6. I find your views on the treatment of the player to be intolerant. As I've suggested above, in my opinion he is the victim for holding these beliefs.

7. Your point about there being a mixed reaction amongst the Christian community is an interesting one.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hmmmm.

OK, well...

1. You are probably right on reflection where you say I don't know who or who isn't gay. I'm not sure whether I assumed that people aren't gay, take your point. There are hundreds of millions of gay people in the world though, and I would have thought at least 10s of millions who are openly gay, and so far I'm only aware of one person saying I am gay and I am offended (the link provided above by another poster to the ex player). Fair enough though and I largely accept your point.

The thing is, we won't know the internal issues with what Rugby Australia has to deal with, as I'm certain there might even be a homosexual player in the Waratahs or Australian national team that has to play with Folau. To protect themselves, they might not have publicly made a statement on this matter, but rather sent a grievance to RA as it would not make the changing room a happy camp if players openly are fighting on this issue. Especially so close to the World Cup.

2. You're the 2nd poster who has appeared to criticise me for saying that alcoholism is a choice. In fact it was me who was the first to say that it isn't. I'm not sure why you both pile on me rather than the poster who implied the contrary when I expressed the opposite view.

Fair enough. I just agreed with @ncurd on what he was pointing out.

3. There are people in the world who in recent years have blown people up and cut off their heads because of their religious views. Folau has tweeted an image which says that a lot of people - including homosexuals and alcoholics - will go to hell unless they repent. To me - as neither an alcohol, a homosexual or someone who believe in hell - I'm not convinced in the scheme of things that that is necessarily a major thing. What's made it a major thing imo is the coverage of it, rather than the initial tweet.

But it is a major thing. It might not be to you as you don't hold those views near and dear to your heart. But again, there are many who do. And for them this is a very sore subject.

4. I find the nature of people having "a right" to take offence absolutely repulsive. You don't take offence because you have a right to take offence, you take offence at something because it is offensive. I am of the view that our society encourages people to find offence in things, and I think it's both absurd and detrimental. Whilst I accept that certain things are inherently offensive and even accept that to homosexuals and alcoholics - particularly those who are religious themselves - could be offended by someone saying that they will go to hell, I strongly object to the notion of them being considered as having "a right" to be offended.

What I meant by "right to take offence" is that homosexuality now have laws to protect them in the same view as heterosexuals. If someone say or do something hateful or impinges their rights, they have a right to oppose those views/acts, and even take legal action.

That's why many countries now also have courts that only handle human rights cases.

5. I don't agree with you that ignoring it would be detrimental. In most cases the best way to make someone ineffective is to ignore them. Clearly Folau's religious beliefs are the most important thing to him, and responding aggressively to him is not going to make him change his mind, or discourage others who hold the same views from doing the same. As I've said, the best course of action is to try to tackle the views arising in the first place, and that's done by looking at how religion is taught, not by showing aggression and hate to those who hold misguided beliefs. Expressing anger and hatred does not as you suggest help the situation, it only inflames it, as history has taught the world time and time and time and time again.

Same could be said if Folau didn't use a public platform to say what he said. If he kept it within a small community, then I bet this would have been a non-issue. But he didn't and now those against him use the same stage to oppose.

6. I find your views on the treatment of the player to be intolerant. As I've suggested above, in my opinion he is the victim for holding these beliefs.

Did you read all my remarks on this thread???

7. Your point about there being a mixed reaction amongst the Christian community is an interesting one.

So what does this mean? You don't have a point to raise on this? Or don't know enough to comment?

 

[smartcooky]

I would have thought that being gay could be a choice in some instances...

Nope, never, in any instances. Sexuality is hardwired, and nothing you can do will change it.

...just as being a drunk might not be a choice in some cases.

Just a point of order being a drunk or more specifically an alcoholic is not a choice anyone who thinks it is has never really dealt with alcoholism in their lives.

However it can be treated but that person need to accept they need help first, which doesn't always happen.

Don't conflate being a drunk with being an alcoholic, they are not the same thing; there are alcoholics who are not drunks, and there are drunks who are not alcoholics. Being an alcoholic something you cannot do anything about, being a drunk is a choice, one that you make by not recognizing what you are. Alcoholism is treatable, being homosexual is NOT!

 

[smartcooky]

4. I find the nature of people having "a right" to take offence absolutely repulsive. You don't take offence because you have a right to take offence, you take offence at something because it is offensive. I am of the view that our society encourages people to find offence in things, and I think it's both absurd and detrimental. Whilst I accept that certain things are inherently offensive and even accept that to homosexuals and alcoholics - particularly those who are religious themselves - could be offended by someone saying that they will go to hell, I strongly object to the notion of them being considered as having "a right" to be offended.

Someone has to stand up for minorities and the oppressed, because they cannot do that for themselves... they're outnumbered.

http://theconversation.com/alan-tur...ecuted-by-whitehall-for-their-sexuality-58018