• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

TRF_Olyy said:
If he's out of international contention a French side will pick him up for at least the world cup season.
Click to expand...
This is my thoughts. Easy to make a huge wage now and get out of Aus. He will certainly have options. Don't agree with his comments or attitude but a good player. But joins a list of players that cause issues for RA in recent years
 
Tigs Man said:
Hate speech (which is what this is) isn't nor shouldn't be covered by freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
I think when we talk about freedoms one we are almost certainly talking about the USA 1st amendments bearing in mind only themole has to deal with those issues.

Personally I think freedom of religion needs to be updated to Freedom from Persecution and it should be the most important right for any human being. If someone's religion wishes to marginlise other people their rights are forgone. We don't talk about it enough but this is why discrimination laws exist because the world when we were setting universal laws still didn't really believe all people were born equal.

I think its fair to say he right to those beliefs but he does not have the right to use his profile and megaphone to make other people feel they are more marginlised than they already are he stepped over the line and its not the first time.
 
ncurd said:
I think when we talk about freedoms one we are almost certainly talking about the USA 1st amendments bearing in mind only themole has to deal with those issues.

Personally I think freedom of religion needs to be updated to Freedom from Persecution and it should be the most important right for any human being. If someone's religion wishes to marginlise other people their rights are forgone. We don't talk about it enough but this is why discrimination laws exist because the world when we were setting universal laws still didn't really believe all people were born equal.

I think its fair to say he right to those beliefs but he does not have the right to use his profile and megaphone to make other people feel they are more marginlised than they already are he stepped over the line and its not the first time.
Click to expand...
The fundamental right concerning both in the EU is the Freedom of Expression, the EU also is very committed to proportionality however which is why it's allowed the banning of burkas in public places as well as laws against blasphemy (nice one Ireland...). Essentially it leaves you in a position where there is no criminal punishment for the majority of bigoted statements one can make but no employer has to put up with it and it can be a valid reason not to hire anyone. However, wearing a cross or something like that will have to be expressly forbidden by the employer to be a reason for disciplinary action or dismissal.

To be honest I think it's adequate, criminal law has always required a degree of certainty that there's been an act which there is virtual consensus in society that the act is wrong which is why neo-nazi and racist statements can be illegal and criminal. While all of us here appear to think that what has been said is wrong it's obvious that a large minority agree with it, the insta post has 17.5k likes for example. As much as people think the law is there to tell society what can and can't be done it more often than not works both ways, the onus is on us to change the views of enough evangelical Christians, Muslims etc... that only total extremists almost negligible in number have those beliefs for the law to take action. Until then telling gays they're off to hell will be protected by freedom of expression.

Of course this only applies to the EU and not Australia, I don't know if they have a constitution nevermind what it says, but it's generally fairly similar throughout the western world in my experience.
 
Tigs Man said:
Hate speech (which is what this is) isn't nor shouldn't be covered by freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
It's not that easy.

The logic is quite simple.
1) They are allowed to believe in a religion (freedom of worship).
2) His religion states sinners go to hell (fact)
3) People are allowed to speak their mind about their beliefs (freedom of speech)

I've seen the same teachings in the most distinct time zones: "These are the rules laid out by good, if you break them you must repent, if you don't, you go to hell".
From Buenos Aires to Hanoi priests and catechists do a very, very similar thing.

People who are going after Folau are attacking point 3). The root of the problem is how unrestricted 1) is. Problem is, going after 1) is electoral suicide in quite a few places.

Again, i think we all agree that what he said is wrong. Beyond stupid.
I strongly disagree with the solutions here. Suppressing him or banning him will backfire spectacularly.

EDIT:

ncurd said:
I think its fair to say he right to those beliefs but he does not have the right to use his profile and megaphone to make other people feel they are more marginlised than they already are he stepped over the line and its not the first time.
Click to expand...
Based on what doesnt he have the right to do that?
I mean, think about it this way: the overwhelming majority of us disagree with what he posted. Let's say the opinion is 99% to 1% against him. Let's say we go ahead and decided to make what he did illegal. What if it was opinion split was 95-5, instead? How about 90-10? Let's push it 70-30. Even more now: 51-49.
Pretty sure you know where i'm heading.
This is a very delicate line to cross.

I'll exaggerate for illustration purposes, but the essence of freedom of speech is the right someone has to feel protected by the state about saying something that makes everyone else in the room want to kill him.
I dislike what he says, but i think that a) he should have the right to say it (moral argument) and b) preventing him from saying it will backfire (practical argument).

Not sure if it's true, but they say Voltaire was the one who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It describes very accurately how i fell about this matter.
 
Last edited:
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Snip
Click to expand...
I mean you ignored my entire rationale. I'm invoking Godwin's Law here but this cartoon sums it up.
uedawtfzqbgz.jpg

GEaJbXUqNtSBAqUXA
 
Yeah he's getting fired not prosecuted. If your personal views become public to the extent it's going to threaten your organisation's relationship with sponsors, other players and the rugby community you should rightly be fired. If I came into work this morning and told a gay co-worker they were going to hell or indeed if I did it online i would be fired too. Not so much on this forum but elsewhere people talking about free speech have a really bad understanding of what free speech constitutes.
Very few organisation's don't have a code of conduct. Folau didn't even have the respect to take down the posts or pick up the phone when Aus rang looking for an explanation. Good riddance to talented rubbish.
 
Thanks for bringing KP up. I am reasonably familiar with his work, but thank you for the pic.
What your cartoon fails to note, and this is what EVERYONE at the time criticized from Popper, is that he doesn't solve the problem, he just changes one problem to another. It works nice as a meme, but it was deemed laughable from a philosophical point of view.
He says people shouldn't be tolerant with intolerance, which is all nice and dandy, but he never addresses who should be the deciding whose opinion is deemed intolerant, nor how.

That is analogous to the percentages i presented. Where, exactly, do you draw the line. And why.

SomeOke said:
The guys not getting arrested, he's getting fired from his job where presumably he signed a contract regarding acceptable behaviour.
His rights are not being violated.
Click to expand...
Strawman. I never said they were. If you read the posts on this thread you would note at least two times where it was mentioned he shouldn't be allowed to do what he did.
 
Shouldn't be allowed to do what he did.
But also shouldn't face a punishment......



Would be interested to hear Izzy's defenders take if it was SBW making the comments instead.


Izzy has had way too many chances already.
 
Look I get your point I just don't think its something you can quatify.

Take the Death Penalty in the UK its generally agreed that probably the majority would agree to it. However its a principled decision that the majority is wrong and the state should not kill its citizens.

See I'm a Liberal and as core tenant to that thinking I believe a person has the right to live their life without interference as they wish unless living that life would do harm unto others. Your freedoms are essentially expunged when you use them to end the freedoms of others. Being in a majority doesn't make you right.

In this case we are not denying Falou Freedom of Religion based on his religion but the fact he using his religion to stop freedom's others.
 
Cruz_del_sur your arguments only really apply if Izzy was somehow suppressed by the state. A private entity executing a contractual right to stop paying Izzy because he has violated the contract he voluntarily entered into has literally nothing to do with free speech (unless there are state laws specifically stating that a person cannot be fired for saying 'x' - not the case).

Your argument would make a lot more sense if Izzy was, for example, openly gay and RA were trying to fire him, because there are specific laws stating you cannot fire someone due to sexual preference.
 
Derpus said:
Your argument would make a lot more sense if Izzy was, for example, openly gay and RA were trying to fire him, because there are specific laws stating you cannot fire someone due to sexual preference.
Click to expand...
You can't fire someone in the UK based on their religion either.

The reality is the two things aren't mutually compatible. But he wasn't fired for his religion he was fired publicly for marginlising people.
 
I think from reading Cruz' posts he's more arguing that Folau shouldn't be banned from playing rugby, which I agree with if he can find anyone willing to accept him, whether it be in Australia or worldwide. He's said a few times he thinks it's fair that his employer dismissed him.
 
Apparently his RA contract contained clauses over his use of social media. If he's badly breached those then it will be fairly straightforward to terminate his deal.

This shows the power of social media at its worst. Winding the clock back can you imagine the uproar if social media had been around when Daley Thompson paraded his "Is the world's second greatest athlete gay" t-shirt at the LA Olympics? Times have, thankfully, largely changed.

ncurd said:
Look I get your point I just don't think its something you can quatify. Take the Death Penalty in the UK its generally agreed that probably the majority would agree to it.
Click to expand...

Is it? You get emotive reactions after particularly horrific crimes, but I don't think I know a single person who'd support its reintroduction. Not a hallmark of a civilised society in my book
 
Kerevi and 7 As supposedly liked Izzy's post. I wonder if they will face any punishment.
 
The_Blindside said:
Kerevi and 7 As supposedly liked Izzy's post. I wonder if they will face any punishment.
Click to expand...
I think that is definitely in more dubious grounds. There's a difference between agreement with sentiment and showing support for a friend and colleague both which a 'like' .

Probably fined/slapped on the wrists.
 

Latest posts

Top