Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by The Alpha Bro, Apr 10, 2019.
& on Grinder... oops sorry Izzy!
Anyone taking bets on Izzy coming out the closet in a few years?
Its not about grounds for termination, and they are not policing his opinions or his rights to believe what he wants. They are policing his conduct!
Rugby Union is a sport that internationally prides itself on inclusiveness. That means all races, creeds and colours, all ethnicities and nationalities, regardless of sexuality or religion.
REGULATION 20. MISCONDUCT AND CODE OF CONDUCT
20.3 For the purposes of these Regulations Relating to the Game, “Misconduct” shall mean any conduct, behaviour, statements and/or practices on or off the playing enclosure during or in connection with a Match or otherwise, that is unsporting and/or cheating and/or insulting and/or unruly and/or ill-disciplined and/or that brings or has the potential to bring the Game and/or any of its constituent bodies, World Rugby and/or its appointed personnel or commercial partners and/or Match Officials and/or judicial personnel into disrepute.
20.4 While it is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of the types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices that may amount to Misconduct under these Regulations, by way of illustration, each of the following types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices however or wheresoever undertaken are examples of and constitute Misconduct:
(c) acts or statements that are, or conduct that is, discriminatory by reason of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, colour or national or ethnic origin;
All Rugby contracts contain clauses as to player conduct, and these clauses, by WR Regulation, must comply with WR Regulation 20. You don't need to see his contract to know that it will contain a compliant code of conduct clause. It will either have a direct clause which reiterates the wording of Regulation 20, or they will have a reference something like, "...the player must comply with all WR regulations"
You also do not have to be Einstein to see that what he did was a direct violation of WR Regulation 20.4 (c)
Players understand fully that they are restricted as to what they are allowed to say to the media and on social media.This is not the first time Folau has run afoul of Regulation 20, and he was warned that time that if he did so again, his contract would be at risk. He is the engineer of his own demise.
Good riddance... the game doesn't need religious bigots!
No, he's being punished for expressing objectionable ideas in public.
I can tell you for sure that if one of my employees were say what Folau has said, to one of my customers, I would fire them on the spot.
Saying it out loud is the problem and it is punishable in any reasonable society. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it does not imply freedom from consequences of that speech.
The great jurist Oliver Wendall Holmes (Associate US Supreme Court justice 1902 to 1932) in Schenck v. United States, wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theatre". While you might be free to shout fire in a theatre where there was no fire, you would also be held responsible for any damage, injury or death caused in the rush for patrons to get out of the theatre.
You were wrong before, and you are wrong again. If his beliefs were at issue, he would not have a contract in the first place.
Good, I like it when people do this; it makes it all that much easier to tear their arguments to shreds.
Catholic priests are employees of the Catholic Church. In expressing those beliefs they are complying with and repeating the policy of their employers.
Folau is an employee of Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union. In expressing those beliefs he is going DIRECTLY AGAINST the policy of those two bodies.
No, the cross/crucifix is a symbol of Christianity NOT exclusively of the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian denominations use the crucifix or stylized versions of it as symbols of the Christianity. Some of those denominations, for example the "Community of Christ" (an offshoot of the Mormons) extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, and provide covenant commitment ceremonies where it is not legal. They also allow the ordination of gays and lesbians to the priesthood. The Evangelical Lutheran Church allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy. Their policy states that LGBTQ+ individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and to participate in the life of the congregation.
There, your extreme example has just been demolished.
You're confusing these two. Freedom of worship is absolute, freedom of speech is not, it comes with constraints and responsibilities.
"Statement" is anything you say.
It is simply stating that misconduct does not have to be in relation to a match to be punishable
Referee Nigel Owens is an openly gay man. This is a well known fact in rugby.
If a player were to call him a "fucking queer" during a match in which Owens was the referee - that is "in connection with a match".
If a player were to call him a "fucking queer" in a social media post or a newspaper article - that is "or otherwise".
Both are punishable under Regulation 20.4 (c)
If we didn't allow women to play rugby, that could be construed as sexual discrimination
We separate them into different competitions at adult level for two reasons
1. Player safety
2. The nature of the physical contact involved
I am quite sure that if I was a female prop, I would rather not have a male lock binding onto me on my side of the scrum (if you don't understand why, you've never played at prop, so ask one to explain it to you)
NOTE: In New Zealand, girls and boys play in the same teams up to U13 grade.
Looks like Billy Vunipola has been given the kick by Channel 4
Fans gave him an earful for the whole Bath v Sarries match.
I know on a map its pretty hard differentiate Bath from Bristol but they are very different places.
Still happy the fans have voiced their displeasure and whilst I don't think Billy will get more than a slapped wrist and a stern talking to. I think it's good terraces are making it clear we don't want it in rugby.
I deleted my post before you replied as some of the things i had to explain are elementary and the discussion pointless.
Having said that, I will make a few minor points as i see some of your arguments are so out of touch with reality i cant resist myself.
This might come as a shock, but those objectionable ideas that he presented on his personal instagram account are his beliefs.
His religion promotes those beliefs. Again, what he said, technically, is not very different from saying i am of (this particular chapter) of a very popular religion.
In a nutshell, he is being punished for saying out loud that people with different sexual orientation are going to an imaginary place.
1000th time, i think he is not only wrong and an idiot for believing that.
First, what you just described is a texbook case of what legally constitutes discrimination by gender/sex (depending on jurisdiction).
Second, i or you, are probably more at risk playing with the women's professional team than a men's professional team, yet the statutes would allow us to play in a mens team yet not on a women's team.
Might be his personal instagram account, but does he also post sponsorship and club stuff on said Instagram?
Does he use it to give his beliefs a platform?
If so then it isn't just a personal instagram account.
I mean he could make it private like a lot of other players do have and only limit it to friends, familes and players.
My last job we had a whole thing about social media and how we could face disciplinary action for saying hateful shite on there and the safest bet is to just make everything private so no one can link you to the company.
That's not the point. Personal as in he is not representing his employer, his club nor his country when he posts. And he never claimed he did.
To add to what Oly posted, at pretty much every job i held in continental europe i was told by every legal and HR department never, ever, under no circumstance, to use social media posts as grounds for dismissal (picture standard permanent contract, no breach, confidentiality, etc). Off the record we were told if we wanted we could fir the people for that, but that we needed to present it as something else as legally it was just unacceptable and it would backfire.
But the point it is isn't just his personal instagram if he promotes products etc.
Also people have been able to fire people over social media posts for some time now,
Sure they are legal aspects to it like every other firing that happens, but it has never ever not been the case for some time now.
So not sure who told you that.
Your job sounds very different to mine then as we were specifically told we could be fired for social media.
Also Izzy signed contracts with clauses about inclusivity and public image etc.
Really strange hill to die on, tbh
Hey kids, can you spell hypocrite? Darce is crap at taking screenshots though.
I mean TBF to Izzy, he one was posted this year the other 3 years ago.
A person can change, which I think he has (Granted not for the better it seems).
Darcy is a classic boomer with those Screenshots.
Quiet you hellbound self fornicator!
Ah yeah, there's definitely eh better arguments against Folau, but I just liked the bants. Speaking of which, Marler has been on great form recently.
Can confirm it wasn't just when BV came on (it was very loud then) and continued with intensity throughout whenever he was near the play. Great atmosphere at Ashton Gate last night even without that.
I don't know what Sarries management were thinking involving him, even saying it was unexpected post match.
Izzy isn't backing down:
Fair to say he is making his own bed which he wishes to lie in.
Will go down in history as a truly gifted religious convert who gave up what he was truly good at RIP Izzy will miss your play even though I dislike the Aussies.
Separate names with a comma.