• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Your job sounds very different to mine then as we were specifically told we could be fired for social media.
This is what i am not convinced about. You present it as a fact. I said i didnt know, but the more i read about this subject, the more the evidence leads me to believe it is just not true.

Folau's defence will rely on two key elements; that his social media posts were not his own words but that he was quoting scripture, and that there is no specific social media clause in his contract stopping him from doing so.

Source: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...n/news-story/8a6a6300e373f2f8c6bd13c58248df20

This might come as a shock but THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLDING AN OBJECTIONABLE BELIEF AND BASHING OTHERS OVER THE HEAD WITH IT!
If that belief is protected by law and the right of free speech is protected by law then, no, the difference ain't big.

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.
Then those bodies should have placed a clause in his contract, which is what i said in the first place to which you replied.
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!
Read the article in the link i posted above. His lawyers seem to think otherwise.


For the 26th time, we all agree what he did was not just stupid but wrong, idiotic, so lets try to keep it civil (me included, apologies if i insulted any of you, my bad).

The difference is i believe that, from what i've read, although stupid and discriminatory, his actions are within the law and are not enough to unilaterally terminate his contract.
 
I'm sorry, I just find this bizarre. So it's O.K to think things but it's not O.K. to say things? That's frankly laughable as now all someone like Billy needs to say is "I hold strong Christian beliefs" which is simply code for "I believe that gay people are damned for all eternity". If you think it, then you should be free to say it. However, you then have to face the consequences.
BINGO.
But let me add one more thing. In most jurisdictions being fired for your religion is illegal. If you are fired for quoting, verbatim, what your religion states, will, i think it is not a stretch to argue you were fired for your religious views.

Our church's national body's stance on homosexuality is that it's wrong, and will not be condoned at our church.
Say a member of your church was a professional rugby player who played for the bulls and springboks.

A Jounarlist ask him, point blank: "what is your stance in homosexuality? Do you believe homosexuals will go to hell if they do not repent?"

Without dodging the question, how should he answer that question truthfully without getting fired?
 
Say a member of your church was a professional rugby player who played for the bulls and springboks.

A Jounarlist ask him, point blank: "what is your stance in homosexuality? Do you believe homosexuals will go to hell if they do not repent?"

Without dodging the question, how should he answer that question truthfully without getting fired?

He should absolutely dodge the question on the grounds that it's got absolutely nothing to do with rugby.
 
I think Yoshi's point is that he can say what he wants, no one is stopping him. However, he is responsible for his on speech and, like anyone else, is liable to face consequences (either from his employer or elsewhere) for what he does say.

Cruz - if Folau agreee to a code of conduct (Which all employees of RA agree to abide by) that conflicts with his religion, that's on him. No one forced him to agree to the code of conduct, he did so voluntarily and was handsomely paid for it. If he breaches his code of conduct then he is likely to face disciplinary procedures. Doing so repeatedly will lead to escalating disciplinary procedures. I note most major employers have codes of conduct that employees agree to when they sign a contract with that employer, and as such the process applied by RA does not surprise me in the slightest.
 
no code of conduct can force a person to deny their own religious beliefs, such a contract would never stand up....I think folau will win massive damages here
 
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.
 
no code of conduct can force a person to deny their own religious beliefs, such a contract would never stand up....I think folau will win massive damages here

Oh dear!

Denial of religious belief is not what its about, and no-one, and I mean NO-ONE is arguing that.

No matter what your religious beliefs are, you do not have any right to go on a homophobic rant, particularly when it is the policy of your employer to be inclusive. There are also laws about employers having a responsibility in creating and maintaining a non-hostile workplace. If RA took no action against Folau, they could be liable to a complaint from one or more LGBTQ+ employees for failing to protect them form hate speech by another employee.
 
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.


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.


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.
Non-compete clauses are allowed in the EU subject to certain conditions and this brings me to the aspect of the law you've been missing. One of EU law's general principles is proportionality, fundamental rights are another general principle, these two things have to work together. An example of a case where this is fairly relevant as the dispute was a dismissal and the claim was based around freedom of expression was where an employee of the European Commission who published a book called 'the rotten core of Europe' without his employers permission was dismissed and the dismissal stood when brought to the European court of justice because the dismissal was considered a proportional breach of the author's freedom of expression. There's another case where a Dutch Scientologist was not allowed access to the UK, this denial wasn't allowed by EU law but when shown the danger allowing this person in bad to the public health and morality in the UK it stood.

Without knowing if Australia protect freedom of speech, or freedom of expression or freedom of speech, one would assume they do, as well as proportionality its impossible for me to predict the outcome of this dispute but if it were to take place in the EU I'd be nearly certain that Folau hasn't a leg to stand on despite EU law protecting Freedom of Speech and worship under the umbrella of freedom of expression.
 
@ Alpha. His argument was: he signed something in free will, therefore, the consequences are on him.
I used non compete as a counterexample. In logic counterexamples are more often than not the simplest way of disproving general rules.

Without knowing if Australia protect freedom of speech, or freedom of expression or freedom of speech, one would assume they do, as well as proportionality its impossible for me to predict the outcome of this dispute but if it were to take place in the EU I'd be nearly certain that Folau hasn't a leg to stand on despite EU law protecting Freedom of Speech and worship under the umbrella of freedom of expression.
I can't predict it either, but I guess it's a shame the case is not in the EU as i'd happily take you on that bet.
 
@Cruz_del_Sur You are right, the simple problem is you have a conflict between freedom of speech/beliefs and bigotry towards others, both of which are subject to laws. Simple question is which one outweighs the other one? At what point does freedom of speech constitute bigotry and racism/sexism or any intolerance that is deemed by the law to be illegal. So yes Folau has freedom of speech, but then he can also be breaking the law.
There is also another issue though; one that could drop him in legal jeopardy on the off chance that he succeeds. There is a possibility that legal authorities could become involved. All it will take is for just one LGBTQ+ employee of Rugby Australia to make an official complaint to the NSW Police, and it could trigger this....

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Section 49ZT) states: "It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group".

The next questions are whether what he said constitutes a breach in contract, as Rugby Australia felt, and if in turn they breached Freedom of speech laws in doing so. At this point, which law takes precedence? I honestly don't know in terms of the law, but I know which I'd prefer. In terms of Folau for me, the hate speech takes precedence over his freedom of speech. If he wishes to express those views in private then fine, but as soon as it is on a public forum his intent becomes more than giving his opinion, he is actively trying to influence other people's opinions and that is where the problem is. He is trying to persuade others to share his view that homosexual people (amongst many others) are going to hell because of their sexuality. I suppose you could argue that in his head he is just trying to save them, but actually he is more sharing his view that homosexual people and others listed are bad and going to hell and wanting others to agree. Maybe others disagree, but as soon as he goes public, hate speech outweighs freedom of speech, because he is influencing others.

In terms of the contract I reckon that's too complex legally for me to give an opinion on. As Cruz said, it depends on how it is worded in the contract and we don't know that. Personally I support RA and not Folau, but legally, well that might take a lengthy court battle to decide if it goes that way.
 
I thought most freedom of speech/expression was more to do with the government and not private companies anyway.

I think contracts with conditions about what is said in public such as the one Folau signed with RA are becoming more common for people in high profile public jobs with lots of publicity, for example rugby players. Folau for example has a history of this, so RA probably wanted to make it explicit so they were covered if something happened again. However, as I said above, imagine if Folau challenges them, it will take a lengthy legal battle to resolve. Basically companies now find themselves tarred by the same brush as their employee and so they need something specifically in the contract so they can dismiss an employee who has acted inappropriately, to show they have acted and aren't agreeing or supporting that employee. If they don't have something specifically in the contract then it becomes harder to dismiss them without being taken to court themselves.
 
Bringing your employer into disrepute is pretty much grounds for gross misconduct.

For example if I called a customer a ducking ****** I'd get fired. Just because I believe the person a ****** and I have Freedom if Speech.
 
So by this thread it sounds like anyone could start their own religion with whatever doctrine, say or encourage anything they like and be protected by law in Australia.

Don't see that happening myself.
 
Im sick and tired of the liberal media telling the thick public what they should and should not believe in. As john stuart mill said in his famous 'harm principle'. Freddom is being able to do what you want without harming orher people. Ive been called an 'irish ****' at english rugby games. It didnt harm me; its one of lifes troubles. Good luck to billy vunipola ! I may not agree with him but i will defend to the death his right to say it. End of.
 
@ Alpha. His argument was: he signed something in free will, therefore, the consequences are on him.
I used non compete as a counterexample. In logic counterexamples are more often than not the simplest way of disproving general rules.
I appreciate you coming back on this sincerely, and taking the time to consider a response.

Could I perhaps suggest a difference between this situation and the counterexample you suggest?

Folau held his beliefs before he signed the contract. He knowingly signed it with the awareness that it conflicted with his beliefs.

When one signs a non competition clause with a company to begin employment, it stands to reason that they work for that employer with the best intentions to do the best they can for that company. Effectively they sign the contract in good faith to honour it.

Now, situations change where they are no longer able to do so (bad experience etc) and so they change from a view that is aligned to their company to one that is not, and they seek alternative employment. Now just because they no longer wish to work with that employer doesn't mean they didn't want to at the time they signed the contract. Indeed, their signature is an indication of their good faith.

Conversely, and as above, Folau knew when he signed the contract of the conflict it had with his beliefs, which suggests that he either;

a) didn't consider the discrepancy between his beliefs and the code of conduct he was agreeing to, or
b) he knowingly signed something he knew was not aligned to his beliefs, and was thus not an agreement made in good faith.

Now I am willing to concede that he may not have been aware of the code of conduct of RA, but this has not been suggested by him or his representatives.

This brings us to "b)", which as you will note has a key difference between this situation and the example you present. As above, in your example one can reasonably enter into a contract in good faith but things can change. When considering Folau, he has consistently shown that his beliefs have not changed.
 
Im sick and tired of the liberal media telling the thick public what they should and should not believe in. As john stuart mill said in his famous 'harm principle'. Freddom is being able to do what you want without harming orher people. Ive been called an 'irish ****' at english rugby games. It didnt harm me; its one of lifes troubles. Good luck to billy vunipola ! I may not agree with him but i will defend to the death his right to say it. End of.

Would you "defend to the death" anyone's right to say "all ****ers should go back to Africa"?
Would you "defend to the death" anyone's right to say "all rape victims should just shut up, stop complaining and get on with their lives"?
Would you "defend to the death" anyone's right to say "all Muslims are terrorists and they should all be shot at birth?
Would you "defend to the death" anyone's right to say "all boys who have been sexually abused by priests should just keep their mouths shut?

After all, where's the actual harm to other people in any of those words?




NOTE: I apologise if anyone is offend by any of the words and ideas in this post, but those words and ideas were necessary to illustrate the point.
 
Im sick and tired of the liberal media telling the thick public what they should and should not believe in. As john stuart mill said in his famous 'harm principle'. Freddom is being able to do what you want without harming orher people. Ive been called an 'irish ****' at english rugby games. It didnt harm me; its one of lifes troubles. Good luck to billy vunipola ! I may not agree with him but i will defend to the death his right to say it. End of.
So you define hard as only physical? So when some going LGBTQ+ person hurts them selves because a famous person, someone lots of people look up to, says there is something wrong with them does that count? Or falou has to do the actual cutting?
 
Top