News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[isaiah]

the Melbourne storm have disgraced the league and treated it with contempt for years, Folau would have fitted in seamlessly with them.

He will be great in a QUEENSLAND jersey

 

[The_Frog]

Folau made his slurs publicly. On instagram. A platform specifically designed for wide public dissemination. Repeatedly.

He only posted it once. It had been copied and pasted from some church site. The mainstream media then posted it dozens of times and brought attention to it. Maybe you should take this up with them.

 

[Timmah]

It is a sign of a robust democracy when all views are heard.

All views? Like even those of nazis? Or rapists? Do we give air to holocaust deniers? Qanon believers? People who think COVID is a hoax?

People can hold whatever views they want, they can even say them. Nobody is owed a platform to espouse their views, nor are they protected from the consequences of speaking those views.

I suspect the issue here is that corporations, in the main sporting bodies, but frequently whilst being leaned on by huge corporate sponsors, are being used to take on functions that are not their role.

Sounds like speculation to me.

There are certain things you aren't allowed to say now, and they are contained in legislation, passed by elected Parliaments.

Sounds like you're referring to discrimination law lol. Are you suggesting it be abolished?

If it is desired to expand the list of things you can't say, thereby reducing the robustness of our democracy, the place for that is Government, not privately run and unelected sporting bodies that act in their own interests and can be influenced by social and mainstream media. The fact that Government won't pass such laws is why we're seeing unelected corporations being pressured to police speech. There are good reasons Governments won't pass such laws.

Private organisations are absolutely and completely entitled to not employ someone if they choose not to, within the law (equal opportunity employment). If somebody has expressed views that do not align with an organisation, whether it's Folau and the NRL/Dragons, or Joe Bloggs and a fish & chip shop, they're within their rights to not employ that person.

 

[Timmah]

He only posted it once. It had been copied and pasted from some church site. The mainstream media then posted it dozens of times and brought attention to it. Maybe you should take this up with them.

He actually had posted other discriminatory material on his social media on a previous occasion to the one that got him shitcanned by RA. It wasn't one offence that got him booted.

 

[Valheru]

All views? Like even those of nazis? Or rapists? Do we give air to holocaust deniers? Qanon believers? People who think COVID is a hoax?

Of the above, I believe only rapists would be refused registration by the NRL. Then again, on track record, maybe not.

Possibly 'Nazis' depending on their actions associated with their point of view

People can hold whatever views they want, they can even say them. Nobody is owed a platform to espouse their views, nor are they protected from the consequences of speaking those views.

It is about what is a reasonable consequence. Personally I don't believe being continually denied employment is a reasonable consequence for someone who believes gay people are going to hell and as far as we know hasn't actually actively discriminated against gay people. He also believes the same of atheists, drunks and 'liars' but that hasn't seemed to have caused the same outrage.

Private organisations are absolutely and completely entitled to not employ someone if they choose not to, within the law (equal opportunity employment). If somebody has expressed views that do not align with an organisation, whether it's Folau and the NRL/Dragons, or Joe Bloggs and a fish & chip shop, they're within their rights to not employ that person.

They do have a right to not employ anyone they choose if they feel they are contrary to the culture of the workplace. The problem here is that the dragons want to employ him and the NRL being a third party are potentially blocking someone from acquiring gainful employment.

 

[The_Frog]

He actually had posted other discriminatory material on his social media on a previous occasion to the one that got him shitcanned by RA. It wasn't one offence that got him booted.

He singled out gays the first time. The second one that caused all the furore included other categories of sinners as well, presumably he was told he must not single out gays. Gays still felt singled out in any case, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Timmah]

It is about what is a reasonable consequence. Personally I don't believe being continually denied employment is a reasonable consequence for someone who believes gay people are going to hell and as far as we know hasn't actually actively discriminated against gay people.

Can you explain how Folau has been 'continually denied employment'?
To date, I'm not aware of him having employment denied at all. He was already employed at Rugby Australia and violated their code of conduct on multiple occasions, so he was terminated.

Last year he signed with Catalans and was not denied employment.

To date, he is in discussions with the Dragons and the NRL has not yet made a decision on whether they will or won't register his contract.

He also believes the same of atheists, drunks and 'liars' but that hasn't seemed to have caused the same outrage.

I mean this one is really obvious - singling somebody out for their sexuality in such a way is discriminatory. Atheism, alcoholism and lying? Not so much.

 

[The_Frog]

Private organisations are absolutely and completely entitled to not employ someone if they choose not to, within the law (equal opportunity employment). If somebody has expressed views that do not align with an organisation, whether it's Folau and the NRL/Dragons, or Joe Bloggs and a fish & chip shop, they're within their rights to not employ that person.

The NRL are not in fact the employer here. The St George Illawarra Dragons club are. They appear not to be perturbed about employing him at all. The NRL's role amounts to registering his contract, mindful of criminal matters either finalised with convictions or pending, and mindful of rehabilitation that has taken place, also ensuring there are clearances from his previous clubs. Then they might look at potential for the game to be brought into disrepute, which is a much murkier legal area when no actual offence has been committed. You can't just deny someone employment because you don't like their views, or because you might receive bad press, if they haven't committed a crime. You can do it on the grounds of not conforming to the employer's values in a limited set of circumstances, ie when those values are intrinsic to the organisation's core undertaking, such as a religious school. This is why Rugby Australia had to cough up, and the fact they did would be leading the NRL to tread very carefully indeed. The fact that they are today reported as having advised Folou he will be subject to social media restrictions seems to suggest he is going to be registered.

 

[Perth Red]

This

Packer nearly killed someone and Lodge terrorised a whole family yet both were allowed back to play.

Old mate who thinks gay people are going to a mythical placed called hell shouldn't be allowed to play though apparently.

not excusing their returns to the nrl, but 1. They apologised and showed contrition for what they did 2. Whilst horrible for the individuals involved in their crimes the bigger and more widespread harm of allowing bigotry and hatred to go unchecked can be far far worse. The number of young gay people committing suicide due to public attitudes fuelled by people like Folau as an example.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
He’s 31, a winger been out of the nrl for a decade and has the stench of sht around him, I have no idea why any club would think it a good idea!

 

[Perth Red]

Relocate Izzy to Perth.

im actually surprised forest hasn’t signed him for the force!

 

[Vic Mackey]

All views? Like even those of nazis? Or rapists? Do we give air to holocaust deniers? Qanon believers? People who think COVID is a hoax?

People can hold whatever views they want, they can even say them. Nobody is owed a platform to espouse their views, nor are they protected from the consequences of speaking those views.

Sounds like speculation to me.

Sounds like you're referring to discrimination law lol. Are you suggesting it be abolished?

Private organisations are absolutely and completely entitled to not employ someone if they choose not to, within the law (equal opportunity employment). If somebody has expressed views that do not align with an organisation, whether it's Folau and the NRL/Dragons, or Joe Bloggs and a fish & chip shop, they're within their rights to not employ that person.

I don’t know, it’s a tough one and where do you draw the line? Do we also suspend players who are anti vax? Surely they are a lot more dangerous then Folaus comments?

Literally 2 days ago a Tigers player called another player a ‘f*#got’ on his Instagram story. Is he now gone?

I mean there’s Eels fans screaming bloody murder over Folau yet get all giddy over their halfback who is the only player in NRL history suspended for a homophobic sledge.

What’s our stance on Fifita publicly supporting the release of a man charged with manslaughter?

Remember when Bryce Gibbs spent an entire game sledging Ben Hannant about his religion. Is that free game?

It’s a hard one because let’s be serious, 70% of Twitter would be happy to ban any player who supported Trump

I’m 100% fine for the NRL to say no to Folau, it completely astounds me it hasn’t been hit on head already. Like I said my guess is they are checking with legal after the ARU shitfight

 

[Perth Red]

It is a sign of a robust democracy when all views are heard. I suspect the issue here is that corporations, in the main sporting bodies, but frequently whilst being leaned on by huge corporate sponsors, are being used to take on functions that are not their role. There are certain things you aren't allowed to say now, and they are contained in legislation, passed by elected Parliaments. If it is desired to expand the list of things you can't say, thereby reducing the robustness of our democracy, the place for that is Government, not privately run and unelected sporting bodies that act in their own interests and can be influenced by social and mainstream media. The fact that Government won't pass such laws is why we're seeing unelected corporations being pressured to police speech. There are good reasons Governments won't pass such laws.

When the leading pollies are right wing religious nuts you’re not likely to see hate speech laws put forward against their own beliefs

out of interest does folaus fairytale book mention anything about going to hell if you dont honour a contract?

 

[Timmah]

The NRL are not in fact the employer here. The St George Illawarra Dragons club are. They appear not to be perturbed about employing him at all. The NRL's role amounts to registering his contract, mindful of criminal matters either finalised with convictions or pending, and mindful of rehabilitation that has taken place. Then they might look at potential for the game to be brought into disrepute, which is a much murkier legal area when no actual offence has been committed. You can't just deny someone employment because you don't like their views, or because you might receive bad press, if they haven't committed a crime. You can do it on the grounds of not conforming to the employer's values in a limited set of circumstances, ie when those values are the organisation's core undertaking, such as a religious school. This is why Rugby Australia had to cough up, and the fact they did would be leading the NRL to tread very carefully indeed. The fact that they are today reported as having advised Folou he will be subject to social media restrictions seems to suggest he is going to be registered.

Whether the employer is the NRL or the club, there are codes of conduct and protection policies that the player would need to adhere to. If the NRL deems someone does not align with such policies they'd be within their rights to deny him employment. Employers make values-based decisions on potential employees all the time.

Also - no idea why people keep referring to the Rugby Australia situation, he was already employed there and violated their code of conduct on more than one occasion. He's currently seeking employment at an NRL club without a currently registered contract. Completely different set of circumstances.

(while we're referencing RA though - he signed a contract with them agreeing to social media restrictions and ignored them anyway...)

 

[The_Frog]

Like I said my guess is they are checking with legal after the ARU shitfight

That would have been done a long time ago.

 

[The_Frog]

If the NRL deems someone does not align with such policies they'd be within their rights to deny him employment.

I do think there'd be a legal argument to the contrary. He's just played for another club in the same sport without incident. If the NRL has the legal right to deny him registration, SuperLeague would have had that right as well.

The Rugby situation isn't the same, but it's similar enough to be taken into consideration.

 

[Perth Red]

I do think there'd be a legal argument to the contrary. He's just played for another club in the same sport without incident.

The Rugby situation isn't the same, but it's similar enough to be taken into consideration.

as said companies employ based on values of the organisation all the time. The only discrepency here is that dragons are his potential employers but nrl needs to sanction it. If nrl do not have a water tight club agreement/policy around who they can and can’t register then someone needs sacking given the dip shts we sometimes have in our sport! I would imagine the nrl is well within its right to say we are an organisation based on inclusiveness and Folau does not share those values.

 

[The_Frog]

When the leading pollies are right wing religious nuts you’re not likely to see hate speech laws put forward against their own beliefs

Talking about hate speech while doing it. Great stuff.

And the other mob didn't pass laws either when they were in power.

I would imagine the nrl is well within its right to say we are an organisation based on inclusiveness and Folau does not share those values.

We are inclusive! That is why we are excluding you!

Guess what. Half the players in the NRL don't share the values either, they are just terrified to talk about it. Values that are there at the behest of social media agitators to keep non-fans of the sport happy are a millstone around the game's neck.

 

[THE CHAMP]

The most amazing thing about this whole drama is that he’s not going to the roosters

 

[ACTPanthers]

All this thread proves to me is that there are still people out there who are bigot sympathisers, and that is just really f**king sad.

 

[Valheru]

Can you explain how Folau has been 'continually denied employment'?
To date, I'm not aware of him having employment denied at all. He was already employed at Rugby Australia and violated their code of conduct on multiple occasions, so he was terminated.

Last year he signed with Catalans and was not denied employment.

To date, he is in discussions with the Dragons and the NRL has not yet made a decision on whether they will or won't register his contract.

His termination at RU whilst he made the comments is one thing, I don't believe he should be denied other employment opportunities based on a belief which would be the reason the NRL refuse to register the contract if they choose to do so.

I mean this one is really obvious - singling somebody out for their sexuality in such a way is discriminatory. Atheism, alcoholism and lying? Not so much.

How so?

If an employer sacked someone for being atheist, that would be every bit as discriminatory as sacking someone because they are gay.

The other two, depends on if they effect your work or not.

The point is, based on his criteria, the bloke believes 95% of people are going to hell. Who cares?