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

[Marshall_magic]

Honestly I reckon he would more then hold his own and be one of the better center/wingers in the game. This is a competiton that had Clint Gutherson as an Origin center.

for the wages he commands would he be worth it. You’d think he would be on around 800k, you want more than”one of the better centres/wingers” for that price.

 

[shear_joy9]

for the wages he commands would he be worth it. You’d think he would be on around 800k, you want more than”one of the better centres/wingers” for that price.

you seriously think Folau was on $800k in the super league?? That would have made him the highest earner in the league when he was viewed as the third rail to everyone except some french bigots. I doubt he would have been on more than $100k

 

[shear_joy9]

I don't find them reprehensible. He's done what his faith tells him he should do, spreading the good news. He was merely quoting a bible passage but in a confronting manner. Ill advised and silly, certainly with hindsight, but I don't think anyone could have predicted where this would go.

The thing is, his post was directed at one person who baited him, but ended up all over the media which was not his doing.

f**king hell just stop posting. You're looking like a bigger f**kwit with every post you make

 

[The_Frog]

Could dumb it down a lot and say if the dragons spoke to every sponsor and asked what they thought of izzy and every response was "he is a merkin" then that would be enough on its own to make that decision

But why would they say that? Because being associated with him would bring down the wrath of his detractors.

Funnily enough their biggest sponsor was admonished in the High Court on the very same day for unethical practices, and not for the first time. Here's a link to their money laundering from overseas child exploitation from just last year. They are in no position to finger point. Makes Izzy look like a saint.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/banking/2020/04/14/westpac-fine-money-laundering/

 

[The_Frog]

f**king hell just stop posting. You're looking like a bigger f**kwit with post you make

No I won't. The people I discuss this with on here are able to do so civilly, even if they don't agree. So why don't you just f**k off.

 

[Perth Red]

f**king hell just stop posting. You're looking like a bigger f**kwit with post you make

too late! What sort of Christian would victim blame people like this? Not much love on show here

This is how the devout deal with adversity, rather than self harming and blaming others.

 

[SBD82]

Someone (I'd imagine a journalist who must be feeling very pleased with him/herself right now) asked him what happens to sinners (maybe gays) when they die, or something to that effect. His graphic was in reply to that. And I'm sure he believes that his current tribulations are tests of his character from above, a la Job. This is how the devout deal with adversity, rather than self harming and blaming others.

He should have just directed the enquiry to 1 Corinthians 6.10 without actually quoting it. They publish that in the SMH, who gives a f**k?

How do you defend his subsequent comments about the bushfires?

 

[The_Frog]

How do you defend his subsequent comments about the bushfires?

I don't. They were silly. The man's human.

It was in a sermon, but still silly, especially in his position.

 

[SBD82]

I don't. They were silly. The man's human.

Why should the NRL have any confidence that he won’t make similar comments again, given that these comments occurred after the original posts?

 

[Bazal]

Good points.

I'm not expert on such things but my understanding is the clubs are the employers, not the NRL. Sports is quite unique in that the employer does not run the competition they participate in and the governing body adopts risk for anyone that the clubs employ to play.

So yeah not sure how that would all hold up in court. I assume it would take a club (not a player) to challenge such a decision.

It'd be a fascinating case for those with skin in the game in terms of IR law.

In fact his dismissal case would have been fascinating too...his argument was clearly discrimination/a breach of the General Protections based on religion, but does posting on Instagram count under the protection? And does s.351 override signed and accepted social media & inclusiveness policies etc? If so, does the Act or the relevant law then potentially ALLOW "discriminatory" behaviour if it's the result of a protected attribute?

Would have possibly been a massive case that one.

 

[SBD82]

It'd be a fascinating case for those with skin in the game in terms of IR law.

In fact his dismissal case would have been fascinating too...his argument was clearly discrimination/a breach of the General Protections based on religion, but does posting on Instagram count under the protection? And does s.351 override signed and accepted social media & inclusiveness policies etc? If so, does the Act or the relevant law then potentially ALLOW "discriminatory" behaviour if it's the result of a protected attribute?

Would have possibly been a massive case that one.

It’s almost a shame that this was settled out of court. Would have been a very interesting ruling to read.

 

[Timmah]

How is this even a question? This whole thing is a thing because someone expressed something you want suppressed. What stupid gotcha are you trying to waste my time with?

It's a thing because what he said was discriminatory. That's a fact, it's not up for debate. Saying someone is going to hell because they're gay is discrimination based on their sexuality. And it can cause harm.

Suggesting we suppress no speech is ridiculously stupid.

 

[The_Frog]

Why should the NRL have any confidence that he won’t make similar comments again, given that these comments occurred after the original posts?

A lot of people have done a lot of silly and worse things, and they are still allowed to play in the NRL. For the third time, it is not what he might do or say that they fear, but his detractors.

 

[Bazal]

For the third time, it is not what he might do or say that they fear, but his detractors.

Here's a tip, people aren't ignoring or not addressing this opinion because they've missed it...

 

[chrisD]

It's a thing because what he said was discriminatory. That's a fact, it's not up for debate. Saying someone is going to hell because they're gay is discrimination based on their sexuality. And it can cause harm.

Suggesting we suppress no speech is ridiculously stupid.

So you agree you're trying to suppress expression and are going into bat for it, so then why in the flying f**k did you ask what is being suppressed?

Stupid me for having bothered with your nonsense.

 

[The_Frog]

It's a thing because what he said was discriminatory. That's a fact, it's not up for debate. Saying someone is going to hell because they're gay is discrimination based on their sexuality. And it can cause harm.

Suggesting we suppress no speech is ridiculously stupid.

Going around in circles here. It is not clear cut that it was discriminatory for many reasons.

 

[The_Frog]

Here's a tip, people aren't ignoring or not addressing this opinion because they've missed it...

It's bleeding obvious. What do you think they were worried about?

 

[Bazal]

It's bleeding obvious.

Actually it's utterly irrelevant because it's just your twist on exactly what everybody else is saying.

The reputation of the business is the concern. If an employee commits an offence that damages the reputation of their employee, that is likely to be considered serious misconduct. If a prospective employee has previously committed very public serious misconduct and been terminated for it, then their employment is likely to damage the reputation of the prospective employer.

"Detractors" are well within their rights to take issue with something that damages their faith in the employing business. That's why serious misconduct laws exist.

Whatever spin you want to put on it to make it suit your own agenda or perspective, it's about the risk of reputational damage.

 

[SBD82]

A lot of people have done a lot of silly and worse things, and they are still allowed to play in the NRL. For the third time, it is not what he might do or say that they fear, but his detractors.

So the NRL know that if he continues with the same pattern of behaviour, which he has now exhibited on three separate occasions and for which he has demonstrated zero remorse, they will face scrutiny from the public and bad press.

How is this an argument for signing Folau?

 

[The_Frog]

Outstanding article by Malcolm Knox in the SMH examining the implications of the NRL shutting its doors on Israel Folou, particularly allowing social media noise to determine its decisions.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/folau-...e-in-its-tracks-20210205-p56zvs.html#comments

All the pros and cons, all the careful reasoning, all the angels dancing on the head of a pin came to nothing. The Israel Folau comeback was punched in the nose by people power.

You would say this was rugby league’s GameStop moment, except that it’s not a new thing in sport for the public to orchestrate their emotions effectively enough to change policy. Returned membership cards used to literally turn up in the mail; switchboards used to, if not melt down, certainly seize up. Never forget the Rabbitohs uprising, where the corporate machine had to bow to the man and woman on the street. Sports have always had to be responsive to their public, or else they will fail. You might say that the New York Stock Exchange, where the little guys revolted against the GameStop short-sellers, had its NRL moment.

But something is newly challenging in the backlash against Folau’s return. The thousands of individuals who issued dire threats of retribution if the Dragons, or any other club, smuggled the former Wallaby back onto an Australian sporting field were not an organised Reddit army. There is no ‘inclusion army’, no ‘woke army’, no ‘gay army’ ready to besiege NRL HQ to keep homophobes out. It was a spontaneous display of feeling, and whether directly or indirectly (via sponsors and head office), it overrode all other considerations. And yet questions remain over how sizeable this backlash really is, whether it should have been so influential, and what precedents it has set for future decision-making.

The Dragons’ quick abandonment of their plan solves many problems before they arise. Chief among them is not why a club known for dumb hirings would contemplate a 31-year-old right centre who last faced the rigours of the NRL when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister. A bigger problem is the position it would have put ARL commission chairman Peter V’landys in.

It’s not that V’landys staked his reputation on keeping Folau out of the league. His predecessor Peter Beattie did that. But V’landys’ self-identification, as a Greek boy teased in the playground with gay kids bullied by homophobes, is a powerful component of the league chairman’s personal brand. How could he wind that back if Folau were let in? What damage would a turnaround do to V’landys’ image as a strongman? Better that an avalanche of public revulsion for Folau take the matter out of V’landys’ hands.

The backdown also averted history from its inevitable repetition, when Folau next quotes some offensive passage of scripture. I don’t belong among those who depict him as a deceitful, untrustworthy person who would not keep his word to remain silent on matters of sexuality. From what I understand, Folau is literally helpless before the teachings of scripture as his church interprets it. He never thought he broke an agreement with Rugby Australia to remain silent, because he never thought he could have made such an agreement in the first place. In his view, he was simply repeating what he thought his Bible said.

He emerged from his settlement with rugby feeling reinforced in his evangelicalism, and no football contract is going to stop that. So best for the game that it doesn’t repeat rugby’s mistake of thinking it had a deal when it did not.

In case rugby league gets a ricked neck from dodging all those bullets, however, the public reaction against a Folau return creates a new set of difficulties.

For whatever reason, religion and sexuality excite passions with a singular force. Norm Black, one of the Dragons’ sponsors, might have a point when he says league has accepted players who have beaten and cheated on their partners, who have stolen and damaged property, who have taken drugs and peed in public and attacked taxi drivers and violated shutdown rules and pretended to have sex with poodles – so why should it reject a humble preacher who quotes his Christian Bible? Rugby league is a broad church, so why can’t it be broad enough to accept a church?

The answer to Mr Black is that people don’t take to the streets to protest against common criminality. Memberships are not cancelled because of property damage in a hotel room. Religion, on the other hand … well, you’d have to have lived under a rock not to know what religion has motivated.

And yet, for the governing body trying to ride this mechanical bull, there must be some understanding of the quantum of public response needed to change policy. How many actual individuals are still so incensed about Folau that they will protest his return? Five thousand? Ten? Fifty? Two? Who are they? Real rugby league fans who will truly desert the game, or just noisy outsiders? Should the number of emails and Tweets and social media posts on a given day override matters of principle? If so, how many is a critical mass?

When rugby union dumped Folau, the quantifiable revolt was from sponsors. Rugby Australia could measure the dollars it would lose if it didn’t take action. Then chairman Cameron Clyne judged that the professional game was facing extinction. It wasn’t a choice requiring a nuanced view.

But for other sports, when the public does mass around certain emotional issues, it’s not so clear-cut. Cheating is another hot button. Nearly three years ago, Cricket Australia received thousands of messages and threats from people who would never watch the national team again after Cape Town. Action was taken, but it still weighs heavily on the national body when it contemplates return the captaincy to Steve Smith.

Did people desert cricket permanently after Sandpapergate? Or did that gate open, only for few to go through? Despite all the shock and horror, there was no discernible drop in grassroots participation, viewership or long-term financial support. It helped that the national team undertook some redemptive work, but most now recognise that that was cosmetic repair.

Another reading of the story is that people were outraged for a while, some left, some stayed and accepted the bad taste in their mouth, many didn’t care, and eventually the whole thing became a sorry episode in history. It still affects Australians, but how many did it drive away from the game?

Nobody is game to use Folau as a test case, but there is a hypothesis that by shutting the door on him, social media outrage is allowed to take the place of good policy. Many in Australian workplaces are familiar with this: someone comes into a meeting, says ‘Socials have gone berserk’, and everyone panics. Few ask whether ‘socials’ are a reliable proxy for a wider public. Few measure how many actual people are actually going berserk. It’s easier to be reactive than to stand against the tide and ask why.

Folau himself would seem pretty much finished, but there will be other issues that arouse Folau-level passions. Will sporting bodies always back down if they receive enough nasty emails? Will the social media coordinator continue to rule policy? And if that is their pattern of behaviour, how vulnerable are they to mischievous orchestrated campaigns, their own GameStop?

If you wanted to make any sporting organisation react to your agenda, you wouldn’t need more than a few thousand. It’s tremendous leverage given to a modest sample. (bear in mind that rugby league is a game where if Phil Gould says it on Friday night and 10 people like it on Twitter, it’s in the rule book by Monday.) Everyone turning their back on Israel Folau ought to get ready, because they have given awesome potential to the next online army.