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

[Shark62]

It’s plageurised

I know! I’ve just been delivering white ribbon accreditation programs. Chief of defence forces uses it.

 

[Tiger5150]

I wonder if there were germans arguing the same when the nazi party first started to gain popularity on the back of blaming Jews for the countries problems? Reality is any speech that hurts, ostracises or damages in any way should not be tolerated. If you dont call it out you are complicit at some level. Matters not if it is religious doctrine, beliefs learnt from parents of just plain hatred behind it.
The behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept.

Not sure if you are serious using Nazi's as an example of the dangers of unrestrained free speech. They loved a good book burning.

 

[carcharias]

I’m not sure his fictional belief system would allow that

He’s a dickhead
He was already warned not to do that shit .
Now he crying like a bitch to 20 people in his pissant church.

 

[Perth Red]

This is actually a good point.
Why would you be offended?
Is anybody?

I guess given atheists don’t believe in false constructs like sin and hell they wouldn’t be offended, however atheists don’t have a recent, and to some degree still, history of persecution where as gay people do so I can see why they would be much more offended, especially if you are a gay Christian

 

[Perth Red]

Not sure if you are serious using Nazi's as an example of the dangers of unrestrained free speech. They loved a good book burning.

It’s an example of having no consequence for hate speech and letting extreme views go unchecked. Maybe if Germans had stood up and not accepted such rhetoric then history may have been different?
Every time we let “free speech” demonise a group of people with no consequence we fail those people.

 

[The Great Dane]

Is there actually such a thing as freedom of speech in Australia Dane? I stopped reading at that point so apologies if your post was really very good, which I'm sure it was.

Under English common law (which Australia and the rest of the Anglosphere inherited from the British Empire) yes we have/had freedom of speech as a founding principle. However because English common law isn't codified in law (unlike in the American bill of rights), it's been easily eroded and manipulated overtime in all the Anglosphere countries (with the exception of the USA, but that's another subject) to the point where effectively none of them have freedom of speech anymore. It's rather terribly sad actually...

 

[The Great Dane]

Bullshit. His comments cause harm to people who are lgbti particularly young Polynesian gay men try to deal with their sexuality.

Apart from in the grey area of incitement to violence comments and words cannot cause actual measurable harm, only actions can cause harm, and Folau hasn't actively discriminated against anyone or any group, and unless your standard for incitement is so ridiculously loose that it's effectively meaningless, he hasn't incited anybody to violence against anyone or any group either, he's simply share an offensive opinion...

To have a sporting icon make such stupid comments in defiance of his contract and his employers values is simply unacceptable. He chose to make the comment. It’s his problem

When Israel made the comments he wasn't at work or acting as a representative of his employers, they were made on his personal Tiwtter/Instagram/whatever account.

Are you seriously suggesting that even when he is on his own time that he should have to act according to employers standards and values, what a terrifyingly Orwellian idea...

BTW, I don't have an opinion on his contract, maybe he did have a clause in there that said he'd keep such opinions to himself, IDK, but it's beside the point that I'm making anyway.

 

[Shark62]

Apart from in the grey area of incitement to violence comments and words cannot cause actual measurable harm, only actions can cause harm, and Folau hasn't actively discriminated against anyone or any group, and unless your standard for incitement is so ridiculously loose that it's effectively meaningless, he hasn't incited anybody to violence against anyone or any group either, he's simply share an offensive opinion...



When Israel made the comments he wasn't at work or acting as a representative of his employers, they were made on his personal Tiwtter/Instagram/whatever account.

Are you seriously suggesting that even when he is on his own time that he should have to act according to employers standards and values, what a terrifyingly Orwellian idea...

BTW, I don't have an opinion on his contract, maybe he did have a clause in there that said he'd keep such opinions to himself, IDK, but it's beside the point that I'm making anyway.

You obviously don’t have even the slightest idea about modern work contract arrangements. It’s almost sad. It’s not Orwellian ffs. It’s part of the deal you make when you sign a contract of employment that you will publicly abide by your company values. Twitter is a public social media forum. He chose to expose himself to his employers wrath by defying RA values.
It’s 2019 mate. I’m a public servant and I’m bound by public service values and that includes what I choose to plaster over social media. It’s not hard to do.

 

[The Great Dane]

I wonder if there were germans arguing the same when the nazi party first started to gain popularity on the back of blaming Jews for the countries problems?

There were quite a few that held very similar views to the ones I'm expressing, some of them where much more intelligent and articulate than you and I could ever hope to be and wrote some amazing pieces on philosophy and politics back in the day that should be mandatory reading for every kid in school but isn't.

One of them called Martin Niemöller wrote an amazing poem that you should read, it's called First they came...

And seriously comparing me to Nazis, I know that you're better than that PR...

Reality is any speech that hurts, ostracises or damages in any way should not be tolerated.

So basically offensive speech should be illegal and/or punishable right!

But where does that principle end? Because literally everything can be/is offensive to somebody!

Who is deciding what is and isn't offensive speech, and on the authority of whom?

Lets take the current example of who is or isn't going to heaven, in my humble opinion not only are gays not going to heaven, nobody at all is going to heaven, because heaven almost certainly doesn't exist and obviously it is impossible to go somewhere that doesn't exist. Using the same standard of offense that is being used in Israel's case I've just said something deeply offensive, possibly discriminatory, and damaging to everybody on the planet, so should I be punished for saying that?!
Or is it only members of certain ideological groups that we don't like that should be punished for their offensive opinions?

And what happens when the inevitable happens and another political/ideological group becomes the majority and holds the power that your political/ideological group has created of being the arbiters of what is and isn't offensive, and they decide that opinions that you hold are offensive and that as such you should be punished?
On what principle are you going to argue against that punishment when it's you that is next in line?
The principle of it's okay for yea but not for me?!

If you dont call it out you are complicit at some level. Matters not if it is religious doctrine, beliefs learnt from parents of just plain hatred behind it.
The behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept.

Ahh, I see, so we're going to be ideological authoritarians, anybody who disagrees with us is inherently bad and/or dangerous, and should either be forced to agree with us or punished...

When are we forming the Inquisition to hunt down and punish those whose ideologies/beliefs we disagreed with?!

 

[Shark62]

There were a quite a few that held very similar views to the ones I'm expressing, some of them where much more intelligent and articulate than you and I could ever hope to be and wrote some amazing pieces on philosophy and politics back in the day that should be mandatory reading for every kid in school but isn't.

One of them called Martin Niemöller wrote an amazing poem that you should read, it's called First they came...

And seriously comparing me to Nazi's, I know that you're better than that PR...



So basically offensive speech should be illegal and/or punishable right!

But where does that principle end? Because literally everything can be/is offensive to somebody!

Who is deciding what is and isn't offensive speech, and on the authority of whom?

Lets take the current example of who is or isn't going to heaven, in my humble opinion not only are gays not going to heaven, nobody at is going to heaven, because heaven almost certainly doesn't exist and obviously it is impossible to go somewhere that doesn't exist. Using the same standard of offense that is being used in Israel's case I've just said something deeply offensive, possibly discriminatory, and damaging to everybody on the planet, so should I be punished for saying that?!
Or is it only members of certain ideological groups that we don't like that should be punished for their offensive opinions?

And what happens when the inevitable happens and another political/ideological group becomes the majority and holds the power that your political/ideological group has created of being the arbiters of what is and isn't offensive, and they decide that opinions that you hold are offensive and that as such you should be punished?
On what principle are you going to argue against that punishment when it's you that is next in line?
The principle of it's okay for yea but not for me?!



Ahh, I see, so we're going to be ideological authoritarians, anybody who disagrees with us is inherently bad and/or dangerous, and should either be forced to agree with us or punished...

When are we forming the Inquisition to hunt down and punish those whose ideologies/beliefs we disagreed with?!

Are you being intentionally naive or do you actually not get it?
He signed a bloody contract and agreed to abide by RA values, and then chose to defy those values publicly despite prior warnings.
I eagerly await your 2900 word response.

 

[The Great Dane]

You obviously don’t have even the slightest idea about modern work contract arrangements. It’s almost sad. It’s not Orwellian ffs. It’s part of the deal you make when you sign a contract of employment that you will publicly abide by your company values. Twitter is a public social media forum. He chose to expose himself to his employers wrath by defying RA values.
It’s 2019 mate. I’m a public servant and I’m bound by public service values and that includes what I choose to plaster over social media. It’s not hard to do.

Oh I do, I just fundamentally disagree with them on principal...

And twitter may be a social media forum, that however doesn't/shouldn't mean that his personal account should be the domain of either his employers or the government, unless of course he is using it to do something illegal.

And yes it is very Orwellian that higher powers such as employers and governments are dictating to their employees and citizens what they can and cannot say, do, and think in their own time, what ideas they can and cannot interact with, etc, etc. It's terrifyingly Orwellian.

 

[The Great Dane]

Are you being intentionally naive or do you actually not get it?
He signed a bloody contract and agreed to abide by RA values, and then chose to defy those values publicly despite prior warnings.
I eagerly await your 2900 word response.

Are you intentionally ignoring what I'm writing or are you just to lazy/stupid to engage with ideas that take more than a sentence to put into words?

 

[Shark62]

Are you intentionally ignoring what I'm writing or are you just to lazy/stupid to engage with ideas that take more than a sentence to put into words?

You are beyond hope. Check the length of your posts. They are ridiculously long and always are. Nobody with a life would even consider reading them from start to finish.

 

[The Great Dane]

You are beyond hope. Check the length of your posts. They are ridiculously long and always are. Nobody with a life would even consider reading them from start to finish.

So to lazy then...

 

[Shark62]

Oh I do, I just fundamentally disagree with them on principal...

And twitter may be a social media forum, that however doesn't/shouldn't mean that his personal account should be the domain of either his employers or the government, unless of course he is using it to do something illegal.

And yes it is very Orwellian that higher powers such as employers and governments are dictating to their employees and citizens what they can and cannot say, do, and think in their own time, what ideas they can and cannot interact with, etc, etc. It's terrifyingly Orwellian.

Well disagree with them all you like. They are easy to abide by. It’s your problem. The world will leave you behind.

 

[Tiger5150]

It’s an example of having no consequence for hate speech and letting extreme views go unchecked. Maybe if Germans had stood up and not accepted such rhetoric then history may have been different?
Every time we let “free speech” demonise a group of people with no consequence we fail those people.

I totally disagree with you and think you are 100% wrong. Nazi's crushed opposing voices and the first thing they did was take over and control the media, effectively controlling the narrative and ending free speech. Then they cleared out the librarys. Pretty much the same as Stalin & Mao in totalitarian regimes on the left. This is the problem, who determines what speech is acceptable? In Germany it was VERY clear who made that delineation, and thats the problem.

Germany (and Russia) needed the opposite of what you are talking about, they needed MORE unrestrained speech and more opposing voices to be heard. You couldnt be more wrong but this is not the place to discuss it, nor does it have much to do with Folau.

 

[Shark62]

So to lazy then...

Not at all. Compare the length of your posts to everybody else. You are a crass bore!

 

[firechild]

So basically offensive speech should be illegal and/or punishable right!

But where does that principle end? Because literally everything can be/is offensive to somebody!

Who is deciding what is and isn't offensive speech, and on the authority of whom?

Quite simple really, the employer makes a decision on what they will accept from their employees. Nobody is asking for him to be charged with a hate crime but an organisation has every right to choose not to have their brand associated with such comments. This was not an internal comment, this was made but a public figure on a public medium. Rightly or wrongly, the public will judge the ARU on their reaction to this and there are potentially financial implications to come based on how their actions are perceived. That is why codes of conduct exist.

Suicide rates among groups that are persecuted are much higher than they are in the general population, this is especially true on the gay community. You indicate that this should be acceptable because there is no physical violence (possibly a grey area around inciting violence) but these types of comments can have a significant impact on certain people, in this case I would suggest young gay Polynesian kids.

Nobody is saying these people can't hold these opinions (as we are allowed to hold opinions on those that make such comments), but organisations have a right to take actions that distance themselves from these types of comments.

 

[Shark62]

Quite simple really, the employer makes a decision on what they will accept from their employees. Nobody is asking for him to be charged with a hate crime but an organisation has every right to choose not to have their brand associated with such comments. This was not an internal comment, this was made but a public figure on a public medium. Rightly or wrongly, the public will judge the ARU on their reaction to this and there are potentially financial implications to come based on how their actions are perceived. That is why codes of conduct exist.

Suicide rates among groups that are persecuted are much higher than they are in the general population, this is especially true on the gay community. You indicate that this should be acceptable because there is no physical violence (possibly a grey area around inciting violence) but these types of comments can have a significant impact on certain people, in this case I would suggest young gay Polynesian kids.

Nobody is saying these people can't hold these opinions (as we are allowed to hold opinions on those that make such comments), but organisations have a right to take actions that distance themselves from these types of comments.

Beautifully put. And nice and concise.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Why unfortunately?

I'm here to talk about rugby/Dallyball, i don't want to get banned, I just agree with most of what Izzy says, but not all of it, some are born gay, i'd say that is a fact.