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

[Timmah]

Worst PR ever if offered an NRL deal..

So chances are it will happen

You aren't very observant: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6031116/nrl-rule-out-folau-return-over-comments/?cs=14238

 

[Timmah]

I get there are hate speech laws but do you honestly believe that expressing religious beliefs is classed as hate speech.

FOLAU has misguided beliefs but to think he was promoting hatred is a step too far. I have no issue with him being called out for his beliefs but I do have a major issue with his contract being torn up. I think he will get a full payout.

What makes Rugby Australia look hypocritical is the statement they released. They stated they want everyone to feel safe and no vilification based on race, gender, Religion or sexuality but then are tearing up his contract for expressing his religious beliefs. The fact they even have a clause in his contract that he is not allowed to express them is vilifying someone based on their religion.

I don't think he is evil , he is just misguided. .

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/0...-rugby-union-statement-regarding-israel-folau

Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union have made repeated attempts to contact Israel both directly and via his representatives since 6.30pm on Wednesday, and at this point he has failed to communicate directly with either organisation.

"Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.

"Israel has failed to understand that the expectation of him as a Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs employee is that he cannot share material on social media that condemns, vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality.

"Rugby is a sport that continuously works to unite people. We want everyone to feel safe and welcome in our game and no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality is acceptable and no language that isolates, divides or insults people based on any of those factors can be tolerated.

"As a code we have made it clear to Israel formally and repeatedly that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action.

"In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract."

If you read the thread prior to your input, all of this has been covered. The RA Code of Conduct is available on its website and it is already clear he has violated one clause, and arguable he has violated at least 3 or 4 others.

The assertion that he's being 'vilified' for what's happened is utterly absurd. He's being punished for violating rules that he agreed to as part of his contract, that being the Code of Conduct all players are required to agree to. His words were discriminatory regardless of where they come from and hiding behind religious beliefs doesn't exonerate him for his comments.

I am saying that someone who claims to be a Female or Male when they are biologically the opposite sex is also living in the same fantasy world Religious folks are . They should be allowed to live their life as they wish though.

So much to unpack here.

Look up the definitions of sex and gender. Here's a helper: https://au.reachout.com/articles/the-difference-between-sex-sexuality-and-gender

For the most part - people are born into either the male or female sex, unless there are genetic or hormonal difference in their biology (i.e. intersex)

Gender is different - it relates to how the person identifies themselves. If you think they should be allowed to live as they wish, I don't understand why you feel the need to even comment on it, let alone label it 'fantasy world bs'?

If a transgender person is using their gender identity to discriminate against others based on age, race, religion or some other characteristic, then by all means take it up with them - but that hasn't happened here and is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant at this point in time, Israel Folau has used his religious beliefs to discriminate against others based on their sexuality.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

I was speaking more directly to PR in that part.



You keep saying that, but really you are just asserting it to be so without giving any reason why that must be true.

If the ARU did nothing then sponsors would pull out, jobs would be lost, players, coaches, staff, their friends and families would all suffer as the ARU ends up financially crippled.

But f**k them all because freedom of speech for Folau is more important?

Freedom of speech isn't free of consequences because we live in a connected world where everyone demands accountability and wants to assign blame for everything.

This is especially true when it comes to business and the thing that really matters - $$$.

Not saying that's how the world should be, just saying that's how I believe the world is.

 

[TheFrog]

The assertion that he's being 'vilified' for what's happened is utterly absurd. He's being punished for violating rules that he agreed to as part of his contract, that being the Code of Conduct all players are required to agree to. His words were discriminatory regardless of where they come from and hiding behind religious beliefs doesn't exonerate him for his comments.

With all due respect, there is a wide divergence of opinion on this, and ultimately whether or not the CoC has been breached will be determined by a court. My feeling is that it does not appear to preclude quoting or paraphrasing religious text. Which only means it will cost them money to be rid of him.

The fact that the internal hearing is now in its third day would suggest this is anything but an open and shut case.

 

[Willow]

I get there are hate speech laws but do you honestly believe that expressing religious beliefs is classed as hate speech.

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm pointing out that your interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws is limited, as shown by legal precedence.

Expressing religious beliefs is fine, as long as you are not discriminating or inciting hatred. We live in secular society where the laws override religion. If you want religion to be free to say whatever they want without fear of consequences, then you should be living in a theocracy.

Those Anti-Discrimination Acts fundamentally undermine the human right to freedom of speech, and frankly are a disgusting overreach of the governments legislative power.

In other words the Federal Court may have ruled that denying the holocaust was discrimination, but it isn't in any real terms, and it seems to me that they were letting their hearts make their decisions for them instead of their heads.

In the words of a woman that was much smarter than I could ever hope to be, who was attempting to put into words the beliefs of man even smarter than her: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", should be the principle by which we function, but we allowed it to be legislated away, and it will, and frankly in my opinion is already starting to, come back to bite us in the arse...

You're entitled to your opinion although the law disagrees with you. From an anti-censorship point-of-view, I am pretty sure Noam Chomsky would agree with you, and imo he is one the great thinkers of the 20th Century.

BUT... we should be careful not to get free speech mixed up with freedom to discriminate.

Your comment that anti discrimination laws, "undermine the human right to freedom of speech" is historically incorrect. The anti-discrimination laws came about in the 1970s as part of Australia's obligations to international human rights conventions.

Free speech is important, but in reality it doesn't entitle you to say whatever you want in the public domain. When 'free speech' is used to discriminate against minorities, it is no longer adhering to those free speech fundamentals.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one of the great quotes, and thanks for posting it. But unfortunately it is sometimes misused to justify hatred against others.

You say the legislation is a disgusting overreach but in living memory we have seen some attacks that are far more disgusting, particularly against gays.

I don't blame the Jewish community for taking a website to court for vilifying them. Nor do I blame the LGBT community for getting worried when they see religious hatred being directed at them. In both examples, these 'words' have marginalised people and in some cases placed them on the receiving end of violent acts.

So from a human rights perspective, the anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason.

 

[Timmah]

With all due respect, there is a wide divergence of opinion on this, and ultimately whether or not the CoC has been breached will be determined by a court. My feeling is that it does not appear to preclude quoting or paraphrasing religious text. Which only means it will cost them money to be rid of him.

The fact that the internal hearing is now in its third day would suggest this is anything but an open and shut case.

The hearing isn't in a court, it's being heard by an independent panel.

And that owes to both sides being thorough and each legal team taking it's time and not rushing anything. Then the verdict might take another few days as they weigh up all the evidence.

I don't that swings the case either way.

My remarks on the code of conduct are exactly that - mine. I believe he has breached the code of conduct. Whether that holds up to the panel is another matter.

 

[Shark62]

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm pointing out that your interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws is limited, as shown by legal precedence.

Expressing religious beliefs is fine, as long as you are not discriminating or inciting hatred. We live in secular society where the laws override religion. If you want religion to be free to say whatever they want without fear of consequences, then you should be living in a theocracy.

You're entitled to your opinion although the law disagrees with you. From an anti-censorship point-of-view, I am pretty sure Noam Chomsky would agree with you, and imo he is one of the great thinkers of the 20th Century.

BUT... we should be careful not to get free speech mixed up with freedom to discriminate.

Your comment that anti discrimination laws, "undermine the human right to freedom of speech" is historically incorrect. The anti-discrimination laws came about in the 1970s as part of Australia's obligations to international human rights conventions.

Free speech is important, but in reality it doesn't entitle you to say whatever you want in the public domain. When 'free speech' is used to discriminate against minorities, it is no longer adhering to those free speech fundamentals.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one of the great quotes, and thanks for posting it. But unfortunately it is sometimes misused to justify hatred against others.

You say the legislation is a disgusting overreach but in living memory we have seen some attacks that are far more disgusting, particularly against gays.

I don't blame the Jewish community for taking a website to court for vilifying them. Nor do I blame the LGBT community for getting worried when they see religious hatred being directed at them. In both examples, these 'words' have marginalised people and in some cases placed them on the receiving end of violent acts.

So from a human rights perspective, the anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason.

That’s a brilliant post.

 

[BM1979]

If you read the thread prior to your input, all of this has been covered. The RA Code of Conduct is available on its website and it is already clear he has violated one clause, and arguable he has violated at least 3 or 4 others.

The assertion that he's being 'vilified' for what's happened is utterly absurd. He's being punished for violating rules that he agreed to as part of his contract, that being the Code of Conduct all players are required to agree to. His words were discriminatory regardless of where they come from and hiding behind religious beliefs doesn't exonerate him for his comments.

So much to unpack here.

Look up the definitions of sex and gender. Here's a helper: https://au.reachout.com/articles/the-difference-between-sex-sexuality-and-gender

For the most part - people are born into either the male or female sex, unless there are genetic or hormonal difference in their biology (i.e. intersex)

Gender is different - it relates to how the person identifies themselves. If you think they should be allowed to live as they wish, I don't understand why you feel the need to even comment on it, let alone label it 'fantasy world bs'?

If a transgender person is using their gender identity to discriminate against others based on age, race, religion or some other characteristic, then by all means take it up with them - but that hasn't happened here and is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant at this point in time, Israel Folau has used his religious beliefs to discriminate against others based on their sexuality.

The fact he is having his contract torn up over expressing his religious beliefs is vilification . The Rugby Australia and Waratahs joint statement even states they are against vilification based on religion. It is black and White.

Also if that is their belief then they should also cancel the sponsorship deal with Qantas as being affiliated with Emirates is much for offensive to the LGBTQI community than what Issy said.



They are a bunch of hypocrites and are going to have to pay out the length of his contract

 

[Shark62]

The fact he is having his contract torn up over expressing his religious beliefs is vilification . The Rugby Australia and Waratahs joint statement even states they are against vilification based on religion. It is black and White.

Also if that is their belief then they should also cancel the sponsorship deal with Qantas as being affiliated with Emirates is much for offensive to the LGBTQI community than what Issy said.



They are a bunch of hypocrites and are going to have to pay out the length of his contract

You sound like a very angry homophobic little man.

 

[BM1979]

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm pointing out that your interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws is limited, as shown by legal precedence.

Expressing religious beliefs is fine, as long as you are not discriminating or inciting hatred. We live in secular society where the laws override religion. If you want religion to be free to say whatever they want without fear of consequences, then you should be living in a theocracy.

You're entitled to your opinion although the law disagrees with you. From an anti-censorship point-of-view, I am pretty sure Noam Chomsky would agree with you, and imo he is one the great thinkers of the 20th Century.

BUT... we should be careful not to get free speech mixed up with freedom to discriminate.

Your comment that anti discrimination laws, "undermine the human right to freedom of speech" is historically incorrect. The anti-discrimination laws came about in the 1970s as part of Australia's obligations to international human rights conventions.

Free speech is important, but in reality it doesn't entitle you to say whatever you want in the public domain. When 'free speech' is used to discriminate against minorities, it is no longer adhering to those free speech fundamentals.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one of the great quotes, and thanks for posting it. But unfortunately it is sometimes misused to justify hatred against others.

You say the legislation is a disgusting overreach but in living memory we have seen some attacks that are far more disgusting, particularly against gays.

I don't blame the Jewish community for taking a website to court for vilifying them. Nor do I blame the LGBT community for getting worried when they see religious hatred being directed at them. In both examples, these 'words' have marginalised people and in some cases placed them on the receiving end of violent acts.

So from a human rights perspective, the anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason.

I am not Religious at all but don't quote me on it but I thought Hate Speech Laws only related to the Racial Vilification Act and not Anti Discrimination Act

 

[BM1979]

You sound like a very angry homophobic little man.

Of course I am. I have stated numerous times I don't agree with his beliefs . Why don't you just go straight to Nazi

 

[Willow]

I am saying that someone who claims to be a Female or Male when they are biologically the opposite sex is also living in the same fantasy world Religious folks are . They should be allowed to live their life as they wish though.

I think you need to do some research on the subject.

 

[Shark62]

Of course I am. I have stated numerous times I don't agree with his beliefs . Why don't you just go straight to Nazi

Take a chill pill bro!

 

[Shark62]

I think you need to do some research on the subject.

Naah. Yelling at his laptop is far more effective!

 

[TheFrog]

The hearing isn't in a court, it's being heard by an independent panel.

I do realise this, but the decision they make will not be final, in all likelihood.

 

[Willow]

I am not Religious at all but don't quote me on it but I thought Hate Speech Laws only related to the Racial Vilification Act and not Anti Discrimination Act

The LGBTI Legal Service lodged today a complaint of vilification against 25 people responsible for engaging in public acts of hate speech during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey last year.

Last year, the LGBTI Legal Service received State Government funding to monitor and bring to account people engaging in unlawful hate speech during the postal survey. This project resulted in the complaint lodged today with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.

During the postal survey, the LGBTI Legal Service collected over 220 examples of hate speech. The hate speech ranges from individual posts on social media pages to neo-Nazi groups plastering posters around university campuses. From these examples, the LGBTI Legal Service selected the worst of the worst to sue under the Queensland vilification laws. These laws prohibit publicly engaging in hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule someone because they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

These Queensland laws draw a line between hate speech and free speech, recognising the harmful and destructive impact of vilification.

MORE: https://lgbtilegalservice.org.au/20...ng-the-australian-marriage-law-postal-survey/
--------------------------------
From 1 August 2013 it became unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status under federal law. Same-sex couples are also protected from discrimination under the definition of ‘marital or relationship status’. These new protections will particularly apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender diverse and intersex people.

The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 (Cth) (SDA Amendment Act) inserts these new grounds into the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA).

People can make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission if they believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of these new grounds.

Most states and territories have some form of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the SDA Amendment Act introduces more inclusive definitions and addresses gaps such as a lack of coverage for acts or practices of the federal government. It also includes the new ground of intersex status.

MORE:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-...ntity-intersex-status/projects/new-protection

 

[BM1979]

The LGBTI Legal Service lodged today a complaint of vilification against 25 people responsible for engaging in public acts of hate speech during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey last year.

Last year, the LGBTI Legal Service received State Government funding to monitor and bring to account people engaging in unlawful hate speech during the postal survey. This project resulted in the complaint lodged today with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.

During the postal survey, the LGBTI Legal Service collected over 220 examples of hate speech. The hate speech ranges from individual posts on social media pages to neo-Nazi groups plastering posters around university campuses. From these examples, the LGBTI Legal Service selected the worst of the worst to sue under the Queensland vilification laws. These laws prohibit publicly engaging in hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule someone because they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

These Queensland laws draw a line between hate speech and free speech, recognising the harmful and destructive impact of vilification.

MORE: https://lgbtilegalservice.org.au/20...ng-the-australian-marriage-law-postal-survey/
--------------------------------
From 1 August 2013 it became unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status under federal law. Same-sex couples are also protected from discrimination under the definition of ‘marital or relationship status’. These new protections will particularly apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender diverse and intersex people.

The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 (Cth) (SDA Amendment Act) inserts these new grounds into the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA).

People can make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission if they believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of these new grounds.

Most states and territories have some form of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the SDA Amendment Act introduces more inclusive definitions and addresses gaps such as a lack of coverage for acts or practices of the federal government. It also includes the new ground of intersex status.

MORE:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-...ntity-intersex-status/projects/new-protection

Queensland has state laws covering hate speech according to that but I can’t find anything in the Anti Discrimination act that covers hate speech or any federal laws

 

[BM1979]

Naah. Yelling at his laptop is far more effective!

Yeah because I am the one screaming out names at people because I don’t agree with their views

 

[dogslife]

I'd like to hear from the alcoholics. They were vilified as well!

 

[Shark62]

I'd like to hear from the alcoholics. They were vilified as well!

I handled it well thanks. So did I!