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

[Knight Vision]

What has Alan Jones got to do with Israel Folau?

• Jones is legitimizing his agenda
• Jones is providing a platform for him
• Jones is helping sway public opinion
• both are caustic assholes
• both are highly privileged out of touch douchebags
• both are most likely gay and are hypocrites
• both are making/raising money from the mentally impaired

 

[Foreign Legion]

So in a nutshell who's gunna win on the day???

Raelene Castle VS Israel Folau

RUGBY'S VERY OWN STATE OF ORIGIN

 

[Iafeta]

I have had some sympathy for Folau from a "freedom of Speech/Expression of Religion" POV but he has burned that with me and Im sure with most others with his GoFundMe. Bad idea

He has always had freedom of speech. Everyone does.

But Nobody has freedom from consequences.

 

[big hit!]

Go Fund me. $250k in 12 hours.

And the Mascot Towers GFM could only raise $3k in a day.

f**k me

 

[T-Boon]

He has always had freedom of speech. Everyone does.

But Nobody has freedom from consequences.

That doesn’t sound any different to China or North Korea.

 

[billygilmore]

So in a nutshell who's gunna win on the day???

Raelene Castle VS Israel Folau

RUGBY'S VERY OWN STATE OF ORIGIN

Jeez, Folau looking at her like “damn, maybe I can understand why a bloke would rather another bloke”

 

[aqua_duck]

In making this contribution I acknowledge that my contributions are made freely as a gift on the basis previously affirmed and that there will be no obligations on Israel Folau to do anything for me in recognition of the gift or to apply the funds in any particular way with respect to his legal action, and that I hold no expectation to receive anything in return for my contribution.


Wonder if anyone donating has read the little disclaimer?

To be honest I'm not sure why anyone is actually surprised, he's always been about the money, every move he's made in his career has been primarily financially motivated, I don't begrudge that but what I do begrudge is people who are motivated by money acting like they're not and trying to play themselves as holier than thou.

 

[Pommy]

That doesn’t sound any different to China or North Korea.

Yeah it’s pretty much exactly the same.

 

[typicalfan]

So in a nutshell who's gunna win on the day???

Raelene Castle VS Israel Folau

RUGBY'S VERY OWN STATE OF ORIGIN

Israel will get crushed and the fallout will also cripple the code imo.

And if the NRL didn't want him before, he has no chance now. I am so glad the NRL distanced themselves when they did and avoided all this mess.

 

[TheFrog]

Do you think that Israel made his comments out of love for his fellow man?

Misguided as it may be, yes I do.

 

[typicalfan]

He seems like a pretty strong willed guy. I usually worry about these individuals who suddenly have the whole pack turn on them like a bunch of hyenas, but I think Izzy is up for it. I would definately have him at Parra but he would need to hand control of all his social media to a PR team. Plus never do any public speeking.

Good luck with trying to police any sort of social media sanctions, restrictions or bans. What if he finds a way around them and breaches them? Sack him? Sense a bit of deja vu?

 

[TheFrog]

Why? he is cleaning up. Sounds good to me, I might get in on it.

It is clear that a good number of people think his battle is worth fighting and are prepared to support him. I would too but he is of much greater means than I. The people who are supporting him are wealthy, most likely wealthier than him. This is a test case, quite unprecedented in Australian law. They don't come along every day. If you find yourself involved in one some day, maybe people will support you.

 

[The Great Dane]

But his freedom of speech and expression of religion was never in question. Nobody has deleted his tweets or pulled him from the pulpit.

Using that logic you could argue that sending people to jail for things they have said isn't infringing on their freedom of speech, because you know, 'the tweets are still up and there's nothing stopping him from tweeting more, so he can say what he likes, but if he actually says it we're going to throw him in jail, and for any repeat offence we'll extend his term, but that's not infringing on his freedom of speech because he can still say it'.

That is literally the argument you are making, only taken to a slightly further extreme, but there's no principle in your reasoning why it couldn't be taken to that further extreme, and even if you reject that extreme other people won't and you'll have no logically consistent reasoning to argue against that except to say that it goes too far.

Whether people realise it or not (and frankly I think most do), at it's very core allowing things like what is happening to Folau is a direct threat to freedom of speech and expression because it sends the message to anybody that agrees with him that if they use their freedom of speech to express a similar opinion then they are liable to be treated the same way that he has been (i.e. in this case have their livelihoods destroyed), which then cows them into compliance with the majority by making them self censor, which effectively destroys their freedom of speech, and at the same time completely destroys the idea of individual rights and manufacturers radicals.

This sort of stuff is straight out of the authoritarians handbook, and the really sad thing is that my 'side' of politics are the ones doing it because in their arrogance they think that they will always dominate the public discourse as they do now, and therefore will always be the ones deciding what opinions are and aren't hate speech, and what and whom should or shouldn't be censored.

So yeah, your argument is just intentionally over-simplistic nonsense that's being used to excuse the deliberate attempt to silence those that disagree with you.

 

[SBD82]

Misguided as it may be, yes I do.

Can you see how I might equate that to the toxic kind of love that might be found in an emotionally abusive relationship?

 

[TheFrog]

Can you see how I might equate that to the toxic kind of love that might be found in an emotionally abusive relationship?

No, sorry. It seems more to me like a bloke standing on a street corner with a sandwich board saying "The End Of The World Is Nigh". Most people would think he was just a crackpot and go about their business. If you think Israel Folou is just a religious nut, and religion is a load of poppycock anyway, you ought not be concerned about what he has to say. If you think what he says might carry some weight, you can follow his advice. That's all there is to it.

But what we've got instead is a body of people seeking vengeance, which is far from pretty. This is why considerable numbers of thinking atheists have come out in his support.

 

[SBD82]

No, sorry. It seems more to me like a bloke standing on a street corner with a sandwich board saying "The End Of The World Is Nigh". Most people would think he was just a crackpot and go about their business. If you think Israel Folou is a religious nut, you would not be concerned about what he has to say. If you think what he says might carry some weight, you can follow his advice. That's all there is to it.

Sorry. I thought we had moved onto him doing this out of love. Happy to revisit the freedom of religion thing if that’s where you are still at.

The equivalent in the situation you describe is if the bloke with the sandwich board had “sponsored by the ARU” written on his sign. The ARU in this instance has every right to distance themselves from the religious nutter, and make it clear that his views do not represent their organisation.

If the nutter was an employee of the ARU, they could ask him to stop using their brand, and if he fails to comply, they would be within their rights to terminate the employment of the sandwich board nutter.

 

[Iafeta]

That doesn’t sound any different to China or North Korea.

I think that’s massively over stretching it a bit

 

[Pommy]

Using that logic you could argue that sending people to jail for things they have said isn't infringing on their freedom of speech, because you know, 'the tweets are still up and there's nothing stopping him from tweeting more, so he can say what he likes, but if he actually says it we're going to throw him in jail, and for any repeat offence we'll extend his term, but that's not infringing on his freedom of speech because he can still say it'.

That is literally the argument you are making, only taken to a slightly further extreme, but there's no principle in your reasoning why it couldn't be taken to that further extreme, and even if you reject that extreme other people won't and you'll have no logically consistent reasoning to argue against that except to say that it goes too far.

Whether people realise it or not (and frankly I think most do), at it's very core allowing things like what is happening to Folau is a direct threat to freedom of speech and expression because it sends the message to anybody that agrees with him that if they use their freedom of speech to express a similar opinion then they are liable to be treated the same way that he has been (i.e. in this case have their livelihoods destroyed), which then cows them into compliance with the majority by making them self censor, which effectively destroys their freedom of speech, and at the same time completely destroys the idea of individual rights and manufacturers radicals.

This sort of stuff is straight out of the authoritarians handbook, and the really sad thing is that my 'side' of politics are the ones doing it because in their arrogance they think that they will always dominate the public discourse as they do now, and therefore will always be the ones deciding what opinions are and aren't hate speech, and what and whom should or shouldn't be censored.

So yeah, your argument is just intentionally over-simplistic nonsense that's being used to excuse the deliberate attempt to silence those that disagree with you.

It’s really not the argument I’m making it over-simplistic and you know it.

 

[TheFrog]

Sorry. I thought we had moved onto him doing this out of love. Happy to revisit the freedom of religion thing if that’s where you are still at.

The equivalent in the situation you describe is if the bloke with the sandwich board had “sponsored by the ARU” written on his sign. The ARU in this instance has every right to distance themselves from the religious nutter, and make it clear that his views do not represent their organisation.

If the nutter was an employee of the ARU, they could ask him to stop using their brand, and if he fails to comply, they would be within their rights to terminate the employment of the sandwich board nutter.

Not exactly a parallel, but this matter will be decided by a court in any case.

 

[typicalfan]

No, sorry. It seems more to me like a bloke standing on a street corner with a sandwich board saying "The End Of The World Is Nigh". Most people would think he was just a crackpot and go about their business. If you think Israel Folou is just a religious nut, and religion is a load of poppycock anyway, you ought not be concerned about what he has to say. If you think what he says might carry some weight, you can follow his advice. That's all there is to it.

But what we've got instead is a body of people seeking vengeance, which is far from pretty.

There are a few key differences here.

The world is nigh is a bit different to what is said by Israel.
The bloke on the street isn't being paid a multi million dollar contract which includes a code of conduct specifically outlining the responsibilites that come with such contract.

Does an employer not have the right to ensure the organisation is represented in a respectful way?

Lets remember Israel was fully aware of the consequences of his actions and had the option of walking away if he felt he could not meet his obligations but chose not to.

Even in my role I have certain responsibilities within the community.

The people seeking vengeance as you call it are probably aggrieved with his conduct. What vengeance are they seeking? They have the right to be aggrieved. Your "it's either one or the other" is just a strawman.