[Golden Oldies] Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

[crossref]

No one has suggested that Folau's post was actually illegal.

 

[OB..]

Israel Folau and his legal team appear confident that it is.

"I will continue to stand up for the freedoms of all Australians."

He is wildly overstating his position. He is not arguing about Freedom of Speech in general. I'm sure he accepts that some restrictions are necessary eg libel and slander; racism; national security.

His views conflict with those of his employers. He is trying to argue that the concepts of "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" allow him to post views that undermine his employers' aims.

However Lyndon Johnson may have had a point re Hoover: "It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

What does he mean by «*all*»?

He means ALL except (add list here).

 

[Ian_Cook]

No one has suggested that Folau's post was actually illegal.

Plenty have argued that it was unacceptable, and if it unacceptable under the Law, then it is likely to be hate speech..... which is.... illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racia...intimidation_and_Exemptions_under_Section_18D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

 

[Ian_Cook]

Israel Folau and his legal team appear confident that it is.

"I will continue to stand up for the freedoms of all Australians."

What does he mean by «*all*»?

What he means is "all except the following"

Drunks
Homosexuals
Adulterers
Liars
Fornicators
Thieves
Atheists
Idolators

Folau is not standing up for the freedoms any Australians in the above list, and that is more than half the population

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its worth noting that RA really had no choice but to sack Folau, because not doing so would have lead to financial disaster.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ned-sponsors-and-govt-support-would-have-gone

Clyne (RA Chairman) said the prospect of a drawn out court battle was a "painful" one for Australian rugby, but the alternative was worse if RA had not acted against Folau's Instagram post in April warning homosexuals, among other groups, were destined for hell.

"[The alternative] would be that we'd have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort and that includes government, because we've also heard from them," he said.

 

[crossref]

Drunks
Homosexuals
Adulterers
Liars
Fornicators
Thieves
Atheists
Idolators

Folau is not standing up for the freedoms any Australians in the above list, and that is more than half the population

at least four fifths

 

[Dickie E]

Its worth noting that RA really had no choice but to sack Folau, because not doing so would have lead to financial disaster.

It is a dilemma but nothing new. The NRA has been doing for decades what QANTAS is doing now. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It is a dilemma but nothing new. The NRA has been doing for decades what QANTAS is doing now. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

The price of having a professional sport - someone has to pay the dollars to pay the players - if you want your sport to go back to pre- 1990's, then don't have any sponsors, and end up dropping in the rankings to the level of a Tier 2/Tier 3 nation.

In a very real sense, QANTAS were paying Folau - why would they want to continue to do so when his homophobic statements go directly against their policy, and he is effectively telling their boss that he is going to hell?

ETA: Oh, and what the NRA has been doing in the USA is in no way similar what QANTAS is doing. The NRA has been paying millions to politicians to lobby them to be pro-gun rights. However, they may not be carrying on with that for much longer - they have been losing members hand over fist, they are running out of money, and they have been caught up in the Russia election interference scandal.

If you want to start a debate about US gun-rights, start another thread. I'll join you there....

 

[Dickie E]

This stoush reminds me of a schoolyard fight where you've got 2 kids facing off, and the sneaky, ferret-nosed kid (QANTAS) running around in the background, who caused the fight but never seems to cop any blame.

I expect what will happen is that QANTAS won't want its brand tarnished by being associated with a sporting body who has polarised opinion and is being dragged through the courts, so they'll cut their sponsorship irrespective of any outcome.

 

[Dickie E]

ETA: Oh, and what the NRA has been doing in the USA is in no way similar what QANTAS is doing.

a cashed up organisation with a strong policy agenda but little ability to directly impact policy meets cash strapped organisation who does have ability to impact policy.

I accept that QANTAS is probably not involved in election scandals but in what other way are they not similar? (apart from the fact that you support one & not the other)

 

[Ian_Cook]

a cashed up organisation with a strong policy agenda but little ability to directly impact policy meets cash strapped organisation who does have ability to impact policy.

I accept that QANTAS is probably not involved in election scandals but in what other way are they not similar? (apart from the fact that you support one & not the other)

1. Does QANTAS pay hundreds of thousand of dollars campaign contributions to politicians in return for favourable legislation?

2. Does QANTAS pay millions of dollars to lobbyists in return for pressuring politicians to give them favourable legislation?
The NRA does both of these things! - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

3. Does QANTAS operate a revolving door policy for former government employees that have helped them in the past?
The NRA does! https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=d000000082&year=2018
NOTE: We call it "jobs for the boys" in NZ

4 . Does QANTAS award grades for Senators and Ministers of the Crown according to how they vote on legislation benefiting or disadvantaging the company? The NRA does! - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html?ref=us

5. Has QANTAS ever mounted an all-out effort to get the government to prevent any scientific research being done on issues that might negatively affect the company? The NRA does! - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-nra-doesnt-want_b_2981542

 

[crossref]

Back to Folau .. a senior Australian lawyer explain why this case is complicated

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/c...a-simple-answer-but-this-is-not-a-binary-case

 

[L'irlandais]

The only reason it is complicated, is that legal «*experts*» hope to make a killing out of the whole affair.

 

[crossref]

The only reason it is complicated, is that legal «*experts*» hope to make a killing out of the whole affair.

Do you read the article ??

 

[L'irlandais]

Why on earth would I give a fig for IF and his case? I consider legal eagles more corrupt than even politicians.
:sarc: May they all burn in hell! As for IF let him keep his bigoted opinions to himself, or share them with his immediate family, if he feels obliged to spout such nonsense.

 

[OB..]

As for IF let him keep his bigoted opinions to himself, or share them with his immediate family, if he feels obliged to spout such nonsense.

But that is the problem. Many religions encourage/require their adherents to proselytise.

 

[crossref]

But that is the problem. Many religions encourage/require their adherents to proselytise.

As do many adherents to secular values .

 

[OB..]

As do many adherents to secular values .

I was talking about organisations, not adherents.

 

[crossref]

I was talking about organisations, not adherents.

There are plenty of evangelical and campaigning secular organisations.. that's how our values change over time.

 

[dave_clark]

There are plenty of evangelical and campaigning secular organisations.. that's how our values change over time.

but they're normally based on a perceived benefit to society, rather than "my invisible mate in the sky told me to".