[Golden Oldies] Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

[Zebra1922]

For some reason, when in the public eye / a role model, the most difficult thing to do seems to be ‘say nothing’. Everyone should be free to believe in whatever they like, and to an extent they can speak about it to, but the freedom to speak bit isn’t freedom from consequences - and the more in the public eye you are the higher the consequence - do these players not understand that? Or have they gone soccer and believe they’re above it all?

Disappointing and frustrating :-(

Maybe Mr. V is aware there could be consequences but decided to use his freedom of speech anyway?

Much as I find such views abhorrent, I am glad I live in a society where people can share these views. Then we as a society decide what we accept and what we will not tolerate. I hope in this case society (or the RFU) decide this is not acceptable and take appropriate action, otherwise talk of inclusivity is just that, talk.

 

[Dickie E]

Maybe Mr. V is aware there could be consequences but decided to use his freedom of speech anyway?

Much as I find such views abhorrent, I am glad I live in a society where people can share these views. Then we as a society decide what we accept and what we will not tolerate. I hope in this case society (or the RFU) decide this is not acceptable and take appropriate action, otherwise talk of inclusivity is just that, talk.

aren't the 2 underlined statements contradictory?

 

[SimonSmith]

No.

You can live in a society where you can make those statements.
That's different to an employer finding them acceptable.

Have we actually moved backwards since Gareth Thomas?

 

[Dickie E]

No.

You can live in a society where you can make those statements.
That's different to an employer finding them acceptable.

it is breathtaking to say that you respect someone's right to hold a different opinion but then take punitive action if they express that opinion.

I respect your right to be a Communist but will make sure you never work in this town again.

Maybe we've actually moved backwards since Arthur Miller.

 

[Ian_Cook]

it is breathtaking to say that you respect someone's right to hold a different opinion but then take punitive action if they express that opinion.

I think you are out of touch with reality, breathtakingly so. Here is some actual reality for you.

Words Matter! Telling people of a particular sexual orientation that they choose to be how they are, and if they do not change then they are damned for all eternity, is discrimination against these people; any way you slice it.

I promise you, if one of my employees were to say that to a gay customer, that employee will be told to leave the premises and not to come back. Their walking papers and severance cheque will be mailed to them.

I respect your right to be a Communist but will make sure you never work in this town again.

Maybe we've actually moved backwards since Arthur Miller.

This might come as a shock to you but there is a very big difference between holding an objectionable belief and using that objectionable belief to bash others over the head.

Everyone has the absolute right to hold socially objectionable beliefs.
No-one has any right to attack others using those beliefs as a bludgeon!

What Folau did is to use his socially objectionable beliefs to publicly attack members of the LGBTQ+ community. Such behaviour is disgraceful, completely and utterly unacceptable in the modern day world, and on top of that, it is in any case, a direct contravention to WR Regulation 20

REGULATION 20. MISCONDUCT AND CODE OF CONDUCT

20.3 For the purposes of these Regulations Relating to the Game, “Misconduct” shall mean any conduct, behaviour, statements and/or practices on or off the playing enclosure during or in connection with a Match or otherwise, that is unsporting and/or cheating and/or insulting and/or unruly and/or ill-disciplined and/or that brings or has the potential to bring the Game and/or any of its constituent bodies, World Rugby and/or its appointed personnel or commercial partners and/or Match Officials and/or judicial personnel into disrepute.

20.4 While it is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of the types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices that may amount to Misconduct under these Regulations, by way of illustration, each of the following types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices however or wheresoever undertaken are examples of and constitute Misconduct:

(c) acts or statements that are, or conduct that is, discriminatory by reason of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, colour or national or ethnic origin;​

Folau has dished out this vile crap before and was warned that his career with RA was at risk if he did it again. Last time, RA dithered and sat on their hands for three weeks, losing sponsors, and support. Not this time, and I applaud them for taking swift, decisive action.

If you don't understand how and why what Folau did was wrong, and why it needed to be punished, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm an atheist so I think Folau is talking a load of bollocks. But, hey, in his mind he has a divine obligation to protect the eternal souls of anyone who will listen to him. If you don't like what he says, don't give him the oxygen.

I'm more concerned about what's going on in Brunei where it's real sticks and stones. You should be too.

 

[crossref]

I'm an atheist so I think Folau is talking a load of bollocks. But, hey, in his mind he has a divine obligation to protect the eternal souls of anyone who will listen to him.

Ah, the old "God made me do it" defence !

 

[Dickie E]

Ah, the old "God made me do it" defence !

Not really. He would view this situation the way you would view people trapped in a burning house. His moral compass requires him to do everything he can to get the people out of the burning house, even if it means injuring himself & even if they don't want to be rescued.

Not saying I agree, just trying to understand.

And I know this is a rugby chat site, but there is so much worse shit going on than the rantings of a bloke who is good at catching a ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here's the thing though.... the stuff that you are talking about; the horrible penal code in Brunei; the persecution of groups in Myanmar.. it starts with hate speech, and it is enabled by people doing nothing about it, so by loudly opposing the sort of things that Folau has done, I'm doing more than just hand wringing about stuff like Myanmar. I am supporting the idea of cutting the hate off at its root cause. If more people in Australia had done more of that sort of addressing the hate at its core; the hate speech, then perhaps the mosque shooter would not have gone on his killing spree Christchurch.

I hear people screeching about Freedom of Speech. I say poppycock. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it does not imply freedom from consequences of that speech.

The great jurist Oliver Wendall Holmes (Associate US Supreme Court justice 1902 to 1932) in Schenck v. United States, wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theatre". While this is American Law, IMO, his words have relevance here. You might feel that you are free to shout fire in a theatre where there was no fire, but you would also be held responsible for any damage, injury or death caused in the rush for patrons to get out of the theatre.

 

[Dickie E]

If more people in Australia had done more of that sort of addressing the hate at its core; the hate speech, then perhaps the mosque shooter would not have gone on his killing spree Christchurch.

you remain, as always, a class act. Maybe the 18 months in Dunedin at the Bruce Gun Club practicing with assault rifles at human silhouette targets didn't help?

 

[Dickie E]

I hear people screeching about Freedom of Speech. I say poppycock.

Don't be too eager to give up your freedom of speech for fear of offence. Once it is gone it might be very hard to get back.

I've been to Brunei a few times. It's problems aren't rooted in "hate speech". Rather, the opposite. Any dissident views are quickly and quietly dealt with. The Brunei Times newspaper was shut down under suspicious circumstances in 2016.

 

[Ian_Cook]

you remain, as always, a class act. Maybe the 18 months in Dunedin at the Bruce Gun Club practicing with assault rifles at human silhouette targets didn't help?

Oh, he was a rabid, white supremacist a long, long time before he ever disgraced our shores. He only came and did it here (rather than in Australia) for two reasons

1. He considered our more open policy towards refugees and racial unity more deserving of punishment (he actually stated that in his manifesto)
2. The guns he needed were easier to get here after Australia wisely clamped down in the wake of the Port Arthur spree killing (its a pity we didn't follow suit)

 

[crossref]

So anyhoo

What should become of Billy V ?

 

[Dickie E]

(he actually stated that in his manifesto)

hope you haven't got a copy or I'll have to report you to the thought police.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So anyhoo

What should become of Billy V ?

Well I can tell you what has become of Folau... he has been sacked

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...world-cup-2019-who-will-he-join-a8870126.html

Folau committed a high level breach of his contract (specifically the Professional Players' Code of Conduct). He had received warnings in the past (Rugby Australia said they were “numerous”) and yet he continued to act in breach of his contract.

"It was made clear to him that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action."

This is not punishing him for his beliefs, it is simply termination following multiple and repeated breaches of his contract.

1. He signed a contract in which he agreed to act in a certain way, and specifically, to not post on his public platform in a certain way.

2. He acted in breach of his contract.

3. He was formally warned for those acts.

4. He ignored the warnings and continued to act in a manner that breached the agreement he made with RA.

5. His continued breaches showed that he didn’t have any respect for RA and the contract he had with them.

6. RA therefore terminated his contract.

 

[Ian_Cook]

hope you haven't got a copy or I'll have to report you to the thought police.

I don't have one, but I know people who have exemptions to have copies.

 

[SimonSmith]

it is breathtaking to say that you respect someone's right to hold a different opinion but then take punitive action if they express that opinion.

I respect your right to be a Communist but will make sure you never work in this town again.

Maybe we've actually moved backwards since Arthur Miller.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

Here in the USA, the Government cannot interfere in free speech, with very limited exceptions, which is as it should be.
As an employer, I have the right to lay out what I consider to be acceptable from my employees, and anything that can make the company appear in a bad light can lead to disciplinary sanctions.

These two ideas are not in opposition to one another. To tolerate the sort of speech that Folau espouses can make it difficult to defend claims of harassment, discrimination or Hostile Work Environment.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's a contract issue.

 

[crossref]

.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's a contract issue.

I think it is both of those (is it a fair and reasonable contract)
It's also a collision of values ...

 

[didds]

being rather more prosaic Id imagine most employment contracts would include a clause about not divulging commercially sensitive company information .

doing so wouldn't be offensive towards any demographic probably. But would be in direct contravention of the employment contract - but certainly within the limits of free speech.

So should we all be allowed to divulge our employer's commercially sensitive company information ?

didds

 

[OB..]

being rather more prosaic Id imagine most employment contracts would include a clause about not divulging commercially sensitive company information .

doing so wouldn't be offensive towards any demographic probably. But would be in direct contravention of the employment contract - but certainly within the limits of free speech.

So should we all be allowed to divulge our employer's commercially sensitive company information ?

didds

Ask Julian Assange!