[Golden Oldies] Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

[L'irlandais]

Those two cases are interesting but are different from IF

One key difference is that the nurse was proselyting in the workplace , in the course of her job , to unwilling victims

IF was proselyting on his private Instagram feed to an audience who had subscribed. I think that's quite significant

Instagram private? Are you sure about that? I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that what one says on the Internet is considered as publishing by the law. So the same implications as of he had approached a publisher and made a book.

Who can see my Tweets?
Public Tweets (the default setting): Are visible to anyone, whether or not they have a Twitter account.

Protected Tweets: Only visible to your Twitter followers. Please keep in mind, your followers may still capture images of your Tweets and share them.

I am not subscribed to Izzy’s twitter and can see his posts. Which for me implies they are in the public domain. Whatever the legal niceties, the man has opened a can of worms, Bon appétit, mate!

 

[L'irlandais]

...
Call the Chinese embassy and complain about it

You can email them, they won’t reply. Also if you manage to upset them, they might make you disappear.
A better idea is for Western countries to run advertising at all major airports, with images of those ethnic (cleansing?) camps, thought control camps, or with images like Tankman at the Tiananmen Square protests. Give those wealthy Chinese tourists something to photograph and something to think about, once they get back home to their beloved country. Western governments aren’t interested in such a course of action though, might interfere with trade. Hong Kong and Taiwan consider themselves less Chinese than they did 75 years ago, makes one wonder why that might be.

 

[crossref]

Instagram private? Are you sure about that? I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that what one says on the Internet is considered as publishing by the law. So the same implications as of he had approached a publisher and made a book.

Who can see my Tweets?
Public Tweets (the default setting): Are visible to anyone, whether or not they have a Twitter account.

Protected Tweets: Only visible to your Twitter followers. Please keep in mind, your followers may still capture images of your Tweets and share them.

I am not subscribed to Izzy’s twitter and can see his posts. Which for me implies they are in the public domain. Whatever the legal niceties, the man has opened a can of worms, Bon appétit, mate!

you are correct - I should have said his personal Instagram feed, which is visible if you subscribe to it, or search for it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

My replies in red

Ian, this question implies a law prohibits expressing homophobic views by inserting "be allowed"

Is that how you interpreted also? That there should be a law and some form of punishment for expressing homophobic views, questioned as below


Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?

In private, yes, in public, no




Now if the question were asked:

Should they express homophobic view (in private? In public?

NKW in blue

My answer would be: In private, who cares, in public, probably not but if you do you are subject to backlash through free speech from opponents


But as asked originally:

Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?


NKW in blue

My answer would be :In private, who cares, in public, unfortunately yep

Perhaps I'm just an idot.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, this question implies a law prohibits expressing homophobic views by inserting "be allowed"

Is that how you interpreted also? That there should be a law and some form of punishment for expressing homophobic views, questioned as below


Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?

In private, yes, in public, no




Now if the question were asked:

Should they express homophobic view (in private? In public?

NKW in blue

My answer would be: In private, who cares, in public, probably not but if you do you are subject to backlash through free speech from opponents


But as asked originally:

Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?


NKW in blue

My answer would be :In private, who cares, in public, unfortunately yep

Perhaps I'm just an idot.

My answer was not directly in reference to the law, however, I argue that, as a business owner, I am entitled to

a. set a policy that is inclusive of protected minorities, and
b. set standards for behavioural expectations for employees that includes not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities

These policies and standards apply at all times, and are part of the employment contract. If you don't agree to them, then you don't get offered a job working for me. These are not oppressive or overly burdensome conditions. All that is needed is for you to be a person of good character. From my perspective, being a bigoted homophobe like Folau (whatever your stated reasons for you holding your beliefs, and however you dress them up) rules you out as a person of good character.

Now I keep hearing the spurious argument that Folau was entitled to do what he likes in his own time, and that RA wasn't or shouldn't be allowed to control what he did. That might apply to an ordinary employee, but Folau was no ordinary employee. He was a walking advertisement for RA, and ambassador for the sport and a role model for young players. He had a responsibility to RA for what he did in public. He was even the face of Gay Rugby in an advertising campaign a few years back. All professional sportsmen, especially the high profile ones, represent their sport at all times, so they are in effect "at work" 24/7/365. That is part of the price you pay for having a million dollar contract to kick and throw around a ball. If you don't like those conditions, you need to go find another profession.

 

[Dickie E]

My answer was not directly in reference to the law, however, I argue that, as a business owner, I am entitled to

a. set a policy that is inclusive of protected minorities, and
b. set standards for behavioural expectations for employees that includes not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities

These policies and standards apply at all times, and are part of the employment contract. If you don't agree to them, then you don't get offered a job working for me.

yes, you've made that point several times. Making it again does not necessarily make it any more true.

 

[Ian_Cook]

yes, you've made that point several times.

And I'll keep making it when asked...

 

[The Fat]

Now I keep hearing the spurious argument that Folau was entitled to do what he likes in his own time, and that RA wasn't or shouldn't be allowed to control what he did. That might apply to an ordinary employee, but Folau was no ordinary employee. He was a walking advertisement for RA, and ambassador for the sport and a role model for young players. He had a responsibility to RA for what he did in public. He was even the face of Gay Rugby in an advertising campaign a few years back. All professional sportsmen, especially the high profile ones, represent their sport at all times, so they are in effect "at work" 24/7/365. That is part of the price you pay for having a million dollar contract to kick and throw around a ball. If you don't like those conditions, you need to go find another profession.

Exactly.
You want the big money, you know the deal. A high profile sportsman like Folau can’t clock on to be a role model at noon and clock off at 10:00pm. Whether he likes it or not, he knows that’s all part of the deal when he inks that million dollar a year contract. If he doesn’t like it, go get a normal job and play bush footy for the fun of it.

 

[Arabcheif]

Exactly.
You want the big money, you know the deal. A high profile sportsman like Folau can’t clock on to be a role model at noon and clock off at 10:00pm. Whether he likes it or not, he knows that’s all part of the deal when he inks that million dollar a year contract. If he doesn’t like it, go get a normal job and play bush footy for the fun of it.

I've said this with all pro sports people who play at high level. They don't ask to be role models. They don't ask to be high profile. They play a sport they love. They happen to be brilliant at whatever sport it is. If a club/organisation wants to pay them bucket loads of money to play form them, that's between the club/organisation and the athlete. If someone then wants them to sell their product, again that's up to those 2 parties.

At no point would I expect that other individuals to live by a moral code other than their own. If it was a consideration, I'd make that call before contracting them. All I'd ask is that for the period on the contract, to be the best athlete they can be to help the team win games. That means getting on with the team too. If something comes up like these comments (which don't seem to be illegal), if I disagreed with them, I'd see the contract out but not renew it at the end or put the employee on terminal leave till the end of the contract. I'd always give him/her the option to terminate the contract them-self to allow him/her to find another means of employment.

As for playing bush footy, that's not really fair on the others that play bush footy. We're supposed to be able to play against players of similar ability/level. It's not safe to have someone with the ability of IF to run against someone like myself, for example. I train once a week, don't build strength and have limited ability, especially in the tackle. So with that in mind the appropriate level for IF is the highest level (subject to ones opinion).

I suspect the contracts don't have a role model clause. Code of Conducts also aren't contractually enforceable in general too as they can be changed without consultation. They generally don't form part of the employment Ts and Cs such as pay etc. CoCs can be referred to but they can be change and amended without changing or signing of a new contract. This is why they're generally not contractually enforceable.

 

[Rich_NL]

If a club/organisation wants to pay them bucket loads of money to play form them, that's between the club/organisation and the athlete.

And if they don't want to because the athlete subsequently does something they consider undesirable, that's between them and the athlete too, right? I'm fairly sure a contract isn't carte blanche to do anything and everything you want for a fixed term.

 

[SimonSmith]

I suspect the contracts don't have a role model clause. Code of Conducts also aren't contractually enforceable in general too as they can be changed without consultation. They generally don't form part of the employment Ts and Cs such as pay etc. CoCs can be referred to but they can be change and amended without changing or signing of a new contract. This is why they're generally not contractually enforceable.

In general in the UK, and even then I'm not sure you're 100% right. CoCs can be seen as policies, which may be from time to time be changed...

In the USA, CoCs are considered changeable and enforceable.

 

[L'irlandais]

One potential employer had this to say about IF

The guy is a moron, he must leave. Or you have to buy a brain

Source: Toulon owner Mourad Boudjellal

I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable, that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community...I would walk away immediately.” Israel Folau

He talks the talk, but he won’t walk the walk. Doesn’t that make him a liar? What was it he said about hell fire?
Drew Mitchell seems to think so.

 

[crossref]

In general in the UK, and even then I'm not sure you're 100% right. CoCs can be seen as policies, which may be from time to time be changed...

In the USA, CoCs are considered changeable and enforcehe Uable.

in the UK CoC are very standard.

If you ever need to dismiss an employee on grounds of conduct it's going to be a lot more straightforward if
- you have a conduct policy
- you have a disciplinary process
- both are reasonable and fair, and followed.

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds

We have had several cases that revolve around religious expression. They are often complex cases.

So are cases that revolve around whether employees have - or have not - said something offensie and, if so, how offensive really was it ? (on a scale of reprimand through warning though dismissal)

I am sure UK is not that different from Australia in principle - but of course that doesn't mean any individual case would be decided in the same way

 

[Ian_Cook]

So are cases that revolve around whether employees have - or have not - said something offensie and, if so, how offensive really was it ? (on a scale of reprimand through warning though dismissal)

In the first instance yes, it matters how serious or how offensive it was. Even if Folau's initial homophobic attack was weak, or not really an attack or not truly offensive, it was still a breach of his CoC. And he got a warning.

However, once he

a. repeated the attack
b. refused to take the attack(s) down.
c. stated that he couldn't or wouldn't guarantee he would not commit the same breach again.

...then it is no longer about how offensive it was, and more about his intransigence; his wilful refusal to follow the terms of his contract and CoC. For example, if a player keeps turning up late to training sessions, that is not in any way illegal or offensive, but it will still be a breach of his CoC, so he can still be warned for it, and if he then says "I'll bloody well turn up when I feel like it", well that could get his contract terminated.

That player, and Folau, are effectively extending their middle fingers at their employer.... and sorry, that is just not acceptable, and is grounds for contract termination.

 

[crossref]

yes, well I was talking in general terms, but clearly you are correct the warning is relevant.

Meanwhile perhaps we can all have our spirits uplifted by James Haskell at the weekend

https://twitter.com/Ellierosebs/status/1148311381885804544

View attachment 3898


And people might be interested to know that the RFU marched for the first time at Pride.

I supent those gestures (and many many like them) in the long run will make more impact than sacking IF

 

[crossref]

Meanwhile in New Zealand this is interesting -- Steve Hansen offers an unwelcome opinion on radio

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-saying-domestic-violence-not-a-gender-thing

 

[Ian_Cook]

Meanwhile in New Zealand this is interesting -- Steve Hansen offers an unwelcome opinion on radio

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-saying-domestic-violence-not-a-gender-thing

Yeah, he's right - that is, domestic violence is not exclusively "male partner beats up female partner". There is plenty of domestic violence where the male is the victim but its rarely reported, mostly because of male pride. Most men would not want to admit to their chums that they are getting beat up by a woman.

Anyone who denies that men can be victims of domestic violence is living in Loopy Lou land.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-luton-crown-court-bedfordshire-a8309921.html

 

[SimonSmith]

If IF gets canned because of what he thinks, it's beyond ridiculous to think that someone who actually landed hands on someone gets a pass.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If IF gets canned because of what he thinks, it's beyond ridiculous to think that someone who actually landed hands on someone gets a pass.

If true, then I agree, but if you are talking about Reece, well he didn't get a pass.

In October 2018, he was discharged without conviction by Judge Denise Clark (Hamilton District Court). She said

"a conviction would have ended the Fijian-born player's Irish contract and that would have been out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending".

"I have considered your circumstances and it's certainly not the case that because you are good at playing rugby that you get the opportunity to be discharged without conviction."

Judge Clark accepted that the victim had forgiven Reece, that the couple were undergoing counselling, Reece had admitted a problem with alcohol and had been sober for three months. Reece expressed remorse and apologised at a restorative justice meeting, and he was supported in court by a young woman and other associates.

Judge Clark took into account his early guilty plea, the fact it was his first time before the courts. He was ordered to pay his victim $750 within 28 days for emotional harm reparation.

It was after all this, after his Irish contract (to play for Connaught) fell through, that Crusader's coach Scott Robertson offered Reece a lifeline, first to play in the pre-season, and later to play the full season after another player was injured. Anyone who knows anything about NZ Rugby, especially the Crusaders, will know that such a lifeline offered to a player in Reece's position, comes with conditions as to their conduct on and off the field.

Now while I am all for punishment for crimes, I am not in favour of punishing and punishing and punishing endlessly. If we simply punish Reece in this way he ends up consigned to the scrap heap, and we've fixed nothing. He is providing for a family so it punishes them too; if he is providing for his partner, we end up punishing the victim. The whole focus in dealing with domestic violence in NZ isn't on punishment, its on prevention; its on having friends and family getting offenders to stop by getting them to get help..

This is one of a series of anti-domestic violence TV ads currently running in New Zealand.

This country has the shameful record of having the highest rate of family violence in the developed world, but it has been shown time and again that this sort of approach is far more effective than punishing and threatening punishment and throwing people in a dumpster.

 

[Ian_Cook]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-down-and-suck-it-up-over-alleged-persecution

Baptist minister says there is no real risk of religious persecution in Australia compared with many other countries

The social justice advocate Tim Costello has called on his fellow Christians to “calm down” about their alleged persecution, amid a brewing political storm over how the government should act to protect against religious discrimination.

Costello, speaking in his new role as a senior fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity, also warned that the federal government should not try to legislate to cover “extreme” examples of competing rights, citing the high-profile Israel Folau case as an example.

The former chief advocate for World Vision Australia is backing the recommendations of the Ruddock review into religious discrimination, but has dismissed calls from conservative Coalition MPs for a religious freedom bill.

He said he did not see any evidence of the persecution of Christians in Australia, and said they needed to “suck it up”, just like Jesus.

“I don’t think there is a risk of persecution – Christians need to calm down,” Costello said.

“I would say to Christians if you want to see persecution, let me take you to places where there is persecution of Christians and other religious groups – let me take you to Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and I will show you persecution.

“And if they read their Bibles, Jesus said the world will hate you and misunderstand you for following me, but to go on following, loving, serving – so I would say, just suck it up.

“Jesus didn’t go around demanding legislation to protect his rights. Jesus didn’t advocate for freedom of religion legislation.”