|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
Perhaps Folau should be concerned about his own damnation first. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
He should have just posted it on Nicks... David would have deleted it in seconds! _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
If RA wanted to do this sort of thing, you wonder why they didn't put it in his contract. Sounds amateurish. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
RA's legal team: Justin Gleeson SC, "one of Australia's top silks", "forced to resign his position as the second-highest law officer in Australia after a public feud with Brandis" in 2016.
Folau's legal team: solicitor Ramy Qutami.
Code-of-conduct hearing:
RA's pick: "high-profile workplace discrimination and sexual harassment silk" Kate Eastman SC.
Rugby Union Players' Association's pick: sports administrator John Boultbee.
Independent appointment: John West QC, "another employment law expert and vastly experienced senior counsel".
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/rugby-union/rugby-australia-locks-in-top-silks-for-folau-fight-20190419-p51fnn.html |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Boultbee AM is a lawyer and Arbitrator of the International Court of Arbitration of Sport, on both the General and the Football lists. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm amazed by all the rugby journos writing columns that are legal judgements... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
How the AFL is preparing for a Folau scenario
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/hell-on-turf-how-the-afl-is-preparing-for-a-folau-scenario-20190420-p51ftg.html
J. Niall wrote: | ...
It's pretty much agreed by the club and AFL people I consulted that the offending player would be spoken to and cautioned or warned in the first incident, if the comments violated club/AFL inclusion policies (which are fairly broad). It would probably depend on the degree of the offence – like any match review offence, there is a level of force, etc.
A second offence? The club, with the AFL behind it and the AFL Players' Association representing the player, would be looking closely at the code of conduct to see if there's been a breach of their employment terms. This is pretty much what's happening with Folau.
In an extreme case, it was put to me that a player could be charged with the all-purpose "bringing the game into disrepute''. This seemed excessive to one industry insider, on the grounds that someone of Folau's ilk brings himself, not his sport, into disrepute.
From my small sample, there was clear unease about navigating a Folau incident. The terrain is much murkier than racially offensive speech ..., if a player has the cover of his religion.
What would happen, one club official asked, if a player was asked to respond to a pointed media question about his beliefs re homosexuality? Arguably, he'd be faced either with potential consequences for telling the truth or have to decline to answer.
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
"RA has set aside the entire weekend of May 4-5 should the case require both days. A spokesman could not confirm whether Folau or RA chief Raelene Castle would be required to front the hearing, although it is presumed Folau, at least, will. Under the code of conduct the panel has powers to call any parties or other individuals to give evidence at the hearing.
The code of conduct stipulates that hearings "should be conducted with as little formality and with as much expedition as permitted by the nature of the matter" and that they observe the principles of procedural fairness.
It also stipulates that the burden of proof is "on the party seeking to impose a sanction or penalty on the Participant or Rugby Body", meaning it will be RA's job to convince the panel, "on the balance of probabilities", that Folau's actions warrant his sacking."
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-hearing-date-set-down-for-may-4-20190422-p51g7g.html |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Good article by Niall. I think this paragraph is worth thinking about further::
Jake Niall wrote: | This outcome would incense some Christian conservatives, who – never noted for championing the free speech of others – suddenly discover the concept when it's about professing beliefs that have steadily lost mainstream support. |
Yes, many fundamentalist Christians who are dismayed to find the shoe is on the other foot may be hypocrites if they invoke free speech now. But what about those who do champion free speech? Where are they on this case, and why aren’t we hearing more from them?
As people know, I don’t believe in clubs or sporting organisations or employers in general punishing hate speech outside the workplace, and would much prefer that, where necessary, it be dealt with by existing legal structures.
But honestly, I’m not even sure that this constitutes hate speech to begin with. If Folau had said that gay people were immoral perverts, that would certainly qualify; but questions of who does or doesn’t go to hell are a purely doctrinal argument. Those of us who don’t believe in hell can’t pick and choose whom Christians are allowed to say will be tortured for eternity. Better to ignore it and leave the theological debate to other Christians, many of whom would be more than capable of rebutting Folau’s position with appeals to scripture. So long as Folau isn’t breaching any civil codes – by, say, calling for violence or abuse against gay people, which he explicitly doesn’t – his posting is impotent and meaningless in broader secular society and ought to be treated as such. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
^Your view of the religious idiom being used isn't the only one under consideration, though.
Consider a person who actually believes such nonsense. In their head they are thinking that gay folks are doing something so bad, they are going to be tortured for eternity alongside psychopaths and mass murderers. Ordinary, lawful citizens have just become evil beings warranting suffering and death in the eyes of that person.
Now encourage an entire group to think this way about another group, and to then to start verbalising it. What do you think the outcome will be? All citizens feeling equally safe with equal opportunities?
To argue that this is a matter for theologians is to seek special rights for religion it doesn't warrant. When black folks are deemed to be of an inferior race by far right thugs, do we think it best that racist groups convene to make a determination on behalf of society?
Religion doesn't warrant special dispensation here. When it discriminates on the basis of protected characteristics, and associates violent punishment with those characteristics, it needs to be brought into line with social expectations. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Leave religion to one side. Interesting take from a media lawyer.
Quote: | Israel Folau should be permitted to express the views he recently posted on social media. That’s part of free speech. But he should be sacked for doing so.
That might sound inconsistent, but it’s not.
Free speech means the law doesn’t stop you from saying something. Free speech doesn’t mean the speech is free from all consequences. These could range from people simply disagreeing with your views to people not wanting to associate with you. Or in the case of Folau, even sacking you for expressing your views.
In the same way Folau is entitled to exercise his right to free speech, his employer, the Australian Rugby Union, should be entitled to exercise it’s right to terminate his employment. Remember, this is not the first time Folau has made offensive comments. |
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview/folau-has-the-right-to-speak-and-still-be-sacked/news-story/e9c09137daa7d60b2f241a60ca6ca2da _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's a common argument, but I really can't abide it. The notion that free speech only exists in relation to legal restriction is a terribly narrow interpretation that, I think, has more to do with American discourse about the First Amendment than anything relevant to our current situation; indeed, as opponents of free expression sometimes like to point out, Australia doesn't even have an explicit legal right to free speech. So why focus solely on the law and not other powerful social forces that impact our lives? Surely, if the principle means anything, it applies to all ways in which free expression might be curtailed and punished (as opposed to being merely criticised or rejected) – and to see the government as the only powerful force in our society, the only one that can pose a serious threat to free expression, is a curiously libertarian perspective.
The idea that a fine or even a short jail sentence has a punitive effect but a loss of livelihood and employment doesn't is an example of pretty selective thinking. And we're fast moving towards a situation in which people don't lose just one job, but the potential to work any job – see the NRL's pre-emptive ban posted above. What's happening in professional sporting codes is fast becoming a benchmark across industries.
Of course, one is not bound to support freedom of speech. You may well be happy with a society in which we are all obliged to keep within a certain circle of socially acceptable ideas, discussion and language, with those who choose to go beyond that realm punished. Many such societies exist. But it's simply disingenuous to claim to support it on the one hand while repeating the line that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" on the other. Because the core foundation of freedom of speech very much is freedom from certain negative consequences, and unless people grasp that then they're not taking the concept seriously.
pietillidie wrote: | Your view of the religious idiom being used isn't the only one under consideration, though.
Consider a person who actually believes such nonsense. In their head they are thinking that gay folks are doing something so bad, they are going to be tortured for eternity alongside psychopaths and mass murderers. Ordinary, lawful citizens have just become evil beings warranting suffering and death in the eyes of that person.
Now encourage an entire group to think this way about another group, and to then to start verbalising it. What do you think the outcome will be? All citizens feeling equally safe with equal opportunities?
To argue that this is a matter for theologians is to seek special rights for religion it doesn't warrant. When black folks are deemed to be of an inferior race by far right thugs, do we think it best that racist groups convene to make a determination on behalf of society?
Religion doesn't warrant special dispensation here. When it discriminates on the basis of protected characteristics, and associates violent punishment with those characteristics, it needs to be brought into line with social expectations. |
I think a lot of people have rightly noted that there is a real quandary here in how to balance religious freedom and contemporary secular social expectations. I acknowledge what you're saying – that this rhetoric feeds into existing social imbalances and prejudices – but we have to keep in mind that the Abrahamic religions are, by their nature, deeply homophobic. While that can change (and, in more liberal denominations, has changed) organically from the inside, it's never going to work to attempt to bludgeon that change from the outside. That's how you get radicalised fundamentalism. Either way, the persistence of these doctrines is absolutely still bad for gay people in and around such religious communities, but it also has the consequence of marginalising the faiths that spout such nonsense, as indeed we're seeing in this case.
We're left to deal with the fact that the entire concept of hell is barbaric, and that threatening anyone (including others mentioned in the post such as alcoholics, unmarried partners, criminals and atheists, all of whom are to this day, in various places in the world, persecuted) with it is antisocial. But navigating the permissibility of public rhetoric about that is always going to be a challenge if we wish to advance tolerance and pluralism, and I would suggest that actually making Folau's comments illegal – which they aren't – would be a radical change with a lot of unintended consequences, including the question of whether the holy books themselves are in breach of hate speech law. I think we can agree that that isn't a necessary or desirable path to go down, so the question remains how to resolve these existing tensions. I understand that some people see loss of employment as a happy medium, but I think it's the worst of both worlds. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Part of the problem here is that the so called progressive left doesn't advance tolerance and pluralism, they take the bludgeon to anyone who speaks counter to their agenda and corporations buy into it for purely commercial reasons. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
In this instance free speech or religious expression has allowed Folau to express his views without legal consequence.
Free speech or religious expression however doesn't and shouldn't stop his employer from tearing up his player contract if he has breached it's terms.
Playing sport professionally and being compensated for it isn't a birth right after all, it's just like every other 9-5 job and comes with conditions that need to be met in order to get paid and remain employed. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|