What a waste of rugby talent

First topic message reminder :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50455162

No way back for Folau now.

Well no. Folou is homophobic.

Well, this homophobe has worked for gay action groups, and was the poster boy and helped promote the gay rugby cup a few years ago...

Sounds like a monster to me!

However, what have you done for Australian minorioties before attacking one for his religious views?

See how complex this issue is, and how ignorant your stance is?

Nope. The guys a homophobe. He may be a homophobe because of his religion but hes a homophobe all the same.

As long as your happy with the same logic applied to yourself, you can be as obtuse as you like.

Dirtydave wrote:

This is the first time i'm aware of this. Interesting that it didn't get revealed sooner.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nope. The guys a homophobe. He may be a homophobe because of his religion but hes a homophobe all the same.

He is, so he was dealt with. What are you going to do now, keep pushing abuse until he's lynched or something? It seems that's what some people want and think is okay. It's no wonder Lawes, Vunipola's, etc backed him up in the aftermath - neither of them (just Izzy) are homophobes as far as I know.

Dirtydave, I'm happy you broke your silence. I do disagree with you but I haven't come to take pot shots.

I worry a great deal that many of the hot topics which crop up these days degenerate into taking sides, when the sides really aren't that clear cut.

I do believe that religious people, not just Christians, feel marginalized. However, Folau doesn't pit religious people against the irreligious, or Christians against non-Christians. We know that many devout Christians are upset with Folau's statements, as they do not feel he represents scripture as they know it.

I'd ask you to reconsider also whether this is a political issue. Political movements across the spectrum have viewed homosexuality negatively. Being gay wasn't illegal in Britain until 1967 just because right wingers demanded it. Plenty of signed up socialists wouldn't have had it any other way.

I said before on this forum that it's easy to imagine a number of prominent rugby players might share some of Folau's views. Look at the teachings of Scotland and Lions prop Euan Murray's church. Or Ruan Pienaar's for that matter. A lot of the early Folau coverage spoke as if he represented some primitive, Pacific Islander Christianity, but the islander angle is overemphasized. Murray & Pienaar both went to good schools. Also, a good proportion of islanders don't follow the line of Christianity promoted by Folau's church in Australia.

Of course, we don't know what Murray or Pienaar think on the matter because they haven't made the same statements as Folau. They are content to keep their views to private comments, or within their church. Folau wanted to make public comments and discovered that no-one wanted to employ him on that basis.

And now, having fought one employer over his right to state his views publicly, he has  signed a contract with another which restricts him in precisely the way he disputed. Sounds a bit like his commitment to his views is as manageable as the ARU always wanted it to be.

I'm happy dave to be called out for things I do wrong.

After reading lawes views I'm not surprised at his stance or vunipolas mikey. I think the dragons are mad for giving him another chance and think he'll do something to make them regret it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:After reading lawes views I'm not surprised at his stance or vunipolas mikey. I think the dragons are mad for giving him another chance and think he'll do something to make them regret it.

I'm fine with him having another chance, plus it's in another code so it is sort of away from Union which I think was a necessary undertaking should Folau not wish to remain unemployed. Like Rugby Fan alludes to, he still has a code of conduct. Break it and he's out the door, so let's hope he doesn't and everyone can get on with the Rugby.

Rugby fan

Folau of course pits religious people against religious, in his list of hell goers are atheists!

Of course this is a political issue, a guy who has been pro gay most of his career spends months posting religious stupidity on a left wing platform? To consider this non political is niave!

You are right tho, these discussions turn into side taking, usually left equals good and right equals bad...

However I'm not taking a side, I havnt expressed my personal view on the matter, it's been inferred because I'm unwilling to jump on the stone throwing bandwagon!

Dirtydave wrote:Thanks for proving my point bam bam. If you don't agree with me shut up!

Sam

Do you believe in the UNHRC principles of freedom of expression and freedom of religion?

I didn't mention liberals, I said left wing, which is what Twitter's owner Jack Dorsey claims the platform as. Should we not put words in each other's mouths?

You call Folau homophobic, he calls himself religious, let's be real that all religions clash with homosexuality, just look at the Birmingham school protests.

So where does the line blurr between protecting protected groups against tweets, and ripping up the human rights code for a protected group (which by British law Folau also is btw)?

The new game of victimhood is a complex road, there seems to be a lot of stone throwing, and not a lot of empathy for a minority who wants to express his religious views.

Calling Folau homophobic is akin to calling Folaus insulters racist imo

His comments were hell awaits gay people. That can and generally was interpreted as hate speech against people of a differing sexual orientation to his own. You cannot say my comments were racist because at no point do I discuss his race.

Freedom of speech doesn't come into it. If you sign an employment contract that stipulates how you act on social media then you cannot complain if you are sacked for not following the code of conduct you agreed when you signed it. He had prior warning before his contract was terminated, I have no sympathy. If he wanted to spout his far right version of Christianity on social media he should not have signed the deal with the ARU that restricted him from doing so.

1. There wasn't a quote, it was a poster.

2. I never said freedom of speech, I very specifically named two elements of the UN's human rights code.

The fact is, and it is typical in this type of discussion, that the argument against Folau isn't based on facts, but based on an argument you want to fight, not the argument presented.

Folau was always going to win, you cannot tell employees that they can't share their religious beliefs, or you open the door to religious persecution! He tweeted something that offends, but it only offends if you believe in the concept of hell, as imo it's totally imaginary.

I struggle to call a man, who has worked for gay action groups, actively donated time, money and effort to promote gay rights and events homophobic, because he reiterates the stupid beliefs of his religion. Do you call every Muslim who posts passages from the Qur'an around the prophets marriages a pedophile? I don't think you do, and I think it would be crazy to do so!

Far right? Can you name his political leanings? This is such a silly statement, however let's say you mean it....

Define far right for me!

Deal in facts dave. Folau may not have won. You struggle to call a homophobe a homophobe though.

Dirtydave wrote:1. There wasn't a quote, it was a poster.

2. I never said freedom of speech, I very specifically named two elements of the UN's human rights code.

The fact is, and it is typical in this type of discussion, that the argument against Folau isn't based on facts, but based on an argument you want to fight, not the argument presented.

Folau was always going to win, you cannot tell employees that they can't share their religious beliefs, or you open the door to religious persecution! He tweeted something that offends, but it only offends if you believe in the concept of hell, as imo it's totally imaginary.

I struggle to call a man, who has worked for gay action groups, actively donated time, money and effort to promote gay rights and events homophobic, because he reiterates the stupid beliefs of his religion. Do you call every Muslim who posts passages from the Qur'an around the prophets marriages a pedophile? I don't think you do, and I think it would be crazy to do so!

Far right? Can you name his political leanings? This is such a silly statement, however let's say you mean it....

Define far right for me!

Anti-gay comments come from the bottom of his heart;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/israel-folau-australia-rugby-homophobic-comments-gay-hell-sins-twitter-instagram-a8334526.html%3famp

And in a sermon he gave at his church;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-australia-50455162

Right wing = the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.

I and many others consider his religious views fall within that description.

Folau's human rights were not infringed. He voluntarily entered into an employment contract that required him to follow a code of conduct. He didn't follow it (repeatedly) so had his contract terminated.

Folau may have changed his views, as a younger man he may have had a more liberal view point. We don't know what has gone on in his personal life that has led to the current very much anti-gay view. Perhaps he changed church and the one where he gave the sermon on the bush fires has had an effect on his views.

Sam

I can't keep having to correct you for the same silly/manipulating mistakes...

1, the first link refers to the poster, again not a comment but his tweet.

2. The second link refers to his comment on bushfires being a taste of his gods will.

3. You have tried to define right wing, but you used the term far right, so I'll ask again, please define 'far right'. Right wing is a political stance, far right is an accusation, massive difference... well unless you don't know there's a difference, and in that case it would make sense.

Also, you claim his contract was entered into and is legally binding, but if his human rights are infringed by the contract it's null in void...

You can't legislate against the freedom of religion, or the freedom of expression, otherwise companies could not allow Muslim women to wear a veil.

Folau won an apology and monetary compensation, as did a recent air stewardess who was fired for wearing a cross, and a Christian bakery fined for refusing to promote gay marriage on a cake.

You may disagree with these sentiments, but you can't choose what human rights are applicable to which people, either you allow these religious idiots to believe what they do, or you allow persecution based on bigotry of religion!

If the ARU were allowed to get away with sacking someone for regurgitating the teachings of his church, then what's to stop them from being pressured by an Islamic group to sack a Jewish player for being photographed at a mosque on game day, or to sack a Muslim player for praying in public by a far right group?

Nothing is the answer

7.5

If he hated gay people, why in his view would he be trying to save them from hell?

Dont side step that you're trying to deal with facts then making stuff up for one. And stop being so blond tennis homophobia. Do you agree with his view is that why ypure trying so hard to back him up? You're starting to sound like one of those right wingers who just want to be able to say exactly what they want with no come back.
Hes not trying to save any gay person from hell as you cant choose to be gay.

I've made nothing up, his words are very simple, his view is that homosexuals, amongst others must repent to be saved... which is what is efforts are into, saving these people...

But hey, you don't want to discuss facts, you seem like your on Nazi hunt no matter what, screaming 'burn the witch or she'll mess with your mind' is a very ignorant mindset, and says more about you than it does him!

So, by your final statement can I deduce that:

- you think hell is real?

- homosexuality is purely biological?

'Folau was always going to win, you cannot tell employees that they can't share their religious beliefs....' that's a fact is it dave? I dont believe it is.
If you want my detailed thoughts you can go back and read the previous thread on both those counts. I'm also not asking for anyone to be burned.

Of course it's a fact, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are integral to the human rights act...

Don't you believe in them?

'WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES FREELY AND HOLD OUR OWN OPINIONS – EVEN IF OUR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR OR COULD UPSET OR OFFEND OTHERS.'

Oh I absolutely dont believe there should be complete freedom of speech. I dont think I've met anyone face to face who believes that. I also know that I'm not allowed to say/post etc views on certain topics without comeback from my employer.

So recently we had the issue with Ozil (a muslim) who called out China for their treatment of Muslims and most people sided with China. If emirate airlines had had sponsored ARU would Folou still be employed if they had praised his belief.

Companies care about money. Quantis work with plenty companies whose owns are homophobic, racist, sexist etc but their money makes it ok.

Dirtydave wrote:Of course it's a fact, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are integral to the human rights act...

Don't you believe in them?

'WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES FREELY AND HOLD OUR OWN OPINIONS – EVEN IF OUR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR OR COULD UPSET OR OFFEND OTHERS.'

People should however expect consequences for what they say and do in public.

LondonTiger wrote:

Dirtydave wrote:Of course it's a fact, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are integral to the human rights act...

Don't you believe in them?

'WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES FREELY AND HOLD OUR OWN OPINIONS – EVEN IF OUR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR OR COULD UPSET OR OFFEND OTHERS.'

People should however expect consequences for what they say and do in public.

Like the cartoonists in France and Salman Rushdie?

... oh and the doctor that spoke out to warn about Coronavirus

Classy.

... oh and maybe David Christopher Kelly........ maybe.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Classy.

Suppressing free speech or further, warning of consequences of free speech/opinion... is a very dangerous avenue to champion. I Always warn about such opinion in these threads.
Free to have it but for now, I'm free to caution against it.

I'm happy to champion shutting down homophobia to be fair. You want to support peoples right to say it with no come back good on you. This thread is now quickly going the way of the previous now before it was shut down.

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Dirtydave wrote:Of course it's a fact, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are integral to the human rights act...

Don't you believe in them?

'WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES FREELY AND HOLD OUR OWN OPINIONS – EVEN IF OUR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR OR COULD UPSET OR OFFEND OTHERS.'

People should however expect consequences for what they say and do in public.

Like the cartoonists in France and Salman Rushdie?

No. There are legal and illegal consequences. Boycotting Charlie Hebdo or Satanic Verses is fine, killing people obviously not.

But then I suspect you know that and are just looking for a fight.

Oh and equating people being murdered to a highly paid person getting a massive compensation package is a little trite.

'Looking for a fight'. ?  Strange usage of words.  Am I not merely engaging in the debate, as you yourself did, Tiger?

These pages are for debate?

I stand by every line.  Consequences are consequences.  If death is threatened, it discourages others to be free in their honest opinions.  If that threat hangs over livelihood and earning potential, it does the very same thing - discouraging others from feeling free to express honest opinions.  
Both are forms of censorship.  Censorship always cruises close the dangerous territory of authoritarianism.  

For if my freedom to say what I want is under threat of loss of income/job/avenues of influence etc, then all individual opinions on many topics can suffer under the same threat.  And in the end, that leads to an Approved World view expressed by an Approved Disseminator of Information.  Dissent becomes a crime.
Dangerous.

LondonTiger wrote:Oh and equating people being murdered to a highly paid person getting a massive compensation package is a little trite.

You call it trite, I call it debate.

So given that isnt a freedom offered in the uk when are you on the streets protesting for us fly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So given that isnt a freedom offered in the uk when are you on the streets protesting for us fly.

Explain that one a little more 7, please.

I thought youd could do with a stand outside with a bovril attempting to get me those rights. A bit cheeky I know as you're probably in Ireland. Once you get those rights in Ireland perhaps you could offer a hand here. Tbf it's getting a bit far away from folou landing on his feet after his homophobic comments now anyway.
He seems to have taken to league again fairly easily: just looking forward to the wigan match now.

Before I read on, I have to address this again for 7.5...

There is no human right of freedom of speech, I have never once typed the phase freedom of speech, why are people constantly referring to freedom of speech when it's never been brought up?

Dirtydave wrote:..I have never once typed the phase freedom of speech, why are people constantly referring to freedom of speech when it's never been brought up?

Perhaps because...

Dirtydave wrote:Of course it's a fact, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are integral to the human rights act...

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Dirtydave wrote:1. There wasn't a quote, it was a poster.

2. I never said freedom of speech, I very specifically named two elements of the UN's human rights code.

The fact is, and it is typical in this type of discussion, that the argument against Folau isn't based on facts, but based on an argument you want to fight, not the argument presented.

Folau was always going to win, you cannot tell employees that they can't share their religious beliefs, or you open the door to religious persecution! He tweeted something that offends, but it only offends if you believe in the concept of hell, as imo it's totally imaginary.

I struggle to call a man, who has worked for gay action groups, actively donated time, money and effort to promote gay rights and events homophobic, because he reiterates the stupid beliefs of his religion. Do you call every Muslim who posts passages from the Qur'an around the prophets marriages a pedophile? I don't think you do, and I think it would be crazy to do so!

Far right? Can you name his political leanings? This is such a silly statement, however let's say you mean it....

Define far right for me!

Anti-gay comments come from the bottom of his heart;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/israel-folau-australia-rugby-homophobic-comments-gay-hell-sins-twitter-instagram-a8334526.html%3famp

And in a sermon he gave at his church;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-australia-50455162

Right wing = the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.

I and many others consider his religious views fall within that description.

Folau's human rights were not infringed. He voluntarily entered into an employment contract that required him to follow a code of conduct. He didn't follow it (repeatedly) so had his contract terminated.

Folau may have changed his views, as a younger man he may have had a more liberal view point. We don't know what has gone on in his personal life that has led to the current very much anti-gay view. Perhaps he changed church and the one where he gave the sermon on the bush fires has had an effect on his views.

I'd argue that there are numerous left wing people with such views too, what you actually mean is he's socially right wing. The term on it's own refers more to a persons economic leanings.

I've obviously misunderstood you dave apologies. What do you mean by the right to Express yourself freely just so I know exactly what you are referring to.

7.5

Article 10 of the human rights act, I copied and pasted it above...

'WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES FREELY AND HOLD OUR OWN OPINIONS – EVEN IF OUR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR OR COULD UPSET OR OFFEND OTHERS.'

So what exactly does that mean dave in your eyes.

Yes indeed - and Folaou has not had that violated. He is perfectly free to express himself in any way he wants. However given the rules of his employers he has to leave his employment to do so

the same applies to many many people - me included. As a public servant I can be sacked for making discriminatory and bigotted comments

TJ wrote:Yes indeed - and Folaou has not had that violated.  He is perfectly free to express himself in any way he wants.  However given the rules of his employers he has to leave his employment to do so

the same applies to many many people - me included.  As a public servant I can be sacked for making discriminatory and bigotted comments

So in a way employers technically don't comply with Article 10 of the human rights act?  I wonder if they breached other articles of the human rights act, would public opinion be so tolerant of people losing their jobs for exercising their human right to express a personal opinion or motivation? It's not really much of a 'right' if you suffer in the exercising of it.

Article 14 appears interesting in this regard:  Prohibition of Discrimination

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

Hmmm, vewy interdasting.  
This Human Rights Act certainly leaves plenty of room for endless courtroom activity by super wealthy legal gents.... and sure Thus be the very reason for so many contradictions of purpose, intent and presumed protection within its duplicitous passages.

Interesting document...... glad I finally got goaded to read some of it.  Folaugate serves a useful purpose after all.

They didn't even breach this article. Seriously if you're going to try and use it at least read it in its entirety.

It's all very interesting. More people should read these long winded Acts in their entirety - at least for masochistic purposes, which I presume is still a legally protected personal sexual proclivity?

Yes.... an Act with so many subheading legal loopholes that in practice, nobody can be truly assured that their 'Rights' will be respected at all.

TJ

Would you agree with a Muslim being sacked for praying in public?

Would you be the person who can draw the line between religious, offensive and bigoted comments?

Do you believe those protesting the educational curriculum in Birmingham should be sacked from their livelihoods?