News Folau case may send Rugby Australia broke.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Funny thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if Folau keeps his job. Rugby Australia can kick him out of a few games, fine him, then bring him back and everyone looks like a hero... until he does it again.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
lol 'human rights lawyer', which is in fact code for 'refugees, gay people and other minorities lawyer'.

If a human rights lawyer was on the panel then they were only ever going to find one outcome when someone quotes from a christian bible.
Show me the passage he quoted. I'm not talking about paraphrasing.....show me the direct quote. The post he shared paraphrased a biblical passage using unnecessarily antagonistic language, so please don't present it as a quote. Quotes are taken verbatim.

In any case, three lawyers have looked at the case....one independent, one representing the ARU and one representing Folau from the players' association. It seems pretty clear that Folau breached his contract from a legal standpoint. I'm sure plenty of Christians play the game without facing sanction, so it's not a question of religious freedom. It's a question of an athlete who is contracted as a public representative lacking tact and diplomacy. He's no victim, he's just a raving dumbass who didn't abide by the terms of his contract. Cry me a river.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Funny thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if Folau keeps his job. Rugby Australia can kick him out of a few games, fine him, then bring him back and everyone looks like a hero... until he does it again.
Stranger things have happened, I guess......but my gut feeling is he's gone this time.....go straight to French Rugby or ESL and do not collect the remainder of your contract money.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
She was definitely on the side of Rugby Australia. She was put in there by Rugby Australia to ensure that the case was solid.

The other lawyer was put there in defence of Folau (a sports player association lawyer) and the 3rd lawyer was an independent chair to oversee the proceedings.
My biggest issue with this whole case is that Folau hasn't harmed anyone and hasn't physically acted in an aggressive or discriminatory way towards anyone. Yes he expressed views that are controversial (and which I completely don't agree with btw), but ultimately he should have the right to express the views, particularly given they are religious.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
My biggest issue with this whole case is that Folau hasn't harmed anyone and hasn't physically acted in an aggressive or discriminatory way towards anyone. Yes he expressed views that are controversial (and which I completely don't agree with btw), but ultimately he should have the right to express the views, particularly given they are religious.
Not really....if he willingly signs a contract with a sporting organisation, he automatically agrees to its code of conduct. He does have the right to express his views, but his employer reserves the right to terminate his contract if he breaches it.
 

FreshSoulL

Faith
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction score
368
Show me the passage he quoted. I'm not talking about paraphrasing.....show me the direct quote. The post he shared paraphrased a biblical passage using unnecessarily antagonistic language, so please don't present it as a quote. Quotes are taken verbatim.

In any case, three lawyers have looked at the case....one independent, one representing the ARU and one representing Folau from the players' association. It seems pretty clear that Folau breached his contract from a legal standpoint. I'm sure plenty of Christians play the game without facing sanction, so it's not a question of religious freedom. It's a question of an athlete who is contracted as a public representative lacking tact and diplomacy. He's no victim, he's just a raving dumbass who didn't abide by the terms of his contract. Cry me a river.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

THAT is a direct quote.....at least so far as I can ascertain. What Folau shared was not. I don't get what is so hard to understand here. Quotes should be taken verbatim and this passage references the kingdom of God....it makes no mention of Hell at all.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Not really....if he willingly signs a contract with a sporting organisation, he automatically agrees to its code of conduct. He does have the right to express his views, but his employer reserves the right to terminate his contract if he breaches it.
It will all likely end up in front of a court but it's my belief that a company should not be allowed to limit an employee's freedom of religoin. Especially when they do it in their own private time, on their own devices via their own private social media account.

The law might not be on my side, but that's my view.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Not really....if he willingly signs a contract with a sporting organisation, he automatically agrees to its code of conduct. He does have the right to express his views, but his employer reserves the right to terminate his contract if he breaches it.
Not sure of the legal implications of contract versus code of conduct but I believe Rugby AUstralia have already confirmed that nothing was placed in Folaus contract after the issue last year. Therefore he wasn't in breach of his contract, only to the extent they say he's in breach of the code of conduct (which would also be referenced in his contract).
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Not sure of the legal implications of contract versus code of conduct but I believe Rugby AUstralia have already confirmed that nothing was placed in Folaus contract after the issue last year. Therefore he wasn't in breach of his contract, only to the extent they say he's in breach of the code of conduct (which would also be referenced in his contract).
Yeah, I get that......but the panel consisting of three lawyers have found the code of conduct was sufficient for him to be considered in breach. No clauses were necessary from a legal POV.
 

Kaz

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
18,846
Reaction score
11,571
Just a question, is it a sin to get a tattoo.

What does the bible say about 'tattoos'
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
It will all likely end up in front of a court but it's my belief that a company should not be allowed to limit an employee's freedom of religoin. Especially when they do it in their own private time, on their own devices via their own private social media account.

The law might not be on my side, but that's my view.
Fair enough....you're entitled to it and I'm sure you're not alone in feeling that way......but people could say some pretty damn outrageous things in the name of religious freedom. Should radical Islamists be able to practice total religious freedom?
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Fair enough....you're entitled to it and I'm sure you're not alone in feeling that way......but people could say some pretty damn outrageous things in the name of religious freedom. Should radical Islamists be able to practice total religious freedom?
Yes. To the extent that they don't condone or promote violence.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Probably worth pointing out that christianity (certain interpretations) aren't alone in their views on homosexuality. The majority of the islamic world would agree. And also agree a lot more whole heartedly than most christians.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
My biggest issue with this whole case is that Folau hasn't harmed anyone and hasn't physically acted in an aggressive or discriminatory way towards anyone. Yes he expressed views that are controversial (and which I completely don't agree with btw), but ultimately he should have the right to express the views, particularly given they are religious.
I somewhat agree with that, but I think he handled it badly. The main issue here is that people were offended by it to the point where people were cancelling their memberships and threatening a boycott of the game.

Personally I think he could have said things to the same effect but said them more diplomatically. Unfortunately the way he handled it is no different to someone saying, "You'll burn in hell for being black. Become white to save yourself"
 

Wolfmother

Kennel Legend
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
14,576
Reaction score
3,801
Freedom of religion doesn't priority over individual freedom. Article 9 of the Human Rights Commission protects freedom of thought, belief and religion with the exception when public use of the religious belief affects:
  • public safety
  • public order
  • health or morals, and
  • the rights and freedoms of other people
The debate here is that his post breached the rights of a group against offence which also results in a breach of player conduct.

If there was total freedom of religion then a Muslim could stone a person to death and sue if he got fired for it.
Group against offence is not a real group.. Offence is subjective..
Bring me this human Rights lawyer I'll have her head mwahahaha
 

Wolfmother

Kennel Legend
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
14,576
Reaction score
3,801
I somewhat agree with that, but I think he handled it badly. The main issue here is that people were offended by it to the point where people were cancelling their memberships and threatening a boycott of the game.

Personally I think he could have said things to the same effect but said them more diplomatically. Unfortunately the way he handled it is no different to someone saying, "You'll burn in hell for being black. Become white to save yourself"
Here's the point of contention, his religion does not consider homosexuality to be a genetic trait it's a choice just like drinking alcohol or adultery.. And to be fair there is still no proof that it's a genetic trait
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
This article gives a good run down on things: The incident is only in mediation at the moment, it has not gone to court / full blown hearing.

The mediation is to decide if the "high level" breach is valid. They have now done so, which means there are other avenues Folau can use to fight this. First will be an appeal and a new panel of members (who can't use teh previous case as bias, and media reporting could swing that in Folaus favour. If he then does not accept a mutual agreement by the new mediators/panel, it goes into the courts.

From there he could argue on FWC/Anti Discrimination factors, etc etc.

All that points towards twisting RA's arm for a payout rather than risk losing a legal case whereby he is simply reposting others words (not his own).

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-faces-his-day-of-reckoning-with-conduct-panel/news-story/fbd7b24d10599f90613069f21f41b3ee

Folau is fighting to save his career after RA chief executive Raelene Castle issued the three-times John Eales Medallist with a “high-level” breach notice last month and threatened to tear up his four-year, $4 million contract following his latest round of inflammatory social media posts.

Folau is being represented by high-profile solicitor Ramy Quatami and barrister Adam Casselden.

...

Stage one of the prohibitively expensive process to determine whether RA can legally terminate Folau begins with much attention expected to focus on whether it has jeopardised its own case by trying to look tough in the early days of the dispute.

On top of the criticism it is already taking over its tactical handling of the situation, RA is now certain to be condemned for the cost of fighting this battle.

No one in the organisation was able to speculate on what the legal bill will run to but if, as most people suspect, today’s code of conduct hearing in Sydney is but the opening salvo of a battle that will rage all the way through the legal system, then it could easily run to six figures.

If RA loses, it surely will be hit with having to pay out Folau’s $4 million contract in part or in full. That is all money that will never find its way into grassroots rugby. All this to be rid of a player who, in RA’s opinion, went back on his solemn word and, in doing so, put himself before his team.

Whatever happens this weekend, the case almost certainly will go to appeal.

The losing party has until 72 hours after the tribunal makes its findings to determine if it will challenge. In that event, a new code of conduct hearing, with an entirely reconstituted three-person panel, would rehear the case.

- If that also fails to produce a mutually acceptable outcome, the matter would then be taken to the legal system.

- If the dispute is seen as purely an employer-employee wrangle, then RA is on its surest ground. As Castle put it: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibility that an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they made … to abide by the employer’s policies … and adhere to the employer’s values.” Yet, even here, RA could strike problems. There is, for example, no obligation on the part of the code of conduct hearing to accept RA’s evaluation of Folau’s breach as “high-level”. Only a high-level breach carries the ultimate sanction of termination.

- If the tribunal re-categorises Folau’s breach as low or middle level, then there is no way RA can sack him, short of paying him not to play, Quade Cooper-style. And there is always the possibility the tribunal will find that re-posting someone else’s words may not constitute an offence of any kind.

In its joint announcement with the NSW Rugby Union, RA stated that its intention was to terminate Folau — unless there were unknown extenuating circumstances. There are also concerns about the comment by Wallabies coach Michael Cheika that he could see no way in which Folau could be included in the Wallabies side.

Both pronouncements were made in the days almost immediately following Folau’s controversial April 10 social media post, when feeling was running strongly against the three-times John Eales medallist, with most people believing that he had had a second chance and so should be sacked immediately.

- If the hearing takes into account whether Folau’s rights to free speech and religious expression have been infringed, it could also become messy. Ever since RA took the unilateral decision to support the right of homosexuals to marry, it left itself legally exposed if a segment of the code’s following — in this case the Pacific Islander community — had problems with its stand.

....

I still see this going pear shaped for RA. I reckon it'll drag on into the courts, where Anti Discrimination Board as well as Fair Work Commission can come into play.

RA are arguging that his comments are his own, however if he gets backing from the church, and it's found that his comments are infact part of scripture (not his own personal beliefs), then things are gonna get interesting.

This case is just delaying the inevitable... the end of Rugby in Australia.

Hurry up and kill it Castle, before Rona gets too old!

1. Meaney
2. Smith
3. Anyone
4. Hoppa
5. Rona
 

Caveman

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
4,393
This is just the beginning... In a way it's good because it will draw a line in the sand for for all people who struggle to see where religious freedom ends.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Israel was foolish in the the way he went about getting biblical views across, BUT I would also say Raelene is just as foolish (if not more) in the way she has decided to drag this through the spotlight.

The damage this is doing to Rugby Australia is unfathomable, and that is due not to what Israel has said, but completely by the way RA has handled this saga.

Ironically, the very same thing they accuse Folau of (intentionally brining the game into disrepute via media - be it social or not) is the exact thing RA is currently doing in their public persue of Folau.

Castle is a fool and RA is her fiddle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top