Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.
The bit that points out the logic flaw.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I recall during the Super League war that the ARL refused to select SL aligned players even though a court ruled they had to be taken into consideration. There were no consequences then and I very much doubt that Folau can expect selection in any side or use the law to get selected.
Specific performance won't be argued. What will be is damages.
I think the issue was whether Cheika can decide not to pick him. I can't see how that can be challenged in court.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.
The bit that points out the logic flaw.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I recall during the Super League war that the ARL refused to select SL aligned players even though a court ruled they had to be taken into consideration. There were no consequences then and I very much doubt that Folau can expect selection in any side or use the law to get selected.
Specific performance won't be argued. What will be is damages.
I think the issue was whether Cheika can decide not to pick him. I can't see how that can be challenged in court.
Let's say he gets reinstated and elects for some odd reason to remain an employee of RA and the Tahs. Cheika can decide not to select him and give all sorts of reasons when asked. Or not give a reason. But a first year moot could easily argue that Cheika's utterances over this issue was the reason. And a court would definitely give leave to argue if Folau's remuneration was dependent on Test selection.
-
@antipodean I think there is a clear argument in Chiekas favour that having FOlau in his squad would be bad for the team culture, despite the fact he would be one of the first names written down if fit.
-
Interesting that the much talked about clauses in Folau's contract about social media don't even exist. So they've just got him on a breach of the code of conduct, which people like Cheika breach after basically every game.
It's an interesting legal discussion. The courts generally tend to come down on the side of free speech, so there's every chance they won't accept RA's reasoning for termination. And then there's the complete lack of due process which highlighted the amateur side of RA.
In NZ an example of a contract that is not enforceable is with renting - often property managers like to put a line in the contract that requires the tenant to pay for the carpets to be professionally cleaned when they vacate. They can't actually enforce that even if you signed it because it is not fair and reasonable - a good thing to know if you're renting!
I'll be very interested if Folau contests this in court. I think there's a decent chance RA will just settle to get rid of him to try and appease their hypocritical main sponsor.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
This sums it up for me.
The ARU will lose this (if they are foolish enough not to settle). I thought Folaou was a bit of a goose for posting something which was all downside and no reward - but now he looks awfully smart after the ARU failed to give him due process.
If Izzy was directing his comments at someone specifically or going out of his was to harass an individual he would have a case to answer. But he is voicing his own opinion on his own twitter feed.
If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.
Another thing just occurred to me -- the ARU is quite happy for their captain (Pocock) to chain himself to mines in free political expression. So, why allow that political speech (which is offensive to some), and not allow Folau to express himself?
Reminder: I think Pocock's right on climate change, I think Folau's a muppet and I couldn't disagree with him more, but I quite like living in a society that allows everyone to have their own viewpoints and (within reason) express them in a protected way.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
ah cool, thanks
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
Well that's not surprising, the code of conduct clearly states that breaking the law is a breach. If he didn't get arrested then there would have been no warning.
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.
Another thing just occurred to me -- the ARU is quite happy for their captain (Pocock) to chain himself to mines in free political expression. So, why allow that political speech (which is offensive to some), and not allow Folau to express himself?
Reminder: I think Pocock's right on climate change, I think Folau's a muppet and I couldn't disagree with him more, but I quite like living in a society that allows everyone to have their own viewpoints and (within reason) express them in a protected way.
It's a bit of a tough one.
In one sense I wouldn't have been surprised if Pocock got his contract torn up as well for his antics.....but the outcry from the far left would have been deafening.
Rugby is a business, it's not a good look for people to play by their own rules with their wacky opinions.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
-
@No-Quarter I think it depends. There is nuance to it.
RA hasn't stopped players expressing political or religious views. They have a policy which bans vilification of minority groups, no matter how that happens.
If Izzy came out and advocated for superranuation reform he'd be fine. But if he called for an end to Muslim immigration (which is the stated policy of Fraser Anning) he would presumably fall foul of the RA inclusion policy. Both forms of political communication, but one is OK and the other is not.
Likewise with religion. Plenty of players post about God's glory, or turning to the Lord, or loving Jesus or whatever. That's all good. When you start talking about Gays going to hell though you are in trouble.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
This is the problem with having two issues that people seek to uphold when they become incompatible with each other.
I don't have the answer for it, but when it comes to business I fall firmly into the camp that says he who has the gold makes the rules.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
