Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
Perhaps Folau should be concerned about his own damnation first.
Personal behaviour vs employment
Moderator: bbmods
-
David
- Posts: 50659
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 76 times
He's been permanently banned from Rugby League, too:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/code-r ... 51dcc.html
For what it's worth, Skids, I don't think your employer should have the right to sack you for the things you post here either, and I mean that.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/code-r ... 51dcc.html
For what it's worth, Skids, I don't think your employer should have the right to sack you for the things you post here either, and I mean that.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
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-u ... 51fnn.html
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-u ... 51fnn.html
"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-u ... 51g7g.html
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-u ... 51g7g.html
-
pietillidie
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
^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.
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
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
Leave religion to one side. Interesting take from a media lawyer.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview ... 60ca6ca2daIsrael 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.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
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.
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.
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!