Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?

[sptrawler]

You could also be a bit clearer so I don't have to guess what you were saying.

That's the problem, with thinking, we are all on the same page.
My apologies.

 

[SirRumpole]

It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make.

No I don't think so.

"Free" speech means free of consequences in terms of your contract. Of course people will disagree with him as they are free to do, but they are not causing him any damage like taking away his living would do.

 

[sptrawler]

No I don't think so.

"Free" speech means free of consequences in terms of your contract. Of course people will disagree with him as they are free to do, but they are not causing him any damage like taking away his living would do.

It nothing short of bullying IMO, "those with most to loose, shut up", or suffer the consequences.

I think you have miss quoted me there Rumpy, I was using the quote as an example, to the point I was making.

It wasn't a point I agreed with, it just highlighted, the same justification could be used to hammer whistle blowers.

They are in breach of their contracts, when they whistle blow, but they are encouraged to do it.

 

[SirRumpole]

It nothing short of bullying IMO, "those with most to loose, shut up", or suffer the consequences.

I think you have miss quoted me there Rumpy, I was using the quote as an example, to the point I was making.
It wasn't a point I agreed with.

Fair enough sp, sorry about that.

 

[sptrawler]

I think it is an important issue Rumpy, if it is o.k to ruin Folau's rugby future on the grounds, it degraded R.A image and justify it by contract.

Why do people have a problem, with defence whistle blowers, being sent to trail for treason, as it was part of their contract?

 

[SirRumpole]

I think it is an important issue Rumpy, if it is o.k to ruin Folau's rugby future on the grounds, it degraded R.A image and justify it by contract.

Why do people have a problem, with defence whistle blowers, being sent to trail for treason, as it was part of their contract?

I've seen one person in particular here that can't sustain his argument because he doesn't apply it consistently. It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all.

I think it's interesting that Folau hasn't been sued for breach of contract because I think RA realises that path would fail, it's just a lot easier to sack him. Whatever, I think this court case will have ramifications in every business that chooses to have a code of conduct that interferes with free speech. It's going to get very messy I think.

Whistleblowers may be different if they revealed information about their job, but they should be subject to a public interest test that protects them if what they disclose is in the public interest in order to expose corruption etc.

In Folau's case what he said was not related in any way to his ability to do what he was contracted to do which was play football, so his employer had no right to take any action, imo.

 

[sptrawler]

I've seen one person in particular here that can't sustain his argument because he doesn't apply it consistently. It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all.

I think it's interesting that Folau hasn't been sued for breach of contract because I think RA realises that path would fail, it's just a lot easier to sack him. Whatever, I think this court case will have ramifications in every business that chooses to have a code of conduct that interferes with free speech. It's going to get very messy I think.

Whistleblowers may be different if they revealed information about their job, but they should be subject to a public interest test that protects them if what they disclose is in the public interest in order to expose corruption etc.

In Folau's case what he said was not related in any way to his ability to do what he was contracted to do which was play football, so his employer had no right to take any action, imo.

I agree completely, I just get fed up with people, that want to change the rules to suit there own ends.
It also galls me, when someone wants to stand up for what they believe in and the opposition want to put them at a financial handicap, to defend their position.
It is really un Australian, if R.A wants to make this a moral issue, Folau should have just as much money behind him to defend his stand as R.A has to defend theirs.
At the end of the day R.A loses some members money, Folau loses his career.

 

[moXJO]

Union strikes can cause a lot of damage to a company. But employees are protected by workplace laws. And it has been tested vs illegal contracts.
You can argue either way till you are blue in the face.

I could go on and on, but its all up to the courts and how well the lawyers argue the case. I'm not convinced either side has a clear winner.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all

That’s what a lot of it comes down to.

In the back of their mind I think many have the thought that if he’d posted the exact opposite view, saying that religion is nonsense and so on, then they plausibly wouldn’t have sacked him for doing so even though many would deem that offensive.

That is, that the real issue is that they don’t agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online.

 

[sptrawler]

That is the exact point I was trying to make with the 'whistle blower'.
If the 'whistle blower' breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, everyone is up in arms to protect his rights.
If the rugby player breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, he deserves everything he gets.

 

[Smurf1976]

In Folau's case what he said was not related in any way to his ability to do what he was contracted to do which was play football, so his employer had no right to take any action, imo.

It is perhaps worth noting that Rugby Australia are themselves a very long way away from their own reason for being if they’ve somehow ended up in the business of trying to influence religious or political views.

Using a different example, if my car breaks down and I call roadside assistance then I expect that someone will turn up and either fix the car or arrange for it to be towed. I don’t expect them to persuade me who to vote for or recommend what I should eat.

Should whoever turns up be wearing a cross around their neck or have a rainbow flag tattooed on their arm then it won’t bother me either way and I’ll consider that to be a purely personal expression and not one which represents some corporate view of the RAA, NRMA or whoever operates in the relevant state.

Governments make laws and people, not businesses, elect the members of that government.

 

[Value Collector]

In the back of their mind I think many have the thought that if he’d posted the exact opposite view, saying that religion is nonsense and so on, then they plausibly wouldn’t have sacked him for doing so even though many would deem that offensive.

But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.

Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.

even the pope believes that 99.999% of religions are nonsense, except for his one of course.

 

[Value Collector]

That is the exact point I was trying to make with the 'whistle blower'.
If the 'whistle blower' breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, everyone is up in arms to protect his rights.
If the rugby player breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, he deserves everything he gets.

Only if what the whistle blower says is true.

 

[bellenuit]

even the pope believes that 99.999% of religions are nonsense, except for his one of course.

Not quite true. He will never come out and say that any of the other mainstream religions are nonsense, because the basis of any argument he uses would very likely be applicable to claims Christianity is also nonsense, so better to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Value Collector]

Not quite true. He will never come out and say that any of the other mainstream religions are nonsense, because the basis of any argument he uses would very likely be applicable to claims Christianity is also nonsense, so better to keep his mouth shut.

I didn’t say that he would make a statement, I said that he believes it.

 

[Smurf1976]

But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.

Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.

It’s not impossible but I have serious doubts that everyone who goes to church later this morning thinks that it’s all a load of nonsense.

An issue here is most failing to acknowledge that what society considers to be normal and acceptable changes over time.

Compare now with 1979, roughly half a human lifetime ago. It would be easier to list the attitudes which haven’t changed than those which have since the world is a radically different place.

Likewise 1979 versus 1939 very different. Go back another 40 years, late 1800’s, and mountains were widely considered to be ugly apparently and something that humans would ideally remove.

Likewise in 2059 it’s likely that most of what’s considered normal and perfectly reasonable today will be unheard of by then and therein lies the problem with the notion that dissenting views ought to be silenced.

Dissent is how we got from 1979 to 2019 and it’s how we’ll get to to 2059 in terms of societal attitudes. Silence it and we’re going nowhere.

Everything is temporary.

 

[Macquack]

Israel Folau is referenced in this comedy sketch.

 

[rederob]

It is perhaps worth noting that Rugby Australia are themselves a very long way away from their own reason for being if they’ve somehow ended up in the business of trying to influence religious or political views.

Maybe you should consider what RA actually consider are at issue here, as so many posters here are just making up what they want to believe.

That is, that the real issue is that they don’t agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online.

If you think that then you, and those others who continue to make similar claims here, have simply not followed the actual case.
RA commissioned an independent panel of experts to consider what Folau had done, so your claim that RA did not "agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online" is false.

An issue here is most failing to acknowledge that what society considers to be normal and acceptable changes over time.

Rather, the issue most posting here continue to ignore is which actions are lawful and which are not. Rumpy is the principal offender on this front.

 

[SirRumpole]

But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.

Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.

In that case, his remarks are nonsense, have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?

 

[Macquack]

In that case, his remarks are nonsense, have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?

Just so I have your position clear, SirRumpole. If Rugby Australia did not sack Folau, let his contract expire and then said will we never employ Folau ever again. Would you think that is fair enough, or would you still be crying "free speech"?