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

[rederob]

Obviously Rob is still dribbling $hit, I can't see it because with the ignore function you don't have to, which is interesting because the thread still flows so his input must be absolutely worthless as usual. lol
Anyway getting back to Folau, I'm sure I read that some clubs were thinking about employing him in breach of RA ruling, now the management has been given the ar$e I'm sure that avenue will be re opened.
It is amasing how you can have a free Australia, until some dick decides your not dancing to my song, well you can only eat so many $hit sandwiches before people say enough is enough.

Anyone wanting to employ Folau can, and he is presently contracted as a player in France.
There is nothing preventing him playing in Australia because what you have said about RA is untrue.
Your knowledge of the Folau case is as sound as Trump's knowledge of COVID-19.

 

[rederob]

Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".

Again, you confuse facts.
A public posting to the internet is not a "private life."
You might be Sir Rumpy, but on matters of law and reasoning you are posting like Humpty Dumpty.

 

[SirRumpole]

Again, you confuse facts.
A public posting to the internet is not a "private life."
You might be Sir Rumpy, but on matters of law and reasoning you are posting like Humpty Dumpty.

Robbie, I really think you would be happier in another country. China or North Korea perhaps.

 

[rederob]

Robbie, I really think you would be happier in another country. China or North Korea perhaps.

Will I meet you there, darling?

 

[SirRumpole]

Will I meet you there, darling?

Yeah, in Tienamin Square.

Bring a flak jacket.

 

[moXJO]

Robbie brings a counterpoint to the forums.
Often a very educated one at that. Conversation would wither and die without posters having differing views.

 

[Logique]

Folau in his long list of those damned to eternal hellfire, made the mistake of mentioning 'homosexuals' and 'atheists'. To some powerful people, and sponsors of the game, here was a gilt-edged opportunity for some social engineering.

The entire matter could have been handled with one RA press release - dissociating RA from Folau's private time social media. But no, the PC bloodhounds were on the scent, as self-appointed arbiters of social mores. But this mandate wasn't theirs to exercise.

No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..

 

[rederob]

No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..

Given that the case had nothing to do with those matters, you seem to keep falling into the hole dug by others who do not understand what was at issue.

 

[SirRumpole]

Robbie brings a counterpoint to the forums.
Often a very educated one at that. Conversation would wither and die without posters having differing views.

He would be better off explaining his views more and less on insulting people.

High handed arrogance never goes down well.

 

[SirRumpole]

The entire matter could have been handled with one RA press release - dissociating RA from Folau's private time social media.

Absolutely correct.

AS I've said for a while, if Folau was sacked for saying something that annoyed RA's sponsors , but was a popular community view, then the shrieks of protest would have gone the other way, in Folau's favour and his rights to speak out.

It's all about him saying things that the social justice warriors don't like being said, not the fact that he "allegedly" broke his contract.

Like others I would have liked to see this go to court because it raises important points about what people are allowed to say in their private lives.

 

[rederob]

He would be better of explaining his views more and less on insulting people.

High handed arrogance never goes down well.

I have said more on this topic, with relevant references and using the applicable laws and reasoning which would be applicable, than any other poster.
You cannot reference a single a law to support your contentions.
You have not shown that you understand what was at issue.
For example, despite Folau and his legal team accepting he had breached the Code of Conduct, his application to the High Court effectively rejected that the Code could be applied to what Folau did in his own time. His defence was that no applicable laws would prevent him posting as he saw fit. Frankly, anyone legally trained could tear that to shreds. Employees are subject to contract law.
RA would also have made it clear that Folau's "workplace" was contractually the public domain as he was paid extra monies specifically to undertake representative duties which were spelled out.
Some have argued that Folau's Player Contract left room for subjective interpretation regarding acceptable use of social media. That would be a thin defence as he provided specific undertakings to RA when signing his new contract, due to being previously reprimanded by RA.
Much of Folau's case was weak. For example, there is a claim as follows:

The content of the Social Media Posts:

• was consistent with content contained in the Bible
• was consistent with traditional Christian views

However, the Bible contains no "Warnings" as accompaniment to content.
The High Court decision was going to roll on whether they accepted that Contract law mas material, or that it was somehow subservient.
It could have been a very protracted and expensive case for all parties, and prior settlement seemed a sensible compromise, with each parting claiming they intended no harm to the other (somewhat laughably!).

Like others I would have liked to see this go to court because it raises important points about what people are allowed to say in their private lives.

You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the public domain you are constrained. You continue to be confused by this point.

 

[SirRumpole]

You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the public domain you are constrained. You continue to be confused by this point.

I'm afraid you are confused about what the terms speech and thought mean.

Free speech means you are entitled to publicly say what you think without suffering penalties. That is what living in a democracy means among other things. All your legal gobbledygook doesn't change the fact that Folau's rights to do this have been curtailed.

 

[SirRumpole]

You cannot reference a single a law to support your contentions.

Do you understand the difference between laws and rights ?

 

[rederob]

Do you understand the difference between laws and rights ?

Apparently you do not.
You have a right to break a contract, but the applicable laws in relation to you exercising that right shall be applied.

 

[SirRumpole]

Apparently you do not.
You have a right to break a contract, but the applicable laws in relation to you exercising that right shall be applied.

What you are saying is that any contract can override human rights. Correct ?

 

[rederob]

What you are saying is that any contract can override human rights. Correct ?

No!
Lawful contracts correctly exercised constrain the respective parties' actions.
Human rights cut both ways.
If one exercises a right that causes hurt, harm or injury to another then what makes it "righteous?"
In these forums we are able to "offend" one another only to a limited degree as some things we might say could become actionable, irrespective of our use of niks/avatars.

 

[SirRumpole]

If one exercises a right that causes hurt, harm or injury to another then what makes it "righteous?"

I would agree with "harm and injury", but "hurt " or "offense" is another matter.

People can choose to be offended by whatever they like, I could choose to be offended by you and vice versa, but that is a matter of choice.

Most people who were mentioned by Folau would just laugh the matter off, only those with very thin skins make the loud noises.

 

[rederob]

I would agree with "harm and injury", but "hurt " or "offense" is another matter.

People can choose to be offended by whatever they like, I could choose to be offended by you and vice versa, but that is a matter of choice.

Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.

Most people who were mentioned by Folau would just laugh the matter off, only those with very thin skins make the loud noises.

This is covering old ground, and formed the basis of RA's decision to sack Folau. I referenced the legal construction of the grounds it generated, so it does not matter how many times you think something is "x," you need to provide the legal basis that guides that thinking.

 

[SirRumpole]

Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.

Yes they can, because the laws were passed by thin skinned social justice warriors and foisted on us without debate.

Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean that people can't object to it, my objection is that it reduces our rights to speak (including the truth) if it may possibly offend someone somewhere.

This is the classic case of over application of a stupid law that wastes the time of the courts and drags people through the court system for harmless statements.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-lab-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-thrown-out

 

[rederob]

Yes they can, because the laws were passed by thin skinned social justice warriors and foisted on us without debate.

False.
These laws are regularly debated, as they were many times before coming into effect.

Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean that people can't object to it, my objection is that it reduces our rights to speak (including the truth) if it may possibly offend someone somewhere.

Objecting to something does not diminish the law.
You want a right to harm others by expressing your opinions in public. Why not just express your opinions in private?

This is the classic case of over application of a stupid law that wastes the time of the courts and drags people through the court system for harmless statements.

It's Contract law, and forms the basis of most undertakings between parties.
Folau is the ultimate hypocrite and opportunist.
He got everyone else to fund his legal case, and wanted millions more on top.