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

[SirRumpole]

That is the entirety of his claim. Outside of that he has no scope press forward.

I'd say he has several avenues of argument open to him.

 

[rederob]

If he wasn't religious he wouldn't have a case.

If all he said was lifted entirely from the Bible then there would not be an issue.
Warning that so many categories of people would go to Hell is disparaging and disrespectful. But that does not require the instigator to be religious, and nor does a direct quote from Bible.

I'd say he has several arguments open to him.

Which are based on what laws?

 

[SirRumpole]

Which are based on what laws?

The UN Declaration of Human Rights involving Freedom of Expression for one.

 

[rederob]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights involving Freedom of Expression for one.

Not a law.
Next.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not a law.
Next.

It's a Treaty that the Australian Government has signed which makes them duty bound to uphold.

Next.

 

[rederob]

It's a Treaty that the Australian Government has signed which makes them duty bound to uphold.

It's not a law and that's the end of it.
Government's flout treaties at their will.

 

[basilio]

Gillian Triggs has offered a very good analysis on the Israel Falou case. And yes it is complicated.

Are you for Israel Folau or against? We love a simple answer but this is not a binary case
Gillian Triggs
The legal question is whether a private employment contract can restrict or oust a fundamental human right

@GillianTriggs
Mon 1 Jul 2019 02.41 BST Last modified on Mon 1 Jul 2019 02.42 BST

Shares
0




It has been a divisive national conversation but the penalty must fit the crime. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAP
Are you for Israel Folau or against? What a pity that Folau’s dismissal by Rugby Australia should be reduced to an ideological and binary debate. Of course, we love a simple answer. Twitter views are various: the Folau case is exclusively a matter of contract law; Folau has the rights to freedom of speech and religious expression; the law should protect against harmful homophobic abuse.

I suggest the Folau case is about all of these ideas.

It is ironic the Folau case has exposed the gaps in Australia’s protections for fundamental freedoms just as the government is about to introduce a new bill to increase protections for religious freedoms.

When considering the need for additional religious protections, it might help if we review the existing legal principles that underpin our freedoms to inform an increasingly complex and divisive national discussion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/c...a-simple-answer-but-this-is-not-a-binary-case

 

[SirRumpole]

It's not a law and that's the end of it.
Government's flout treaties at their will.

Governments may, the courts less so.

I presume you are saying that all laws are good robbie ?

Or only the ones that you agree with ?

 

[rederob]

Governments may, the courts less so.

Governments make the laws.
You keep making up what you want to believe.
Maybe do a bit more research before you post what you do.

 

[Value Collector]

Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.

Everything from wars and the White Australia Policy to dams and coal mines. All fully legal at the time, in many cases being the actions of government itself, and geneally with mainstream support but rarely were those with a dissenting view actually silenced.

The mainstream media still reported the news and gave dissenting views a fair run despite relying on advertising $ from the other side and those aligned with it. And those advertisers didn’t walk away just because their advertising $ didn’t buy editorial influence and nor did they expect it to.

If you want to be an activist for a cause, no one with stop you, it’s your legal right.

However, if you have signed a contract and accepted millions of dollars promising a third party that you will not “rock the boat” and be involved in that sort of stuff for a set duration, then you might find that third party dissolving the contract and refusing to pay you.

None of this is about his right to protest, it’s 100% about whether be broke the promise he made when he signed his contract and accepted the payments.

So again, this isn’t about his right to protest, no one is suggesting he doesn’t have that right, it’s about whether he promised not to do those things.

He can protest to his hearts content, no one is stopping him.

 

[wayneL]

I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.

Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments, LOL.

 

[Smurf1976]

So again, this isn’t about his right to protest, no one is suggesting he doesn’t have that right, it’s about whether he promised not to do those things.

In the context of the courts it'll come down to whether the conditions in the contract are valid.

Any contract must comply with all relevant laws as set by government (federal, state, local) as well as those of any other body with the power to impose regulations.

In the broader debate there's the question of, regardless of whether it is actually legal or not, should it be legal? That is the moral "free speech" argument.

 

[SirRumpole]

Governments make the laws.
You keep making up what you want to believe.
Maybe do a bit more research before you post what you do.

Don't make me laugh robbie, you are the one who is clueless.

Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.

 

[sptrawler]

I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.

Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments, LOL.

Which will be the very reason, that the R.A camp pushed so hard, for Folau to have to fund himself.
This will go and on, and cost $millions.IMO
R.A has deep pockets, but if the church gets involved, they also have deep pockets.
It would be so much better IMO, if R.A had chosen a different path, there will be no winners.

 

[wayneL]

 

[wayneL]

 

[moXJO]

If all he said was lifted entirely from the Bible then there would not be an issue.
Warning that so many categories of people would go to Hell is disparaging and disrespectful. But that does not require the instigator to be religious, and nor does a direct quote from Bible.
Which are based on what laws?

Preaching which is under 772 religion. He is practicing his faith. Thats covered. Thats also the argument. Unlawful termination is what we are looking at.

Its a summarized quote from someone with a long verifiable religious history. AR wants to show otherwise.

 

[moXJO]

I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.

Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments, LOL.

This is the truth right here. It's easy to argue either way.

 

[moXJO]

Heres a couple more:

"As far as legal strategies go, Clyne’s comments appear to have given Folau a new legal avenue. It will be up to Folau’s legal team, led by Stuart Wood QC, to determine whether Clyne has just exposed a new legal claim of inducement to breach a contract by RA’s sponsors. The claim goes like this: if RA breached its contract with Folau by sacking him, then sponsors induced that breach of contract by pressuring RA over the debacle. Inducing a breach of contract is an economic tort at common law.

And there is more. Sydney barrister Jeff Phillips SC, a senior silk who specialises in employment law, told The Australian yesterday that, having read Clyne’s comments, there is a real possibility of yet another new legal avenue for Folau’s team. In addition to a common law claim of interference with contractual relations, Phillip says there may also be a breach of Australian competition laws."

Anyone who thinks RA hasn't completely mishandled this has rocks in their head. From the get go it's been a mess.

 

[rederob]

Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.

Absolutely WRONG.
You really are clueless.