- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,823
- Reactions
- 13,871
I'd say he has several avenues of argument open to him.
That is the entirety of his claim. Outside of that he has no scope press forward.
If all he said was lifted entirely from the Bible then there would not be an issue.If he wasn't religious he wouldn't have a case.
Which are based on what laws?I'd say he has several arguments open to him.
Which are based on what laws?
Not a law.The UN Declaration of Human Rights involving Freedom of Expression for one.
Not a law.
Next.
It's not a law and that's the end of it.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.
Governments make the laws.Governments may, the courts less so.
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.
In the context of the courts it'll come down to whether the conditions in the contract are valid.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.
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.
Which will be the very reason, that the R.A camp pushed so hard, for Folau to have to fund himself.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.
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.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?
This is the truth right here. It's easy to argue either way.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.
Absolutely WRONG.Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?