• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

truthteller said:
no code of conduct can force a person to deny their own religious beliefs, such a contract would never stand up....I think folau will win massive damages here
Click to expand...
The code of conduct doesn't do this at all. It just says that if he believes such things then he ought not say them whilst contracted to RA. Pretty simple rule to follow and there are absolutely no rules to state this is an unenforceable term of a contract. There isn't even a 'religious discrimination' Act. Any law suit for wrongful dismissal on religious persecution grounds must run the argument that the discrimination amounts to racial discrimination as defined in the Racial Discrimination Act. To do this, he has to convince the Court that being Christian and being an Islander are inextricably linked, which is possible but not likely in my opinion.

It should be an interesting case. I don't think he stands much of a chance. High bar and not a lot of precedent on his side.

By way of analogy: What if my religion taught me that all black people were subhuman and that they were all going to burn in hell? I would be so f'ing fired for saying that and no one would bat an eyelid or even mumble religious persecution.

At the end of the day, as far as i know in Australian law there is no rule that would mean that he cannot be bound by the code of conduct as it is an enforceable and valid contractual term. The RA have followed procedure in seeking his dismissal and i expect the Court to uphold his dismissal with costs.

Edit: please note the above analysis is a legal one, im not passing judgment on what is right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Most countries who has the freedom of religion and freedom of speech also have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself.

If a journalist outright asks a rugby player such a sensitive question during a press conference on non-rugby related issues. I'm sure the press conference would be stopped, and someone would tell the player not to answer that question.

But again, it's not the same situation as in Folau's case. Folau wasn't asked about his beliefs or anything like that, he intentionally went on Social Media and made that statement. He intentionally said those comments knowing that people would find offence.

The other difference is that had such a question been asked, and a player would have answered, there would have been some kind of apology by the player in terms of saying things he didn't really mean, or that it was taken out of context or something within those lines. But again, not the same situation as in Folau's case.
 
Derpus said:
The code of conduct doesn't do this at all. It just says that if he believes such things then he ought not say them whilst contracted to RA. Pretty simple rule to follow and there are absolutely no rules to state this is an unenforceable term of a contract. There isn't even a 'religious discrimination' Act. Any law suit for wrongful dismissal on religious persecution grounds must run the argument that the discrimination amounts to racial discrimination as defined in the Racial Discrimination Act. To do this, he has to convince the Court that being Christian and being an Islander are inextricably linked, which is possible but not likely in my opinion.

It should be an interesting case. I don't think he stands much of a chance. High bar and not a lot of precedent on his side.

By way of analogy: What if my religion taught me that all black people were subhuman and that they were all going to burn in hell? I would be so f'ing fired for saying that and no one would bat an eyelid or even mumble religious persecution.

At the end of the day, as far as i know in Australian law there is no rule that would mean that he cannot be bound by the code of conduct as it is an enforceable and valid contractual term. The RA have followed procedure in seeking his dismissal and i expect the Court to uphold his dismissal with costs.

Edit: please note the above analysis is a legal one, im not passing judgment on what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Depends if his judge is a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim
 
was the homosexual boss of qantas impartial when he tried to write a contract that stopped a man speaking his truth? Perhaps a religious judge will see the viewpoint that taking a mans right to his own religious opinion away is not legally enforceable
 
truthteller said:
was the homosexual boss of qantas impartial when he tried to write a contract that stopped a man speaking his truth? Perhaps a religious judge will see the viewpoint that taking a mans right to his own religious opinion away is not legally enforceable
Click to expand...
....wha?

Dude, a person trying to push his own interests on one side of a contract is the very definition of vested interest. He has absolutely no obligation to be impartial. It doesn't even make sense in the context.

If i enter into a contract i'm making sure that contract gets me what i want.

A religious judge will assess the law as it stands, not how people thinks it stands. As i said there is no Religious Discrimination Act and the right you have just made up does not exist.
 
Derpus said:
....wha?

Dude, a person trying to push his own interests on one side of a contract is the very definition of vested interest. He has absolutely no obligation to be impartial. It doesn't even make sense in the context.

If i enter into a contract i'm making sure that contract gets me what i want.

A religious judge will assess the law as it stands, not how people thinks it stands. As i said there is no Religious Discrimination Act and the right you have just made up does not exist.
Click to expand...
You are wrong
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion
 
truthteller said:
You are wrong
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion
Click to expand...
That's a UK act ratifying a European convention. Does not apply.

In this section you can find out about The Human Rights Act 1998 and the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to.

The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. It incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. The Human Rights Act came into force in the UK in October 2000.
Click to expand...

AND i read it anyway. It only talks about public authorities (i.e. this does not apply to your employer) stopping you from believing your religion. It even says the public authority can stop you from publicly practising your religion under certain circumstances. Nothing about voluntarily contracting out of being able to say certain things, breaching said contract and then being fired.

Nice try but not even close.
 
Last edited:
truthteller said:
australian law is virtually identical
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief
Click to expand...
Getting warmer.

That's pulled from the United Nations Bill of Rights which is a composition of different documents outlining agreed human rights at an international level. It is not of itself Australian law, though Australia has agreed to be bound by it and also looked to ratify it to some extent. The following legislation was made, generally, subsequent to becoming a signatory to the Bill of Rights:
Now, Izzy might be able to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission for breach of an international convention for human rights (complete hail mary). He hasn't done this, so it's not relevant. As an aside, Australia has a long and sad history of human rights abuses and largely ignoring international convention that it's signed to - make of that what you will.

Beyond this you are framing the issue incorrectly. He is not being censured, imprisoned or otherwise inhibited by a public authority. Rather, he has agreed not to express his opinion and done so regardless of his contractual obligations.

He therefore has to establish that the contract term violates one of the existing Discrimination Acts. It doesn't unless (as i said earlier) he can successfully argue that being Christian and being Islander is inextricably linked and it is therefore racially discriminatory.

Beyond that, his rights aren't being impinged. He's completely free to say what he wants and won't be punished by a public authority.

Sooooo


tVaXzcO.gif


This is why i think it's such a long shot. He basically has to argue that being bound to a code of conduct is somehow discriminatory, which in lay terms is ludicrous.

It's entirely possible that there is some angle I'm missing though. Like, the term might be unenforceable for some other reason like vagueness.
 
Last edited:
truthteller said:
australian law is virtually identical
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief
Click to expand...

Erm. Is anyone preventing Folau from (Article 18(1)):
  • Adopting a religion of his choice?
  • manifest his religion or belief in worship?
The answer is no.

Is he being coerced that would impair him from adopting his religion or belief of choice (Article 18(2))?

The answer is no.

Is Folau manifesting his beliefs or religion in such a manner but also limited as prescribed by other laws and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (Article 18(3))?

The answer is no. And here is the problem.

Folau is the one, not abiding by the laws of Australia. Not any other person involved in this matter.

Nobody is stopping Folau from having his beliefs, and following his religion, and expressing his beliefs within his own religious community.

But Folau's remarks are the ones that are infringing on the law you mentioned, as well as other laws, you happily left out. I guess it's because you love to hammer on 1 single issue of a very bigger issue, and doesn't know enough about the rest to make an educated response.

Come on dude, you need to put more effort in trying to make a case...
 
truthteller said:
was the homosexual boss of qantas impartial when he tried to write a contract that stopped a man speaking his truth? Perhaps a religious judge will see the viewpoint that taking a mans right to his own religious opinion away is not legally enforceable
Click to expand...

Careful now, your true colours are becoming visible!
 
BobbyM said:
He knowingly signed it with the awareness that it conflicted with his beliefs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer too.
Two points.

1) This is where we disagree. You would need to read minds to prove that.
What if i told you, instead, "he signed that with the awareness that his employer had no right to ask him that and therefore it was inapplicable".

It would be for a judge to decide, which is where we stand today.

2) Every person i know who signs the non competes i mentioned signs them in bad faith, which, as far i understand, kinda destroys your argument.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Thanks for your answer too.
Two points.

1) This is where we disagree. You would need to read minds to prove that.
What if i told you, instead, "he signed that with the awareness that his employer had no right to ask him that and therefore it was inapplicable".

It would be for a judge to decide, which is where we stand today.

2) Every person i know who signs the non competes i mentioned signs them in bad faith, which, as far i understand, kinda destroys your argument.
Click to expand...
I've never worked with anyone thats openly said they've signed they're contract In bad faith, you must roll with a particular kind of person, every contract I've signed had non compete and it's something you have to take into consideration, does it cover a different country, does it only cover direct competitors etc

I know several people in aus and nz that have had non competes enforced, they disappeared from the market for six months or something and come back firing
 
Jabby said:
I've never worked with anyone thats openly said they've signed they're contract In bad faith, you must roll with a particular kind of person, every contract I've signed had non compete and it's something you have to take into consideration, does it cover a different country, does it only cover direct competitors etc

I know several people in aus and nz that have had non competes enforced, they disappeared from the market for six months or something and come back firing
Click to expand...

Well regardless of anything else, non-compete clauses have nothing whatever to do with Folau's troubles here.

The matter is relatively simple

1. Rugby Australia have a policy
2. They rightfully expect their employees to abide by that policy, and contract them to do so
3. Folau violated that policy and was warned that if he did so again, he would be fired
4. Folau agreed to not violate that policy
5. Folau then violated that policy again

I can't see how anyone can complain about what RA has done here.

The argument that Folau could have signed the contract in bad faith thinking that he knew certain clauses were unenforceable is just a whole bunch of completely spurious bullshit. There are certain elements of contract law that talk about bargaining and contracting in good faith. When he signed, he accepted all the clauses.

Its also worth noting that when Folau crossed the line the first time, he made a public statement to the effect that if his continuing to play rugby ever became incompatible with his religious beliefs, he would walk away from rugby. He hasn't done that, so that makes him a liar, and accordong to his own rant, he is going straight to hell.
 
It is perfectly reasonable to sign a contract and believe some elements are unenforceable (therefore illegal) if the rest of the contract meets your requirements especially if you believe the contract will be less favourable if you don't sign it.

I when I was a tenant did sign some clauses that I knew were unenforceable but it's not my fault the landlord didn't know that. More importantly they wouldn't agree to the tenancy without them.

However non compete clauses are fairly standard and completely enforceable as are IP ones I have to sign. As are codes of conduct especially when they invoke not offending customer due to their race/religion/sexuality in fact they usually amount to gross misconduct and instant dismissal. And yes just because it offend your religion isn't a good enough reason.
 

Latest posts

Top