• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

TRF_Olyy said:
And before the freedom of speech lot turn up - he's absolutely allowed to spout this bile, he's just not free of the consequences of his actions which will, hopefully, be the sporting community putting him in the bin.
Click to expand...
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Ok, I think we all agree the guy is a moron of biblical proportions (no punt intended), but i disagree about the punishments proposed here.
Freedom of speech is paramount. It's as close to an absolute right as you can get, and for good reasons. It's the first right and a necessary condition for a lot of other rights.
And if you want to punish him for what he says, there are other mechanisms.

I am perfectly fine with the tahs cutting him if they decide that 's not how they want to be represented. I don't like it, but i can understand. They are an employer and he is an employee.
I am not so sure about the wallabies thou. I can still see a logical reason to cut him and i'm fine with that.

In both cases i understand management's decision to cut him. What i would strongly disagree with is any Union (ARU, WR, SANZAAR to intervene). That for me is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of these, I don't think anyone could present a reasonable argument that it'd be disproportionate to terminate his employment after this. Freedom of speech is a human right but if you use it to destroy the relationship you have with your employer, in this case by alienating clients and colleagues, you'll get sacked and have no one but yourself to blame.

Legally there are some pretty big differences. First that most jurisdictions have freedom of worship inscribed into their laws. And second, that the following orders line of arguments is used as a defense for actions, not speech.


I agree that that is a problem, but i disagree with your solution. The solution shouldnt come from idiots not having a voice, but by telling those young austrlians how to recognize idiots and not idolizing them. As much as it would pain me to see people in those circumstances, you have to deal with that. That's life. If it is not a rugby player it will be a rockstar, or a DJ, or a politicians, or someone somewhere with stupid views.
If your idol says that you should be told by school, government, friends, family, and every formal and informal institution around him, that people aren't perfect and even they people you idolized yesterday can be a bloody idiot tomorrow, and that a person being good at rugby doesnt mean he has to be the moral standard of anything.

Some of my idols as a kid were Maradona and Roger Waters. At one point you need to differentiate talent from morals.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting thing to point out, right now you're bang on the money and an easy example to make right now of that second point is how millions of golf fans will want Tiger Woods to win this week despite his immoral actions destroying the family lives of his ex-wife and children, I'm one who'd definitely enjoy it too.

The issue with this though is that most religions are massively discriminatory against either homosexuals or women and laws around the world reflect or accommodate this to various degrees, herein lies the problem. Had Folau included "blacks", "Indians", "aboriginals" etc... In that list he could be prosecuted whether it's laws against hate speech or racism or something similar and no one would bat an eye. There's a massive problem here because we're letting ancient texts and political views held 2000 years ago shape our laws today, it's madness when put like that but until religion dies out or becomes wholly negative (it's wrong to deny that it has hugely positive aspects too) legally we're probably stuck there.

As a society we can beat it by treating homophobia or misogyny as strictly as we do racism, either our governing bodies or religious denominations will follow suit and force the other to do the same. It's why Folau's employer (I think it's the ARU contrary to Cruz' post but that could be wrong) have to bin him in my opinion, whether or not it's legal should not make shielding your disgusting views behind a religious veil acceptable in society.

This is coming from a person who still sporadically practices his Catholic faith (pure agnostic on the side of atheism though) and fully did so throughout my childhood, I know my religion preaches similar views but I disagree with them and many of its others, if God exists and won't let me into heaven because I was sound to LGBTQ and boned hot chicks consensually before marriage that's fine, it'd probably be ****!
 
Two wrongs don't make a right... there is no doubt that his prejudice (any prejudice) is unwarranted in today's society but to ban him would simply show that the game is prejudiced against fundamentist/evangelical Christians.

The Australian rugby union should go down the educational/advice route... not necessarily to change his opinion (I'd imagine there is no likelihood of that) but to guide him on the dos and don'ts in public forums.
 
bushytop said:
The Australian rugby union should go down the educational/advice route...
Click to expand...
If Sponsor's and the people who put the money up deem him a liability to their brand they'll give the union little option...
 
One small clarification about my earlier post. If they sack him, i meant paying whatever they have to in order to do so legally. I'm assuming a) there isnt anything in folau's contract that prevents him from doing this b) there is some sort of financial penalty for the tahs if they terminate the contract unilaterally (or pay the contract in full, that too)
The logic would be along the lines of

Tahs: izzie, dude, wtf
Folau: i'll say whatever i want
Tahs: fine, they you're no longer part of the tahs
Folau: fine, just pay me what's left of my contract
Tahs: fine
Folau: fine

The Alpha Bro said:
The issue with this though is that most religions are massively discriminatory against either homosexuals or women and laws around the world reflect or accommodate this to various degrees, herein lies the problem.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree, mostly.
I have two views on this depending on the day/ mood.
The first one is that to solve that you would need to change freedom of worship. Something along the lines of free to worship whatever you want as long as it doesnt conflict with other laws would do. Basically as things stand now you have what could be described as conflicting rights. This means it could be unclear which right takes priority over the other. With this amendment, you would solve that problem. I like this a lot but i dont think the world is ready yet.
The second one is more laissez-faire and would require a different approach to hate speech. Other than shouting very specific things on specific places (cinema, stadium, plane) anything goes. If people act on it the ones acting are responsible. This view comes from the idea that suppressing speech by labelling it hate speech is first a slippery slope and second, it will backfire spectacularly sooner than later. When enough people think something, even if it's stupid/discriminatory, people wont say it out loud but they will vote for someone who promises them to change that, and odds are eventually they will get that chance. When that happens, it 'll look more like revenge than justice. I think the "free for all until you go from words to actions" is the lesser of two evils.

Again, i dont have a firm position on this.
 
Chief Pete said:
If Sponsor's and the people who put the money up deem him a liability to their brand they'll give the union little option...
Click to expand...

You're probably right... but I just think there are better ways to lead by example in the fight against prejudice, than by doing something that will quickly and quite easily be spun into a further act of prejudice.
 
bushytop said:
You're probably right... but I just think there are better ways to lead by example in the fight against prejudice, than by doing something that will quickly and quite easily be spun into a further act of prejudice.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that this isn't his first offense, he's already had his wrist slapped.
 
bushytop said:
You're probably right... but I just think there are better ways to lead by example in the fight against prejudice, than by doing something that will quickly and quite easily be spun into a further act of prejudice.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, although I'd suggest that his action's have put his Union in a terrible situation both commercially and selection for the upcoming world cup so I look at it as a sort of 'you make your bed you lie in it situation', his beliefs are his entitlement right or wrong however he knew as he was posting that on twitter given his position as a top world class professional sportsman that there would possibly be ramification's and consequences to his actions, the guy's a Rockstar in rugby circle's and knows that when he speaks the fans listen....
 
bushytop said:
Two wrongs don't make a right... there is no doubt that his prejudice (any prejudice) is unwarranted in today's society but to ban him would simply show that the game is prejudiced against fundamentist/evangelical Christians.
Click to expand...

Not prejudiced against Christians - just homophobic assholes.

The punishment wouldn't be driven by his beliefs but by his actions. He openly dismissed an entire group of innocent people as evil. That's an objectively awful, detestable thing to do. It doesn't matter how he tries to dress it up, a shitty act in the name of religion is still shitty. God shouldn't be anyone's free pass. If Christians want to be thought of as synonymous with goodness, they need to stop focusing on these horrible outdated views and embrace the more positive aspects of their religion.

There are millions of Christians that fall into that category too. Who espouse the positive teachings from the Bible but who choose to ignore the more regressive parts. There are millions more who might harbour negative feelings towards gay people, but who are at least smart enough to keep it to themselves. Rather than following the example of either of these groups, Folau is using his celebrity to spread hate and to cast judgment on people who might have looked up to him.

He's a horrible representative for any team to have, and he's already been warned on this exact issue and apparently hasn't learned his lesson. If he was to be released, he'd have nobody to blame but himself.
 
bushytop said:
You're probably right... but I just think there are better ways to lead by example in the fight against prejudice, than by doing something that will quickly and quite easily be spun into a further act of prejudice.
Click to expand...
how would it be further act of prejudice?

prejudice is "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." we have plenty of experiences and reasons to think that he's a pretty trash dude
 
themole25 said:
how would it be further act of prejudice?

prejudice is "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." we have plenty of experiences and reasons to think that he's a pretty trash dude
Click to expand...

I actually said it would be 'spun' into a perceived act of prejudice rather than actually be one.
Hanley! said:
Not prejudiced against Christians - just homophobic assholes.

The punishment wouldn't be driven by his beliefs but by his actions. He openly dismissed an entire group of innocent people as evil. That's an objectively awful, detestable thing to do. It doesn't matter how he tries to dress it up, a shitty act in the name of religion is still shitty. God shouldn't be anyone's free pass. If Christians want to be thought of as synonymous with goodness, they need to stop focusing on these horrible outdated views and embrace the more positive aspects of their religion.

There are millions of Christians that fall into that category too. Who espouse the positive teachings from the Bible but who choose to ignore the more regressive parts. There are millions more who might harbour negative feelings towards gay people, but who are at least smart enough to keep it to themselves. Rather than following the example of either of these groups, Folau is using his celebrity to spread hate and to cast judgment on people who might have looked up to him.

He's a horrible representative for any team to have, and he's already been warned on this exact issue and apparently hasn't learned his lesson. If he was to be released, he'd have nobody to blame but himself.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't simply use the word Christian but fundamentalist/evangelical Christian. Concerning the latter, the vast majority agrees with his views.

As with all online debates it's starting to kinda look like I'm defending him/someone here... which I can assure you I am not. Just playing devils advocate.
 
Hanley! said:
The punishment wouldn't be driven by his beliefs but by his actions. He openly dismissed an entire group of innocent people as evil.
Click to expand...
I think this quote represents what many have voiced on this thread so i will use it as an example.
The problem is NOT that folau voiced his beliefs. The problem isn't either that he used social media. That is the symptom, not the root of the problem.
The problem is that the oldest, one of the largest and one of the richest institutions on the planet has those beliefs and preaches them to millions of people since they are able to speak and understand. That is as close to indoctrination as it gets.
The problem is that the preaching of those beliefs, as disgusting as they are, is legal.

Folau is, again, the symptom.
Let me put it in (his terms). Assume for a second he genuinely believes what he was taught by the church. Then what he wrote is his belief. He sincerely and honestly thinks those people will go to hell and suffer for eternity. But he didnt come up with this idiocy himself. He was just infected with it.
Again, he is not the elephant in the room.

I disagree, 100% with what folau but i also dislike (to a lesser degree) incongruences. Allowing freedom of worship and then criticizing someone for voicing what the largest religion on the planet preaches is, at the very least, incongruent, at worst, hypocritical. My memory isn't what it used to be, but i am pretty sure the church has at one point or another voiced those beliefs too.

I think we all agree what happened was wrong. We just disagree on how to adress the issue. I prefer to leave him exposed and attack the root of the problem. If you shut him up he gets to play the victim card.







will use your quote as an example but
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Good
Click to expand...
Agreed. He has again brought the ARU and the Waratahs into disrepute due to his posts. Certainly enough ground to terminate his contract. What he has said is no different to condemning any historically marginalised group (be it aborigines, women etc). Right in the sea with him.
 
If he's out of international contention a French side will pick him up for at least the world cup season.
 

Latest posts

Top