• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Two points if you dont mind. First, my main point was more about people here saying that he shouldn't have the right to say/post/tweet that. I think he should have that right. And i do agree with many here that that could have consequences and i am fine with that. However, and this brings me to my second point, i haven't seen the contract and i do not know whether this is grounds for termination or if under the pertinent jurisdiction any grounds are actually required.
Click to expand...

Its not about grounds for termination, and they are not policing his opinions or his rights to believe what he wants. They are policing his conduct!

Rugby Union is a sport that internationally prides itself on inclusiveness. That means all races, creeds and colours, all ethnicities and nationalities, regardless of sexuality or religion.

REGULATION 20. MISCONDUCT AND CODE OF CONDUCT

20.3 For the purposes of these Regulations Relating to the Game, "Misconduct" shall mean any conduct, behaviour, statements and/or practices on or off the playing enclosure during or in connection with a Match or otherwise, that is unsporting and/or cheating and/or insulting and/or unruly and/or ill-disciplined and/or that brings or has the potential to bring the Game and/or any of its constituent bodies, World Rugby and/or its appointed personnel or commercial partners and/or Match Officials and/or judicial personnel into disrepute.

20.4 While it is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of the types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices that may amount to Misconduct under these Regulations, by way of illustration, each of the following types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices however or wheresoever undertaken are examples of and constitute Misconduct:

(c) acts or statements that are, or conduct that is, discriminatory by reason of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, colour or national or ethnic origin;​

All Rugby contracts contain clauses as to player conduct, and these clauses, by WR Regulation, must comply with WR Regulation 20. You don't need to see his contract to know that it will contain a compliant code of conduct clause. It will either have a direct clause which reiterates the wording of Regulation 20, or they will have a reference something like, "...the player must comply with all WR regulations"

You also do not have to be Einstein to see that what he did was a direct violation of WR Regulation 20.4 (c)

Players understand fully that they are restricted as to what they are allowed to say to the media and on social media.This is not the first time Folau has run afoul of Regulation 20, and he was warned that time that if he did so again, his contract would be at risk. He is the engineer of his own demise.

Good riddance... the game doesn't need religious bigots!
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Bollcoks. Sugar coat it the way you want, but he is being punished for what he believes.
Click to expand...

No, he's being punished for expressing objectionable ideas in public.

I can tell you for sure that if one of my employees were say what Folau has said, to one of my customers, I would fire them on the spot.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, arguably the issue here, but let's at least have the intellectual honesty to a spade a spade.
He just said it out loud. You are twisting words just to make it sound as if you are not interfering with freedom of worship and freedom of speech. That is just not true.
Click to expand...

Saying it out loud is the problem and it is punishable in any reasonable society. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it does not imply freedom from consequences of that speech.

The great jurist Oliver Wendall Holmes (Associate US Supreme Court justice 1902 to 1932) in Schenck v. United States, wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theatre". While you might be free to shout fire in a theatre where there was no fire, you would also be held responsible for any damage, injury or death caused in the rush for patrons to get out of the theatre.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
This is not someone who hit someone on a bar, resited an arrest or got drunk and disorderly. He just said, out loud, what his religion says all the bloody time. Saying he is not being punished for his beliefs is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

You were wrong before, and you are wrong again. If his beliefs were at issue, he would not have a contract in the first place.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Let me take this argument to the logical extreme to illustrate:
Click to expand...

Good, I like it when people do this; it makes it all that much easier to tear their arguments to shreds.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
what folau said is, exactly what catholic priests and catechists teach.
Click to expand...

Catholic priests are employees of the Catholic Church. In expressing those beliefs they are complying with and repeating the policy of their employers.

Folau is an employee of Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union. In expressing those beliefs he is going DIRECTLY AGAINST the policy of those two bodies.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Wearing a cross is a sign of belonging to this religion (lets assume catholic alone for simplification but without losing generalization) and indirectly endorsing it's values and beliefs.
Following your logic, if a pro rugby player were to wear a cross on public, he would be promoting those exact same values and therefore liable to be fired from franchise and union.
Click to expand...

No, the cross/crucifix is a symbol of Christianity NOT exclusively of the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian denominations use the crucifix or stylized versions of it as symbols of the Christianity. Some of those denominations, for example the "Community of Christ" (an offshoot of the Mormons) extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, and provide covenant commitment ceremonies where it is not legal. They also allow the ordination of gays and lesbians to the priesthood. The Evangelical Lutheran Church allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy. Their policy states that LGBTQ+ individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and to participate in the life of the congregation.

There, your extreme example has just been demolished.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
The difference is i have no problem with attacking the root of the problem: unrestricted freedom of worship is just plain stupid. We tell people "you have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how silly, stupid, xenophobe, racist or mysoginist it is" and then we complain when people actually have stupid, xenophobe, racist or misogynist beliefs.

You want to have freedom of speech, freedom of worship and people not offending each other. Well that is not going to work and trying to do so by saying that instead of beliefs and speech they are judging his conduct is not gonna make the cut, Not by a long shot. That just semantical bs. And it doesn't work
Click to expand...

You're confusing these two. Freedom of worship is absolute, freedom of speech is not, it comes with constraints and responsibilities.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Not sure what the legal definition of statement is. Is everything and anything he says while not representing the tahs/wallabies liable to be scrutinized
Click to expand...

"Statement" is anything you say.

Cruz_del_Sur said:
And i really dont get the "in connection with a match or otherwise" part. What does otherwise mean in that context. Because if it means with or without connection to a match then why would you even include that at all?
Click to expand...

It is simply stating that misconduct does not have to be in relation to a match to be punishable

Referee Nigel Owens is an openly gay man. This is a well known fact in rugby.

If a player were to call him a "fucking queer" during a match in which Owens was the referee - that is "in connection with a match".
If a player were to call him a "fucking queer" in a social media post or a newspaper article - that is "or otherwise".

Both are punishable under Regulation 20.4 (c)

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Explain this one to me: if discrimination based on sex is an offence, then how come we have mens and women's rugby?
Click to expand...

If we didn't allow women to play rugby, that could be construed as sexual discrimination

We separate them into different competitions at adult level for two reasons
1. Player safety
2. The nature of the physical contact involved

I am quite sure that if I was a female prop, I would rather not have a male lock binding onto me on my side of the scrum (if you don't understand why, you've never played at prop, so ask one to explain it to you)

NOTE: In New Zealand, girls and boys play in the same teams up to U13 grade.
 
smartcooky said:
Looks like Billy Vunipola has been given the kick by Channel 4

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-u...channel-4-supporting-israel-folau-homophobia/

Fans gave him an earful for the whole Bath v Sarries match.
Click to expand...
I know on a map its pretty hard differentiate Bath from Bristol but they are very different places. ;)

Still happy the fans have voiced their displeasure and whilst I don't think Billy will get more than a slapped wrist and a stern talking to. I think it's good terraces are making it clear we don't want it in rugby.
 
I deleted my post before you replied as some of the things i had to explain are elementary and the discussion pointless.
Having said that, I will make a few minor points as i see some of your arguments are so out of touch with reality i cant resist myself.

smartcooky said:
No, he's being punished for expressing objectionable ideas in public.
Click to expand...
This might come as a shock, but those objectionable ideas that he presented on his personal instagram account are his beliefs.
His religion promotes those beliefs. Again, what he said, technically, is not very different from saying i am of (this particular chapter) of a very popular religion.

In a nutshell, he is being punished for saying out loud that people with different sexual orientation are going to an imaginary place.
1000th time, i think he is not only wrong and an idiot for believing that.

If we didn't allow women to play rugby, that could be construed as sexual discrimination

We separate them into different competitions at adult level for two reasons
1. Player safety
2. The nature of the physical contact involved
Click to expand...
Not true.
First, what you just described is a texbook case of what legally constitutes discrimination by gender/sex (depending on jurisdiction).
Second, i or you, are probably more at risk playing with the women's professional team than a men's professional team, yet the statutes would allow us to play in a mens team yet not on a women's team.
 
Might be his personal instagram account, but does he also post sponsorship and club stuff on said Instagram?
Does he use it to give his beliefs a platform?
If so then it isn't just a personal instagram account.

I mean he could make it private like a lot of other players do have and only limit it to friends, familes and players.
 
My last job we had a whole thing about social media and how we could face disciplinary action for saying hateful shite on there and the safest bet is to just make everything private so no one can link you to the company.
 
That's not the point. Personal as in he is not representing his employer, his club nor his country when he posts. And he never claimed he did.

To add to what Oly posted, at pretty much every job i held in continental europe i was told by every legal and HR department never, ever, under no circumstance, to use social media posts as grounds for dismissal (picture standard permanent contract, no breach, confidentiality, etc). Off the record we were told if we wanted we could fir the people for that, but that we needed to present it as something else as legally it was just unacceptable and it would backfire.
 
But the point it is isn't just his personal instagram if he promotes products etc.

Also people have been able to fire people over social media posts for some time now,
Sure they are legal aspects to it like every other firing that happens, but it has never ever not been the case for some time now.
So not sure who told you that.
 
Your job sounds very different to mine then as we were specifically told we could be fired for social media.

Also Izzy signed contracts with clauses about inclusivity and public image etc.

Really strange hill to die on, tbh
 
48t7cljff3s21.jpg

Hey kids, can you spell hypocrite? Darce is crap at taking screenshots though.
 
I mean TBF to Izzy, he one was posted this year the other 3 years ago.

A person can change, which I think he has (Granted not for the better it seems).


Darcy is a classic boomer with those Screenshots.
 
Tigs Man said:
I mean TBF to Izzy, he one was posted this year the other 3 years ago.

A person can change, which I think he has (Granted not for the better it seems).


Darcy is a classic boomer with those Screenshots.
Click to expand...
Quiet you hellbound self fornicator!
Ah yeah, there's definitely eh better arguments against Folau, but I just liked the bants. Speaking of which, Marler has been on great form recently.
 
smartcooky said:
Oops
Click to expand...
Can confirm it wasn't just when BV came on (it was very loud then) and continued with intensity throughout whenever he was near the play. Great atmosphere at Ashton Gate last night even without that.

I don't know what Sarries management were thinking involving him, even saying it was unexpected post match. :confused:
 
Izzy isn't backing down:

"It's obviously a decision that's in the process right now but I believe in a God that's in control of all things," Folau told the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Whatever His will is, whether that's to continue playing or not, I'm more than happy to do what He wants me to do."

He said: "First and foremost, I live for God now. Whatever He wants me to do, I believe His plans for me are better than whatever I can think. If that's not to continue on playing, so be it.

"In saying that, obviously I love playing footy and if it goes down that path I'll definitely miss it. But my faith in Jesus Christ is what comes first."

The Australian international also admitted that he has not been surprised by the reaction to his post, but refused to reconsider the comments he made.

"Obviously, it's a tough time but for me I find comfort in obviously what the Bible says," Folau added.

"Those that live for Christ will be persecuted for his name. So for me, [the reaction] wasn't a surprise. I have love towards everyone that might be saying negative things… I choose to love them because God loves me.

"I'll stand on what the Bible says. I share it with love. I can see the other side of the coin where people's reactions are the total opposite to how I'm sharing it. But in Ezekiel, chapter 33, verse 11, it says that 'God has no pleasure in the person that's living in sin…'

"He's a loving God and he wants people to turn away from what they're living in and he'll give them life. That's the message that I'm trying to share, even though it comes across as harsh. I can't change what the word of God says."
Click to expand...

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/israel-folau-refuses-to-back-down-over-anti-gay-post/
 
Fair to say he is making his own bed which he wishes to lie in.
Will go down in history as a truly gifted religious convert who gave up what he was truly good at RIP Izzy will miss your play even though I dislike the Aussies.
 

Latest posts

Top