Jaminet released and suspended from French squad after racist remarks

[Which Tyler]

A] Hasnt he done that?

B] I know tensions are high in France, not just politically but culturally, I wonder if these beliefs are far more widely held than we think, I mean the recent voting results would suggest so

A] Not to my knowledge
B] Yes, they are. That doesn't make them right, or mean that we shouldn't condemn them when they come out. Racism isn't okay just because it's rife.

As for people branding him as an evil person now and forevermore - as far as I can tell, that's a straw-man argument, as nobody has done that.
He said a racist thing. That is bad. We can absolutely condemn him for saying a racist thing. No further facts are necessary. Regretting it, saying that's it's not really him doesn't make a difference, the words have been said, and broadcast. We can condemn him for that.
It doesn't make him an evil person. It doesn't make him a bad person. It doesn't mean he should be condemned forever more. It just gives an indication.

 

[dirty harry]

A] Not to my knowledge
B] Yes, they are. That doesn't make them right, or mean that we shouldn't condemn them when they come out. Racism isn't okay just because it's rife.

As for people branding him as an evil person now and forevermore - as far as I can tell, that's a straw-man argument, as nobody has done that.
He said a racist thing. That is bad. We can absolutely condemn him for saying a racist thing. No further facts are necessary. Regretting it, saying that's it's not really him doesn't make a difference, the words have been said, and broadcast. We can condemn him for that.
It doesn't make him an evil person. It doesn't make him a bad person. It doesn't mean he should be condemned forever more. It just gives an indication.

Can you name the person claiming what he said was right?

talk about strawman.

 

[dirty harry]

I'm not sure he has. Perhaps it was lost in translation but he said something like "it does not reflect my values and I am not racist" - how are we supposed to take the comments he made in the video as anything but the very opposite of his defence claims?

If there was some context missing surely it would have been provided by now as it would definitely help from an optics perspective and lessen potential punishments from various unions and bodies?

Of course I'm willing to wait for the official findings of the FFR investigation but I certainly won't be spinning up reasons as to why someone who provably said some pretty bad stuff is actually innocent.

I havnt seen the video, but I assumed he had made the same old generic PR spin statements no?

Also, again, who's claiming innocence?

 

[dirty harry]

Is it so hard to think that he's racist and is used to saying these things with his racist friends?
He didn't mean to post it publicly he meant to send it to his handpicked close friends list

Ye, your probably right. But as a high profile athlete, the level of stupidity to make such a video in the first place. Youd think if you were engaging in this type of activity with friends you would provide at least 1 layer of cover for yourself.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Youd think if you were engaging in this type of activity with friends you would provide at least 1 layer of cover for yourself.

I mean he tried to send it to a private group, it was a drunken accident to make it public

 

[Which Tyler]

Can you name the person claiming what he said was right?

talk about strawman.

Sorry, I've been making an assumption here, is English your not first language?
Where have I indicated that someone said he was right?


Now, for the third time of asking, what new facts can you foresee, that would make the unacceptable words he used, acceptable?
I know you've said about drunken / drugged rants - but is it your opinion that that makes them okay? we don't get to condemn someone for saying racist things because they were drunk/drugged up? If so, I absolutely and 100% reject your notion.

 

[ncurd]

Thinking back to the Israel Folau I'm in interested to why when someone does/say something abhorrent people tie themselves in knots trying to make sure they face no consequences for their actions.

 

[Which Tyler]

Thinking back to the Israel Folau I'm in interested to why when someone does/say something abhorrent people tie themselves in knots trying to make sure they face no consequences for their actions.

For some people, it's because they don't think that the abhorrent words/act aren't abhorrent, and therefore don't think there should be any consequence.
For most people, it's confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequence". The former means that the state can't prosecute you for that speech, it doesn't mean that others can't judge you for it, and, for example, terminate an employment contract, or sponsorship deal, or remove you from their platform - but people often think it means the latter.
Similarly "innocent until proven guilty" is for the legal courts. You and I, and anyone in here can hold and express our own opinions on a matter, and assign our own opinion of innocence or guilt as we see fit. We can't fine or jail anyone for it, and there may be legal difficulties in terminating an employment contract based on that presumption; but we're absolutely free to boycott that person, that event, that group.

I'm sure other people have other reasons, but I think those would be the big two.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

For most people, it's confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequence".

The overlap of people who don't get his and also use the phrase "you wouldn't say it to my face" always amuses me!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Currently there are some big differences between Folau and Jaminet. Jaminet is 25 while Folau was 30 when he said those things. Jaminet is clearly old enough to know better but also young enough to be an idiot from time to time. He's rightfully been suspended and told to go home. Folau also kept doubling down and refused to back down from the hate. We haven't seen how Jaminet responds to this. Maybe a year or two in time out will make him a better person.

 

[dirty harry]

Sorry, I've been making an assumption here, is English your not first language?
Where have I indicated that someone said he was right?


Now, for the third time of asking, what new facts can you foresee, that would make the unacceptable words he used, acceptable?
I know you've said about drunken / drugged rants - but is it your opinion that that makes them okay? we don't get to condemn someone for saying racist things because they were drunk/drugged up? If so, I absolutely and 100% reject your notion.

Please tell me you see the irony in this comment... please please please!!!

Noone has said this is acceptable, I have never said there are context in which this becomes acceptable.

What I said, and please re read this if required, is that I would like to know the reason for this, due to it being crazy stupid to do.

 

[ncurd]

Currently there are some big differences between Folau and Jaminet. Jaminet is 25 while Folau was 30 when he said those things. Jaminet is clearly old enough to know better but also young enough to be an idiot from time to time. He's rightfully been suspended and told to go home. Folau also kept doubling down and refused to back down from the hate. We haven't seen how Jaminet responds to this. Maybe a year or two in time out will make him a better person.

I was being a bit glib. Ithink the French authorities are handling this exactly as they should.

 

[dirty harry]

Thinking back to the Israel Folau I'm in interested to why when someone does/say something abhorrent people tie themselves in knots trying to make sure they face no consequences for their actions.

It's called empathy.

I defended Folau at the time, as he 100% has the right to practice his religion however he felt. Infact I was debating this with a friend, who went OFF on the Folau issue, until her best friend who practices Islam refused to condemn Folau, as she had similar beliefs to his statement. That was a real awkward squirm of a back pedal.

I can think Folau is a dikk head for his religious beliefs, while recognising his UN recognised human right to believe it.

 

[dirty harry]

For some people, it's because they don't think that the abhorrent words/act aren't abhorrent, and therefore don't think there should be any consequence.
For most people, it's confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequence". The former means that the state can't prosecute you for that speech, it doesn't mean that others can't judge you for it, and, for example, terminate an employment contract, or sponsorship deal, or remove you from their platform - but people often think it means the latter.
Similarly "innocent until proven guilty" is for the legal courts. You and I, and anyone in here can hold and express our own opinions on a matter, and assign our own opinion of innocence or guilt as we see fit. We can't fine or jail anyone for it, and there may be legal difficulties in terminating an employment contract based on that presumption; but we're absolutely free to boycott that person, that event, that group.

I'm sure other people have other reasons, but I think those would be the big two.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Freedom of speech'. The ARU settled with a huge payout for Folau for sacking him for his stance on marriage. So no, you cannot be sacked for practicing your religious beliefs without consequence.

I do agree with removal from platforms for breaking TOS, depending on how that platform sold itself.

Also, feel free to judge a person as quickly and as uninformed as you like, but know you may look stupid when further facts come out, I'm thinking Depp v Herd, Covington kid, Buffalo black face kid etc...

 

[ncurd]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Freedom of speech'. The ARU settled with a huge payout for Folau for sacking him for his stance on marriage. So no, you cannot be sacked for practicing your religious beliefs without consequence.

I do agree with removal from platforms for breaking TOS, depending on how that platform sold itself.

Also, feel free to judge a person as quickly and as uninformed as you like, but know you may look stupid when further facts come out, I'm thinking Depp v Herd, Covington kid, Buffalo black face kid etc...

The ARU settlement was NOT admission they were wrong.

I suggest you understand how settlements of these nature usually come about.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Please tell me you see the irony in this comment... please please please!!!

Noone has said this is acceptable, I have never said there are context in which this becomes acceptable.

What I said, and please re read this if required, is that I would like to know the reason for this, due to it being crazy stupid to do.

In all liklihood it was a reaction to the election that had just taken place in France where the far right took a beating from to left leaning parties.

That's a guess but the timing seems right and nothing that happened in Argentina would have triggered it with 2% of the population being Islamic and 7.5% of arab descent (christian arabs migrating in the 1800s at that).

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Freedom of speech'. The ARU settled with a huge payout for Folau for sacking him for his stance on marriage. So no, you cannot be sacked for practicing your religious beliefs without consequence.

Which Tyler's definition of freedom of speech is spot on and see ncurd's post also. Jurisdictions differ and I haven't a clue regarding Australia but, provided proper procedure was followed, Folau could have been dismissed without compensation for hate speech against a protected class (likely the UK also provided theh haven't changed their legislation massively since Brexit). He wasn't practicing his religion by spouting off like he did.

 

[ncurd]

So basic risk management lesson for those at the back this is why a lot of big cooperations settle out of court despite beliveing they have water tight cases.

If someone sues you for 1million dollars you assess the chance they'd win the case. If say its 10% chance of them wining your factored risk 100K. This means if you can settle for 100K or less your likely to overall payout less money overall from multiple lawsuits of a similar nature (not to mention other way of loss revenue, and marching army costs for keeping the lawsuit going). As big coperations see this kind of thing a lot theyd rather settle for less than pay nothing at all its just sensible business. The plaintiff also gets a payout when they wouldn't expect one if it goes to full court unless they beat the odds on the risk side.

You only really see this stuff go to court and a side forced to admit guilt if one side is proving a point Taylor Swift sueing a guy for $1 for sexual assault a case in point. Or both sides risk assessment wildly differs and thy think they have the better upperhand.

Its not why settlements exist its just why they occur alot.

 

[Which Tyler]

Forth time of asking, what new facts can you foresee, that would make the unacceptable words he used, acceptable?

FTR, this is explicitly what I'm calling you on, not any of the other questions you refuse to answer.

Anyway, my condemnation of Jaminet, like it was for Folau and any other sports pro will be reserved until I know all facts.

So... what new facts can you foresee, that would make the unacceptable words he used, acceptable?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Forth time of asking, what new facts can you foresee, that would make the unacceptable words he used, acceptable?

When in rome?

 

[dirty harry]

The ARU settlement was NOT admission they were wrong.

I suggest you understand how settlements of these nature usually come about.

Because organisations always give money to fired ex employees out of the goodness of their heart just before a class action lawsuit hahahahaha

ARU were advised that their case wasnt going to win in court, and that thos loss would set a nation wide precedent for speech, especially regarding religious beliefs.

The consequence ultimately were on the ARU, Folau won his salary back AND earnt elsewhere at the same time.