Israel Folau (Merged threads)

[Click]

3 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Any new signings by clubs will have to be cleaner than clean to pass Lenegans and Hudgells test, and surely now Hudgell has to sack SKD, and surely Hardaker with his much troubled pass must be close to get getting sacked as well.

These two chairmen have set the bar and any future signings from the NRL could be a nightmare for Super League clubs. I just hope we don't have one rule for the big Super League clubs and another for the rest

You should read the other posts on this thread.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Any new signings by clubs will have to be cleaner than clean to pass Lenegans and Hudgells test, and surely now Hudgell has to sack SKD, and surely Hardaker with his much troubled pass must be close to get getting sacked as well.

These two chairmen have set the bar and any future signings from the NRL could be a nightmare for Super League clubs. I just hope we don't have one rule for the big Super League clubs and another for the rest

Why have you called out Lenegan on this specifically? I'm all for a Lenegan pile-on, but I don't think he has been overly critical of Catalans and has actually said they did investigate signing Folau.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

7 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Any new signings by clubs will have to be cleaner than clean to pass Lenegans and Hudgells test, and surely now Hudgell has to sack SKD, and surely Hardaker with his much troubled pass must be close to get getting sacked as well.

These two chairmen have set the bar and any future signings from the NRL could be a nightmare for Super League clubs. I just hope we don't have one rule for the big Super League clubs and another for the rest

If anything I'd say Lenegan and Hudgell are on opposite sides of this argument. 

[LR23]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I would be delighted if you would "pick out each poorly written point in the article". I'm eager to see what they are.

With respect, there is no such thing as a "full picture". We all paint partial pictures, regardless of the issue.

Ok Martyn, as you’ve asked nicely.

I hope you don’t mind me quoting sections of the article here but it’s difficult to make my point otherwise. I liked the opening so it’s not like I had issues with it all. And just to make clear up front I’m not saying the following points are what you intended but they are very much how it looked.

I think it is the following section that I have the biggest issue with (I’ve cut out the less relevant points). You’ve failed to mention the fact that the ‘Instagram post’ in question was after he’d already had a warning for a similar use of social media a year previously – many league fans here may not know this. This section also reads like to are apportioning blame on Fitzsimons – is this an article about Folau or the role of the media in sensationalising stories? If you are going to mention the Herald writing about it again you might want to mention that it could be because of Folau’s subsequent comments about gay marriage (again many league fans here might not know about these).

“His Instagram post, which presumably reflects his religious beliefs, was immediately picked up by sections of the Australian media, including in particular the influential Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Fitzsimons……….

…………………………the damage done by his original post was amplified many times over by people like Fitzsimons focusing on it and shouting about it from the rooftops.

Turn to the Sydney Morning Herald today and you’ll find him writing about it again.”

I’ve mentioned this point below – it’s not correct to say he didn’t have a chance to explain. He has a PR team and lawyers and had as much chance as anyone to explain. The problem is that his ‘explanations’ were weak at best probably seeking to appease sponsors, the public and his religious supporters. It is misleading to make it look like he was somehow railroaded.

“Folau was widely condemned for his beliefs without him being asked to explain them calmly and rationally”

I fail to see how this next point is at all relevant, is easily misunderstood and might be insulting to Tongans who oppose this law (although I can’t speak for them). I’m sure there are many people round the world who share his views why pick out Tongans? Why ban the nationals of Tonga for a law they have no hand in making? Maybe expand on it if you have a deeper point.

“It’s worth bearing in mind that Folau is of Tongan heritage, and that homosexuality is still illegal in the Kingdom of Tonga.

So I would imagine that Folau might not be the only Tongan who has those views, which of course would be regrettable.”

“But if we do want to ban him, then we might have to ask ourselves whether, given that, as I’ve already pointed out, homosexuality is illegal in Tonga, we should ban the Tongans from the 2021 World Cup.”

This next section would have been a great point if it wasn’t so watered down. Why hold back as there is a really great point in there? This could easily be read (when considered against the rest of the article) as you saying we might actually be misunderstanding his current views rather than he might be a bit misguided or even a bit of a hypocrite. I’ll admit that this is probably a personal thing though and others may be less interested as I always felt this point has been underplayed.

“But the strange thing about Folau is that in 2016 he was the poster boy for the Bingham Cup, which is a rugby union competition in Australia for gay rugby union teams. Folau featured on the front page of a gay magazine with his arm around a gay rugby player in a photo that clearly implied that he wished them and the tournament well.

So it does seem a little strange to see him later on posting such apocalyptic predictions about the fate of homosexuals who don’t change their ways.”

On the below, surely as a responsible journalist you can’t a) speak for people and b) ignore the facts. He has made statements about his actions – his didn’t go into detail out of choice because I imagine explaining that ‘homosexuals could repent and they would be ok’ (which seems to be what you are suggesting) would have gotten him in even more bother. It was his choice though not the fault of the RFL, Super League and the Catalans Dragons.

“I suspect his response would be that he was offering advice to sinners to repent or their behaviour will see them suffer in the afterlife, although any chance of him being given the opportunity to put his own case forward seems to have severely diminished now that he has apparently been given a gagging order by the RFL, Super League and the Catalans Dragons.”

There is then a lot of slightly irrelevant information on religion (admittedly that may be interesting to some) that I think misses the point that this isn’t about beliefs it is about publicly condemning homosexuals on a few occasions and not apologising. Yes it is linked to religion but to word it the way you have below is disingenuous.

“It seems ironic to me that Rugby League is now talking about banning people for their expressed religious beliefs”

I think that covers all the points I wanted to make. Overall it just reads as apologetic and not as balanced as it could/should have been. Hopefully that that less blinkered/blind than my initial summary?

[RMBJ]

Linking RU bans on RL players prior to 1995 is also just more whataboutery that confuses the article as well in my opinion

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure that needs to be present to be hate speech, it certainly isn't in the definition.

It may be a measure used for pressing charges for example, but that isn't a route I am going down here. 

My view is that we must look at the motivation behind his comments/posts in order to make a judgement on whether they were hate speech.

If an individual were to use homophobic language in isolation that is different to Falou asking homosexuals to repent. The former is a direct insult on the person while the latter is a (heartfelt) attempt to save the person from eternal punishment... something they have an absolute assurance will happen as they believe in the literal word of God as laid out in the bible.

As I said on the previous thread, if Folau had said "as a Christian I believe that homosexuality is wrong and I am compelled by my faith to ask homosexuals to repent in order to save their eternal souls" I am sure there would be little fall out... instead he uses the "HELL AWAITS" inflammatory post.

He believes what millions of people believe but, unlike the vast majority of people, he has not tuned his language to fit into a secular and tolerant culture.

As it happens, I think his sermon on the Bush fires is far worse as he is telling us that God's punishment is reigning down upon us for tolerating these sins. Even here, I don't think it was hate speech as he genuinely believes what he is saying and he is not advocating harm or punishment, simply saying that God is angry.

The root of all this furore is the provocative way in which Falou expressed his beliefs not the beliefs themselves.  Which is why Martyn Sadlers line that people in Rugby League want to exclude him for his actual faith is so annoying and misleading to the casual reader.

[RP London]

31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

My view is that we must look at the motivation behind his comments/posts in order to make a judgement on whether they were hate speech.

If an individual were to use homophobic language in isolation that is different to Falou asking homosexuals to repent. The former is a direct insult on the person while the latter is a (heartfelt) attempt to save the person from eternal punishment... something they have an absolute assurance will happen as they believe in the literal word of God as laid out in the bible.

As I said on the previous thread, if Folau had said "as a Christian I believe that homosexuality is wrong and I am compelled by my faith to ask homosexuals to repent in order to save their eternal souls" I am sure there would be little fall out... instead he uses the "HELL AWAITS" inflammatory post.

He believes what millions of people believe but, unlike the vast majority of people, he has not tuned his language to fit into a secular and tolerant culture.

As it happens, I think his sermon on the Bush fires is far worse as he is telling us that God's punishment is reigning down upon us for tolerating these sins. Even here, I don't think it was hate speech as he genuinely believes what he is saying and he is not advocating harm or punishment, simply saying that God is angry.

The root of all this furore is the provocative way in which Falou expressed his beliefs not the beliefs themselves.  Which is why Martyn Sadlers line that people in Rugby League want to exclude him for his actual faith is so annoying and misleading to the casual reader.

This is where i have a slight issue and where i struggle with what is going on a little bit. 

He doesnt believe in the literal word of God. To do that he would have to follow the exact teachings as laid out in the Bible. The Bible is well known to contradict itself from one book to the other and, most importantly for a Christian, from one testament to the other. The old Testament being more draconian and fire and brimstone than the New which is much more tolerant (in relative terms). As a Christian you should be following more the New Testament as Christ's teaching rather than the old. But the bible is meant to be interpreted it is not meant to be literal as it cannot be when it contradicts itself, if you live by the teachings of Leviticus you will almost certainly fall down on the teaching later in the book, and vice versa.

With that in mind IMHO (and this goes well beyond Falou and to anyone who starts saying "my religious belief" when they say something frankly abhorrent) it is his personal belief that he has backed up with a passage from a book rather than a religious belief. 

Now where that leaves us with punishments and bans etc i do not know but i just get so frustrated with people with horrible world views using a religion to hide behind (and again this goes well beyond Falou).

[hunsletgreenandgold]

9 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is where i have a slight issue and where i struggle with what is going on a little bit. 

He doesnt believe in the literal word of God. To do that he would have to follow the exact teachings as laid out in the Bible. The Bible is well known to contradict itself from one book to the other and, most importantly for a Christian, from one testament to the other. The old Testament being more draconian and fire and brimstone than the New which is much more tolerant (in relative terms). As a Christian you should be following more the New Testament as Christ's teaching rather than the old. But the bible is meant to be interpreted it is not meant to be literal as it cannot be when it contradicts itself, if you live by the teachings of Leviticus you will almost certainly fall down on the teaching later in the book, and vice versa.

With that in mind IMHO (and this goes well beyond Falou and to anyone who starts saying "my religious belief" when they say something frankly abhorrent) it is his personal belief that he has backed up with a passage from a book rather than a religious belief. 

Now where that leaves us with punishments and bans etc i do not know but i just get so frustrated with people with horrible world views using a religion to hide behind (and again this goes well beyond Falou).

This is true. The world would be a much better place if we used our own morals as guidance rather than follow a religion. You'd still get the bad eggs of course, as some peoples moral compass is weak, but at least we wouldn't have millions of sheep blindly following. 

"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." 

- H.L Mencken

[kiwis 13 6]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

As it happens, I think his sermon on the Bush fires is far worse as he is telling us that God's punishment is reigning down upon us for tolerating these sins. Even here, I don't think it was hate speech as he genuinely believes what he is saying and he is not advocating harm or punishment, simply saying that God is angry.

If you believe in god then god causes all things to happen good and bad. Bush fires are an occurrence that have taken place in Australia for thousands of years and helped naturally regenerate the environment. Original Australians often used controlled bush fire as a tool to make nature regenerate more abundantly. But the current bush fires have been on a bigger scale than previously seen. Abrahamic religions are full of stories of God causing natural disasters to happen, Moses and the Israelite's in Egypt come to mind as an example. So you can see where Folau draws his examples from. While I dont like or argee with Folau views on this i still think he is entitled to his religious beliefs and opinions. But Folau's bush fire comments were really badly timed to say after the recent loss nature, property and of life. I personally would like this tragedy to bring about some good regarding climate change and make changes and provide education to help prevent bush fires of that scale occurring in the future.

[Angelic Cynic]

On 04/02/2020 at 23:18, TIWIT said:

Folau speaks from a sincerely believed belief. However ignorant it seems to most of us that is what free speech is all about. FWIW, probably half of Amerika shares his view. It would not be such a big deal there.

As a lawyer Hudgell should be defending Folau's right to spout his ignorance in public. His own statements are just plain stupid and he should have made his objections known to Super League, his fellow SL owners and Catalans in particular with a simple phone call. And who knows, maybe he did and Catalans told him to mind his own business and that's why he went public now.

  Firstly,why haven't the Super League,Elstone and the owners,come out unequivocally and worded the response as to how they intend to 'place measures' to ensure 'greater authority' to 'stop controversial signings'? If it is to just stop Christians making statements,why not say so? If it is to stop making statements from The Bible,why not state that?

  This mealy-mouth response to this brouhaha is as nauseous as Hudgell,who has a Human Rights lawyer,Petherbridge,acting for the families of 4 murdered gay males as they seem to think the Metropolitan Police were prejudiced;or were unable to identify the sexuality of the cadavers. - https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2019/11/15/inquest-jury-to-consider-possible-police-prejudice-in-stephen-port-probe/

Even though people,under Human Rights legislation,while they are alive,can hold a religious belief - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

I expect the Super League lot will be consulting their MP's to have the Human Rights Act repealed or exemptions put in place so they can crack on with their idealogy and bigotry.

  I certainly won't be watching a Super League game,or an international game,in England ever again.

   That guy who stated The Beatles were more popular than Jesus did Imagine there being no more countries.

    His living all in peace didn't turn out very well,though,either.

[whatmichaelsays]

And this keeps going.... 

It seems as if Super League and certain individuals are determined to keep this news cycle - one that should have died ages ago - alive.

For all the talk about how Falou is damaging to the image of the league, there seems to be an awful lot of people in positions of power within the game still determined to keep the spotlight shining on it. 

However out-dated and unsavoury they might be, Israel Falou's views are on homosexuality are a matter for Israel Falou. Can we please stop giving his views the oxygen of publicity now? 

He won't be the first homophobe in the game and he won't be the last. I can't help but feel that the way to deal with views like the ones he holds is to simply ignore them, and him. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

My view is that we must look at the motivation behind his comments/posts in order to make a judgement on whether they were hate speech.

If an individual were to use homophobic language in isolation that is different to Falou asking homosexuals to repent. The former is a direct insult on the person while the latter is a (heartfelt) attempt to save the person from eternal punishment... something they have an absolute assurance will happen as they believe in the literal word of God as laid out in the bible.

As I said on the previous thread, if Folau had said "as a Christian I believe that homosexuality is wrong and I am compelled by my faith to ask homosexuals to repent in order to save their eternal souls" I am sure there would be little fall out... instead he uses the "HELL AWAITS" inflammatory post.

He believes what millions of people believe but, unlike the vast majority of people, he has not tuned his language to fit into a secular and tolerant culture.

As it happens, I think his sermon on the Bush fires is far worse as he is telling us that God's punishment is reigning down upon us for tolerating these sins. Even here, I don't think it was hate speech as he genuinely believes what he is saying and he is not advocating harm or punishment, simply saying that God is angry.

The root of all this furore is the provocative way in which Falou expressed his beliefs not the beliefs themselves.  Which is why Martyn Sadlers line that people in Rugby League want to exclude him for his actual faith is so annoying and misleading to the casual reader.

I agree, and that provocative way it is positioned takes it into hate speech imho.

Especially considering many translations don't even mention homosexuals.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And this keeps going.... 

It seems as if Super League and certain individuals are determined to keep this news cycle - one that should have died ages ago - alive.

For all the talk about how Falou is damaging to the image of the league, there seems to be an awful lot of people in positions of power within the game still determined to keep the spotlight shining on it. 

However out-dated and unsavoury they might be, Israel Falou's views are on homosexuality are a matter for Israel Falou. Can we please stop giving his views the oxygen of publicity now? 

He won't be the first homophobe in the game and he won't be the last. I can't help but feel that the way to deal with views like the ones he holds is to simply ignore them, and him. 

I don't disagree, but isnt that exactly what they are doing there?

But the media are interested in this.

[Loiner]

What gets to me in all this is the total hypocrisy of some people. Take Hudgell for example he was willing to keep faith with Ben Cockayne after vile racist tweets and assaulting a person in the street but takes offence at someone's personal opinion and beliefs may they be right or wrong. Lenegan is the same with Hardacker and all his problems. When we let super chairman decide who other teams should sign it's a sad day for rugby league.

[John Drake]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the media are interested in this.

It isn't just the media.

I've locked several threads on this subject already, but people on here still keep starting new ones and adding their opinions to them.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

It isn't just the media.

I've locked several threads on this subject already, but people on here still keep starting new ones and adding their opinions to them.

I think it's fair to say people will discuss what is in the media rather than the media reporting what people are discussing? Martyn Sadler keeps dragging us back on to the subject, kicking and screaming in some cases......

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Loiner said:

What gets to me in all this is the total hypocrisy of some people. Take Hudgell for example he was willing to keep faith with Ben Cockayne after vile racist tweets and assaulting a person in the street but takes offence at someone's personal opinion and beliefs may they be right or wrong. Lenegan is the same with Hardacker and all his problems. When we let super chairman decide who other teams should sign it's a sad day for rugby league.

I wish somebody would have mentioned Cockayne and Hardaker earlier in the thread.

[John Drake]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I think it's fair to say people will discuss what is in the media rather than the media reporting what people are discussing? 

No one's under any obligation to post in these interminable threads.

[saddleworth]

Whilst not wishing to become involved with the moral and ethical views on the subject, I do believe that there is a strong element of financial dealings with the issue. From comments made on the forums and in the press, it would appear to me that the RL and everyone holding positions within the organisation appear to place their political and moral opinions, secondary to their overall fears of financial losses. Tonga, as a great little country, regard this issue as a "no no" and taboo. Does this mean that we ban the Tongans from the next World Cup due to the fact that they have differing opinions from other groups. The world has gone mad.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

22 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

Whilst not wishing to become involved with the moral and ethical views on the subject, I do believe that there is a strong element of financial dealings with the issue. From comments made on the forums and in the press, it would appear to me that the RL and everyone holding positions within the organisation appear to place their political and moral opinions, secondary to their overall fears of financial losses. Tonga, as a great little country, regard this issue as a "no no" and taboo. Does this mean that we ban the Tongans from the next World Cup due to the fact that they have differing opinions from other groups. The world has gone mad.

I’ll sum this up quickly - no, no it does not mean that and nobody ever implied it would. 

[Dunbar]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

TBH, as long as the debate is respectful and not breaking any rules, and this one has been debated robustly but respectfully I'm not sure why it would be deemed something we can't talk about.

I would like to echo this.

This is a tough subject at the best of times and opinions are strong but this conversation has been for the great majority of the time thoughtful and respectful even when people have very different views.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree, but isnt that exactly what they are doing there?

But the media are interested in this.

Since this story broke last week, we have had (off the top of my head):

• A very confused and flawed statement following a meeting of Super League clubs.
• Keegan Hirst expressing his disapproval.
• Michael Carter calling SL a "league of last resort".
• Neil Hudgell threatening suprious legal action.
• Steve McNamara defending the signing.
• Bernard Guash defending the signing.
• Robert Elstone complaining that he couldn't prevent the signing (sentiments he has since repeated AGAIN today).
• The RFL stating that they couldn't prevent the signing.
• Chris Chester suggesting that has been told that he can't talk about it. 
• Eammon McManus complaining about the signing.
• Huddersfield making a public point of hastily getting a batch of rainbow laces. 

All of these actions have thrown more gas onto the dying embers of this story. This is something the sport is willingly doing - none of these people are being coerced by the press. 

By all means present a stratgic, united statement, but then move on.

The way that this has been handled by Super League and the clubs shows terrible PR management - the sort that makes you thankful that this sport doesn't get the sort of media attention that many think it deserves. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would like to echo this.

This is a tough subject at the best of times and opinions are strong but this conversation has been for the great majority of the time thoughtful and respectful even when people have very different views.

It’s what (most of the time) separates this forum from all the others and certainly leagues ahead of any kind of discussion/debate on social media platforms - which normally follows the script: 

‘I have an opinion’

”I have one too but it’s different to yours, you d*ck” 

‘<insert expletive riddled threat>’ 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Since this story broke last week, we have had (off the top of my head):

• A very confused and flawed statement following a meeting of Super League clubs.
• Keegan Hirst expressing is disapproval.
• Michael Carter calling SL a "league of last resort".
• Neil Hudgell threatening suprious legal action.
• Steve McNamara defending the signing.
• Bernard Guash defending the signing.
• Robert Elstone complaining that he couldn't prevent the signing (sentiments he has since repeated AGAIN today).
• The RFL stating that they couldn't prevent the signing.
• Chris Chester suggesting that has been told that he can't talk about it. 
• Eammon McManus complaining about the signing.
• Huddersfield making a public point of hastily getting a batch of rainbow laces. 

All of these actions have thrown more gas onto the dying embers of this story. 

By all means present a stratgic, united statement, but then move on.

The way that this has been handled by Super League and the clubs shows terrible PR management - the sort that makes you thankful that this sport doesn't get the sort of media attention that many think it deserves. 

Personally I only think the Carter and Hudgell (and maybe the Saints) involvement was unnecessary. 

I think the rest have been pretty normal noise around a story such as this.

[whatmichaelsays]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Personally I only think the Carter and Hudgell (and maybe the Saints) involvement was unnecessary. 

I think the rest have been pretty normal noise around a story such as this.

"Noise" is probably the pertinent word. Because what there hasn't been is a consistent and coherent PR narrative that has actually allowed the sport to manage the story. Just noise. Inconsistent, rambling, nonsensical noise. 

Like I say, this story has been dragged out and relighted far more and for far longer than necessary, and it has damaged Super League as a result. I mean, what on earth possesses one of the competitions key stakeholders to call it "a competition of last resort"? Do these people know nothing about media, PR, sales and marketing?

We were told repeatedly that SL breaking away from the RFL and putting the clubs in control would result in better marketing, media management and PR. This entire saga has shown that we're further away from that than ever.