Israel Folau (Merged threads)

[Dave T 14,809]

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

so judging by this new 11 page thread folau mustve said something new since last week? or have people changed their opinions since then?

surely they arent just repeating the same stuff again and again and again from last week

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. Particularly as it is still being covered on Sky Sports and even on Total RL's site. 

The new development is the SL approach (of which nothing has actually been released!).

[tuutaisrambo 593]

Folau isn't going to apologise for something he genuinely believes his he.........Would we be happier if he issued a public apology he clearly didn't mean?

Personally I was more shocked when they signed Greg Bird after he glassed his girlfriend.

As long as he doesn't say anything else and is respectful of the game I say let it go.

[Tommygilf 3,400]

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

so judging by this new 11 page thread folau mustve said something new since last week? or have people changed their opinions since then?

surely they arent just repeating the same stuff again and again and again from last week

There has been developments though. The clubs have had a meeting over the issue, a letter has been sent threatening the prospect of legal action (unlikely but still a development), the Catalans kit manufacturer has distanced themselves from the player and its been big news for the past week. Ironically League getting a bit more press than the 6 nations!

[Dave T 14,809]

I do feel that one other thing that has been ignored is the fact that there is a process and system in place for every other offence we have talked about. 

If people take drugs, we have the drugs policies that take care of that.

If people break the law, we adhere to the justice system.

If people offend on the pitch, we have a judiciary panel.

If people offend whilst employed by clubs, we have contracts and employment law. 

This is an area that isn't covered by the traditional policies and processes in place. This is us catching up with most other places, who don't allow for hate speech on social media. It seems that Rugby Union Australia were caught out by not having robust guidelines in place.

[aj1908 953]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

There has been developments though. The clubs have had a meeting over the issue, a letter has been sent threatening the prospect of legal action (unlikely but still a development), the Catalans kit manufacturer has distanced themselves from the player and its been big news for the past week. Ironically League getting a bit more press than the 6 nations!

people are repeating the same arguments as folau a week ago.  if i was that bored i would cut and paste a few of my posts on there and put them here, and they would fit in.

we need to move on about whether folau should or shouldnt be allowed to play.

[Tommygilf 3,400]

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

people are repeating the same arguments as folau a week ago.  if i was that bored i would cut and paste a few of my posts on there and put them here, and they would fit in.

we need to move on about whether folau should or shouldnt be allowed to play.

That totally ignores the developments that have happened.

[Click 489]

38 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

The NFL have gone down the route since they decided that they would take on the role of moral arbiter and have had a nightmare ever since and the NRL are on the same path. 

It would be a huuuuggee mistake for the SL to become a type of morality police deciding who can play and who can not. Especially when there has been no crime committed. 

It would open up a huge can of legal proceedings against the league. 

Excuse the wording but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

Yes, that grand big moral arbiter that banned it's players from kneeling during the anthem.

[aj1908 953]

1 minute ago, Click said:

Yes, that grand big moral arbiter that banned it's players from kneeling during the anthem.

i think that was his point lol

[Dunbar 7,196]

3 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Folau isn't going to apologise for something he genuinely believes his he.........Would we be happier if he issued a public apology he clearly didn't mean?

Personally I was more shocked when they signed Greg Bird after he glassed his girlfriend.

As long as he doesn't say anything else and is respectful of the game I say let it go.

Folau has apologised.

Part of the settlement with the ARU is an apology for the "hurt or harm caused".

He has no need to apologise for his beliefs and has apologised for the way he communicated it.

As I have said before, we had a really easy decision as a sport to not bring him in but as he is here I think the slate is clean.

However, the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour and so we should not be surprised if this comes back to bite us.

[Click 489]

3 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

i think that was his point lol

Except it's the complete opposite really - They're banning players from kneeling during an anthem to stop them protesting. Whereas the NRL are banned a player for expressing beliefs that don't fit in with society.

[Honor James 282]

2 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

Tolerance (and by extension inclusion) is a paradox in its self.

A tolerant society will eventually become intolerant unless they are intolerant of intolerant views.

For the signing, for now,he has not shown further intolerance since signing for Les drags  so play on! It's been made clear he's had a yellow and has served his time in the sin-bin, he knows another yellow and he's out.  Surely he will be on his best behaviour

I agree, although I would put the same point slightly differently, by saying - clearly and politely -  that, while they respect every person's right to believe (and to believe in) whatever they choose, when it comes to god/s many people do not believe there is a god at all.

He or she might also choose to add, that a god might seem to many to be unacceptably unloving and unlovable, who created people to be born in a myriad different shapes, sizes and colours, speak a myriad different languages, enjoy a myriad different pastimes, like and dislike a myriad different people and love a myriad different others, only thereafter to consign some to eternal torment for loving, in one of the myriad possible ways that same god's act of creation had made possible.

 

Edited February 6 by Honor James

[hunsletgreenandgold 1,220]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we are looking for a precedent, then it ends when all other examples show a level of remorse that it not there with Folau. That has to be the starting point with any player being given a 2nd chance.

People lose their jobs all the time for non-illegal activity, I'm not sure why people keep talking about things being illegal. It is not relevant. 

Your comedian point is, with respect, silly. Of course context is important. One is joking to get laughs, sometimes done through faux shock. People understand that it isn't necessarily their views and don't take it seriously. That is the point of comedy. Folau spouting this stuff to his hundreds of thousands of followers is not the same at all. 

If Catalans are working with the local LGBTQ+ groups, would it make sense for Folau to be there? If they are going into schools, where some young people may be struggling with their sexuality, should Folau be there. Absolutely not. I am uncomfortable with the use of some other players in schools etc just because they are good with a Rugby ball too, but the majority aren't attacking you as a person telling you you are going to hell. 

Personally I am happy that Rugby Australia parted company with him, and disappointed that Catalans have gone for him.

Also to caveat, as per my other posts, I don't think we as a sport should be banning people. Clubs should live or die by their decisions, and Catalans are getting plenty of bad press for this, it is up to them to decide if the playing value is worth the criticism.

People are putting way too much emphasis on what, in many cases, is a forced apology to be seen as remorseful. It's naive in the extreme. 

The comedian point isn't silly at all. Ricky Gervais causes a great deal of offence and outrage to some demographics and even sections of the media with his comments, regardless of if it's intended to cause faux shock or not. They are often written on social media - same as Folau. In fact i'd go as far to say he's caused more offence on a wider number of issues than most yet we all applauded him for his video to Rob Borrow because it was funny. 

I take your point about it wouldn't be appropriate to work directly with the LGBT+ community but then I dare say they wouldn't want him to either - there are many other areas he could help support though. 

To some it seems the lack of apology is the real sticking point here, as he's already stated he will not be making anymore public comments about his beliefs. But for me it would change very little as I don't place much importance on one - his actions in future will surely speak louder than what will be, the same as most others, an insincere 'Sorry'. 

 

Edited February 6 by hunsletgreenandgold

[LR23 277]

10 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Where do I start with your response to my article?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'borderline condescending'.

Of course I am not 'probably insulting to some Tongans'.

What do you mean by 'poorly researched'?

I'm well aware that Folau has expressed his views more than once, but I was referring to the reason he was sacked by Rugby Australlia, which was because of his Instagram post last April.

I don't mind criticism, but I prefer it to be well founded, not based on misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I'm not offering an excuse for him, but suggesting that all religious people believe that by following the tenets of their faith they will be saved in the afterlife and the rest of us won't be. That is why many faiths are evangelical, trying to warn us off those habits that conflict with what they believe in.

My mind boggles with how someone like you can read something and just not get it, either deliberately or simply because your prejudices won't allow you to weigh the arguments in your mind.

Your response isn't so much blinkered as wilfully blind.

Martyn, I was initially going to pick out each poorly written point in the article but then realised that it isn't my job to critique your work - you are the journalist who has other journalists working for you that should be doing that job. I therefore summarised my disappointment. I also noticed that you came on this forum in anticipation of writing this article but obviously took no interest/notice of what anyone else said - this seems to be your MO. 

For what it's worth I do get your viewpoint but it was very fixed; you don't seem to get that as one of the more well known rugby league journalists you have a responsibility to at least paint the full picture (many people reading will not know it was more than one Instagram post and he did provide 'explanations' but they were spun/watered down to appease sponsors/his religious supporters/etc) if not provide a balanced view as well (i.e. just because homosexuality is illegal in Tonga doesn't mean all Tongans will support it but many people will have read it that way whether you meant it or not).

[Wiltshire Rhino 2,679]

1 hour ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Sorry Dave I have to disagree - using examples of others in a case like this is surely just people looking for precedent? 

I'm completely in agreement we should offer 2nd/3rd chances to people but I struggle to get onboard with the idea that Folau is somehow worse than some of the others that have gone before simply because they apologised and he hasn't. I mean what Folau did wasn't even deemed a criminal offence so surely from the outset that makes it less serious than some other misdemeanours? Which leads me on to my next point - if he has committed no crime then what should he be remorseful for, offending people? Some comedians have said much worse but that's ok because they say it in the context of a joke - is saying it with religious context any different or worse? 

I think you're being massively OTT with your comments about him being unable to work in the community and/or with kids - again we as a game allow actual criminals to do this but you deem Folau worse because he hasn't said sorry? 

Always feel the need to caveat on a personal level I find Folau's (and all religious beliefs to be honest) completely ridiculous but the way he is being vilified is out of sync with his actions IMO. The best we can do as a sport is continue to be pro LGBT+ and less anti Folau - thinking the latter infers the former is ill judged. 

 

Great post. 

However I don't think any sport should be pro-anything apart from promoting their sport to everyone. 

[hunsletgreenandgold 1,220]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do feel that one other thing that has been ignored is the fact that there is a process and system in place for every other offence we have talked about. 

If people take drugs, we have the drugs policies that take care of that.

If people break the law, we adhere to the justice system.

If people offend on the pitch, we have a judiciary panel.

If people offend whilst employed by clubs, we have contracts and employment law. 

This is an area that isn't covered by the traditional policies and processes in place. This is us catching up with most other places, who don't allow for hate speech on social media. It seems that Rugby Union Australia were caught out by not having robust guidelines in place.

Or the fact this isn't actually deemed to be hate speech and therefore not an offence? Just because something causes people to be offended doesn't make it an offence. 

[Dave T 14,809]

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Or the fact this isn't actually deemed to be hate speech and therefore not an offence? Just because something causes people to be offended doesn't make it an offence. 

The definition of hate speech is " abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

so I am pretty comfortable using that term, irrespective of whether any criminal act has been committed. 

We are ultimately talking about employability, as I have pointed out, I wouldn't want to see anyone banned for this, but I don't think as a game we should be going near them.

[hunsletgreenandgold 1,220]

38 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Folau has apologised.

Part of the settlement with the ARU is an apology for the "hurt or harm caused".

He has no need to apologise for his beliefs and has apologised for the way he communicated it.

As I have said before, we had a really easy decision as a sport to not bring him in but as he is here I think the slate is clean.

However, the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour and so we should not be surprised if this comes back to bite us.

He did apologise - I forgot about that. @Dave T does this change things for you? 

That last comment is an interesting one, mate - the cynic in me agrees with that 100%, however if that is true then we have a lot of players in our game who should have had that applied to them too. 

Edited February 6 by hunsletgreenandgold

[Dunbar 7,196]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The definition of hate speech is " abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

so I am pretty comfortable using that term, irrespective of whether any criminal act has been committed. 

We are ultimately talking about employability, as I have pointed out, I wouldn't want to see anyone banned for this, but I don't think as a game we should be going near them.

I would not classify Falou's comments as hate speech. While they are prejudice (i.e. your behaviour is wrong or unnatural) I do not believe they are hateful in their motivation. Just deleuded.

[Dave T 14,809]

Just now, hunsletgreenandgold said:

He did apologise - I forgot about that. @Dave T does this change things for you? 

That last comment is an interesting on, mate - the cynic in me agrees with that 100%, however if that is true then we have a lot of players in our game who should have had that applied to them too. 

I think I addressed this in a previous post. His apology was the definition of scripted and hollow. His actions whilst apologising showed that it was simply a press release.

He fought his dismissal, repeated his words, and played the victim claiming he was being prejudiced against.

[Dave T 14,809]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I would not classify Falou's comments as hate speech. While they are prejudice (i.e. your behaviour is wrong or unnatural) I do not believe they are hateful in their motivation. Just deleuded.

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. 

[hunsletgreenandgold 1,220]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think I addressed this in a previous post. His apology was the definition of scripted and hollow. His actions whilst apologising showed that it was simply a press release.

He fought his dismissal, repeated his words, and played the victim claiming he was being prejudiced against.

And I agree they were all of the above but come on Dave - how sincere are any of these apologies? Taking your point on use of precedent, I think it is fair to use Hardaker here. He's apologised every time - in hindsight did it mean anything? 

[Dave T 14,809]

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

And I agree they were all of the above but come on Dave - how sincere are any of these apologies? Taking your point on use of precedent, I think it is fair to use Hardaker here. He's apologised every time - in hindsight did it mean anything? 

Zak Hardaker was banned via the drugs policy. He apologised and hasn't been caught for drugs since.

He was banned for homophobic abuse of the ref, and was banned by the RFL disciplinary process. It should have been more but there we go. He embarked on community work with a Gay team IIRC as part of his apology.

He was dealt with by the justice system for his drink driving offence. 

Hardaker clearly has issues, but it is easy to believe that he is sorry for each of these offences. Some people just can't help themselves though. Wigan have made the decision that they can work with him and help him turn his life around. It is accepted that his behaviour was bad and were mistakes. Folau doesn't accept his behaviour was bad and a mistake. He has done it again, and would happily do it again if we weren't paying him money to keep quiet.

[Martyn Sadler 1,860]

18 minutes ago, LR23 said:

Martyn, I was initially going to pick out each poorly written point in the article but then realised that it isn't my job to critique your work - you are the journalist who has other journalists working for you that should be doing that job. I therefore summarised my disappointment.

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

21 minutes ago, LR23 said:

For what it's worth I do get your viewpoint but it was very fixed; you don't seem to get that as one of the more well known rugby league journalists you have a responsibility to at least paint the full picture (many people reading will not know it was more than one Instagram post and he did provide 'explanations' but they were spun/watered down to appease sponsors/his religious supporters/etc).

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

[The Dude 49]

Ok ban him for his personal opinion. If anyone is Pro choice and supports abortion then they should be banned from rugby league too. Rugby league does not need baby killers in the game. 

[Oxford 3,871]

2 minutes 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.

Well if you're looking for a proof reader I'll send you my CV!

 

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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

Having read this bit you may need to offer significant renumeration as the task seems uphill, against the wind & prone to upheaval.