Jump to content
RMBJ

Israel Folau (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

 

These are deep philosophical and biological questions and I think you are massively underselling that.

I didn't 'massively' sell anything. I wrote a dozen or so words. If I'd wanted to be verbose and write loads of faux-intellectual garbage on concepts of free will and determinism unrelated to the thread then I would have. But I didn't.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me cynical but I can't help but feel that Hudgell and other commentators don't actually care one jot about what Falou said. They are just looking for a bit of good publicity for themselves by being seen to care. 

This is after all the man who employed Ben Cockayne. Twice! 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

Well apparently there are 25 gender types now 

Maybe if I expanded my horizons I would improve my strike rate (From zero lol)

25 genders ... so, in this "all inclusive" world we now live in, how long might it be until RL can only play matches of 2 x 13-a-side teams with one of each gender and one player who hasn't yet decided what they are ?

Because the way things are going then the time will come when someone of each of the 25 will complain they are not being catered for ... and I wonder if Neil Hudgett will be so righteous and sign them all !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a ‘controversial ‘ signing ? What criteria is that . Seems a bit woolly . There’s a few other clubs that can look inward at their recruitment . A few in the NRL may not find SL so welcoming ?

Edited by DavidM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DavidM said:

What is a ‘controversial ‘ signing ? What criteria is that . Seems a bit woolly . There’s a few other clubs that can look inward at their recruitment . A few in the NRL may not find SL so welcoming ?

Yep, this is my concern. I don't like the NRL approach. 

I'm a fan of having clear rules, if none of them have been broken, then clubs can sign who they want, and be judged by their fans and sponsors.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they will implement a 'code of conduct'. This would have to include other things like domestic violence, etc. No idea how they will decide where the line is drawn and I can guarantee someone will challenge it in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alleged criminal  behaviour like the NRL stand down policy or a more widespread moral code of conduct . Could be a can of worms in terms of being defined , and challenged 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close this thread please - it's boring now and going around in circles!


Money can't buy you happiness!

It can buy you beer and that's a bit like happiness in a glass!

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

Sir Winston Churchill

Some folks are wise and some are otherwise!

Tobias Smollett

"I distrust camels, and anyone else who can go a week without a drink."

Joe E Lewis

"Look at the ffing state of that"!

My mate on the Avenue last Friday whilst pointing to a scantily clad young lady and spitting a mouthful of beer out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LR23 said:

Maybe they will implement a 'code of conduct'. This would have to include other things like domestic violence, etc. No idea how they will decide where the line is drawn and I can guarantee someone will challenge it in the courts.

A 'code of conduct' is exactly the approach SL/RFL should have taken on this, setting out clear expectations of those who play, coach and indeed administrate the sport. With governance process and punishments out there for everyone to see and understand.

They could have then waved that in the face of all and sundry to demonstrate how we've drawn a line in the sand around what we deem acceptable behaviour and what it takes for someone to be welcome in a sport which supposedly promotes diversity and inclusivity. To show how we're a progressive sport balancing second chances for those who deserve them while protecting the values of the decent folk who we want involved in the sport.

Instead they've been spouting off in the media, releasing random statements, threatening to sue each other, and now seemingly giving themselves the power to veto what they see as arbitrarily controversial signings.

All the while showing themselves to be a group of hypocritical, two-faced amateurs. Clowns the lot of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big problem up to now is that due to the low profile of RL here, scandals haven’t received much (if any) coverage in the media, so SL hasn’t been pressed to do much/anything about them. Signing this Aussie bigot Folau has received extensive coverage, and only now is SL taking any action by implementing a code of conduct. It’s a welcome, if late, development.

The Aussie game is rampant with degenerates, and as RL there is covered in the media their competition has rules in place to ban players that doesn’t exist here.

An example of the difference in profile and action can be seen with Albert Kelly (and an incident that took place here), with his tirade at a woman in McDonalds, 

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/opinion-why-the-albert-kelly-incident-is-a-wake-up-call-for-super-league

“What struck me particularly about the Kelly episode was both the lack of comment and action from both his club, Hull FC, and the governing body, the RFL. There has also been a lack of coverage in the UK media. The ugly video was covered extensively by media in Kelly’s native Australia, where player scandals receive huge column inches and also in New Zealand. Apart from being buried briefly at the end of one story in a UK paper about something else, the story was virtually ignored in England, at least at first.

Only on Monday, roughly around 48 hours after the video came to light, did Hull FC comment publicly. All they said was: “The club has dealt with it internally”. No more details on what that entailed, what punishment, if any, had been handed out. No comment on the abuse, nor any public apology - effectively trying to sweep it under the carpet.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DC77 said:

A big problem up to now is that due to the low profile of RL here, scandals haven’t received much (if any) coverage in the media, so SL hasn’t been pressed to do much/anything about them. Signing this Aussie bigot Folau has received extensive coverage, and only now is SL taking any action by implementing a code of conduct. It’s a welcome, if late, development.

The Aussie game is rampant with degenerates, and as RL there is covered in the media their competition has rules in place to ban players that doesn’t exist here.

An example of the difference in profile and action can be seen with Albert Kelly (and an incident that took place here), with his tirade at a woman in McDonalds, 

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/opinion-why-the-albert-kelly-incident-is-a-wake-up-call-for-super-league

“What struck me particularly about the Kelly episode was both the lack of comment and action from both his club, Hull FC, and the governing body, the RFL. There has also been a lack of coverage in the UK media. The ugly video was covered extensively by media in Kelly’s native Australia, where player scandals receive huge column inches and also in New Zealand. Apart from being buried briefly at the end of one story in a UK paper about something else, the story was virtually ignored in England, at least at first.

Only on Monday, roughly around 48 hours after the video came to light, did Hull FC comment publicly. All they said was: “The club has dealt with it internally”. No more details on what that entailed, what punishment, if any, had been handed out. No comment on the abuse, nor any public apology - effectively trying to sweep it under the carpet.”

School on Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Roy Boy said:

Close this thread please - it's boring now and going around in circles!

As long as it doesn't go back to discussing the rights and wrongs of what he said, this is a good debate about how SL deals with matters of this kind in future....and also allows us to say our thoughts on Hudgell which I'm all for! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Hudgell is getting it in the neck again from people who don’t know the full facts and just spout off any old garbage on here. Based on the fact that most of the other SL clubs were in full support of his actions I’d suggest that there had perhaps been rumblings of discontent from some of the game’s major sponsors and partners. I mean why would the other clubs be bothered if HKR suffered the loss of a sponsor, something that only affected them ? Seems to me the only reason they’d stand together on this would be if it was something with the potential to affect them all. Still, that Hudgell eh ? What does he know ?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote.

"So I’m reluctant now to join the clamour to ban Folau for his beliefs"

I find this a strange line to include as I have not read a single opinion piece or message board post or heard a single interview where anyone has even come close to suggesting that Folau be banned for his beliefs. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all convinced by Sadler’s suggestion that Folau should be tolerated because he’s a Tongan and Tonga has yet to decriminalise homosexuality. Weak argument.

If Tonga RL started proselytizing on social media that homosexuals will go to hell, I would expect reprisals from other nations and the IRL. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, every human being has a right to hold dear whatever religious belief/s he or she chooses; a right which is firmly upheld in the UK and also, I imagined until finding the list below on the website belonging to an online newspaper called `The Week', in most of the rest of the world.  (Sadly, I was wrong about that).

"Whatever floats your boat" pretty much describes my way of thinking on same sex relationships, in fact on all sexual relationships, with one firm proviso which is, "So long as what you wish or need to do as part of your personal belief is not and in no way involves hurting anybody else".

However - here is a list, compiled I gather by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, of all the countries around the world that do still criminalise same-sex relations.

IN THE AMERICAS
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Dominica
Grenada (male only)
Guyana (male only)
Jamaica (male only)
St Kitts and Nevis (male only)
St Lucia
St Vincent and the Grenadines

IN AFRICA
Algeria
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Egypt (de facto criminalisation)
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya (male only)
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Mauritania
Mauritius (male only)
Morocco
Namibia (male only)
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone (male only)
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland (male only)
Tanzania
Togo (male only)
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe (male only)

IN ASIA & THE MIDDLE EAST
Afghanistan
Bangladesh (male only)
Bhutan (male only)
Brunei (male only)
Indonesia (in some areas)
Iran
Iraq (de facto)
Kuwait (male only)
Lebanon (male only)
Malaysia
Maldives
Myanmar (male only)
Oman
Pakistan (male only)
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore (male only)
Sri Lanka
Syria
Turkmenistan (male only)
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan (male only)
Yemen

OCEANIA
Cook Islands (male only)
Kiribati (male only)
Papua New Guinea (male only)
Samoa (male only)
Solomon Islands
Tonga (male only)
Tuvalu (male only)

It says to me that, although my belief on this subject does not in any coincide with what Israel Falau has clearly been brought up to believe (as part of his religion, I assume) it would be very wrong of me to condemn him for holding a contrary religious belief to my own. 

Heaven and Hell are words naming two concepts which, to most of us are probably beyond describing in words, and for many people are beyond belief.

Let us not, therefore, condemn, in our human desire for uniformity (which, as we see in the world around us every day god clearly does not love, if god there be), what was said in honesty, as an expression of one person's religious belief, merely because it does not chime with our own.

We are not, thank goodness, living in 1612 when the Pendle Witches were hanged in Britain

or in Salem Massachsetts during the witch hunts of 1692.

Edited by Honor James
  • Like 1

“The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.”  Eleanor Roosevelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said on Sadler’s thread, this is a weak argument. If any of the above’s national RL federations took leave of their senses and started tweeting that ‘gays are evil’ or some such, there would rightly be widespread condemnation and disciplinary action.

Edited by Man of Kent
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where has this idea sprung up from that certain people in Rugby League are not accepting of others based on their faith?

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have players who express their faith and test teams who say prayers before games... and I have not seen or heard a single person object to any of this.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Like I said on Sadler’s thread, this is a weak argument. If any of the above’s national RL federations took leave of their senses and started tweeting that ‘gays are evil’ or some such, there would rightly be widespread condemnation and disciplinary action.

Indeed.

However, nothing I have read suggests that Israel Falau was speaking `from a pulpit' of any kind, religious or secular, nor was he claiming any state or public endowed right to dictate opinion.  He was merely stating his own belief.

It will be a sorry day indeed, when we here - in what we are proud to call the free world - must cease offering our opinions for fear of official condemnation.

  • Like 2

“The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.”  Eleanor Roosevelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Honor James said:

Indeed.

However, nothing I have read suggests that Israel Falau was speaking `from a pulpit' of any kind, religious or secular, nor was he claiming any state or public endowed right to dictate opinion.  He was merely stating his own belief.

It will be a sorry day indeed, when we here - in what we are proud to call the free world - must cease offering our opinions for fear of official condemnation.

What if his religious belief was that all black men would go to hell?

  • Like 3

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he definitely didn't get sacked for his beliefs, he was sacked for breaching a code of conduct which he had signed up to.

At least one commercial organisations did take exception to what he said publicly whilst they were paying him a considerable amount in sponsorship, they dumped him. And I notice that they didn't get taken to court.

Edited by TBone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...