Manly players refusing to wear Pride Jersey

[Young Blood]

1 minute ago, Ackroman said:

Money lending is gambling. Jesus didn’t like that. He also turned water into wine at a wedding, arguably so people could get pi**ed. Bloody hypocrite.

Gambling and alcohol are allowed as long not abused. I am not religious and I won't wear a jersey with a bible verse same principle applies. 

 

[The storm]

5 hours ago, Jughead said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Danny_Weidler/status/1551462666434396160

Depressing. 

As opinions and views are force fed to us, i dont blame em

 

[Ackroman]

1 minute ago, Saint 1 said:

The founding of RL was inherently political.

In your opinion. More to do with money and broken time.

What it wasn’t about was trying to impose something on people that they didn’t want to have in the pursuit of being seen to do the right thing.

[glossop saint]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just to join up a couple of threads on here.

If I were able to look forward in time a few hundred years I believe that a couple of things will have happened. 

Firstly, the human age would have evolved past looking at bronze age cultures for our moral compass.

And secondly, Wakefield would have announced they are just about to move out of Belle Vue.

I admire your positivity. On both counts.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

In your opinion. More to do with money and broken time.

That does sound kinda political.

[Barley Mow]

6 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

The founding of RL was inherently political.

True.

It leads to an interesting question though, should RL therefore take a stance on every political/moral/religious issue?

If we do, we can't complain if it leads to numerous schisms and loads of tiny governing bodies all only playing matches between people with the same beliefs.

Alternatively, we can accept that in 1895 it was the right thing to do to let people be recompensed for playing the game, and that everyone involved now can take part without feeling stigmatised, whatever their believes, leaving the politics out of it as much as possible.

[DavidM]

I was brought up a practicing catholic but as ive got older and the more i see the more i think ( and its just my opinion ) for something supposedly rooted in good intentions its an ultimate irony that often whenever religion is involved it doesnt really go well 

[The storm]

Honestly

If someone is gay

Great

Good for them

I personally dont want to go on gay pride marches, or sing the national anthem of listen to people slurp soup as they eat. 

But if they want to do all that then fantastic

Now a lot of manly players are christians or muslims and their set of beliefs means that that being gay is a sin. 

Now i dont believe that either, but i defend the right of anyone to hold firm with their beliefs

[M j M]

30 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said:

People are perfectly entitled to their decision, so why shouldn't these players be allowed one?

The sponsors logos argument is a deflection, there are advertisements on TV at half time, ads at the side of the pitch, etc that likely contrast with people's views and beliefs. But making players wear a unique shirt in active celebration / promotion of something is completely different. 

You have a similar view on armed forces celebration shirts too then? 

 

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Stood down for the game , supported by Hasler 

The players in question are: Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley.

 

I think the players stood themselves down, which Hasler supported.

[The storm]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I think the players stood themselves down, which Hasler supported.

So

Why cant these players hold a view

They live by a strict religious code, and most of the time that is morally acceptable

[Sports Prophet]

2 minutes ago, The storm said:

So

Why cant these players hold a view

They live by a strict religious code, and most of the time that is morally acceptable

That’s fine, I was concerned David was implying the club stood them down and Hasler supported the club’s decision.

[Spidey]

Let them find another club. If their religious views are in conflict with their employer, maybe they need to work somewhere else

[Sports Prophet]

Seems to be a lot more people in favour of the right for the Manly players to stand up for their beliefs, than those that supported Israel Falou to publicly share the bible’s “teachings”.

Is there a difference here?

[Barley Mow]

2 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

RL doesn't have to take a stance on every issue, but to argue that RL (or sport generally) is somehow separate from politics is clearly ahistorical. From the origins of our sport, to the inclusion of black players decades before other sports, to the links between French RL and the resistance against the Nazis, our sport has a proud history of not just being about what happens on the field. This is just an extension of the same principles. More recently, look at the success of the Indigenous round in Australia, with sport used as a vehicle to impact a marginalised group. Is this really any different?

If close to 50% of the Manly team is boycotting a match because their jersey features a rainbow, the ability of everyone to take part without feeling stigmatised may not be as universal as one would hope.

Players are entitled to their beliefs. But they're also contracted in order to play rugby. Interesting to see the same issues rarely arise with alcohol and gambling sponsorship though. Didn't the Bible say something about usury too? Are we going with no credit sponsors either?

 

I think the difference is that at every point during RL's history it has taken stances to ensure people can play the game - be that broken time payments, including black players in the British game before most other sports, or whatever.

Although the use of pride shirts is intended to do the same thing - make homosexual and transgender people feel welcome in the game, it has an impact on others that previous stances didn't. By using a kit, which is obviously worn by all the team, it means that others are pressured into showing support for an ideology that they disagree with for religious or political reasons.

No one made people wear shirts with pound symbols on in 1895 or BLM style shirts when we first had black players in the game. Anyone who disagreed with a decision could carry on playing.

As far as I can see these players aren't saying that anyone should be excluded from the game due to their sexuality, just that they don't want to be seen to support a certain ideology themselves.

If homophobia came into vogue (heaven forbid) I hope players would be able to avoid wearing kits promoting homophobia in the same way.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Barley Mow

[Martyn Sadler]

The NRL in recent years has seen an explosion in the number of players who have a heritage linked to one of the South Pacific nations, to the point at which the majority of NRL players now probably fall into this category.

Whether we like it or not, part of what these players bring to the table is a strong religious belief.

Manly clearly has a lot of players in their squad who fall into this category, so you might have thought the club would have consulted its players before making this decision. That shows a lack of respect for those players when the club should have known that they might have had strong views. After all, there are many ways in which the club could show its support for Gay Pride without making its players wear a shirt to promote a cause that they would object to.

In isn't the first example of a player objecting to something that appeared on a team strip.

In 2020 Sonny Bill Williams was allowed to cover the Betfred logo on his Toronto Wolfpack jersey because of his religious beliefs. Three years earlier, while playing rugby union for Auckland, he had been allowed to cover the logo of the Bank of New Zealand for similar reasons.

So now, by their clumsy decision, the management of the Manly club has given ammunition to Rugby League's enemies.

No doubt Peter Fitzsimons will hang his next SMH column on this.

[Sports Prophet]

Hopefully someone can help me understand why Manly felt the need to design this jersey.

Is there an obscene homophobic culture in the northern beaches of Sydney?

Does anyone feel that the Manly Sea Eagles football club promotes a non inclusive environment?

Have there been recent examples of discrimination/incitement/violence against individuals for their sexuality at Manly games?

[Dunedan]

Lots of people talking about freedom of speech/religion and how everyone is allowed their opinion and so forth. And that is all perfectly true.

That being said, if you are objecting to a shirt showing inclusivity towards a historically marginalised population, I'll use my freedom of expression to call you a bigot.

[idrewthehaggis]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Stood down for the game , supported by Hasler 

The players in question are: Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley.

 

Leigh?

 

Whilst it might be true that a diversity of faith, belief and sentiment might exist within the equal diversity of heritage and origins of NRL players, the fact is if you are under contract there are things you should/shouldn't, can/can't do. 

If you are signed to Manly then unless your contract/work agreement says otherwise,  you follow what management decides. Did they consult their trade union?

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by idrewthehaggis

[Moe syszlak]

Warrington, can you please, please, please wear a kit for the rest of this season that Oliver Holmes refuses to play in!!

[redjonn]

Personally whilst one can applaud the sport supporting causes but I've always assumed the underlying reason for different shirts, including this one, is to sell more shirts - irrespectful of the cause. 

Although the choice of cause to support may well be based on the best pressure group. 

Of course they could be donating the shirts monies to an associated charity - would be nice gesture and I assume what they are doing.

I guess my underlying concern is always promoting some cause and maybe ignoring underlying issue - e.g. here in UK limited if any Asian profile in the game.  Maybe focus on one issue for a period rather than one off.

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, Dunedan said:

Lots of people talking about freedom of speech/religion and how everyone is allowed their opinion and so forth. And that is all perfectly true.

That being said, if you are objecting to a shirt showing inclusivity towards a historically marginalised population, I'll use my freedom of expression to call you a bigot.

Would you be ok with your employer changing your uniform for one week to include a shirt with an image of Jesus Christ on the cross in support of peoples right to Religious freedom?

[Dunedan]

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

Would you be ok with your employer changing your uniform for one week to include a shirt with an image of Jesus Christ on the cross in support of peoples right to Religious freedom?

Apples and oranges. Christianity hasn't been illegal in this country within living memory, homosexuality has.

[andyscoot]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

Would you be ok with your employer changing your uniform for one week to include a shirt with an image of Jesus Christ on the cross in support of peoples right to Religious freedom?

Your religion is a choice you have made.

[Sports Prophet]

3 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

Your religion is a choice you have made.

 

For most people, their religion is a “choice” that was made for them.

And for most of those people, they would argue with you that their religion is as much their destiny as a homosexual person would claim that their sexuality is their own destiny.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Sports Prophet