Here are a couple of unpopular opinions: the NRL was right to haul Sam Burgess over the coals and little harm would be done by allowing Israel Folau to play for Tonga.
I know, I know…
Let’s start with Sam. As long as I’ve been covering rugby league (that’s a long time), observers have had trouble with discerning between criticism and defamation.
Everyone focuses on the colourful words, like ‘farce’ and ‘joke’ and ‘disgrace’. They are words that would hurt the person at whom they are directed but they should not be the ones that are most likely to get you in trouble.
Instead, far less exciting words – like ‘unfair’, ‘biased’ and terms which suggest prejudgement, such as ‘kangaroo court’ – are more likely to send you up the river.
And that’s as it should be.
As I’m sure Todd Greenberg explained to Big Sam, a kangaroo court is one that “ignores recognised standards of law and justice”.
Hell, you just can’t go around publicly accusing people of dishonesty.
I’m all for the league cracking down on this because it keeps the sport out of the courts. Do we really want judiciary members suing star players and coaches for defamation, as happened in 2008 when Melbourne’s Craig Bellamy and Brian Waldron blew up about Cameron Smith’s suspension?
Of course, as a journalist, I am on the side of free speech but also truth – and the judiciary is clearly not a kangaroo court. It might have structural flaws but it’s not corrupt.
Photo by Will Russell/Getty Images
My thoughts on Folau, on this platform, got widespread coverage earlier this year.
My point then was more about society – we keep trying to pick and choose what we want out of this ancient dogma and get upset when someone wants to be dogmatic.
Once we accept what religion is, we’ll find it easier to let it go.
Folau’s comments on social media were not consistent with the values of his former employer and they are not consistent with those of the NRL. Fair enough. He’s on the outer.
But a rep team that is playing just two more games this year? He’ll be in camp for all of a fortnight. How much trouble can he get in with this fire and brimstone stuff?
Also, Tonga is a sovereign country and there is no record of the Rugby League International Federation refusing to clear a player for Test duty due to his social media musings or religious beliefs.
Unless Rugby Australia refuse him a clearance, it’s a procedural and precedent-creating minefield. The international governing body has never exercised that level of oversight before and would be under pressure with its three employees to now monitor Twitter for extreme views of all types from players, who range from highly paid NRL stars to park footballers in Serbia.
I’d let him play because I struggle to think of a water-tight premise for stopping him.
Before I go, I shout out to Roar colleague AJ Mithen for his excellent column on media coverage of the NRL.
He says it won’t change because of the game’s current audience and the media’s pandering to that audience.
But AJ, your column would not have been written even ten years ago. The fact that you and several of your fellow columnists were thinking the same thing after the weekend’s matches proves that change is happening.
There is a groundswell, there is feeling from many – including me – that the sport can be repositioned demographically in our lifetimes.
The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Samlaurence26
Roar Rookie
I think Sam knew at the time he was pushing the limit with his comments. It's probably best they cracked down on him
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Lots of sausage sizzles then.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Oddly enough (according the RA defence filed at 3.11(h) )
Mr Folau, in his evidence, proposed a regime going forward whereby his social media posting would be made subject to Rugby Australia's prior approval;So your free speech poster boy proposed a censorship regime.steveng
Roar Rookie
You cant have a sponsor, especially a sponsor who's ceo is biased, dictating and threatening withdrawing sponsorship! That is the bottom line her, as that is Joyce's tactics and he has form!
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Offside, Well I dunno, if I want to know what a document says then generally speaking, wherever possible, I read that document. Having read that document I did notice para 3.8 3.8 The 2019 lnstagram Post objectively conveyed the following messages: (a) homosexuality is a choice, akin to a decision one could make to engage in some of the other behaviours listed: consume alcohol in excess, lie, steal, murder, or cheat on one's spouse; (b) homosexuality is a comparable behaviour to that which renders a person a criminal (cf. thieves) or which typically causes great hurt to those to whom a person has made weighty promises (cf. adulterers, liars); (c) homosexuality amounts to living in "Sin" — that is, living a life that is immoral and wicked, incompatible with Christian values, and incompatible with the values of Jesus Christ; (d) homosexuals should "repent", meaning that they should feel or express regret and remorse about being homosexual and acknowledge that by being homosexual they are engaging in wrongdoing; (e) because homosexuality is a choice, people who are homosexual have the option of repenting and changing themselves, thereby avoiding punishment in the form of Hell (eternal damnation) by reason of that choice; (f) homosexual people are under the threat of grave punishment unless they surrender their sexual status; and (g) homosexual people, while ever they remain homosexual and because of their homosexuality, are rendered of less worth than other members of the community. Tell me what of that suggests that the "tone" of the comments was of most concern or that he could have rephrased them without issue ? Even without consideration of Folaus's concessions. (note similar concerns were raised re his 'transgender' comments)
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Rainbow coloured unicorns , sadly aren’t afforded general protections under the FWA.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Spruce Moose, Yeah why read the source material and think for yourself when you can just find a journalist you like and recycle their views. I suppose it's time saving at least.
steveng
Roar Rookie
You sound like the democrats reasons to impeach Trump, all hear say!
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
There has been material filed in court that states that RA personnel felt bullied by Folau’s posts.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
I don’t think the word ‘tone’ is actually used in Rugby Australia’s Defence. But ... obviously the way in which something is said can make all the difference to whether or not it causes offence. Folau’s tweet in relation to his opposition to gay marriage was written in a respectful way and was not offensive as a result. His tweet in relation to removing gender description from birth certificates in Tasmania was disrespectful, aggressively worded and was offensive as a result.
Nick
Roar Guru
Cheers. Yes - the part the Folau and his lawyers have acknowledged the code of conduct was breached really stood out. That, and the email trail between Castle and Folau over the past year really boxes Folau in a corner. RA made every effort to accommodate this, and to his credit, Folau worked positively and proactively with them to do so... until he blew that all up.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Having read the statement of claim and defence, putting aside my personal biases and looking at it from a purely legal perspective, taking into account that pleadings aren’t finalised and evidence hasn’t been tested: Folau’s case is far weaker and Rugby Australia’s case is far stronger than I had previously thought. It is always important not to get swept away by pleadings, since they are only really meant to state the case rather than be persuasive (the persuading is done in written submissions or orally in front of the judge at the trial), so my view could change. The statement of claim is pleaded in a very basic and dry style. It is by no means some kind of freedom of speech/religion manifesto that a lot of people were probably expecting ( and not should it be - it’s a technical document). It’s fine, but it didn’t really make me think that Folau’s case was stronger than I had previously thought. It is more conservative than I had expected. The restraint of trade claim is a bit out of left field. The defence provides far more facts that I wasn’t aware of until now, particularly of what happened at the tribunal. If those facts are proven (they appear to be the type of facts that will be backed up by highly credible witnesses and documents), then Folau will lose. The defence is stronger than I thought it would be, based mainly on it revealing facts that were previously not publicly known. Essentially, if the defence is accurate (it references the transcript of the tribunal, so it would be a pretty ballsy false pleading), Folau and his lawyers admitted he had 1. knowingly and deliberately breached the code of conduct in multiple ways and on multiple occasions. 2. Folau offered to publicly apologise, but yet refused to take down the posts (what?);and 3. admitted that he might do the exact same thing again if he felt like it. There is more than that in favour of Rugby Australia, but I’ll save that for scoring cheap points in the comments of the click bait articles that we can expect to see popping up over the coming weeks. Tl;dr: early days, but RA are a lot further out in front than expected.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
I really couldn’t give a flying continental if Folau plays or doesn’t play. I’m so tired of the very mention of his name conjuring up a ridiculous debate about freedom of speech, religious freedom, the supposed tenuous future of Australian Rugby etc etc ad nauseum. He’s taken up way to much oxygen.. if he so devout then I’m sure he can hook up a great job banging a tambourine
Nick
Roar Guru
Well well... Of course, try telling that to Andy, Jacko, Onside, Doc79 et al...they'll start questioning the validity of the transcript and the fact that it was through Folau's counsel that these acknowledgements have been made.
Nick
Roar Guru
Oh - that's a problem, Ruckin Oaf. That would require Onside to read it, and form his own opinion based off him reading the documentation at hand. Surely you see the issue there?
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Amen to that Bluebags.The Judist got his 30 Pieces of Silver and now he wants more.And go the mighty Jets ,may the lord smile down favourably on Sunday
Onside
Guest
I posted what I read in today's Australian. Janet Albrectsen is a senior journalist. Worth reading the article.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
In their filed defence the Warratahs have noted that (b) the Applicant was the face of rugby in Australia, had been promoted as the face of rugby and paid handsomely as the face of rugby; (c) the Applicant acknowledged that his Twitter and Instagram followers increased because of his sporting success;
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
That was one part of their argument. The more significant parts are likely to be the assurances he gave RA about not repeating the posts he had previously made.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Heya Onside I've just read through the defence again and I can't see the word "tone" anywhere in there. Can you cite me a paragraph where it's mentioned ? OR that saying it nicely would have made the difference ? ta