The Roar
The Roar

Kiwikrs

Roar Rookie

Joined December 2018

0

Views

0

Published

124

Comments

Published

Comments

Kiwikrs hasn't published any posts yet

SMI, posting my reply down here now.

This is one case out of how many?

It is no different to the poster on another thread (or article, I forgot where I read it) that was asked to remove photos of him drinking and smoking cigars from his social media while employed by a school. Neither are illegal and nor did it infringe upon his freedom of speech. It was a simple case of “if you want to take our money then ensure that your views (at least publicly are aligned with ours).

I personally know of a woman that was told that she had to remove modelling photos of her in a bikini from Facebook as it wasn’t a professional look for the company. Again not impeding her freedom of speech. Merely ensuring that the public appearance is in line with that of the company.

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

I would class myself as right wing. More Abbott than Turnbull definitely. But I’m not sure what my political stance has to do with anything.
I’m not offended at all. I’m not hurt. Maybe a little dismayed that one of the games biggest names has committed career suicide but that’s about it.
My issue here is he has repeatedly shown total disregard for his employer. He was formally warned about this less than a year ago and he completely blew them off.
I want rugby to be strong and competitive in Australia. If your biggest player is going to continually undermine the values and wishes of not only RA but also its cornerstone sponsor then rugby in Australia can ill afford that.
These are business and commercial decisions. IF used his public figure endorsed account to flaunt these opposing views. An account that is propped up by his employer and littered with photos of him in his uniform and sporting the sponsors logo therefore associating them with his views.
IF is free to say whatever he likes (within the realms of the law) however he is not entitled to be supported in doing so by his employer.
When you accept a pay check from someone you accept that there are business and commercial limitations and responsibilities linked to that. You’re not getting paid just because someone thinks you’re a top guy.
The fact that the NRL, French league etc etc have all come out and said he wouldn’t be welcome there either shows that the issue is the commercial and insubordination side rather than trying to muzzle “free speech”

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

Of my ilk?
Please, enlighten me as to what my ilk is seeing as you know me so well…
Drunks and fornicaters are irrelevant and a deliberate attempt to divert attention as you well know. They are not the reason IF is in trouble here.
Also it’s not a minority of a minority at all. It’s IF getting himself sacked for breaching the terms of his employment despite having been formally warned both verbally and in writing less than a year ago

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

Except he didn’t quote the bible. He paraphrased a verse.

On top of that, the bit that is getting him in trouble (gays going to hell) isn’t even in the verse he paraphrased. So he has added that on his own accord.

And that is where this defence falls down.

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

This notion of I’m not offended so no one else should be is ridiculous.

I’m an atheist and don’t believe in hell so IF can say what he wants

I’m white and have wealth so people should be able to buy slaves. It doesn’t offend me

I’m a male and know how to throw a punch. Domestic violence doesn’t offend me

These views are incredibly narrow minded and naïve and deserve to be dismissed as a joke.

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

The rugby ruckus had a gay ex player come on and speak about the damage of Folau’s posts and views do.

Granted that is only one person but just because you haven’t heard them or they haven’t chosen to come out to you doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Izzy and Rugby AU: A monumental misconception

There is a difference between carrying out your duty of care to your shareholders ensuring that your company is as profitable as possible, and deciding who you want to align your values and sponsorship with.

Izzy, you're a complete...

He had both verbal and written warnings

Izzy, you're a complete...

alter the contracts as long as beneficial to the player

Swap player for employee.

No contract or EBA can leave an employee in a worse position than they would otherwise be under their initial award.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Possibly. I know that’s what I’ve been able to do with employees in the past.

I’m not sure of the specifics of the RA CBA though and was just going off the information I had been told.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Yes.

I was just referring to claims that RA should have included a social media clause specifically for IF.

It appears their hands were tied in that regard and instead had to spell out the policies and CoC which apparently referenced in the contract although maybe not as obviously.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Agreed for the most part.

But what happens when a major (only significant) sponsor threatens to pull their sponsorship. RA have no option but to get involved and unfortunately the game has to be bigger than one man to use the cliché.

Surely as an employee (especially the poster boy for the company) you would have to be aware of your major sponsors views on a topic. Noting he has received both verbal and written warnings 12 months ago for the very same issue.

And can we not go down the Qantas are hypocrites path as we all know that a board have a duty of care commercially to their shareholders regardless of their personal views on issues. However are free to endorse values via sponsorship that align with their and their company’s views.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

What part of calling IF in to his CEOs office for repeat verbal and written warnings amounts to “informal” in your mind?

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Just because a CoC is separate to a contract does not mean that he can’t be bound contractually to adhere to the CoC.

Therefore failing to adhere to the CoC can amount to breach of contract.

You’re deliberately trying to build a false argument when as a self professed lawyer I would sincerely hope you know better.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

No Cooper was contracted to the Reds who told him he was unwelcome at training.

Doesn’t sound like much of a choice at all.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Morgan T mentioned on the rugby ruckus that as part of the RA CBA they are unable to alter individual contracts.

However, it appears that RA policies are incorporated into the contract.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

reformed homosexual

Says it all really doesn’t it.

Israel Folau to fight Rugby AU sanction

Your moniker really is an apt description for you

Israel Folau issued breach notice, has 48 hours to respond

It is interesting.

A week ago, when all that was discussed was rugby there were any number of well informed posters sharing their views on rugby.

Unfortunately, it’s become glaringly obvious that some of those people may have spent too much time studying rugby and not enough time;
A) following the world into 2019
B) understanding the difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom of consequences”

Israel Folau issued breach notice, has 48 hours to respond

Trouble is you can be a tourist and still be naïve…

Israel Folau issued breach notice, has 48 hours to respond

I’ll take your silence as an admission to you being in the wrong.

No hard feelings

"Do not judge," said Jesus: An open, personal letter to Israel Folau

Far from it, it would appear.

Israel Folau issued breach notice, has 48 hours to respond

So like I said, there is no constitutional right.

In fact Australia is one of the only (possibly the only) western countries to not have it legislated.

You are correct in that there is an implied freedom of speech both via international human rights treaties that Australia has signed and precedence.

However the notion of freedom of speech only came before the courts in the early 90s in ACTV vs Commonwealth but was not fine tuned until the Theophanous defence was collapsed when David Lange sued the ABC for defamation in ’97.

The problem with “implied” and relying on precedence is that it is not water tight and open to being dismissed as new precedence is set.

Did I miss anything in my Australian history or am I free to comment on an opinion site still?

Israel Folau does not deserve the sack

Can you please comment on any post I’ve made where I’ve “raged against the death of free speech in Australia”, because you’ve quite clearly mistaken me for someone else or grossly misunderstood me.

Secondly, I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that I’m now on the “otherside” (to what I don’t know as you clearly dont know what side I’m on). Especially based on the two line comment I made above congratulating a new author on a well written and presented article.

Maybe you could explain your thought process and rationale to me rather than sitting back taking a few cheap shots?

"Do not judge," said Jesus: An open, personal letter to Israel Folau

Sometimes when people post poor thought out comments or deliberate misinterpretation then I feel like I shouldn’t waste too much effort in replying.

"Do not judge," said Jesus: An open, personal letter to Israel Folau