Israel Folau - latest example of how to fleece the gullible

[Marty_d]

I don't have a problem about who does what with who. I just cannot understand why we have to be told about it.A couple of days ago the ABC was extatic about the first openly gay female member of parliament. Who cares?

Penny Wong's been there for ages.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Penny Wong's been there for ages.

Makes my point, Marty. Her achievements in politics are what she is known for.

 

 

[facthunter]

She's been the target of plenty of unpleasantness in the gender issues.. There's still a way to go yet.. Good on her WE need more like her. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I would have thought that Penny Wong would have been a good leader for Labor and I have been aware of her sexual preferences for a long while. The other woman polly I mentioned was promoted for being lesbian by the media and that is the only thing the media said about her. She is probably the best person for her job, but the media only tells us about her sexual preferences. It is the media that upset me. They cannot have a sensible point of view, but prefer salacious scandal to common sense reporting.

 

 

[robinsm]

dont care if she's gay, black, purple or polka dot, she cant manage the party. She has a penchant for giving away everything to ovberseas interests to kake herself feel good. Not a good choice. Love him or hate him, Albanese is the only one with a brain in thaqt whole area.

 

 

[facthunter]

I have a lot of time for Albanese. Perhaps you could elaborate about Wong. IF the labor candidates lack skills and qualifications where does that leave the others? They are generally more skilled and ethical than the other side . Check how many have been dismissed from office while in office. The comparison is not even CLOSE. Those facts can be verified. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Penny Wong,

 

She is a star performer in the senate, esp the committee's. She gets answers when others get lied to. She has never been in a scandal as she is a cleanskin and far smarter and more ethical than the rest.

 

The reason she is not PM is she is female, Asian background and a lesbian. But most of all she is a senator not in the lower house.

 

I have a great amount of respect for her, she would be a great leader.

 

 

[Marty_d]

But most of all she is a senator not in the lower house.

I have a great amount of respect for her, she would be a great leader.

I believe they wanted her to resign as a Senator and stand in the lower house this time around, but she refused.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't know if that's true or not but it was a significant impediment not without political risks and could not be done very quickly . Nev

 

 

[octave]

After seeing the gay marriage event, which has ended up being a means of promoting LGBTQ or whatever it is and denying anyone the rights to disagree, I can see this a

I have posted here to avoid thread drift in the constituion thread.

 

How is LBGQTI being promoted?

 

This mans free speech is not being stopped.

 

My social media is somewhat tied in to my work. If I were to perhaps post on FB that I thought christians were morons (which I woudlnt anyway) I would most certainly expect to lose my job. Whether I like it or not I do somewhat represent my employer. I am smart enough and proffesional enough to understand this. It is not a curtailment of my free speech.

 

Sometimes you have to make a career choice, some careers come with extra responsabilities.

 

I have first hand experience from my sisters life of how tough it has been over many decades and the anguish she has suffered, Perhaps the fact now that she can now marry if she wants to is a cause of great anguish to you but we are not going back and most younger people have no problem with it.

 

When I satrted to live with my girlfriend (now my wife) the crusty old conservatives told me that living together was wrong and that it would cause society to collapse. Time has made these people look foolish.

 

Not all christians are bent out of shape by this.Tim Costello: 'Christians need to calm down' and 'suck it up' over alleged persecution

 

 

[spacesailor]

How Is being dismissed for your Free-Speech, Not being curtailed.

 

If I stood on a high building & used a loud-hailer to shout "Christians come to church " I don't think I would last long before the opposition religion, shuts me down.

 

Isn't that curtailing my free speech. ( the opposition DO that in the UK.

 

you know who (In case I'm being watched)

 

 

[octave]

How Is being dismissed for your Free-Speech, Not being curtailed.If I stood on a high building & used a loud-hailer to shout "Christians come to church " I don't think I would last long before the opposition religion, shuts me down.

 

Isn't that curtailing my free speech. ( the opposition DO that in the UK.

 

you know who (In case I'm being watched)

He exceside

 

How Is being dismissed for your Free-Speech, Not being curtailed.If I stood on a high building & used a loud-hailer to shout "Christians come to church " I don't think I would last long before the opposition religion, shuts me down.

 

Isn't that curtailing my free speech. ( the opposition DO that in the UK.

 

you know who (In case I'm being watched)

 

He execised his free speech - fact, if not tell me how he did not.

 

His employer found this to be against their bussiness interests, this is their right.

 

Many people found this offensive, this is their right.

 

The employer deemed that he was in breach of this contract. - this will be tested in court

 

And that is the situation.

 

Look I undersatnd that you may be very religous and have certain views, I have no problem with that but many of us are not.

 

The right to free speech is not breached by people critisizing the view you have expressed.

 

Everyone has the right to express their opinion but thery have to man up and accept criticism from thois who disagree,

 

 

[spacesailor]

I am Not in any way religious, Was a Follower of BBC, Now its ABC. LOL.

 

To me, being sacked for stating a religious belief, smacks of the crusades, & the Hell the church of old put people through. Heretics All.

 

Were is our religious tolerance.

 

He's not upsetting people Not on Fakbook.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

I am Not in any way religious, Was a Follower of BBC, Now its ABC. LOL.To me, being sacked for stating a religious belief, smacks of the crusades, & the Hell the church of old put people through. Heretics All.

 

Were is our religious tolerance.

 

He's not upsetting people Not on Fakbook.

 

spacesailor

Wasnt he sacked after being warned by his employer that he was breaching his contract?

 

 

[spacesailor]

"he was breaching his contract? "

 

Not to spout religion ?. equals curtailment !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Spacey - I am sure that if you were removed from a tall building in the UK for screaming the above (assuming it was in broad daylight), you removal from the building would be for other reasons than calling all christians to come to church. It would be for some other public order offence or, indeed, for the civil law of trespass... There is a bloke who, since I arrived in the UK in 1996 has, during summers, stood on his soapboax at the top of Oxford Street, near Marble Arch, billowing out words to the effect that sinners should repent and all should attend church - has been doing so for a long time.

 

Although I am not intimately knowledgeable in the anti-vilification laws in the UK, they are complex and priduce inconsistent results: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia. The point is, what is the difference between opinion and hate speech - it can be a fine line. Calling all Christians to church, even if it caused offence to other religions, could hardly be considered vilfication on religious grounds as the message is directed to a group of people, to whom, if they belong, are being asked to attend the institution that represents their faith. But even if, say you were calling them to attend a mosque, it would be difficult to see how this would be even "insulting" (which, from reading the wilipedia entry, may be removed from the statute); without context, saying "All Christians should come to a mosque" is not necessarily saying christianity is bad, but maybe Islam is better (for the absolute avoidance of doubt, this is hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point - I do not believe in any relgion and will not advocate one over the other).

 

Also something I noted - there is a school of thought that, as homosexuality is not generally though of as not discretionary - it is OK. Well, I recall on a forum (here I think, haven't looked it it up) discussion about how paedophiles cannot be rehabilitiated as it is generally part of their makeup. This obviously is not OK, but where does one draw the line? The obvious difference is that homosexuality is between two consenting adults whereas paedophilia and other forms of complusions outside societal "norms", shall we say, such as serial murdering, etc, involves an innocent victim. That seems easy - but in the UK (and I suspect a few if not all states in Aus as it is common law), consent is not defence to a battery (@OME - according to my Aussie law course, NSW still has the offence of Battery, apparently - but lets call it common assault). So, we have those whose sexuality includes BSDM, S&M or whatever it is called - inflicting pain of some sort.. this is illegal yet it is between consenting adults as part of their sexuality. The line of morality and legality is a fine one at times..

 

Again, to make it absolutely clear, I am not in any way homophobic.. but just trying to illustrate there is black, white, and 50 shares of grey in between... at least...

 

Anyway, back to the OP; Israel Folau may or may not have committed hate speech.. I suppose religious homosexuals would find it offensive and hateful; maybe not to atheist homosexuals. But this is not the issue.. the question is simple - did he breach his employment contract such that it warranted an immediate dismissal on dosciplinary grounds?

 

Given Israel has a plethora of wealth (compared to most on this forum, I would guess), then surely a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars spent with the best employment lawyers would have yielded an opinion of his likelihood to succeed. Given that civil cases actively attempt to achieve an outcome without going to court, which would include restitution of the party's legal fees or at least a decent part thereof for the party most likely to succeed at court, there is a good chance his advice is this is tenuous at best and you would want to rely on getting public backing enough to make the court to find against you. If it got to court and he won, he would almost defintiely get is $3m legal fees as well as whatever damages and/or reinstatement he gets. ANd the NRL would probably not be one that his legal team would think they would be unable to obtain those fees from. However, if his advice is what I think it is, what better way than to use your public standing to fleece the gullible who adore you?

 

[edit] Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Ireland, that country whose politics are steeped in religion, has an openly gap prime minister - Leo Vradkar... [/edit]

 

 

[spacesailor]

"stood on his soapboax at the top of Oxford Street, sinners should repent and all should attend church - has been doing so for a long time."

 

Yes I agree, He does not use a loud-hailer.

 

BUT

 

The opposition religion does, when calling the fans to the mosque.

 

In the 60s they wages war against the carillon bells, & won. silence on Sunday.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

AHh... I didn't read it in that context... Makes sense... I think though, it won't be the police that would move them... there would be a ruddy great rear-guard action by those nursing hangovers and they would stone him off the roof (I believe the only valid reason for stoning someone - one has to be stoned first)...

 

 

[old man emu]

Actually there are many assaults that are quite legal. Surgery becomes a legal assault after the patient gives consent (or consent is given by legally described persons). Getting your hair cut is a legal assault. Bondage and S&M between consenting persons is a legal assault. Even a firm handshake is a legal assault.

 

In Australia there is no offence of battery. It has been included into "assault". In other countries "battery" involves contact with the victim's body, while "assault" is simply the threat of battery that the victim believes can be carried out. The offence of making a threat by an offender where the victim has fears that the offender can fulfill that threat is termed "Common Assault". Once the offender strikes the victim the offence becomes "assault occasioning...." with increasing harsher penalties for the severity of the injury. Murder is the ultimate assault.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

One of the Aussie legal system law books I was reading last semester mentioned the crime of Battery - maybe they were speaking in the context of the common law offence being a class of offences - a quick check and it appears to still be used in the civil law of tort.. either way.. not material... Yes, - assault (or common assault in Aus) is the apprehension of the application of unlawful force..

 

In anycase, I am not sure about Aussie law, however, surgery, hair cutting, etc are the not application of unlawful force in the UK - either through the common law or specific legislation (even though the outcome may technically be a battery of some sort)... and therefore do not fit the (UK at least) definition of a battery (encompassing the different types - from ABH to GBH and beyond). The consent, say, for an operation is usually informing the victim (er, patient) that this is a dangerous procedure and has all sorts of risks from the operation itself going wrong through no one's material fault, to problems with anaesthetics, unknown allergiuc reactions, the possibility of catching a bug, etc and that the patient has been suitably informed and is aware and accepts the risks (except for gross negligence, etc). Ironically, I am starting NSW Criminla law this semester, so at least for that jurisdiction, I will have a better idea at the end of it as to how the legal technicalitites have applied..

 

Over 'ere, BSDM is technically criminally illegal, though, unless it results in a life-changing (or ending) outcome, I doubt it will ever be prosecuted. Butit beggars the question - and I don't argue that it is not illegal in Aus, say I consent to a course of BSDM from the house of il-repute on Oxford or Fitzroy street I(or their environs) and I end up dead as a result - e.g. the pracrice that the singer of INXS fame had fallen to, and it was the lady of the house that strung me up - but I had not notified her of my need to be released - what is the liability of the lady of the house in criminal law? I consented to the BSDM session and the act in full knowing of the risk... She was waiting my signal or some manifest sign it was not OK.. but I may have looked as if everythign was "normal" until too late...

 

This has gone a little off topic - the point was to illustrate there are many shades of grey; there is definite hate speech, but is someone expressing what is a paraphrase of a well known (or at least, perceived) concept of the bible, the book accepted by and practiced by millions, if not, billions all over the world...

 

 

[Marty_d]

...there is definite hate speech, but is someone expressing what is a paraphrase of a well known (or at least, perceived) concept of the bible, the book accepted by and practiced by millions, if not, billions all over the world...

Yes, but there's all sorts of silly sh*t in that book and I don't see people getting on to Facebook and saying that Wiccans should be killed, or they should be allowed to have slaves, or any of the other stuff that simply has no place in any reasonable society.

 

You've got to wonder why he picked on those particular people to go to hell. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters. Out of the 8, three are to do with sex, and none of the 8 are particularly bad. Someone who shoplifted a Mars Bar as a kid, experimented with their sexuality in college, claimed a dodgy tax deduction, likes a drink, has a relaxed attitude to fidelity and puts their favourite rock star on a pedestal, meets all of those criteria and could still be a wonderful person.

 

Why didn't he choose murderers, paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and bankers?

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't disagree with you - I guess I am playing devil's advocate... Personally, when I heard of the post he made, well, I thought what an appendage of the male body around the pelvic region he is - as was Gary Ablett jnr who posted in support of him but managed to con those willing to be conned that he was tweeting in support of someone expressing their religious beliefs rather than supporting the actual statement.

 

I also agree with your sentiment in your original post...

 

I am not sure what the anti vilification laws are in Aus; I am guessing there are some; but as far as I have heard, there has been no mention of any such laws that apply in this case. From a hate speech perspective, I see it like this - he has endeared himself and possibly reinforced these views to the religious bigots that already believe this - I doubt very much he has converted those who think more liberally. We know the bible is full of all sorts of discriminatory and hate philosophy and spreads it as gods love; this, to me is just another nutter using a public soapbox, to spout excrement from that genre that millions of people believe in.. that as ridiculous as it sounds.. these people are so indoctinated, they will never change their mind.

 

Case in point: I used to do some community work while I was studying UK law. I came across an interesting case where a TS sex worker was charged with public solicitation and the case ironically involved a priest (she was Brazilian - the branch of christianity of the priest, for the purposes of this, is not important). Being brought up in a middle class conforming Brazilian family, she was a devout christian (again, branch not important, but you can probably guess). She honestly felt guilty about "bringing the priest into disrepute" (quotes for irony rather than direct quote), even though the priest approached her on his own volition. I asked why she felt that way and why she didn't feel, because he initiated the contact, he brought it on himself. It was an undying loyalty to the church and when I asked how she reconciles this loyalty to an institution that vilifies her type, she just shrugged her shoulders...

 

She probably thinks she is going to hell.. I have no idea. I didn't think it appropriate to prod (if you'll forgive the pun) further. But I don't think someone like Issy would make a blind difference to the way she thought; and he certainly wouldn't make a blind difference to the way those that don't believe this carp - even if they are religious (https://medium.com/@hdsm/reflections-of-a-gay-anglican-priest-ff728ab15cf9) think.

 

I get that it may just galvanise one person to try and send an LBGTQI to an early grave to find out if they go to hell... but we need very tight ant vilification laws that spell a clear boundary between unsubstantiated opinion and hate.. the line is very thin and we don't want to curtail free speech, whether we agree with it or not.. As Voltaire once said (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1263/voltaire), "I may disagree with you, but I defend to the death your right to say it" (picked this up from a Rumpole of the Bailey episode). I would add to that, " and I pray I have the strength to comprehensively rebuke any of your opinions that are repugnant to real justice..."

 

 

[Yenn]

You can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time, unless you are a religion, when you fool all of the people all of the time.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well you have to admit, It's a good sales pitch. Life after death is the deal and it's hard to check out the satisfied customers, or the other's (who would want a refund I would expect). Nev.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Why didn't he choose murderers, paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and bankers? "

 

AND crooked politicians. Now there's a bunch of conmen (women) that should be "burned at the stake".IMHO.

 

WHY pick on HELL .

 

It's got atmosphere, warmth, lots of friends & reloes. should be like Emigrating to Australia from north Europe or whatever they call themselves now. (NO LoL ).

 

NOW you describe Heav an, ( deliberate space ( missing th )).

 

spacesailor