Folau sacked by Rugby Australia over social media post

[rooster59]

Folau sacked by Rugby Australia over social media post

By Nick Mulvenney

 

FILE PHOTO: Rugby Union - England v Australia - Twickenham Stadium, London, Britain - November 24, 2018 Australia's Israel Folau scores their second try Action Images via Reuters/Paul Childs

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Five weeks after they first committed to sacking Israel Folau, Rugby Australia finally terminated the Wallabies fullback's contract on Friday on the recommendation of a disciplinary panel that decided he had breached their rules on inclusion.

 

The protracted saga was sparked by Folau's Instagram post on April 10 that said hell awaited "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers" as well as others the fundamentalist Christian considered sinners.

 

The three-strong panel had earlier adjudged that Folau had committed a high-level breach of the players' code of conduct and on Friday RA chief executive Raelene Castle said she had accepted their verdict on a sanction.

 

"While Rugby Australia accepts the panel's decision to terminate his player contract for his breach of the code of conduct, we want to stress that this outcome is a painful situation for the game," the New Zealander told reporters.

 

"Israel, through his actions, left us with no choice but to pursue the course of action resulting in today's outcome.

 

"When players sign a contract with the Wallabies, they sign up to the values of the team and the sport.

 

"Israel is a great rugby player. We are disappointed and saddened by the fact that he will not be seeing out his four-year contract and commitment to the Wallabies and also the (New South Wales) Waratahs."

 

Folau, who has 72 hours to appeal the ruling, said he was "deeply saddened" by the decision and was considering his options.

 

"It has been a privilege and an honour to represent Australia and my home state of New South Wales, playing the game I love," the 30-year-old said in a statement.

 

"As Australians, we are born with certain rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression.

 

"The Christian faith has always been a part of my life and I believe it is my duty as a Christian to share God's word. Upholding my religious beliefs should not prevent my ability to work or play for my club and country."

 

REPEATED WARNINGS

 

Folau shared a similar post targeting gay people last year but escaped sanction and signed a new four-year contract, reported to be worth A$4 million (2 million pounds), in February.

 

Castle said Folau had since last year's post been warned repeatedly, both personally and through his manager, of RA's "very clear expectations" about his social media use.

 

The decision leaves Australia coach Michael Cheika without one of his few world class players only a few months out from the World Cup in Japan.

 

A high profile recruit to the sport in 2013, the former rugby league international and Australian Rules player last month became the top try-scorer in the history of Super Rugby.

 

Folau's potential sacking triggered a wider debate in Australia about freedom of speech and religion, becoming a minor theme in the run-up to Saturday's federal election.

 

Castle said it was a far more straightforward issue.

 

"This is a contract dispute about an employee signing a contract," she said.

 

"He signed up to the terms of that contract and understood what the contract entailed and he breached the contract."

 

The religious aspect also caused some issues with Folau's fellow players of Pacific islands heritage, many of whom are also committed Christians, with one suggesting earlier this month that it could drive a wedge in the Wallabies team.

 

Castle said that she was "100% confident" that would not happen.

 

"I'm confident because those players understand that everybody has a right to their own views on religious beliefs, and as long as they continue to express them in a respectful way we will continue to support them," she said.

 

"And I have absolute confidence that Michael Cheika will build a rugby team that is incredibly competitive for the World Cup."

 

Castle said any discussions over a settlement had not proceeded beyond the two teams of lawyers and that given Folau's lack of remorse -- the offending post is still on his feed -- it was unlikely he would ever play for Australia again.

 

Australian LGBTQ group Pride in Sport welcomed the move to sack Folau.

 

"This decision sends a strong message that homophobia and transphobia will not be tolerated in rugby union," co-founder Andrew Purchas said in a statement.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[RJRS1301]

I have this feeling this will end up in another hearing, if the same decision is made then off to the courts, lawyers rubbing their hands together.

I disagree with what he posted, but defend his right (if we believe in "free speech") to post it. 

[DoctorG]

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

I have this feeling this will end up in another hearing, if the same decision is made then off to the courts, lawyers rubbing their hands together.

I disagree with what he posted, but defend his right (if we believe in "free speech") to post it. 

Whisper is that he will probably skip the appeal and go straight to the High Court.

Everything depends on the actual wording of the contract he signed. RA cannot rely on a code of conduct unless it forms part of the contract.

 

[DoctorG]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"And I have absolute confidence that Michael Cheika will build a rugby team that is incredibly competitive for the World Cup."

Why do they think they will suddenly be competitive? They hardly won anything even with their best player in.

 

 

/

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, DoctorG said:

Everything depends on the actual wording of the contract he signed.

I disagree. The question is what control an employer has over an individual's private life and what opinions the employer believes the individual may publicly express. If Folau had expressed support for One Nation, for example, even though that party is against Rugby Australia's so-called "inclusive values", they wouldn't have a leg to stand on since the High Court has already declared freedom of political expression to be a right

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I disagree. The question is what control an employer has over an individual's private life and what opinions the employer believes the individual may publicly express. If Folau had expressed support for One Nation, for example, even though that party is against Rugby Australia's so-called "inclusive values", they wouldn't have a leg to stand on since the High Court has already declared freedom of political expression to be a right

I guess I'm one of the people Folau believes will burn in hell. That's OK, because I believe he's a brainwashed bigot who has only one saleable skill. It's certainly not intelligence.

Employers put conditions in contracts all the time. The contract with my last employer clearly stated any intellectual property I developed belonged to them. It also cautioned against various forms of discrimination.

If Folau wants to preach intolerance, he should do it on his own dime.

 

[spidermike007]

There is nothing wrong with a Christian having his or her beliefs. It is only when they pronounce judgment on those who do not share those beliefs, that it becomes a problem. Where Falou is wrong, is when he states that he has a right to free expression. That does not include the right to condemn the planet, for not believing as he does. Many would argue that this man possesses a staggering degree of ignorance. That is subjective. But, to declare that nearly all of us are going to hell, due to not following his precepts and his beliefs, is about as ignorant as the extremist Wahhabi Muslims, or the extremist Orthodox Jews. Any sort of extremism is inappropriate in this day and age. Tolerance and understanding is what is necessary at this point in time. When he made these ugly declarations, he set himself up for ridicule. He deserves that. 

 

The controversy over Folau’s faith erupted on April 10 after he shared a scriptural message on social media that Hell awaits "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, [and] idolaters” who do not repent. “Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him,” Folau shared on instagram, along with a series of Bible verses on sin and repentance. He also commented on a news report about Tasmania making gender optional.

“The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,” he declared on twitter. 

 

He is entitled to believe this nonsense. He believes that gay men who lead righteous lives, will go to hell due to their lifestyle. He believes that those that have sex out of wedlock will suffer. He believes that we go to hell for stealing a loaf of bread, when we are starving. This strict, ignorant, baseless, uninformed interpretation of scripture comes from never having spent any time in prayer, contemplation and meditation. I believe most scriptures were spoken in metaphors. It takes great understanding to interpret them, and they cannot be interpreted by men of little understanding, like this fool. He reads a book, and goes to a church service, and thinks he has spiritual understanding. Wrong. Dumb and dumber. Ignorant and more ignorant. 

 

Rugby Australia was right to get rid of him. He is a hateful man, engaging in hate speech. The exact opposite of Christ's teachings. Talk about missing the point!

[farmerjo]

https://thewest.com.au/opinion/paul-murray/paul-murray-try-turning-the-other-cheek-to-israel-folau-stupidity-ng-b881195169z

[grumbleweed]

Religion and genitalia: Don't wave them around in public and keep them away from children

[ThaiBunny]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

He believes that gay men who lead righteous lives ...

As a gay man myself I can tell you I'm still trying to find one. Most of us are sluts, and happily so

[Sir Swagman]

I have, what I am sure is misplaced, hope that this could expose the hypocrite’s handbook (AKA bible) for the litany of nonsensical doggerel that it is. You can’t fix stupid it seems, and belief in a completely manufactured imaginary friend in lieu of an inquiring mind seems to sit firmly on that shelf.

[Burma Bill]

He will no doubt get a top job in Brunei - if rugby is played there!

 

[ThaiBunny]

5 minutes ago, Sir Swagman said:

I have, what I am sure is misplaced, hope that this could expose the hypocrite’s handbook (AKA bible) for the litany of nonsensical doggerel that it is. You can’t fix stupid it seems, and belief in a completely manufactured imaginary friend in lieu of an inquiring mind seems to sit firmly on that shelf.

Perhaps you could start with today's Australian Prime Minister and work your way down (or up, depending on your perspective). But "doggerel"? I don't think so

[rhodie]

Sure he us free to say what he wants, but everything has repercussions. If all the sponsors pull out because of what he sprouts there will be no game so unfortunately there has to be a code of conduct to keep the sponsors happy.

[Snow Leopard]

I heard that Qantas are the issue and causing all the problems on this. 

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, Snow Leopard said:

I heard that Qantas are the issue and causing all the problems on this. 

Certainly it's all about money from sponsors, and Qantas are a major sponsor. I do love how the Qantas CEO promoted same-sex marriage but is still waiting (and waiting and waiting) for his boyfriend to propose

[RJRS1301]

22 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

As a gay man myself I can tell you I'm still trying to find one. Most of us are sluts, and happily so

Please define Slut".

Is that like promiscuous?? Some one who is getting "it" when I am not  ???  ???? 

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

Please define Slut". Is that like promiscuous?? Some one who is getting "it" when I am not  ???  ???? 

It certainly is in the case of every gay man I know (and I know plenty)

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

Certainly it's all about money from sponsors, and Qantas are a major sponsor. I do love how the Qantas CEO promoted same-sex marriage but is still waiting (and waiting and waiting) for his boyfriend to propose

It is always good manners to wait until you are asked

They (CEO and partner) also donated over a million AUD to the campaign personally as well other donations in kind

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Certainly it's all about money from sponsors, and Qantas are a major sponsor. I do love how the Qantas CEO promoted same-sex marriage but is still waiting (and waiting and waiting) for his boyfriend to propose

It was the second time he had been warned about his use of social media which went against the values held by RA inclusiveness diversity etc.

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

I heard that Qantas are the issue and causing all the problems on this. 

Not strictly correct, he had been cautioned previously.

The CEO has a fine history of inclusiveness and diversity, and although he had been warned, he again expressed views which do not uphold the values of RA

Certainly QANTAS warned about his posts endangering sponsorship, as did other sponsors.

 

[ThaiBunny]

12 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

It is always good manners to wait until you are asked. They (CEO and partner) also donated over a million AUD to the campaign personally as well other donations in kind

They're just a couple of hypocrites. AFAIK the only high profile person who supported SSM and who subsequently married is Michael Kirby and he then turned around and said the whole SSM nomenclature of two "husbands" was a nonsense. Any prominent businessman knows that being SSM is largely the kiss of death to being taken seriously by their peers

[Rally123]

Strange story as I always looked on him as being a faggot. Just shows you that judging by appearances aren't always right.

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

They're just a couple of hypocrites. AFAIK the only high profile person who supported SSM and who subsequently married is Michael Kirby and he then turned around and said the whole SSM nomenclature of two "husbands" was a nonsense. Any prominent businessman knows that being SSM is largely the kiss of death to being taken seriously by their peers

Wrong, several high profile people have, one politician , another is engaged, 

I supported equal marriage, and worked hard on the campaign, both personally and professionally, but have no intention of marrying any gender

Just because they have not married does not make them hypocrites. 

The terms used "husband/wife" are not part of the Marriage Equality legislation.

 

 

[Baht Simpson]

Leviticus 19:28, ”You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

 

He seems to have given himself an exception on the tattoos. How convenient and typically hypocritical. 

 

[Ulic]

I am an atheist and not offended by what he posted at all. I am offended by those that would consider what he said hate speech. He didn't threaten anyone with any harm in this lifetime, only the afterlife. Play on. 

[Krataiboy]

58 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess I'm one of the people Folau believes will burn in hell. That's OK, because I believe he's a brainwashed bigot who has only one saleable skill. It's certainly not intelligence.

Employers put conditions in contracts all the time. The contract with my last employer clearly stated any intellectual property I developed belonged to them. It also cautioned against various forms of discrimination.

If Folau wants to preach intolerance, he should do it on his own dime.

 

Cobblers. He can call you a sinner, according to his religious beliefs, and you can call him (as you have publicly here) a brainwashed bigot. 

 

Seems to me that's a fair and frank exchange of views. If you are offended, tough. And likewise the other way around.

 

I speak as a white, heterosexual male - that privileged (sic) majority loathed and vilified by so-called oppressed minorities, be they black, coloured, feminist, or members of the LBGTQ...XYZ community.

 

We have learned to turn the other cheek because being offended is the price of having a democratic society. Others should learn to do the same. Instead, the reverse is happening.

 

Silly, invented words like homophobia, transphobia and islamophobia along with the catch-all accusation of "hate speech" are increasingly being used to stifle criticism and inhibit legitimate debate. 

 

Social media giants like Facebook and Google are now blatantly conspiring with governments in order to control not just what we are allowed to say, but what we ought to THINK. 

 

This is a dangerous new development. Historically, curbs on free speech, far from making societies more tolerant, have almost invariably led to a violent backlash.

 

The rise of the ultra-right across the West is the writing on the wall we all should heed.

 

 

 

 

[ThaiBunny]

10 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Wrong, several high profile people have, one politician , another is engaged, 

I supported equal marriage, and worked hard on the campaign, both personally and professionally, but have no intention of marrying any gender

Just because they have not married does not make them hypocrites. 

The terms used "husband/wife" are not part of the Marriage Equality legislation.

In my opinion the whole SSM nonsense is simply letting the side down. The only true homosexual is the one who embraces sexual freedom and bears witness to it in the same way Israel Folau bears witness to his faith - publicly. In the 21st century what is the point of perpetuating a monogamous patriarchal relationship based on property law?

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

He seems to have given himself an exception on the tattoos. How convenient and typically hypocritical. 

Apparently he says he repents of that particular sin

[Baht Simpson]

5 minutes ago, Ulic said:

I am an atheist and not offended by what he posted at all. I am offended by those that would consider what he said hate speech. He didn't threaten anyone with any harm in this lifetime, only the afterlife. Play on. 

As an atheist and a gay man I don't consider it hate speech either. I consider it for what it is, religious bigotry.