Israel Folau

Not a fan of the blurred lines these days between ethical and commercial decisions. Ethics shouldn't be influenced at all by commercial decisions which in some way it is in this case. If anything its unethical to allow sponsors to determine your ethical position which is what rugby Australia are doing even if most people would agree with their ethical stance.

Given that Folau isn't necessarily inciting hatred but giving his own religious opinion he shouldn't be sacked in my view. His opinions are his own and shouldn't impact on Australia rugby's sponsorship anyway.

Collapse2005 wrote:Not a fan of the blurred lines these days between ethical and commercial decisions. Ethics shouldn't be influenced at all by commercial decisions which in some way it is in this case. If anything its unethical to allow sponsors to determine your ethical position which is what rugby Australia are doing even if most people would agree with their ethical stance.

Given that Folau isn't necessarily inciting hatred but giving his own religious opinion he shouldn't be sacked in my view. His opinions are his own and shouldn't impact on Australia rugby's sponsorship anyway.

Except if it was a commercial decision he would have gone the first time

I don't think that's necessarily true.

The RFU are going to have words with Billy V.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1116690438574964736

Except they lost sponsors the last time he did it, those who stuck around showed they weren't bothered by it, so suddenly sponsors are going to decide it's a problem for them and the ARU are going to decide they don't want to lose sponsors?

marty2086 wrote:Except they lost sponsors the last time he did it, those who stuck around showed they weren't bothered by it, so suddenly sponsors are going to decide it's a problem for them and the ARU are going to decide they don't want to lose sponsors?

Once bitten twice shy? I don't think I'm alone in my suspicion that the decision was at least in part commercially driven.

Similar scenario led to the sacking (or removal from prime time slot) of George Hook at Newstalk. Sponsor pressure. Likewise it appeared to be again at least in part sponsor pressure that lead for Jackson and co. losing their contracts.

Rugby Australia's sponsor Quantas has also commented on Folau's tweet and said they are investigating it. Perhaps its no surprise that they are also currently in contract negotiations with the ARU over continued sponsorship at the end of the year?

Rinsure wrote:The RFU are going to have words with Billy V.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1116690438574964736

So, on the basis of previous comments, and to not show one rule for one etc.... Billy should retract his comment issuing an apology, or face the sack himself.

Watch the English backlash....

Did any other rugby players like Folau's post?

Naholo did.

Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

Courtney Laws did too, and Faletau

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

Yeah I don't like it. First thing you learn in ethics courses is that ethical decisions should not be driven by commercial benefit even if in this case most people would agree homophobic behaviour online is unethical.

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

Exactly, there is an ethical consideration in pretty much every decision that ever gets made, often more than one, whether you consider them decisions or dilemmas.

Neither Folau nor the two Irish lads have broken any criminal laws, but that is not why they lost their jobs, or are going to. It was their actions in bringing their employment into disrepute.

My dad went into the merchant navy from school as a deck officer apprentice and he had his indentures framed and they remain up on the wall at my mum's house. Some of it makes amusing reading with the language used 'not to visit taverns or dwellings of ill repute unless on company business' but there is still a clause in there about bringing the company into disrepute, which could result in instant dismissal.

This stuff has been around since time and memorial, it is just a lot more obvious and easier to get caught out in the social media age. Most savvy youngsters are very careful about what they post as they know it could come back to haunt them years later.

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

https://www.saracens.com/news-article/club-statement-regarding-billy-vunipola

Saracens statement concerning BV

That is quite strong actually, good to see they are taking it seriously.

Social media was so much fun 10 years ago. Now it's the epitome of a neverending nightmare.

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

Being found not guilty is the same thing. Not sure how you can be not guilty and not innocent at the same time.

Text exchanges were not intended for public consumption so you should not be fired on that basis. It would have been daft to be fired for that reason even if they were. Its fairly obvious that the allegations were the catalyst for their expulsion even if the texts were the official reason given.

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

But it was there own actions in sending those messages that enraged the groups, they needed to take ownership of that. As I said in an earlier post, it was probably the best result for everyone them moving away as I don't think they would ever have gotten away from it staying at home, at least now they will have the chance to rebuild themselves. I do accept the 'young and foolish' argument to a point, but in the context it came out in, it was never going to look good and in the context some of the other issues around misogynistic behaviour that have come out recently. The world is a different place now and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I really do hope that they learn from this and move on and live good lives from here on. They have paid a big price for their behaviour, but those in the public eye are always going to be judged more harshly.

Sorry Collapse, I had to edit that last post of yours

BigGee wrote:Sorry Collapse, I had to edit that last post of yours

Ah.... guess your censorship overlapped my reading..

Worth saying this thread has generally been debated in good spirit so thanks everyone for that

As previously mentioned we're going to be very cautious about what is being said on this kind of topic so again I hope people understand if we remove things without warning.

Collapse2005 wrote:Being found not guilty is the same thing. Not sure how you can be not guilty and not innocent at the same time.

Text exchanges were not intended for public consumption so you should not be fired on that basis. It would have been daft to be fired for that reason even if they were. Its fairly obvious that the allegations were the catalyst for their expulsion even if the texts were the official reason given.

It comes down to the burden of proof - because of the presumption of innocence the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove they're guilty. The court will say they do not have enough evidence to prove their guilt, so they won't overturn the presumption of innocence.

There is no proof they are innocent. No-one set out to prove that. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean they didn't do that.

Folau, seems really, really passionate about his religion on social media. In fact, it seems that's all he uses it for.

But here's the thing, I don't exactly agree that it's hate. It may be incorrect, wrong and fictional in the minds of most. But to say its hate speech implies that he dislikes certain people, or wishes ill upon certain perople.

I don't see that. His posts, like his latest one are not what he 'wishes', they are biblical views, he hasn't embellished or made them up. He's just re-iterating them. I see someone knowingly and willingly risking his livlihood to 'wish the best' for those who see his posts. It's just that most disagree with what is 'best'.

For him, he reports on what his religion and bible says.

He may be deluded in the opinion of many, but I don't see any evidence of hatred in his attitude.

If some demented lunatic escaped from an asylum and stopped me in teh street in hismedical gown saying
'Here mate, you better put a hat on, there's a big ginger hating monster dragon around the corner'.

I wouldn't say the man was anti-gingers, or speaking hate, or whatever - i'd just say - 'that guys mental!'.

What's more, is the guys 'warning', as crazy as it may be, an insult to me? Wouldn't it be worse of the crazy guy genuinely believed I was walking towards a ginger hating monster and didn't care to warn me?

If Folou ever tweets asking for anyone's lives to be ruined, or civil rights to be impinged, or to revieve insults, then by all means get him sacked.

But what they are doing right now is sacking people for telling others what their religion believes. It's not like he did it in an official capacity. He wasn't on any press duty. This is his personal platform.

Is it now the norm, that any sports star is not allowed to say what their religion believes? Or just not ok on Instagram or Twitter? Are they allowed to talk about their religion in one to one personal chats?
How about chatting to a few people at once? What about to a room full of people?

Or is it just a case of - If you are a pro sports person you must never explain the teachings of your religion, ever?

I'd say some people might quite like that rule - but don't know if it fits with free speech human rights.

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

Sorry Marty that is wrong.
Olding said nothing of note in any text exchange, and Jackson said very little.
A player did post something he should not be proud of - he is still at the club.
It was the act itself, for which they were found innocent, that got them the sack.

bsando wrote:Did any other rugby players like Folau's post?

A whole crop of PI and Kiwi rugby playerd did

clivemcl wrote:Folau, seems really, really passionate about his religion on social media. In fact, it seems that's all he uses it for.

But here's the thing, I don't exactly agree that it's hate. It may be incorrect, wrong and fictional in the minds of most. But to say its hate speech implies that he dislikes certain people, or wishes ill upon certain perople.

I don't see that. His posts, like his latest one are not what he 'wishes', they are biblical views, he hasn't embellished or made them up. He's just re-iterating them. I see someone knowingly and willingly risking his livlihood to 'wish the best' for those who see his posts. It's just that most disagree with what is 'best'.

For him, he reports on what his religion and bible says.

He may be deluded in the opinion of many, but I don't see any evidence of hatred in his attitude.

If some demented lunatic escaped from an asylum and stopped me in teh street in hismedical gown saying
'Here mate, you better put a hat on, there's a big ginger hating monster dragon around the corner'.

I wouldn't say the man was anti-gingers, or speaking hate, or whatever - i'd just say - 'that guys mental!'.

What's more, is the guys 'warning', as crazy as it may be, an insult to me? Wouldn't it be worse of the crazy guy genuinely believed I was walking towards a ginger hating monster and didn't care to warn me?

If Folou ever tweets asking for anyone's lives to be ruined, or civil rights to be impinged, or to revieve insults, then by all means get him sacked.

But what they are doing right now is sacking people for telling others what their religion believes. It's not like he did it in an official capacity. He wasn't on any press duty. This is his personal platform.

Is it now the norm, that any sports star is not allowed to say what their religion believes? Or just not ok on Instagram or Twitter? Are they allowed to talk about their religion in one to one personal chats?
How about chatting to a few people at once? What about to a room full of people?

Or is it just a case of - If you are a pro sports person you must never explain the teachings of your religion, ever?

I'd say some people might quite like that rule - but don't know if it fits with free speech human rights.

It's not a free speech issue though. Or a human rights one.

He's perfectly entitled to say that he believes anyone will go to hell and he will not be prosecuted for saying that. However he's signed a contract that promotes inclusivity in his on-field and off-field behaviour. His posting is in breach of this contract and he has previously been warned about this.

geoff999rugby wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

Sorry Marty that is wrong.
Olding said nothing of note in any text exchange, and Jackson said very little.
A player did post something he should not be proud of - he is still at the club.
It was the act itself, for which they were found innocent, that got them the sack.

Again, they were found not guilty. It's a subtle but important difference. Innocent implies they did no wrong, however that is not what the court found. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime. That doesn't mean they were free of any wrongdoing, especially not from an ethical standpoint.

Gee, Folau and Billy V both out of the world cup?

Guess I could live with that.

Praise the Lord....I love the calls to 'suspend' Billy V. Not string him up like Folau for trying to justify bigotry....in other words we can't fire this guy ...not with an RWC coming up. Lordy Lordy he's our best player lol.

There's a place in hell for all you hypocrites

Actually though when you think about the issues here, are we saying people cant hold private opinions too? Or are we just saying people cant express them publicly? Problem with that is you never find out what bigot you're playing with.

Problem I have with all of it is that for every normal adjusted liberal there is a anti social right wing nazi. Rugby is full of them and we need to find out who they are so I say let these idiots express their archaic opinions and be ridiculed and forced out.....banning them like this may just force it deeper.

Either way good riddance Folau as a Welsh fan im glad to see you gone

BigGee wrote:Sorry Collapse, I had to edit that last post of yours

Thats a shame really. You literally cant discuss some things or have an alternative view in certain things.

robbo277 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:Ethics and commercial considerations are always going to come into consideration, you just can't separate them out.

Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own and if they come into ethical conflict with that organisation, they will feel perfectly entitled to walk away. Quantas are not just sponsoring Rugby Australia for their love of the game, they want the good publicity associated with a national team.

Playing devils advocate here, imagine if Quantas did walk away or not renew and other blue chip sponsors get cold feet and also won't commit, then Australian rugby, already in financial trouble goes bust or has to severely contract. That could mean franchises folding, players losing jobs and less invested into grass roots rugby. That presents another ethical dilemma, do you let the actions of one person potentially effect the many.

Ethical and commercial considerations in professional sport are joined at the hip, like it or not.

This is exactly what happened with Jackson and Olding, pressure was put on the IRFU by Bank of Ireland who threatened to withdraw their sponsorship which would affect rugby at all levels in Ireland

and you can see why, no major investor is going to want to damage their brand by being associated with stuff like that. If the two Irish lads had carried on playing for Ulster, it would have rumbled on and on. The only way for it to get put to bed properly was for them to get released and moved on. Probably better for all parties really, including the players who would never have been allowed to get over it whilst still playing for Ulster. They may or may not be able to come back in the future once plenty of water has flowed under the bridge, time will tell on that one.

Quantas were probably happy enough with the way RA dealt with it last time, he got a warning and some education, but I can imagine RA was left under no illusions that it was not to happen again. Players like IF need to realise that it is not all about themselves, others innocent parties can be effected by this stuff.

That, I am sure is the reason the RFU will be having a chat with BV and to make him realise, if he has not thought this through, the potential consequences of making comments like that. They have sponsors and supporters of all genders and sexualties as well and will not want this to become an issue here.

Politicians in this country got the fact that we are a secular country a good while back. Alistair Campbell's warning to Blair that 'we don't do god' was very pertinent. Once you claim a higher set of values for your own personal beliefs over others, you are on a sticky wicket and setting yourself up for a fall.

Well given they were found innocent of all charges it was more of an ethical dilemma that an ethical decision in that case. It is also unethical to fire two people found innocent of all charges as everyone under the law has a right to employment as a basic right.

There's no consideration in law to be found innocent, not to mention it wasn't the charges that were used to give them the boot it was the text exchanges.

In reality it was the protests against them by angry groups who wanted them punished one way or another because they didn't like the verdict

Sorry Marty that is wrong.
Olding said nothing of note in any text exchange, and Jackson said very little.
A player did post something he should not be proud of - he is still at the club.
It was the act itself, for which they were found innocent, that got them the sack.

Again, they were found not guilty. It's a subtle but important difference. Innocent implies they did no wrong, however that is not what the court found. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime. That doesn't mean they were free of any wrongdoing, especially not from an ethical standpoint.

Sorry not seeing any difference. Only people who want to believe they are guilty of something can see the difference there.

robbo277 wrote:
Again, they were found not guilty. It's a subtle but important difference. Innocent implies they did no wrong, however that is not what the court found. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime. That doesn't mean they were free of any wrongdoing, especially not from an ethical standpoint.

Incorrect.

Guilty means your were found to have committed the crime.
Not Guilty means you weren't and are therefore innocent.
What you are describing when you say 'The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime.' is equivalent of Not Proven, as in Scottish Law.
That has no standing in either English or Northern Irish law and is therefore not applicable

Pie wrote:Actually though when you think about the issues here, are we saying people cant hold private opinions too? Or are we just saying people cant express them publicly? Problem with that is you never find out what bigot you're playing with.

Problem I have with all of it is that for every normal adjusted liberal there is a anti social right wing nazi. Rugby is full of them and we need to find out who they are so I say let these idiots express their archaic opinions and be ridiculed and forced out.....banning them like this may just force it deeper.

Either way good riddance Folau as a Welsh fan im glad to see you gone

Let me get this right. You don't want to play rugby with people who have different opinions to you even if they keep them private. And you think people like you are liberal. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word.

There are lots of people whose opinions I dislike, those of people like Folau are just one variety. History shows that fascists, socialists and the like are just as dangerous as religious extremists.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 'The Life of Voltaire' wrote:I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

geoff999rugby wrote:

robbo277 wrote:
Again, they were found not guilty. It's a subtle but important difference. Innocent implies they did no wrong, however that is not what the court found. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime. That doesn't mean they were free of any wrongdoing, especially not from an ethical standpoint.

Incorrect.

Guilty means your were found to have committed the crime.
Not Guilty means you weren't and are therefore innocent.
What you are describing when you say 'The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime.' is equivalent of Not Proven, as in Scottish Law.
That has no standing in either English or Northern Irish law and is therefore not applicable

Sorry geoff but thats a lie, not guilty means you aren't proven guilty not that you're innocent as it makes no such determination

Folau has breached his contract simple as. He is a repeat offender. I don’t agree with what he said and I am a practicing Christian. It’s not my job to judge him and get all sweaty about ethics. Billy V has stuck his neck out and will probably be reprimanded. Same for the others. They too are highly paid professionals and employees of their unions. I don’t go along with fans who are gleeful of non participation in Japan, and I will be there supporting Wales.

The one thing Folau could have done if he cannot resist doing this at all is to adopt a more broader, positive approach. But no, out of the blue, fire and hell, gays and so on. He doesnt even try to offer positive readings...nope, just lets it all build up, and bang. No context, no offerings, no outs other than repent.

Well gee, what do you expect.

And whats his offerings in terms of how to repent? What are his practical steps on repenting?


Mr Folau,

Id like you to sit down with this gay couple. Theyve been together for about 25 years now. Theyve been through very hard times, theyve both been bullied, victimised as youths and as they tried to form relationships within the gay community.

One had to live through the suicide of one partner as a result of several bad experiences with his family, and the threats and violence of others.

After a several years he met his current partner, both much the wiser, both well aware of their position in the world, more moderate today but still frowned upon by the most to varying degrees.

They fought to stay together, were able to legally adopt a child after some years of battling the system, and as a family were able to live a loving and prosperous life. They were fortunate enough to tour the world, see the many wonderful countries and the diversity of people out there, the hardship, the suffering, the happiness from all walks of life and culture.

They opened a business together and have these days handed that over to their son, who has started his own family. He also plays rugby and has mentioned you many times in the last few years as a player he looks up to.

So theyre in the lounge here, surrounded by photos of marriage, newborns, hardship, some that remind of the good and the bad.

Theyre happily married, family and kids are outside and kids are out playing and they asked you here after a few questions raised by the kids who have concerns about what will become of their loving grandfathers when they pass given your recent comments. Theyre distraught as they keep hearing your name when the watch the rugby with their dad.

Now theyre just very young kids but the family would like to at least show them in a meaningful way that theyve looked at it and we thought getting you here would be an original way of doing that, so we thank you for your attendance.

So Mr Folau, through there to your right. Can you please go and talk to the two of them and perhaps explain what you meant by posting what you did and perhaps make some suggestions in terms of what they could do going forward, how they should discuss this with their grandchildren.

BigGee wrote:Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own...

*will give them the best PR possible.

We're living in the age of the PR statement. Of intentionality and sincerety being the standard 'mode' of discourse/speech/publication. Often, outrage and righteousness goes hand in hand with sincerity...and often, of course, it's easy to feign that sincerity when so much of the world today occurs virtually.

Let's get it right, no large company gave a flying f about sexual social 'ethics' 10 years ago. Certainly no airline.

Culture has had a huge splintering effect with the move to socialising online, with the mostly mild, yet common, hostility to homosexuality being one aspect that has failed to reintegrate itself in the process of putting all the splinters together again. For the vast majority of people - excluding perhaps teenagers, homophobes, and D list comedians - the inability to get away with using 'gay' as an insult in public is seen as a good thing.

This is obviously something a little bit different, but by and large, the point is - let's not pretend this is some universal, ethics-driven sense of duty and care from multinational companies. Let's certainly not pretend that this is what Qantas has always believed in, always wanted, and driven by a deep and far-reaching moral code. The earth is on the point of ecological collapse - I'm not going to take ethics advice from an airline solely interested in profit and surviving as a business above all else whilst they contribute massively to the planet's current and future demise. Nor am I going to take my ethics advice from a single issue pressure group, wheter that be on religion, sexuality, finance, or warfare/defence. The 'pressure' on Folau stems from a very specific, and very current, form of cultural plurality that tends to champion 'respect' for everyone - but really, that stands in for 'do what you want, as long as it's to do with personal choice, and if you're telling other people what to do, make sure it's utopian and about freedom of choice as well'. It's always changing, always morphing, always trying to 'find' a middle ground: at the moment, it's one where Christainity and Christian values are very much on the decline, and so easily/happily ridiculed. But as Fly said on the first page, the very same values - held more staunchly and more assuredly - exist in other religions, and no doubt the middle ground will shift again to accommodate the growing influence in the future. But the point about 'personal freedom' sounds very, VERY capitalist to me...but there we go, seems lost on most people.

Social media is a curse. It's become intertwined with the personal and collective psyche of humans in a way we don't really know how to control - other than maliciously. Just look at the state of politics in this decade. It's the biggest game-changer to politics in years - certainly since the wireless radio, anyway. But social media is not real life yet, in so many ways, it not only IS, but it's also completely changed reality outside social media/virtual technologies as well.

You can't just discuss this Folau thing on here without pretending that there aren't huge, great big elephants in the room. There are so many issues at play here. Namely:

- Why are athletes made de facto 'rolemodels' when often they don't ask for it?
- Why do we insist on pro sportspeople abiding by a very conditional (and corporate) set of ethics?
- How - and WHO!!! - decides what ethics are acceptable?
- When cultural and religious motivations/ideologies often clash, resulting in a imperfect 'agree to disagree' situation, how/who decides what is acceptable and what is not?
- Where does this end? Seriously, where does this end...?

Dan Leo made a good point on twitter about European colonialisation and Christianity, followed by Western-centric outrage culture now #cancelling Folau for holding those views his ancestors were forced to adhere to. I don't see that much difference with what is happening here to Folau - collective, powerful pressure forcing a change of beliefs. The will of the more powerful majority subduing a belief system, even if, ultimately, the majority's values aren't working for them/making them functional, fulfilled, and successful in the way Folau's belief system is for him.

The reality is this isn't just about homosexuality. It's about Folau's ethics, morals, beliefs, and religion. As a human being. I refuse to be dictated to be ideologically-bound children and/or manipulative and immature adults who don't 'get' what the fullness of humanity can be. How it's possible to believe something more nuanced, or deep, or even DIFFERENT to the utopian, wishy washy nonsense that passes as a belief system today - which is, ostensibly, a culture of tolerance rooted in the desire to be outraged, that gleans purpose and pleasure from suppression. It's an 'interesting' psychological phenomenon but a deeply unpleasant social one.

The reality is, Folau is a born again Christian. As anyone who's ever met such a person, or anyone who found religion later in life, will know such people who choose to come to religion as adults often have very, very good reasons for doing so. It often stems from pain, failure, addiction, repression, confusion, loss - all sorts of powerful reasons. I've volunteered with enough homeless charities in my life to know if you REALLY want to find out the true value and importance of following something like a religion, and how useful/important it is to human beings to have *some* kind of universal moral belief system, even if it's deeply flawed, talk to both current addicts and former addicts. It's utterly heartbreaking and terrifying and...life affirming, at the same time.

Religion is a very, very good way to provide a unifying, utopian belief system but - and here's the crucial part - with a very specific set of cultural values, rules, and behaviours that tend to help a lot of people, not least someone who's struggling with:

- Alcohol/Drugs (DRUNKS)
- Cheating (ADULTERERS)
- Telling the truth (LIARS)
- Sex/relationships (FORNICATORS)
- Honestly earning (THIEVES)
- A moral code/something 'bigger' to believe in (ATHEISTS)
- Finding healthy role models and/or something to believe in (IDOLATERS)

Then you tack on homosexuality. And that's seemingly the unforgiveable part about all of this. I'm not going to open that can of worms because I'm sure this comment will be deleted if I do, but there is a religious basis for believing what he does, and a cultural and moral one as well. He's coming from a cultural/group mindset that feels it necessary to share what he believes in order to minimise pain/suffering in people - even if inadvertently/obliviously he's causing it, in what is a failure of his imagination/empathy...but, again, there are culturally specific reasons for that that will go hand in hand with the culture/value system that clearly helps guide and focus him personally.

I'm surprised, but also heartened, by the number of rugby players who have come out in support of him. Interestingly, it's a lot of players who are non-white in the UK, some with Islander heritage and some without. It appears to be a similar situation in the SH. No doubt, part of that is the successful hammering on the notion of 'white men's opinions' as being welcome/valid over the last 5-6 years, but also it's a sense of the majority, and fitting in to the majority rules. 'Even' in this climate of plurality and anti-hegemony, the moral majority often works against non-white people: to succeed and have a 'good' life, and make it through the world to a place where these players are flourishing professionally and individually, cannot have been easy, and certainly didn't come from following/believing in the prevailing winds of the moralistic majority. In many cases, I'm sure the stability that helped guide them in a world that may well have been harder for them that those who claim victimhood is in fact religion and Christianity. Whatever the motivations for defending him - from solidarity with a fellow professional or a personal friend, to active support in the message he's sharing - it's a very, very good thing that rugby players aren't cowed in to silence over this. All it takes is for enough people to persist against a culture of outrage and eventually it loses all of its power.

I'd like to think the motivation for supporting Folau from pro rugby players has literally nothing to do with homophobia, and everything to do with their own personal beliefs and/or getting behind a mate. But who knows.

I'll sum this up with my final question in bold: where does this end?

For a good 100+ years, and arguably going back thousands of years before that, organised sport as we know it has been a synecdoche for competition and, ultimately, warfare. Something like hunting, for instance, was always to do with both brutalising the wealthy and noblemen to not be afraid of blood and killing things, as well as bowmanship: to not go soft even in times of peace. In Victorian times and beyond, it became a way to 'quell' the masses, to provide an outlet for aggression, competition, communal pride. Football's (and to a lesser extent, rugby's) rise coincided with the diminishing of the wafaring empire as Britain no longer really had anywhere to conquer, nor anyone to compete with in an overt, geopolitical way. Today, sport is still used by superpowers like Russia, China, USA to stand in for national superiority. But the key point is, if you treat sport as an avenue for combat and competition, you'll find that if you demand #wokeness to be more important than prowess, or talent, or all sorts of other things that make people good at competition, it'll be the equivalent of someone who's squeamish at the sight of blood coming up against a seasoned hunter. Here's the thing: being a bit of a barsteward tends to help make people 'better' at things like sport. Or makes them better killers etc. Someone like Roy Keane, for instance - as long as he didn't completely lose it, and had discipline from above, would be incredible in warfare as he's...well...we all know what he's like.

And of course, you can say this has nothing to do with what Folau believes, and everything to do with the fact he's said it, but do people not have the right to extend their interior thoughts and beliefs out in to the world around them? Again, who decides the lines there? How, why etc.? But the next question I would ask is - what is the future for Folau and pro sport? Because if sport *was* a way of providing a civilised outlet from primal instincts etc., what is it now? It's a way of keeping a primarily sedentary workforce fit, a primarily isolated/individualistic population a sense of community and group identity etc. On the professional side, though? It's become entertainment - and because it's entertainment, it has to be palatable to the sealion clapping hordes who just want to turn up, be entertained for an hour, and go back into their own bubbles. It's more and more meanigless as the 'product' gets better and better: and the only reason people keep aspiring to play pro sport is because, for those at the top, it offers a greater and greater monetary reward from them and their families. As sport commercialises more and becomes more of an etertainment product, the money it generates is passed back in increasing wages - and so the players are paid to, basically, shut up and do what they're told. And that grows and grows as they earn more and more. Weirdly, that moral/ethical code is very different to what it was 20, let alone 40, years ago. And no doubt it'll be different in another 20 years. But that's because of specific cultural power: like how all adverts are aimed at women, and make men look stupid, because women make something like 85% of the personal/familial financial decisions in the US. It's no different here: there's a market that is clearly apathetic/accepting of plurality, of which LGBT activism is a part, and a very vocal, righteous, and savvy market who are motivated by outrage and tarring public image to get what it wants. It's become too risky to not pander to the latter - and that's where we are here, even if, as I said, I'd be much, much more concerned about the tangible issues of climate change than the abstract religious belief systems of human beings impinging on others. That's not to diminish how religious beliefs can be wielded terribly, by the way - but the point I'm making is one about a loss of perspective, and how we've simply come to 'accept' certain things about rolemodels and what is acceptable or not.

Also make no mistake - Rugby Union may be dying in Australia, but it still has the connotations of class etc. that Qantas wants to align itself to. Even so, it would happily find another sport to use to promote itself - another way of aligning its product (travel, either for business or, in many ways, the romanticised 'product' of holidays) with another product: the entertainment of pro sport. There's a real danger of rugby really, truly losing its sole to corporate interests in a way it did relatively well to avoid in the first decade or so of becoming professional. This isn't about homophobia, either: but then it didn't 'need' a campaign/activism for rugby to accept Gareth Thomas or Nigel Owens. Both of those happened in the 00s, before the current climate of outrage really set in (to my mind, it was 2012/13). The point is about really losing power over what values you have and who dictates them - this seems to be one part corporate, and one part public outrage. Neither are good guides.

But that's the point for me. Sadly, pro sport has and is being sanitised to the point where it doesn't really 'mean' anything more: just like international sport being played by project or residency players. There are grey areas with someone like Hartley, say, but then there are clearly 'red' areas with someone like Parkes or even Howarth where it feels pertinent to ask 'what is nationhood and what does it mean to represent your country?'. Clearly, that means less and less in the modern age - which is fine, it's not a universal, stable thing anyway, I'm just aware that what's replacing it is being championed as liberating but is in fact a way for more splintering and more realignment to occur that supports corporate manipulation, not least on social media. The whole thing is cyclical - children raised online feel a kind of pan-cultural identity; the 'old' offline forms of meaning like religion, place, physical community and physical land matter far less than their virtual equivalents (moral/ethical code, websites, friends/followers etc.) and so young people chain themselves to these barometers of meaning under the guise of rebeliousness (doing the opposite of those in charge) and a sense of 'liberation'/escapement. All it does is create people hooked on social media, and ambivalent to the loss of what has been meaningful to their ancestors for generations. If you don't replace it with something better - and I really don't consider social media communities better - it's a tragedy, and one corporate interests will relish in profiting from as time goes on.

Anyway, this is about so, so, SO much more than just homophobia, but it's the one that's being picked up. To me, there are more pressing questions.

It would be a massive shame if Folau doesn't play rugby/sport again as he's an incredible sportsman and I was looking forward to seeing what he could do at the RWC. For me, he's one of the few players in the world who would possibly surpass the ABs incumbent to make a World XV. If this is the end, it seems a tragic and slightly farcical way to to end his sporting career. In an age where police protect protests on the streets of Britain celebrating the killing of British troops, and an age where PR/access to public pronouncements is all important, it seems a slightly warped way of ending his career, as well as unfair to demand he abides by a certain set of ever-changing moral codes.

That said, if I had one piece of advice for Folau, it would be to focus less on what religion seeks to banish and ban, and more on the spiritually uplifting elements. Sharing those has a far more powerful effect, particularly on an individual level - although I see what he is doing as little different to the vocal opponents of his who abuse him and equally try to rubbish him and his way of life.

Come off it Pie. You’ve been living in Canada way too long seeing as you’re easily offended like all the Canadians. Pathetic.

mikey_dragon wrote:Come off it Pie. You’ve been living in Canada way too long seeing as you’re easily offended like all the Canadians. Pathetic.

What do you know about Canadians? Not a lot I expect. Another thing you aren't an expert on. Don't be offended.

You know I wonder if a lot of the guys on here are simply trying to work out their own feelings and position on all of this. That’s great. But before I head off to Church in this beautiful Palm Sunday my question is this. Ok Folau was warned. Now he’s had another crack at it. So what do you do? Warn him again? Fine him? Counsel him?! Let him become a beacon for certain kinds of distress?! We are living in a multicultural age. It’s right to let him go. I’ve always liked what Boy George once said. “ Sex? Oh that’s 15 minutes once a fortnight” Puts it into perspective doesn’t it.

Sorry guys (miaow in particular, who is probably worthy of a PhD for his posts on this subject) but in order to be consistent with some of the other stuff that has been edited/deleted and for the reasons that RDW stated, I have done some more tidying up.

There has been some thought provoking stuff put up on this thread, so please keep it coming.

BV ended up getting booed as he came on at Bristol yesterday and then the PA played 'its raining men' at the end of the match as if to rub it in!

Ironically and probably to the surprise of the rugby team after they had renamed it, Bristol Bears was the name of a local gay night club in Bristol, who did not take offence at their name being used and said they were very happy to host all rugby players!

The after game interviews were also revealing. McCall tried to gently defend BV whilst also saying that he and the club would speak to him and very much stuck to the clubs line.

Pat Lam, also of PI heritage and of Christain Faith, made the very good point that he tends to focus on his own relationship with God and how he behaves and does therefore not judge others, except on the rugby field. I though he put out that message very well.

marty2086 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

robbo277 wrote:
Again, they were found not guilty. It's a subtle but important difference. Innocent implies they did no wrong, however that is not what the court found. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime. That doesn't mean they were free of any wrongdoing, especially not from an ethical standpoint.

Incorrect.

Guilty means your were found to have committed the crime.
Not Guilty means you weren't and are therefore innocent.
What you are describing when you say 'The court found there was not sufficient evidence to convict them of any crime.' is equivalent of Not Proven, as in Scottish Law.
That has no standing in either English or Northern Irish law and is therefore not applicable

Sorry geoff but thats a lie, not guilty means you aren't proven guilty not that you're innocent as it makes no such determination

Geoff makes a good point, in lots of places around the World you are presumed innocent unless/until proven Guilty. inother words you start off being innocent. Exoneration is a different thing again and we might see a bit more on that this week with the release of the Mueller report.

With Israel Folau being sacked it has now set a precedent for all other people in Rugby Union and Sport in general.  There are now calls for Billy Vunipola to be sanctioned or sacked because he tweeted or instagrammed his support for Israel Folau.  
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47869324
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47909515

miaow wrote:

BigGee wrote:Most sponsors will only sponsor an organisation that they consider to have a similar outlook and ethical stance to their own...

*will give them the best PR possible.

We're living in the age of the PR statement. Of intentionality and sincerety being the standard 'mode' of discourse/speech/publication. Often, outrage and righteousness goes hand in hand with sincerity...and often, of course, it's easy to feign that sincerity when so much of the world today occurs virtually.

Let's get it right, no large company gave a flying f about sexual social 'ethics' 10 years ago. Certainly no airline.

Culture has had a huge splintering effect with the move to socialising online, with the mostly mild, yet common, hostility to homosexuality being one aspect that has failed to reintegrate itself in the process of putting all the splinters together again. For the vast majority of people - excluding perhaps teenagers, homophobes, and D list comedians - the inability to get away with using 'gay' as an insult in public is seen as a good thing.

This is obviously something a little bit different, but by and large, the point is - let's not pretend this is some universal, ethics-driven sense of duty and care from multinational companies. Let's certainly not pretend that this is what Qantas has always believed in, always wanted, and driven by a deep and far-reaching moral code. The earth is on the point of ecological collapse - I'm not going to take ethics advice from an airline solely interested in profit and surviving as a business above all else whilst they contribute massively to the planet's current and future demise. Nor am I going to take my ethics advice from a single issue pressure group, wheter that be on religion, sexuality, finance, or warfare/defence. The 'pressure' on Folau stems from a very specific, and very current, form of cultural plurality that tends to champion 'respect' for everyone - but really, that stands in for 'do what you want, as long as it's to do with personal choice, and if you're telling other people what to do, make sure it's utopian and about freedom of choice as well'. It's always changing, always morphing, always trying to 'find' a middle ground: at the moment, it's one where Christainity and Christian values are very much on the decline, and so easily/happily ridiculed. But as Fly said on the first page, the very same values - held more staunchly and more assuredly - exist in other religions, and no doubt the middle ground will shift again to accommodate the growing influence in the future. But the point about 'personal freedom' sounds very, VERY capitalist to me...but there we go, seems lost on most people.

Social media is a curse. It's become intertwined with the personal and collective psyche of humans in a way we don't really know how to control - other than maliciously. Just look at the state of politics in this decade. It's the biggest game-changer to politics in years - certainly since the wireless radio, anyway. But social media is not real life yet, in so many ways, it not only IS, but it's also completely changed reality outside social media/virtual technologies as well.

You can't just discuss this Folau thing on here without pretending that there aren't huge, great big elephants in the room. There are so many issues at play here. Namely:

- Why are athletes made de facto 'rolemodels' when often they don't ask for it?
- Why do we insist on pro sportspeople abiding by a very conditional (and corporate) set of ethics?
- How - and WHO!!! - decides what ethics are acceptable?
- When cultural and religious motivations/ideologies often clash, resulting in a imperfect 'agree to disagree' situation, how/who decides what is acceptable and what is not?
- Where does this end? Seriously, where does this end...?

Dan Leo made a good point on twitter about European colonialisation and Christianity, followed by Western-centric outrage culture now #cancelling Folau for holding those views his ancestors were forced to adhere to. I don't see that much difference with what is happening here to Folau - collective, powerful pressure forcing a change of beliefs. The will of the more powerful majority subduing a belief system, even if, ultimately, the majority's values aren't working for them/making them functional, fulfilled, and successful in the way Folau's belief system is for him.

The reality is this isn't just about homosexuality. It's about Folau's ethics, morals, beliefs, and religion. As a human being. I refuse to be dictated to be ideologically-bound children and/or manipulative and immature adults who don't 'get' what the fullness of humanity can be. How it's possible to believe something more nuanced, or deep, or even DIFFERENT to the utopian, wishy washy nonsense that passes as a belief system today - which is, ostensibly, a culture of tolerance rooted in the desire to be outraged, that gleans purpose and pleasure from suppression. It's an 'interesting' psychological phenomenon but a deeply unpleasant social one.

The reality is, Folau is a born again Christian. As anyone who's ever met such a person, or anyone who found religion later in life, will know such people who choose to come to religion as adults often have very, very good reasons for doing so. It often stems from pain, failure, addiction, repression, confusion, loss - all sorts of powerful reasons. I've volunteered with enough homeless charities in my life to know if you REALLY want to find out the true value and importance of following something like a religion, and how useful/important it is to human beings to have *some* kind of universal moral belief system, even if it's deeply flawed, talk to both current addicts and former addicts. It's utterly heartbreaking and terrifying and...life affirming, at the same time.

Religion is a very, very good way to provide a unifying, utopian belief system but - and here's the crucial part - with a very specific set of cultural values, rules, and behaviours that tend to help a lot of people, not least someone who's struggling with:

- Alcohol/Drugs (DRUNKS)
- Cheating (ADULTERERS)
- Telling the truth (LIARS)
- Sex/relationships (FORNICATORS)
- Honestly earning (THIEVES)
- A moral code/something 'bigger' to believe in (ATHEISTS)
- Finding healthy role models and/or something to believe in (IDOLATERS)

Then you tack on homosexuality. And that's seemingly the unforgiveable part about all of this. I'm not going to open that can of worms because I'm sure this comment will be deleted if I do, but there is a religious basis for believing what he does, and a cultural and moral one as well. He's coming from a cultural/group mindset that feels it necessary to share what he believes in order to minimise pain/suffering in people - even if inadvertently/obliviously he's causing it, in what is a failure of his imagination/empathy...but, again, there are culturally specific reasons for that that will go hand in hand with the culture/value system that clearly helps guide and focus him personally.

I'm surprised, but also heartened, by the number of rugby players who have come out in support of him. Interestingly, it's a lot of players who are non-white in the UK, some with Islander heritage and some without. It appears to be a similar situation in the SH. No doubt, part of that is the successful hammering on the notion of 'white men's opinions' as being welcome/valid over the last 5-6 years, but also it's a sense of the majority, and fitting in to the majority rules. 'Even' in this climate of plurality and anti-hegemony, the moral majority often works against non-white people: to succeed and have a 'good' life, and make it through the world to a place where these players are flourishing professionally and individually, cannot have been easy, and certainly didn't come from following/believing in the prevailing winds of the moralistic majority. In many cases, I'm sure the stability that helped guide them in a world that may well have been harder for them that those who claim victimhood is in fact religion and Christianity. Whatever the motivations for defending him - from solidarity with a fellow professional or a personal friend, to active support in the message he's sharing - it's a very, very good thing that rugby players aren't cowed in to silence over this. All it takes is for enough people to persist against a culture of outrage and eventually it loses all of its power.

I'd like to think the motivation for supporting Folau from pro rugby players has literally nothing to do with homophobia, and everything to do with their own personal beliefs and/or getting behind a mate. But who knows.

I'll sum this up with my final question in bold: where does this end?

For a good 100+ years, and arguably going back thousands of years before that, organised sport as we know it has been a synecdoche for competition and, ultimately, warfare. Something like hunting, for instance, was always to do with both brutalising the wealthy and noblemen to not be afraid of blood and killing things, as well as bowmanship: to not go soft even in times of peace. In Victorian times and beyond, it became a way to 'quell' the masses, to provide an outlet for aggression, competition, communal pride. Football's (and to a lesser extent, rugby's) rise coincided with the diminishing of the wafaring empire as Britain no longer really had anywhere to conquer, nor anyone to compete with in an overt, geopolitical way. Today, sport is still used by superpowers like Russia, China, USA to stand in for national superiority. But the key point is, if you treat sport as an avenue for combat and competition, you'll find that if you demand #wokeness to be more important than prowess, or talent, or all sorts of other things that make people good at competition, it'll be the equivalent of someone who's squeamish at the sight of blood coming up against a seasoned hunter. Here's the thing: being a bit of a barsteward tends to help make people 'better' at things like sport. Or makes them better killers etc. Someone like Roy Keane, for instance - as long as he didn't completely lose it, and had discipline from above, would be incredible in warfare as he's...well...we all know what he's like.

And of course, you can say this has nothing to do with what Folau believes, and everything to do with the fact he's said it, but do people not have the right to extend their interior thoughts and beliefs out in to the world around them? Again, who decides the lines there? How, why etc.? But the next question I would ask is - what is the future for Folau and pro sport? Because if sport *was* a way of providing a civilised outlet from primal instincts etc., what is it now? It's a way of keeping a primarily sedentary workforce fit, a primarily isolated/individualistic population a sense of community and group identity etc. On the professional side, though? It's become entertainment - and because it's entertainment, it has to be palatable to the sealion clapping hordes who just want to turn up, be entertained for an hour, and go back into their own bubbles. It's more and more meanigless as the 'product' gets better and better: and the only reason people keep aspiring to play pro sport is because, for those at the top, it offers a greater and greater monetary reward from them and their families. As sport commercialises more and becomes more of an etertainment product, the money it generates is passed back in increasing wages - and so the players are paid to, basically, shut up and do what they're told. And that grows and grows as they earn more and more. Weirdly, that moral/ethical code is very different to what it was 20, let alone 40, years ago. And no doubt it'll be different in another 20 years. But that's because of specific cultural power: like how all adverts are aimed at women, and make men look stupid, because women make something like 85% of the personal/familial financial decisions in the US. It's no different here: there's a market that is clearly apathetic/accepting of plurality, of which LGBT activism is a part, and a very vocal, righteous, and savvy market who are motivated by outrage and tarring public image to get what it wants. It's become too risky to not pander to the latter - and that's where we are here, even if, as I said, I'd be much, much more concerned about the tangible issues of climate change than the abstract religious belief systems of human beings impinging on others. That's not to diminish how religious beliefs can be wielded terribly, by the way - but the point I'm making is one about a loss of perspective, and how we've simply come to 'accept' certain things about rolemodels and what is acceptable or not.

Also make no mistake - Rugby Union may be dying in Australia, but it still has the connotations of class etc. that Qantas wants to align itself to. Even so, it would happily find another sport to use to promote itself - another way of aligning its product (travel, either for business or, in many ways, the romanticised 'product' of holidays) with another product: the entertainment of pro sport. There's a real danger of rugby really, truly losing its sole to corporate interests in a way it did relatively well to avoid in the first decade or so of becoming professional. This isn't about homophobia, either: but then it didn't 'need' a campaign/activism for rugby to accept Gareth Thomas or Nigel Owens. Both of those happened in the 00s, before the current climate of outrage really set in (to my mind, it was 2012/13). The point is about really losing power over what values you have and who dictates them - this seems to be one part corporate, and one part public outrage. Neither are good guides.

But that's the point for me. Sadly, pro sport has and is being sanitised to the point where it doesn't really 'mean' anything more: just like international sport being played by project or residency players. There are grey areas with someone like Hartley, say, but then there are clearly 'red' areas with someone like Parkes or even Howarth where it feels pertinent to ask 'what is nationhood and what does it mean to represent your country?'. Clearly, that means less and less in the modern age - which is fine, it's not a universal, stable thing anyway, I'm just aware that what's replacing it is being championed as liberating but is in fact a way for more splintering and more realignment to occur that supports corporate manipulation, not least on social media. The whole thing is cyclical - children raised online feel a kind of pan-cultural identity; the 'old' offline forms of meaning like religion, place, physical community and physical land matter far less than their virtual equivalents (moral/ethical code, websites, friends/followers etc.) and so young people chain themselves to these barometers of meaning under the guise of rebeliousness (doing the opposite of those in charge) and a sense of 'liberation'/escapement. All it does is create people hooked on social media, and ambivalent to the loss of what has been meaningful to their ancestors for generations. If you don't replace it with something better - and I really don't consider social media communities better - it's a tragedy, and one corporate interests will relish in profiting from as time goes on.

Anyway, this is about so, so, SO much more than just homophobia, but it's the one that's being picked up. To me, there are more pressing questions.

It would be a massive shame if Folau doesn't play rugby/sport again as he's an incredible sportsman and I was looking forward to seeing what he could do at the RWC. For me, he's one of the few players in the world who would possibly surpass the ABs incumbent to make a World XV. If this is the end, it seems a tragic and slightly farcical way to to end his sporting career. In an age where police protect protests on the streets of Britain celebrating the killing of British troops, and an age where PR/access to public pronouncements is all important, it seems a slightly warped way of ending his career, as well as unfair to demand he abides by a certain set of ever-changing moral codes.

That said, if I had one piece of advice for Folau, it would be to focus less on what religion seeks to banish and ban, and more on the spiritually uplifting elements. Sharing those has a far more powerful effect, particularly on an individual level - although I see what he is doing as little different to the vocal opponents of his who abuse him and equally try to rubbish him and his way of life.

I would carry on from your final paragraph:

It goes further than focusing less on what religion, the Bible demands, but more what the local ministers of his church are saying which he should try and distance himself from. I cant help but think that this issue has got a lot more to do with the Morman church and far less to do about Rugby, Homphobia, even freedon of speech. But it does involve a Morman Rugby player with a high public profile throughout Australasia and competition is pretty tight these days in the religious industry.

I

BigGee wrote:Sorry guys (miaow in particular, who is probably worthy of a PhD for his posts on this subject) but in order to be consistent with some of the other stuff that has been edited/deleted and for the reasons that RDW stated, I have done some more tidying up.

There has been some thought provoking stuff put up on this thread, so please keep it coming.

No worries, thought it might not get past the mods.