Israel Folau

I still struggle to understand how people who seem to completely disregard the teachings of Jesus can call themselves Christians.

Mind you I also struggle to understand why ARU offered a 30 year old a 4 year contract just one year before the RWC.

why on earth was my post removed?

Surely Folau's religious beliefs aren't being discriminated against though?

He's not been told his religion is wrong
He's not been told to stop attending his church
He's not been told to be ashamed of his religion

If the ARU was having a go at him for being "christian" then yeh, it would be intolerant and wrong but they aren't. They are criticising him for his stance on homophobia i.e. he is homophobic, which contradicts his code of conduct agreement with his employer. He signed off on it, he's violated it (twice), it's correct to punish him for it.

What confuses me is our sport is very much a sport for everyone. Literally. This is the holy grail of sports for us fat boys! we can eat lots and be told it's a good thing by our coaches, I have no felt more confident about myself than when I play at the weekend - through the week i feel like im a bit podgy and out of shape but at the weekend when I throw my extra stone about and neck a pint (poorly) afterwords I feel fantastic - what other sport can make us fatties feel like athletes?

And yet... despite being the most inclusive of sports we have some people saying 1) Folau is entitled to discriminate 2) why should he suffer consequences for saying some people aren't even worthy of the title "human being"?

I dunno, for a sport that's so inclusive and very proud of being a sport for all shapes, sizes and creeds, we can be a bit cr*p when it comes to standing up for those being discriminated against - ironic no?

Well he has lost his job because of his beliefs which is the same as being told he cannot hold those beliefs, as much as most of us would like to sack him its probably not the right thing to do for lots of reasons.

Many people I work with are blatantly racist. They're not stupid enough to publically proclaim it on social media. If they did I'd expect them to no longer have a job.
I say many for effect as it's about 3, but still!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Many people I work with are blatantly racist. They're not stupid enough to publically proclaim it on social media. If they did I'd expect them to no longer have a job.
I say many for effect as it's about 3, but still!

They are clearly more sensible than Folau. However, the question is is it right for people to get sacked for publicly airing their beliefs. I'm not sure that it is even if that is how it is.

Then again I cant stand social media as I reckon it is by and large a bit of a disease.

Absolutely it is. You'd expect it in the majority of jobs as there'll be a code of conduct to adhere to. Still to hear what his punishment will be though as well.

What does seem off for me in this latest offering is that the report says the remarks were made to his congregation.so either there s been a reporter sat in his church every week or someone who also attends has got a few bucks for that it appears.

13.4        We may terminate your employment immediately without notice or payment in lieu of notice if:

 13.4 .1        you commit any serious or repeated breach or non-observance of this Agreement or refuse or neglect to comply with any reasonable                       and lawful directions of ours, or any regulatory provisions or health and safety regulations;

 13.4 .2        we reasonably consider that you are guilty of gross misconduct;

 13.4 .3        we reasonably consider that you have materially damaged or risk materially damaging your own or our reputation

The above is an extract from the employment contracts issued to our staff both permanent and contractors. Similar is issued to sub-contractors. The contract we have with our main clients cover pages of guff to do with reputation.

Most employees will have something similar in their contracts. (Just checked my daughter who is in Sixth Form but works shifts at McDs to earn the cash to pay for driving lessons etc, and her contract is more extensive on this matter. She is not allowed to use social media to disparage McDs in any shape or form, nor allowed to even identify herself as a McDs employee)

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Many people I work with are blatantly racist. They're not stupid enough to publically proclaim it on social media. If they did I'd expect them to no longer have a job.
I say many for effect as it's about 3, but still!

They are clearly more sensible than Folau. However, the question is is it right for people to get sacked for publicly airing their beliefs. I'm not sure that it is even if that is how it is.

Then again I cant stand social media as I reckon it is by and large a bit of a disease.

Arguably this platform is a form of Social Media, all be it we are anonymous.

BamBam, apparently i'm you. Can you tell me what i'm doing today?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Absolutely it is. You'd expect it in the majority of jobs as there'll be a code of conduct to adhere to. Still to hear what his punishment will be though as well.

Well that's the crux of the argument which polarises opinion. The trouble with sacking people because their view in unpopular is that popular opinion is not always right and even if it was it part of living in a free society to be free to express your own view on whatever you want. I would rather that than live in a completely homogeneous society.

I accept though in this case his comments do come close to incitement of hatred which is a good place to draw the line.

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Many people I work with are blatantly racist. They're not stupid enough to publically proclaim it on social media. If they did I'd expect them to no longer have a job.
I say many for effect as it's about 3, but still!

They are clearly more sensible than Folau. However, the question is is it right for people to get sacked for publicly airing their beliefs. I'm not sure that it is even if that is how it is.

Then again I cant stand social media as I reckon it is by and large a bit of a disease.

Arguably this platform is a form of Social Media, all be it we are anonymous.

I was pondering that while I wrote that comment alright. Social media is hard to avoid however, I dont use most of them, Facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat etc.

Don't sign the contract that increases the come back on free speech is the argument though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't sign the contract that increases the come back on free speech is the argument though.

I havent read his contract however, most contract contain clauses that employers ignore until it suits them.

And so it now suits them to remove him from the picture seemingly. Folou seems pretty content now to let it happen. His employers seem pretty happy. Pretty much sorted.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And so it now suits them to remove him from the picture seemingly. Folou seems pretty content now to let it happen. His employers seem pretty happy. Pretty much sorted.

Yep and I feel that it is wrong to do so just because there is a wave of public outrage. Public outrage leads to sponsor pressure which leads to terminated contracts. Dangerous precedent to set to allow unqualified public opinion determine individual outcomes even if in this case its hard to not agree or be happy with the outcome.

Why though?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why though?

because the public arent party to all the facts and arent best qualified to make a decision. Its a matter for in my opinion the ARU and Folau fullstop. Its the same logic by which judges tell juries to ignore the media and public opinion because the real facts will be presented in court as opposed to the media or even more so social media.

I find public opinion can more often than not gather pace and become quite frenzied and extreme in its response rather measured and logical.

Do you think Danny Baker should have been fired by the BBC?

Absolutely he should have.
On folou any company etc will have an eye on how their employees conduct themselves. Using their contracts etc they of course can use the reaction to of the public or even the possibility of a reaction to take steps.
And the public are within our right to complain yo companies regarding the behaviour of their staff. About to do an email myself to complain about a supermarket chains delivery driver.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Absolutely he should have.
On folou any company etc will have an eye on how their employees conduct themselves. Using their contracts etc they of course can use the reaction to of the public or even the possibility of a reaction to take steps.
And the public are within our right to complain yo companies regarding the behaviour of their staff. About to do an email myself to complain about a supermarket chains delivery driver.

Why? I must admit I dont know much about this guy but he apologised, deleted the tweet and clarified that it was not meant to be a racial joke.

If he was racist why would he apologise and say what he has said?

This is one reason why I dont like trial by social media. It leaves no room for genuine error.

Folau didnt make the tweet in work. I think it would be different if he said it in a post match interview but I reckon everyone has the right to a life outside of work.

Anyway I respect your view 7.5 as I feel it comes from a good place but I expect we aren't going to agree. I'm off to get a coconut milk cappuccino and sit in the sun for a while. Enjoy your afternoon. I hope the sun is shining where you are like it is here.

Danny Baker in his apology also said that he deserved to lose his job even though he made an error of judgement.

I am no royalist, but what he did was just plain stupid and there was no way the BBC was going to stand by him

What was he thinking?

BigGee wrote:Danny Baker in his apology also said that he deserved to lose his job  even though he made an error of judgement.

I am no royalist, but what he did was just plain stupid and there was no way the BBC was going to stand by him

What was he thinking?

I honestly do not believe he was thinking a great deal. I suspect he may even have forgotten that the mother is mixed race.

As you say Baker pretty much knew what would happen, in fact pretty much all of us knew what would happen. If he was not on multiple warnings (not for racism I hasten to add), and if the Beeb were not under attack from all sides all the time then maybe an apology and penance would have worked. But that is not the case.

It's amazing how much -ism you can find in the world. If you look hard enough, and are determined to find it.

Yeah Barney. Had to look really hard to see any racism in baker tweeting a picture of a monkey to represent a mixed race kid! The baker thing on his intent I'm still unsure of. His initial apology was not good and he's changed his story slightly. Similar though in the fact it causes so much bad publicity why would you want the hassle as a company?

Id imagine there are lots of people who arent aware the kid is mixed race. When I was a fan of suits I had no clue Megan Markle was mixed race. In the show her father was an African American man and I remember thinking that was a bit unrealistic until I realised she actually did come from a mixed race background.

Well bakers defence was that people who saw racism in his photo and comment had diseased minds. This changed to he didn't realise that it was harry and Megan who had had the kid. Enough of an explanation for some. Certainly not as straight forward as Folou granted.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well bakers defence was that people who saw racism in his photo and comment had diseased minds. This changed to he didn't realise that it was harry and Megan who had had the kid. Enough of an explanation for some. Certainly not as straight forward as Folou granted.

Bakers words:

‘Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased. ‘Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it. Now stand by for sweary football tweets.’

Some press have read this in the way you do. I however read it to mean that he views being racist to be a "diseased mind". It was also perhaps a reference to his past brain tumour issues.

It's a few point certainly. Given he's a football fan and has been for some time I find it hard to imagine that he's never seen a banana thrown at a black player and heard monkey chants. Certainly as part of the millwall crowd! That initial explanation makes me think he knew it was Megan's kid as well. But I'd accept enough wriggle room to make you start to doubt he meant it. Some celebs have jumped to his side data o brien Iain Lee for 2. Not that many black celebs are giving him the benefit.

A good example though that reputation can quickly be tainted by stupidity even it was a mistake quickly deleted.

I am surprised to such a lack of clarity in people’s interpretations above.

If you say that someone is a monkey because they are not white, that person and those close to them will get upset.

If you say that something derogatory should happen because a person is not heterosexual then people who are not heterosexual will get upset.

There is no need to upset people.

Israel Folau and Danny Baker both made comments that will upset and alienate people.

I have been goaded with Ape jokes because I am black and I have been in the company of gay friends when they have been subjected to abuse.

To be honest my first reaction of those making the accusations is that they are imbeciles.

Thankfully today in most countries and cultures this behaviour is a minority.

That's terrible to hear. Do you think it is possible that people might not know that Megan Markle is mixed race? To be honest I dont know Danny Baker so I wouldnt be a good judge of his character at all just generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

Collapse2005 wrote:That's terrible to hear. Do you think it is possible that people might not know that Megan Markle is mixed race? To be honest I dont know Danny Baker so I wouldnt be a good judge of his character at all just generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

It was incredibly well publicised that she is mixed race so I doubt it.

He also said he knows. The bit he denied was knowing she was the royal who was pregnant.

maestegmafia wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:That's terrible to hear. Do you think it is possible that people might not know that Megan Markle is mixed race? To be honest I dont know Danny Baker so I wouldnt be a good judge of his character at all just generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

It was incredibly well publicised that she is mixed race so I doubt it.

Fair enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He also said he knows. The bit he denied was knowing she was the royal who was pregnant.

A bit wishy washy to be fair.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He also said he knows. The bit he denied was knowing she was the royal who was pregnant.

The seems a bit...unbelievable? Considering the british medias attitude to the monarchy is to vomit a torrent of praise any time they do anything, it's kind of hard to have missed that a) a royal is pregnant b) its the "rebellious" couple that are having a bairn

fairly difficult to miss

maestegmafia wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:That's terrible to hear. Do you think it is possible that people might not know that Megan Markle is mixed race? To be honest I dont know Danny Baker so I wouldnt be a good judge of his character at all just generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

It was incredibly well publicised that she is mixed race so I doubt it.

It was, yet plenty of people (thinking of the guys who work on our site in the Highlands) are not aware of this.

What Danny Baker did, and what Israel Folau did are two entirely different arguments, you are all comparing apples with oranges.

LordDowlais wrote:What Danny Baker did, and what Israel Folau did are two entirely different arguments, you are all comparing apples with oranges.

The apple posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they took down very quickly and apologised and was sacked for gross misconduct.
The orange posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they stood by and refused to apologise and was sacked for gross misconduct.

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:What Danny Baker did, and what Israel Folau did are two entirely different arguments, you are all comparing apples with oranges.

The apple posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they took down very quickly and apologised and was sacked for gross misconduct.
The orange posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they stood by and refused to apologise and was sacked for gross misconduct.

Nope.

One person made a stupid racial slur that has no place in our society, and the person knew it was wrong and has since apologised, but apology or not, that behaviour has no place in today's society. He needs to be taught a lesson.

One person made a stupid comment that he believes is right, because that is what he believes, rightly or wrongly, and has since stood by his beliefs and has refused to back down because it is his right to believe what ever he wants, nobody can question a persons beliefs.

Danny Baker is a prat of the highest order, he is a racist, and it should not be tolerated.

Israel Folou is expressing his beliefs, it is what he has been taught to believe, and he believes they are right.

The only thing the both incidents have in common, is that they typed a message on the internet.

Not saying that Baker is racist or not but if his belief is that of one should he not be allowed in your opinion. Or is homophobia ok but not racism?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not saying that Baker is racist or not but if his belief is that of one should he not be allowed in your opinion. Or is homophobia ok but not racism?

Neither of them are OK.

What is the matter with you ?

You said one is to be tolerated and one isn't.
To be fair that's a red herring to the matter anyway. They both fell foul of breaching their contract. 1 is proud of it one has denied intent. The only thing further around this is how heavy Folou s punishment and whether he fights to get money. I suppose Mother point is the potential differences different teams have to these sort of instances.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You said one is to be tolerated and one isn't.

No I have not.

Where have I said that homophobia is to be tolerated ?

You've just said if Folou holds those beliefs it should be tolerated. Tbf this is going to go downhill. If you don't think that fine.

Who are we to tell somebody what they believe is wrong ? He is not being homophobic. Not one element of what he has written says he is against gays. He just believes that God will not let them into heaven. Well I say that's up to him.

Interesting though, that you take umbrage with that one thing in his list, yet you are quite happy to ignore everything else. Also, even though you are an athiest, you still find offence in it.

LordDowlais wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:What Danny Baker did, and what Israel Folau did are two entirely different arguments, you are all comparing apples with oranges.

The apple posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they took down very quickly and apologised and was sacked for gross misconduct.
The orange posted a (quite possibly unintentional) offensive post which they stood by and refused to apologise and was sacked for gross misconduct.

Nope.

One person made a stupid racial slur that has no place in our society, and the person knew it was wrong and has since apologised, but apology or not, that behaviour has no place in today's society. He needs to be taught a lesson.

One person made a stupid comment that he believes is right, because that is what he believes, rightly or wrongly, and has since stood by his beliefs and has refused to back down because it is his right to believe what ever he wants, nobody can question a persons beliefs.

Danny Baker is a prat of the highest order, he is a racist, and it should not be tolerated.

Israel Folou is expressing his beliefs, it is what he has been taught to believe, and he believes they are right.

The only thing the both incidents have in common, is that they typed a message on the internet.

There are laws against racism and homophobia in UK and Australia, and neither are ok.

I do not believe that Baker was deliberately racist especially as I am pretty sure he used the same image for The Cambridges first child.
I do not believe that Folau was being deliberately homophobic, especially as he targeted 9 other groups of which he falls into around half. 

Both have been called to account for their actions, but only one has accepted they were wrong. It could be argued that one has repented of their sins, the other has not.

It would not be acceptable to claim you are allowed to make racist comments because it was the way you were brought up. It should not be ok to use the same excuse to permit homophobic comments.

LondonTiger wrote:There are laws against racism and homophobia in UK and Australia, and neither are ok.

I agree.

LondonTiger wrote:I do not believe that Baker was deliberately racist especially as I am pretty sure he used the same image for The Cambridges first child.

I do not agree. We all now what using a monkey in that context is about. He knew what he was doing.

LondonTiger wrote:I do not believe that Folau was being deliberately homophobic, especially as he targeted 9 other groups of which he falls into around half.

I agree to an extent. I do not think he was being homophobic at all, unless you think that him believing that God will not allow gays into heaven is homophobic. He is not saying he is against them in any way.

LondonTiger wrote:Both have been called to account for their actions, but only one has accepted they were wrong. It could be argued that one has repented of their sins, the other has not.

I do not agree with this. One thinks he has not sinned, thus has nothing to answer for. The other knows he has sinned and has repented.

LondonTiger wrote:It would not be acceptable to claim you are allowed to make racist comments because it was the way you were brought up. It should not be ok to use the same excuse to permit homophobic comments.

Again, I agree, but Israel Folau was not being homophobic.

You did say you felt his view was offensive though LD or at least people would find it so which is the same thing for me. You also said he was trying to force his beliefs on people. Given we all think Folou believes what he reads in the bible (?) He presumably thinks homosexuals are disgusting and or loathsome. I think its fair to say given that view and his choice to tweet and repeat it's fair enough has getting on the wrong side of his bosses?