What do we think of his pronouncements?
I reckon hes misguided to say the least. You just can't say what he did and not expect the serious wrath of the press. Trouble is, you then have to examine what he actually did say.
No doubt this is where I will get pilloried but if you look at what the guy actually said he was equally hard on adulterers, fornicators and drunks, but he is not being sacked for any of that.
Now, as a man who liks his ale and fine malt whisky I find it offensive that my vices are given less regard in all this and to be perfectly honest I find it reprehensible that a god fearing man is vilified for criticising me.
Drunkards of the rugby world, speak out. This man has the right to call out whoever he likes, it's called freedom of speech.
Israel Folau
posted on 15/4/19
I think from a sacking perspective it is fairly unsurprising. A high level breach of his contract (specifically Professional Players' Code of Conduct). Had received warnings in the past (RU stating them as “numerous” suggesting more than 1) and continued to act in breach of the contract.
This is in no way punishing him for his beliefs. This is simple contract breach and thus cancellation of his contract.
1) He took an active choice to sign the contract with RA where he agreed to act in a certain way, and specifically to not post on his public platform in a certain way.
2) He took actions that were in breach of that contract
3) He received formal warnings for these actions.
4) He didn’t heed these warnings and continued to act in a manner that was outside the agreement he made with RA.
5) He thus continued to commit breaches of his contract, demonstrating that he didn’t have any respect for RA and the contract he had with them.
6) RA thus terminated the contract.
Personally, although I vehemently disagree with his views, I have no issues with him believing what he believes (I’m not big brother). I also have no issue with him airing those views in private (again, not big brother) but he used a platform that he uses to communicate publically with the world.
To Aristro’s point if I said the same thing on say LinkedIn (where my employer is clearly known and I have posted referencing them in the past) then I’d be disciplined. Whether anyone cared or not who I am I would still be disciplined.
posted on 15/4/19
bm. I hear what you say, its just that he seems to have been 'done' for only one aspect of what he said, hence why you get PC comments. Where I'm actually more torn is what will end up being double standards when looking at 2 unions. The Aussies will follow through with their decision and to hell with what anybody else thinks.
The ReallyFU will consider the importance of the player to the team before deciding on the sanction to be imposed on anybody expressing support or a similar view to Folau.
posted on 16/4/19
Told you. Warning for Binny.
posted on 16/4/19
Bit of a difference in that Izzy said a lot of people were going to hell. Binny just said men were made for women to procreate which isn't even an opinion is it, that's a fact.
posted on 18/4/19
Warning for Binny as one would expect given a first offence. I don’t quite get that what he said is a fact, implies a maker. I’d suggest the reasons why the actual makers (parents) have children is a complex one.
posted on 18/4/19
Is it not a fact men and women are made for each other to procreate?
Love is something else entirely.
Anyways, that's me done on the subject. I don't want to get into the philosophical views of religious people and trying to interpret what Binny said/meant with that one sentence.
I'm really looking forward to this weekend's semi-finals. Both matches should be good. I expect a Sarries Leinster final but both have been flaky of late so nothing is certain.
posted on 19/4/19
comment by Aristodemus (U3765)
posted 13 hours, 37 minutes ago
Is it not a fact men and women are made for each other to procreate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope that’s not a fact, that’s a belief.
Anyways I wouldn’t count out Munster and their ability to garner referee support with their “antics”.
posted on 21/4/19
I hope the Munster fella who confronted Binny yesterday has gone to confession to pray for absolution.
Anyway some of you seem to have missed the point of this thread. It's not about procreation love or anything like that, its about how there is a hierarchy of groups which are permitted to be the most offended. It's also about every person's right to have a contrary view and not be damned for having that view.
"I disagree with everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Voltaire (I think)
posted on 18/5/19
comment by theresgonnaebeashow (U5686)
posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago
It's not about procreation love or anything like that, its about how there is a hierarchy of groups which are permitted to be the most offended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And show the key difference is that drinking, fornicating etc are choices. Being gay isn’t a choice. In the same way being black or white or male or female isn’t choice. If Folau had instead said all black people are going to hell, or all New Zealanders it would be exactly the same situation. It is criticising someone for who they are, not what they do.
posted on 29/5/19
bmcl
I hear you about things which are a choice and those which are not. I deal a lot with disabled people (no choice there either) who usually require others to fight their battles for them.The reality is that, in the public eye at least, other groups who appear not to be short of very eloquent professional people within their ranks get a greater share of the air time than the disabled and consequently push themselves to the front of the 'offended' queue.