Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Val Keating]

Hmmm, any chance he's after a settlement, as opposed to fundamentally believing Izzy didn't breach his contract? I think it turns on the bit you put in brackets - the breach was the public expression of his privately held view.

I just can't see them running the argument that stating a bigoted opinion is protected under freedom of religious expression.

Absolutely they’re after a settlement. It’s why it’s taken so long. He’ll get paid. The only question is how much.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Absolutely they’re after a settlement. It’s why it’s taken so long. He’ll get paid. The only question is how much.

BINGO!

 

[Chadwiko]

Yes.

.........prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

You idiot.

I can't believe how far this is going over your head. This is really embarrassing for you now.

I'll dumb it down even further to help you out.

1) There is no law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion in Australia.
2) Ergo, Israel Folau broke no law (and no one is suggesting he did).
3) Section 116 of the Australian constitution does not have anything to do at all with private citizens like Israel Folau. It is only about what laws the Australian government can/can not make.

 

[Val Keating]

I can't believe how far this is going over your head. This is really embarrassing for you now.

I'll dumb it down even further to help you out.

1) There is no law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion in Australia.
2) Ergo, Israel Folau broke no law (and no one is suggesting he did).
3) Section 116 of the Australian constitution does not have anything to do at all with private citizens like Israel Folau. It is only about what laws the Australian government can/can not make.

I hate to get in the middle of your argument, but I can be an annoying campaigner so I will, don’t Australian laws override any other contractual legislation by private companies?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I hate to get in the middle of your argument, but I can be an annoying campaigner so I will, don’t Australian laws override any other contractual legislation by private companies?

Shhhhh.........let him keep going.

 

[Val Keating]

Shhhhh.........let him keep going.

I’m genuinely curious about this case.

 

[Orange Peanut]

They already offered him a million bucks to * off. He is fighting it. He is a nob end.

 

[Chadwiko]

I hate to get in the middle of your argument, but I can be an annoying campaigner so I will, don’t Australian laws override any other contractual legislation by private companies?

That's my point though; there is no law guaranteeing religious expression at the federal level in Australia.

Section 116 of the constitution is not a "bill of rights". It's purview starts and finishes at the context of what law governments can constitutionally enact.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I’m genuinely curious about this case.

They don't have to guarantee him a game of rugby, but they DO have to pay out his contract.

Why? Because they have no winnable grounds to sack a man based upon his religious convictions.

 

[Snake_Baker]

That's my point though; there is no law guaranteeing religious expression at the federal level in Australia.

Section 116 of the constitution is not a "bill of rights". It's purview starts and finishes at the context of what law governments can constitutionally enact.

LOL.

It refers to how laws are APPLIED, you PELICAN!

 

[Snake_Baker]

They already offered him a million bucks to **** off. He is fighting it. He is a nob end.

I'm not claiming he's a good bloke mate, I am just stating the law. The PINNACLE of law in this country.

 

[Val Keating]

They already offered him a million bucks to **** off. He is fighting it. He is a nob end.

Really? Didn’t know that. Well maybe he’s just pias? Or has a legal team advising him. Some of these religions mobs have deep pockets and high connections

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Absolutely they’re after a settlement. It’s why it’s taken so long. He’ll get paid. The only question is how much.

He'll probably get paid something more than offered, but that depends more on factors like the NRL going into damage control mode to protect their reputation than the strength of the argument that his statements were not a breach of contract.

They don't have to guarantee him a game of rugby, but they DO have to pay out his contract.

Why? Because they have no winnable grounds to sack a man based upon his religious convictions.

I think the opposite in terms of who holds the winning hand. You can't hide all acts or behaviour under the banner of religious conviction and expect it to be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Just think about your argument in the context of jihad, mosque and church bombings.

 

[Chadwiko]

LOL.

It refers to how laws are APPLIED, you PELICAN!

No, it doesn't.

Want to know how I know?

I've personally drafted legislation that became law in Australia when I was part of the team within the Australian government that, under Minister Jenny Macklin, introduced Paid Parental Leave.

I've done multiple training sessions with the Attorney General's Department about constitutional law and designing, interpreting, and implementing new laws and legislation.

And this is just a summary of my experience in these matters.

If you've got me covered as an expert in this field, then I'll tip my hat to you.

But from the arguments you are putting forth, it sounds like you think the Australian constitution works like the American constitution, and let me tell you categorically that it really, really does not.

 

[Snake_Baker]

He'll probably get paid something, but that depends more on factors like the NRL going into damage control mode to protect their reputation than the strength of the argument that his statements were not a breach of contract.



I think the opposite in terms of who holds the winning hand. You can't hide all acts or behaviour under the banner of religious conviction and expect it to be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Just think about your argument in the context of jihad, mosque and church bombings.

Mate, the constitution and High Court cares NOUGHT for yours or anyone elses "feelz".

I was active in High Court challenges more than 20 years ago.

 

[Val Keating]

They don't have to guarantee him a game of rugby, but they DO have to pay out his contract.

Why? Because they have no winnable grounds to sack a man based upon his religious convictions.

That’s what it feels like, but I’ve never read any of the stuff you lot are quoting.

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, it doesn't.

Want to know how I know?

I've personally drafted legislation that became law in Australia when I was part of the team within the Australian government that, under Minister Jenny Macklin, introduced Paid Parental Leave.

I've done multiple training sessions with the Attorney General's Department about constitutional law and designing, interpreting, and implementing new laws and legislation.

If you've got me covered as an expert in this field, then I'll tip my hat to you.

But from the arguments you are putting forth, it sounds like you think the Australian constitution works like the American constitution, and let me tell you categorically that it really, really does not.

So what?

You should have spent your time learning proper Australian law fundamentals.

 

[Themanbun]

I hate to get in the middle of your argument, but I can be an annoying campaigner so I will, don’t Australian laws override any other contractual legislation by private companies?

Not necessarily. In the employment law sphere at least, the Australian legislation (plus EAs, Awards) provide minimum standards and protections through the Fair Work Act, but contract law can cover anything not already covered by the FWA and actually exists as a separate source of employment law and redress.

Section 116 precludes the Parliament from enacting legislation which restricts the freedom of religious expression. It doesn't preclude might contracts doing so (although other legislation might).

E.g. breach of contract goes under contract law rather than the Fair Work Act, and uses contract law principles.

There haven't been many s116 cases run in this country against anyone other than the Commonwealth and most legal commentary I'm reading suggests 772 is his only redress, or contract law.

If there was a section in the FWA that stated that an employer is allowed to fire you for expressing a bigoted opinion and that law was interpreted to contradict the freedom of religious expression section of the constitution, then you could, theoretically, run an argument that the law is invalid to the extent that it violates s116.

 

[Orange Peanut]

I'm not claiming he's a good bloke mate, I am just stating the law. The PINNACLE of law in this country.

Yeah I just wanted to get on the record that it's not *just* about money, and that he's a nob end.
I'd be surprised if the contract breach doesn't hold up as legitimate grounds for dismissal tbh, but IANAL so what the * would I know?

 

[Snake_Baker]

That’s what it feels like, but I’ve never read any of the stuff you lot are quoting.

Let's put it this way mate............considering Rugby Australia's public stance on this do you think as a layperson that they would have sacked him outright if the COULD have sacked him outright on the spot?

Not necessarily. In the employment law sphere at least, the Australian laws (plus EAs, Awards) provide minimum standards and protections through the Fair Work Act, but contract law can cover anything not already covered by the FWA and actually exists as a separate source of employment law and redress.

E.g. breach of contract goes under contract law rather than the Fair Work Act, and uses contract law principles.

Yeah, it just can't breach the constitution. Not even minutely.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Mate, the constitution and High Court cares NOUGHT for yours or anyone elses "feelz".

I was active in High Court challenges more than 20 years ago.

Geez, you're going the Groin Guru route, I see.

I've made my point. Bye.

 

[Val Keating]

Let's put it this way mate............considering Rugby Australia's public stance on this do you think as a layperson that they would have sacked him outright if the COULD have sacked him outright on the spot?



Yeah, it just can't breach the constitution. Not even minutely.

It’s why I brought it up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Geez, you're going the Groin Guru route, I see.

I've made my point. Bye.

You have no point mate. That's the thing. This has nothing to do with your personal moral compass or what you might deem is representative of societies moral compass. The constitution overrides all of that, and it can only be altered by way of referendum, in so much as it's fundamentals are concerned.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It’s why I brought it up.

You have better nous than the professional bureaucrat.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yeah I just wanted to get on the record that it's not *just* about money, and that he's a nob end.
I'd be surprised if the contract breach doesn't hold up as legitimate grounds for dismissal tbh, but IANAL so what the **** would I know?

I don't agree with it either mate, but that's the law.