Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Folau

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lebbo73 said:
www.smh.com.au

Ruined Castle: CEO’s stock rock bottom after crumbling on Folau

Raelene Castle stood up to Israel Folau on a matter of principle - then rolled over and settled, rather than see the fight through to the end.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
Even this looney is saying it is at least $2.5m and could be up to $5m. You’re on drugs if you believe it’s only $300k.
Click to expand...
Again, he gives no reason for that figure, other than the usual BS "according to one source familiar to the case". (ie "I just made that number up and no-one can disprove it") As believable as the Murdoch one. Not saying they're wrong, but neither is there currently any reason to believe them.
 
Rettolalia said:
Why are you continuing to accept the pirates propaganda that ‘RA held all the cards’?
Clearly they didn’t, because if they did, wanting to wrap this chapter up urgently or not, there is no way an organisation as financially vulnerable as RA would be cutting any sort of deal with Izzy where he walks away with $5 mil +.

Izzy clearly had whip hand here, and RA knew it.
Click to expand...
I'm not accepting anything. I don't care what the figure is. I have no skin in this particular game. Couldn't care less about Folau, or Rugby.

I'm saying Fitzsimons is so far the only person who has given any rationale for the figure he arrived at.

By all means critique his rationale; tear it to pieces.

But also acknowledge that so far, the rationale we've seen for all the other figures has been such devastating expositions of logic like "you've got rocks in your head if you think it was a cent less than $5 mill", or "$8 mill feels about right to me" etc etc.

In other words, people just making schitte up because they like looking like the sort of person who is at ease talking about huge sums of money.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I have nothing against the lady personally, but this was a naive act of managerial lunacy.

Are her credentials really up to standard for a chief executive position anyway?
 
In their statement, RA said they could not tolerate Folau's controversial views. Paul Murray - "In other words, the boofheads complaining about purported discrimination chose intolerance as the antidote."

Izzy exposes rugby’s shame

  • The West Australian
  • 7 Dec 2019
  • PAUL MURRAY
img

Illustration: Don Lindsay

So if Rugby Australia was on the side of the angels, why didn’t it let the courts decide whether it lawfully sacked Israel Folau for posting his religious views on social media?In the face of its apology and a reputed $8 million settlement this week, most sensible people would conclude that RA knew it couldn’t win. It was a humiliating surrender which left a phalanx of Folau’s critics stranded.

“The social media post reflected Mr Folau’s genuinely held religious beliefs, and Mr Folau did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the social media post,” RA said in its agreed statement. “While it was not Rugby Australia’s intention, Rugby Australia acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused to the Folaus.” What part of that is not a humiliating backdown? RA previously ruled out any prospect of an apology. All of those sanctimonious bloviators who have been heaping scorn on Folau and predicting he would be crucified in the courts can now just chew on their bile.

A paragraph in this newspaper’s report on Thursday of the out-of-court settlement summed up the moral conundrum neatly, even though I’m not sure that was the writer’s intent:“In their statement, RA reiterated that they could not tolerate Folau’s controversial views.” In other words, the boofheads complaining about purported discrimination chose intolerance as the antidote.

In this era of enshrined offence-taking, Folau is singled out as someone not entitled to be offended by those who cut across his religious beliefs. But the joint statement agreed by RA then sought to sell another proposition that left the player’s critics dumfounded: “Mr Folau wants all Australians to know that he does not condone discrimination of any kind against any person on the grounds of their sexuality and that he shares Rugby Australia’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity.” If that’s the case, what was the whole affair about?

In its non-legalistic and basic meaning, discrimination is the recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. It’s one of the intellectual qualities that sets humans apart from less intelligent beings.Once again, RA chose to focus on the issue of “sexuality” — meaning homosexuality — when all of Australia now knows the player’s posting on Instagram was also aimed at drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators. RA decided to sanction its player because his social views did not accord with those they want to be seen to be supporting, in particular its powerful virtue-signalling sponsors like Qantas.

Tolerance is the human ability to accept the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes. And preference is the liking for one option over another.
While I don’t hold Folau’s views, I prefer tolerance to discrimination. Folau published his comments to those who chose to follow him on Instagram, no one else. Don’t like them? Unfollow. End of story. I was hoping the case would get to court because there is a strong argument in Folau’s favour that would have made for an interesting adjudication on our freedoms.

RA has framed its whole action against Folau around the issue of homosexuality. However, the singular focus on his supposed discrimination against homosexuals is the very weakness in the argument. Folau’s post said: “Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators. Hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves.” The very fact that Folau included homosexuals among a wide group of others he regards as sinners is proof he did not discriminate against them. And he certainly did not single homosexuals out for special treatment. In fact, he was being quite inclusive. It is obvious that homosexuals would be a tiny minority within the total number of those people Folau misguidedly wants to save from hellfire and damnation.
So why was RA only concerned about the gay lobby? Imagine an uprising of liars all returning their rugby club memberships in high dudgeon at Folau’s slur.
What would happen if the nation’s thieves boycotted RA’s sponsors, refusing to spend their ill-gotten gains because they were associated with someone who fingered them as social pariahs. And let’s not even contemplate a class action from the fornicators. What if they went on strike?

“The terms of the settlement are confidential but importantly Israel’s legal claim has been withdrawn and whilst we were very confident in our legal position, this outcome provides certainty for Rugby Australia and allows us to avoid incurring ongoing legal costs and the risks and distractions of a lengthy trial,” chief executive Raelene Castle said in a letter to RA stakeholders. The only certainty RA has obtained is that it is seen as a pack of losers. Unprincipled losers at that, not willing to stand for the ideals it says it was upholding. Is RA’s new coaching policy that it will only partake in games where it is assured of winning?

Castle’s justifications do not stand the slightest scrutiny. Does anyone honestly believe RA was “very confident in our legal position”? Confident of losing, surely? Even Folau’s strongest critics are left defeated by RA’s capitulation. Nine columnist Peter FitzSimons — the former Wallaby who seems to have been in several scrums too many — could only summon up that the settlement was “a great pity”. “Secondly, my stronger reaction was I hoped RA kept the presumed payment to him to an absolute minimum,” FitzSimons wrote. “Everybody wants to know how much. I have no inside knowledge of the terms, not even a hint, but my bet is it will be about $200,000 to $300,000. RA was confident its case was a slam-dunk legally.” So, confronted by widespread media reports that RA paid Folau $8 million to make his legal action go away, FitzSimons conjures up, self-admittedly from nowhere, a much lower figure because that fiction is all he has left to offer. He obviously wears that bandana so no one can see when he blushes. But not even that rag could hide rugby’s shame.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jibroni said:
If it was good enough for Jesus to hangout with prostitutes, criminals and the sinful then a christian showing tolerance when playing sport with someone of a differing sexual orientation should be a given.
Click to expand...

On behalf of we drunkards, no hard feelings, even have another one for you, so pray for me - dont we both feel better... pity the outraged, chill.
 
Crankitup said:
As Paul Murray put it - "All of these sanctimonious bloviators who have been heaping scorn on Folau and predicting he would be crucified in the courts can now just chew on their bile."
Click to expand...

Paul Murray is a flog.
 
Crankitup said:
Nice Ad Hom there. No attempt to pick apart his points just outright dismissal. Seems like a fairly bilious comment too.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm fairly comfortable dismissing him outright. He writes his column to deliberately to stir up hate against the gay community.

He's a flog.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Sainteric said:
Said like a true lefty who wants to control what every one says and thinks

Consequences, so does any Gay person who responds irationaly to Christians lose their job as well?

Free speech is just that free.

You respond to idiocy with loud protest and ideals not with extrajudicial actions of the thought police
Click to expand...

So you think free speech means speech free of any consequences? I mean, I didn't say what your first sentence seems to indicate you think I said.
 
Snake_Baker said:
No, I don't think anyone has changed their minds with regard to "gay politics" as a result of this fiasco. However, it has been reinforced via libertarian support. The best way to deal with religious idiocy, is to come at it subtly and indirectly, because it almost always gets a strong reaction if it is met head on.

It's about tactics.

I'm sure that the mature, intelligent gay elements in society (IME, the majority), would not have approached this with the lack of sophistication applied by the generic outrage lobby.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I haven't been outraged by this, I simply saw RA's actions as a sensible move to rid themselves of an outspoken bigot. I didn't want Folau to go to jail for this or anything. I just think it's funny that people thought he was making a stand about something, when throughout his career Folau has only cared about $$$. He didn't risk his $$$ by taking this to the courts like he would have if he was genuinely aggrieved and wanted 'vindication'.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Crankitup said:
You say that Murray's motivation is to stir up gays. That's crap.
Click to expand...

Just from Googling If you are in WA we may be talking about a different Paul Murray.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom