Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
14,113
Likes
26,733
Location
Bottom of the ladder
AFL Club
North Melbourne
As I've said, I doubt he'll win but if he pursues s772 of the FWA then it likely will lead to a very intense hearing and discussion of what constitutes terminating someone on account of their religious beliefs (I suspect they'll draw the line at public expression of them rather than privately holding them).

Kamal Farouqe (head employment lawyer at Maurice Blackburn) plus some legal academics think he may be able to argue 772, it's not yet as cut and dry as we think.
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Val Keating

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
3,610
Likes
8,149
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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.
 

Chadwiko

Captain Awesome
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
13,525
Likes
9,550
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Washington Redskins, Boston Celtics
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

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
3,610
Likes
8,149
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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?
 

Chadwiko

Captain Awesome
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
13,525
Likes
9,550
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Washington Redskins, Boston Celtics
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
14,113
Likes
26,733
Location
Bottom of the ladder
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Captain Awesome
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
13,525
Likes
9,550
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Washington Redskins, Boston Celtics
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
3,610
Likes
8,149
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Posts
407
Likes
1,222
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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.
 
Last edited:

Orange Peanut

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Posts
4,570
Likes
17,224
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
14,113
Likes
26,733
Location
Bottom of the ladder
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
3,610
Likes
8,149
AFL Club
North Melbourne
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

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
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.
 
Top Bottom