Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[LuvtheKangas]

FTFY.

LOL, do you really think that?

Poor Izzy is now in poverty?

I DGAF about what he thinks or says, but if he's signed a contract that says he's employed to play rugby and meet certain standards of behaviour, then he's legally obliged to meet those standards of behaviour. I mean, his employer has kept up their end of the bargain by paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I’m not sure Australia actually has free speech.

Spose it comes down to how water tight his contract is. It’s too much money to just walk away from without a fight.

I reckon he gets paid.

I agree with B Tron on this - it's pretty simple. If you willingly sign a contract, there are both rights and obligations; if you breach the obligations, you lose the rights (plus any other outcomes/penalties written or read into the contract).

 

[Themanbun]

LOL, do you really think that?

Poor Izzy is now in poverty?

I DGAF about what he thinks or says, but if he's signed a contract that says he's employed to play rugby and meet certain standards of behaviour, then he's legally obliged to meet those standards of behaviour. I mean, his employer has kept up their end of the bargain by paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not Izzy in particular. He's an exception to a general rule. I had a much longer post written out but deleted it. In fact I'd probably argue that part of the reason why Izzy is so vocal is because he is financially comfortable compared to the average Joe.

Whether you want to confront it or not, this high profile employment law case is reflective of something that concerns the entire working population. The comment I cheekily 'fixed' was referring to rights for the general population, not just Israel Folau.

Put simply - I am a socialist. I don't believe that employment contracts for the vast majority of the population are a free choice or even up for negotiation on matters like this. People sign them because the alternative is the Newstart Allowance.

Legally, you guys are spot on. Not disagreeing that he has no legal avenue. Laws always have the capacity to be changed, however, so these conversations are important.

 

[Val Keating]

I agree with B Tron on this - it's pretty simple. If you willingly sign a contract, there are both rights and obligations; if you breach the obligations, you lose the rights (plus any other outcomes/penalties written or read into the contract).

Probably the most logical outcome. If it was that simple you’d think it would’ve been over ages ago.

 

[Themanbun]

I’m not sure Australia actually has free speech.

No constitutional right. We have an implied freedom of political communication but it's pretty negligible in matters like this.

 

[Val Keating]

No constitutional right. We have an implied freedom of political communication but it's pretty negligible in matters like this.

Cheers. I’ve been wondering about that for ages.

 

[giantroo]

Vale Bob Hawke.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Snake_Baker]

No constitutional right. We have an implied freedom of political communication but it's pretty negligible in matters like this.

There is when it comes to freedom of religious expression.

His "employer" contract doesn't mean shite then.

Section 116 states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I can see why Chadwiko might overlook this. It's not the sort of thing that's freely published in "The Green Left"

 

[Themanbun]

There is when it comes to freedom of religious expression.

His "employer" contract doesn't mean shite then.

Section 116 states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I can see why Chadwiko might overlook this. It's not the sort of thing that's freely published in "The Green Left"

I forgot about s772 of the FWA too. I reckon that's what he will go for.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I forgot about s772 of the FWA too. I reckon that's what he will go for.

All of that stuff is statute law mate. It's immediately redundant if it encroaches upon constitutional law. Contract laws, equality laws, everything.

You should look up the Scientology case if you want to appreciate just how broad the scope of s116 reaches.

 

[Hojuman]

Great Prime Minister. R.I.P. Bob.

 

[Themanbun]

All of that stuff is statute law mate. It's immediately redundant if it encroaches upon constitutional law. Contract laws, equality laws, everything.

You should look up the Scientology case if you want to appreciate just how broad the scope of s116 reaches.

All of that stuff is statute law mate. It's immediately redundant if it encroaches upon constitutional law. Contract laws, equality laws, everything.

You should look up the Scientology case if you want to appreciate just how broad the scope of s116 reaches.

Constitutional Law is far from my forte, but my textbook states that s116 not a source of personal redress and simply restricts the types of laws that the Commonwealth can make.

S772 of the FWA would however give him personal redress.

Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Constitutional Law is far from my forte, but my textbook states that it's not a source of personal redress and simply restricts the types of laws that the Commonwealth can make.

S772 of the FWA would however give him personal redress.

Yeah mate, and is therefore "a source of redress"

Bikie laws, thrown out

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...s/news-story/1692c4bec53ae65a977303c0a91efc44

 

[Themanbun]

Yeah mate, and is therefore "a source of redress"


s 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court

In all matters:

(i) arising under any treaty;

(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;

(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;

(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;

(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
​

s 76 Additional original jurisdiction​

The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter:

(i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;

(ii) arising under any laws made by the Parliament;

(iii) of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;

(iv) relating to the same subject‑matter claimed under the laws of different States.​

And what law made by the Parliament do you suggest Rugby Australia is resting upon in its decision to terminate Izzy's contract?

Serious question.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And what law made by the Parliament do you suggest Rugby Australia is resting upon in its decision to terminate Izzy's contract?

Serious question.

I dunno. That wasn't my point. My point was in showing up that Chadwiko was clueless. Again.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Actually, in what way is this inconsistent with his religious beliefs?



Based on this I can't see how is Australian Rugby's contract termination isn't doomed, should Folau seek a constitutional legal argument.

 

[Hojuman]

 

[LuvtheKangas]

There is when it comes to freedom of religious expression.

His "employer" contract doesn't mean shite then.

Section 116 states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I can see why Chadwiko might overlook this. It's not the sort of thing that's freely published in "The Green Left"

I forgot about s772 of the FWA too. I reckon that's what he will go for.

And what law made by the Parliament do you suggest Rugby Australia is resting upon in its decision to terminate Izzy's contract?

Serious question.

Not sure either of you are near the mark here.

Yes, there can be no prohibition on free exercise of religion. But homophobia is not a religious tenet that is covered by this prohibition, just like jihad isn't.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Actually, in what way is this inconsistent with his religious beliefs?

View attachment 675137

Based on this I can't see how is Australian Rugby's contract termination isn't doomed, should Folau seek a constitutional legal argument.

Good luck with that.

I actually can't believe you interpreted it this way, tbh.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Good luck with that.

I actually can't believe you interpreted it this way, tbh.

Well, you appear to have negated me with "the vibe" my learned friend.

 

[Themanbun]

Not sure either of you are near the mark here.

Yes, there can be no prohibition on free exercise of religion. But homophobia is not a religious tenet that is covered by this prohibition, just like jihad isn't.

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.

 

[Chadwiko]

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I can see why Chadwiko might overlook this. It's not the sort of thing that's freely published in "The Green Left"

This is embarrassing for you, but I'm not the one who overlooked something.

The first two words of Section 116 which you quoted are what is key here. So I've bolded them and made them green for you so you don't miss them.

(Israel Folau was not employed by The Commonwealth)

 

[Snake_Baker]

This is embarrassing for you, but I'm not the one who overlooked something.

The first two words of Section 116 which you quoted are what is key here. So I've bolded them and made them green for you so you don't miss them.

(Israel Folau was not employed by The Commonwealth)

Yes.

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

Do you think contracts are not overseen by laws?

You idiot.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

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.