Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News

[JD Tiger]

I remember reading once about a person saying they had freedom over their own body. If they wish to move it in a certain way, fair enough. Judge said no. Your freedom to enact a punch, is limited by the proximity of another person.

For me, same applies with religion. You have the right to practice your religion, but that right stops when you are hurting others. And publicly being told that you will go to hell is crossing that line.

How many gay (male) footballers have we had publicly come out in League since Ian Roberts 30 years ago? How about in Union? Any? Not that I recall, and why is that? Because of mindsets like Folau.

 

[TieDye]

Would anybody seriously object if I were to offer my free burial service to this bloke ??

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The fact Folau's wife has been dragged into this is disgusting. Let the matter be heard in the Commission and leave his family out of it.

 

[rustycage]

I find it sickening how American we've become. All this talk of freedom of speech! Whatever happened to being kind to one another? As soon as someone speaks of compassion or just being fair or reasonable they're branded a "snowflake" or something similar. The way I see it is this bloke had every opportunity to play for as long as he wanted, get paid a mountain of money for doing so and he thought he deserved more. He thought he was untouchable. Talk about life in a bubble. I really do wonder how he checks the ethics of all of his donors. It's interesting to think as to whether or not he accepts donations from people who fall into one of the categories that he believes is going to Hell ie.drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators'.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

@boonboon Gillian Triggs the former Human Rights Commissioner has said it is important to protect Folàu's right to freedom of speech. She hàs said in the SMH that she doesn't think employers should have the power to sack someone and she doesn't think that one should lose one's job for putting a view in good faith that you have put particularly as a reflection that could be a religious view. She also said it is a really foolish and disproportionate to prevent him from preaching something that I think he probably believes quite deeply as a matter of religious expression.

I have a lot of time for Glilian Triggs. You listen when she speaks.

 

[avocadoontoast]

@pawsandclaws1 there is no right to freedom of speech in this country. We have no bill of rights and there is no protection to freedom of speech in the constitution.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

@avocadoontoast suggest you take it up with Gillian Triggs, former Dean of Law at Sydney University, former Human Rights Commissioner and former Acting Race Discrimination Commisioner. Please report back to let us know how you got on

 

[avocadoontoast]

@avocadoontoast suggest you take it up with Gillian Triggs, former Dean of Law at Sydney University, former Human Rights Commissioner and former Acting Race Discrimination Commisioner. Please report back to let us know how you got on

Thanks very much for your condescending tone! I actually went back and read through what Triggs said and she never mentioned freedom of speech in any quote. It was an overlay by the SMH reporter. If you actually go and read the text on ABC of what she said verbatim, you'll see that in her *opinion* he should be entitled to his religious views. It wasn't a legal view.

Perhaps you should go and read what she actually said, then go and find me the passage in the constitution where you think it talks about freedom of speech (spoiler alert: it isn't there).
Looking forward to you reporting back.

 

[avocadoontoast]

@avocadoontoast suggest you take it up with Gillian Triggs, former Dean of Law at Sydney University, former Human Rights Commissioner and former Acting Race Discrimination Commisioner. Please report back to let us know how you got on

And in addition, Triggs actually was interviewed last year regarding the need for Australia to have a Bill/Charter of Rights, where she commented:

*“The kinds of rights that most Australians would think would be in our constitution - the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, privacy, the right not to be detained arbitrarily without charge or trial – are not in the constitution.”*

 

[jirskyr]

The fact Folau's wife has been dragged into this is disgusting. Let the matter be heard in the Commission and leave his family out of it.

She's not been dragged into it, she is participating in his funding drive.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

@avocadoontoast

The renewed support for Folàu's comes as Gillian Triggs the former Australian Human Rights Commissioner president, said she believed it was important to protect the rugby union star's right to freedom of speech.

For an overlay, it sure is creating a sufficient comment in the sMH

I have absolutely no interest in dick measuring on a football found

 

[pawsandclaws1]

@jirskyr If your wife or partner had been subject to the scrutiny Mrs Folàu's has I would feel exactly the same level of sympathy and compassion.

 

[happy_tiger]

I heard the words religious martyr used today .....are you kidding me .....seriously

Wonder whether Izzy will take up the fight for all people being persecuted for their religious beliefs worldwide

Some have far bigger concerns than their rugby contracts Izzy

 

[avocadoontoast]

@avocadoontoast

The renewed support for Folàu's comes as Gillian Triggs the former Australian Human Rights Commissioner president, said she believed it was important to protect the rugby union star's right to freedom of speech.

For an overlay, it sure is creating a sufficient comment in the sMH

I have absolutely no interest in dick measuring on a football found

Look, you went hard at me because you thought you had a quote backing up what you were saying and you got a little excited. Sadly, not only did it not back up what you were saying, but in a cruel twist of fate it actually refuted it (there is an *actual* Triggs quote in my second post).

So please, don't get mad at me because you didn't bother to take 2 minutes to research what she actually said.

 

[Mccarry]

@Mccarry

" this is what religious people do, they spread the word of God, however filthy and unsound it may appear."

Agree on this part.

I’m at offended by how you characterise my belief. I am adult enough to still endorse your right to express it publicly.

Wait one sec...

Oh, thanks. I just needed a second to get over the offence you caused. Turns out I didn’t need to organise a witch hunt of you. Nor did I need to drag your wife into it for supporting it.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

@avocadoontoast My position on this issuei was posted a few pages back. The SMH reference was provided out of interest as it included an interview with an eminent Australian. I am not mad at you as you are a username on this forum. I understand this issue is emotive issue and one-upmanship is part of the game. I don't play it

 

[Nelson]

@pawsandclaws1 there is no right to freedom of speech in this country. We have no bill of rights and there is no protection to freedom of speech in the constitution.

That is true, but we are a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 19 of which states:

*1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.*

 

[avocadoontoast]

@Nelson they are optional protocols and non enforceable.

 

[jirskyr]

An interesting point was made to me today: many religious schools, and definitely Catholic ones, discriminate against employees on the basis of religious following. I.e. if you aren't a demonstrably practising Catholic they won't hire you.

In 2018, a Baptist school in Perth fired a teacher after he came out.

So why is it that Christian schools are permitted to fire or refuse to hire employees who don't subscribe to their values system, but RA are not allowed to fire a Christian for not subscribing to their value system?

So if Folau was to win his case against RA, then surely gay and non-practising teachers or students can say and post whatever they please, and the Catholic Church cannot touch them?

 

[Nelson]

@Nelson they are optional protocols and non enforceable.

They are not directly enforceable to the extent they have not been domestically implemented (and do not apply to the extent they directly conflict with domestic law), however they can and have been used to develop the common law (they were so used in Mabo) and can be used to assist in the resolution of ambiguities in domestic legislation. Ambiguities arise (or are claimed to arise) all the time...They are an important guide to the interpretation of rights in Australia.