NRL Player Movements & Rumours

[LittleDavey]

it is not his religious views that is denying him employment ... it is his potential to damage the fiscal well-being and reputation of the NRL that's the issue ...

at least that would be the NRL's argument ... which is a strong one, and getting stronger by the day given the backlash that is occurring in the ESL right now

Which is why I mentioned that his contract would have to include not speaking out publicly for the duration.

Idk, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in true free speech. I don't like what he says, but I'll support his right to say it. How would other clubs be likely to lose sponsors because of another clubs' signing? How on earth would they prove such a thing? Would the NRL seriously lose $$ if they allowed him to play in the comp? Doubtful. The pessimist in me says it's all purely marketing, cashing in on the publicity.

 

[Allo]

Which is why I mentioned that his contract would have to include not speaking out publicly for the duration.

Idk, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in true free speech. I don't like what he says, but I'll support his right to say it. How would other clubs be likely to lose sponsors because of another clubs' signing? How on earth would they prove such a thing? Would the NRL seriously lose $$ if they allowed him to play in the comp? Doubtful. The pessimist in me says it's all purely marketing, cashing in on the publicity.

People have a right to say and do whatever they like.

And you can still support his right to say it, but having the right to say something and not suffering consequences from what you say under the guise of ‘free speech’ aren’t part of the same equation.

That you can disagree with as a principle but it’s the world we live in

 

[Foordy]

Which is why I mentioned that his contract would have to include not speaking out publicly for the duration.

Idk, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in true free speech. I don't like what he says, but I'll support his right to say it. How would other clubs be likely to lose sponsors because of another clubs' signing? How on earth would they prove such a thing? Would the NRL seriously lose $$ if they allowed him to play in the comp? Doubtful. The pessimist in me says it's all purely marketing, cashing in on the publicity.

The NRL have the right no to be penalised by Folau's "right" to free speech ... FTR, Australia does not actually have freedom of speech in our constitution, that is an an American thing (and i'm pretty sure it is not absolute over there either)

sponsors of both codes have at one point threatened to walk away because of Folaus comments, because companies don't want to be associated with that sort of intolerance.

 

[LittleDavey]

The NRL have the right no to be penalised by Folau's "right" to free speech ... FTR, Australia does not actually have freedom of speech in our constitution, that is an an American thing (and i'm pretty sure it is not absolute over there either)

sponsors of both codes have at one point threatened to walk away because of Folaus comments

There's no legislated right to free speech in Australia, you're correct. There is common law 'rights', and some States have legislation around human rights, but that's as far as it extends.

Sure, the NRL has the right to not be penalised by his right to voice his opinion. But to enforce that, the NRL would have to show proof of harm. Sponsors 'threatening' to cancel their contracts would need to have clauses in said contracts to back that up, for one, otherwise they're in breach; and for 2, a threat is not evidence of harm. Otherwise, depending on how contracts in rugby league in this country are structured, the NRL are discriminating against him based on his religious views - which under common law is illegal AFAIK.

What exactly did he say that people are so offended about that they want to hound him out of professional sport in this country? Are we really that precious now? Personally I find some of the shit that Mundine says to be far more offensive than Folau, and demonstrably racist to boot. Who cares? OMG, a professional sportsperson said something controversial..........

 

[Huge]

Which is why I mentioned that his contract would have to include not speaking out publicly for the duration.

Idk, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in true free speech. I don't like what he says, but I'll support his right to say it. How would other clubs be likely to lose sponsors because of another clubs' signing? How on earth would they prove such a thing? Would the NRL seriously lose $$ if they allowed him to play in the comp? Doubtful. The pessimist in me says it's all purely marketing, cashing in on the publicity.

No speech is truly free, those rights have been earned. Prior to the genocides in Rwanda that same free(hate) speech on (government)public radio was calling babies rats and one side was being encouraged to kill the rat infestation.

 

[Huge]

The NRL have the right no to be penalised by Folau's "right" to free speech ... FTR, Australia does not actually have freedom of speech in our constitution, that is an an American thing (and i'm pretty sure it is not absolute over there either)

sponsors of both codes have at one point threatened to walk away because of Folaus comments, because companies don't want to be associated with that sort of intolerance.

It's definitely NOT without limitation in the US.

 

[Foordy]

There's no legislated right to free speech in Australia, you're correct. There is common law 'rights', and some States have legislation around human rights, but that's as far as it extends.

Sure, the NRL has the right to not be penalised by his right to voice his opinion. But to enforce that, the NRL would have to show proof of harm. Sponsors 'threatening' to cancel their contracts would need to have clauses in said contracts to back that up, for one, otherwise they're in breach; and for 2, a threat is not evidence of harm. Otherwise, depending on how contracts in rugby league in this country are structured, the NRL are discriminating against him based on his religious views - which under common law is illegal AFAIK.

What exactly did he say that people are so offended about that they want to hound him out of professional sport in this country? Are we really that precious now? Personally I find some of the shit that Mundine says to be far more offensive than Folau, and demonstrably racist to boot. Who cares? OMG, a professional sportsperson said something controversial..........

also show me the law that says an employer is required to hire someone they don't want to

 

[LittleDavey]

also show me the law that says an employer is required to hire someone they don't want to

From https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12091 (my bold added):

"Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law. Discrimination related to religion, religious conviction, religious belief or religious activity can be unlawful under the laws of the ACT, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia."

And from https://www.fwc.gov.au/general-protections-benchbook/other-protections/discrimination/religion:

"Religious discrimination includes distinctions made on the basis of expression of religious beliefs or membership in a religious group. This also includes discrimination against people who do not ascribe to a particular religious belief or are atheists.

Although discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is not permitted, there may be legitimate bases for imposing requirements in the workplace which restrict the worker’s freedom to practice a particular religion, such as:

• a religion may prohibit work on a day on which the employer usually operates
• a religion may require a special type of clothing which may not be compatible with safety equipment
• a religion may prescribe dietary restrictions or daily routines during work hours which may be difficult for the establishment to fully accommodate, or
• an employment position may require an oath incompatible with a religious belief or practice."

I'm no lawyer, and it obviously depends on the contracts in the NRL, but I take that to read that the NRL could not refuse Folau employment on the grounds of his religious beliefs. They could require certain conditions, as Catalans have, but you can't NOT employ someone because their religious views differ from your own. In practice I think it's a difficult situation to actually justify and prove, but in Folau's case - where the NRL basically said "his beliefs don't match those of the game" - that's pure discrimination.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

It’s a bit murky also because the player signs a contract with the club, the NRL just registers the contract.

 

[LittleDavey]

I agree. I think the NRL were specifically saying they wouldn't let him register as a player, though, does anyone know?

 

[Foordy]

From https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12091 (my bold added):

"Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law. Discrimination related to religion, religious conviction, religious belief or religious activity can be unlawful under the laws of the ACT, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia."

And from https://www.fwc.gov.au/general-protections-benchbook/other-protections/discrimination/religion:

"Religious discrimination includes distinctions made on the basis of expression of religious beliefs or membership in a religious group. This also includes discrimination against people who do not ascribe to a particular religious belief or are atheists.

Although discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is not permitted, there may be legitimate bases for imposing requirements in the workplace which restrict the worker’s freedom to practice a particular religion, such as:

• a religion may prohibit work on a day on which the employer usually operates
• a religion may require a special type of clothing which may not be compatible with safety equipment
• a religion may prescribe dietary restrictions or daily routines during work hours which may be difficult for the establishment to fully accommodate, or
• an employment position may require an oath incompatible with a religious belief or practice."

I'm no lawyer, and it obviously depends on the contracts in the NRL, but I take that to read that the NRL could not refuse Folau employment on the grounds of his religious beliefs. They could require certain conditions, as Catalans have, but you can't NOT employ someone because their religious views differ from your own. In practice I think it's a difficult situation to actually justify and prove, but in Folau's case - where the NRL basically said "his beliefs don't match those of the game" - that's pure discrimination.

That still doesn't say the NRL MUST hire him ...

All that means is that IF Folau can prove that it is discrimination due to his religious beliefs the NRL would have to give him money ...

And that would be tough for Folau to prove in an industry that relies on both the public and sponsorship for its survival.

And FTR, the ESL clubs have just voted in favour of allowing the ESL administration to take a similar stance to the NRL in these matters. The only club who chose not to attend the meeting and cast a vote was Catalans

 

[Foordy]

It’s a bit murky also because the player signs a contract with the club, the NRL just registers the contract.

My guess is the licensing agreements with clubs allows the NRL the right to refuse to register a player if they don't meet certain criteria

 

[Huge]

From https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12091 (my bold added):

"Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law. Discrimination related to religion, religious conviction, religious belief or religious activity can be unlawful under the laws of the ACT, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia."

And from https://www.fwc.gov.au/general-protections-benchbook/other-protections/discrimination/religion:

"Religious discrimination includes distinctions made on the basis of expression of religious beliefs or membership in a religious group. This also includes discrimination against people who do not ascribe to a particular religious belief or are atheists.

Although discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is not permitted, there may be legitimate bases for imposing requirements in the workplace which restrict the worker’s freedom to practice a particular religion, such as:

• a religion may prohibit work on a day on which the employer usually operates
• a religion may require a special type of clothing which may not be compatible with safety equipment
• a religion may prescribe dietary restrictions or daily routines during work hours which may be difficult for the establishment to fully accommodate, or
• an employment position may require an oath incompatible with a religious belief or practice."

I'm no lawyer, and it obviously depends on the contracts in the NRL, but I take that to read that the NRL could not refuse Folau employment on the grounds of his religious beliefs. They could require certain conditions, as Catalans have, but you can't NOT employ someone because their religious views differ from your own. In practice I think it's a difficult situation to actually justify and prove, but in Folau's case - where the NRL basically said "his beliefs don't match those of the game" - that's pure discrimination.

Well that wouldn't be the reason given. I'd refuse to employ him because he has demonstrated that he cannot abide by stipulated rules . I'd be worried he'd do that to me.

 

[LittleDavey]

But fellas, the NRL said something publicly to the effect of "We won't allow him to register because his religious beliefs differ from the game's beliefs." You can't do that. By all means, refuse to register him because he's demonstrated that he can't keep his mouth shut and will likely bring the game into disrepute, potentially leading to a real loss of income through sponsors etc. But that's a totally different thing, and not what they said. I'd have liked to see him try, tbh, to see what happened in the end.

 

[Huge]

But fellas, the NRL said something publicly to the effect of "We won't allow him to register because his religious beliefs differ from the game's beliefs." You can't do that. By all means, refuse to register him because he's demonstrated that he can't keep his mouth shut and will likely bring the game into disrepute, potentially leading to a real loss of income through sponsors etc. But that's a totally different thing, and not what they said. I'd have liked to see him try, tbh, to see what happened in the end.

You'll have to provide a bit of evidence for the claim about the NRL I think. I couldn't imagine them exposing themselves like that. Perhaps that's how you remember it but not what was actually said?

 

[LittleDavey]

You'll have to provide a bit of evidence for the claim about the NRL I think. I couldn't imagine them exposing themselves like that. Perhaps that's how you remember it but not what was actually said?

Fair call!

From WWOS:

"Israel Folau doesn't pass our inclusiveness culture, which is a policy strongly supported by the ARLC,'' Beattie told The Sydney Morning Herald. "And after talking to some commissioners tonight (Thursday), we don't support him playing rugby league again.''

And from the horse's mouth himself - clicky click.

So we'll include everyone...except people who publicly say what we don't like...

 

[ivanhungryjak]

If the NRL's defence is that they can't risk what his behaviour will be in the future based on past behaviour, I'd imagine Folau's response would be to table a long list of miscreants who have done much worse (some more than once) and have been allowed back into the game.

 

[Foordy]

If the NRL's defence is that they can't risk what his behaviour will be in the future based on past behaviour, I'd imagine Folau's response would be to table a long list of miscreants who have done much worse (some more than once) and have been allowed back into the game.

I doubt he would win with that response ... His only hope is to prove he was discriminated against due to his religious beliefs ... Even if he is able to prove that, then he still won't play NRL again ... Just win enough to buy himself another mansion somewhere