web analytics

I STAND WITH ISRAEL

By Pete Moore On April 11th, 2019

Israel Folau is a great rugby player. A world class full back. He’s also just been sacked by Rugby Australia for social media posts.

Folau is of Tongan heritage. They tend to have strong Christian views in the South Sea Islands. Folau has posted a string a comments on social media about homosexuals going to Hell and blah blah blah. He did so recently, not for the first time, so he’s been given the chop. (Cue some very large French cheques being written.)

But why shouldn’t he say what he thinks? Sport, including Australian sport, is infested with radical-left politics. You can’t attend a match without being assailed by anti-racism and pro-LGBT campaigns. This is political, and sports authorities have cravenly surrendered to it. Rugby Australia was happy for David Pocock, another great player, to become an environmental campaigner. They were happy for him to campaign in favour of gay marriage, and they’re happy for him to campaign on LGBT (whatever they are) issues.

If they’re happy for Pocock to campaign for radical causes, they must allow Folau to publicly voice his ultra-conservative beliefs.

17 Responses to “I STAND WITH ISRAEL”

  1. “If they’re happy for Pocock to campaign for radical causes, they must allow Folau to publicly voice his ultra-conservative beliefs.”

    Is there anything in their contracts that say they can’t campaign for causes? As far as I know there isn’t. Is there anything in their contract that says they can’t issue homophobic statements? Yes there is.

  2. If they’re happy for Pocock to campaign for radical causes, they must allow Folau to publicly voice his ultra-conservative beliefs

    I think a strongly worded letter to your MP or the Daily Express should make ‘them’ allow ‘ultra – conservative’ voices to be heard in international sport Pete.

    Wise up son.

  3. Seamus –

    That might well be the case. If so, the contracts are politically slanted and unfair.

  4. Not unfair. If I embarrass my employer then I will be held accountable for that. So if one person’s actions embarrass the employer, and the other person’s actions do not embarrass the employer then the two actions cannot be compared.

    David Pocock’s campaigning doesn’t embarrass Rugby Australia. Izzy Folau’s social media posts do embarrass Rugby Australia.

  5. If “embarrassing” Rugby Australia is the bar, Michael Cheika and a host of players would have lost their jobs two years ago.

    The issue is equity. Far-left extremism is approved. Islamic fundamentalism is accepted. Only conservative Christianity is allowed to be sanctioned. Folau has not harmed anyone. He has not discriminated against anyone. He simply voiced politically unpopular opinions.

  6. “If “embarrassing” Rugby Australia is the bar, Michael Cheika and a host of players would have lost their jobs two years ago.”

    True. Cheika’s clearly got compromising photographs of someone. Its been kind of all down hill since they lost in World Cup in 2015. And I know their main competition is against arguably the greatest side ever but last year they didn’t even finish 2nd in the Rugby Championship. South Africa did. Australia lost to Argentina and if the Argies had put 4 more points during the game on the board then Australia would have finished bottom. They only won by 4 points and so the Aussies got a losing bonus point.

    Its hard to see Cheika surviving after the World Cup, unless Australia do something completely unexpected. The fact that they are sacking Folau suggests they don’t expect to do anything at it. If Australia honestly thought they had a chance then they’d have found excuses for Folau.

    “The issue is equity. Far-left extremism is approved. Islamic fundamentalism is accepted. Only conservative Christianity is allowed to be sanctioned. Folau has not harmed anyone. He has not discriminated against anyone. He simply voiced politically unpopular opinions.”

    He has harmed Rugby Australia. Harmed their appeal to sponsors. The last time Folau ran his mouth Qantas threatened to stop sponsoring Australia. Keeping Folau would have cost them supporters, sponsors, and most importantly I guess money.

  7. Money might be the thing. But it’s not exactly principled.

    Cheika is still in the job only because there wasn’t an obvious replacement, and now it’s too close to the World Cup to do anything anyway. Michael Rogers was lined up but he left the camp. Maybe Eddie Jones will like another go at it, after he wins the World Cup.

  8. That might well be the case. If so, the contracts are politically slanted and unfair

    Says who? You might want to check up on the legal docrine of offer and acceptance Pete.

    You being a Free Marketeer, a transaction between two willing individuals or more is none of your business right?

  9. Seamus, if I understand you right, you are saying that the association (or whatever it is) was entitled to sack him, not becuase they may disagree with his views, but because it could harm them in terms of lost sponsors, and that the sponsors would in turn be entitled to withdraw their support, not becuase they may disagree with his views, but probably because they are afraid of popular and media criticism for sponsoring a team with a member expressing those views, and so on and so on…..

    Ultimately it boils down to fear of the media and certain popular opinion. Now, I happen to think homosexuality is fine and I hope everyone enjoys sex according to his lights, but I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss about what some sportsman says or does about gays or anyone elese. I also think that most people are probably like me in this regard. Who among the general public honestly cares what people say. Nobody I know does.

    So in the end all this fear right down the line seems to be fear of – what? – the very few people who really care, or the huge mass of people, including in the media, who simply receive the opinion that one must not criticise homosexuality and who go along with the crowd and fall in line in blaming Quantas etc.

  10. I’m saying they were entitled to sack him because he breeched his contract. I’m saying they were right to sack him because he caused harm to his employer.

    If I did either I would be sacked, as would you.

  11. Seamus – you would never utter a non-PC opinion. You are the compliant drone that the public and corporate sectors both demand and create

  12. “Seamus – you would never utter a non-PC opinion. You are the compliant drone that the public and corporate sectors both demand and create”

    I call things how I see them.

  13. Noel –

    I’m a rugby nut, a proper nut who gets up early on a Saturday to watch southern hemisphere provincial games type nut. But I had no idea that Folau had again posted such comments online. Only his followers would know, and people like me don’t follow players online. But his sacking has made many more people aware of them. Maybe it’s best sometimes to just ignore things, because hardly anyone noticed they happened.

  14. I call things how I see them.

    Exactly – you see things the ‘correct’ way. Here’s something that you and I would see entirely differently…….

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/06/us/hart-family-crash-inquest-searches/index.html

    (CNN)As a drunk Jennifer Hart drove her six adopted children in their family SUV, her wife, Sarah, sat in the passenger seat looking up different ways to end a life.
    Inquest finds the Hart parents intentionally killed their 6 adopted kids and themselves

    The SUV carrying the Hart family would drive off a 100-foot Pacific coast cliff on that day in March last year — a tragedy police say took all eight lives and sparked questions about abuse and homicide.
    As the car was in motion, Sarah was busy with the searches:
    “How easily can I overdose on over the counter medications?”
    “Can 500mg of Benadryl kill a 125lb woman?”
    “How long does it take to die from hypothermia while drowning in a car?”

    One of her last searches was for a no-kill dog shelter.

  15. Well considering you haven’t said how you see it I don’t know if you or I would see it differently.

  16. Allan only approves of such actions when the Goebbels do it.

  17. If a player was sacked for advocating homosexuality Pete Moore wouldn’t post about it accept perhaps to praise the firing.