AFL Overkill

[BarryGrogan]

He and his supporters don’t want free speech, they want consequence free speech.

Exactly!!!

[The_Dud]

He and his supporters don’t want free speech, they want consequence free speech.

Exactly!!!

Bingo.

[saynta]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

They have banned him from playing Union,his normal occupation. So I believe that it is an issue.

Is it Union, League or AFL.

And he is not banned from playing, he is free to go overseas and play, like many rugby players do.

Semantics dudley semantics, he is banned in Australia from pursuing his career.

[saynta]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

Making up our own definitions now dudley are we?

Here's the real definition.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


Doesn't happen in this country and the nearest I have encountered is what one would call maybe brown privilege in Malaysia where brown people are privileged over Chinese for jobs etc.

Things are a bit the reverse here these days when quotas for the numbers of women and indigenous employees are introduced.

You should get out from behind your keyboard a bit more dudley.

That’s exactly what I said, just in different words. If everything else is equal, it is an advantage to be white rather than black as there are less roadblocks in the way.

You can remain wilfully ignorant if you like, I hate to say it but that’s a stereotype you’re happy to live up to.

If you think there is no racism in the country and brown/black people have no disadvantages over white people then it shows how out of touch you are with minorities and what kind of echo chamber you live in.

Yeah yeah.Someone once said don't argue with people of low IQ, or something similar, as it brings you down to their level.

[saynta]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Nope, according to Dudley, all caucasians sit in super boxes at the footy and drink lattes at Brighton beach every morning.

And he can't understand why anyone would get upset having that label attached to them.

It implies that a person is given something that they are not entitled to merely because of the colour of their skin.

No, it’s not.

It implies something wasn’t denied to you because of your colour of skin.

Not hard to understand, and not insulting, just the truth.

How ironic that you love to play the victim, while denying minorities have any disadvantages in this country.

Don't attribute to me things I have never posted.

[The_Dud]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

Making up our own definitions now dudley are we?

Here's the real definition.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


Doesn't happen in this country and the nearest I have encountered is what one would call maybe brown privilege in Malaysia where brown people are privileged over Chinese for jobs etc.

Things are a bit the reverse here these days when quotas for the numbers of women and indigenous employees are introduced.

You should get out from behind your keyboard a bit more dudley.

That’s exactly what I said, just in different words. If everything else is equal, it is an advantage to be white rather than black as there are less roadblocks in the way.

You can remain wilfully ignorant if you like, I hate to say it but that’s a stereotype you’re happy to live up to.

If you think there is no racism in the country and brown/black people have no disadvantages over white people then it shows how out of touch you are with minorities and what kind of echo chamber you live in.

Yeah yeah.Someone once said don't argue with people of low IQ, or something similar, as it brings them down to your level.

Good idea, definitely don’t want to be brought down to your level

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Why do you argue all the time Dudley?

[The_Dud]

Why do you argue all the time Dudley?

Takes 2 (or more) to tango, Ted.

[saynta]

Why do you argue all the time Dudley?

Because I think, he is a very unhappy person with a chip, the size of a block of wood on his shoulders. Well, that's my take.

We should be kind to him mate. Or simply just ignore him.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Why do you argue all the time Dudley?

Because I think, he is a very unhappy person with a chip, the size of a block of wood on his shoulders. Well, that's my take.

We should be kind to him mate. Or simply just ignore him.

Dudley...loved by few, misunderstood by many. He is ok though.

[saynta]

Why do you argue all the time Dudley?

Because I think, he is a very unhappy person with a chip, the size of a block of wood on his shoulders. Well, that's my take.

We should be kind to him mate. Or simply just ignore him.

Dudley...loved by few, misunderstood by many. He is ok though.

[Enrico_Misso]

Well at least I am learning new things.
I have learnt that it is ok to stereotype middleaged white people because they have white privilege.
But stereotyping other ethnic groups who lack white privilege amounts to racism.

[AeonFlux]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

This seems to cover pretty much all the bases. Not sure why some are finding cause to be insulted(?)

How old are you Dudley?

Yeah mate, every caucasian person that is born s***s out gold nuggets and already has a place booked in a university!

Great stuff Ted! You may have hit upon the problem!

The people having trouble with the concept of 'white privilege' may be outside the 25-44 age demographic, and hence aren't racist. So maybe they're just too good hearted to realise just how many people actually are racist?

Discrimination against Indigenous Australians:
A snapshot of the views of non-Indigenous people aged 25–44

• Witnessing acts of discrimination is widespread, with
more than half of non-Indigenous Australians claiming
that they have witnessed acts of discrimination towards
Indigenous Australians.

• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would move away if
an Indigenous Australian sat near them.
• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would watch
the actions of an Indigenous Australian in a retail
environment.
• One in 10 (12 per cent) would tell jokes about Indigenous
Australians.
• One in 10 (10 per cent) would avoid sitting next to an
Indigenous Australian on public transport.
• One in 10 (9 per cent) would not hire an Indigenous
Australian for a job.

One in five (21 per cent) believe it is hard to treat
Indigenous Australians in the same way as everyone
else.
• Almost one in five (18 per cent) believe their treatment of
Indigenous Australians is irrelevant due to infrequency
of interactions.

• Almost half (46 per cent) do not recognise moving away
from an Indigenous Australian when they sit near them
as an act of discrimination and even one in 10 (9 per cent)
do not recognise direct examples of discrimination in the
form of verbal abuse as an act of discrimination.

• One-quarter (24 per cent) believe that not hiring an
Indigenous Australian would be an automatic or
unconscious action on the part of the discriminator.

• One in five (19 per cent) do not recognise that
discrimination impacts on mental health.
• One in four (25 per cent) do not agree that experiencing
discrimination has a negative personal impact.
• More than one in four (28 per cent) do not see a
reduction in discrimination as a priority.

• two in five have witnessed:
• people avoiding Indigenous Australians on public
transport (40 per cent)
• verbal abuse of Indigenous Australians (38 per cent)

• almost half (46 per cent) do not consider moving away
when an Indigenous Australian sits near them as an act
of discrimination
• one-third (35 per cent) do not see avoiding an Indigenous
Australian on public transport as discrimination


https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=2

Ultimately, race is biologically inconsequential. It is a stupid and self-limiting criteria upon which to base one’s judgements....................and actions.

A person's choice of footy team is the primary consideration.










Thoughts, Rodger? <swoon>

Thoughts, Toxi?

Thoughts, Saintsationalists?


- Aeon.

Pop goes the weasel I'm voting Flux next time unless we can get Kinky to immigrate to Oz .

Flux yeah!

PS: TRUE DECIEVERS' lives matter too. (Somewhat). But we need TRUE BELIEVERS!!! Free True Believer!






*

[SaintPav]

Victimhood isn't good either. It can become self-fulfilling.

[AeonFlux]

Victimhood isn't good either. It can become self-fulfilling.

True. But that's a bit of a separate topic(?)

The stuff from Beyond Blue isn't about victimhood (rear or imagined). It's about discrimination. And it's current. 2019.

Discrimination against Indigenous Australians:
A snapshot of the views of non-Indigenous people aged 25–44

• Witnessing acts of discrimination is widespread, with
more than half of non-Indigenous Australians claiming
that they have witnessed acts of discrimination towards
Indigenous Australians.

• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would move away if
an Indigenous Australian sat near them.
• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would watch
the actions of an Indigenous Australian in a retail
environment.
• One in 10 (12 per cent) would tell jokes about Indigenous
Australians.
• One in 10 (10 per cent) would avoid sitting next to an
Indigenous Australian on public transport.
• One in 10 (9 per cent) would not hire an Indigenous
Australian for a job.

One in five (21 per cent) believe it is hard to treat
Indigenous Australians in the same way as everyone
else.
• Almost one in five (18 per cent) believe their treatment of
Indigenous Australians is irrelevant due to infrequency
of interactions.

• Almost half (46 per cent) do not recognise moving away
from an Indigenous Australian when they sit near them
as an act of discrimination and even one in 10 (9 per cent)
do not recognise direct examples of discrimination in the
form of verbal abuse as an act of discrimination.

• One-quarter (24 per cent) believe that not hiring an
Indigenous Australian would be an automatic or
unconscious action on the part of the discriminator.

• One in five (19 per cent) do not recognise that
discrimination impacts on mental health.
• One in four (25 per cent) do not agree that experiencing
discrimination has a negative personal impact.
• More than one in four (28 per cent) do not see a
reduction in discrimination as a priority.

• two in five have witnessed:
• people avoiding Indigenous Australians on public
transport (40 per cent)
• verbal abuse of Indigenous Australians (38 per cent)

• almost half (46 per cent) do not consider moving away
when an Indigenous Australian sits near them as an act
of discrimination
• one-third (35 per cent) do not see avoiding an Indigenous
Australian on public transport as discrimination


https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=2

- Aeon.

Pop goes the weasel I'm voting Flux next time unless we can get Kinky to immigrate to Oz .

Flux yeah!

*

[saynta]

Victimhood isn't good either. It can become self-fulfilling.

True. But that's a bit of a separate topic(?)

The stuff from Beyond Blue isn't about victimhood (rear or imagined). It's about discrimination. And it's current. 2019.

Discrimination against Indigenous Australians:
A snapshot of the views of non-Indigenous people aged 25–44

• Witnessing acts of discrimination is widespread, with
more than half of non-Indigenous Australians claiming
that they have witnessed acts of discrimination towards
Indigenous Australians.

• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would move away if
an Indigenous Australian sat near them.
• One in five (21 per cent) admit they would watch
the actions of an Indigenous Australian in a retail
environment.
• One in 10 (12 per cent) would tell jokes about Indigenous
Australians.
• One in 10 (10 per cent) would avoid sitting next to an
Indigenous Australian on public transport.
• One in 10 (9 per cent) would not hire an Indigenous
Australian for a job.

One in five (21 per cent) believe it is hard to treat
Indigenous Australians in the same way as everyone
else.
• Almost one in five (18 per cent) believe their treatment of
Indigenous Australians is irrelevant due to infrequency
of interactions.

• Almost half (46 per cent) do not recognise moving away
from an Indigenous Australian when they sit near them
as an act of discrimination and even one in 10 (9 per cent)
do not recognise direct examples of discrimination in the
form of verbal abuse as an act of discrimination.

• One-quarter (24 per cent) believe that not hiring an
Indigenous Australian would be an automatic or
unconscious action on the part of the discriminator.

• One in five (19 per cent) do not recognise that
discrimination impacts on mental health.
• One in four (25 per cent) do not agree that experiencing
discrimination has a negative personal impact.
• More than one in four (28 per cent) do not see a
reduction in discrimination as a priority.

• two in five have witnessed:
• people avoiding Indigenous Australians on public
transport (40 per cent)
• verbal abuse of Indigenous Australians (38 per cent)

• almost half (46 per cent) do not consider moving away
when an Indigenous Australian sits near them as an act
of discrimination
• one-third (35 per cent) do not see avoiding an Indigenous
Australian on public transport as discrimination


https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/defa ... f?sfvrsn=2

- Aeon.

Pop goes the weasel I'm voting Flux next time unless we can get Kinky to immigrate to Oz .

Flux yeah!

*

You keep misquoting me. Why?

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

The flux thing is very weird Saynta.

[saynta]

He and his supporters don’t want free speech, they want consequence free speech.

Exactly!!!

Bingo.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview ... be77281f2e

"There’s a lot at stake for Israel Folau in his fight against Rugby Australia.

But more at stake for us. To characterise his social media post as a hateful rant that warrants the sack from his employer is wrong.

These weren’t his words. He is a man of deep Christian faith and, whether you agree with him or not, he quoted a passage from the Bible.

The absurdity of it is that when this matter is heard in the Federal Court, he will be asked to swear an oath using the same book he was sacked for quoting from.

When Parliament returns tomorrow, almost all of the Coalition MPs will take their oath of office the same way, while the vast majority of Labor MPs will instead make an affirmation, using no religious book.
If we allow people to be sacked for quoting the Bible, what next? Picture: iStock

If getting sacked for quoting the Bible is upheld at law in this country, then it surely follows we must ban the Bible for its offensive content.

At least, there’ll be a push to diminish its standing.

Some want to use Israel Folau to legislate religious freedoms or worse, reopen the left’s battle for a national Bill of Rights. That’s why people like Gillian Triggs and George Williams have joined the debate, hoping to use the public’s support for Folau to reinvigorate the cause.

Beware Australia. This is a fight for free speech, not a trojan horse to shut down relevant criticism of religion (“Islamophobia” comes to mind) which badly drafted religious freedom laws would do, or dangerously remake our culture, like the EU rights charter has done."


The whole issue is quite amusing in reality.

[sunsaint]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

[saynta]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

It's ok by me sunsaint if you want to stay ignorant and uniformed.

[amusingname]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

It's ok by me sunsaint if you want to stay ignorant and uniformed.

He has every right to post what he wants, and he had posted numerous quotes in the past relating to his faith and the bible without an issue, however when his postings veered into hate speech and contravening a code of conduct that he agreed to by signing a contract, there are consequences.

They talk about a slippery slope if Rugby Australia is allowed to do this kind of thing, what about the opposite. Say Folau wins his case, Can another athlete who comes along and practices extreme Satanism expect to be able to post what ever he wants about ritual abuse without any consequence? To sack them would violate their free speech wouldn't it?

[saynta]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

It's ok by me sunsaint if you want to stay ignorant and uniformed.

He has every right to post what he wants, and he had posted numerous quotes in the past relating to his faith and the bible without an issue, however when his postings veered into hate speech and contravening a code of conduct that he agreed to by signing a contract, there are consequences.

They talk about a slippery slope if Rugby Australia is allowed to do this kind of thing, what about the opposite. Say Folau wins his case, Can another athlete who comes along and practices extreme Satanism expect to be able to post what ever he wants about ritual abuse without any consequence? To sack them would violate their free speech wouldn't it?

He quoted from the bible. How the f*** can that be called hate speech?

[sunsaint]

He quoted from the bible. How the f*** can that be called hate speech?

but if he quoted from the Quran you would call it hate speech and label him a terrorist

[amusingname]

editorial rubbish from the sun deserves to stay behind a paywall

It's ok by me sunsaint if you want to stay ignorant and uniformed.

He has every right to post what he wants, and he had posted numerous quotes in the past relating to his faith and the bible without an issue, however when his postings veered into hate speech and contravening a code of conduct that he agreed to by signing a contract, there are consequences.

They talk about a slippery slope if Rugby Australia is allowed to do this kind of thing, what about the opposite. Say Folau wins his case, Can another athlete who comes along and practices extreme Satanism expect to be able to post what ever he wants about ritual abuse without any consequence? To sack them would violate their free speech wouldn't it?

He quoted from the bible. How the f*** can that be called hate speech?

Come on Saynta, you know as well as I do that selective quoting of the bible can be used to target a group in a hateful manner. White Supremacists have done it for years.

[saynta]

He quoted from the bible. How the f*** can that be called hate speech?

but if he quoted from the Quran you would call it hate speech and label him a terrorist

No I wouldn't. Maybe you would?

Don't attribute your bulls*** ideas to me.

Anyway the looney left wouldn't be getting their knickers all twisted over someone quoting from the Koran.

Stupid argument.