Israeli Thought Crimes

This isn’t surprising:

Israel Folau’s contract has been terminated by Rugby Australia after he said “hell awaits” gay people in a social media post.

The Waratahs full-back, 30, was sacked in April but requested a hearing, which was heard by a three-person panel.

They found him guilty of a “high level breach” of RA’s player code of conduct and have upheld the dismissal.

It’s not the first time Folau has got into trouble for expressing views consistent with his unapproved and unprotected religion.

The fundamentalist Christian posted a banner on his Instagram account in April that read: “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators – Hell awaits you.”

This is another example of tolerance and diversity only extending as far as government-approved opinions. Note that Folau is not demanding homosexuals be punished, nor is he refusing to play with them. Instead, he is expressing his religious views that homosexuality is a sin for which they will ultimately pay in the afterlife. A charitable interpretation is he’s not even being malicious, he genuinely fears for such people and wants to save them. His opinions on the fate of homosexuals are derived directly from his religion, which in theory he has the freedom to practice. But as far as Rugby Australia are concerned, he’s free to practice Christianity provided he doesn’t pass remarks on what that entails. This doesn’t sound like an organisation which embraces diversity or practices tolerance.

The other daft thing is Heaven and Hell are religious concepts, and Folau is clearly using the term “hell” in it’s religious context here. So unless you’re religious like Folau, the whole idea of Hell ought to be meaningless. In which case what’s the problem? Homosexuals seem to be taking offence that Folau is condemning them to a fate in an afterlife they don’t themselves believe in. They might as well fret about stepping on cracks in the pavement.

Rugby Australia is a foundation member of Pride in Sport Index (PSI), which is a sporting inclusion programme in Australia set up to help sporting organisations with the inclusion of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.

And to the exclusion of practicing Christians whose views have brought no problems whatsoever to the game (unless you count Michael Jones refusing to play on Sundays).

“We commend Rugby Australia, as well as New South Wales Rugby Union, for their leadership and courage throughout this process,” said PSI co-founder Andrew Purchas.

Chucking outspoken Christians under the bus to appease the gay lobby is hardly courageous. What would have been really courageous is for Rugby Australia to state that Folau is entitled to practice his religion and express the views derived from it on his social media platforms.

“Their swift and decisive actions shows that homophobic and transphobic discrimination is not acceptable in sport and individuals – irrespective of their social or professional stature – will be held accountable for their words and actions.”

Held accountable for their actions, eh? Funny, these are the precise sentiments which have just got Folau fired. What we’re seeing here is new quasi-religious dogma pushing out the old. Only Christian societies had a 2,000 year run. How long do you think modern society will last in its current guise?

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

36 thoughts on “Israeli Thought Crimes

  1. It hardly helped Folau’s cause that the CEO of the Wallabies title sponsor is a homosexual who took exception to his religous views either.

  2. Chucking outspoken Christians under the bus to appease the gay lobby is hardly courageous.
    This.

  3. christianophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of christianness or perceived christianness

  4. This is one of those subjects where the correct view can be found via shortcut; simply check if Peter Fitzsimons has Tweeted about it and take the opposite opinion.

  5. “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators – Hell awaits you.”

    That’s a little unsettling. I’ve indulged in at least three quarters of those.

  6. He’s not been sacked for thought crime, he’s been sacked for breaching a code of conduct his employer set to protect commercial interests. Folau is allowed to hold these views, he can probably even express them privately in the right environment, the problem is he’s chosen to broadcast them. He knows better, he makes money from sponsorships and endorsements, he knows he is selling a brand image. He also knows there are thin skinned people out there, and people who seek out stuff to be outraged at, even by proxy, so he should be more discrete like millions of others who share his views.

    As for how ‘fundamental’ his faith is, I have to be a little skeptical, how many witches has he killed recently? How many Sabbath breakers has he stoned? His quote itself appears to be a crude paraphrasing of Corinthians, which in itself requires a questionable translation from greek to get homosexuality on the list.

    It does set a precedent though, and it’s fair to question whether his employers would react in same way if an employee from a protected religion did same thing. I suspect they’d react in the same way, they probably won’t have any choice now.

  7. I over heard parts of this story on Sky News this morning and I didn’t hear anything about Drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators.

    The way it was presented implied that he had simply tweeted “homosexuals – Hell awaits you”

    I thought the story was silly then but with the added context, it’s even more silly.
    But why does context only matter in a news story when it favours the woke?!?

  8. “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators – Hell awaits you.”

    That’s a little unsettling. I’ve indulged in at least three quarters of those.

    Hmm…. 3/4 of 8 = 6
    It is noted that you declined to reveal which two of those activities you have not trialled………

  9. His instagram post was purely a bible quote.
    Three verses;

    Galatians 5:19-21
    Acts 2:38
    Acts 17:30

    All from King James version
    Those verses comprised his complete post – he even referenced the verses & bible edition.

    There was no added commentary of his own. None.

  10. The fact that he’s repeating something written elsewhere is neither here nor there, the fact is it promotes homophobic sentiments that are against the code of conduct of his employers. All he needed it to do was stay within the code of conduct.

  11. This matter has escalated waaaay beyond a simple employment contract dispute.
    It is politics.
    And finance.

    Rugby Australia is holding a shotgun barrel to its foot & is now depressing the trigger.

    All those who see it as a legal issue, where uppitty Izzy has dissed on his massas, are so wrong it ain’t funny.

    Rugby Australia has made this a textbook case of how to not administer a sport.

    First & foremost a sport requires…. players.
    After that….. paying spectators.
    Daylight next
    Way down the list… sponsors.

    They need quality players far more than they need the shareholders’ money that the poison leprechaun is shovelling to them.

    I can help them save $800,000 + per year right now, by sacking Morticia Addams. It wouldn’t take me long to find more dead wood.

  12. Folau is allowed to hold these views, he can probably even express them privately in the right environment, the problem is he’s chosen to broadcast them

    ‘You’re allowed to hold these views, as long as you never ever mention them in public’ is, well, it may not be thoughtcrime but it’s definitely speechcrime.

    I would note that the relevant part of the universal declaration of human rights, article 18, reads:

    ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’

    Note that it specifically says in public or private, as it was realised that the freedom to hold an opinion only as long as you never ever express it in public is really no freedom at all.

    (By the way — what would be ‘the wrong environment’ in which to mention these views privately?)

  13. MJW: “… the fact is it promotes homophobic sentiments …”

    Does it? That seems to be making entirely unsupported assumptions about what is going on in someone else’s mind.

    If we see someone about to shoot himself up with heroin and says: ‘Please don’t do that, it will end up ruining your life’ — does that make us junkiephobic? Or does it mean that we care for our fellow human beings and want them to avoid self-destructive behavior?

  14. I am sure that if a Muslim player were to praise the hanging of gays from construction cranes in Tehran or throwing gays off of buildings in Saudi Arabia there would not be a squawk.

    It all depends where you stand on the hierarchy of victimhood.

  15. Tim,

    This is one of the most impressive bits of writing I’ve seen.

    John

  16. Chucking outspoken Christians under the bus to appease the gay lobby is hardly courageous.

    I know rugby involves sweaty, muscular men writhing around on the ground in piles, but gay men are only some 3% of the population. They can’t spend that much money on rugby fancying, surely?

  17. @MJW,

    “the fact is it promotes homophobic sentiments that are against the code of conduct of his employers.”

    For that sentence to be correct you would need to be able to read minds to understand the motivation behind the statement.
    Also, do you know which line or clause in the Code of Conduct was breached?

    All the news reporting claims this”Code of Conduct” component but don’t give details. For example, does it say, “don’t express views held by the three major world religions followed by over 60% of the global population”?

    They had the chance to put something explicitly against expressing religious views when they renewed his contract last year but chose not to. That’ll be a bit expensive then, I suggest.

  18. The quote says that this man has been disciplined for (among others) discrimination.

    I can’t square that: Ok, maybe he’s guilty of a code of conduct violation, maybe society won’t accept his description of homosexuals… but who has he actually discriminated against? In what way?

  19. It would be reasonable for an employer to require any employee speaking as a representative – e.g. putting the team logo on the communication et al – should adhere to constraints imposed by the employer. However unless there is some written contractual arrangement in play then the employee has not been stripped of all rights to express personal opinions outside of their employment. This is the arguement used by news personalities when they make outre comments on social media. On the face of it he would appear to have a case for breach of contract. In practice the law has tended to bend like a pretzel to accomodate social justice positions.

  20. However unless there is some written contractual arrangement in play then the employee has not been stripped of all rights to express personal opinions outside of their employment.

    The documents underpinning an employee’s contract – ethics policies, human rights charters, etc. and the documents they in turn reference (e.g. UN conventions on human rights) almost always recognise an employee’s right to free expression. These are statutory rights which cannot be easily stripped away by woolly references to “code of conduct”. They can be restricted in a contract, but under normal circumstances it wouldn’t be easy. The problem is:

    In practice the law has tended to bend like a pretzel to accomodate social justice positions.

    Exactly this. So it’s a certainty that applying the letter of Izzy’s contract and the underlying documents he had every right to say it, but the people in charge (and the bodies he can appeal to) are content to make it up as they go along. To be fair to them they have no choice because they have enshrined in law contradictory stances: at what point does a person’s religious freedom infringe on someone’s right to be gay without discrimination?

  21. This is one of the most impressive bits of writing I’ve seen.

    Thanks John, much appreciated!

  22. When the pendulum swings back and gays have to stay in the closet for their own safety, I can’t say I will be upset with it. They’ve shown their hand and they will not be trusted again as a group for a long time.

  23. “at what point does a person’s religious freedom infringe on someone’s right to be gay without discrimination?”

    This is a question Australia will be struggling with more broadly in the near future. They passed a gay marriage law that doesn’t exclude religious organisations.

    At some point, someone with an agenda is going to sue a church or synagogue (obviously they will be too frit to sue a mosque) and we will see which “right” is paramount.

    I do like PJ O’Rourke’s view of rights, being divided into “gertchya” and “gimme”, with the “gertchya” rights being very easy to define and enforce but the “gimme” rights usually involve encroaching on someone else’s “gertchya” rights.

  24. “This is the argument used by news personalities when they make outre comments on social media.”

    Exactly – Gary Linekar breaches the BBC Code on political impartiality with his Brexit tweets but thats OK because he’s uttering RightThink. If he was saying WrongThink he’d be sacked for beaching them, just like Folau.

  25. This is a question Australia will be struggling with more broadly in the near future.

    As will much of the developed world, including the idiot corporations who have signed up to this nonsense. I think it’ll be the trans movement which really drives a coach and horses through the whole lot.

  26. at what point does a person’s religious freedom infringe on someone’s right to be gay without discrimination

    A person’s stated belief that unrepentant practising homosexuals will go to hell does not infringe on anyone’s right to be gay without discrimination. Folau’s beliefs should be of no concern to any gay person. Unless you’re gay and genuinely believe you will burn in hell, in which case it might be a bit uncomfortable.

    Folau has not been accused of treating gay people any differently so his ‘offence’ is simply thoughtcrime. Which should be a deeply worrying thing for any Australian who claims to be liberal.

    I think it’ll be the trans movement which really drives a coach and horses through the whole lot.

    I certainly hope so. The obviously deranged nature of the movement and its adherents should undercut the cult of progressivism very nicely.

    However, as Ecksy points out on another thread, the tranny madness is a perfect example of cultural Marxism in action, Orwell’s 2+2=5. And it is being enforced by the establishment: a British judge supported the efforts of a dangerously demented couple to raise their foster children as the opposite sex.

  27. “a sporting inclusion programme in Australia set up to help sporting organisations with the inclusion of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.”

    My emphasis.

    Really? Trans people in _RUGBY_?
    Either this is :
    – men pretending to be women, in which case actual women are going to get thrown under the bus (with many of them hospitalised and possibly crippled for life) until either the womens’ game collapses entirely or enough of the actual women sue Rugby Australia into oblivion for allowing such a ridiculously dangerous idea.
    – women pretending to be men, in which case this is going south very very very quickly with every single one of the transers hospitalised and possibly crippled for life within a few games. The transers may well try to sue Rugby Australia into oblivion for allowing such a ridiculously dangerous idea, at which point we will invest in popcorn futures.

    Either way, this should sort itself out, with the morons who are promoting this nonsense being clobbered hard. The question is who gets hurt before it does.

  28. “Folau has not been accused of treating gay people any differently so his ‘offence’ is simply thoughtcrime.”

    Indeed, he’s lumped everyone who isn’t a born again Christian together as sinners who will go to hell. Its pretty much the opposite of discrimination, he’s treating gays EXACTLY the same as all the other fornicators, adulterers etc etc.

    But of course it was never about equality, it was about being more equal than everyone else for the identity crowd.

  29. “the “gertchya” rights being very easy to define and enforce but the “gimme” rights usually involve encroaching on someone else’s “gertchya” right”

    There is a concept in philosophy called positive and negative freedoms. A piece on it was required reading set by a teacher on an introductory day for sixth form, and I’ve always remembered it.

    If I recall it the wrong way round, negative freedom is freedom from external coercion, to avoid having things done to you. Positive freedom is the freedom to do what you want, and sometimes that involves coercion of others, even if indirect. Whenever you have multiple individuals interacting, conflict of these freedoms is inevitable and complete freedom is impossible.

    For example, the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to breathe clean air in a pub. The freedom to listen to music vs the freedom not to disturb neighbours. The freedom to free speech vs the freedom to prevent the shouting of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

    Not once since have I seen a discussion of these concepts since then, but they explain so much conflict around issues like this.

  30. Oblong

    The distinction I recall is a bit different:
    Negative freedoms – no-one can stop me from doing a certain thing. As in “Congress shall make no law”.
    Positive freedoms – Some one has to give me a certain thing, be it a ramp beside the stairs, or free healthcare, or free education for my children, etc.

    The crucial difference is that someone else has to pay for “positive freedoms”, no matter how much I try to pretend it’s “the state” paying for it, and not people, or how much I divide it amongst many people, or how much I pretend that it’s in the public’s interest to do it, so it’s fine to force them to fund it.

    The argument for positive freedoms (a grossly dishonest one, in my opinion) is that negative freedoms are worthless if you’re not rich enough to take advantage of them. I.E. freedom of movement is worthless if you can’t afford a car, so free cars for everyone. And free gas. And tire replacements. And driving lessons. And desert survival training. And agoraphobia therapy sessions. You get my drift.

    @RadioMattM
    Your answer is exactly what I was going to reply to MJW. If he’d referenced equivalent verses in the Koran instead of in the New Testament, there would have been zero vocal outrage.

  31. As drunken fornicator, I was deeply offended by this man’s words and I’m glad that he was fired.

  32. Interesting that The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/18/israel-folaus-fight-for-religious-freedom-leaves-behind-ugly-mess) correctly calls this as a religious discrimination case, and that the authorities had offered him $1m (Oz I know, but still worth something) to settle, so I suspect they think they are going to lose. And for what? I doubt gay Australians who follow Rugby care if a Christian player tweets a passage from the KJV. In 20 years time when/if Muslims are in the majority they’ll be fearing hanging in this life, not what happens in the next.

  33. Imagine a sports organisation which mandated that those who signed their code of conduct supported the ‘rights’ of transsexuals to have the access and rights of whichever gender they self-identified with. Not merely ‘not criticise’ but actually support.

    So if you were a sportsman who happened to be the father of two daughters, your choice would be between having to support this publicly and let men wander in the changing rooms and toilets where your daughters were, or be sacked. Or perhaps you are a female athlete and see your sport being made a mockery with huge square-jawed nonentities from the male sport equivalent? Sorry love, no freedom of speech – you’re fired, career over.

    Should this be limited to sport? How about if your employer was a bank and you expressed an opinion on social media which was not in lockstep with the current views of the Borg – when they fired you would you shrug and think “well, I signed a code of conduct so that’s alright then”?

    I think you would probably be completely fucking outraged, to be honest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *