Where do you stand on Israel?

A week or so back Israel Folau, the Australian rugby player who’s been ostracised for exercising his religious freedom in a way which displeased the LGBTQ political lobby, decided to set up a Go Fund Me campaign ostensibly to help him with his legal fees. Now I don’t suppose Folau needs the money – he’s been a top-class professional athlete across three sports since he was 18 years old – but he might have done it to gauge how much support he had. Turns out it was quite a bit and the fund quickly passed five figures, leading the Sydney Morning Herald to abandon journalism for activism and ramp up the pressure to get the appeal shut down. After all, the last thing progressives want is for a designated wrongthinker to have an avenue of financial and moral support once the moral gavel has fallen.

Sure enough, once the inevitable mob had formed Go Fund Me dug around in their terms of service and discovered they reserve the right to yank any funding campaign on a whim, which they duly did. The smug grins of the SMH activists probably didn’t last long, though. Within hours the Australian Christian Lobby had set up an appeal which, when I looked this morning, had attracted over $1.9m dollars. That’s a lot of money, and I expect many donors aren’t even Christian but are seeing this as a way to signal their opposition to the increasingly restrictive speech codes being forced on Australians by their employers and with the full backing of politicians.

But the saga doesn’t end there. Via William of Ockham, the Sydney Morning Herald is now urging the government to intervene:

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission has been asked to investigate the Australian Christian Lobby over its role in helping Israel Folau raise more than a million dollars for his legal fight against Rugby Australia (RA).

Asked by whom?

A number of complainants, however, have confirmed to the Herald that they have raised their concerns with the charities commission over the fundraising role played by the ACL.

So it’s basically another attempt to sabotage Folau’s ability to raise funds. For all we know there might be no more than two complaints, both originating from the offices of the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to the ACNC, a charity must be able to show that the use of its funds furthers the charitable purpose in which it is registered, meaning the ACL would need to prove it is “advancing religion”, for example, by agreeing to help raise money for Folau’s individual purposes.

I’d say defending an outspoken Christian who is being persecuted for his religious beliefs is doing more to advance Christianity than the combined efforts of the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury over the past twenty years.

“We got legal advice on this before we went ahead with it,” [ACL’s managing director Martyn] Iles  said. “Israel Folau is not a member and our charitable purpose is to advocate for changes in law and public policy and the advancement of the Christian religion. This is a religious freedom issue which for law has implications for law and public policy.

Quite, which is why it’s attracted so much support:

“Over 15,000 people have donated and the average donation is about $100 and about 10 donors per minute. That’s pretty incredible stuff. There’s a lot of juice left in this.”

It’s as if a lot of people understand this is a lot bigger than what Folau thinks about homosexuals. Which brings me onto this story:

A disabled grandfather has been sacked by Asda for sharing an ‘anti-religion’ sketch by Billy Connolly on his Facebook page. Brian Leach, who had worked at the Asda store for five years in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, was let go by the supermarket after a colleague complained the comments in the sketch were anti-Islamic.

Now Britain is not Australia, but the progressive mindset which dominates the ruling classes and the subsequent authoritarianism is much the same in both countries. We’ve arrived at a situation whereby expressing Christian beliefs on social media gets you fired while disrespecting Islam on social media also gets you fired. I don’t agree with other commentators who say blasphemy laws are being applied in the UK, this is something else. Far from being inconsistent, the two approaches are quite logical once you understand the objective of those in charge is to denounce, undermine, and ultimately destroy what was until recently the prevailing culture in the developed, Anglo-Saxon world. In practice, this means those who rule over us will pick and choose who can say what and when as they see fit, and deprive us of our livelihoods should we speak out of turn. For now, this means Christians cannot say anything mean about homosexuals and ordinary folk cannot say anything which might be perceived as a slight against Islam.

And you can be sure this won’t stop here. I expect Folau will soon find his bank withdrawing their services, sending him a curt letter that he has 14 days to find an alternative (having made sure the other Australian banks will also deny him). What then? Will his phone company cut him off because the Sydney Morning Herald is piling on the pressure, backed by various government bodies stuffed with vinegar-drinking cat-ladies and the sort of men who, when they were in school, told the teacher which kid drew the picture on the blackboard? Nobody should feel too sorry for Folau, but this is about much more than a multi-millionaire sportsman. What happens when they start coming for ordinary people, like a grandad who works in Asda for example? What happens when they come for you?

People, especially politicians, often get asked where they stand on Israel. I think that question may develop a second meaning, and one no less important than the original.

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

54 thoughts on “Where do you stand on Israel?

  1. It was when pressure got put onto Netball Australia to have his wife sanctioned/fired for being Mrs. Folau that did it for me.
    That’s when I donated.
    When the Gofundme deplatformed him, I vowed my next donation would be 20 times the amount.
    Which it was.
    Donating is a verifiable way of demonstrating public support.
    It also gives the positive feeling of being able to hit back, to be a part of the standing up for our rights.

    And of giving a middle finger to that poison leprechaun.

  2. I need to donate, good on him and all who are supporting him. This fight with the left is a fight to the death (of our society) and needs to be fought on all fronts at all times.

  3. The Australian progressives and cultural marxists have chosen their battleground for the Great Australian Culture War of 2019.

    They’ve assumed their opponents weren’t ready or not interested.

    I suggest you buy popcorn.

  4. There are a few things going on in your OP here is my unpacking of three of them, the legal fund, the question at law and Israel Faloua character here. I will leave the SMH and the other points for others to discuss. As is the norm these days the t’intertnet is industriously packing this issue away into their left of right silo and slinging left and right accusation around the web. Whereas like most things, it not about left or right, its about what is right and what is wrong.

    Legal Fund

    All the kerfuffle now is with Israel’s side of things, his appeals for mercy and his fund-raising efforts. It could be said that he jumped the gun here as the dispute is in the conciliatory phase and has not yet went legal, but as they say about his donators a fool and their money are easily parted. Falou is not obliged to cooperate and enter a spirit of mediation at this stage of the process and can discuss legal proceedings in the public before an application to the court has and can be made. This will be taken into consideration if it were to go legal and he were to win, when the judge would be deciding on compensation, not being prepared to mitigate damages nor does it look like he is trying to get another job and put bread on his family’s table, this position of his that he has taken now will be a negative when calculating damages.

    As for the amount raised, it has no bearing whatsoever on the legal basis that a decision on this matter will be made. None, plus RA will have employee practice cover as well. Again, if he won, I would doubt, he would get loss of sponsorship as they were gone or going away, and consequential loss has never been awarded Australian industrial relation actions.

    So, if it was a slam dunk, then say three years less two for his contribution to his departure, so we are talking about $1m plus legal, at best.

    You can tithe to his fund by clicking on this site here:

    https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Laughing-Men-In-Suits.jpg

    Legal Argument

    The question at law is do the employers rights trump any of his other rights that are protected at law. This is about employers’ rights and is not a religious discrimination or freedom of speech case, despite what t’internet self identified rightists might scream, RA have confirmed that they do not round up and persecute their Christian workforce, this has been supported by their Christian workforce. Although Australia is a secular nation it has a majority 52% Christian faith and is the hallmark of Christianity in the Southern Pacific.

    So, Israel’s allegation is the first that the organization has received alleging persecution on religious grounds, they deny this and have set out how they believe that have lawfully terminated the employee in his appeal hearing and subsequent termination notice. The law is clear here, if the employees conduct brings harm to the organization they are entitled to stop paying the employee, which they did and the ex-employee is free to preach his heart away and earn a crust however he sees fit. At no stage has the employer requested the employee to desist from being a Christian, hide his cross or drop his sinful tattoos.

    I believe that this case will confirm the employer’s rights are paramount here, and that Falou was lawfully terminated, it will also establish a clear legal precedence that would prevent any further opportunistic behavior in this regard in the future.

    Having said that I think it should and will settle before court, probably not at Friday’s conciliation private meeting, more like on the court steps. Which will deny us of the legal precedence that would be most beneficial in putting this matter to bed forever.

    Israel Faloau

    As for Folau character, there are some troubling indications emerging on who may be influencing this principled but misguided young man born of Tongan immigrants on the wrong side of the rail track. On his RA departure terms, he back-flipped BoJo style and was no longer prepared to turn the other cheek and simply walk away from RA as he said he would and instead went full def con one legal’ like some crazed Polynesian pagan savage. This was a big warning bell and suggests that a greater agenda than him may be at play here.

    The other troublesome side of him is back when he played for the AFL several years ago, and in the depth of much sinning, he had an epiphany of sorts and renounced his Mormon religion and became an Evangelical. This was done at a time when he admitted that he was fornicating with gay abandon around the Sydney scene and awoke one morning and decided to get out of the Sodom & Gomorra trap.

    This is when he converted and attempted to unilaterally rescind his employment agreement with the GWS AFL team. His reason was that he didn’t want to join the team in the first place and that it was his overbearing father that forced him to sign up and that he only understood Sydney rugby league Bogan culture and not AFL and he just needed to get out of his contracted obligations and away from the temptation to sin now. GWS and AFL and in good faith decided to turn the other cheek and waived his contract obligations and permitted him to walk away and wished him well in whatever code this confused young Islander boy took to.

  5. I don’t agree with Israel because I don’t believe in hell. However I don’t think it should be controversial for a committed christian to post bible verses on their social media pages. How can any employer find that ‘offensive’. I also think that if a player of a different religious persuasion posted their views that there would not have been any controversy. There is a slightly sinister aspect to this in as much as you get the feeling that he was being ‘watched’ for a statement with the media ready to gleefully published his statements. Personally I hope he raises a motza of money for the whole thing to be aired in court.

    It is hypocritical that all of the football codes in Australia are ‘supportive’ and/or ‘tolerant’ of known drug addicts, domestic violence offenders and people with links to out law motorcycle gangs – but they object to people expressing their religious views. The mind boggles.

    PS feel a bit sorry for the drunks, liars, fornicators, thieves, aethiests and idolators – who everyone has forgotten

  6. Bardon, I’ve seen your comments on this elsewhere so I pretty well understand your views on this. For some of us we will find allies in this war where we can and Israel at the moment is at the pointy end of things as the left try to destroy him and his supporters. As for fools and money, well money wise I’m more than comfortable so I’m happy to be parted from some and I don’t give a shite what he does with it.

  7. Employers have rights too, and they are entitled to define how their interests are to be protected. Faloua has accepted that his freedom to believe and to worship Christianity had not been discriminated against. His complaint is that his freedom to act on his conscience and to proselytize has been restricted, it is due to these two conflicting areas that RA has rightfully terminated his employment.

    They did not tell Falou to leave his conscience at the front door, which would be wrong. Both parties have an obligation to work together and respect each others conscience and accept the consequences resulting in him taking a position that puts his religious views over that of his employers views.

    Falou knew that his preaching was causing material harm, he actually undertook to refrain from it when it was brought up with him earlier. In the end he prioritized his duty to God over his duty to his Employer which he was entitled to do. This decision of his, to serve his God over his company comes with a consequence, being that his employer has chosen to no longer give him the platform to preach and to withdraw his employment. Its all about consequences and Folau leaving and now being free to preach and find a more supportive employer to his cause.

    Although I think he has now found his new calling in life, preaching and fund raising in tandem and without conflicting objectives with his employer, win/win.

    They say that he has a new financial supporter born every minute.

  8. Bardon

    You can be bloody obtuse sometimes.

    I know that for some reason you worship at the altar of rationality – and rationality has its uses – but rationality has bugger all to do with 90% of human behaviour or the institutions, cultures, myths, ideologies, histories ( I could go on, but I think you get the picture) that humans have created.

    We’re in a trench and the enemy is in plain view in front of us; I’ll take my allies where I can find them amongst those standing next to me. Not by waiting for the rationally perfect exemplar to turn up.

  9. Falou knew that his preaching was causing material harm

    Is the strategy to write enough words so that the complete and utter bullshit premise the whole argument is based on will be glazed over? If so you need to razzle-dazzle harder.

  10. One of the more egregious areas of this case has been how the media has consistently lied by omission in claiming that he was targeting only homosexuals – they were in fact one group in a list of at least six which included drunks, adulterers and numerous others.

    If you still trust the media you are either a mug or on their side.

  11. “Employers have rights too, and they are entitled to define how their interests are to be protected.”

    Yes, but the question is to what extent are they entitled to remove from employees their statutory rights as granted as members of society as a whole? IF is entitled as an Australian citizen to state his religious views, is it legal for his employer to demand he lose those rights in return for their dollar? Could an employer remove other universal rights from employees? Could it demand that they not be gay for example? Or agree not to get pregnant? If they can’t remove those rights by employment contract why should they be allowed to stop him stating his religious beliefs with one either?

  12. I see the BBC still has this as their lead story on the RU page with just enough lead to ensure that “anti-gay” is front and centre.

    “Employers have rights too, and they are entitled to define how their interests are to be protected.”

    Only if, say, aCatholic organisation can sack someone who openly support abortion.

  13. @recusant,

    “I know that for some reason you worship at the altar of rationality – and rationality has its uses – but rationality has bugger all to do with 90% of human behaviour or the institutions, cultures, myths, ideologies, histories ( I could go on, but I think you get the picture) that humans have created.“

    Bardon is possibly 100% correct on the likely legal process and outcome of this case. For reasons known only to himself and Brisbane’s premier autism care professionals however, he’s missing the human aspects of the dispute.

    As you point out, most decisions are made at an emotional level and post-justified by rationality.
    Similarly, legal precedent is determined by culture, not the other way round, which is why we’re not cock-fighting, bear-baiting, slave owners with chimneys cleaned by children in 2019.

    The reason so many eyes are on this is because most people can realise it’s a moment where the culture is going to be tested.

    Many people are currently resentful at being forced to choose a side on this in the first place; what if you have gay mates AND Christian mates AND you like rugby? We were all getting along fine until about ten minutes ago.

    The media class have the lion’s share of the blame in this, selectively reporting the original Instagram posts and even going to his church to report on his sermons; sermons 99.99% of people weren’t ever going to be interested in without the spin of “outrage”.

    The denial and shock at the counter response has really thrown them. Even if/when the legal case is lost, we will know more about where the culture is on the tension between our acceptance of diverse beliefs and diverse lifestyles.

  14. WoO
    +1
    Confession: I’m amused by these folk who take down posts or sites because it offends their “community standards”, thus revealing themselves to be drunks, fornicators, et cetera.

  15. @Jim

    It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to put in place measures and to take action to protect their interests from a loose brand cannon that is clearly causing them material harm, damaging their brand, negatively impacting their revenue streams and generating complaints.

    This is what they have done here with Folau, having exhausted the employee counselling options, they have taken the only real measure left open to them in order to protect their interests and have removed his brand platform and yes this is lawful and he has since found a new platform to preach from. The employer had no obligation to continue hemorrhaging, indefinitely, in some kamikaze like defence of his right as their brand ambassador to express his religious conscience that was in conflict with their objectives and causing such harm.

    Falou’s religious conscience trumped that of his employers, which is fine and perfectly legal, at this point and under the circumstances the employers conscience similarly trumps Falous religious conscience with respect to his employment with them. The consequence of these positions being taken is that the employer has decided to discontinue his salary and his brand ambassadorship. This is lawful and in the unlikely event that it goes through the court system, the court will confirm this and provide a legal precedence to this effect.

    The legislation provides for instances like this, where it has boiled down to a clash of consciences between the employer and the employee, in which case his allegation of unlawful termination on religious grounds, is not admissible or a valid claim. Which means that Falou in this instance was properly terminated at law and also that he does not have the legal protection of his alleged religious discrimination in this simple example of clashing views. Its not even open to interpretation, RA and the legal fraternity know this, which is probably why they are keeping their powder dry and going through the dispute process as you would expect them to.

    “772 Employment not to be terminated on certain grounds

    (1) An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:

    (f) race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;

    (2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(f) from being a reason for terminating a person’s employment if:

    a) the reason is based on the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned;”

  16. @Sam – “Is the strategy to write enough words so that the complete and utter bullshit premise the whole argument is based on will be glazed over? If so you need to razzle-dazzle harder.”

    I dont have or need to have a strategy on this case. I was merely injecting some actual facts into the discussion about this workplace incident. It may well be an utter bullishit premise from your uniformed position, I see your kind of position all the time and expect it, not that it changes anything though.

  17. Bardon, you just refuse to see past the “employers rights”, that is now the least important part of this whole debate. The left and woke entities like Rugby AU and the ANZ bank have decided to make an example of Israel and the silent majority have decided that this is where they are going to draw the line as well.

    The Sydney tabloids are already detecting the change of mood and have wound back their rabid attack articles on Israel.

  18. @Bardon,

    “I was merely injecting some actual facts into the discussion about this workplace incident. It may well be an utter bullishit premise from your uniformed position, I see your kind of position all the time and expect it, not that it changes anything though.”

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya, that your last employer couldn’t see a career path for you to executive level from team leader with such an excellent understanding of human emotions and grasp of nuance. They were probably a bit fed up of absolutely every staff dispute going across your desk being flicked straight to the lawyers though, to be fair.

    Ah, facts. The thing about claiming to be quoting facts is that they can be right, wrong or right but incomplete. I think you’re in that third category.
    Here’s a not irrelevant fact; over two thirds of the world’s population follow a form of religion that teaches homosexuality is a sin. Best estimates are that perhaps between 4% and 10% of the world’s population might be homosexual.

    The clever one third of us can sneer and sniff at the God-botherers’ unsophistication but they’ve currently got the numbers on their side.
    The question everyone who isn’t Rainman-excited by Australian labour laws understands is this is an opportunity to define which is the greater; the right to discuss one’s religious beliefs in public or the right for gay people to not be offended.

    I agree with you, it’s highly likely to go in the “don’t offend” direction. Congratulations on being correct on the internet about a question nobody asked because everyone else realised a long time ago that it was the least interesting one.

    “Car’s definitely gonna crash. Kmart sucks”.

  19. @Sgt 73rd Regt
    “The Sydney tabloids are already detecting the change of mood and have wound back their rabid attack articles on Israel.”

    I was having an SMS conversation last night with a journalist mate who drew my attention to this. Around 9pm, the SMH buried it.

    If you look now, there’s just a tiny stub speculating whether or not Folau’s legal team were or weren’t going to name Qantas on the submitted papers. Gone are all the “many people expressed anger”, or “there have been suggestions that”, and “anonymous sources say” outrage-baiting.

    The journo suggested some editorial shock has been experienced at the level of push back received.

    The acid test will be whether Pirate Pete is allowed to write another few hundred words on it this week or be told to actually talk about sport instead.

  20. The tabloids are not a party to this dispute, so by all means continue to give them as much airplay and complain about them as vociferously as you need to.

    This is just another industrial relations matter, that should be resolved in accordance with workplace legislation and what is reasonable. To discount the entire and only basis of Falou’s now very public allegations and the proper forum that his allegation should be heard in, particularly when it hasn’t even got as far as a court hearing yet as being something insignificant in this whole debate, has no basis at law.

    Thank God that we have laws in place to deal with these matters, laws that keep the baying mob at bay, laws that consider the facts of the matter, laws that test reasonableness, and laws that consider press releases inadmissible.

  21. @Bardon
    Thank God that we have laws in place to deal with these matters, laws that keep the baying mob at bay, laws that consider the facts of the matter, laws that test reasonableness, and laws that consider press releases inadmissible.

    I imagine Bardon would have been on the floor of the National Assembly in Paris arguing the above as the mob were storming the Bastille.

  22. My own take is that Bardon has the legal argument about employer rights materially wrong. Of course, if this does make it to court — and I think it will — then we’ll see about that side of things.

    Meanwhile, quibbling about the minutiae of employment law is just leftist squid ink. There’ll be plenty of it. Don’t be fooled. Don’t get sucked in.

    The key issue is that Folau was selectively targeted for an unpersoning because he chose to be a Christian in public. Full stop. And everybody knows it. Especially the quibblers.

    So normal Australians are about to learn whether they too have human rights, or if human rights are just a political weapon to be used against them by hate-filled, vengeful minorities.

    Taken in perspective, the critical question is whether Folau’s sacking will force the Australian government finally to start acting in line with its supposed principles, and representing its core constituency. After all, this is not a ‘court’ issue but a political issue.

    Because what has happened is so obvious, and because it’s a pub- and dinner table issue that everyday Australians can’t escape or ignore, I see this as a political inflection point.

    Before long everyone will know whether ordinary Australians exercising what used to be ordinary Australian rights can now be deprived of employment at the whim of a privileged class, under force of government.

    Interesting times.

  23. @ Bardon

    “It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to put in place measures and to take action to protect their interests from a loose brand cannon that is clearly causing them material harm, damaging their brand, negatively impacting their revenue streams and generating complaints.

    I’m surprised that the financial impact of homosexuals spending their cash on things other than Australian Rugby would “clearly cause ( ) material harm” and that such a collapse in revenue streams meant that they had to take this action, since homosexual men are perhaps 1 to 2% of the population.

    And, as we have seen from the contributions to Israel Folau, his treatment, if not his beliefs seems to be far more of interest to, and align with, the mainstream of Australian society who are, quite literally, putting their money where their mouth is.

    You may well be right about the outcome of legal action but this, to me at least, shows just how out of touch the law and courts are with mainstream attitudes and belief and are riding roughshod over those attitudes and beliefs. Not an optimistic direction for a society where the ruling elite are imposing their outlook on the plebs so openly and with such contempt.

  24. The other way to look at this in order to better understand the relationship is to compare it to how you would handle a similar situation with another similar incident but for another protected attribute. Lets use nationality and say it is for a very highly performing Palestinian manager working in Australia on a similar type of high income high performance basis.

    He is a mad PLO fan, soldiers took his grandparents orchard away from them and he has a bit of a thing about bringing his peoples plight up in his personal social media account. Lets call him Mohammad and say that we are at a similar juncture in time as Israel Fallou is.

    Mohammad had been told a few times to cool it with the PLO news feed stuff and he said he would pull his head in. He didn’t and we now have the Israeli lobby on our back, shareholders screaming, investment partners turning, and the usual rabble of white supremacists and Moslem haters screaming for blood. And most importantly he has lost the support of the dressing room.

    Time to go Mohammad, here is a completion bonus, best of luck in the Gaza Strip.

    Which is no different to Israels situation.

    Should Mohammad get the $10m?

  25. This is just another industrial relations matter

    Bullshit it is.

    If someone in Australia is going their boss for unfair dismissal:
    1/. The journalist caste is on-side & crucifies the employer – double, nay triple so if the employer is a corporate.
    2/. If someone going their boss for unfair dismissal were to crowdfund (they don’t need to) they’d raise about 2/- on the old scale.

    Only the completely autistic cannot see what is in play.
    Billy of Ocker-ham is 200% correct.
    This case is going to set law, not follow it.

    Izzy’s supporters know it (even if they don’t follow Rugby or go to church)
    The cunt-class know it, hence they’re fighting so hard against it – this is backs-to-the-wall for them.

    The most irrelevant aspect of this case is who actually wins the Industrial Kangaroo Court hearing or the subsequent Federal Court matter.

    I’m trying to think of one, just one thing, the Rugby Australia/Big Corporate cabal has done right in this matter.
    I challenge anybody to come up with one move the enemy has made that didn’t turn out to be an own-goal.

  26. “Should Mohammad get the $10m?”

    Surely that depends on what clause 9.56(iv) para b says?

    Charlie Babbit made a joke….

    “Average contents – 41 matches”

  27. Bardon,
    If you can’t see that your PLO supporter example is not even remotely similar to that of Israel Folau then there is nothing more to say!

  28. @ Steve 2the Pib –

    “Only the completely autistic cannot see what is in play.

    Billy of Ocker-ham is 200% correct.

    This case is going to set law, not follow it.”

    Steve let me indulge you and Bill for once and in a response to the gushing of wisdom spouting out from your logical fallacy fountain stream. Mine is made in jest, so please don’t take it personally or take offence to it and I will continue to take yours with a pinch of salt as well.

    Even Stephen so to speak.

    Maybe there is a little bit of impartiality here on your part that is adversely affecting your judgement on this matter. Given that you admittedly topped up and then went back for more and multiplied your initial investment by 20 times, so you have some skin in the game now, and the embarrassment for life of being a willing victim of the 2019 Golden Fleece Award.

    I think you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, but I wanted you to know that I am perfectly okay about it all.

    I will give Israel a big shout out and 9.9 out of 10, for fundraising efforts, credit where its due, that boy may have just stumbled upon his true calling in life, just goes to show that the Lord surely does work in mysterious ways.

    I will give Israel a smoked pig for this one.

  29. It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to put in place measures and to take action to protect their interests

    Yes, and the limits to that, and whether they supersede an employee’s statutory rights, is what this case is testing.

  30. “Yes, and the limits to that, and whether they supersede an employee’s statutory rights, is what this case is testing.”

    Absolutely both Bill and I reckon it’s in the bag if it went the whole nine yards but BIL thinks otherwise. I don’t know for sure how the judgment will go and my opinion is only that but I will submit to the finding.

    I think that the rump of Australians are fed up with the long march of the nanny state into our employment sector that we have seen take place in recent times.

    This case if it went the length and turned out the way I think it should go, would go along way to stopping this insidious cancer spreading further, and make it clear that employment is not a right.

    Leave employment and employment risk to the free market, not the employer, every time you see more rules, or do gooders sticking their nose in, it actually makes it harder for an employer to employ. Less is best, easier to employ, easier to develop and good for employment levels, employees, business performance and the overall economy.

  31. Less is best, easier to employ, easier to develop and good for employment levels, employees, business performance and the overall economy.

    Actually, it’s not. What you want is a reasonable balance. Or do you want to go back to the days of the company store?

  32. ” I don’t know for sure how the judgment will go and my opinion is only that but I will submit to the finding.”

    How very magnanimous of you. Are you in some way related to Richard Murphy?

  33. “Actually, it’s not. What you want is a reasonable balance. Or do you want to go back to the days of the company store?”

    I said less, I realize that we have to start somewhere and that is where we are now. My low hanging fruit would be:

    – abolish minimum wage,
    – any current small business exemptions to legislation to be expanded to all businesses, ie whatever was being exempted should be removed.
    – Employers sole discretion on hiring and firing.
    – absolutely no gender stats or data collection.
    – review all awards and simplify, remove prescribed overtime and penalty rates
    – somehow short circuit the workers compensation legislation such that the scammers cant scam
    – target 50% cost reduction in state dept budgets in the employee relations field.

    It’s not all bad, we have a very good risk based WH&S legislation, our EBA system is excellent and can firewall you from trade unions, notice periods and holidays are all fine. The carve outs for protected attributes provides the flexibility such that an employee cannot bring harm to the firm based on some spurious human right claim.

  34. Bardon on June 27, 2019 at 1:55 pm said:

    Totally agree.
    Coupla questions:
    1/. Apart from the 6 month threshold for unfair dismissal being extended to 12 months, what other “exemptions” are there for small business?
    (There used to be a few, but they’ve faded)
    I’m somewhat anti-big business – having actually had dealings with a few of them.
    but that’s another topic for another thread.
    She’s not all beer & skittles being in small business either – especially when you’re not small enough to qualify as “small”.

    2/. The scamming of Worker’s Comp fades into relative obscurity without a Labor state government.
    Or even better, after 20-odd years of a Labor state govt, there’s little money left in Worker’s Comp to continue funneling most of it to Slater & Gordon or Maurice Blackburn, et al.
    This impecuniousness brings about draconian Worker’s Comp laws that if enacted by an LNP government, would have unions & newspapers frothing with outrage.

    A good way to cut the costs on anything is to leave Labor in govt for 20 or 30 years, until they reach the point where the stupid bastards have run clean out of money & have to economise dramatically.

  35. My understanding is that there are more exemptions but they may be in industrial relations legislation. With compo the short circuit would be for the employer to be allowed to fire a staff member that is on compo if their doctor says he is bunging it on. Employers know who are genuine and who are bunging it on, that is one state dept that needs a fire lit under it first.

    Anyway 15 mins until RA V Foalu hearing, I see the Honourable Mr Hatcher was reviewing modern awards this morning, maybe he comes here? and has left his diary clear following the Folau hearing. Him being a labor stooge communist is never a good thing for an employer to see but that is the way it goes.

    A settlement would be good for all but I cant see that, but we can but hope.

  36. Seems to me there’s two conversations going on here almost entirely at cross-purposes.

    There’s one about how much latitude employers have to get rid of employees who have done nothing wrong, but might still be causing the employer a problem. Is it okay for an employer to fire someone for something they did on their own time, in a personal capacity, just because that has caused bad publicity that has been connected with the company? Or does that give employers too much say over an employee’s personal life — employers should only be allowed to fire people over their conduct at work or that might reasonably be associated with their work?

    (I note that under the doctrine of ‘a frolic of one’s own’, employers are protected from liability arising from an employee’s personal doings, even when those personal doing involve use of the employer’s resources. Surely the flipside of that is that employers cannot punish the employee for things the employee does when on their own frolics? Otherwise the employer gets all the benefits and the employee all the costs, which is not equity.)

    And there’s one about the wider social climate: is it okay that certain types of extra-curricular activity are allowed, even encouraged (it’s impossible to imagine someone being fired for publishing a message supporting Alphabet Rights, and indeed an employer who tried would quickly find themselves the victim of calls for boycotts, etc) but other result in things like loss of livelihood?

    The two cross over of course: for example, does it make a difference if the employer is question is a monopoly and the employee can’t, for instance, just go and play rugby for a different Australian national team? Should such a monopoly employer, whose dismissal effectively ends someone’s entire career, be held to a different standard, when it comes to terminating employment, than, say, a supermarket, who can fire someone safe in the knowledge that they could equally well be employed at a competitor?

    And, is loss of employment being used as extra-judicial punishment for those who transgress against certain boundaries, and are employers facilitating this by simply giving in when that is the easiest course?

    The defence of duress is a hard one to rely on specifically because the law wishes to encourage people to stand up to threats. If I could make some meagre threat against you, and then you commit a crime, and, by pleading duress, get off, while I cannot be charged because my threat was not serious enough, the whole system of law collapses.

    Is there not similarly a public interest in encouraging employers to stand up to threats of boycotts etc and not simply dispose of employees who have become a liability through their own perfectly reasonable actions in their persona capacities?

    But anyway, I think it would be better to clarify these two separate conversations, and they are separate conversations, or everything will dissolve into a muddle.

  37. @S,

    “….or everything will dissolve into a muddle.”

    Unless your real name starts with “Doc” and you’ve got the engine running on a DeLorean, I think we’re too late.

  38. I donated to his ACL fund. Even if he pockets the money and walks without a legal challenge I will consider it well spent. Every time the left targets someone for destruction, we should make that person rich without condition. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, compensating the target for the unjust treatment they have received from our fellow citizens and the law but it will drive the left mad to see that their attacks reward rather than punish the victims.

  39. For the poms amongst us, the conciliatory meeting was held this morning,

    We are banging on about the reported outcome now in Chambers at Bills gaff.

    Link here.

    https://www.williamofockham.com/2019/06/27/never-apologise-never-explain/#comments

    “I am very interested to see what Fair Works says, given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to win a case with them.”

    It looks like that an early resolution between the parties will not be reached, meaning that FWA don’t actually have that much to do as far as positioning goes and obviously any matters dealt with today will remain private and confidential on their part.

    It doesn’t look like arbitration is an option either, and I doubt that FWA would throw the case out either (they can if the wanted to), which leaves them no other option than to certify that an amicable resolution between the parties cannot be reached. This is the necessary clearance for Folau to now commence with an application to the court. This being the case, FWA’s work is done here and its now in lawyer and judiciary land.

    Faloua’s legal team are top shelf as well, the best that Steves money could buy. But again and similar to the war chest, this has no bearing on the lawfulness or not of his termination. The process can be frustrated a little bit by Falou’s team but not by that much, the judge will issue orders on timetables, which must be met, and when RA win, the appeal will also run to a set timetable.

    Its a simple question and a very straight forward process, did RA unlawfully prevent Falou from putting bread on his family’s table or not?

    Although these kind of matters with one individual and no crime, should never go to trial, the cost, the disruption, the clogging up of our justice system by two bob merchants with flash lawyers. As I have said before, maybe it is a good thing for this particular case to be heard, because we will all get the benefit of clarity at law and legal precedence to stop this kind of Punch and Judy show occurring again.

    Although a pre-trial settlement would still be the most likely outcome here.

    I will keep my draft heartfelt Apology at hand, for when that time comes, although I may have to up the veracity of the offer slightly and have it is read out live on the telly by Alan Joyce.

  40. As I have said before, maybe it is a good thing for this particular case to be heard, because we will all get the benefit of clarity at law and legal precedence to stop this kind of Punch and Judy show occurring again.

    Or possibly, if the outcome which is correct in law is seen to be manifestly unjust, public pressure might lead to the law being changed. That does happen sometimes.

  41. Is Bardon related to Richard North?

    Like him, he seems to think that the ‘law’ is some shining beacon of independent arbitration, administered by men and women of saint-like ethics and blank political slates, when as we all know, when the law mixes with politics (as in this sort of case and Brexit) the law is rapidly dragged down into the gutter with the politicians. The IF case has very little to do with employment law and everything to do with politics, and its politics that will determine the outcome. The law will just give a veneer of reason for the decision arrived at by other means.

  42. All your straw men aside I do see this case as being indicative and bringing to head a much larger and more insidious cancer that has been on the long march down under and making significant headway with it.

    There are two parties here, which is conveniently ignored by this faux right wing t’internet movement. Employers are the life blood of freedom, individual performance, risk and reward for all of the many stakeholders including employees. We don’t want some no nothing nanny state coming in and telling us how to run our business, that we have our hard earned tied up in because I can tell you that they ain’t making a good job of their day jobs.

    Blessed are the employers.

    Mohamed should be on the next chopper out, without his $10m. It’s a business we are running not a democracy.

  43. We don’t want some no nothing nanny state coming in and telling us how to run our business, that we have our hard earned tied up in because I can tell you that they ain’t making a good job of their day jobs.

    Which sounds lovely and high-minded… but are you really fine with a bunch of nobodies on Twitter coming in and telling you how to run your business? Because that’s effectively what has happened; a hiring decision has been made based not on what’s good for the business, but on what will keep the Twitter mob happy.

    And if you give in to this sort of thing once, you only embolden them to be even quicker to act, and to demand more, next time.

    What happens when they come for someone you can’t afford to fire? What happens when they come for you? Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to use the law as an excuse… ‘sorry, we’d love to give in to all your demands, but it would beillegal to do so. Not our fault. Go away.’

  44. “Or possibly, if the outcome which is correct in law is seen to be manifestly unjust, public pressure might lead to the law being changed. That does happen sometimes.”

    Can we just deal with the matter that is before us, we don’t even have a court case yet, I wouldn’t bother wasting my time in getting too carried away with all the iidfs and buts about what might happen after it is eventually resolved, with a resolution that we also don’t know what it looks like.

    Keep it real please.

    On second thoughts, maybe not because I am feeling a bit underdressed where I am now and answering this means I can hide a bit.

  45. What happens when they come for someone you can’t afford to fire?

    Who is they?

    If you mean employers who are the ones that do the firing, then that wouldn’t happen, good employees get looked after not fired.

    What happens when they come for you?

    First thought for me is that they don’t see the value in me anymore.

    Second thought is how can I maximise my departure terms.

    Third thought is which laptop did I save my CV on.

  46. “but are you really fine with a bunch of nobodies on Twitter coming in and telling you how to run your business? Because that’s effectively what has happened; a hiring decision has been made based not on what’s good for the business, but on what will keep the Twitter mob happy.””

    I know that this is a wind up now, no one that was serious about this would be as far of the mark as you are. I like a good wind up, it’s still allowed too.

    This employee lost the support of the dressing room, management, board, stakeholder investors and used their brand to preach.

    It was the employer who terminated the dude, the serial complainants on the t’internet came in after the event, not that they matter though.

  47. Surely what Folau needs to do is to submit to a somewhat more recently established intolerant monotheistic sky-fairy cult.

    The Twitterati will switch sides immediately.

  48. I got a feeling that this issue will unnecessarily stay in the spotlight far more so than it deserves, but sooner of later things like the G20 will bump it down a bit.

    Pedantic biblical language and scholarly interpretation aside, his Instagram post was absolutely right and spot on in content. I did think though that he got it wrong in the sinner sense the other night when he compared Sodomites to drug addicts, since drug addicts do not chose to become drug addicts.

    But I wholeheartedly respect his rights to say things like this and anything that he may say on this matter, thank God we live in a country where no one denies him his right to post on Instagram or freely discuss his religious views.

    His athletic qualities may well outweigh his education level and articulation skills but I keep getting the feeling that he will score an own goal if he were given enough rope to do so.

  49. I assume, Bardon, that you are a paid spammer attached to some crisis management firm, duplicating your posts all over right-side blogs?

Leave a Reply

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