Israeli Settlement


Rugby Australia (RA) says it “did not back down” by reaching a financial settlement with player Israel Folau after he was sacked for making homophobic comments.

The ex-Wallabies star sued RA for A$14m (£7.4m; $9.5m) after his contract was terminated in May.

Similarly, France didn’t surrender in 1940.

The parties settled for an undisclosed amount, according to a joint statement on Wednesday.

“We had to make a decision that was right for rugby in this country,” RA chief Raelene Castle said at a news conference in Sydney.

And which by pure coincidence has saved us the humiliation of losing a costly lawsuit.

“We stick to our values that inclusiveness is absolutely core to rugby.”

So Izzy’s being reinstated then, is he? Lord knows, it’s not like you couldn’t use him after your lacklustre performance in the World Cup which saw you beaten by both England and Wales.

She said taking the matter to court was not in the interests of the game and the eventual decision was “more cost-effective for us”.

But not as cost-effective as complying with the law in the first place, I expect.

“So we made a decision that gave us cost certainty that put us in the best financial decision entering the new year in a positive way,” she said.

This rearguard action is as impressive as that against Wales in the second half.

“I think it’s clear to say our values are not aligned and the expectations that Rugby Australia would have of Israel coming back into the sport would not be acceptable.

Presumably by “our values are not aligned” she means that Folau at least refrains from trampling people’s rights and being forced into costly legal settlements. Note the woman who heads Rugby Australia isn’t stepping down over this, and why should she? It’s not her money, after all. What price virtue signalling, eh?


33 thoughts on “Israeli Settlement

  1. The ARU were largely forced into this position by Alan Joyvce, the CEO of Qantas. Don’t sack Folau, and the ARU lose their biggest sponsor.

    So the worst person in this is Joyce who uses other people’s money to push his personal politics. The board of Qantas too, for picking an activist rather than a person who’s primary goal is to strengthen the company and make money.

    Castle was in a no-win situation, so I don’t hold too much against her. The double standard where David Pocock can spout his beliefs with impunity but others can’t well predates her.

    Everyone knows that large numbers of the Wallabies agree with Folau. They’re just not allowed to say so.

  2. The only questions are, how much and how much more than he was offered in the first round? Most likely more, given his uncapped defence budget. She needed to settle but may well lose her head over this, cant see anyone leaping to her defence and holding on to her.

    Unfortunately for employers and wallet fattening for lawyers the legal position still remains a mystery since we are now deprived of a hearing and ruling, meaning that we still do not have any legal precedent on whether or not the employer can sack someone for what he done.

    I can hear a big Liberal shriek for more religious discrimination legislation to address situations like this, even though more legislation is the polar opposite of what we need.

    Israel should be appointed as its minister.

  3. “RA chief Raelene Castle”

    Reading news items, it is truly amazing how often these days there turns out to be a woman in charge of an entity that has screwed up big time. Question is — Do women screw up so often because of something biological? Or do women in positions of authority screw up so often because they were promoted far beyond their level of competence simply because they are female?

    Affirmative action promotions really make things much harder for competent women.

    “We stick to our values that inclusiveness is absolutely core to rugby.”

    Well, that explains why the Australian rugby team includes all those 90-lb weaklings with limps and bad eye sight. The woman is self-deludingly dumb!

  4. As I’ve mentioned previously, there have been multiple weekends in my life where I socialised after work on Friday with a gay mate, played rugby on Saturday and spent Sunday with religious friends or relatives.

    It seems a backwards step for Rugby Australia to make a big deal about the differences between the three groups of people rather than the similarities.

  5. Is free speech an inalienable right, even if you sign a contract for zillions on condition you will STFU?
    I was looking forward to a decision by the courts, which would serve as precedent for other cases.
    An example of which might be Alan Joyce’s decision to use his employer’s money to advance his personal beliefs.

  6. “Is free speech an inalienable right, even if you sign a contract for zillions on condition you will STFU?”

    I think this issue stemmed around alleged religious discrimination by a former employee, which then takes us to our rights associated with religious freedom which are enshrined in our Constitution as follows.

    Section 116 states:

    “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

    To put this incident into perspective, Australia’s record on religious freedom is unblemished and second to none and has never been called into question. Religious freedom is all about the right to practice your religion, not be forced into a religion and that your religious beliefs are not to be held or used in anyway against you. No one including RA has ever tried to extinguish Falou’s right to practice his religion and he still does so with absolute freedom up to this present day.

    If anyone tells you that Australia has religious freedom problems then they are either a liar, stupid or not to be trusted.

    In Falou’s case the legal argument centred around whether or not his religious rights trumped his employment obligations. There is no legal precedent in Australia on this point, to muddy the waters a little more it would have initially been a state matter and not Commonwealth, the Constitution is silent on the states when it comes to religious freedom.

    Nevertheless, we can still look to the very few legal findings that have been made by the courts on religious freedom as prescribed by the Constitution up to date, for further guidance on the application of the law with respect to Folau’s right to religious freedom conflicting with that of his employers’ rights.

    Firstly, on the question of precedence in the event of conflict.

    “In 1912, the court in Krygger v Williams, held that a person could not object to compulsory military service on the ground of religious belief. The court considered that Section 116 would only protect religious observance from government interference; it would not permit a person to be excused from a legal obligation merely because the obligation conflicted with his or her religious beliefs”.

    Based on the above ruling, I would argue that Falou similarly should not be excused from his employment obligation (legal obligation) because it conflicted with his religious beliefs.

    Secondly, on the issue of him causing his employer material harm, in jeopardizing his employer’s revenue streams.

    “1943, the court continued the narrow approach it took in Krygger v Williams, upholding war-time regulations that caused the Adelaide branch of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be dissolved and have its property acquired by the Commonwealth government. The government had declared the branch to be an organisation whose activities were “prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth”: one of the branch’s professed beliefs was that the government was an “organ of Satan”. Chief Justice John Latham held that the Constitution permitted the court to “reconcile religious freedom with ordered government”.

    This equally confers RA with the decision making ability and right to reconcile Falou’s religious freedom against that of their ordered business.

    From a constitutional aspect it seems clear how an interpretation of an individual’s religious freedom rights would be made by the courts including precedence in the event of a conflict between his religious freedom rights and any other legal obligation.

  7. @Bardon,

    That’s the clearest and most erudite you’ve been on this subject, both here and elsewhere. Well done.

    I think there is just one additional factor the case might have pivoted around should it have gone any further down the legal route; did RA change the status quo with their new policy of expecting their staff to express particular beliefs on homosexuality and was that a reasonable change of employment in line with their business interests?

    I suppose one could then argue this was a material change in the job description and Folau was unsuitable for the new role ie he’d been made redundant.

    As you say, case law remains unclear.

  8. My view on this may be a lone and unpopular one, but I have always maintained that the employers rights should take precedence in this instance.

    As far as this disgusting shake down goes, the only time that I adjusted my position was at the outset on discovering that Falou had reneaged on his intention to turn the other cheek and walk away. This was the right decision by him and he would have still got a payout and he would not have had to lie down with dogs.

    This misguided idealistic and easily influenced young man of physical moreso than intellectual means was then clearly manipulated by others resulting in his subsequent backflip and demand of thirty pieces of silver for his troubles. He lost the moral high ground and any support that I may have had for him right there at that early point in time.

    Not many of us are employers and therefore tend to easily forget that it is the poor old employer that has to foot the bill for these legal charades and continue to navigate through the daily litigation mine fields that the ever preset threat of them creates. His whole basis of claim was a complete con and standover tatic that should have been set aside with extreme prejudice and the full force of law.

    Falou and his followers have been duped into this Supply Side Jesus Economy which is just another massive shake down at least up until the next one anyway.

  9. @Bardon: while I applaud (and agree with) your championing the rights of employers, I feel you are missing the point here. The reason many of us are/were behind Folau in his case against Rugby Australia was not because we were fighting for the rights of employers to be diminished, or employees to be given more, it was because we knew that in a mirror case where Folau was not a Christian, and was perhaps an adherent of a certain Peaceful religion his employer would be crucified (ironically) by the State and the legal system. We know the system is biased against the white Christian majority, and we hoped that the Folau case would take the SJWs own rules and use them against them. Sadly RA have caved and we will never now know, unless another prominent Christian sportsman decides to test them.

    It is interesting to now consider what RA would do if another of their contracted players made exactly the same sort of comments on social media – if (and we don’t know the the details of the settlement of course) the Folau case has cost RA $$$ then their lawyers would be telling them to leave well alone for fear of provoking a similar case.

  10. My view on this may be a lone and unpopular one, but I have always maintained that the employers rights should take precedence in this instance.

    I suppose it’s too much to ask that employers consider the personal views of their employees none of their fucking business, rather than asserting they have a right to dictate what employees may think.

  11. When the personal views of an employee negatively impact and threaten a business, by definition it becomes a part of the companies business. It would also be remiss of any business not to adopt a counteracting position to the employees threatening like behaviour.

  12. The reason this became an issue is because RA mistakenly thought a player’s beliefs irrelevant to rugby was a key to their brand. Nonsense.

    Many other companies are doing the same. See Total becoming all green and cuddly, Facebook telling us that our privacy (i.e. their exclusive access) is important to them.
    Michael Jones (? name wrong?) played many games for All Blacks without turning out on a Sunday. No problem, but that was yesterday.

    @Bardon. The cases you cite (the draft, and calling the govt Satan) as precedents make me shudder. That any old tin pot business or association can assert the same inordinate privilege is monstrous.

  13. Never fear philip, new, damming and undisputed evidence has just surfaced and Major James Francis Thomas has agreed to represent RA and lodge an urgent application on the matter to the courts.



    The scenes leading up to the execution of Harry Morant and Peter Handcock represent a high mark in Australian film. “Do you want a clergyman?” asks the fusilier as the men are led from their cells. “No,” replies Morant. “I’m a pagan.” “What’s a pagan?” asks Handcock. “It’s someone who doesn’t believe there’s a divine being dispensing justice to mankind,” replies Morant wryly. Handcock turns his head. “I’m a pagan too.”

  14. @Tim
    What about the “pedo guy” case? Musk gets acquitted by a Californian jury of his peers but with no other stain on his character.

  15. When the personal views of an employee negatively impact and threaten a business…

    But they didn’t have to; Rugby Australia could have simply said “We deplore Folau’s views, but we support his right to express them.” They could also have made much hay about Qantas seeking to suppress free speech and religious freedom if they, indeed, pulled their sponsorship (although I suspect Qantas would have followed a similar line, making it a moot point). But they didn’t. Ultimately, they are in the business of winning rugby matches, not pleasing the perpetually-dissatisfied – they took their eye off the ball.

  16. ” Musk gets acquitted by a Californian jury of his peers but with no other stain on his character.”

    Just more proof that non-Americans will never win in US courts. They are as biased as the most tin pot third world country.

  17. Ok, I suggest we all start discussing conveniently-located and reasonably-priced wedding venues until Tim takes the hint and puts up another post 😉

  18. @dcardno ‘”But they didn’t have to”

    All RA had to do and did do was to mitigate the extent of the damages, they had no obligation to do anything else. Sure their handling of this has not been done well, which is why she had to settle to stop them hemorrhaging further. This isn’t about RA’s performance in this matter, its about their right to get rid of the malevolent and toxic Folau.

    philip – “And your point is?”

    Just some Australian history on opting out of Christianity and miscarriages of justice.

  19. “I *know* you’ve got *something*…”

    All I want for Christmas is a Tory majority, a Brexit bounce and Santa lift off of the FTSE, combined with a resurgent British Pound commanding two Australian dollars.

    But If you wanted to sex up the sizzle with your other half and are stuck for ideas in dystopian Mud Island you could always whisk her away for a surprise long weekend in some sun drenched beach-side top dollar hotel.

    Cant afford it, no problem, you can take advantage of the Australian buy now pay later phenomenon that is taking the world by storm. This clever system removes the biggest reason not to buy something, our aversion to loss, ie paying for it, just take her on holiday now and think about paying for it later.

    Use Afterpay aka Clearpay or Zip, they are the best.

  20. Whatever your views on the future state of sodomites, I can’t see how Rugby Australia could have managed this worse
    Looking like they are being bullied by sponsors, or rather the poison paddy dwarf running Qantas – check
    Ending up several million dollars out of pocket even before lawyers’ fees – check
    Making Israel Folau look like a martyr – check
    Giving Izzy’s views about 110 x the publicity they would have had if Rugby Australia had just kept their mouths shut – check
    Crap performance in the world championships – check

    All of which means Raelene Castle will keep her job forever because wymminses

  21. Remember the smirking boy in the MAGA hat with a leftard native banging a drum in his face? Covington School or something. Seem to remember he sued the MSM for a gajillion $. Anyone know where that ended up? I hope he is a billionaire now!

  22. @Patrick: its going through the usual interminable US ‘justice’ system. There’s a bloke on youtube who is a lawyer who does very good studies of important and politically relevant legal cases in the US, he regularly does updates on them.
    This is his last update on the Sandman vs WaPo case:

  23. Can we get someone to check in on Tim? I’m becoming concerned as there’s been two stories about Polygamy in a MSM outlet and he’s not even twitched.

    I’ve not been able to keep up on carrier bag related stories, but I’m assuming he’s missed a few of those too.

  24. Come on, guys — let’s cut Tim some slack. He has a new job in a new industry and a new girlfriend and a new place to stay. We will just have to amuse ourselves until he gets things settled down.

    Anyway, it is not like he is missing anything important!

Comments are closed.