^^^
It's a nod to an old Aussie band, the "Zarsoff Brothers", whose lead singer had the same name (I'm talking 70s/80s)
The other band members were Bernie Zarsoff and Terry Zarsoff
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Foghorn said..
Magda has a counter fund.Why cant they all just agree to disagree.
Because someone must WIN to prove they're right. It's arguing on the internet IRL.
Ok i get it.Its the Magda virtue fund
.It took Falau to get her off her arse to raise money for the sick kids.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Donations are not mandatory lol.
I'll take "what are tithes" for 10% times 3, Alec.
Tithes are only supposed to be fruit vegetables and animals no money is supposed to change hands, my guess is back in the day someone wanted a Bugatti to drive past all the peasants
Also everyone on here likely will go to hell, I ate some prawns and a cray, I also eat a bit of shark and leatherjacket now and than.... If you have ever eaten fish n chips there will be no heaven for you...... hmmmmmmm ( clears throat)
Leviticus 11:9-12 English Standard Version (ESV)9 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
Tithes are only supposed to be fruit vegetables and animals no money is supposed to change hands, my guess is back in the day someone wanted a Bugatti to drive past all the peasants
"tenth of everything" in many places.
But God prefers cash: Dueteronomy 14:25
biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-25.htm
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
Also everyone on here likely will go to hell, I ate some prawns and a cray, I also eat a bit of shark and leatherjacket now and than.... If you have ever eaten fish n chips there will be no heaven for you...... hmmmmmmm ( clears throat)
Leviticus 11:9-12 English Standard Version (ESV)9 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
Mixed your fabrics? Shaved your beard? Got a tat? Pulled out? Picked up grapes?
What a silly book.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Razzonater said..
Also everyone on here likely will go to hell, I ate some prawns and a cray, I also eat a bit of shark and leatherjacket now and than.... If you have ever eaten fish n chips there will be no heaven for you...... hmmmmmmm ( clears throat)
Leviticus 11:9-12 English Standard Version (ESV)9 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. 10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
Mixed your fabrics? Shaved your beard? Got a tat? Pulled out? Picked up grapes?
What a silly book.
I read comic books and religious text they are both as entertaining
Select to expand quotemazdon said..
Everyone at the extreme margins are as bad as each other
And there it is.
QUOTE FROM PARADOX; Wednesday 26th June..
"Ok if you are going to quote the CoC and ask for a test on compliance, then don't randomly add stuff to it. It makes you look manipulative, deceitful, amateurish or all 3. The CoC does not mention anything about people "following their beliefs". Following your beliefs is not a get out jail free card.
So I will fix that for you:
"Do you really think he has been treated, equally, fairly, or with dignity regardless of religious background."
By RA? Yes absolutely. Nothing RA has done has made reference to his religion. Everything RA has done has been about his breach of the Code via social media and nothing else. It doesn't matter what his motivation was, only that the code was breached. I can see no evidence that they would treat him any differently if he posted similar content and he was a Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist. I am sure his defence will try though and they are much better at that crap than I am.
The burden is on Folau to prove he was treated unfairly because of his beliefs. I just gave one example of how it could be done, just because that example doesn't exist does't make him right. It just means I can't see a way he can prove it.
If you are asking that question in relation to social media, then probably not, but he has no contract with social media...."
************************************************************************************************************************
Hey you dumb arsed piece of ****, nowhere did I randomly add to the quotes from R.A. or the Cambridge dictionary, they are cut and pasted verbatim. The non bold parts are my questions, and views.
When you have religious background, one of the important dogmas is to follow your beliefs, particularly when you are also a preacher in your community.
You will have to excuse me for assuming you had the intelligence to understand that point.
I can now see who is trying to be manipulative deceitful and amateurish, you should pull your head out of your arse and stop wearing yourself like some white hatted good guy.
This is cut and pasted from Cambridge Dictionary web site, it is one of their definitions, but the one I chose because it is under the heading (DIFFERENT TREATMENT). So, go for your life, princess, and show where I added or removed from the bolded quotes,
"discrimination" in English
discriminationnoun [ U ]
UK ? /d??skr?m.??ne?.??n/ US ? /d??skr?m.??ne?.??n/
discrimination noun [ U ] (DIFFERENT TREATMENT)
?C1 treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.:
*****************
Now that I have the "pleasantries out of the way", maybe some adult discussion can continue;
from WORLD RUGBY; Reg. 20 Appendix 1: www.world.rugby/handbook/regulations/reg-20/appendix-1
1.13 shall not do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult, humiliate or discriminate against any other Person on the ground of their religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, colour or national or ethnic origin;
World Rugby uses the word "humiliate", in its rules, It should be quite easy for Folau to show he has been humiliated by R.A. for sacking him for following and promoting his beliefs.
A link to R.A.s, Code of conduct, it is a 28 page download:https://australia.rugby/about/codes%20and%20policies/integrity/code%20of%20conduct.
But here is the code as it pertains to Players;
1 CODE OF CONDUCT - PLAYERS
1.1 Your safety and the safety of your team mates and opponents comes first. Be aware of, and always comply with, the Rugby AU Safety Policies and Guidelines.
1.2 Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat.
1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
1.4 Do not repeatedly breach the Laws of the Game relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations).
1.5 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.
1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.
1.9 You must assist in any investigation or disciplinary proceedings and ensure that no inaccurate and/or misleading information is provided by you during the course of an investigation or hearing under this Code or in relation to any other disciplinary proceedings.
1.10 You must disclose any incident, matter or set of circumstances (irrespective of when it occurred) that does, or has the potential to, render you an unfit or improper person to be a Participant in Australian Rugby. This includes any incident, matter or set of circumstances that could damage the game of Rugby or bring into question the integrity and good character of its Participants.
***********************************************
MY THOUGHTS; In case someone may incorrectly think that I am being: manipulative deceitful and amateurish
just what are the expectations, and requirements in this code that he breached?
1.1 NO; 1.2 NO; 1.3 Here is where the debate will start, does quoting a WARNING, from the bible, breach the sensibilities of "the general public", with regards to; bullying. harrasment. or discrimination?
1.4 It states, in part; " relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations).
World Rugby: www.world.rugby/handbook/regulations/reg-20/reg-20
Pertaining to the case in discussion;
20.13 Exceptional Circumstances in relation to Players' Conduct20.13.1 In exceptional circumstances where the conduct of a Player(s) or Person(s) is of such a serious/gross nature that his or their continued involvement in the Game in any capacity pending the final determination of the matter by the relevant authority is deemed by World Rugby to be inappropriate and/or potentially prejudicial to the image and reputation of the sport, then World Rugby is entitled to require as it deems fit that the relevant Union(s) provisionally suspend such Player(s) or Person(s) from any involvement in the sport.
It would take a special type of snowflake to argue that this case is "of such a serious / gross nature"
Countdown....3....2....1.... snowstorm coming..
R.A. doesn't include a definition of MISCONDUCT, in the C.O.C. refering instead to World Rugby.
1.5 NO; 1.6 NO;
1.7 also questionable. as it states; as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code.
( my interpretation: it sounds like they are talking about a DELIBERATE ACT, to meaningfully hurt another person, this is subjective and can / will be argued over. Only Folau knows wether he believed that he was deliberately / intentionally breaching the code.
1.8 YES; Although does Folau as a preacher, believe that his actions would beach 1.8, probably not. (but by allowing this saga to start and continue, the same standard can be held against the officials of R.A. who are also subject to these rules. (R.A. C.O.C. 3.14).
1.9 & 1.10, Not sure, I'm not privy to the hearings or findings.
WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING...
Here is a link to a religious organisation who are breaching ALL moral / ethical codes, surely no right minded person can equate Folaus' actions to these people.. EDIT: the address contains a word that seabreeze wont allow, you will need to google WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH.
WARNING: THIS SITE WILL UPSET THE STAUNCHEST OF SNOWFLAKES, and by extension, I suppose I need to also warn the general public, this will breach you sensibilities..
I have only included it to differentiate the levels of religious bigotry, you people might as well know the truth of whats really out there, and what offensive really looks like...
***************end of MY THOUGHTS.*******************
Well, this has been fun, I'm sure I will get a time out for this.....
Select to expand quotemorningsun said..
"Do you really think he has been treated, equally, fairly, or with dignity regardless of religious background."
By RA? Yes absolutely. Nothing RA has done has made reference to his religion. Everything RA has done has been about his breach of the Code via social media and nothing else. It doesn't matter what his motivation was, only that the code was breached. I can see no evidence that they would treat him any differently if he posted similar content and he was a Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist. I am sure his defence will try though and they are much better at that crap than I am.
The burden is on Folau to prove he was treated unfairly because of his beliefs. I just gave one example of how it could be done, just because that example doesn't exist does't make him right. It just means I can't see a way he can prove it.
If you are asking that question in relation to social media, then probably not, but he has no contract with social media...."
************************************************************************************************************************
That's it in a nutshell.
Falau had a contract with RA, he breached that contract, was warned about it, he doubled down (and in doing so trying to make his contract/job into something it isn't ie a platform for whatever his beliefs are) and is now out of job.
Remember the 10 commandments...
Trying to make justification and weaselling out of the specifics of the contract because a word wasn't there or definition of such differs from yours is ridiculous. This is the reason we now have 15 page legalese contracts just to use a friggen phone. (www.apple.com/legal/sla/)
...we started with just 10. We really only need 1 - Don't be a dick!
If you want the weasel way, he wasn't sacked for having those beliefs, he was sacked for broadcasting to the world "hate speech" from a book. (What you called a "warning". Pray tell, what is the difference between quoting Homos must die from the Bible, and Jews must die from Mein Kampf? I guess a difference is that one book was written by a white man outlining the laws and rules that define how a utopian society should live and the dire consequence of not living by those rules and the other by a German - both books have their faithful believers)**
**I am clearly paraphrasing - I've not read either. I started, to see what the fuss was all about, but all the rule this and kill that and abomination / detestable blah blah blah...
If Izzy wins on freedom of religious bent , then God help us all .
The Pandora's box that would open will take us back to seperation that we have tried to calm recently .
So I can be a big profile Neo Nazi and legally sprout my ideals ? What about a big profile Satanic?
Where , if total freedom of speech can be won in court with enough funds , will it end ?
It has to be curbed at some stage or I just may be able to invent my own religious bent .
Endless virgins For Fat Cat Unless Its Windy sect ?
Former Wallaby Peter FitzSimons has launched a scathing attack on Israel Folau as the latest twist in the axed player's saga continues.https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/rugby-union/peter-fitzsimons-lashes-israel-folau-in-extraordinary-tirade/ar-AADCIzV?ocid=spartanntp
"You put your right index finger up above it about to send.
You've acknowledged this, at the moment you press send, you will put rugby, your team, your teammates, through exactly the same agony as last year and you pressed send.
"What happened?
We've been engulfed by two months of this nonsense, this disaster.
"Millions of dollars being bled from rugby.
Sponsors for the exits, members turning away.
"And you think rugby owes you an apology?
We've been bled by two months of this crackdown on freedom of speech RA style.
Liberty is suffering and the public are not impressed.
Sponsors for the exists,members turning away.
And you think RA cares about the game?
A far more relevant rant I'd say after the witch hunt by RA on Israel Folau.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
We've been bled by two months of this crackdown on freedom of speech RA style.
Liberty is suffering and the public are not impressed.
Sponsors for the exists,members turning away.
And you think RA cares about the game?
A far more relevant rant I'd say after the witch hunt by RA on Israel Folau.
Glad I didn't contribute to your go f me peter
I was just speaking to a former Tonga rugby international who works as a security guard at Spudshed.
I thought I'd bring up Israel Folau. First thing he said is I.F is now more famous.
He then said he disagrees with the sacking and is worried it could set a precedent for breaching freedom of speech.
Exactly.
If it came from a Spud Shed employee it absolutely has to be true.
Did you ask any Uber drivers as well?
Or maybe a random Scottish chick in the back of a car?
If we're gathering facts here we'll need to cover all bases.
Select to expand quotemorningsun said..
Hey you dumb arsed piece of ****, nowhere did I randomly add to the quotes from R.A. or the Cambridge dictionary, they are cut and pasted verbatim. The non bold parts are my questions, and views.
Well, this has been fun, I'm sure I will get a time out for this.....
Well that was a particularly long rant. Got a bit personal a few times in there, but i'm good - I did call you out, and I stick by that. Sometimes you might find that less is more.
My comment that you have taken issue with was in relation to your statement and question:
1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
Do you really think he has been treated, equally, fairly, or with dignity, for following his beliefs?
The issue I have with this question is that you ask if he has been treated fairly for following his beliefs. It implies that the Code of Conduct or RA's actions mention or protect anyone's right to "follow their beliefs" . They do not. I therefore believe that in quoting the Code and then asking a question which has nothing to do with the code can be interpreted as deliberately misleading people as to what the code says or means. Or, it's just an exceedingly poor understanding of the clauses....I don't know which boat you are in and i'm sorry of that offends you.
The issue is that someone reading your posts that might actually think your statements are correct, and believe the code protects his rights to do whatever he wants in the name of faith. Its seems to me that is exactly what is happening, ie people who have no idea how to interpret contractual clauses and their meanings (and many who do know very well) are twisting the issue and building a false platform others are standing on.
Hence my "correction of your question" to ensure it is relevant to the argument and actually uses the wording the CoC uses:
"Do you really think he has been treated, equally, fairly, or with dignity regardless of religious background."
I will say again that the Rugby Code of Conduct, our employment laws and even our federal laws and constitution DO NOT protect someones right to "follow their belief" or "practice their religion" without any consequences, including employment Law.
when will people stop posting this is about his religious or free speech rights . this case has nothing to do with any of those and everything with him breaching his contract with RA . nothing more, nothing less . Good luck to him proving it in the courts
Select to expand quotedusta said..
when will people stop posting this is about his religious or free speech rights . this case has nothing to do with any of those and everything with him breaching his contract with RA . nothing more, nothing less . Good luck to him proving it in the courts
I totally agree. I think he will argue that the contract is illegal due to it breaching his free speech rights. All he has got really.
Select to expand quotehilly said..
I totally agree. I think he will argue that the contract is illegal due to it breaching his free speech rights. All he has got really.
He can't. You have no free speech rights legally enshrined in Australia. He has to play the religious discrimination card.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..hilly said..
I totally agree. I think he will argue that the contract is illegal due to it breaching his free speech rights. All he has got really.
He can't. You have no free speech rights legally enshrined in Australia. He has to play the religious discrimination card.
Actually I would suggest that even the discrimination card is a very long bow as I can't see how he has been discriminated against.
I suspect the pitch will be his right to practice his religion. ie as he is a regular sermon giver and his faith requires him to spread the word. Still a long bow however IMO.
Thing about freedom of expression is that people love to quote human rights etc. but a read of the UN declaration of which Australia is a signatory will show that even that says that freedom of expression comes with a responsibility to adhere to Law and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
Select to expand quotedusta said..
when will people stop posting this is about his religious or free speech rights . this case has nothing to do with any of those and everything with him breaching his contract with RA . nothing more, nothing less . Good luck to him proving it in the courts
Folau didn't breach his contract. His contract was terminated for a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct. This has been stated repeatedly by RA.
What you need to be asking -
"Can his action be deemed more severe than previous players breach's of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct where those players did not have their contracts terminated ? "
And there is no shortage of player breaches . BUT is what he did worse than bashing a female, bashing a male in public, drink driving, drink driving without a licence, repeated illegal drug possession charges , break and enter, theft, intentionally trying to blind someone .....???
Select to expand quoteMain said..dusta said..
when will people stop posting this is about his religious or free speech rights . this case has nothing to do with any of those and everything with him breaching his contract with RA . nothing more, nothing less . Good luck to him proving it in the courts
Folau didn't breach his contract. His contract was terminated for a high-level breach of the Professional Players' Code of Conduct. This has been stated repeatedly by RA.
Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.
Main wrote on HW......
George Burgess tries to blind Robbie Farah with an eye gouge on the weekend.
He he will be penalised a few weeks.
Now compare this to Izzy's penalty.
They both breached general code of contact rules.
