Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paxter

Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

Recommended Posts

Just another thread. And to christen it, a song in honour of the soon-to-be-retired Manly ferries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIrUqsB-0vw

Quote

Meet me down by the jetty landing
Where the pontoons bump and spray
I see the others reading, standing
As the Manly Ferry cuts its way to Circular Quay

Hear the captain blow his whistle
So long she's been away
I miss our early morning wrestle
Not a very happy way to start the day

She don't like that kind of behaviour [2x]

So, throw down your guns
Don't be so reckless
Throw down your guns
Don't be so

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring my disagreement with the politics behind it, the simple marketing and PR mechanics of this Captain GetUp stuff seems...like a huge waste of time and money for the conservatives behind it? Its a) giving free publicity to GetUp!, The Greens and Labor, b.) Outright using their logos...is this actually legal? c) Intentionally or not its alluding to Captain Planet at a time when much of the electorate is concerned about climate change d) Unlikely to appeal to anyone that isn't hardcore in the tank for them anyway.

Its just weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Like scott in the antarctic,

Election 18 may,

Tassie flight time is most critic

GG tomorrow, will hear him say

Edited by Squab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 10:20 PM, Stubby said:

Someone seriously patient translated that lyric.

80's music and an 80's joke. This thread has made an old lady very happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we finally have a date. Shorten couldn't lose it from here...could he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is the right place for it, rather than the Rugby thread.

Freedom of speech says Israel Folau can say whatever he wants on whatever platforms will have him. Freedom of association means the ARU can freely decide whether or not to maintain its association with him. If they decide to continue to associate with him people will be free to decide whether they want to continue to have anything to do with Rugby in Australia. And if they decide to no longer associate with him then people are also free to decide whether they want to continue to have anything to do with Rugby in Australia.

And maybe more importantly (for the ARU), advertisers and sponsers can decide whether they want to continue to associate with Folau and / or the ARU.

Personally I think the ARU keeping him as a contracted player is untennable. Perhaps unions in certain parts of the country might welcome him though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Folau re-contracted with the ARU earlier this year and agreed not to make hateful comments about LGBTIQ people. So this is contract law 101 - good riddance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of adds fuel to the notion that he did this deliberately, in order to have the ARU rip up his contract rather than him try to terminate it early and possibly be sued by the ARU.

The question is whether he wanted out so that he could become a big deal in the fundamentalist Christian world, or is angling for a big payday from a Japanese or French rugby club. He's potentially got a longer and more adoring career as a Bible thumper I would think, esp if he can break into the US Bible thumping circuit. He's hitting the right mark with attacking Catholics as idolators etc too. Though his crusade against Christmas and Easter probably has much more limited appeal, and wouldn't play well to the Fox News demographic who like to complain that it's the godless libruls who are at war with Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ARU sacking Folau is completely understandable, assuming the stuff about having his speech written into the contract is correct.

I'm seriously worried about this upcoming election - not so much that Labor will win (they probably deserve to, and I might even vote for them this time around - though my Reps vote means nothing, my Senate vote might), but ore worried that the minor parties such as One Nation will gain the balance of power or some other outsized influence. I want One Nation to die a painful death but I'm afraid they might get a good showing in this election. One assumes they'll pick up a few Senate seats, especially in Queensland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeor said:

One assumes they'll pick up a few Senate seats, especially in Queensland.

Probably, which really says something about the state of our government. They've been an unmitigated disaster, plunging from one crisis to another, infighting, resignations, Fraser Anning, and some very shady finances. Yet they still poll 5-10% of the national vote. Boggles the mind really.

Just hope Palmer doesn't pick up any seats with his latest ego project.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think, or at least hope, that ON will get multiple senate seats in any state - remember the last election was a double dissolution which made it a lot easier for minors to get in. In a regular election getting that first quota is doable, but its a lot harder to get that second. If they do it probably means ALP+GRN = 2 seats, LNP = 2 seats and ON = 2 seats since I doubt the LNP would plunge to only 1.

Palmer has been really pushing the bullshit advertising and I'm really getting sick of getting it on YT.

You're probably right to be worried though, much like 2013 there is a big amount of "Get rid of the current government" rather than the enthusiastic support for "Elect the opposition" that tends to translate into lower major party votes. I'm not going to hope for an ALP+GRN majority in the senate as the numbers for that aren't good, but hopefully the balance of power goes to someone a little more reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Nation managed to scrape a second seat in the NSW upper house...but the Lib Dems narrowly missed out! Good riddance to Leyonhjelm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 12:46 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess this is the right place for it, rather than the Rugby thread.

Freedom of speech says Israel Folau can say whatever he wants on whatever platforms will have him.

Except the concept of freedom of speech doesn't apply in this instance.

The implied freedom of political communication in Australia is limited to political discourse and criticism of govt.  Nothing Folau said fell within that category so he can be punished for his comments.  Of course, one might argue that religious belief IS political commentary, but the High Court chose not do so in the recent Abortion Protesters' Case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Stubby said:

Except the concept of freedom of speech doesn't apply in this instance.

The implied freedom of political communication in Australia is limited to political discourse and criticism of govt.  Nothing Folau said fell within that category so he can be punished for his comments.  Of course, one might argue that religious belief IS political commentary, but the High Court chose not do so in the recent Abortion Protesters' Case.

I've always thought freedom of speech is a slippery concept to deal with in the workplace. To me, a common sense test is that it has to do with whether your actions/words are related to the job you are doing. If someone worked for Greenpeace and publicly declared themselves to be a climate change denier, common sense says that Greenpeace would have a right to sack the person. Freedom of speech wouldn't seem to be a defence because what they've said is related to their job performance.

Re: the Israel Folau business, I could see how someone could say that Folau's comments are related to his job (being a role model, code of conduct etc) and hence he should be sacked, but I could also see how someone could say his comments are unrelated to his job as a rugby player and hence he shouldn't suffer work-related consequences (or only be cautioned or disciplined, not sacked).

It all depends on how specific the code of conduct is and whether or not he had anything written into his contract about it (which the latest media seems to be reporting that he didn't have that social media clause after all). I guess the upcoming code of conduct hearing will give us more detail.

Apparently the ARU could be in a bit of strife as they made public statements saying he'd be sacked before the hearing has even taken place, which sounds like the textbook definition of prejudicial. I also wonder if the speed with which they publicly made the decision to sack him (24 hours after the social media post) had anything to do with the Qantas Wallabies wanting to please their corporate sponsor Alan Joyce.

A reasonable compromise might be a fine, censure or some sanction short of sacking him, and an apology from Folau (though that might be hard to coerce out of him!).

I'm not a legal mind so Stubby will have much better insight into this!

Edited by Jeor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine any decent code of conduct will have clauses about bringing the game / ARU / team into disrepute. But the question is whether the ARU can successfully argue that Folau brought the game into disrepute.

It'll be pretty hard to define what religious beliefs a player can and can't espouse publicly. Outside of statements that incite or encourage criminal behaviour all statements about one's religious [un]beliefs will be opposed by some members of society, so any religious proclamation could be regarded as offensive by someone.

What was the abortion protest case about (too lazy to Google it)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I imagine any decent code of conduct will have clauses about bringing the game / ARU / team into disrepute. But the question is whether the ARU can successfully argue that Folau brought the game into disrepute.

It'll be pretty hard to define what religious beliefs a player can and can't espouse publicly. Outside of statements that incite or encourage criminal behaviour all statements about one's religious [un]beliefs will be opposed by some members of society, so any religious proclamation could be regarded as offensive by someone.

What was the abortion protest case about (too lazy to Google it)?

Tasmania and Victoria recently passed legislation limiting protesters outside clinics to no closer than 150 metres from the entrance.  Two protesters were arrested and convicted for violating the distance.  One was from Victoria and the other was from Tasmania.  Both took their convictions through all the lower courts all the way to the High Court, arguing that the statutory provisions setting up the offences were unconstitutional in that they infringed free speech, among other things.  The HCA decided that the statutes did not breach the Constitution.  The convictions were upheld.

Contained in the reasons was the following explanation of the implied right to freedom of political communication:

"It is well settled that the implied freedom is a limitation upon the power of government to regulate communication relating to matters of government and politics.  It does not confer a right to communicate a particular message in a particular way.  The common law right to protest or demonstrate may be abrogated by statute."

Here is a link to the decision.

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11

 

Edited by Stubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Though superficially it doesn't seem like that protesting case has direct relevance to the Folau situation. After all, no one seems to be suggesting that Folau's tweet / instagram post (??) should be censored. The only suggestion is that he should lose his job playing Rugby in Australia for it. This basically amounts to an employment dispute concerning unacceptable conduct according to contractual conditions. So it's contract law not human rights law I guess.

The one way the protest case might come into play is if according to the contract / code of conduct conditions the ARU can sack Folau, but Folau then wants to challenge the legality of that contract / code of conduct condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Interesting. Though superficially it doesn't seem like that protesting case has direct relevance to the Folau situation. After all, no one seems to be suggesting that Folau's tweet / instagram post (??) should be censored. The only suggestion is that he should lose his job playing Rugby in Australia for it. This basically amounts to an employment dispute concerning unacceptable conduct according to contractual conditions. So it's contract law not human rights law I guess.

The one way the protest case might come into play is if according to the contract / code of conduct conditions the ARU can sack Folau, but Folau then wants to challenge the legality of that contract / code of conduct condition.

It's Constitutional Law, which affects everything, not just contract or human rights in isolated positions.

"The implied freedom protects the exercise by the people of the Commonwealth of a free and informed choice as electors. A discussion between individuals of the moral or ethical choices to be made by a particular individual is not to be equated with discussion of the political choices to be made by the people of the Commonwealth as the sovereign political authority. That is so even where the choice to be made by a particular individual may be politically controversial." @ [29].

Extrapolating the HCA view reveals that Folau is not protected by freedom of speech on this issue.  He will have to face the consequences of expressing his opinion in public, and cannot rely on a freedom of speech defence.
 

Edited by Stubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×