AFL Overkill

[The_Dud]

Why do some people think every caucasian person is wealthy and privileged?
f****** ridiculous notion that is so far from the truth it is ridiculous.

‘White privilege’ has nothing to do with wealth.

Probably best to understand a subject before going off on rants about it.

White privilege is a term dreamed up by people who are not white to insult and denigrate those who are white imhfo, that is.

And it is a bulls*** term.

It’s not an insult.

It’s just stating a fact that in Australia (like most western societies) life is made more challenging for ‘non white’ people purely because of their appearance.

It’s trying to help you empathise.

Are you going to try tell us next that racism doesn’t exist?

Of course it's a f****** insult. We are all a little racist.

If you take it as an insult that’s on you, doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

I can’t think of one time in my entire life where I was discriminated against because I’m white. I bet I wouldn’t be saying that if I was not white.

You yourself are discriminating on this forum to others because they are white, have certain views and have reached a certain age. to me your views are racist and ageist.

You are not nice dudley.

Please show where I have discriminated against you for those reasons?

I disagree with your opinions purely based on what they are. Your skin colour, gender and age was just one way I was trying to understand how you came to those opinions.

[The_Dud]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

[saynta]

Why do some people think every caucasian person is wealthy and privileged?
f****** ridiculous notion that is so far from the truth it is ridiculous.

‘White privilege’ has nothing to do with wealth.

Probably best to understand a subject before going off on rants about it.

White privilege is a term dreamed up by people who are not white to insult and denigrate those who are white imhfo, that is.

And it is a bulls*** term.

It’s not an insult.

It’s just stating a fact that in Australia (like most western societies) life is made more challenging for ‘non white’ people purely because of their appearance.

It’s trying to help you empathise.

Are you going to try tell us next that racism doesn’t exist?

Of course it's a f****** insult. We are all a little racist.

If you take it as an insult that’s on you, doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

I can’t think of one time in my entire life where I was discriminated against because I’m white. I bet I wouldn’t be saying that if I was not white.

You yourself are discriminating on this forum to others because they are white, have certain views and have reached a certain age. to me your views are racist and ageist.

You are not nice dudley.

Please show where I have discriminated against you for those reasons?

I disagree with your opinions purely based on what they are. Your skin colour, gender and age was just one way I was trying to understand how you came to those opinions.

Well, that's just confirmation that your views are ageist and racist. Shame you can't recognize your own failings. Nothing wrong with my views of the world imho . They are shared by millions in what is sometimes referred to as the silent majority.

[Enrico_Misso]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

[saynta]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

[The_Dud]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

[saynta]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

[The_Dud]

Why do some people think every caucasian person is wealthy and privileged?
f****** ridiculous notion that is so far from the truth it is ridiculous.

‘White privilege’ has nothing to do with wealth.

Probably best to understand a subject before going off on rants about it.

White privilege is a term dreamed up by people who are not white to insult and denigrate those who are white imhfo, that is.

And it is a bulls*** term.

It’s not an insult.

It’s just stating a fact that in Australia (like most western societies) life is made more challenging for ‘non white’ people purely because of their appearance.

It’s trying to help you empathise.

Are you going to try tell us next that racism doesn’t exist?

Of course it's a f****** insult. We are all a little racist.

If you take it as an insult that’s on you, doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

I can’t think of one time in my entire life where I was discriminated against because I’m white. I bet I wouldn’t be saying that if I was not white.

You yourself are discriminating on this forum to others because they are white, have certain views and have reached a certain age. to me your views are racist and ageist.

You are not nice dudley.

Please show where I have discriminated against you for those reasons?

I disagree with your opinions purely based on what they are. Your skin colour, gender and age was just one way I was trying to understand how you came to those opinions.

Well, that's just confirmation that your views are ageist and racist. Shame you can't recognize your own failings. Nothing wrong with my views of the world imho . They are shared by millions in what is sometimes referred to as the silent majority.

Well lucky for us that so called ‘silent majority’ is literally dying off

And I apologise if that joke wasn’t ‘PC’ enough for you

[The_Dud]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Again... you both clearly don’t understand what it means, yet it upsets you so much?

Please refer to the post I wrote to Ted

[The_Dud]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

If I post something that contradicts my employer on social media I will get in trouble because I signed the social media policy when I started my job.

Religion isn’t an excuse. It’s purely about the contract.

[saynta]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

Making up our own definitions now dudley are we?

Here's the real definition.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


Doesn't happen in this country and the nearest I have encountered is what one would call maybe brown privilege in Malaysia where brown people are privileged over Chinese for jobs etc.

Things are a bit the reverse here these days when quotas for the numbers of women and indigenous employees are introduced.

You should get out from behind your keyboard a bit more dudley.

[BarryGrogan]

What’s the feeling on Folau’s freedom of speech?

He has freedom of speech.

He's free to say what he's saying. It's just that some people think he's a prick for saying it.

Yep. He’s lost his job over it.

So an employer now decides what an employee can and cannot believe and can and cannot say. This will be an interesting precedent in the high court

He breached his contract didn't he? I thought that was why he lost his job

[saynta]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Again... you both clearly don’t understand what it means, yet it upsets you so much?

Please refer to the post I wrote to Ted

Once more you are clearly arse about but why should we be surprised. You use terms you clearly don't understand, then accuse others of not understanding the term.

[bigcarl]

What’s the feeling on Folau’s freedom of speech?

He has freedom of speech.

He's free to say what he's saying. It's just that some people think he's a prick for saying it.

Yep. He’s lost his job over it.

So an employer now decides what an employee can and cannot believe and can and cannot say. This will be an interesting precedent in the high court

He breached his contract didn't he? I thought that was why he lost his job

No. In fact he did not. There was nothing in writing about it and I’m not sure that a contract with such a clause would stand up legally anyway. You should read up on it. An important debate.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Nope, according to Dudley, all caucasians sit in super boxes at the footy and drink lattes at Brighton beach every morning.

[saynta]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Nope, according to Dudley, all caucasians sit in super boxes at the footy and drink lattes at Brighton beach every morning.

And he can't understand why anyone would get upset having that label attached to them.

It implies that a person is given something that they are not entitled to merely because of the colour of their skin.

[amusingname]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

[saynta]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

They have banned him from playing Union,his normal occupation. So I believe that it is an issue.

[freely]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

Making up our own definitions now dudley are we?

Here's the real definition.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


Doesn't happen in this country and the nearest I have encountered is what one would call maybe brown privilege in Malaysia where brown people are privileged over Chinese for jobs etc.

Things are a bit the reverse here these days when quotas for the numbers of women and indigenous employees are introduced.

You should get out from behind your keyboard a bit more dudley.

Are all whites men, saynta? Or are you getting your privileges mixed up?

[freely]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

It was a specific requirement in his contract of employment, I believe. He's tweeted similar things before - that's why it was put into his contract this time.

[The_Dud]

No. You tell me what it means. Don't weasel out of what your high school teacher obviously instilled in you or what your internet education taught you.

White privilege means your skin colour has never been detrimental to you achieving success in life.

It’s not saying you don’t have to work hard, it’s not saying minorities can’t achieve success, it’s not saying you’re rich or poor, it’s not saying anything is handed to you for nothing.

Making up our own definitions now dudley are we?

Here's the real definition.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


Doesn't happen in this country and the nearest I have encountered is what one would call maybe brown privilege in Malaysia where brown people are privileged over Chinese for jobs etc.

Things are a bit the reverse here these days when quotas for the numbers of women and indigenous employees are introduced.

You should get out from behind your keyboard a bit more dudley.

That’s exactly what I said, just in different words. If everything else is equal, it is an advantage to be white rather than black as there are less roadblocks in the way.

You can remain wilfully ignorant if you like, I hate to say it but that’s a stereotype you’re happy to live up to.

If you think there is no racism in the country and brown/black people have no disadvantages over white people then it shows how out of touch you are with minorities and what kind of echo chamber you live in.

[The_Dud]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

They have banned him from playing Union,his normal occupation. So I believe that it is an issue.

Is it Union, League or AFL.

And he is not banned from playing, he is free to go overseas and play, like many rugby players do.

[The_Dud]

I must cheer up those people sleeping rough near the Yarra by telling them that they are the fortunate beneficiaries of "white privilege".

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the 30% of aussies living below the poverty line.

Nope, according to Dudley, all caucasians sit in super boxes at the footy and drink lattes at Brighton beach every morning.

And he can't understand why anyone would get upset having that label attached to them.

It implies that a person is given something that they are not entitled to merely because of the colour of their skin.

No, it’s not.

It implies something wasn’t denied to you because of your colour of skin.

Not hard to understand, and not insulting, just the truth.

How ironic that you love to play the victim, while denying minorities have any disadvantages in this country.

[amusingname]

He’s taking it to the high court and he will win imo in a decision that will have important ramifications for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a democracy.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe homosexuals are going to hell. But I support Izzy’s right to have and express that opinion.

No one is telling him he can’t practice his religion. The government isn’t throwing him in jail for what he’s saying.

I think the court will uphold the decision.

Once again, I believe you are wrong. On a contractual basis, they might, just might uphold the thugby guys, but on a restraint of trade, or freedom of the right to hold a religious belief question
, there is little chance of a victory to the oppressors.

It is pretty much a contractual argument though, restraint of trade doesn't factor into it as sports contracts and organisations are held to a different threshold than usual employers on that front as it is a job that by its nature is restrictive, as selection for teams is based on unusual factors such as form, team balance, etc. If the same rules of restraint of trade were applied across all industries, sports organisations would basically have to have true free agency where players wouldn't need to be traded or abide by any drafting rules really.

Freedom of religious expression is really the only contentious point I believe, Rugby Australia would seek to continue to rely on the evidence of his numerous past Instagram postings where he promoted or displayed his religious beliefs not being sanctioned and it has only been when he has violated the general code of conduct for its employees that they have taken action.

It was a specific requirement in his contract of employment, I believe. He's tweeted similar things before - that's why it was put into his contract this time.

Some conjecture on that apparently, he was warned previously but if that was written in to the contract seems to be unclear. They have the general code of conduct which could be interpreted to cover it anyway. I think he is facing an uphill battle as despite what he and others want to believe, it is a contractual issue and not some huge free speech issue. He and his supporters don’t want free speech, they want consequence free speech.

[BarryGrogan]

What’s the feeling on Folau’s freedom of speech?

He has freedom of speech.

He's free to say what he's saying. It's just that some people think he's a prick for saying it.

Yep. He’s lost his job over it.

So an employer now decides what an employee can and cannot believe and can and cannot say. This will be an interesting precedent in the high court

He breached his contract didn't he? I thought that was why he lost his job

No. In fact he did not. There was nothing in writing about it and I’m not sure that a contract with such a clause would stand up legally anyway. You should read up on it. An important debate.

So he has no clauses regarding behaviour in his employment contract?? That seems really strange.


I've never worked anywhere that was not very clear on me not being able to certain things and behave in certain ways.

And I've never employed someone where it wasnt clear in thrir contract that they couldn't behave in certain ways.

Pissing off a huge chunk of a business' customers or clients by slagging off their sexuality is clearly not going to be tolerated.


I don't actually think it's an important issue at all. Being an arsehole to people by saying offensive and hurtful things has always been frowned upon.

Falou can still believe what he wants, and say what he believes. He's just being called out for it.