Mal Cochrane
I'm not really Mal Cochrane...
What's the story after all that, are we pissing these guys off asap, or won't we be?
Get them out of the club asap
- Thread starter ricardo
- Start date
I have addressed the point about freedom directly with you (and others) numerous times and I haven't seen you address it yet (though perhaps I missed it?). So, let me make this point once more and offer you the chance to respond in case you over-looked it.
Nobody has had their personal individual freedom curtailed, nor is anybody asking to block anybody's freedom. What we are discussing here (or one of the issues) is the impact of how certain individuals have chosen/choose to express themselves (freely) and how we feel about that/respond as a society. These are the consequences of our free expression... just as every time I express myself here on this forum (freely) I will get certain reactions from different fellow posters. They are the consequences of my choices (what I choose to write).
There is no such thing as "personal freedom" without responsibility (i.e.; I acknowledge this was my choice) and consequences to that choice. Without responsibility and consequences we would have no society, and that is counter to our neurology and physiology as human beings. If I started writing here, for example, graphic paedophilic fantasies (individual freedom), there will be certain responses to that (consequences). Given the social expectations and standards, I would expect there would be a severe condemnation towards that expression and all sorts of consequences from banning to police follow up. Consequences to that free expression.
So, to summarise... what we are debating here is not about stopping people's personal freedom. This debate is about what is appropriate individual expression in the context of living in our society at this time and place in history. If I have misunderstood what you mean by "personal freedoms" please clarify it for me. I'd be interested to hear exactly what you think of when you talk about free individual expression. It sounds to me like you are suggesting all individuals should be able to say or do whatever they please without consequences? I could be wrong and that's why I'm asking for clarification. Cheers.
And that's all that was required. I know its been a tough year and I have been infuriated and frustrated like most. I still cannot accept that for the any reason a group of players should be permitted to simply boycott a game just because they didn't like the message the jersey conveyed. I don't expect the broadcasters who pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the NRL would be pleased about that and will seek that the NRL ensure that it doesn't happen again.
It's pretty simple really. We're here because we follow a football team. Not here because we're interested in peoples cultural background, gang affiliation, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, what geographic or demographic or whether they prefer Pepsi or coke. By all means support your mates, your religion , your culture or whatever but as a supporter we just want to see them play football and win games and not have the club dragged through rhe media mud every week because of it. Seems that ideal has long gone replaced by the constant need to virtue signal.
This is outrageous. Now Jason King is a petticoat wearing commie imposing his will, just like Abdo and Vlandys.
What about the personal freedoms, the individual freedoms of Haumole & Co to express themselves? Pill I hope you will follow through with this, this overreach by employers must be stopped! Maybe contact Izzie and Clive Palmer to get the crowd sourcing underway? This could go all the way to the High Court!
Red Pill
Enthusiastic Amateur
I honestly do not recall debating this specific point with you however it may been captured amongst other points. I don’t see posting on this site as effectively debating just individuals posting opinions both subjectively and objectively and all hopefully having fun in the process🙂
I am a little surprised you are putting this seemingly narrow question to me. Unless it’s for sake of banter, but I suspect not. I am not taking this personally by the way 🙂 I think it’s ridiculous to suggest there is no consequences to freedom of expression. The question is whether it’s within the scope of the law, constitution or international conventions we have as a country subscribed too.
Look at the Israel Folau saga. His employer fired him for expressing himself and it was challenged. He was apparently effectively paid out and apparently it nearly sent Rugby Australia broke.. at a bare minimum this case is contentious… if we are debating I guess it is in the space in which this case lies… but even to lesser a degree. Apologies I have rushed this but can come later if you are really interested or still not sure what I am trying to say.
47MVEagle
Bencher
Well from my perspective, you've been continually talking about the right to freedom without seemingly acknowledging the consequences of that - or even implying there should be no consequences - until your post above.
Red Pill
Enthusiastic Amateur
Yeah the story says this. “ Manly Sea Eagles and NZ Warriors players have reportedly been warned against using their platform in the sport to pay homage to jailed friends.” Reportedly must be a magical word…
I know you are a left lefty mate and good luck to you it is a free world as long as you do not have all your way…. I remember your post about Whitlam it really made me laugh about how unjustly he had been treated etc. 🙂 now get back on that broomstick of yours.
Red Pill
Enthusiastic Amateur
Cool. In respect to banter. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges by the way my feathered friend.
This just gets funnier and funnier. So now you rely on the logical possibility that the report is incorrect? Like Descartes, who wasn't sure of anything excxept his own existence, it appears doubt is your go-to thought.
Like, the rebel 7 might be totally accepting and welcoming to gays, you argued, its only that they didn't feel comfortable to celebrate them by wearing that jersey. Sure. OK.
Hey I bet Manase wishes he had one or 2 like you on his jury!
I’m with you I gotta say.
Although it’s probably not a storm on a tea cup.
It’s been interesting reading on here this last week or so.
I just want to watch football and have a successful team.
Whether they are gay , bi sexual , black , white , yellow ( green ) , religious , atheists , Labor supporters, One Nation supporters , like a drink ( or not ), drink tea and no coffee , wear pink socks , have “ god is great “ tattooed on their arm or anything else really isn’t my concern.
If they turn up to training , play hard ( win more games than they lose ) I’ll be happy.
I don’t follow any players on social media , what they do in their own private time shouldn’t be my concern.
I know this view won’t sit well with a few of you , but it is what it is.
PS: if the NRL choose to take on these issues and come down hard on players as a result that’s their role and as they pay them that’s their right.
Exactly Mark.
Exactly my sentiments since all this bull crap started up from the club a month ago.
Maroon and White unites everyone, we are here to support a winning footy club, not an organisation to make the woke feel warm and fuzzy.
47MVEagle
Bencher
Um, I think the matter of Fainu being found guilty of stabbing someone was a fairly serious event & has resulted in polarising peoples opinions (quite rightly) & can't simply be refferred to/written off as "bull crap".
Dearie dearie dearie ...
you really need to get a grip ... have your group think masters explain the difference between an attempt to force players to wear a jersey which is against their religious or cultural beliefs ... and players using foxtel and Chn 9 as vehicles to promote violent gang signs whilst wearing their employers logo's ..
In the first , Lee Hagipantelis, the head of Bryden's Lawyers, someone who as a major spnsor of West Tigers would be very experienced and knowlegeable about footy contracts ... said
“On the other hand, the boys have objected on cultural or religious grounds. Now there are numerous pieces of anti-discrimination legislation which provide that you can not discriminate against someone on the basis of their cultural or religious beliefs.
“If these boys are stood down or they refuse to play themselves, they cannot be compromised or prejudiced so far as their employment is concerned otherwise that would be clearly unlawful.”
In the 2nd, well, the flashing of violent gang signs on telly whilst playing in the NRL should be obvious ....
... but I suppose you need to get your guidance from your ideological masters ..
Okay completely ignore everything I said, pick and choose and take comments out of context.
I was replying to Mark and agreeing with his sentiments, didn’t have anything to do with the Fainu case.
Thanks for the response, Red.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe any individual expression is OK as long as it is within the law? I personally don't agree with a legalistic perspective, though I accept law is a factor that should be considered for practical implications. I respect this is what you consider as important.
The reason I have trouble with this view is that laws do not always reflect our sense of right and wrong at certain times. As an example, look at the practice of hiking medicine prices for profit. The well-known example being the hike of the 67 year old anti-parasitic drug, Daraprim, from $13.50/tablet to $750/tablet overnight by Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals. And this is not an isolated case as there have been other similar practices. Was it legal? Yep. Are you willing to sit by and accept that just because it is legal? If you (or somebody close to you) were a cancer patient needing that treatment and didn't have full coverage, I'm sure you would be screaming out loud at the unfairness and injustice of it. Who knows, you may even be moved enough to take action and lobby for change.
So, I guess some on here (myself included) are responding based on a sense of morals, whereas you are basing your view on laws. I can see where the difference of opinion is and conflict generated. Yes, I believe it's helpful and important to be aware of the laws, but I certainly don't think we should accept things as being right just because of the laws around it.
So, how did the action of the 7 unite everyone and support a winning footy club? It's not the posters on here that is dividing the footy team.
Ron E. Gibbs
First Grader
Woodsie, if you want to take legal advice from Lee Hagipantelis, that's your prerogative. But this was never a legal issue and the players you are referring to were never discriminated against. They objected to wearing a jersey and they didn't play because of that. Nobody ever tried to compel them to do anything.
To date, the refusal to wear a jersey constitutes the entirety of the "Manly 7"'s cultural/religious/political manifesto. They have said precisely nothing. In fact, I'm not even sure if they ever said, "We object to wearing that jersey on cultural and religious grounds".
But sure, let's accept that their refusal to wear a jersey for 80 minutes and play a game of rugby league was indeed a bold and brave example of the right to free speech and cultural and/or religious expression. What happened to them after that? Nothing.
They were not penalised, punished or treated differently in any way. Sure, numbnuts in the press and on sites like this one disagreed with their action and the belief that action strongly implied (ie, a rainbow jersey represents gay people, and I don't want to represent gay people because - according to my cultural/religious belief system - gay people should not be included in rugby league or society as a whole because they're not "normal" and are in fact wicked and bad). Some of the numbnuts, myself included, may have even said mean and hurtful things about the players' lack of character and questioned their commitment to their team and teammates on top of questioning their adherence to said cultural and religious beliefs. But that's what happens when you exercise your right to free speech - people have the right to express their own beliefs and opinions in return.
That is how a free society is supposed to function. Yes, we all have the right to spout as much bull**** as we want. But if you want to spout bull****, don't expect that people won't call you on it.
In summary: Hooray! The system works!
Now can we please get back to winning games of rugby league?
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
