NRL Player Punished for Political Speech

Vote for Pedro on 15/09/2022 - 20:47
Last edited 16/09/2022 - 10:16

Caitlan Moran posted "Today's a good fkn day. uncle Luke [Combs] announces his tour and this dumb dog [the Queen] dies. Happy fkn Friday," on her Instagram last week before deleting the post.

Moran was given a one-match ban and fined 25 per cent of her salary, with the fine suspended for a year in lieu of a further breach of the NRL's Code of Conduct.

Is this an attack on free speech?

How do people feel about the suspension?

Edit: apologies. I think I just confused things by adding the free speech line

Poll Options

  • 472
    I support the suspension
  • 125
    I think the suspension is outrageous
Sports & Outdoors Rugby League

Comments

                • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2022 - 10:50

                  @Vote for Pedro: Her race is entirely relevant to an anti monarchy sentiment. For good reason.

              • CocaKoala on 17/09/2022 - 13:14
                +1

                @brendanm: News websites will sell their own mother to the Somali pirates if it gives them a few hundred clicks.

          • SlickMick on 16/09/2022 - 11:52

            @brendanm: lol. no prejudices in this post /s

      • spackbace on 16/09/2022 - 10:55
        +1

        Uhhh…. She did get banned and fined.

        I was asking OP why we need a forum post about her

        I'll repeat, bans etc like this have been going on for decades when players say/do something that brings their clubs to ill repute. What's so special about this instance in particular?

        • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 11:46

          Why not discuss it? Isn’t that the point of forums.

          If you don’t like the topic, you are welcome to move right along

          • spackbace on 16/09/2022 - 11:53

            @Vote for Pedro: But why is this case, in particular, so significant to discuss?

            • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 20:08
              +1

              @spackbace: Why shouldn’t it be?

              • spackbace on 16/09/2022 - 20:13
                +1

                @Vote for Pedro: Because it's no different to every other case like this before it

                Why did you feel the need to discuss this one?

                Eg:
                https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/ufc-star-ban…

                Banned from Twitter, not from the sport

                That seems more of a talking point

                Or was the point of this post more because there was no religious angle?

                • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 20:27

                  @spackbace: You’re hunting for something that’s not there.

                  However, if you want to create a discussion about that topic, you should.

                  Perhaps you should just be direct and tell us what you’re thinking instead of beating around the bush

  • loropy9 on 15/09/2022 - 22:44
    -1

    You can't call the queen a dumb dog. She's not Putin or Trump. She was much much nicer.

    • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 10:24
      -6

      Though, why not. Who decides?

    • leelemon on 25/09/2022 - 15:18

      yes, she was everyone's favourite paedophile protecting, income hiding, bill suppressing grandmother of our nation. Long live the monarchy!

  • AustriaBargain on 16/09/2022 - 00:12
    +15

    She was the Queen of Australia and we were all her subjects. It'd be different if the royal family wasn't just ceremonial with absolutely no influence on Australia at all other than diplomatic roles perhaps.

    I think a big problem is that people aren't actually aware that she was our sovereign. It's not really taught or thought about. Plus indigenous people have a lot of negative feelings regarding the monarchy and they are right to have those feelings, the "system" wronged them big time. Elizabeth II never really outright apologised for how indigenous populations were and are treated, Charles III won't either. William V surely will after Charles III dies.

    Another thing that people don't really understand is that basis of our law, "The Crown", doesn't represent Elizabeth II or Charles III. Rather, Elizabeth II represented "The Crown". The royal family is just a manifestation of our law, a kind of surreal corporeal representation of our legal system. The royals shouldn't really need to exist, and the concept of "The Crown" shouldn't need to exist, but our entire system of law makes no sense without them. And the alternative of being a republic isn't any better because Australian government is corrupt af, having "The Crown" be an abstract concept that is removed from corrupt Australian society is actually a good thing. It gives our laws a perverse kind of meaning that they wouldn't otherwise have, perverse because the royal family is just regular people in funny costumes at the end of the day. But the system they represent is so much more than anything any real person could ever faithfully represent anyway.

    • Kayrhcp on 16/09/2022 - 08:11

      Well said

    • HelpMeiCantSee on 16/09/2022 - 09:03
      +4

      Spot on! At the end of the day, with the current crop of “politicians” available, I’m not sure it’s the right time to move away from the inherent stability we currently enjoy, even if it’s kind of just a smokescreen.

      We need to fix the current cesspit before we go attacking the foundations. A house on unstable soil will need constant repair.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2022 - 10:51

        Inherent stability? How many of our last 10 pms have seen a full term, sport.

        • HelpMeiCantSee on 18/09/2022 - 10:57
          -1

          I keep forgetting communism is good, my bad, sport.

          • [Deactivated] on 18/09/2022 - 12:49

            @HelpMeiCantSee: Jesus christ, eat that chip on your shoulder before it crushes you champ.

            Answer the question.

            • HelpMeiCantSee on 19/09/2022 - 10:39

              @[Deactivated]: Nah. The attitude disengaged me, sorry sport.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/09/2022 - 11:16

                @HelpMeiCantSee: Answer the question, coward.

                Excuses are weak.

                • HelpMeiCantSee on 19/09/2022 - 11:49

                  @[Deactivated]: I’m good thanks. Not into discourse with self righteous faux intellectuals, sport.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/09/2022 - 21:59

                    @HelpMeiCantSee: Your type do like to back right out of it when you're forced to confront your bullshit.

                    Blocked now, I got the last word, I know that'll hurt.

    • tharlow on 16/09/2022 - 15:23

      Trial by media is so much more satisfying than innocent until proven guilty

      • AustriaBargain on 16/09/2022 - 15:40
        +2

        Trial by media is so much more satisfying than innocent until proven guilty

        Yeah, the royal family would know nothing about what that's like 🧐. It's kind of a good thing, basically keeps them under our collective thumb. The whole situation is really bizarre and it's best not to think too much about it. Being in the royal family must feel kind of like being a prisoner. Like being born at and living your whole life at Disneyworld, except not as a guest but as a costumed performer with the whole world media constantly grading your performance.

        As for the NRL player, they should be given the chance to apologise. He'd be upset if someone said something like that about about Uncle Jack or whatever. And he can probably explain his reasons why indigenous people might not be big fans of the same family that shaped their whole world and way of life. Charles III should have some pressure put on him to answer for what Indigenous people experienced as a result of Empire worldwide.

  • tsunamisurfer on 16/09/2022 - 00:32
    +15

    I wonder what the reaction is if a white person where to call Uncle Jack Charles a dumb dog as well?

    • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 08:10
      -5

      I guess this is more a question of whether we support cancel culture. Wanting to cancel people for their beliefs or opinions

      • brendanm on 16/09/2022 - 10:11

        For most ozbargainers, this will vary depending on what's being said.

      • ensanguined on 16/09/2022 - 12:49
        +2

        How would that then require a discussion of cancel culture lol? Is 'dumb dog' a joke made years ago that was tolerated then but isn't now or something? Man, you are so obviously biased that it's insane.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2022 - 10:52

        Answer the question, coward.

      • unfinishedsentenc on 18/09/2022 - 17:13

        Answer the question, coward.

    • 82norm on 16/09/2022 - 13:28

      Complete uproar, racist, yada, yada, ostracised….

  • morse on 16/09/2022 - 02:53
    +7

    Rejoicing in someone’s death should be reserved for really bad people, which by most accounts the Queen wasn’t.

    I completely understand that for many people in Australia and across the world the Queen was a figure head for colonialism and associated with past wrongs and trauma that still have an impact today. So it’s a difficult time for those people.

    As for Caitlin Moran she seems young and impulsive and did the wrong thing. The match ban seems reasonable and in keeping with the NRLs expectations for public player conduct. The fine seems a bit steep to me and may not be in line with fair work principles - though she knew the expectations of the role and that fines could be given when she signed up.

    • Willy Beamish on 17/09/2022 - 19:09

      dont you love when the leftards preach tolerance and acceptance and they are the only ones celebrating her death and encouraging more of the same on others.

  • Fredfloresjr on 16/09/2022 - 06:04
    +1

    Insensitive bloka.

    Should’ve been 100 games.

  • vikvance on 16/09/2022 - 06:43
    +3

    Moran was given a one-match ban and fined 25 per cent of her salary, with the fine suspended for a year

    Total slap on the wrist.

    Compare this with Israel Folau's life ban for quoting scripture on homosexuality.

    Moran should also have received a life ban.

    • morse on 16/09/2022 - 06:48
      +9

      Folau refused to take his down, Moran took hers down. She also has to do education as a condition of staying. She should also apologise though.

      • surg3on on 16/09/2022 - 11:19

        Exactly not even in the same league as Folaus crap.

    • peppet on 16/09/2022 - 06:49
      +7

      Saying something bad about one person = saying something bad about an entire demographic of people?

      • cookie2 on 16/09/2022 - 07:40
        +5

        Stating a religious belief and being persecuted for it vs being an a-hole and attacking someone who has just died. Very different to me. She's being treated favourably and he was treated badly.

        • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 08:12
          -3

          So who chooses what’s right and wrong? You?

          Wasn’t folau promoting that lgbtiq people should ho to hell? In his belief, hell is the worst that could happen to a person.

          We either allow people their views or not. It’s not your or my prejudices that should dictate one person should be able to and another shouldn’t

          • Benoffie on 16/09/2022 - 09:41
            +1

            @Vote for Pedro: Religious beliefs is a protected class in Australia. Lack of social etiquette is not.

            Further, stating LGBT people would go to hell isnt some sort of condemnation. Its a fact rooted in religious belief (most religions actually).

            Have no knowledge of the intent but more likely it was an attempt to save their souls, which, seen in that light, is positive.

            • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 09:43
              -4

              @Benoffie: Lolololololololololol

              So basically you condemn anyone that doesn’t agree with your world view.

          • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 09:46
            +3

            @Vote for Pedro:

            Wasn’t folau promoting that lgbtiq people should ho to hell?

            No, he was quoting Scripture. Verses that basically saying anyone who doesn't repent will go to Hell. But, to no one's surprise the lgb community got all triggered.

            I doubt they would care at all if he said Mordor instead of Hell.

            • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 09:47
              +1

              @ozhunter: Quoting your imaginary book is no different to me quoting my imaginary book. If it’s offensive, it’s offensive, wouldn’t you agree?

              • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 09:56

                @Vote for Pedro: Religious books =/= any other book. I don't have no issue you quoting other religious books. Can't think of any non-religious ones that I'd personally mind either.

                So basically you condemn anyone that doesn’t agree with your world view.

                He's not condemning them lol, he's saying what he thinks happens after they pass away.

                Post is still up, even instagram didn't take it down for "hate speech" https://www.instagram.com/p/BwEWt2uHcLI/?utm_source=ig_embed…

                • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 10:27
                  +2

                  @ozhunter: So, I invent a religion and that gives me a right to quote from my scriptures to spread whatever hatred I want? That makes it ok?

                  • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 23:36
                    +1

                    @Vote for Pedro: Dunno about inventing, but sure don't have an issue if you quote any of the religions before Australia was formed.

                    What was the hateful part in Folau's post? If anything, it's because he cares for them.

                    Out of curiosity, what do you think would be an equivalent post? Something like, "Those who eat meat, fish, eggs and those who wear fur will end up in Hell unless you stop and turn from your ways?" A reasonable person would ask for proof and then choose whether to believe you or not instead of having a cry about how everyone hates them.

            • peppet on 16/09/2022 - 12:40
              +1

              @ozhunter: He can quote whatever he wants to himself. He was preaching to others, trying to get others to change, equating LGBT people to criminals, trying to get his message heard - for a reason "stop being gay or you'll go to hell, being gay is wrong, your natural existence is wrong, change yourself to suit my god and it will save you from hell". That's not cool no matter who or what he's talking about. Sexual orientation is also protected, for a very important reason.

              This woman just said something nasty about the Queen because of her endorsement of a regime that caused harm to her people. The words she used were not appropriate to her job, but these are two extremely different things.

              • Juice-Wa on 16/09/2022 - 14:26
                +2

                @peppet: To quote the post "Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulters, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters Hell awaits you repent only Jesus saves"

                Pretty sure only two of those would be considered criminals. The rest? Pretty regular behaviors in society… The post says they all receive equal eternal punishment, to go to a place believed to exist by many religious groups. So why get offended about being told you're going to a place you don't believe to exist???

                • peppet on 16/09/2022 - 14:33

                  @Juice-Wa: It wasn't just that one post. It was an array of behaviour that had one message - that people who disagree with his opinion on the word of Jesus or god are bad people and that they should cease to exist or face the consequences. Doesn't matter which religion you believe.

                  I don't want to delve further into this arguement but it's also quite hypocritical since he himself picks and chooses what to follow from the bible.

        • Kayrhcp on 16/09/2022 - 08:12
          +1

          Lmao

    • shaybisc on 16/09/2022 - 08:08
      +2

      Folau was given a warning with no sanction of any kind the first time.

  • bobbieb on 16/09/2022 - 06:58
    +22

    People often forget there's a difference between:

    • Having the right to free speech - which we don't technically have a constitutional right to in Australia anyhow.
    • Having protections from the consequences of your actions.

    Make a distasteful, virtue signalling public statement at an inappropriate time, expect others to exercise their right in ways that you may not like.

    • tharlow on 16/09/2022 - 15:26

      My favourite one is when they claim the First Amendment only applies to American citizens. LOL

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 07:26
    +8

    where was this push for 'free' speech when isral folau lost his job. A 1 match ban is nothing she should be hit with a season long or probably even thrown out like Folau was these comments are vile and unlike folau this has no mantra of Religious belief to defend it she is just a crap person imo.

    just because you a a 1st nations person doesnt give you a 'free pass' to be a s—t person - regardless of if you like the Queen or the monarchy someone has did show a bit of respect esp if you are in the public eye - imagine someone said this about a 1st nations elder the outrage that would happen from the 1st nations community and all over the media.

    a bunch of extremist left wingers have imo shown the rubbish kind of person they are with comments about the Queen right after she died Greens Leader Adam Bandt prime example.

    I personally support the republic but now is not the time to be 'political' it is a time for many people to morn

    • cookie2 on 16/09/2022 - 07:42

      Looks like favourable treatment.

    • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 08:16
      -1

      So you think folau shouldn’t have been banned but Moran should have gotten a bigger ban?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 09:21
        +3

        I think Folau should of coped a ban probably for a month and a fine - to completely terminate his contract only to 'pay him out' after it was insanely stupid and incredibly unfair

        Moran should be fined and given a season long bane imo her comments are indefensible

        Folau was at least in his Church, paraphrasing the bible - if you got an issue with what he said in church dont go into a Mosque when they are talking about homosexuals…

        My question to you is if you think what Moran said is 'free speech' where is the 'free speech' for Izzy - either both are allowed to say what they want (no punishment) or both are in breech of their contract in which a fine/suspension is necessary

        Izzy was treated too harsh Moran not harsh enough

        • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 09:44
          +6

          "Paraphrasing the bible" isn't a very good excuse when it also says that you shouldn't wear clothes of two different cloths and other silly things. It is clearly his own personal prejudice, nothing to do with the bible. Otherwise he would follow the other things it says.

          • ozhunter on 16/09/2022 - 09:58
            +1

            @Quantumcat:

            when it also says that you shouldn't wear clothes of two different cloths

            no one would get triggered like the lgb community if you posted that.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 09:59
            -1

            @Quantumcat:

            "Paraphrasing the bible" isn't a very good excuse when it also says that you shouldn't wear clothes of two different cloths and other silly things. It is clearly his own personal prejudice, nothing to do with the bible. Otherwise he would follow the other things it says.

            I dont disagree with you but there are laws you protect religious 'freedoms' that is why once again you can do to a mosques and they support stoning to death those that engaged in the acts of Adultery and homosexual sex.

            Unlike Pedro who says he wants consistency but is 'never consistent' the law is for everyone in this case this women has been given special treatment

            • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 10:16

              @Trying2SaveABuck:

              Unlike Pedro who says he wants consistency but is 'never consistent' the law is for everyone in this case this women has been given special treatment

              Unlike Folau she took down her post when asked so it is a bit different

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 10:18
                +1

                @Quantumcat:

                Unlike Folau she took down her post when asked so it is a bit different

                she said her comments publicly on a social forum not in her own time at her own comfort

                Folau was 'practising' his Religion 'in church' which he is 'allowed' to do by law - She was maliciously trying to hurt people with the comments she made there is a difference…..

                At least when we had the AFLW player who refused to put on the pride top you can understand where she is coming from, the comments made about the Queen had Malicious intent and came from a place of 'hatred'

                She is by far the worse out of the two and no unbiased person can defend what she said or did

                • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 10:20

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: He was maliciously hurting people too. He could practice his religion in the privacy of his home, or with his friends, or in his church. No excuse for saying nasty things to people no matter what you believe. Especially when your work contract says you can't as well.

                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 10:43

                    @Quantumcat:

                    No excuse for saying nasty things to people no matter what you believe. Especially when your work contract says you can't as well

                    once again he was 'paraphrasing' did you go to university do you understand the difference btw para-phrasing and original work?

                    I probably agree he deserved to be suspended because he was a roll model and/or fined but no one should lose there job over what they say outside of work.

                    Also he is 'allowed by law' to practice his religion and almost every major Religion speaks out against Adultery, homosexuality etc….. im sorry but your a bigot if you cant see the difference with Izzy and this case - this is much worse and the punishment is far-less severe

                    • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 11:47

                      @Trying2SaveABuck: You don't have to preach in public to practice your religion.

                      • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 12:35

                        @Quantumcat:

                        You don't have to preach in public to practice your religion.

                        no you dont but you are allowed too by law….once again you are a bigot to even make that comment.

                        That is on the same level as like you dont have you kiss your same sex partner in public to be gay.

                        • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 13:30

                          @Trying2SaveABuck:

                          no you dont but you are allowed too by law

                          The law has nothing to do with the work contract he signed.

                          The law doesn't prohibit being an (profanity) either, luckily for you

                          • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 13:32

                            @Quantumcat: The federal law over rules and contract by employee or employer why do you think Rugby paid Izzy off millions in settlement behind closed doors….

                            regardless there is no point fighting with a bigot

                            • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 13:34

                              @Trying2SaveABuck: That makes zero sense. The law also doesn't prohibit working for companies in competition with the one you're working for, yet work contracts can say you can't work a second job in those.

                              • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 13:35

                                @Quantumcat: no, it makes perfect sense but once again your just a bigot and dont want to accept that

                                • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 13:53

                                  @Trying2SaveABuck: You're saying that a work contract can't disallow anything that isn't prohibited by federal law. You're saying that makes sense?

                                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 14:24
                                    +1

                                    @Quantumcat: Im saying under the law your employer cannot discriminate against your Religion - ie you cannot tell a Jewish person they have to eat meat in there contract

                                    tell someone you cannot quote the bible, Quran, the Veda etc is Religious discrimination this it over rules a contract.

                                    In Izzy case he was sacked for quoting the bible this is illegal under federal law thus is why he was paid out millions

                                    • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 16:05

                                      @Trying2SaveABuck: 🤦‍♀️ he has the choice to practice his religion in private. If he wanted to preach in public then he shouldn't have taken the job. A Jewish person would not take a job that conflicted with their religion. Eg being a taste tester at a ham factory. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse. Oh and he could have still said those things under a pseudonym if he wanted, eg on reddit or 4chan. The conflict was having those statements associated with him and thus his employer. If his religion says that he has to publicly say those things, he could have just said them under a pseudonym. So his freedom to practice his religion is not stopped at all.

                                      It is not against federal law to tell an employee what they can do in their spare time. For example, every federal public servant is not allowed to make strong political statements in a public way unless it can't be traced back to them (as departments and agencies have to act politically neutral).

                                      He signed a contract that said if he did any of a list of things he wouldn't keep his job, he did those things, lost the job, and then complained about it. He made his own choices then copped the consequences, as it should be.

                                      • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 16:27
                                        -1

                                        @Quantumcat: You're bigot ….

                                        most Religious beliefs are part of ones culture it is not nessarily a choice

                                        Too assume that probably also makes you a racist …..

                                        Have a good day my advice is got get cultured

                                        • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 16:37

                                          @Trying2SaveABuck: Your answer to losing an argument is to call the other person a bigot? Ok then.

                                          Also, religion is 100% a choice, assuming you're not in a cult where escaping might get you killed or something. How else do you think people from a Christian background can convert to Islam or people of a Hindu background can convert to Judaism? No one is born in a religion and is unable to change it. A religion is stories you choose to believe, and traditions and practices you choose to follow. The sexuality or race you are born as is the thing that isn't a choice.

                                          • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 18:15
                                            -1

                                            @Quantumcat: im calling you a bigot because you are a bigot and you lost the argument about 5 comments ago i have no interest in engage in conversation/discussion with someone who is so entrenched in their views they are blind to the truth.

                                            thus is very much the issue with most socialists on the hard left and capitalist on the hard right in modern days….

                                            have a good day and please go get cultured maybe spend a few months in a 3rd world country and see how much 'faith' plays in there culture it is rarely a choice if you are told to believe in 'something' from a young age/birth

                                            faith for the majority of people who have it is often not a choice in some countries if you dont have faith you are killed or cast out of a community….

                                            • Quantumcat on 16/09/2022 - 21:34
                                              +1

                                              @Trying2SaveABuck:

                                              faith for the majority of people who have it is often not a choice in some countries if you dont have faith you are killed or cast out of a community….

                                              What country does Falau live in again? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion. In Australia, there is religious freedom, people can have whatever religion they would like and can change their minds any time they want. Therefore it is 100% a choice. What you are using is called a strawman argument.

                                              thus is very much the issue with most socialists on the hard left and capitalist on the hard right in modern days….

                                              Do you consider yourself on the right or the left? The right are usually in favour of companies getting to do whatever they want at the expense of people. So if you are on the right, you're making very interestingly leftist arguments, even if there is no fact or logic behind them (wanting a company to not be allowed to enforce a legal employment contract), even though the left is usually in favour of tolerance and kindness towards people different to yourself, which Falau is very against

        • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 09:46
          -3

          You see. Unlike your opinion, I believe there should be consistency. Regardless of whether I agree or not.

          But there are those in society who will defend Izzy but condemn Caitlan. That’s problematic, especially when you break down why they have that opinion.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 09:57
            +1

            @Vote for Pedro:

            But there are those in society who will defend Izzy but condemn Caitlan. That’s problematic, especially when you break down why they have that opinion.

            i think Society 'condemned' Izzy too bloke got 'death threats' but i think the punishment was way too harsh that is why people where outraged - i personally think he should of been suspended or fined to tear is contract up was insane (maybe if he said it whilst playing for Australia or something they might have a 'leg to stand on' but in his personal time he can practice his relgion anyway he wants he is not 'hurting anyone')

            I agree with you regard consistency in this case unlike the left wingers this women should have your contract torn up if you want 'consistency' - from your tone and previous posts you couldnt care about consistency and love to push a left wing agenda right or wrong

            Proof would be where was this post 3 years ago when Izzy lost his contract? i for one am no defending what he said or did im just outlining how much of a hypocrite you are

            • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 10:05
              -1

              @Trying2SaveABuck: You misunderstand completely. I don’t think I’m defending Caitlan. What I’m trying to understand why the same media outlets that defended izzy now attack caitlan. Same goes for those here on OzBargain.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/09/2022 - 10:11
                +1

                @Vote for Pedro:

                You misunderstand completely. I don’t think I’m defending Caitlan. What I’m trying to understand why the same media outlets that defended izzy now attack caitlan. Same goes for those here on OzBargain.

                GTFO - you cant understand how a 1 match ban is met with outrage over clearly disgusting comments compared to completely having you contract torn up?

                you also cant understand quoting source material compared to terrible comments that and individual has said…

                Sorry mate dont pretend your agenda isnt clear here - you bias af

            • lonewolf on 16/09/2022 - 16:34

              @Trying2SaveABuck: Thing is, Folau didnt single out someone or a group. He went through a list that he was getting from his bible / church / religious group. Its not like he singled out an individual or even singled out one particular group. Only one of the groups he listed caused the backlash. I wasnt intending on it being a reply to anyone in particular, I was just joining in on the conversation.

          • brendanm on 16/09/2022 - 15:17

            @Vote for Pedro:

            Private companies do have a right to run their business however they want. So long as the way they run their business complies with the law, they can choose their customers.

            That's a post of yours. The nrl is a private company, it can fine and ban players for breaking it's codes of conduct.

            Or do you not believe that in this case?

            • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 17:31
              -1

              @brendanm: You see, I do.

              But I think I enjoy watching the hypocrisy of shock jocks and certain members of media and OzBargain who defended folau vigorously while condemning Caitlan

              • SBOB on 16/09/2022 - 17:36

                @Vote for Pedro:

                OzBargain who defended folau vigorously while condemning Caitlan

                Strange as you seem to have the same response regardless of ozb poster

                Which users do you think defended previous football players with similar inabilities to understand their contracts?

              • brendanm on 16/09/2022 - 18:36

                @Vote for Pedro:

                You see, I do.

                Then do you condemn, or agree with, folau and moran?

                Also, just an observation, you call moran "Caitlan", while calling folau, folau. Caitlan is feminine, softer, more personal.

                • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 20:00
                  -2

                  @brendanm: Not for me to condemn. They both expressed hateful language. Though the difference is one uses a book of fiction as justification while the other uses the representation of the monarchy historically. So I guess there’s a difference.

                  Notwithstanding, They work for an organisation with a code of conduct and need to abide by it. If they don’t like it, they can work elsewhere.

                  With regard to names, sure ok, nitpick. You’ll see I’ve called her moran elsewhere and also referred to folau as ‘izzy’ which is also softer more personal, dare I say feminine.

                  • brendanm on 16/09/2022 - 22:01

                    @Vote for Pedro: While I agree it's a book of fiction, to others, it isn't. Moran was also never personally affected by the queen.

                    Notwithstanding, They work for an organisation with a code of conduct and need to abide by it. If they don’t like it, they can work elsewhere.

                    Correct.

                    sure ok, nitpick

                    Not so much a nitpick, simply pointing out what I believe is your bias, even if it's subconscious. Perhaps I'm wrong.

                    • Vote for Pedro on 16/09/2022 - 23:17

                      @brendanm:

                      Moran was also never personally affected by the queen.

                      The Queen represents an institution that was responsible. The Queen, as much as I personally respect her and am saddened by her passing, was not naive as to the institutions role. She could have made efforts to acknowledge and make reparations.

                      As I commented to you elsewhere, you wouldn’t tell young jews to get over the holocaust because they weren’t personally effected, would you?

                      • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 08:14

                        @Vote for Pedro: How long are people meant to hold onto things done by previous generations? Just keep it going forever, perpetually increasing divisions?

                        As I commented to you elsewhere, you wouldn’t tell young jews to get over the holocaust because they weren’t personally effected, would you?

                        Probably. My family are polish. They came here as refugees after being held in camps during WWII. I don't hate Germans because of something that happened a long time ago, by people that aren't even alive now.

                        • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 09:56

                          @brendanm: Yes, but today’s Germans deal with their history in an open and transparent way. They acknowledge the evil and teach about the holocaust in schools.

                          They made reparations and have made illegal Nazi symbols and have laws on anti semetic hate speech and holocaust denial.

                          By no means is what Germany does perfect but it’s accepted it’s part in the evil.

                          How long are people meant to hold onto things done by previous generations?

                          I notice it’s always the supporters of the perpetrators that ask this question.

                          So, how long? As long as it takes until there is similar action (as detailed above) on the part of the monarchy. At the very least its a good start. Wouldn’t you agree it’s a reasonable ask?

                          On a side note. Its just hard to fathom that since Keatings redfern speech circa 1992 it took until 2007 for a formal apology from the Australian government and now, in 2022 we are talking about treaty. What is it that stops us from dealing with our past?

                          • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 14:48

                            @Vote for Pedro:

                            I notice it’s always the supporters of the perpetrators that ask this question.

                            Haha, classic. If you aren't saying X then you support Y. That's not how real life works.

                            They made reparations

                            Yes, let's just give everyone money, that'll fix everything, and no one will ever complain again 🙄

                            Wouldn’t you agree it’s a reasonable ask?

                            No, history is history. How can you apologise for something that you never did? Australia apologised, and what happened? Diddly squat, it doesn't mean anything.

                            • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 14:54
                              -1

                              @brendanm: So why not apologise then? Why’s that so hard?

                              • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 15:38

                                @Vote for Pedro: It doesn't accomplish anything, however I can't answer for why anyone else doesn't apologise. I would assume because apologising for something you didn't do is stupid.

                                • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 16:04

                                  @brendanm: Something your organisation did do. You apologise. Because it’s the right thing to do. You then make reparations.

                                  I’m not putting them up as a poster child, but even Jamies Hardie ceo applogised. She wasn’t responsible but she apologised. They then (begrudgingly) made reparations.

                                  It’s about taking responsibility. But it’s also symbolising a willingness to acknowledge your organisations bad behaviour and opportunity to demonstrate that you have the capability to make right the wrongs.

                                  Why is that so hard to do?

                                  • brendanm on 17/09/2022 - 17:47

                                    @Vote for Pedro:

                                    Something your organisation did do.

                                    My organisation?

                                    Jamies Hardie ceo applogised

                                    A corporation poisoning people is a little different.

                                    made reparations.

                                    Why is it always about money? Does paying off people 10 generations down the line fix anything? I say this as someone who would benefit from this, as my wife has famous and recorded Aboriginal ancestry, with a full family tree. None of this had affected her whatsoever, but she should get a random payout?

                                    Why is that so hard to do?

                                    Again, I have no idea, you would have to ask those who commited the deeds, however that may be difficult, as they are long dead.

                                    Again, it also accomplishes nothing, as seen by the apology to the Aboriginal people from Australia. The same divide is still there, as the same things get bought up again and again, as no one seems capable of moving on. The eternal victims.

                                    At least we've bought out your stance on whether Moran should have been silenced 😉

                                    • Vote for Pedro on 17/09/2022 - 18:07

                                      @brendanm: Seriously?

                                      Your response is childish at best.

                                      ‘Your organisation’ doesn’t mean you personally. And then it gets worse from there.

                                      An apology is the start of resolving something. It’s not the end. If you don’t get that there’s literally no point to this discussion. But I guess your attitude is clear with your ‘eternal victims’ line.

                                      I strongly recommend this program. I used to have your ‘it was so long ago’ and ‘get over it’ attitude. https://www.bfcsa.nsw.gov.au/Pages/courses/offenders/Aborigi…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join