Get them out of the club asap

[Mark from Brisbane]

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?

Might have r to wait until 2023 to see your just sentence come to fruition , doing it’ll happen in 22.

 

[47MVEagle]

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.

Fair enough

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

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 ..
... but I suppose you need to get your guidance from your ideological masters ..

This is actually a great idea, could save me some work, thanks.

SER8: Good morning, Master. Woodsie has just posted something about the pride jerseys. What is our position on that?

Master: [encrypted response, not for publication]

SER8: Yeah I know but on Silvertails I’m not meant to just call him names, is there some argument or point I should make?

Master: [encrypted response, not for publication]

SER8: Thank you thank you Master

Master: [encrypted response, not for publication]

SER8: Yes yes, but I’ll try to use more acceptable language. Bye!

 

[Woodsie]

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?

I agree with many of your points .. but remember, my ardent defense of their rights was in the very early stages when the numbnuts were screaming "piss them off" at there loudest ...

So, you see, my stance was against proposed and threatened persecution .. and as Dessie, DCE, the club, Lawyers and the NRL all conceded .. the players were within their rights..

 

[HK_Eagle]

I agree with many of your points .. but remember, my ardent defense of their rights was in the very early stages when the numbnuts were screaming "piss them off" at there loudest ...

So, you see, my stance was against proposed and threatened persecution .. and as Dessie, DCE, the club, Lawyers and the NRL all conceded .. the players were within their rights..

Legal rights? Yes. Moral rights? Well, that’s the key question with no absolute truth. We just have warring ideologies.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I agree with many of your points .. but remember, my ardent defense of their rights was in the very early stages when the numbnuts were screaming "piss them off" at there loudest ...

So, you see, my stance was against proposed and threatened persecution .. and as Dessie, DCE, the club, Lawyers and the NRL all conceded .. the players were within their rights..

Rewriting history again? Pretty sure quite a few of your more "ardent" defences were aimed directly at me, who hadn't ever screamed to piss them off, nor had I ever threatened persecution of them!

 

[Woodsie]

Legal rights? Yes. Moral rights? Well, that’s the key question with no absolute truth. We just have warring ideologies.

You appear fixated on the reason why they didn't wear a particular jersey ... whereas, I am fixated on ... it doesn't matter what type of Jersey it was, if their reason for not wearing it is for religious or cultural reasons .... THAT's the law ... not an ideology ..

don't debate absolute truths as you understand them, moral rights as you value them, legal rights as you'd wish them .. with me ... I have at no point every ever said I agree with their views, and I personally don't give a shiite what they think ... but considering the number of numbnuts prepared to trash their legal rights just because they disagree with them ... they certainly need to be careful, today you agree with the lynch mob ... what about tomorrow ...

Interesting question just occurred to me .. IF it is against Workplace laws for an Employer to ask the sexual preference of an employee ... how in the name of Sam Jurd's jockstrap, can an Employer ask or expect an Employee to wear a Pride Jersey ???

 

[Red Pill]

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.

It’s a hard one @HK_Eagle I think the constitution is a little bit deeper than just legal.
But I described in my view this frames the scope to allow free will to exist in our society. I think your medication example is a very compelling one. It’s a double edged sword though as we need to have a mechanism that motivates a company to develop medicine in the first place. There needs to be an incentive. I guess we try and find the balance in Australia by having ACCC and laws to promote a better social balance in this space….while promoting competition fuelled by freedom..

I would not like to live in a country where the morals/ tolerance levels of a majority or think tank are able to impose upon others like dogma how one should have to conduct themselves in the world.. it’s all about the right balance to support the uniqueness of the individual and have some kind of social cohesion which I think you are saying…. There is always going to be different opinions on how we get there. I don’t think there is an absolute to this by the way… these differences make life interesting.

 

[Woodsie]

Rewriting history again? Pretty sure quite a few of your more "ardent" defences were aimed directly at me, who hadn't ever screamed to piss them off, nor had I ever threatened persecution of them!

Have a look at the Thread title ... and get back to me ...

 

[Woodsie]

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".

From some website ...

The Sea Eagles have reportedly continued to shield the seven players who stood down from the media according to The Daily Telegraph.

Player agent Mario Tartak explained “Des is protecting them” when approaches were made to interview young Josh Schuster.

I think the club is keeping them away from the media and have asked them to say nothing .... probably on the basis that regardless of what they say ... their supporters will agree .... and the non supporters will attack .... there would be no winners in any public statement by the 7 .... and a lot of possible damage ...

I think they have been very disciplined ... can't be easy having your religion, your belief's, your family, your character and integrity all trashed because of the lack of brains in Karen, Gary and Bruce in the Marketing Dept. ... and not fighting back ..

 

[Kalvin]

I don’t follow any players on social media , what they do in their own private time shouldn’t be my concern.

Like it or not in today's world most employers have an eye on its employees social media (both in the hiring process and also ongoing - business's infact employ people to monitor any posts etc that can be linked back to your business/employees).
At the end of the day, an employer needs to know what's good for its brand and what isn't.

I didn't really have an issue with Schusters tape on his wrist or whatever but don't think it's a good look for our brand with guac doing what he did. Show support for your mate in other more appropriate way... no issue

 

[The Indian]

I took a week off the forum when the last lot of culture wars sprang up so I don't intend to get bogged down in it. It's pointless and nobody ever changes their mind anyway, most just disappear further and further down their own personal rabbit holes.

But my ten cents ..... they are football players selected on their ability to play the game first. Barring the most extreme of cases ( as we have seen very recently) whether or not they are good blokes who purvey every admirable quality that we all would hope or expect as a beacon of virtue is of no interest to me whatsoever.

I don't want anybody sacked if they don't meet my personal expectations. This modern narrative of " I don't like/agree/condone it so I'll agitate for somebody to lose their job " is one of the nastier elements of modern society I find hard to reconcile. But again, just my opinion.

As a long time gameday member as part of a larger group of members I'll be stumping up the cash again next year and cheering on whichever 17 the coach and selectors decide to name. In the meantime I don't want any players driven out, sacked, cleansed, homogenized ( careful ), demonized, burned at the stake or forced to apologize....... unless their ability as a footballer warrants a departure.

Clearly some do warrant an exit just for me footballing reasons. That's enough for me.

bring on 2023

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

I agree with many of your points .. but remember, my ardent defense of their rights was in the very early stages when the numbnuts were screaming "piss them off" at there loudest ...

So, you see, my stance was against proposed and threatened persecution .. and as Dessie, DCE, the club, Lawyers and the NRL all conceded .. the players were within their rights..

Funnily enough, I'd still be happy to see the back of all of them. Not because I think they're homophobes (although I do) or because I think they've been flashing "gang signs" (I don't), but simply because - whether they were within their rights to do so or not - they refused to play in a very important game and let the club, their teammates and the supporters down. I think that playing football is not their number one priority, and I'd prefer to have players who want to play for Manly in every single game.

For me, the worst thing about this whole fiasco is that it has forced me to agree with Peter FitzSimons: I just don't think these are the type of players who will ever be strong enough to win the club a premiership.

 

[Woodsie]

Funnily enough, I'd still be happy to see the back of all of them. Not because I think they're homophobes (although I do) or because I think they've been flashing "gang signs" (I don't), but simply because - whether they were within their rights to do so or not - they refused to play in a very important game and let the club, their teammates and the supporters down. I think that playing football is not their number one priority, and I'd prefer to have players who want to play for Manly in every single game.

For me, the worst thing about this whole fiasco is that it has forced me to agree with Peter FitzSimons: I just don't think these are the type of players who will ever be strong enough to win the club a premiership.

Fair enough ... not to put words into their mouths ... but ... if I was putting words in their mouths ... then they would probably be absolutely shocked that any person would be so shallow as to put a game of football ahead of their core principles and belief's ....

Edit ... I am sure there are many things in your life Ron that you consider more important than your job, or a game of football

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

I think the club is keeping them away from the media and have asked them to say nothing .... probably on the basis that regardless of what they say ... their supporters will agree .... and the non supporters will attack .... there would be no winners in any public statement by the 7 .... and a lot of possible damage ...

I think they have been very disciplined ... can't be easy having your religion, your belief's, your family, your character and integrity all trashed because of the lack of brains in Karen, Gary and Bruce in the Marketing Dept. ... and not fighting back ..

Agree that, at this stage, any statement by the Infamous 7 wouldn't help anyone. From the players' and club's point of view, it's best to leave it alone and wait for some other idiots at some other club (Hi, Newcastle!) to take the headlines and the heat.

But I also don't have any confidence that they'd be able to articulate a clear and/or compelling reason for their stand. I mean, really, what are they going to say? "God says poofs are bad?" Or, "Josh Aloiai says God says poofs are bad?" Or maybe the old, "We weren't consulted" chestnut - like any amount of consultation would have changed anything. When it comes down to it, they're not going to be adding anything to the conversation.

 

[Woodsie]

Agree that, at this stage, any statement by the Infamous 7 wouldn't help anyone. From the players' and club's point of view, it's best to leave it alone and wait for some other idiots at some other club (Hi, Newcastle!) to take the headlines and the heat.

But I also don't have any confidence that they'd be able to articulate a clear and/or compelling reason for their stand. I mean, really, what are they going to say? "God says poofs are bad?" Or, "Josh Aloiai says God says poofs are bad?" Or maybe the old, "We weren't consulted" chestnut - like any amount of consultation would have changed anything. When it comes down to it, they're not going to be adding anything to the conversation.

See ... they didn't even say anything ... and you were still able to conjure up a trashing of what they might of said ....

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Fair enough ... not to put words into their mouths ... but ... if I was putting words in their mouths ... then they would probably be absolutely shocked that any person would be so shallow as to put a game of football ahead of their core principles and belief's ....

Edit ... I am sure there are many things in your life Ron that you consider more important than your job, or a game of football

No, I really am that shallow

But honestly, I just don't think a game of football has anything to do with my core principles and beliefs. It's a game of football and nothing more. That is, in fact, what is pure and beautiful about rugby league and sport as a whole. For 80 minutes, nothing else matters.

That goes for players as well as fans. For 80 minutes, you can forget about the large amount of **** in the world and try to win a stupid, not-important-at-all-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things game. For 80 minutes, rugby league is the most important thing in the world.

 

[47MVEagle]

Have a look at the Thread title ... and get back to me ...

This thread (& its title) is related to the public show of support for a convicted criminal by some players using their positions as representatives of the club.

I think you might have been the first to bring the jersey issue into this thread.

 

[Woodsie]

No, I really am that shallow

But honestly, I just don't think a game of football has anything to do with my core principles and beliefs. It's a game of football and nothing more. That is, in fact, what is pure and beautiful about rugby league and sport as a whole. For 80 minutes, nothing else matters.

That goes for players as well as fans. For 80 minutes, you can forget about the large amount of **** in the world and try to win a stupid, not-important-at-all-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things game. For 80 minutes, rugby league is the most important thing in the world.

Which is why this whole catastrophe is lamentable..

 

[47MVEagle]

Fair enough ... not to put words into their mouths ... but ... if I was putting words in their mouths ... then they would probably be absolutely shocked that any person would be so shallow as to put a game of football ahead of their core principles and belief's ....

And yet these same guys happily signed large contracts to play for a team sponsored by a gambling company (against Mormon beliefs) whose homeground is named after an alcoholic beverage (also against Mormon beliefs) that plays in a competition saturated with gambling advertising & are themselves covered in tattoos (guess what? Yep, also against Mormon beliefs).

I'm absolutely shocked that they would be so shallow as to put their religious beliefs aside in order to do these things yet maintained the same religious beliefs when it came to refusing to wear a jersey that was intended to promote inclusivity, because it had rainbow stripes on it & rainbow stripes represent the homosexual (et al) demographics in our society.

Crazy, huh?