Wednesday, June 26, 2019

SNOWFLAKES GETTING MONSTERED?


Go Fund Me, an Australian equivalent to NZ's "Give a Little", leapt to the high ground with a never-announced credible reason and set about returning the seven hundred thousand dollars raised for Israel Falau's defence of his treatment by Raylene Castle and Rugby Australia over a religious tweet warning  "all" sinners to repent or face Hell,  after suddenly removing the Falau page from their platform

Enter another platform and the Streisand effect intervenes,  twenty four hours later and that original three quarter of a million is obliterated with the new fund reaching one point five million dollars and climbing.

What the dopy buggers are failing to understand is basic. People with money and no skin in the game - as opposed to the idiot CEO of Qantas - are appalled at the apparent hypocritical leaping on a Fundamentalist Christian and his right to express his beliefs, in a demonstration of mob rule. Many of the donors have no connection to any church but see a basic principle being trampled on by people of influence way beyond what a fair minded Aussie sees as right and fair.

Alan Joyce, Peter Fitzsimmons, those who run Go Fund Me ( who incidentally saw no problem with their platform being used to support the little cowardly cretin who smashed an egg on Federal Senator Frazer Anning's head at a public rally) and their other fanatics might just be a tad in error in their crusade against a Pastor of a tiny Christian sect with one little church, who just happens to be a very talented oval ball sport participant.

Oscar Wilde comes to mind in more than one aspect here with his quote;
"There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"
There is no such thing as "bad publicity", so the whole palaver becomes a "Monster". Castle, Joyce and company might just be a bit disillusioned at how things went South so spectacularly, but getting Genie back in the bottle may be impossible.

I see ANZ are also jumping in with threatening attitudes to Izzy's Missus, who is a not so bad Netball player, because they are major sponsors of netball in NZ, and I think Australia.

My only other comment is, be careful what you wish for: not all are so inclusive about the current rubbish around gender and personal intimate behaviour, being wielded as weapons of mass destruction against traditional values. And unlike the rent-a-mob idiots, many of them have real dosh needing a home.

Update:
The replacement appeal goes past $2 000 000Au.

29 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Is this the same ANZ which was run in NZ by a character who ran up half a million shareholder dollars in 'personal' expenses?

These fools don't realise they are gong to be the biggest losers when the dust eventually settles.

Psycho Milt said...

This post makes the assumption that the owners of GoFundMe are participating in a "crusade" against Israel Folau, so that it can picture them as "disillusioned" that a different funding platform has accepted Folau's fund. It offers no evidence for that assumption, despite the null hypothesis, ie GoFundMe doesn't give a shit about Folau and made a business decision to cancel his fund, being far more likely.

I don't understand the enthusiasm on the right for a wealthy man who's asking his followers, many of whom will be Tongans with little or no cash to spare, to fund his employment dispute. Admittedly, exploiting your followers for cash is one of the great traditions of evangelical pastors, but why are right-wingers so supportive of it?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Poor Milt

If you read the literally thousands of comments on this issue you will realise the vast majority of donors are unlikely to be cash strapped Tongans but more likely middle class moderately well off Australians. The same ones who recently gave your mate Shorten and his watermelons the arse.

Andrei said...

Milt many including myself have donated because we want to send a message to you progressive" FACISTS who accept the bullying of anyone who disagrees with you despite all your bullshit blather about "tolerance and inclusivity".

All the man did was post a paraphrase from the Bible about the need to repent. Funnyily enough this passage is inclusive since the range of things that should be repented is so broad as to include adult alive today who will have at some time or another transgressed the list od sins articulated

But a wealthy Homosexual with power has abused that power to bring Israel Folau down and even worse some progressive Nazis (and make no mistake this is exactly what they are) have even gone after this man's wife.

And that is why normal people without bully pulpits are expressing their disgust at this cultural fascism by financially supporting Israel Folau's cause.

Do you really want to associate yourself with these book burning progressive stormtroopers or do you want to live in a society that accepts and tolerates diversity

You choose

Anonymous said...

Clearly Milt you struggle to understand the issue around freedom of speech.
regardless of the merits of Folaus opinion , he has the right to make them , and even more so his wife shouldn't be attacked by every slobbering leftie, for the crime of being his wife.

People are entitled to make silly statements.
It isn't a crime , indeed if it was you'd be sentenced to consecutive life terms .

EH of D

Psycho Milt said...

Milt many including myself have donated because we want to send a message to you progressive" FACISTS who accept the bullying of anyone who disagrees with you despite all your bullshit blather about "tolerance and inclusivity".

Folau's involved in a dispute with his employer over whether he breached the code of conduct he signed. Neither of us is party to that dispute. You giving him money to pursue his case doesn't send me or anyone like me a message of any kind.

Psycho Milt said...

Clearly Milt you struggle to understand the issue around freedom of speech.

I have an excellent understanding of freedom of speech issues. That's how I know this isn't one, merely an employment dispute over wording in a contract.

In the late 90s I worked for a couple of years as a public servant, and had to accept a code of conduct that limited what public statements I could make to ensure I didn't reflect badly on the public service or the government. I sure didn't like that, but it wasn't a freedom of speech issue because I was free to turn down the job.

I think it would be worth the government looking into whether it really ought to be legal for employers to impose those kind of restrictions on their employees, but in the meantime it's all above board, and the people I feel badly for are the ones who don't have millions in property to fall back on if they fall foul of the employer's restrictive code of conduct.

Anonymous said...

Well said Andre.
I'm watching what ANZ does, as I presently bank with them.

Oddball

Tom Hunter said...

This amount of money raised and the speed at which it was raised suggests that the people who have given it have realised that this has now moved far beyond Folau's original fight with Rugby Australia over the original issue.

They've realised that they may be fired from their jobs, but also shunned in the job market in general (thanks to Twitter/Facebook), that any efforts to raise money in their own defence can also be shut down by yet another corporation who thinks the same way, and that your wife and friends can start to have her careers / livelihoods threatened, and on and on as the ripples spread.

The message is clear: you're going to be made to lose a great deal more than your job. That's the point. The activists are not even hiding this objective any more: the thinking is that if the punishments and damage inflicted on their religious/ideological opponents are great enough then they win, just as in any war.

Moreover, people are seeing that tolerance and diversity - so long touted as being all that the LGBT community wanted - was a lie. Conformity is what is wanted, hopefully with the celebration of LGBTQ choice, but with silence if necessary, under all circumstances. Toleration is too low a bar now: in fact anybody who says they're merely tolerant of such things they personally object to is now held to have breached the old standard of unacceptable bigotry-plus-power.

And finally people have realised that if the likes of Qantas, Rugby Australia, and Go Fund Me can go after a person as well-known and wealthy as Folau, then ordinary little people like them will be next in the gunsights of the activists. At their ordinary little jobs in their places of work. At their schools. At their universities. At their social groups. And all based on who knows what they say that can attributed as "hurtful" and "offensive" by activists.

They now know that there is no place to hide - and again, many LGBTQ activists have made it crystal clear that that is exactly as it should be: such terrible bigotry should have no place to hide.

Very well say these people: if there is going to be a war, let us see how much damage we can inflict on Rugby Australia, Qantas and the like.

It may be that the old rule of diffused concern vs. focused concern will still win out: that the great majority of people will just shrug their shoulders about another issue that happens to be the single issue that activists care very much about. It's likely that this is what Rugby Australia-Qantas are thinking too.

But the greater and more widespread the damage inflicted, the more single-issue people will be created - just on the other side.

gravedodger said...


"the people I feel badly for are the ones who don't have millions in property to fall back on if they fall foul of the employer's restrictive code of conduct"
Can I assume then there is a difference between those poor people and those who struggle to pay the taxes, levies and other imposts they incur to cover your views on roading funding, just to be a wee bit obtuse

I understand Contract Law better than many after two Papers in Real Estate Licence studies.
Talk about Joyce's interference here is all about an alleged oral addition to the written contract. Rugby Au cocked up in not spelling it out in the written contract they and Falau signed.

While a verbal contract can be legally enforceable it tends to struggle when it gets to a court where verification and proof tend to become a problem pdq.

With the snow-flakes concentrating wholly on the human male to male intimate sin as included in Falau's doctrinal views while omitting all the other "sins" he listed , then freedom of speech and religion comes to the fore and that is what is attracting the quite significant support being expressed in monetary measure.

As to your reference to a stint with the PS IMEHO that should only be applied to the actual work time and information garnered there.
Once someone leaves their place of work and discards the accoutrements of Uniform or other association then a person has every right to join a nudist club , a wine society or even head out cross dressing, sort of a basic right if you will
Yes Falau is different due to his sporting prowess and public image, then why does Alan Joyce wielding his big stick not perhaps bring the Qantas Brand into focus in a similar vein. That simple fact might just be the motivation that has got some of the donors on board.

Yes a contractual dispute was there at the onset just as a bunch of Serbs were at the ignition of the First World War when four years of war and millions dead tended to obscure that bit of history.
Who knows where this will end?

One thing for sure it is not much use to RA as the incident that might have been all over by lunch on the first day had a bit of common sense been applied is now a bit like those tests with no time limit, days to go yet.

Current thinking around Christianity is at play, a problem that George Pell is struggling alongside the Falau Family while rabid Imams continue to spew anti Christian and Judaism rhetoric unimpeded. from their apparently safe space Mosques.

Roj Blake said...

Ah yes, the old "unintended consequences".

Just polished off the last of the marmalade toast and Earl Grey, so I turned to the Aussie papers. Once I got past the gloating over the cricket, it seems the Australian Christian Lobby might have just a wee bit of trouble with the charities regulators. Seems raising funds to pay legal fees for a millionaire is not a charitable work. Who knew? Obviously the idiot fronting the ACL. :-)

Once someone leaves their place of work and discards the accoutrements of Uniform or other association then a person has every right to join a nudist club , a wine society or even head out cross dressing, sort of a basic right if you will

Not so in Australia.

Neil Erikson was sacked by Toll Holdings for racially abusing a Senator who was simply trying to order a beer in a pub. Rationalwiki describes Erikson as the brain of a 12 year old idiot trapped in the body of a fully grown moron.



Psycho Milt said...

They've realised that they may be fired from their jobs, but also shunned in the job market in general...

Always funny how right-wingers can suddenly recognise shit employer practices when they finally affect a wealthy celebrity, just not for the whole time it was only affecting plebs. There's nothing new about what's happened to Folau, it's just the first time it's happened to a famous religious conservative.

Psycho Milt said...

Once someone leaves their place of work and discards the accoutrements of Uniform or other association then a person has every right to join a nudist club , a wine society or even head out cross dressing, sort of a basic right if you will

You'd think so, yes. However, the fact is that very many of them don't have the right to say or do what they like outside of work hours, due to restrictive clauses in their employment contracts. Why do employers put those in there? Because they can. How can they get away with it? Decades of neo-liberal governance that's favoured employers over employees, that's how.

Folau's just encountering a situation that's applied to a great many workers for decades now. If right-wingers could bring themselves to stop frothing at the mouth over Folau's right to condemn people he doesn't like to an imaginary hell and starting thinking more about employees' rights not to have such shit working conditions imposed on them in the first place, I'd be willing to show this circus of blowhardry a little more sympathy.

Andrei said...

"Folau's involved in a dispute with his employer over whether he breached the code of conduct he signed. Neither of us is party to that dispute. "


Alas for you Milt the issue goes far beyond that - indeed the PR people are desperately trying to cast the matter as a mere "employment dispute" but the matter has acheived resonance with a great many people


We are witnessing "progressive overreach" with this

Just one thing to consider the supposed "offensive post" is., an admittedly poorly translated, quotation from the Bible the book upon which until recently all MPs swore allegiance to the crown - most still do swaer allegiance upon it in fact.

So is a text that is a central part of our heritage and culture going to ruled to be "offensive"?

And that's just for starters

There are issues involving religious freedom, freedom of speech, as well as the "gender issues" that have been thrust down our throats.

Are GLTBis and all the other new alphabet sexual identity profiles that appear on daily basis going to become protected classes that may not be questioned or criticized - in this regard we have gone down a vertiable rabbit hole where boys dominate girls athletics and insist on using the girls toilets and those with daughters protest at their peril

Ther will be blood on the sand before this is done...

Psycho Milt said...

So is a text that is a central part of our heritage and culture going to ruled to be "offensive"?

I don't see how. The only body that could make such a ruling would be the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and it's hardly likely to do that.

Nothing prevents individual citizens finding religious proclamations offensive though, including individual citizens who happen to be in positions where they influence sponsorship decisions. What would the outraged religious community like to be done about that?

Ther will be blood on the sand before this is done...

Well, duh. There's nothing like outraged religious sensibilities for resulting in pointless bloodshed.

andrei said...

"There's nothing like outraged religious sensibilities for resulting in pointless bloodshed."

Of course Milt but alas you don't have the insight to grasp your progressivism is actually a religion

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

If you think this saga is dragging on a bit wait for a few months when they start accounting for where the money went.....that's the traditional end to this crowd funding malarky.

Bit unsure if these good citizens are funding because of "free speech" or the fact they are homophobic and looking for a good lynching.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Oh No...another attack on personal freedom..

Watford FC footballer suspended after mass brawl at Royal Ascot

"The club will not tolerate any behaviour which tarnishes its image"

What a diabolical restraint of liberty. This man has the right to punch anyone he likes in his own time.....unless his multi million pound contract says otherwise.


Quickly lets raise some money to fight his case....all cheques should be made out to the "plenty of Bacon" Charitable trust.

gravedodger said...

Meanwhile Au Rugby awaits the outcome of Falau's Fair Work Commission hearing and I bet there are some loose bowels around RA HQ trying to shore up the verbal addon to the written contract.
A person of 'colour' getting sacked just might be a bit more difficult at FWC than the lefty courts when acceptable proof is being required and considered.

Kimbo said...

@ Andrei

So your essential gripe is that your/our tribe is losing a religious patch war? Just when it is time to write off Roj Blake’s anti-religion comments as toxic bigotry of the kind he is supposedly against, you jump up confirming you still want the privilege of virtually extinct Christendom. And newsflash: it didn’t die for lack of preservation attempts by kings, popes and tsars.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of speech.
He just repeated what gets repeated in every church every Sunday.
And attacking his wife will have repercussions

Andrei said...

No Kimbo I am not asking for priveledge.

I am suggesting that if we hold to the values of "diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance™" then it is necessary to accept that people will hold views contrary to yours and by definition you must accept the right of those with divergent opinions to hold them.

This of course in one of the major contadictions in progressivism exposed by this shambles..

True?

Come in PM let us see if you can unraval this Gordian knot

Kimbo said...

@ Andrea

Don’t have a problem if that is all it is. However, whenever the narrative moves to Judaea-Christian values/foundation of our civilisation as a justification then it is usually an appeal to some sort of special privilege. I don’t dispute that is true historically, but it should be irrelevant for any exemption in the public domain.

I agree that Folau in the ordinary course of events shouldn’t have attracted opprobrium. Nonetheless Qantas is entitled to make an issue of it, and gain or suffer patronage as a result. Including yours.

Kimbo said...

@ Andrei

And sorry, word check typo in your name in that last post

Andriei said...

"whenever the narrative moves to Judaea-Christian values/foundation of our civilisation as a justification then it is usually an appeal to some sort of special privilege"

We do that with Maori culture and heritage Kimbo - we hold that dear and seek its preservation

And not infrequently when a building that has past its used by date is to be demolished an outcry ensues.

I do find it disturbing that texts from our Holy scripture is deemed by some to be "hate speech".

This all seems so Soviet Union to me

P.S. Don't worry about spelling my name wrong - I have experienced miss-spellings and mispronouciations of my name since I was eight years old.

You get over it

Psycho Milt said...

Come in PM let us see if you can unraval this Gordian knot

Can't see myself influencing anyone's opinion on this, but for what it's worth:

The Gordian knot in question is:

I am suggesting that if we hold to the values of "diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance™" then it is necessary to accept that people will hold views contrary to yours and by definition you must accept the right of those with divergent opinions to hold them.

That's certainly true. However, accepting another's right to hold a particular opinion doesn't preclude one from being highly offended by and vehemently opposed to that opinion, and letting the opinion-holder know all about it.

A person's on shakier ground if they extend their opposition to contacting the opinion-holder's employer and arguing for their dismissal. I don't see how someone can do that and also claim they believe in freedom of expression. On the other hand, professional entertainers and their sponsors encourage ordinary people to act as though the entertainer were in some way important, so those ordinary people can be forgiven for imagining their views on the entertainer carry some weight. In some cases, they're also customers of the entertainment company the entertainer works for, and therefore have every right to let the company know that this particular product is proving unsatisfactory to them.

In short, I'm not seeing a very complicated knot here. People are entitled to tell Folau what they think of his opinion, and entertainment companies are expected to make business decisions based on their perceived value of the entertainers. Those decisions may be disputed, and this one is being disputed. I'm not seeing a big issue in that.

Kimbo said...

Anything in a particular context can be deemed hate speech, which is irrelevant to the Folau matter. What is irrelevant I’d that anything, including the Bible used to criticise homosexuals and gender reassignment laws can be deemed offensive. It’d be because the chief sponsor of his employer deemed Folau’s words...in their context that he is paying the penalty for his free speech. Which is how it can and does work. Freedom of speech does not protect you from consequences, especially disapproval and sometimes loss of employment if it is a clause in your contact. Never has.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

My suspicions are confirmed.....an Australian reporter on BBC R4 this morning where it has attracted a bit of a following when asked what it is all about. "Just the religious Reich in Aussie indulging in a spot of queer bashing."

The Aussies, quite rightly, think the Brits have lost the plot over Brexit and the Brits quite rightly think that this plot is beyond bizarre.

Roj Blake said...

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/poll-tell-us-where-you-stand-on-israel-folau/news-story/95f75461fbb7bae32c41aefbe042e2f0