The ARU are looking to renew their links to charitable causes and are seeking expressions of interest;
The photo above is interesting; last time I checked, there were 15 players in a rugby team, not 10. More if you count the match reserves.
I wonder why they’ve cropped the rest of the team and wider squad out of the picture?
Perhaps a clue can be found in the press release (highlighting mine)?
Rugby Australia said it is seeking a charity partner that aligns with the game’s core vision, which includes making rugby “a game for all” and igniting Australia’s “passion for the game”.
Right then, a game for all? That’s great.
Can we get a hint of what that might mean by looking at the current charity partners?
The charity will also link with Rugby Australia’s current community partners including Disability Sports Australia, Pride in Sport, the Australian Deaf Rugby Team and Our Watch.
Pride in Sport? I wonder what they’re all about?
Pride in Sport is the only sporting inclusion program specifically designed to assist National and State sporting organisations and clubs with the inclusion of LGBTI employees, players, coaches, volunteers and spectators. The world-first Pride in Sport Index (PSI) benchmarks and assesses the inclusion of LGBTI people across all sporting contexts.
Ah, because what one does in the privacy of one’s bedroom and with whom one does it is extremely relevant to kicking a ball or swimming in a pool, isn’t it?
I suppose there’s no point in the charity, The Australian Christian Values Institute applying then?
Bill’s Opinion
As this article points out (h/t Tim), the ARU is one of those organisations that has fully-embraced the current fashion for wokeness. The problem is, they haven’t fully-worked out the details of which victim credentials trump which others.
Hence a deeply religious rugby player is about to sue the arse off the sport for firing him for legally-expressing his views, fully in line with the recognised teachings of the religion, because they are at odds with the feelings of another one of the protected groups.
Unless the Australian judge presiding over the case decides to defenestrate Common Law precedent (which, to be fair, is not beyond the realms of possibility), the ARU are going to have to cut a considerable cheque.
The lesson is straightforward.
Go woke, go broke.
There’ll be no Judge. There’ll be no court.
The matter is in the Fair Work Commission. It will be heard in the FWC, by one or more of the Fair Work Commissioners.
The Commissioners are under no obligation to have any legal training or background, most are former union hacks promoted by the ALP to a job-for-the-boys (or in one notable case, promoted to an office from which they’re prevented from spilling the beans about a spot of trust account emptying by a young solicitor girl, long before she was PM)
Anyone who has had a traffic ticket will have as much exposure to the judicial system as any of the Fair Work Commissioners.
There is no consistency in decisions, no common sense, and only a semblance of a fair hearing.
The matter may reach the Federal Court (& thus some Judgeyness rules & stuff will then apply) if nobody is happy with the FWC outcome.
Someone going their former boss for $10 million is breaking new ground in the FWC. I’ll bet the Commissioners (legal duds all, & erratic to boot) are all hoping like hell they’ve got the flu or can wangle annual leave or something.
“I’ll bet the Commissioners (legal duds all, & erratic to boot) are all hoping like hell they’ve got the flu or can wangle annual leave or something.”
Yep, that’ll be one of the most accurate statements made in Australia today.
Did you know that, for a while, one of the ombudsmen for Sydney rental disputes was completely blind? What form did the majority of the evidence to the ombudsman take, do we think?
What I mean was, for a while there was a blind ombudsman, not that the ombudsman was temporarily blind.
Clarity, clarity, clarity.
That is a useful clarification and one I hadn’t considered. Although to give myself a break, this subject is best viewed from a safe distance. It will be interesting to see how it progresses for several reasons.
The ARU has limited funds with which to fight this. Even if it wins it will be fully committed if it progresses past the FWC. Say in the event Izzy loses then progresses to an actual court. It is possible, if not probable, that his continuing the case may be funded by some deep pocketed Christian organisations.
Good point VFNcote!
Who’s got the most cash?
Rugby Australia?
or the whole Billy Graham/Joyce Meier type constituency?
Current estimates I’m hearing are that the case could result in a $10m bill plus legal fees if the ARU lose.
I guess we’re all playing and watching only rugby league in Australia at that point.