Page 70 of 93 FirstFirst ... 206066676869707172737480 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 930

Thread: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

      
  1. #691

    Referees in Australia
    TigerCraig's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Sydney North & NSWRRA
    Grade
    Level 1 Ref/Level 2 AR
    Join Date
    19 May 08
    Posts
    1,322
    Thanks (Received)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    175

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    No, they are one and the same thing.

    If you think someone is destined for hell, you also believe they deserve it. (Otherwise you would be believing in a God who sent people to hell even though they didn't deserve it)
    By his belief EVERYONE is destined for hell. Only those who repent their sins and come to Jesus wont go there

  2. #692

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,461
    Thanks (Received)
    136
    Likes (Received)
    1695

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerCraig View Post
    By his belief EVERYONE is destined for hell. Only those who repent their sins and come to Jesus wont go there
    Indeed, and he believes that they all deserve it.

    (his only alternative would be that his God sends people to hell who don't deserve it....)

    (This is actually fundamental and well known problem for Christian theology)

  3. #693

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,277
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1486

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    NSW for a start. You can google further if you want

    https://www.antidiscrimination.justi...ification.aspx

    Hah, that's funny. Did you actually read that link before you posted it

    What does the law say about vilification?

    In NSW it is generally against the law to vilify people because of their:

    • race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin
    • homosexuality (lesbian or gay)
    • HIV or AIDS status
    • transgender status.

    One criteria met


    Public acts could include the following:

    • remarks in a newspaper, journal or other publications
    • remarks on radio or television
    • material on the internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter
    • graffiti
    • putting up posters or stickers
    • verbal abuse
    • making speeches or statements
    • making gestures
    • wearing badges or clothes with slogans on them

    Two criteria met


    How can I work out if something is covered by vilification law?

    To work out whether a particular act is covered by the vilification law, there are three things to check:

    • Did it happen publicly?
    • Was it possible for any member of the public other than those directly involved to see it, hear it or read it?
    • Could it have incited or encouraged hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule?
    • How serious was it? Would it have had an impact on other people?
    • Is it an acceptable type of free speech and therefore legal?

    Four criteria met


    Are there exceptions?

    Freedom of speech is also important in our society, so the vilification law makes allowances for this. The following are not against the law:

    • A fair report by the media of someone else's act of vilification. The media will only be acting against the law if they add extra vilifying material or commentary to their report.
    • Acts that are done 'reasonably and in good faith' for academic, artistic, scientific, research or other purposes in the 'public interest'.
    • Material that is privileged, such as statements made in parliament.


    Zero exception criteria met



    Your link doesn't support your claim, it supports mine, and it will be handy for debate on other forums.
    Thanks for posting it!
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  4. #694

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,347
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1293

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    Your link doesn't support your claim, it supports mine, and it will be handy for debate on other forums.
    Thanks for posting it!
    That's OK. This isn't a biggest dick competition. If information comes to light that helps us form better views, then let's all share it.

    Do you have trouble making & keeping friends?
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  5. #695

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,277
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1486

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    That's OK. This isn't a biggest dick competition. If information comes to light that helps us form better views, then let's all share it.
    Of course its not. If just if you are trying make a point, posting something that defeats your point is somewhat careless

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    Do you have trouble making & keeping friends?
    Nope. I have trouble choosing which ones are worth keeping.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  6. #696

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,347
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1293

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    Of course its not. If just if you are trying make a point, posting something that defeats your point is somewhat careless
    I think we have all been taught and have accepted, haven't we, that if the target feels vilified, then that is vilification, even if others don't see it as such.
    The point I have made is that this statement ^^^ is untrue.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  7. #697

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,520
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1537

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    I think we have all been taught and have accepted, haven't we, that if the target feels vilified, then that is vilification, even if others don't see it as such.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    The point I have made is that this statement ^^^ is untrue.
    I was a Primary School Governor when the Stephen Lawrence murder took place (1993). The subsequent Macpherson Inquiry (1999) devised the following definition:
    "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by thevictim or any other person"
    This caused a lot of controversy over some incidents within the school. I had to keep pointing out that this was simply intended to ensure that anything that might be a racist incident would be handled with the appropriate sensitivity until proved otherwise. It is not in itself proof that an incident was racist.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  8. #698

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,018
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    Hah, that's funny. Did you actually read that link before you posted it


    How can I work out if something is covered by vilification law?

    To work out whether a particular act is covered by the vilification law, there are three things to check:

    • Did it happen publicly?
    • Was it possible for any member of the public other than those directly involved to see it, hear it or read it?
    • Could it have incited or encouraged hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule?
    • How serious was it? Would it have had an impact on other people?
    • Is it an acceptable type of free speech and therefore legal?

    Four criteria met





    Your link doesn't support your claim, it supports mine, and it will be handy for debate on other forums.
    Thanks for posting it!
    Ian, this block is not an accurate interpretation of the NSW villification law. That portion of the article has 3 criteria that all must be met.
    You have listed two criteria in your block that are sub or defining characteristics of one of the 3 criteria.

    Please re read that portion.

  9. #699

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,277
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1486

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    Ian, this block is not an accurate interpretation of the NSW villification law. That portion of the article has 3 criteria that all must be met.
    You have listed two criteria in your block that are sub or defining characteristics of one of the 3 criteria.

    Please re read that portion.
    Yes, I have formatted incorrectly, but no, the three criteria do NOT have to all be "met", they have to be "checked".

    If all three criteria were met then no speech would ever be vilification, because the third and final criteria is a "negative" criteria.


    (Try it, answer "YES" to all three questions)

    For speech to be vilification the first two questions must be answered "YES" and the third question last question must be answered "NO"

    3. "Is it an acceptable type of free speech and therefore legal?"
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 29-06-19 at 12:06.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  10. #700

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,302
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    215

    Default Re: Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

    Israel Folau and his legal team appear confident that it is.
    "I will continue to stand up for the freedoms of all Australians."
    What does he mean by «*all*»?
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •