In response to Webster commenting on an X photo of a pride flag.

Responded to one of those "whats the first thing that comes to your mind when you see this flag" engagement farming spam re: the pride flag with "mental illness".

Response from the Wildcats weak as piss IMO.

Trying to work his way off the team perhaps?

That would be on-brand, but it's not like he needs an excuse.

Maybe as a public figure he's over the activists lobbying for insertion of rainbow propaganda into every area of life including sporting events?

I must say I agree with Corey.

LV, as opposed to us being sick of centuries of religious propaganda being inserted into everyday life by those suffering from magical sky-fairy delusions?

For the love of dog, someone close this thread quickly!

Well when the state religion says you must worship its idols, you must.

All divergent thought is blasphemy.

Haha, good call Zodiac.

I can tell that this thread has a bright future, just like so many of Corey's insightful and well-intentioned hot takes.

Response from the Wildcats weak as piss IMO.

Response from the Wildcats weak as piss IMO.

NBL Pride Round shaping up as another one to be proud of this season

He needs to be held responsible to both Wildcat and NBL expectations. He wasn't.

We are now at the point of defending the right of people to be racist and bigots without calling them out and holding them accountable.

Andrew if that is your view- you and I totally disagree.

The suicide rates for LGBTIQ+ is damn high being made to listen to that type of crap is part of it.

"What would a non p!ss weak response from the club look like?"

An actual quoted apology from Corey. They of course can't provide that because he wouldn't actually apologise, hence their response should have been worded a lot stronger.

Hire's response much better than Perth's.

This just in: Corey Webster let go by Perf, signed immediately by Cairns. Would fit in with the rest of the team who is scared of that small rainbow C.

He is a total flog.

There's no place for that crap. Perth's response was ridiculous.

Where and what was Hire's response?

I saw Hire's response in a RT on Twitter, but basically calling him out for using mental illness as a negative rather than his stance on pride etc, but still a better response than the meaningless words from Perth

A stance somewhat undermined by expressing it on a site owned by a Nazi.

The NBL has now also published a statement on their website

The National Basketball League (NBL) is aware of comments made by Perth Wildcats' player, Corey Webster, and acknowledges he has taken full responsibility for the hurt he may have caused, and has apologised.

"The League is disappointed with his comments, which were insensitive and harmful," NBL CEO David Stevenson said.

“We want the NBL to be a safe and inclusive environment at all times and encourage the greater inclusion and wellbeing of LGBTQ players, members and fans.”

Last season the NBL celebrated its inaugural Champion Pride Round, and will do so again this season.

“The community is critical in supporting inclusion and diversity in our society and we all must work together to encourage everyone to be themselves,” Stevenson added.

“There will always be challenges when stances and beliefs conflict with one another, but as an organisation we are committed to working together and supporting one another, with respect at all times.”

The NBL is a proud partner of Pride in Sport and conducts regular training and education for all players and staff.

Pride in Sport is a national not-for-profit sporting inclusion program specifically designed to assist sporting organisations of all levels with the inclusion of employees, athletes, coaches, volunteers and spectators with diverse sexualities and genders.

For more information about the NBL’s Pride Round, click here: https://nbl.com.au/pride.

Tai and Corey can both just fuck off. Don't need them or their attitudes.

Thanks Scout, well said. JJs certainly would not allow this to happen, a club with morals.

Not a good dude, expected.
Dude has multiple dv assaults, failure to pay child support and is always talkin crap on the socials.

Even more p!ss weak a response by the NBL and Wildcats when you consider the NBL is the only top-tier basketball league in the world with an openly gay man competing, and on top of that someone who also expressed how difficult a struggle it had been mentally and emotionally for him. Webster's track record kinda speaks for itself, and outside of a team that had an exceptional culture with the likes of Vukona and Abercrombie to keep him and his ego in check he has pretty much worn out his welcome. His apology amounts to "Sorry I got called out. Not sorry for what I said." Good job. Good effort.

Dumb move by him, epic brain fade. While his opinion is unpopular he's said sorry which should be enough for everyone to move forward.

In today's world we champion diversity, but not diversity of thought. I can only imagine by saying "mental illness" he either was meaning specifically to do with the trans issue - and for all intents and purpose, it is a mental issue - or about homosexuality, which would mean he's likely of some sort of faith background.

It's funny to me that we can mock how backwards someone's faith and religion is, and yet we can't say how intrinsicly odd it is to want to perform sex acts on a member of the same sex, or to believe that you're a gender that you quite frankly are not. We can talk about "sky fairies" but we can't talk about imaginary menstraul cramps.

Only one point of view can have the narrative, it seems. You cannot question LGBT at all. Let's be clear, Corey isn't out here promoting violence against anyone. But of course to the woke left, "words are violence" and therefore any dissent from the officially prescribed narrative might as well be murder.

"Even more p!ss weak a response by the NBL and Wildcats when you consider the NBL is the only top-tier basketball league in the world with an openly gay man competing, and on top of that someone who also expressed how difficult a struggle it had been mentally and emotionally for him."

This is a bit ridiculous. So people are not allowed to have their own individual points of view now? The NBL owns Corey's basketball services, they don't own his brain.

"A stance somewhat undermined by expressing it on a site owned by a Nazi."

Oh god, please explain how Elon Musk is a Nazi. You understand you undermine the gravity of the word when you trow it aroundlike that, don't you?

I can't believe Rillie sacked both Blanchfield & Norton for these flog bros.

Cairns don't want him statman.

Toxic...

Take a closer look at what he wrote. At no point does he apologise, merely deflects that his intention was not to cause hurt (which makes me question what exactly his actual intention was /sarcasm). He then makes vague comments about educating himself, like he always does when he has one of these moments, and that he's taking a break from social media.

Koberulz never fails to provide a laugh with his hot takes in threads like this!

Mental illness , depression or anxiety should never be made fun of. I've suffered through chronic depression and it’s debilitating. People don’t need anymore stupid stuff being said or stigmas attached by ignorant comments

ME, homosexuality was still a criminal act within our lifetimes, so Corey's slap on the wrist and apology via written statement for his 'point of view’, which has resulted in no legal ramifications, is hardly him being denied his opinion (however distasteful) or right to speak (however untrue). Freedom of speech is also not freedom from consequences, criticism, or ridicule.

The "woke left" implies you need to be extreme left wing to find what Corey said reprehensible... I don't think that's even close to the truth. Times have changed.

Oh god, please explain how Elon Musk is a Nazi.

If you were as famous as C

'Let's be clear, Corey isn't out here promoting violence against anyone. But of course to the woke left, "words are violence" and therefore any dissent from the officially prescribed narrative might as well be murder.'

That’s some take... you should probably look through his social media from a few years ago. He is like folau asking people to believe in god whilst wishing for certain groups to die.

Dude doesn’t need to promote violence, he is violent. How many people has he assaulted in the last decade? 5/6?

When you can't defend or justify what is said, defend and justify the right to say it.

An actual quoted apology from Corey. They of course can't provide that because he wouldn't actually apologise, hence their response should have been worded a lot stronger.

He needs to be held responsible to both Wildcat and NBL expectations. He wasn't.

Perth's response was ridiculous.

but still a better response than the meaningless words from Perth

SEN CEO of Teams, Richard Simkiss said: "We are really disappointed in these comments and have made this clear to Corey. They don't reflect our values, and we have committed to working with Corey to help educate him about the harm such comments can bring. As a community driven club, we stand for inclusiveness and have strongly supported the NBL’s Pride Round. We look forward to promoting this initiative again in the upcoming season. Our values are clear - we want to bring people together in a positive way and we understand our responsibility as leaders in the community to live these values both on and off the court."

Tai and Corey can both just fuck off. Don't need them or their attitudes.

Mental illness , depression or anxiety should never be made fun of. I've suffered through chronic depression and it's debilitating. People don’t need anymore stupid stuff being said or stigmas attached by ignorant comments

I often feel sorry for the strict religious types, they're groomed and smashed with this crap, they genuinely believe it’s mental health. I’ve had discussions before with the type, no point getting angry, I just let them know I disagree

LoveBroker, I'm sure most of us would be content with his actions matching his words, but it’s hard to be optimistic given his pattern of behaviour.

LoveBroker - Tai can fuck off not because of what his brother believes but because he fucking sucks. Clear enough for ya?

Why is he not allowed to express his opinion just as the alphabet community express theirs?

LoveBroker, I'm sure most of us would be content with his actions matching his words, but it's hard to be optimistic given his pattern of behaviour.

"In today's world we champion diversity, but not diversity of thought."

Diversity of thought has never been championed by anyone ever.

That's something that conservatives, moderates and progressives have all been aligned on forever.

Where they *all* depart is what they consider “robust conversation” and what they consider “oppression”. Ie, if they are criticising its robust discussion, if they’re being criticised it’s oppression.

Anyone not completely apathetic will lie to themselves that they’re above it.

“How intrinsicly odd it is to want to perform sex acts on a member of the same sex”

Only people with a peculiarly inaccurate view of nature would view it as odd. Humans are part of nature and whatever they do is thereby natural.

Why is he not allowed to express his opinion just as the alphabet community express theirs?

Should make the game against the Sixers interesting tomorrow night.

Okay LoveBroker, you clearly don't take issue with Webster insinuating that someone’s sexual preference is tantamount to being a "mental illness" (heavily implying that something is inherently wrong with such an individual because what else could possibly be his intention).

But to be clear so you can cease with your hyperbole (people are not expecting the woke cult to have a witch trial and burn someone at the stake), he could engage with the LGBTQIA+ community in a meaningful and thoughtful way, if he is indeed serious about “educating himself”, and make a genuine attempt to engage so he may understand why his comments are so detrimental (and I would suggest face-to-face to truly show commitment to his statement) rather than simply removing himself from Twitter/X until the whole thing blows over IE. turn his words into actions.

If you need someone to tell you how to show initiative in making an apology, showing humility and working to understand the impact of your words and actions, than I don’t know what to say to you.

What's your point Koberulz?

"The NBL has fully recognised that Webster has taken full responsibility and has apologised.

Or are there some sprinkles, incantations and ceremonies required to expunge Rainbow anger?"

Do you actually think that quote in the Perth article came from Corey Webster? We all know Corey is not going to "educate himself" or anything else of the sort. It's insincere. Social media account set to private, and he'll just not comment on it again for as long as he wants to keep getting paid by the Perth Wildcats.

What's your point Koberulz?

Okay LoveBroker, you clearly don't take issue with Webster insinuating that someone's sexual preference is tantamount to being a "mental illness" (heavily implying that something is inherently wrong with such an individual because what else could possibly be his intention).

, if he is indeed serious about "educating himself", and make a genuine attempt to engage so he may understand why his comments are so detrimental

If you need someone to tell you how to show initiative in making an apology, showing humility and working to understand the impact of your words and actions, than I don’t know what to say to you.

Do you actually think that quote in the Perth article came from Corey Webster?

We all know Corey is not going to "educate himself" or anything else of the sort.

Social media account set to private, and he'll just not comment on it again for as long as he wants to keep getting paid by the Perth Wildcats.

The thing that gets me about this whole affair is this:

Responded to one of those...engagement farming spam [posts]

From my very first post I said that he should know better than to step on a Rainbow landmine.

LoveBroker

Happy to bet $10000 that he will post something similar to this in the next 2 years. And attack a minority online.

Just like he assaulted someone after saying he will work on himself after assaulting someone else.

Not making excuses for Webster, not possible. But I'm curious, why has the league never taken the opportunity to address Bogut and his opinions?

Not saying two wrongs make a right, they don't.

Seems the forum has turned political. I read his comment and inferred that he was talking about extreme trans movement rather than homosexuality. The best policy is to never tweet your thoughts as an athlete.

Koberulz...yes, but he is the one out here being forced to apologize. On the other hand, the alphabet community are allowed to groom our children without so much as a blink of an eye.

So much ignorance and hate in this thread and people wonder why things like pride round are still needed. Do better people.

The comment referred to a rainbow which is being used as a very broad representative symbol by people of varying sexual orientations.
When mature and consenting homosexuals and lesbians are grouped under the *same* collective symbol as drag/trans people who overtly groom and indoctrinate children into suggestive gender dysmorphia through blatant sexualsed performances, it becomes very conflated.
The conflation has become so blurred that if a parent was to criticise a sexualised presentation by a drag dude at a local kinder and remove their child from the kinder, then that parent is automatically
accused of being a homophobe bigot, which is a very broad and innacurate accusation.

We don't know exactly which group specifically Webster was referring to, and at the very least, he should've explained his position more clearly.

Ok, so we're not going to do better. Got it.

What?

Im not taking sides with anyone.

Im simply saying that when the rainbow has become so broadened as to include both consenting adult homosexuals *and* the blatant sexualisation and gender confusion of children by men dressed as sexualsed female fairys, then we really don't know what it actually represents.

Cram...just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are a hater or ignorant. Saying otherwise could be considered hate or ignorance.

I love that very traditional attire and these apparent "sexualised performances" often involve men in fancy get-up, wigs and the like.





There's so much common ground out there! Celebrate it!

Resisting child grooming is 'doing better'.

" Freedom of speech is also not freedom from consequences, criticism, or ridicule."

And if he's received those things what else does he really need? A broad "we disagree with your view and you may very well be wrong" seems about what this justifies, not some sort of sanction.

"That's some take... you should probably look through his social media from a few years ago. He is like folau asking people to believe in god whilst wishing for certain groups to die.

Dude doesn’t need to promote violence, he is violent. How many people has he assaulted in the last decade? 5/6?"

This is called conflating. You're conflating what he said with what Israel Folau said to make Corey's words violence. One called for violence, the other did. And then you're conflating Corey's violence in another area with the comment he made. It's like saying "you punched a punching bag so everything else you do is violent". What he said may have been inapproprirate in polite society but it wasn't violent. Smug, sarcasstic, ill-informed? You can argue that. But violent? No.

"The "woke left" implies you need to be extreme left wing to find what Corey said reprehensible... I don't think that's even close to the truth. Times have changed."

I think gay people are born that way. I don't think anyone would choose to be that way, specifically because I acknowledge there is a social handicap for people who are homosexual in society. But when it comes to the trans issue, it's not so much trans people themselves that are the issue, it's the "trans movement" and weird things where for some god unknown reason they want trans as close to children as humanly possible. Trans story time. Trans marches where grown men are twerking around children. "Safe Schools" programs where sexual education is way too explicit towards kids, trans issues and homosexuality. The constant kaffuffle over the toilet issues and the erasure of women's spaces. People have a right to have a point of view on those things.

"Only people with a peculiarly inaccurate view of nature would view it as odd. Humans are part of nature and whatever they do is thereby natural."

The point I was making more that people have different beliefs and I was comparing one point of view to the other. Frankly what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. I guess it would fall under the category of any other fetish to me - weiid, but if you wanna do that, do that. I have no real problem with gay people. I just don't need to see the details of what it means and I don't tneed to have it pushed on me everywhere I go, pride rounds, pride marches all the rest of it. I look forward to a day where we move past the need to even have these kinds of theatrics but that day isnt going to come by shutting up everyone who disagrees. It's by celebrating commonalities about people not by making a huge deal on every way we're different.

"Im not taking sides with anyone."

*proceeds to label an entire group of people as predators*

Ok dude

I think gay people are born that way. I don't think anyone would choose to be that way, specifically because I acknowledge there is a social handicap for people who are homosexual in society

Hope there's more basketball soon, because I need some brain bleach after *skimming* this thread.

"Im not taking sides with anyone."

*proceeds to label an entire group of people as predators*

Ok dude"

C'mon mate, I did the exact opposite.
I explicitly said they are *not* the same.

I think basketball players are fine, but I think coaches coming into your house to kill your dogs is not ok and we should resist that.

LBG and T are very different things. Rainbow propaganda throws them under the same banner

the key difference being that you're far more comfortable being outwardly bigoted against one group than the other

The Perth Wildcats wish to advise that in light of the last 24 hours, Corey Webster has been stood down from tonight's match against the Adelaide 36ers.

Was kinda keen for him to play and hoping humphries would lay him out with a hard foul or something ahahha

Incredible isn't it that simple words can be construed as violence on one side, but support for actual violence on the other side exists and actually considered humorous.

The cancel culture is creeping into every facet of our lives

The cancel culture is creeping into every facet of our lives

People have been killed, fired and discriminated against for being gay (as one example) from the beginning.

Koberulz...yes, but he is the one out here being forced to apologize.

On the other hand, the alphabet community are allowed to groom our children without so much as a blink of an eye.

When mature and consenting homosexuals and lesbians

the blatant sexualisation and gender confusion of children by men dressed as sexualsed female fairy

Trans story time.

I have no real problem with gay people. I just don't need to see the details of what it means and I don't tneed to have it pushed on me everywhere I go

The cancel culture is creeping into every facet of our lives

I think we can all agree that ridiculing and bullying them makes things better though, right?

That is not cancel culture.

For Koberulz: https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/yes-trans-activists-admit-they-are-grooming-your-kids/

Providing a safe space for victims of abuse is not "grooming".

Exposing children to trans activism is not a safe.

Unless there is a new definition of safe in the rainbow dictionary.

Good lord, what decade did I just wander into?

You could point to research showing trans kids have high rates of mental illness (and it hasn't been proven that trans identity causes mental illness and not vice versa- in fact many experts believe the causality often runs from mental illness to trans identity)

So you could argue there's a grain of factual truth in Webster's comment. Arguably it's reasonable to think of mental illness when responding to a sign used to parade propaganda around a community which does, factually, have higher rates of mental illness

Whether that's kind and compassionate is a different question of course

But there's some basis to it

Nonetheless, basis or otherwise, the cancel culture will continue and Webster will no doubt be hounded into a stronger apology, or forced to sit through hours of "diversity and inclusion" propaganda, or both, or be asked to leave the Wildcats

Websters comments are spot on.
Trans peoples beliefs are not in alignment with reality.
This is what is called a mental illness.
Does this mean we should mock them, make fun of them etc? Absolutely not.
We should show compassion for them.
But we should not affirm there delusion.

CERN must of blown up the World and we all got shunted into an adjacent Reality which is just plain crazy. Never would of thought that a mental illness would be pushed onto young kids all in the name of population reduction. Pole Dancing Drag Queens rights are now so important they have to foster it onto impressionable kids as a lifestyle alternative.

Corey I'm with you 100% it is mental illness.

Some of the comments on here ie the last couple display a degree of ignorance that is pathetic.

Andrew - difference between being cancelled and being held accountable.

I really enjoy watching right wing free-speech activists demanding the rights to say what they want without consequence but then in the very next breath denying that very right to other based on their own opinions/agenda.

If you don't want you kids listening to stories from drag queens. Then don't do it. Doesn't mean you should stop other people from being allowed to do it if that is their prerogative.

Hypocrisy at its finest

Scout, the ignorance is actually from the activists pushing kids into trans identity

The biggest gender clinic in the world literally got shut down because kids with mental illness were being put onto hormones with insufficient, hasty diagnosis processes and lack of safeguards (Tavistock).

That's completely different from stopping someone from reading a book because you fear your child's knowledge of their very existence will 'turn your kid trans.'

Should we make all middle age white men undergo analysis because they make up the largest group of potential paedophiles or rapists?

LV,

You and your fellow right-wingers lack the self-awareness to realise you've been pushing your kids into the largest pedophile ring in history via religious indoctrination yet have the sheer audacity to try and lecture the left on your latest conspiracy theory/scare campaign.

The biggest gender clinic in the world literally got shut down because kids with mental illness were being put onto hormones with insufficient, hasty diagnosis processes and lack of safeguards (Tavistock).

" So you could argue there's a grain of factual truth in Webster's comment. Arguably it's reasonable to think of mental illness when responding to a sign used to parade propaganda around a community which does, factually, have higher rates of mental illness"

Sorry, are you talking about religion? Because that sounds like you're describing religion.

Especially given the extraordinarily high rates of mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction and domestic violence associated with religious communities.

KR, oh the classic "I'll do a google search and post the first article I find"

Go read the Cass review.

Zodiac I'm not a "right-winger" at all. But as you were

Zodiac I'm not a "right-winger" at all. But as you were

LV, if you're not right wing then what are you?
"Far-right winger"?

The updated LGBTQ+XYZ flag contains the traditional colours of paedophilia.

I support Corey Webster.

Repair,

Where does the flag have the traditional church (ie paedophile) colours???

RJD I'm a social conservative on cultural issues, but a centrist on most of the main issues that decide my vote- economy, welfare, national security, tax etc.

Even left on a few issues too.

LV, I haven't appeared in this thread yet, but since you summoned me, perhaps I will add fuel to this thread:

Was Webster referring to studies that suggest that LGBQ people reported over twice the level of household mental illness before age 18? Or studies that report over 2 times higher rates of various mental illness among the LGBQ people? So Webster's response may not be suggesting being gay is a mental illness, but a sympathetic response to the social pressures that they face and mental health consequences of this.

Ok, it's Corey Webster, so maybe not. But why not get clarification on this before attacking him? Also, why do we need to give so much attention to comments like this?

Yeah, lets all have more empathy towards.....Corey Webster. That's the lesson here.

Doesn't inclusiveness encompass empathy for all?

Or only those that follow your beliefs?

Let's also consider that maybe Corey was campaigning for transgender people to be able to access medical funding under a mental illness clause, like a few of the posters here. It's very considerate really.

"Doesn't inclusiveness encompass empathy for all?"

Absolutely. And if he had shown any indication that this is what he meant, or had mentioned this in any other form as something he's campaigning for it might be valid. But nobody believes for a second thats what it was. Even he wasnt dumb enough to even try to make that argument.

"Also, why do we need to give so much attention to comments like this?"

I do wonder what the reaction and attention would be if a lot of the arguments and scenarios put forward were amended to replace LGBT with Christian. Especially in the context that this is a (extreme) Christian battle being fought.

For example, I'd be very curious what would the reaction be if someone say, replied to an image of a Christian cross with “mental illness”?

I feel like that wouldn’t receive casual acceptance.

LoveBroker,

A better argument would be to have empathy for those who have empathy.

Otherwise we would be required to have empathy for fascist's rather than standing up to goose stepping, holocaust creating, murderer's.

KET but that would have less factual basis in the context of my earlier post

Actually, research shows religious faith is good for mental health.

Christians have higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse; Christians are also victims of it at higher rates.

Mental illness and addictions are rife within Christian communities. Christians need to figure their own shit out before getting involved in others' business, it’s pretty simple.

I understand that’s inconvenient for you, but that fact has been known for a long time.

Also, the happiest countries on earth are the least religious, go figure.

Disturbing that the NBL is actively promoting sexuality at games as minors are in attendance.

This should be a no go zone for all sports.

LV

I'm not sure what algorithm you are getting your info from.

Believing that a magic sky fairly is real and omnipotent and everything you do is decided by them. That the world is only 4000 year old, that we are all descended from a solitary couple because they ate an apple. And that some old bloke built a boat to house all of gods animals/creation for 40 days and 40 nights...I could go on...is actually a mental illness.

Repair

Its not sexuality they are promoting, but inclusivity. And freedom of choice. You are free to not attend, or not have your children attend. I am perfectly comfortable with mine attending, and freedom of choice dictates you shouldn't be allowed to stop me from my choices.

And Repair,

They aren't doing it for any reason other than profit $$$. If sells tickets to show inclusivity. And you are in the minority that they don't mind losing because they will still make more profit without the bigoted minority.

BTW LV

I prefer BBC news over whatever Facebook based algorithms you've been getting your right wing fake news from.

Harold Koenig's extensive research and hundreds of peer reviewed articles suggest faith is good for you

Thank goodness I refused to let my impressionable children see a rainbow-coloured patch on a basketball jersey and instead had them spend some quality time with Christopher Saunders or God only knows how they would have turned out.

Update from the Cats

The Perth Wildcats and player Corey Webster have accepted Basketball Australia's decision and supported sanction for a Code of Conduct breach.
The Wildcats stood Webster down for Tuesday's NBL Blitz win over Adelaide after both parties agreed it was the appropriate decision to make.

We will continue to work with Webster and the entire organisation on inclusiveness and diversity education.

In reaching their decision, Basketball Australia acknowledged the deep remorse shown by Webster, along with a commitment to undertaking further training in diversity and inclusion.

So Webster is to be "re-educated" for "wrong-think".

So Webster is to be "re-educated" for "wrong-think".

If his employment is subject to a Code of Conduct that includes public social media, I'd say that the education is "this is insensitive for these reasons; this is why we as a club/league have these policies and think they're important; don't say it publicly". They might have a similar response for other legal-but-coarse things like using particularly offensive language online or in public.

His job is effectively in entertainment where his public image is strongly tied to the reputation of the team and broader league.

As an aside, for those interested and patient enough to read it through, there's a good piece by a fairly well known and interesting blogging psychiatrist here that talks about categorisation and then gradually gets to what commenters here are excited about. I think traditional categorisation will increasingly become less relevant, personally.

They aren't doing it for any reason other than profit $$$.

Perth Wildcats guard Corey Webster is free to line up in the first game of the NBL's regular season, despite being slapped with a ban for an offensive social media post about the LGBTQI pride flag.

Webster has already sat out one game following the incident, and will miss a second if he re-offends.

On Sunday night, Webster responded to a post showing the LGBTQI rainbow flag and the question: "What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you see this flag?".

The 34-year-old wrote “mental illness” but later deleted his comment.

Let's this be the end of it.

Webster knows what he said is not in line with the club and league code of conduct.

He will receive training on how to avoid future questionable social media conduct.

No one need be triggered going forward.

"Webster is free to think whatever he likes. I haven't seen anything to the contrary."

A sanction being applied isn't 'free'.


"But sadly, some people - even adults - still need to be formally reminded that bullying people online is kind of a douchey thing to do."

OK, but is he free to be 'douchey'?

If he is free to be douchey, then no sanction need be applied.

"It's unfortunate when an employer needs to step in and correct deficiencies in someone's upbringing like this, but fortunately most are willing to do so these days because they understand the importance of members of society not acting like arseholes towards each other."

That word 'free' doesn't mean what you think it means.

"A sanction being applied isn't 'free'."
Usually it's in the sense of criminal punishment.

Businesses code of conduct is nothing remotely close to just “don’t commit a crime”.

You can’t expect that to be a thing - like you can’t just go around shit talking your employer for example and think it’s ok.

“OK, but is he free to be 'douchey'?
If he is free to be douchey”

Why on earth do you think that would be a yes from a public facing employee standpoint? Again, code of conduct is a thing.

“That word 'free' doesn't mean what you think it means.”

Idk why you think an employee can have carte blanche? If you wanna do that shit don’t be employed to a public facing job.

Business reputation is a thing.

"Usually it's in the sense of criminal punishment.

Businesses code of conduct is nothing remotely close to just "don't commit a crime"."

A sanction is a retributive action. A person on the receiving end of a sanction is not 'free'.


"You can’t expect that to be a thing - like you can’t just go around shit talking your employer for example and think it’s ok."

That's right, you're not free to talk shit about your employer, and if you do, a retributive sanction is there to remind you you're not free to do so.

"Why on earth do you think that would be a yes from a public facing employee standpoint? Again, code of conduct is a thing."

If you think he is free to do it, then he is free to do it.

If is is receiving a sanction, then he is not free.

"Idk why you think an employee can have carte blanche? If you wanna do that shit don’t be employed to a public facing job."

I'm not.

I'm saying don't insult other arguments by saying he is free to do so, when he is clearly not.

"Business reputation is a thing."

OK, so the reason he isn't free?!?

If you think he is free to do it, then he is free to do it.

If is is receiving a sanction, then he is not free.

"Just don't do it when you are employed and want to stay employed as a pro sportsman."

He didn't do it when he was on a basketball court, he did it when he was off company time, and in his personal time.

"He didn't do it when he was on a basketball court, he did it when he was off company time, and in his personal time."

If he drove home drunk from a mate's birthday and smashed his car into a traffic light would that be OK because it was off company time? That's not how real life works, and it's magnified the more you are in the public eye.

Webster is "free" to do whatever he wants, but like everyone else in the world you are not free from the consequences - that's how society works.

"If he drove home drunk from a mate's birthday and smashed his car into a traffic light would that be OK because it was off company time? That's not how real life works, and it's magnified the more you are in the public eye."

He would be sanctioned because he would be braking the law, and he is not free to do so under the criminal act of his jurisdiction. he would be dealt the appropriate sanction.

That is also how real life works... seeing as you're on top of this and all.

But hey, if you want o get all high and mighty...

To this day in Western Australia, the Electoral Act prohibits any "committee meeting held for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election" at a licensed premises. It incurs a $6,000 fine as the sanction.

So if Webster did this... you'd also want the Wildcats to stand him down as to 'correct his behaviour"? or would the fine be suitable sanction and the Wildcats should have nothing to do with it?

No.. let's extend that to an act where there is no crime, such as pointing out the mentally ill on a social media platform

"Webster is "free" to do whatever he wants, but like everyone else in the world you are not free from the consequences"

Yes it is, 'Free' means there are no consequences.

"- that's how society works.""

...and enlightenment died a little bit more....

"A sanction is a retributive action. A person on the receiving end of a sanction is not 'free'."

Nobody is completely free in that context and nobody will ever be completely free if employed. Society isn't carte-blanche. You don’t like that, I guess.

“He didn't do it when he was on a basketball court, he did it when he was off company time, and in his personal time.”

That’s not a valid argument though. That’s not how it works at all.

It wouldn’t matter what time of day you do it, if you shit talked your employer for example on Social media you can be terminated. Code of conduct can extend into personal time. Obviously not all, but social media postings is one of them within reason.

That’s not an opinion thing, that’s just how the law works.

"He would be sanctioned because he would be braking the law, and he is not free to do so under the criminal act of his jurisdiction. he would be dealt the appropriate sanction."

OK, but not suspended from the NBL? It's nothing to do with basketball obviously.

"To this day in Western Australia, the Electoral Act prohibits any "committee meeting held for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election" at a licensed premises. It incurs a $6,000 fine as the sanction.

So if Webster did this... you'd also want the Wildcats to stand him down as to 'correct his behaviour"? or would the fine be suitable sanction and the Wildcats should have nothing to do with it?"

No I wouldn't actually, I wouldn't care either way, but I suppose they would be welcome to if the Wildcats, NBL, or BA thought he was in violation of any agreements or clauses he has baked into his playing contract.

"Yes it is, 'Free' means there are no consequences"

Not strictly, no. That's your interpretation of it.

"Nobody is completely free in that context and nobody will ever be completely free if employed. Society isn't carte-blanche. You don't like that, I guess."

I can think of a numebr of acts which would be conisdered as offensive, if not more so, that Corey Websters tweet, and there was no forced standing day from their job..

I don't accept your premise.

""He didn't do it when he was on a basketball court, he did it when he was off company time, and in his personal time."

That’s not a valid argument though. That’s not how it works at all."

It's a very valid argument. The Wildcats primary purposes is to play basketball, which Webster does to the required calibre.

He also has time when he is not working for his employer, and my views on freedom are he should have unrestricted freedom of expression, eve if contrary to the Wildcats.

Now if his freedom of expression violates some things in the civil or criminal act, he will be sanctioned accordingly.

"It wouldn’t matter what time of day you do it, if you shit talked your employer for example on Social media you can be terminated. Code of conduct can extend into personal time. Obviously not all, but social media postings is one of them within reason."

--- "In 2011, in one of Australia’s earliest case of dismissal through social media posts, a Linfox employee made several 'inappropriate’ comments on social media about two of his managers. The FWA found the dismissal was unfair and the employee was to be reinstated, and paid compensation for lost wages - ." ---

Yeah, well it has to be a lot more refined than 'the vibe of it'...

"That’s not an opinion thing, that’s just how the law works."

Yes, the law is a social construct, and it up to be shaped by social expectations and demands.

The mentally ill having primacy over Webster's employment is being argued as a step too far, and hopefully "the way things work" will change.

"""He would be sanctioned because he would be braking the law, and he is not free to do so under the criminal act of his jurisdiction. he would be dealt the appropriate sanction."

OK, but not suspended from the NBL? It's nothing to do with basketball obviously."

Many sports will follow up with a sanction of their own in this circumstance, in line with their own codes of conduct and the expectations of their fans. This is a polarizing moment because decent human beings object to the mentally ill have undue influence to impair Webster's freedom.

"To this day in Western Australia, the Electoral Act prohibits any "committee meeting held for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election" at a licensed premises. It incurs a $6,000 fine as the sanction.

So if Webster did this... you'd also want the Wildcats to stand him down as to 'correct his behaviour"? or would the fine be suitable sanction and the Wildcats should have nothing to do with it?"

No I wouldn't actually, I wouldn't care either way, but I suppose they would be welcome to if the Wildcats, NBL, or BA thought he was in violation of any agreements or clauses he has baked into his playing contract."

OK, then this element of his, and every other players contract, needs to be removed. It is an undue impairment of freedom. Criticizing the mentally ill shouldn't result in this.

"Yes it is, 'Free' means there are no consequences"

Not strictly, no. That's your interpretation of it."

Stictly.. yes... there is no variation on 'free'. There cannot be a misinterpretation.

" He would be sanctioned because he would be braking the law, and he is not free to do so under the criminal act of his jurisdiction. he would be dealt the appropriate sanction."

The club would be able to sanction the player separately themselves in addition to whatever the Police do.

It wouldn't be hard to google examples of AFL players for instance where this has occurred.

"The club would be able to sanction the player separately themselves in addition to whatever the Police do."

I'll think you'll find I've asserted the same thing.

Now please point to the criminal act where Webster broke the law.

"It wouldn't be hard to google examples of AFL players for instance where this has occurred."

I'd be hard pressed to find where the AFL sanctioned a player for flying a kite in a public place ...

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s4.html

Breaking the law and all...

Now, what about a player who didn't break the law.... like Webster.

"Yeah, lets all have more empathy towards.....Corey Webster. That's the lesson here."

I'd say better lessons might be something along the lines of a basketballer is not, and shouldn't be, one to listen to in these matters. Another lesson may be that opinions differ and some people's opinions have a weak foundation. Another lesson might be that we are getting into dangerous territory when we attempt to limit free speech, especially based on one interpretation of a potentially ambiguous statement. Or that resilience and education should be prioritised over taking offense and promoting a victim complex. Another lesson may be that opinions can be contested with civilised debate within the social media forum upon which the statement was made, instead of further publicising the offensive statement to pollute elsewhere. If the comment was harmful, why attract attention to it for more people to be harmed? Unless there is another motive.

One extreme thinks that Corey needs to be publicly shamed and silenced; the other extreme consolidates their views when they hear someone else voicing them, especially after this type of backlash. Look at this thread. Both extremes tend to have dogmatic belief systems resistant to real debate. Neither seem interested in scientific debate. At one end, the religion of woke; the other end, the religion of, well, mainstream religion. Meanwhile, the media would love everyone else to participate in this battle of the extremes, toxifying discourse.

"I don't accept your premise."

What aren't you accepting? That there’s no carte-Blanche? Webster being sanctioned is proof of point isn’t it?

“It's a very valid argument. The Wildcats primary purposes is to play basketball, which Webster does to the required calibre.”

It’s not a valid argument of law though. If they couldn’t sanction him they wouldn’t have. Evidently you don’t agree with the law.

“unrestricted freedom of expression”

Nobody has that in Australia, it’s not a thing, it has never been a thing. Only people that are wrong think it’s a thing.

People can be terminated by employers for what they say, people can be sued for defamation for what they say, people can be convicted for what they say (blackmail, threats and the like).

Freedom of speech has always been restricted.

"the other extreme consolidates their views when they hear someone else voicing them, especially after this type of backlash"

There is nothing extreme about freedom of speech. It's been a cornerstone of enlightened thought since the 1600's.

"Now please point to the criminal act where Webster broke the law."
Who said he has?

“I'd be hard pressed to find where the AFL sanctioned a player for flying a kite in a public place ...”

Are you high? What are you talking about?

"It's not a valid argument of law though. If they couldn’t sanction him they wouldn’t have. Evidently you don’t agree with the law.

I'd still like to be informed which law Webster broke?

"Nobody has that in Australia, it’s not a thing, it has never been a thing. Only people that are wrong think it’s a thing."

It's not a part of society protected by law I agree. Just as we technically do not have a law which protects a right to healthcare.

However I would consider freedom of expression as equal to access to healthcare, both are intrinsic to our culture, and unless it violates some other law tends to be left alone. More so it shouldn't be policed by those ill-equipped to do so, such as corporations or non-heterosexuals.

"People can be terminated by employers for what they say, people can be sued for defamation for what they say, people can be convicted for what they say (blackmail, threats and the like)."

And in many such cases they are found liable for unfair dismismal.

But again, what is it Webster did which is worthy of sanction? If he is sanctioned, he is not free. What here permits the impairment of his freedom.

"Freedom of speech has always been restricted"

It is only impaired if the expression violates another law. I don't see any laws being broken here.

""Now please point to the criminal act where Webster broke the law."
Who said he has?

"I'd be hard pressed to find where the AFL sanctioned a player for flying a kite in a public place ..."

Are you high? What are you talking about?"

I even posted a link... how simple do you need it?

That link I posed, flying a Kite which annoys someone is breaking the law in Victoria.

So if the players breaks the law, under this hypothetical, is the AFL placed to also apply a sanction.

You're giving some sort of oral authority to a sporting body to apply a sanction based on the criminality of the act.

I'm asserting a sporting body like the AFL, or NBL, are ill-equipped to apply sanctions based on laws. I'd assert they are even less-well equipped to apply sanctions based on tweets in a player's non-work time.

"There is nothing extreme about freedom of speech. It's been a cornerstone of enlightened thought since the 1600's."

I'm not suggesting that. I was referring to the anti-homosexuality stance that comes from religious views.

There's a difference between anti-homosexual, and being indifferent to it.

Cairns attitude last year for pride week was definitely the latter, and they still copped grief.

There is nothing extreme about freedom of speech. It's been a cornerstone of enlightened thought since the 1600's.

No restraints to free speech at all, try going to the US and calling a black man a nigger and see how your free speech rights go.

Promoting sexuality at events with minors in attendance is plain wrong.

Sorry, you're hard to follow it’s a bit erratic to read.

" I'd still like to be informed which law Webster broke?"
See this is confusing, nobody said he broke a law and he doesn’t need to break a law to be sanctioned by an employer.

An employer can exercise rights through employment law and contract law to sanction if they choose to based on certain conduct. That’s not a “breaking a law” scenario.

“ how simple do you need it?
That link I posed, flying a Kite which annoys someone is breaking the law in Victoria.”

You definitely need to be clearer because you went from drink driving to kite flying, do you see how erratic and wild that is? It took a moment to click that you were trying to be absurd.

Your absurdist argument doesn’t work because employment and contract law is extremely complex. It’s not “person breaks law = employers can sanction”.

Drink driving for a sports person is an easier one to see precedent for than Kite flying!

Another good example - someone gets caught going a few km over the limit would be completely different to a person drag racing drunk at 150km in a school zone. They’d have completely different outcomes from an employer probably not being able to do anything vs very easily terminating a contract.

All acts are not equal and an employer doesn’t have a right to sanction all conduct.

“So if the players breaks the law, under this hypothetical, is the AFL placed to also apply a sanction.”
See above - your black and white hypothetical is faulty.

“You're giving some sort of oral authority to a sporting body to apply a sanction based on the criminality of the act.”

We are saying they have a right to exercise their employment and contract rights based on conduct (because they do). They’re not judiciary enforcing criminal law.

It’s their lawful rights that they have.

“I'm asserting a sporting body like the AFL, or NBL, are ill-equipped to apply sanctions based on laws.”
You can assert whatever you like, they’re allowed to exercise their rights as an employer/contractual rights.

"If he is sanctioned, he is not free. What here permits the impairment of his freedom."
For the thousandth time, he is not free to do carte-blanche, nobody is and employment law and contract law from the contract a player signs.

“It is only impaired if the expression violates another law. I don't see any laws being broken here.”
Someone signs a non-disparaging clause which results in sanction with a company. Person breaches non-disparaging clause and company exercises right to sanction.

That's the exercise of contract law at work which impairs expression.

It’s pretty damn standard for contractual obligations to include conduct!

The thing about Webster's post to me, is that it was so short and therefore ambiguous by nature, that no one actually knows who or what he was specifically referring to in his statement of 'mental illness'

Was he referring to mature same sex individuals engaging in consensual sex?
Loving same sex couples caring for each other and living together in a relationship?
Or...
Men dressed as fairies performing displaying performances of sexual innuendo in front of children?
Promotion of gender fluudity and bodily dysmorphia among school aged children?
Or was he referring to men dressed as women who through their claim of 'identification' choose to use a female toilet at a public place?


Surely any reasonable person can see the obvious distinction between the first 2 examples, and the latter 3

On that basis, i don't see why any reason to either scorn or support his view, as to be honest, his view wasn't made clear.

Yes, the difference between the first two and the latter three is very obvious. The first two are things that actually happen.

I'm sensing there might be some backlash this season to the Wildcats annual "Hey young boys, you should all cut off your private parts, put on a dress, take estrogen and change your names to Olivia"-themed home game.

Interesting Luuuuc,

Don't see that one on the calendar.

Just the one where people from minority backgrounds are shown the the majority support their choices. And its only the bigoted minority who yell the loudest that want to shut down free choice.

The inability of some people to detect sarcasm in this thread is probably the most worthwhile thing about it.

"to use a female toilet at a public place?"

Who gives a shit? Female bathrooms are just cubicles, these days lots of places are rebadging as unisex and places don't even bother to differentiate between male and female bathrooms.

Only benefit of male bathroom is the efficiency of the urinal, otherwise it’s just all cubicles and makes zero difference.

"See this is confusing, nobody said he broke a law and he doesn't need to break a law to be sanctioned by an employer.

An employer can exercise rights through employment law and contract law to sanction if they choose to based on certain conduct. That’s not a "breaking a law" scenario."

It was designed to end up in confusion, to highlight your contradictory view, which you have now taken an opposite stance from the beginning.


All i said at the beginning was a reply to "he is free".

I replied 'he is not free if he received a sanction'.

All the heterophobic bigots here jumped on a train of delusion trying to assert he was free, pumping out a bunch of tropes they barely understand... but here we are concluding..

"He is not free, he received sanction from his employer because of the restrictions of freedom they imposed."

Great.. we can happily conclude he is not free, and your kind are happy to have this restriction of freedom because it apparently serves a greater good.
For the purposes of this debate I'll call this the 'corporate imperative'


....

"You definitely need to be clearer because you went from drink driving to kite flying, do you see how erratic and wild that is? It took a moment to click that you were trying to be absurd."

Yes.. it was an absurd premise replying to;

"If he drove home drunk from a mate's birthday and smashed his car into a traffic light would that be OK because it was off company time?"

No, I mean this it a rather stupid leap of logic, but expected from your kind ... but the comment itself was trying to assert moral authority about the breaking of a law, and reinforcing of the validity of this 'corporate imperative'.

Does Kite flying, or electioneering in a WA pub also reinforce the corporate imperative. I think my absurdity concludes, IMO anyway, it does not.

if anything, I'm asserting there should be no corporative imperative and the Wildcats, and all other sporting organisations, should STFU when it comes to players expressing themselves.

....

"Your absurdist argument doesn’t work because employment and contract law is extremely complex. It’s not “person breaks law = employers can sanction”...

No the absurdist argument works because the pro-position is conflating the 'corporate imperative' as a backstop to 'failures in the legal system.

As in ... 'the law didn't sanction Webster for calling our trannies, so thank goodness his employer will.' ..This position is used by ideologues as a weapon.

You can't change the law as a minority, but you can pressure a corporation.

....

"Another good example - someone gets caught going a few km over the limit would be completely different to a person drag racing drunk at 150km in a school zone. They’d have completely different outcomes from an employer probably not being able to do anything vs very easily terminating a contract.

All acts are not equal and an employer doesn’t have a right to sanction all conduct."

Or in other words 'the law didn't sanction person X in accordance to my views, so thank goodness his employer will.'

painting a perfect picture for me.
....

“So if the players breaks the law, under this hypothetical, is the AFL placed to also apply a sanction.”
See above - your black and white hypothetical is faulty.

The hypothetical is here what degree does an body, which has no place applying sanctions, pass sanctions which are deemed 'suitable'.

Now, in all instances right minded people dissent against, is when a player expressing himself in a way which which opposes the regressive left.

gay rights, trannies, gender pay gap, etc., etc.

You are continuing to demonstrate why I am correct.
.....

"We are saying they have a right to exercise their employment and contract rights based on conduct (because they do). They’re not judiciary enforcing criminal law.

It’s their lawful rights that they have."


Do you disagree with what happened to Alan Turing? I man nothing but lawful rights were exercised...

Laws are social constructs, thus always up for reform. There are also implicits rights, which may not be codified but are important to our culture and quality of life.. there is not formal right to free speech in Australia, just as there is no right to access to healthcare. We've tended to protect them via social outrages rather than them being codified.

So in this instance, the importance of freedom of expression outweighs the importance of protecting the mentally ill from being offended.

Corporations are sociopathic by definition, they will not and cannot understand the importance of what I've said above, and should understand they need to STFU when it comes to such matters, such as Webster.

....

“I'm asserting a sporting body like the AFL, or NBL, are ill-equipped to apply sanctions based on laws.”
You can assert whatever you like, they’re allowed to exercise their rights as an employer/contractual rights."

The (UK) state, which is a corporation, exercised its rights over Alan Turing...

Again, you're not consistent. but your kind rarely are.

"For the thousandth time, he is not free to do carte-blanche, nobody is and employment law and contract law from the contract a player signs.

And for the 1001st time, your kind need to be consistent with their views...

I am responding to this.

"Webster is free to think whatever he likes. I haven't seen anything to the contrary."

My entire premise was;

Oi, heterophobic chodes, he is not free, he is being sanctioned".. only to watch your kind ties yourself in a pretzel, contradicting yourself every 2nd paragraph.

And then it's rained down ill thought out tropes between "he is free" to "he's not free, but the impairment of freedom is deserved".

..
"Someone signs a non-disparaging clause which results in sanction with a company. Person breaches non-disparaging clause and company exercises right to sanction."

Webster didn't disparage the Wildcats. The Wildcats aren't equipped or qualified to have a view on any other matter.
...

"That's the exercise of contract law at work which impairs expression."

So, the 'morally justified' reason.. I get it...
...

"It's pretty damn standard for contractual obligations to include conduct!"

Well, time to remove that standard. I think the dissent here by a majority is demonstrating this to be a prevailing view

"No restraints to free speech at all, try going to the US and calling a black man a nigger and see how your free speech rights go."

Tell me where there is a law in the US which prohibits calling someone a nigger?

Wouldn't there be a bunch of rap artists in gaol if that was the case?

Some of you need to get out of the house more

"Yes, the difference between the first two and the latter three is very obvious. The first two are things that actually happen."

You might not be aware of them Kobe, but they do actually occur.


"Who gives a shit?" (re trans using womens toilets)

Women and girls do, as well as parents of girls.
I'll tell you, many women and girls feel extremely uncomfortable, and some usafe at such scenarios.

If you don't *understand* why that makes women feel uncomfortable or unsafe, at least *respect* the fact that it does.

Haven't been on here for a while.

Isaac just saw your comment:
"I love that very traditional attire and these apparent "sexualised performances" often involve men in fancy get-up, wigs and the like."

Saw the picture. Is it Santa Claus, or Supreme Court Judges you’re referring to (I really couldn’t tell from the first pic)