Israel Folau has become a problem for Rugby Australia, and the game’s governing body must do something meaningful about him.
The star fullback has once again courted controversy with a social media post which, while advocating his religious beliefs, has been fairly described as anti-gay and homophobic.
When Folau first posted that God’s plan for gay people is “HELL”, Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle said he “could have put a more positive spin on the message”. Folau’s response to that has been to prefix his latest post “With great love I wanted to share this video…”, as if that somehow makes the 11-minute sermon which calls for an end to tolerance of same-sex marriage upbeat and inclusive.
Now, as I’ll no doubt be reminded in the comments section, Folau is entirely entitled to express his beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. The flipside of that argument is anyone else is entitled to call out his opinion as harmful, uninclusive, devoid of love, and possibly (probably, even?) dangerous.
They’re also entitled to say that Folau so perseveringly preaching a message about gay people repenting – all the while remaining coincidentally silent on the passages in the Bible about slavery and other practices which society has rightly changed its mind on in the past two millennia – might actually indicate a genuine personal belief, not just a desire to spread what’s written in the ‘Good Book’.
So Folau’s freedom of speech is being compromised no more than that of his critics. This isn’t an issue of Folau’s rights. It’s an issue of practicality for his employers.
Rugby AU’s woes – those of their own making and more – have been well publicised. Their $17.8 million surplus last year only came about thanks to some $21.6 million in government funding, leaving them with an operational deficit of $3.8 million.
The organisation is hardly in the position to be losing major sponsors, yet that is the risk they run when their highest-paid, highest-profile player keeps spouting uninclusive and harmful messages.
Qantas was far less than impressed with Folau’s ‘gays to hell’ comment last month, and one wonders what the airline is thinking now.
CEO Alan Joyce was one of the highest-profile supporters of the Yes campaign in last year’s same-sex marriage plebiscite. He and his organisation are entitled to make sponsorship decisions however they so choose, but a lack of success on the field and Folau’s comments off it surely make the Wallabies a far less enticing proposition than they once were – and not just for Qantas. What company would want to align themselves with a team whose star player regularly courts outrage?
(Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)
Raelene Castle trod delicately over the issue when she fronted the press about Folau in early April – probably the right move with Folau off contract at the end of the year.
But Folau has shown he has no intention of changing the way he uses social media since then. Regardless of his right to do so, yesterday’s post indicates either an incredible naivete around the practicalities of the situation or a flat-out lack of care.
His posts also breach Rugby AU’s Code of Conduct, which, under Part 2, 1.6, states that players cannot “make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.” If Folau didn’t know that his comment in April wasn’t in the best interests of the game, he certainly would have before hitting ‘Tweet’ yesterday.
I don’t envy Castle and Rugby AU. They’re facing a situation in which they cannot win. Fine or otherwise sanction Folau and they risk losing their best-performed player since his international debut, robbing the Wallabies of their most dangerous attacking weapon a year out from the World Cup.
Alternatively, support Folau and allow him to keep posting what he’s posting, and Rugby AU will get further offside with the public and risk losing valuable sponsorship dollars.
Neither is a palatable option, but it’s time for Rugby AU to publicly and decisively pick one and stick to it.
Michael Clare
Guest
Voltaire said it well: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
David Warriner
Guest
He is paid to catch a ball avoid being caught and place over a line. Opinions are his own and if you don't like his answer bad luck.
Jibba jabba
Guest
I bet if they narrowed the vote to "Do you agree with and accept blokes putting their fiddly bits into the rear end of another bloke" there might have been a different result.... amazing how may people here think that's a good thing...
elvis
Guest
No need to be insulted because someone doesn't agree with you. i'm sorry but covering your argument in guff doesn't make it any better. And an appeal to authority posing as an argument at the end doesn't make it any better. Since it isn't a federal election, breaking it down into electorates is meaningless, I'm more surprised there are any electorates where the no vote got up. Trying to say with statistics that 8 million vs 5 million isn't divided is never going to fly, no matter how you present it. Why not just accept that not everyone shares your enthusiasm for SSM, accept that you have won and move on?
James J
Guest
No need to be insulting, elvis. Data can be cut in hundreds of ways to support differing arguments, but in this case, the results seem very clear and in no way support the idea of the country being 'divided'. If you look at these results in context (ie. relative to other national surveys/votes) a result where 133 of the 150 federal electorates voted “yes”, and 17 “no”, is not divided. If this was the result of a federal election, it would be considered an absolute landslide. In fact, there's evidence that the 'yes' vote could have been even more significant. The lowest turnout of voters was in the 20-35yr age bracket, one which other polling has proven to be significantly in favour of SSM. But don't take my word for it. Norman Morris, the Industry Communications Director of Roy Morgan Australia said of the SSM vote: "Australians have ‘voted’ overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage"
elvis
Guest
For someone who works in statistics are you seriously trying to say that a ratio of votes of 1.6 - 1 isn't a divided view? It's a majority but not a very large one.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I pointed out that Trump's playbook is the one used by another famous fascist.
CatBag
Guest
One important point that many have missed is that an individual does not have a right to free speech in Australia. Australia has no Bill of Rights and an individual is not protected by this “right to freedom of speech” argument being thrown around. Maybe it’s too much American crime TV watching that makes people falsely believe Australians have this protection, as those shows are always going on about the right to free speech. Not so here in Oz. In the work place, legal precedence shows that a right to freedom of speech is not a defendable argument for being fired for not following company policies or direction and this covers communications including social media. So Folau has clearly flouted his work place policies and not followed company direction. He is entitled to have an opinion but it doesn’t mean he’s allowed to (or should) share it in such a public way. As I understand it, he is not protected by religious freedoms as they currently stand in Australia (the human rights commission has made recent recommendations on religious freedom protections) or by free speech rights as they do not exist in Australia. Just because you have an opinion, does not mean you’re entitled to share it.
ChrisG
Roar Rookie
I prefer ZZ Tops take in "Jesus Just Left Chicago" (might be my age)
JDB
Roar Rookie
I watched the video that Folau posted. There is one clear reference to homosexuality. The speaker relates a lecture at Princeton at which he was warned there were going to be protesters. The protesters didn’t eventuate, but the speaker postulated that the protests would probably be about passages from St Paul, “probably about homosexuality.” I don’t equate this with hate speech. Later the same speaker is critical of tolerance of same sex marriage. Finally in the middle of an appeal to people to repent there is an image of the Whitehouse with a rainbow projected across it. I can’t see the hate in these either. So, on this basis, I am at a loss to see where the hate for gay people lies. I know that some view opposition to same sex marriage as homophobic but I would suggest that is innacurate. Folau’s original tweet in response to the question, “what was god’s plan for gay people?”, was “Hell… unless they repent.” Pretty blunt right? Folau later clarified in Players Voice – a clarification that I thought fair enough given the brevity of Twitter – that, “My response to the question is what I believe God’s plan is for all sinners…” In that article he refers to himself repeatedly as a sinner as well. Gay or straight, it is clear that he thinks we could do worse than repent or we’ll go to Hell, and he was responding to a question specifically about gay people. So, Daniel, Folau didn’t actually say, as you and many others have reported it, “… Folau first posted that God’s plan for gay people is “HELL”. So, I find it extraordinary that you can write, “anyone else is entitled to call out his opinion as harmful, uninclusive, devoid of love, and possibly (probably, even?) dangerous”. We all have the right and, perhaps duty, to call out hate speech. We sure don’t have to agree with Folau’s views and can do what so many have done and go ahead and slam them. But Folau’s posts are not hate speech. Neither the first nor this latest one which you claim is “possibly (probably, even?) dangerous.” Clyde Rathbone’s tweet, on the other hand, borders on this when he labels Folau a “religious lunatic.” I think you’ve done Folau a serious disservice. Might be nice to repent after this article Daniel or who knows what is going to happen?
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Ralph how long is Folau’s current contract? Until 2019? What’s it’s worth? 2m or 3m? Just pay him out and send him in his way if he won’t listen to reason. Either he pulls his head in or he leaves. Very simple. Nobody is asking Folau to change his beliefs, or even that he indefinitely censor himself - he just needs to shut his gob for the next few seasons until his career is over. The code has to take a long term view and remove players from their ranks who will not stay within reasonable limits using social media. Players who want to promote devisive religious teaching just should not be given a pass - leave anti-gay religious doctrines for the private realm or for post-career. If it was me i’d extent him one last chance to pull his head in but i’d Also have a termination chequer at the ready. The code needs to make he right call for the long term, even if there is some short term pan. Folau, and any other players/supporters who don’t accept homosexuality as OK and not something worthy of punishment, are on the wrong side of history. Rip off the band-aid. Confront Folau and put it to rest one way of another. Allow Folau to be a martyr of he want to do that.
Don
Roar Rookie
I agree that Folau hasn’t breached any anti discrimination laws. But your argument was that an employee can say anything that they like on their personal social media pages. My point is that many can’t...
James J
Guest
Sorry, but as someone who works in statistics everyday, the result of the postal vote definitely qualifies as a 'majority'. Firstly, 80% responded, not 70% and as a response rate to a voluntary postal survey, 80% is incredible. It is a very statistically robust sample size by which to confidently estimate what the remaining 20% would have voted. Secondly, your point about vote tampering is moot. Even if we assume some degree of vote tampering or letter theft occurred (which is questionable despite what you saw on FB believe it or not), there's no reason to assume this favoured yes votes over no...Other than your own bias. 36,000-odd votes were deemed ineligible, so anything which was tampered with, didn't count anyway. Thirdly, this was not the only survey on SSM. Other surveys with smaller samples from a cross-section of the Australian community, were conducted which posed the question in different ways (some even asked biased questions which favoured the 'no' vote) and in every case, the yes vote won. Sorry, but in no way is the country 'divided on this issue'. It actually couldn't be more clear. Every state had a yes majority. If you personally don't agree with SSM, that's fine, but don't try to pretend that the majority of the Australian community doesnt disagree, despite what your read on FB.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Fionn, wouldn't that be their Qantas operated flights though? Potentially that may replace Dubai in the route given it's location. But it will require them to operate the flights, not codeshare. And the codeshare is essentially the benefit of the relationship.
piru
Roar Rookie
I raise you a celestial teapot Ralph
piru
Roar Rookie
except homophobic is the correct describing word for his comments
shooshiner
Guest
Who is Israel Folua ?
shooshiner
Guest
Piru .Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshkaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Phil
Guest
I am with you,Nick,but I don't think you can blame Folau for hearing his voice.This latest blow up is a classic example of the media sweating on the next thing to come from Folau's Twitter account,even if it is basically a nothing comment.The video hardly touches on same sex marriage but it is all blown up to be the main focus.If Folau wants to follow some crazy preacher,then he has every right to do so.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Well I am, Perhaps I am more evolved. Some valid points all of which are addressed in the Quran. It recognizes that we are tribal animals but with a variable boundary, which adapts to the conditions for the greater good. You fight with your brother, you and your brother fight together against your cousins, you and your cousins fight together against...... Wests Fight Souths, Wests & Souths team up to form the Reds against the Tahs. Reds and Tahs Team up against the Kiwis, Aussies and Kiwis Team up on a Turkish Beach. The remaining points are about animals fighting for survival or trying to maintain their genetic linage. They don't have the luxury of a highly developed cerebral cortex. Your fish example uses one of the least evolved vertebrate classes. They still school to help defend them against predators.