I am a Judicial Officer for a rugby federation in the Middle East and Africa and recently facilitated a disciplinary hearing regarding an alleged act of misconduct.
Coincidentally, the alleged offender had also posted negative comments on social media, but the targets of those comments were match officials, not LGBTQI people.
Initially, the misconduct was considered by an investigating officer. After he determined that, on the balance of probabilities, an act of misconduct had occurred, it was referred to me.
As specified by my rugby federation’s disciplinary regulations, I dealt with the alleged misconduct under the World Rugby Regulations, specifically Regulations 18 and 20.
For Folau’s misconduct (I am assuming an investigating officer and code of conduct committee agree his action was misconduct), Rugby Australia will need to follow the same procedures and principles, notwithstanding its own code of conduct that may be more restrictive than World Rugby’s.
A point to note is that, while WR regulations refer to judicial committees when considering misconduct hearings, RA regulations refer to code of conduct committees.
RA’s code of conduct for players provides that players must ‘treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability’ and ‘use Social Media appropriately [and] not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the above expectations and requirements of you as a Participant of Rugby.’
WR’s code of conduct provides a slightly different take – ‘statements or practices that may amount to Misconduct under these Regulations [including] acts or statements that are, or conduct that is, discriminatory by reason of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, colour or national or ethnic origin.’
Arguably, the RA code of conduct wording is vaguer than the WR code of conduct when defining misconduct in the context of statements regarding discrimination against people of a different sexual orientation, and it will be interesting to see how the RA investigating officer and code of conduct committee interpret the word ‘treat’ in their reports.
Is Izzy’s time in the game up? (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
One important point to remember is that the investigating officer and code of conduct committee are independent, so while they are affiliated with RA, they should be impartial to RA’s views and opinions when deciding.
For argument sake, let’s speculate that the committee sanctions Folau, but only to the extent that he is suspended or fined.
What, if anything, can be done if RA believe this type of sanction is inadequate, as I think it probably would?
Well, RA would need to appeal the decision; in which case it would be heard by an appeals committee that would have absolute discretion to modify the sanction.
But let’s further speculate that such an appeals committee does not modify the sanction to the extent that Folau is expelled from Rugby – what else could be done to ensure that RA’s intention?
Fortunately, WR can step in. In fact, WR has a very broad right to step into any matter that is subject to its jurisdiction, at any time, including RA disciplinary matters.
WR Regulation 20.15.1 provides that ‘Where World Rugby reasonably determines that circumstances exist or could arise where it is in the overall interests of the Game to intercede, World Rugby shall be entitled to appoint a designated disciplinary officer to undertake an investigation into incidents that constitute or may be capable of constituting Misconduct on the part of a Player, Person or other party.’
Generally, WR will allow the relevant union to exhaust its processes and procedures before stepping in, and that will almost certainly be the case with Folau’s RA hearings, but this trigger would then allow for a new investigation and hopefully different decision.
It is impossible to determine what decision the WR committees might make regarding Folau’s sanction, but I and many others believe that if RA’s attempts fail, it would be in the interests of Rugby for WR to take a firm and unambiguous stance against Folau and his unnatural, outdated, and incredibly harmful actions and opinions and remove him from the Rugby equation.
Julsza
Guest
IF is a professional athlete. Once you sign a contract for $$ you are at the mercy of the people who pay this money - the sponsors. The sponsors become your employer just like anyone else. IF failed to toe the company line last year - 1st warning issued. He then does the same thing again - just like anyone else he might lose his job. The ARU is not in a financial position to lose its major sponsor. As a professional rugby player in Australia I would be furious with IF as he has put the financial future of many players at risk. Israel said it himself - if my ideals do not agree with the ARU or its major sponsors I will simply walk away - I would have respected him for this as I believe everyone s entitled to their beliefs. Guess he forgot to mention he would only do it for $4 million.
mjseesred
Roar Rookie
No you miss the point. Firstly sensible is subjective not objective. Its flawed as a logical argument. "Posturing activists = those that don't hold my views. Secondly with the advent of Social Media and mass communication the concept of a majority is no longer a reasonable assumption. People's views are diverse and depending on the area can be contradictory with other people's views of similar areas. Take Christianity, perfect example. There are gay priests in some of them. Arguing the "silent majority" is laughable because of this. It doesnt exist and anyone who argues it does will comprehend the need to respect diversity as they have not grasped the concept yet.
frisky
Roar Rookie
Nobody has to read Folou’s tweets. Unfortunately this does not apply to our school kids.
frisky
Roar Rookie
I do not think that you understand what diversity and inclusiveness mean. It only appllies to people who think correctly.
frisky
Roar Rookie
You are just trying to censor other’s opinions. Perhaps “loony” is relevant?
frisky
Roar Rookie
A definition could be “ the sensible majority who are not posturing activists looking everywhere for a victimhood bandwagons” Do you agree that this is areasonable definition?
frisky
Roar Rookie
Your use of the term of “far right” for any and every opinion that differs from yours is a sign of lazy thinking. It is demonising that is close to bullying.
frisky
Roar Rookie
Folou has not treated anybody with disrespect. That has been confirmed by a number of gay rugby individuals . He has quoted from the Bible. Other leaders of a minority religion quoted much more offensive extracts from their holy books without censor or fuss of this sort.
Tony H
Roar Pro
Fair point, but Folau in fact refused to sign such an agreement, and wouldn't let it be inserted into his contract retrospectively. Given that, should he then be allowed to post what he believes? Let's be honest here, it's only because Folau is Christian, and spoke negatively about gay people. He's a tool, but as far as I'm concerned, being a tool isn't a crime. To follow up on your point about what you sign in a contract, I have a few questions. Should Usman Khawaja then not be allowed to speak of his faith or face the sack? When I employ people, can I require them to sign an agreement that specifies they won't talk about, or practice their beliefs in a way that I don't like? Can I only hire people who agree with me on everything? In my opinion, the simple answer to all of those questions is no, and therefore Folau should not be allowed to be persecuted for his beliefs, and a stupid Instagram post, where the same does not apply across every workplace in Australia. I firmly believe in equality before the law, and as such, Folau should not be subject to rules, that no one else is.
CJ @brisbanerugby
Guest
This proves that the game is bigger than the man (or women).
mjseesred
Roar Rookie
Tony they have every to talk about their faith. They have every right to knock on doors and attempt to talk to people about their faith. They have every right to use social media to post on their faith. I live with a christian and he talks of his faith and beliefs regularly and I respect them. We actually have some great discussions around this. When they don't have a right is when they have entered a legal agreement that supersedes that desire. If you have a clear policy that you sign that states you will not post information of that nature you should lose your job. As for who decides, it is the individuals decision. They also then decide not to be part of the rugby fraternity as it goes against the legal (not spiritual/faith/religious beliefs) that they have agreed to abide by.
Tony H
Roar Pro
I'm glad that you're the judge and jury on this one mj.. Given that I disagree with your statement (as I feel it denigrates a Christian's right to talk about their faith), and you've made it on a public platform, should you lose your job? If not, why not? And who decides? Again, FYI - I'm not a Christian, and I think Folau is a twit. I also wouldn't have him in the Wallabies anyway as I think he lacks fundamental skills for a FB and is a selfish player.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@In Brief Nothing brief about you unfortunately. Just another blow in from the christian far right who parachuted in last week trying to take the world back to the 16th century.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Well then Joe have that conversation. Which you are. I don’t for a sec disagree about the hypocrysis of Qantas position. Not sure if you can have the same comparison to Pocock but yes put it out there. That still does not exonerate Folaus actions. That is all part of the same debate. This is an important conversation and I will ignore those who deny it. When this all kicked off I was dead against the views of those like Kashmir Pete and others, but strangely enuff after hearing him out thru this forum found some understanding of where he is coming from. Hopefully he sees it the same way. Don’t still agree, but have a better insight. If you feel that strongly about Qantas let them know.
In Brief
Guest
Another interesting perspective on this ridiculous saga is the broad acceptance of the ability to re-interpret the Bible in accordance with modern social mores. This was the premise behind gay marriage. It is a very dangerous one in my view. If religious texts can be re-interpreted the question is by whom? By western post modern democracies only? Do we deny the same right to dictators? Can President Duterte re-write the scriptures according to his world view? What about the Sultan of Brunei? Surely if we can, he can? If not why not? Who decides? Which brings us back to Folau. You may not like what is written in the Bible - but you have no right to censor or alter it to meet your modern sensibilities. Unless you give that same right to others - including nasty dictators..
Sonny Bill Who
Guest
Did someone mention my name? Praise be to...
mjseesred
Roar Rookie
Take offence to the point of the loony left as that is regularly used as cover all for humanist and views of acceptance. I am proud to be one of those. I hate that this has become a proxy forum for arguing the validity of accepting discriminatory beliefs based on a religious ideology and we seem to have a lot more people engaged.
joe
Guest
So only LGBT issue is important to you !!! Hypocritical view , Joyce and Qantas in bed with LGBT killers ! no comment ? Pocock a self professed loony left ! no comment ? Pocok should be sacked as well , Qantas should be sacked
AndyS
Guest
But it does pose an interesting question - if someone else posts it on social media? It happens regularly enough, probably most recently to Aaron Smith.
In Brief
Guest
And here I was thinking Australia was full of simpletons - looks like a global phenomenon. So once again, let's just make it really simple: nothing Folau said was discriminatory against people of any sexual orientation- he merely quoted a passage from the Bible. Nothing new for gay Christians and irrelevant to non believers. Time to place your pansy on the posy and move on..