Here’s a thought: when Australians go to vote on who should be our prime minister for the next three years next weekend, we should also vote on whether Israel Folau should be allowed to continue his rugby career with the Wallabies and Waratahs for the next three and a half.
Australia decides. Don’t let the three-person independent panel decide his future.
Most of the country want to have their say. Let the fair-minded population make their adjudication.
It would require just one more voting slip to fill out. Tick the box ‘yes’ if you believe Folau deserves to be sacked for what the panel deemed was a “high-level breach” of his Rugby Australia contract for his “Hell Awaits” social media posts.
Tick the box ‘no’ if you believe he deserves some leniency – despite it being his second infraction – and a fine and/or suspension would suffice.
It would be tempting to add another option of ticking whether Izzy should play at fullback or on the wing just to put that dilemma to bed, but that might be taking the mickey.
Let’s be honest: many if not most Australians would spend more time deliberating over the Folau vote than whether Scott Morrison or Bill Shorten should lead the country.
(Paul Kane/Getty Images)
In fact, so pervasive has the Folau issue been that ScoMo and Shorten were even asked for their opinion on the saga during the third leaders’ debate on Wednesday night.
Neither called for Folau to be booted, but both touched on the insensitivity of his comments.
“On one hand, I think Israel Folau is entitled to his views and he shouldn’t suffer an employment penalty for it, so I’m uneasy about that part of it,” said Shorten, before adding that public figures such as Folau needed to be wary of the hurt that their public comments could cause.
Morrison noted that free speech should be exercised “responsibly… in a society such as ours with civility and due care and consideration to others.” The prime minister also pointed out that Folau was subject to contractual obligations.
So what would the verdict be in a Folau vote?
The result would give us a solid guide as to what Australians think of freedom of speech in the workplace and freedom to practice their religion in the workplace. These themes have been central to the debate over the rights of Folau to circulate his opinions.
So many have already aired their reactions to Folau’s views – Will Genia, Nick Phipps, Bernard Foley, Nick Farr-Jones, Alan Jones, Mark Latham, Anthony Mundine, Peter FitzSimons, Drew Mitchell, Stephen Hoiles.
So many more that aren’t current Wallabies, former Wallabies, media big-swingers or quotable types have given their opinions on social media.
This immediate, inclusive and interactive aspect to social media is its great upside, and it’s given many the opportunity to understandably deride and lay into Folau. His popularity and influence has meant the backlash has been speedy and brutal.
(Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
While the condemnation of his comments has been strong, there’s much more contention over the sanction that Folau should face.
Of all the opinions on social media, it feels like there’s a decent level of sentiment that to sack Folau would be over the top.
Few agree with his “Hell Awaits” judgement. The posts were generally regarded as insensitive and in poor taste. But few seem adamant that his Rugby Australia contract should be torn up.
Fair enough, too. The comments were uncalled for, but it’s also important to note that Folau didn’t aim to incite earthly violence or assault against any of the so-called “sinners”.
He just offered where he thinks they might end up in the afterlife.
A decent chunk of the problem is that people are unable to separate Israel Folau the Wallabies star at work and Israel Folau the devout and conservative Christian away from rugby.
The two personas can’t be separated for many, and so Folau is effectively a Rugby Australia, Wallabies and Waratahs representative every hour of the day.
It can be assumed that he finds this tough to come to terms with and suffocating, and probably contributed to him rebelling against RA.
Folau needs to be pulled into line, and a fine and three-game ban – which has already been served – would be an appropriate punishment.
If Australians did get to vote on Folau’s case next weekend, I’d be confident that’s what the majority of his compatriots would decide is fair and reasonable.
Mr.Media
Roar Rookie
It's about Folau, not Poocock. No wonder Aussies are dumb ...!
Glenn
Guest
Michael Christian, used to be rugby watcher, agree entirely.
Michael
Guest
Atheist, not a Rugby Union watcher... but would like to be free to have my own life and be employed. Not everyone wants to be the boss, but that does not mean they are willing to be the slave. Qantas and RA have made a mockery of their ideals by crucifying Israel, they just haven't understood that yet.
SandBox
Roar Guru
Agree Christo, we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. Who really said what. What agreements were really made
clipper
Roar Rookie
Rowdy - what groups did Pocock advocate torture against? They're both promoting principles, whether or not you like their views or not. Whree did Pocock go against his employers instructions?
clipper
Roar Rookie
Does any fair minded person pay any attention to Miranda Devine? She's out there with Pauline Hanson, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. It really places you on the far right bandwagon.
Rugbyrah
Roar Rookie
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.", Jesus. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. “'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.' , Jesus Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. He claimed He is God.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Sounds like Weasel words. He his post said: "This is stupid/archaic/barbaric" nobody would have batted an eyelid But he said/inferred that this is his belief system that he his 100% behind. The messaging is attached to his opinion.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Depend on the context, it it was a personal attack on a poster, or a protected group, you would expect censure. I will admit that there have been a couple that made it through that could be considered insulting to the religious community. There are conversations that some may find insulting, because they challenge the validity of their faith, but there isn't a discriminatory tone about it. In fact the message has generally been the opposite, support of everyone's right to have a religion. But with an exception, keep the discriminatory ideology no longer acceptable to society out of the workplace, away from our mentors and keep it to your self.
clipper
Roar Rookie
So what about free speech etc - you can't just support free speech when you support the topic.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I'd also be interested to know what Folau's agent is whispering in his ear...
Rugby First
Roar Rookie
Knowingly they would offend a section of their "supporters, employees & playing group" Rugby Australia opened up the divide by coming out and supporting one side of a referendum. There is no winner or looser if there is a breach they are both in breach of the so called policy! Good for the employer good for the employed! Divisive for the public and a bad look for RA! I support peoples right to their personal choices it is none of my business. 40% of Australians support Labor, 40% support Liberals the balance will decide the Government - If your preferred selection are not voted in we live with it! Lets get on with supporting Rugby as our opinion may not change the result.
Brian
Roar Rookie
Vote 1 Izzie.Freedom of speech.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Pocock and Folau are expressing intellectual positions. Quid pro quo
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
I suppose on average we may well be. ;)
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Rowdy, How's about a little analogy I'm a anti domestic violence. And from time to time in both my work and social circles I've been known to express that I'm anti domestic violence. And I haven't had the slightest bit of bother about it. IF however somebody was pro domestic violence and they spoke about their pro domestic violence stance - well I could see some issues arising for them. Even though it's the same topic. In a similar fashion I can imagine that being pro or anti homophobia / bigotry may elicit a differing response from folk.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Oh and I forgot the Christian panic defence to assault. There’s a sense of victim mentality here, Yeah and a lot of it is coming from Folau and his supporters. I'm pointing out that only an idiot would (in this case) compare Christians to gays as a group. When 1 of those groups has historically been at a marked disadvantage in western societies and is (quite demonstrably) still disadvantaged.
aussierad
Roar Rookie
Devine was pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who is known to insult Christians on social media, all the time. Fitzsimmons was quick to divert the topic from his own hypocrisy. There's a sense of victim mentality here, and avoiding responsibility and criticism, just like Fitzsimmons. So here we are, gay people can now legally marry and get into the arm forces, a position supported by many Christians. That leaves teenager suicide, which from your comments to date is essentially Christian lives and feelings <<< gay lives and feelings, because gay suicide is higher, and therefore it is acceptable to keep mocking and insulting Christians. Is this your logic?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
But the premise is the same. One can freely speak about a subject but the other can't....on the very same subject.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
So historically speaking there's been many violent police clashes with Christians, the age of consent for Christians was treated differently to non-Christians, Christians have been denied the right to serve their country in the armed forces, Christians had a decades long fight for the right to get married. And even today suicide rates are higher for young Christians than non-Christians. IS that how it goes ? Otherwise this is just more false equivalency. Logical fallacies you bewt need more of those.