At the outset of the Israel Folau blow-up, two camps clearly evolved, each with its own arguments, indignation, counter-arguments and insults.
As it has continued, each side has to make a number of leaps and assumptions to arrive at their point of indignation.
In the anti-Folau corner, it’s argued that LGBT people’s mental health will be damaged by a rugby player’s social media posts, therefore it is hate speech – and because it was a breach of his contract, Folau should be forever driven from the game.
In the ‘free speech’ corner, it’s argued that he’s entitled to make comments that are part of his religion, Australia has free speech, others say and do much worse without penalty, his contract doesn’t preclude it, Australia has a freedom of religion and it’s not hate speech because he made a statement including other groups of people.
It’s been sad to see such a pile-on all round. The roll-out of team-mates and coaches condemning him is truly a sad moment in rugby.
Some of the solidarity shown to Kurtley Beale earlier in 2019 has clearly gone missing for Folau.
Sure, Folau had already received his warning – but time has revealed that not all is as has been portrayed.
In all of the hysteria, arguments, counter-arguments, quoting of the bible and vitriol all round, what has been lost is that it’s just a game of rugby, and Folau is just a rugby player.
(Photo: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
Everyone has become so caught up in prosecuting their own argument, it’s just insane.
The reality is that on an issue such as this, Rugby Australia’s mistake has been to get involved in the first place.
If an overarching organisation representing differing views take sides in any argument, particularly when you have so many people to work with, you are invariably going to have someone genuinely aggrieved at the position taken.
There are clearly opposing views within the players, just as there are among supporters.
Because of that, RA have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place both publicly and privately.
Raelene Castle is now being questioned as to her judgement, having ensured the contract was explicit on this issue, when in reality RA would have been better off remaining neutral and out of it all together.
RA should have said from the start that Folau does not speak for the code and that his views are his and his alone. This is exactly what is done by newspapers, movies and radio broadcasters.
Everyone understands this.
They could have pointed to the fact that they do not condone or enforce or regulate the expression of a person’s individual beliefs as they are merely a rugby administrator.
Line in the sand drawn. No taking sides. And a very different position to be responding from.
If certain sponsors can’t respect that, then does that not speak to their own tolerance and inclusivity?
Kirky
Roar Rookie
AdO! Obviously you know Raelene personally as it appears you must with your undoubted knowledge of her capability as the Boss of the Australian Rugby outfit! ~ I suppose you'd be aware that she beat about six others for the job in hand so she knows what she's at, ~ I particularly like it that she's a Kiwi also the place where it all stems from, ~ The superior knowledge that is!
clipper
Roar Rookie
I get the feeling IF was baiting them and would've continued posting, but making each message more extreme - where would they draw the line? After all there are choice bits in the OT about slaves, killing disobedient children, stoning women - would they have been easily downplayed?
clipper
Roar Rookie
TWAS - you'll find that many employers also made decisions on who to employ on not employ based on social media, even before writing up contracts.
clipper
Roar Rookie
aussierad - you've given an example of irony again - someone you posts a lot complaining about someone who posts a lot.
clipper
Roar Rookie
You do you exclude, and what do you get excluded from by supporting SSM?
clipper
Roar Rookie
What these people tend to forget is most of Australia aren't interested in Rugby - of those that are, many wouldn't be interested in Falou - of those standing there would be a split, so the real angry true believers wouldn't be that large in number. (they also forget that this isn't about freedom of religion, but that a whole other story - at least Falou is free to post and preach whatever, wherever he likes now)
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
I invite everyone here to READ THE RA CODE of CONDUCT. Below are 4 clauses Folau has clearly breached. 1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby. 1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise 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. 1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations. 1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby. Then take another look at cl 1.7 on Social Media. There is a clause on Social Media and it states in part ……….. “but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code”. So that refers directly back to the other 3 clauses Folau has breached….. which equals 4 breaches in total imo. Now if it’s true that Folau has told other people that there is no social media clause in his contract then he lied. The CoC is a part of his contract. For many reasons no responsible employer can afford to have contractors flagrantly breaching multiple and important contract conditions. Especially one as high profile as IF who is also a serial offender. If RA had failed to take immediate and forceful action in this case the result would have been devastating for the code in Australia. An unrepentant Folau would have continued these breaches and other contracted players would likely have followed his example on these and other contract conditions. If you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything. Likely outcome of no action on IF for RA would have been loss of major sponsors, loss of many 1000s fans, loss of TV ratings, loss of game gate receipts, loss of TV contract earnings, loss of brand reputation / goodwill and loss of registered players - for starters :)
amband
Roar Rookie
exactly
Harty
Roar Rookie
I can completely understand and even somewhat agree with your position RO. I just think Folau put RA in a very difficult but not impossible situation. My take remains that RA could have reiterated that rugby is a game for everyone, IF's opinion is his own and that they did not agree with it. There would have been a vocal minority who felt this was insufficient but events would have moved on in short time. This would have been far less damaging for the game in my opinion. I really don't understand the mindset of wanting our companies and sporting organisations to be moral guardians on political and religious issues. It is not their purpose and I don't think it smart to potentially isolate a significant component of their workforce and customer base. Just repeat regularly that all are welcome in our game. Don't endorse any position. Just that all are welcome.
KTinHK
Roar Pro
Right on Keith.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Well done Keith. It is all very sad. I honestly don't know what RA was thinking and whoever advised them last year didn't really think through the consequences very well.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Fair Work prohibits discriminatory speech. Hate speech exclusion for Freedom of expression: "Advocates for, or incites violence" If you are a believer, God is real, hell is a violent place and you are advocating for it. Catch 22: Your only defense requires you to deny your faith. Out of Hours? - My first question. In uniform, on a profile inflated by his position in sport posed publicly, paid as an ambassador with a public conduct clause. Seems open and shut to me. So tick for being under his employment contract. Phipps and Hunt are our recent precedents. Latu is stepping up to the plate today. Your argument for "out of hours" may apply to Fair work. What are a footballers hours? When are they at work? Match day? Training? Team Travel? Awards Functions? Could it be "Whenever they are in uniform? My beef with Jones is that he insists it it religiously motivated. There have been zero actions for religiously motivated actions.... until now. So what is different? Folau, or his specific discriminatory doctrine. If Jones had made an argument that RA are attacking the messaging in the bible, I would be on-board 100%. But then again, the bible is long overdue for a review, a revision and a re-write. That is a box you don't want to open, because slavery and women's rights rocket to the top of the agenda.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
When this is all settled up, the amounts of money from sponsors will be irrelevant and it will be decided on principles and precedent. The issue is not if other organisations have sets of standards, it is was RA correct at law? For all we know, those other organisations' standards may be already outside of their legal rights and just used to bluff employees. Further, soon they may need to change because of any finding in a Folau case for unfair dismissal and damages.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
The problem with your assessment of the article is that it sets up one strawman after another. There is no need to make any link to people who think this has been a ham fisted performance by RA and Alan Jones. It is unnecessary and misleading. Any argument about hate speech need not rely on it being a religion based comment. For example, Folau has said that he wants to save people through Jesus. This does not sound like hate. You have completely misunderstood the importance of the other groups and how their inclusion changes the context of the comment. Folau's comments are not a problem with the Fair Work Act. However, RA's tearing up the contract may be. How could Folau be in breach of freedom of expression? He is not stopping anyone saying anything! The Commonwealth has recently lost a case about how employees can be restricted in what they say out of hours. Any judgement by a court is going to be more nuanced and less self serving than yours.
Seymorebutts
Roar Rookie
Wether anyone has a gay son at all is irrelevant. Freedom of speech exists, even for Christians, wether you or the ARU like it or not. Folua will sue, he will win and I wish him well playing club rugby in Japan. The big question now is where will the ARU find the money to both pay for an expensive legal defence and a large payout, they might have to pay costs as well.
amband
Roar Rookie
it must go to court as the RA decision will have influence on bosses in the workplace and individuals will have their rights to express themselves limited, not by law, but by the firm
amband
Roar Rookie
quite right Jameswm
amband
Roar Rookie
RA should never have had a cosde of conduct involving contentious social issues, and they should nor have been in a position where a sponsor's CEO can boss then around
soapit
Roar Guru
given how much ra relies on public image for their business i dont really think them going hard line on this is a prticular worsening of the situation. i also think RA probably feel that he has also gone about it in a very disrespectful way to them so not much incentive for them to find a reason not to be hard line
soapit
Roar Guru
i think hearing that comment in the context of it being utterly rejected would be quite positive for a gay person.