By Bill Doyle
Like you, I have probably heard enough about the Israel Folau case. Almost everyone in Australia seems to have an opinion and I was reluctant to add more to the white noise that seems to have surrounded the case.
But having said that, it seems that ‘everyone’ is talking about it for a reason.
Or perhaps everyone has their reasons for talking about it.
One thing, perhaps the only thing, that is clear is that I sure would not like to be either the judge hearing the case, or the person drafting any law to do with freedom of expression.
Almost everything about the situation is problematic and contentious. Clearly this is why so many are so passionate about a wealthy sportsman who plays a sport that a relatively few watch. And if we are to be totally honest (despite what the Blue Boars maytell you), far fewer understand.
But I digress.
I watched the situation unfold not unlike someone watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I was stunned when Mr Folau posted the material on the internet. I mean, what gain or benefit for either himself or his faith did he imagine this would have?
I cannot imagine a situation where a gay person, or a liar or drunk for that matter, would read that post and immediately turn up to church or see a priest and go to confession.
It may happen, but I think we can all agree it would be unlikely.
Then equally, I was amazed at the overreaction of Rugby Australia.
You may not like Israel’s social media output, but a life ban?
Why not simply say that Israel’s social media is his personal opinion and does not reflect the views of Rugby Australia?
Or if you must impose a sanction, perhaps something a little less extreme?
Others admit to bingeing on illegal drugs and are running around for Rugby Australia.
Is Folau’s behaviour that much worse?
Then Rugby League stated that Folau was not welcome.
That was a real head scratcher. Players accused of a whole series of violent and highly questionable acts are all running around, probably for the club you support, but yet a single social media post that contains no suggestion of illegality is enough to close the door on Folau.
Like Israel’s initial post. You get that they can, but you cannot fathom why they would.
But then it just kept going. A man who had been on millions a year then began seeking public donations to help with his legal costs.
Come again? How on Earth does that work? Then, for reasons that can only be guessed at, the Go Fund Me people removed his page, which of course only made the cause more popular.
Mr Folau raised $2 million in two days. Proof that plenty of people both agree with him and think he could use some help. Probably the desire to stick it to Go Fund Me played no small role in this as well.
Bizarre heaped upon bizarre.
Trying to make sense of all this is a bit like trying to understand the appeal of reality TV. Frustrating and ultimately pointless.
However a few things seem … well, agreeably unclear.
First. At what point should an employer have a say over an employee’s public comments?
While we all have freedom, I know that for example a butcher would probably not welcome an employee espousing radical animal rights and pro-vegan sentiments.
In fact, most employers have a basic expectation that employees will support the general ethos of their employer.
And in most cases, if you don’t like this, then you find another employer.
You have that freedom. Just as your employer has a basic freedom to hire, or fire.
I imagine most employers reading this would agree that they should be able to employ, or not, by what they regard is the best for their business.
Is Rugby Australia any different?
Second. Religious freedom is one of the few rights enshrined in the Australian Constitution.
Where does an employer’s right stop and religious freedom begin?
Whether or not Folau should have posted the errant missive, does he not have the right to?
And does his employer have the right to stop him?
Just as most employers may agree with the previous point, most employees would probably agree that they should be able to worship and express their religion, faith, philosophy, or lack of, in the way they feel suits them.
That is pretty much the definition of freedom after all. What business is it of their boss?
Especially when the expression is clearly in their own private time and linked to them, not their employer.
Like I said. I am glad I do not have to be the judge in this case.
To order photos from this page click here
Israel’s case a hard one to call, suggests Bill Doyle
Sep 6, 2019
By Bill Doyle
Like you, I have probably heard enough about the Israel Folau case. Almost everyone in Australia seems to have an opinion and I was reluctant to add more to the white noise that seems to have surrounded the case.
But having said that, it seems that ‘everyone’ is talking about it for a reason.
Or perhaps everyone has their reasons for talking about it.
One thing, perhaps the only thing, that is clear is that I sure would not like to be either the judge hearing the case, or the person drafting any law to do with freedom of expression.
Almost everything about the situation is problematic and contentious. Clearly this is why so many are so passionate about a wealthy sportsman who plays a sport that a relatively few watch. And if we are to be totally honest (despite what the Blue Boars maytell you), far fewer understand.
But I digress.
I watched the situation unfold not unlike someone watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I was stunned when Mr Folau posted the material on the internet. I mean, what gain or benefit for either himself or his faith did he imagine this would have?
I cannot imagine a situation where a gay person, or a liar or drunk for that matter, would read that post and immediately turn up to church or see a priest and go to confession.
It may happen, but I think we can all agree it would be unlikely.
Then equally, I was amazed at the overreaction of Rugby Australia.
You may not like Israel’s social media output, but a life ban?
Why not simply say that Israel’s social media is his personal opinion and does not reflect the views of Rugby Australia?
Or if you must impose a sanction, perhaps something a little less extreme?
Others admit to bingeing on illegal drugs and are running around for Rugby Australia.
Is Folau’s behaviour that much worse?
Then Rugby League stated that Folau was not welcome.
That was a real head scratcher. Players accused of a whole series of violent and highly questionable acts are all running around, probably for the club you support, but yet a single social media post that contains no suggestion of illegality is enough to close the door on Folau.
Like Israel’s initial post. You get that they can, but you cannot fathom why they would.
But then it just kept going. A man who had been on millions a year then began seeking public donations to help with his legal costs.
Come again? How on Earth does that work? Then, for reasons that can only be guessed at, the Go Fund Me people removed his page, which of course only made the cause more popular.
Mr Folau raised $2 million in two days. Proof that plenty of people both agree with him and think he could use some help. Probably the desire to stick it to Go Fund Me played no small role in this as well.
Bizarre heaped upon bizarre.
Trying to make sense of all this is a bit like trying to understand the appeal of reality TV. Frustrating and ultimately pointless.
However a few things seem … well, agreeably unclear.
First. At what point should an employer have a say over an employee’s public comments?
While we all have freedom, I know that for example a butcher would probably not welcome an employee espousing radical animal rights and pro-vegan sentiments.
In fact, most employers have a basic expectation that employees will support the general ethos of their employer.
And in most cases, if you don’t like this, then you find another employer.
You have that freedom. Just as your employer has a basic freedom to hire, or fire.
I imagine most employers reading this would agree that they should be able to employ, or not, by what they regard is the best for their business.
Is Rugby Australia any different?
Second. Religious freedom is one of the few rights enshrined in the Australian Constitution.
Where does an employer’s right stop and religious freedom begin?
Whether or not Folau should have posted the errant missive, does he not have the right to?
And does his employer have the right to stop him?
Just as most employers may agree with the previous point, most employees would probably agree that they should be able to worship and express their religion, faith, philosophy, or lack of, in the way they feel suits them.
That is pretty much the definition of freedom after all. What business is it of their boss?
Especially when the expression is clearly in their own private time and linked to them, not their employer.
Like I said. I am glad I do not have to be the judge in this case.