Read all the way through over the last few days. Thanks to the mods for working to keep this open.
I think this touches on a number of questions currently being grappled with across much of the western world in recent times:
(1) What are the appropriate limits on our ability to say what we wish?
(2) What is the appropriate response to someone who says something objectionable?
(3) What right do we have, if any, to be free from offense?
(4) What is the appropriate extent of an employer’s right to sack an employee for what they say and do away from work?
(5) What is the appropriate involvement of a sporting body (or a commercial enterprise) in advocating for social change?
(6) Perhaps also, What is the proper role of religion in modern society?
I think there is a very real chance this dispute will go the distance in an effort to resolve at least some of those issues, for a couple of reasons. First, I think its bang-on for some of them. Second, I think Israel Folau is motivated by a genuine and powerfully held religious conviction, does not need the money, and presumably has a lot of support from his church and sections of the wider community. He is in this for the principle, not the payout. Third, the ARU has painted itself into a corner and feels it can’t back down. Fourth, however offensive to some, Israel’s post is sufficiently non-controversial for a sufficiently large number of people for this dispute to be made to serve as a test-case. Five, these are issues commonly felt to be in need of resolution.
For my part, I think:
- People should be free to say anything short of advocating the commission of violent crimes.
- Criticism, not censorious punishment, should be the price and consequence of freedom of speech. The latter is really an attempt to stifle free speech.
- It is reasonable to expect all adults to be capable of dealing with offense. And if I am wrong, then the freedom to express what we will (subject to criticism) is the more important of the two freedoms.
- Much of what has been said about Christianity in the last few weeks (in these forums, in SMH comments sections…) in the name of advancing inclusiveness and reducing bigotry has been exclusionary and extremely bigoted against Christians and their faith. (And I’m a committed atheist.) Hypocrisy weakens credibility, even when only ancillary.
- Telling Christians that they are free to believe whatever they like as long as they don’t express those beliefs is the same as telling homosexuals to keep it in the closet. Two wrongs do not make a right. And pretending it does further reduces credibility.
- Employers have over-reached in curtailing private time activities and communications, but no-one has yet been adequately funded or motivated to fight that incursion.
And as for the ARU? I think they have blundered cataclysmically in putting themselves front and center here. Society very much needs this; Australian Rugby very much does not. The ARU board has no particular mandate or basis of wisdom to claim the lead in grappling with these issues, let alone at the cost to the game that this debacle will impose in terms of money and disharmony. It is a body charged with administering Rugby, and it is not exactly doing such great work there that it should be volunteering for extra work. How is it that the ARU has threatened to permanently terminate two of its leading rep players for the passion with which they pursue the expression of their environmental and religious beliefs in their own time, when league fails to terminate players who urinate in their own mouths while celebrating sporting victories?
It would have been perfectly adequate for the ARU to make a public statement that in no way does it endorse the views espoused by Israel Folau. No one would have doubted otherwise in any case. They could have gone on to say what they do believe in. And assuming they wish to continue spending resources on doing more than administering Rugby, then they could very easily have had a creative response such as the establishment of an outreach programme to assist troubled homosexual youth – even perhaps challenging Israel Folau to come work with them and see the effect of saying what he did – rather than sacking him.
It is extremely disappointing that this got handled the way it did by the ARU. They were meant to be the adults in the room but they went for escalation and ultimatums as though this were a dispute between pre-teen siblings. They framed this in terms of a binary outcome for Israel, and given what I think we know of him, I think the only hope of avoiding a protracted dispute that will be destructive for Rugby (whatever it might achieve for society), lies with the ARU deciding to re-frame the outcomes. They need to find a creative middle ground here that allows everyone to honorably avoid a showdown. Time for some John Eales era leadership off the field as well as on.
Ooh actually no, I'm going already so leave them alone. Four Pines. Bring those damn sinners along 
