3 July 2019
The Folau Saga Unwrapped
Let’s recap the events of the past 4 weeks. Folau re-posted a photo of a comment on social
media. That photo referred to 8 separate categories of people (or vices depending on your
views) and said they were going to hell if they didn’t repent.
As a result of the post, Folau was asked to show cause at a Rugby Australia (RA) hearing
and was unsurprisingly terminated for what were described as high level breaches of the
code of conduct.
Folau has said he will challenge RA’s ruling in court and in an effort so to do, launched a
campaign on GofundMe. After a very short period Folau raised almost $750,000 at which
point GofundMe shut down the campaign citing that it breached their terms and conditions.
The very next day, Folau found a new sponsor in the Australia Christian Lobby (ACL) who
not only donated $100,000 to get the ball rolling but are managing the campaign. The first 12
hours of that campaign saw an average of $50,000 donated every hour. To date over $1.5
million dollars have been raised to fund Folau’s matter against RA. Folau and RA
unsuccessfully attended mediation on the morning of 28 June 2019. The matter is now off to
Court.
The Post
Let’s examine the post and its content. The post spoke to 8 different categories of conduct
(or sins) and advised that those who continue to engage in such conduct are damned. It may
upset some who don’t like the proposition of being damned but on an objective level the post
is probably best described as year 6 bible teachings. It contained nothing controversial from
a biblical stance. It was garden variety preaching. So the question remains, why was it so
egregious? Nonetheless there is no denying the post was ill advised.
Folau is a member of the rugby community and a Christian. However I doubt anyone would
have thought him a lesser Christian had he not published his post. Conversely, once the
post was broadcast, many would have thought him both a lesser Christian and person
(including no doubt himself) had he the removed the post. He has said that RA offered him
money to remove the post.
This raises the question of whether Folau is or should be permitted to proselytise. RA argues
he is prohibited from so doing by the terms of his engagement, whilst Folau contends his
right to freedom of religion is being infringed.
The real question here is visibility and politics. Had Folau been a second grade rugby player
on a small contract with little rugby profile, RA would not care. Even if his profile outside of
rugby were sizable, say by being a very popular minister or even a hip hop singer, the fact
that people don’t see a link between the player and the proselyting (or lyrics) means RA can
look the other away. However, is this really the test? Can RA’s position really be we don’t
care what you say unless the content has a chance of making us look bad?
RA’s Decision and its reach
RA’s decision was that Folau was in breach of the Professional Player’s Code of Conduct
and whilst not the agreement proper, it certainly makes up the terms of his engagement.
However codes of conduct are often a “catch all document” easily interpreted in many ways
that permits an organisation to sanction a player when it’s convenient. After all, had RA
wanted to specifically address this issue it would have been a clear term of his agreement so
there could be no ambiguity. That said, RA argues he’s done it before and was warned, yet
the offending conduct still didn’t find sanction in the agreement.
3 July 2019
What is RA’s real motivation here? It claims the code is based on inclusion, passion, integrity
discipline, respect and teamwork. Yet in an interesting twist Folau himself has been
excluded. Is it correct to characterise Folau’s comments as exclusionary particularity towards
the gay community? Not likely. Folau is going to play with whomever the coach picks in the
side. No doubt many of those players will have and continue to engage in conduct that falls
into the other seven categories he spoke of in his post, homosexuality is no different. Where
does that leave the numerous other players in the game with similar beliefs? Where does
that leave the Polynesian community?
Shortly after Folau’s post, Billy Vunipola gave it the “thumbs up” on Facebook. Billy was born
in Sydney to Tongan parents and both he and his brother Mako play for the English national
team. Billy’s father Fe’ao and two of his uncles are former Tongan internationals so the
family’s roots run deep in rugby. Billy’s mother is a Methodist minister and unsurprisingly he
holds strong Christian views. Perhaps ironically, Billy plays for the Saracens who after
showing support for Folau’s post was sanctioned by his club. The pendulum seems to have
swung too far.
GoFundMe Campaign
The GoFundMe campaign was in poor taste. People regularly use this platform to raise
funds for life saving medical procedures which they can’t afford. Accordingly the campaign
brings into sharp focus the fact that Folau’s cause, whilst important, is not life threatening
and seeks to raise funds for legal fees not medical costs. It also brings into view the fact that
he is raising funds when on any objective standard he has been well paid and is more able
to pay his legal fees than the ordinary person. The contributors to his campaign will not
share in the spoils. That is if Folau wins his legal fight, he will be compensated not the
donors.
After gathering almost $750,000 in donations GoFundMe shut down the campaign and
advised it would refund donors their money. Not unlike RA, they came up with a position that
Folau’s campaign breached their service policy. Their position being, that they are absolutely
committed to supporting the LGBTIQ+ community and will not tolerate the promotion of
discrimination or exclusion. Unfortunately their response has resulted in the discrimination of
those that hold typical Christian views and the exclusion of Israel Folau. Their shutting down
of his campaign was as ill-advised as Folau’s establishment of it.
Hate Speech
It’s been reported that GofundMe say the campaign breached their terms of service because
it promoted hate speech. Others in the media have also been touting this position. It’s
unlikely this is a genuinely held position however to be clear Folau’s post does not amount to
hate speech. To provide some perspective on hate speech compare Folau’s post with the
comments made by former Senator Fraser Anning just after the Christchurch massacre. A
long and widely held religious view may be arcane, but that doesn’t amount to hate speech.
One may not agree with the Pope’s position on contraception, but it is not hate speech for a
devout follower of that view to contend that those who practice it are damned.
ACL Campaign
As quickly as the GoFundMe campaign was shut down the Australian Christian Lobby
picked up another in its place. Not only did the ACL contribute $100,000 to get the ball rolling
as it were, but they offered to manage the campaign for Folau. In the first 12 hours of the
campaign it was attracting an average of $50,000 per hour.
It says a lot about Australia when organisations like RA and GoFundMe go out of their way
to shut Folau down under the premise of inclusion whilst ordinary Australians are going out
3 July 2019
of their way to contribute to the campaign in support of freedom of religion. It may be that
some of those contributions constitute a protest not against anti-Christian behaviour as it
were, rather against the establishment denying individuals the right to express their religious
views. It’s one thing when those views are on the fringe and extreme, it’s another entirely
when they are long held widely accepted core religious beliefs – what I refer to as garden
variety. No doubt, there is an inherit tension within our community in this regard.
Folau’s Platform
Some have argued that RA have given Folau a platform which he has abused. Let’s be
clear, Folau is a star athlete and a marquee player. He was an exceptional talent in rugby
league at the tender age of 18, was well paid in AFL when he decided to go there for a stint
and is arguably the best rugby player Australia has had in the last 10 years. To suggest that
RA made Folau the player or person he is today is misguided. Had he chosen another code
he would have been just as successful.
The Elephant in the Room
It’s time to be honest about the position taken by the various parties. Folau is a devout
Christian and wants to proselytise. RA took a position of openly supporting same sex
marriage prior to the plebiscite and have continued to beat that drum. Whilst I’m of the view
that in a pluralistic society a prohibition on same sex marriage amounts to discrimination,
that doesn’t take away from the fact that one cannot force a religious body or person for that
matter to embrace that positon. The freedom to support or take part in a same sex marriage
is not greater than the freedom to reject it.
However what is difficult to understand is why a sporting body thinks it should have a view
on same sex marriage. What other matters within civil society should RA concern itself with?
Does RA have a view on the Arab-Israeli conflict or perhaps the stolen generation? Should
it? If so, where does a sporting body draw the line?
The position should be one of neutrality where one is respectful and inclusive without having
to shove it down people’s throats and those that think the two are mutual exclusive are
pushing an agenda. Why can’t RA be accepting of homosexuals without having to brazenly
support it? Does that mean that by virtue of their lack of visible support towards Sikhs, the
RA doesn’t share the same commitment to members of that community?
It’s been touted that RA’s open position on same sex marriage is to ensure the continued
support of its major sponsor Qantas, who’s CEO is openly gay. From a business perspective
that’s simple enough although hard to believe. That said, Folau contends RA offered him
money to take down the post which is interesting to say the least. Nonetheless the test for
whether one’s comments amount to hate speech is not if people become upset. It should
also be remembered that RA does not contend Folau was terminated for disseminating hate
speech. Its positon is the issue is an employment matter not one of religious freedom or hate
speech.
Folau’s post contained 8 categories of conduct deemed a sin but the only one drawing any
attention is homosexuality. There has been no comment on the other conduct raised like
drunkenness, fornication, adultery, lying, theft, idolatry or even atheism. Should drunks or
perhaps thieves not feel that Folau’s comments amount to vilification of their way of life?
Should atheists not take offence? It’s this overreaction from those falling over themselves to
support the LGBTQI+ community that has fuelled the backlash. Many who disagreed with
same sex marriage argued prior to the plebiscite that this change would encroach on other
aspects of their lives. Those same people are now saying, “I told you”.
3 July 2019
Many indigenous in our community refer to Australia Day as Invasion Day and some refuse
to sing the national anthem. Some Australians take offence at that stance but surely one can
see it from the side of Indigenous Australia that their lives were irreversibly changed on that
fateful day some 200 years ago. However whatever the positon, everyone’s view will by and
large be based on their own experience. The proposition that high profile sportsmen and
women are disentitled to those views when they are long and widely held middle of the road
views, unless shared by their employers is silly, draconian and unsustainable. How is the
NRL to sanction Will Chambers or Cody Walker for refusing to sing the national anthem?
It seems we have all become a bit too precious and whilst unlike many, I don’t subscribe to
unlimited freedoms be it speech or any other aspect of life, we have become a nation so
easily offended and often disingenuously so. Religion’s position on homosexuality, like it or
not, has been unchanged for thousands of years yet some people in the community are
responding like it’s a new phenomenon.
Fancy being offended by a person who claims the God in which you don’t believe, says in a
book in which you don’t agree, that unless you repent from committing certain acts which
you don’t believe are sins, you will go to hell, a place you don’t think exists. If the comment is
so silly, why is it so offensive? Comedian Peter Hellier made similar remarks at the Logies.
It’s been 17 years since Australia won the Bledisloe Cup and 20 years since it won the World
Cup. There are entire generations of young Australians that have never seen it happen.
Participation in Rugby at the grass root level has never been worse. Match attendances in
comparison to other codes is poor. RA should get out of the civil debate industry and focus
on its core business – promoting the playing and watching of rugby and winning games. As a
long-time member of the rugby community, my observation is that for a long time, it has
been failing in that regard.